I think Microsoft should stop teh sale of AD, File and Print Server in the EU.

If any corporation needs to buy them, they can buy from outside EU.

Ricky

yep, lots of long kept deep "dark' secrets will come to light.
*it has been a long time coming*

Microsoft hit with patent suit over .Net
Vertical Computer Systems is suing Microsoft for allegedly using without permission its patent for a 'method of generating Web sites' as part of the .Net framework

Vertical Computer Systems is suing Microsoft for patent infringement related to Microsoft's .Net framework for building Windows-based software.
Vertical filed suit April 18 in a U.S. District Court in Texas alleging that Microsoft has infringed on its Patent No. 6,826,744 for a "system and method for generating Web sites in an arbitrary object framework."

The patent is for Vertical's SiteFlash technology, which utilizes XML (Extensible Markup Language) to create a component-based structure to build and efficiently operate Web sites, according to the company's Web site. A Vertical spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The complaint says Microsoft is still willfully infringing on the patent despite Vertical having put Microsoft on notice about it on Feb. 7. Vertical is asking for a jury trial.

Vertical, based in Fort Worth, Texas, describes itself as a global Web services provider. It went public in 2000 but is not listed on a major stock exchange.

A Microsoft representative was not immediately available for comment.

There you go agian. How does any of this help consumers? What the EC wants is one trick ponies, where Google does only internet search, Microsoft does only Windows, Apple, only iPods and so on. While that may sound good and pro-consumer on paper, in reality, it isn't. Office has a high marketshare not because of Windows but because it's actually good. Firstly, it doesn't come bundled with Windows. Secondly, most rival products are just not good enough.

Maybe Microsoft should start sponsoring R&D at rival firms. That should help.

All Macedonian students to use Linux desktops

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7546509093.html
----------------------------------------------------
Joe, I don't think MS gets it with all the interoperability talk going on. When the EU talk interoperability, and licensing MS protocols, at a fair rate, one should ask themselves, what does this mean.

It means that Microsoft Windows, and next Office, needs to play nice with Linux, BSD, Unix, and perhaps and other OS out there. Interoperability is not a new thing, actually its an ongoing development that Linux people have been doing all this time. Just take the case of Samba for instance. So in real life, Linux has been providing some limited interoperability with MS Windows. And doing it for free.

MS on the other hand has done about everything it can in every new version to break this interoperability with Linux, as it fears competing with Linux on a level playing field. There is the server protocols, DirectX, WMA, WMV, and a long list of other propitiatory protocols that MS uses as "multimedia" extensions (EXTEND) to try and lock out other competing operating systems.

Now where was it necessary or worthwhile to the public to use DirectX over the open standards OpenGL? No its only more lock in from MS, and therefore the only real benefit was for the bottom line at Redmond. Same way with all it propitiatory services, protocols, and multimedia extensions, there little, if any very real innovation in them, or lock in and therefore Monopoly abuse that needs to be addressed from Microsoft.

So therefore, in the end, MS will not be able to "put another one over" on the EU, and sell a server protocol for 1% to 1% of the market (linux) which would mean the same price as if you effectively bought a copy of Windows. This type of strategy by MS is what has got them into this mess now, and they need to stop, or face an increasingly hostile EU. Simply put, they (MS) could have just stopped trying to break the interoperability in each new release, or they can license it for what Linux users pay, "free." That is what it is going come down to. Not everyone can afford to keep paying MS for every service or extensions they want to re-invent and put a patent or copyright on instead of using the free open standard. There has to be a penalty for this type of behavior, not a reward.

Sweden’s Largest State Pharmacy Switches to Linux

http://www.linuxwins.com/swedens-largest-state-pharmacy-switches-to-linux/
----------------------------------------------------
As more and more European governments and private corporations, switch over to Linux systems, we will see a greater focus put on MS to really play nice with Linux and other Operating System, true interoperability, mandated by the EU. Its simply in their best interests, and the interests of its citizens to do so.

Joe,
You "nailed" this one. Like the AT&T breakup (you made this parallel before, don't remember which post), short term -- chaos, long term -- huge increase in options and benefits for consumers.

Great work!

Joe, I notice you keep writing the same topic - The Microsoft-EU Ruling in alternate entries.

Are you running out of news ?

You have the practice to hammer Microsoft in every chance

Could you get over with the EU Ruling and start to report other news on Microsoft

Please don't recylce your old entry as new entry !!

chips, get over yourself.

the market has spoken. with less than a whole percentage point of usage worldwide, you can't even give Linux away!

Waethorn
You must admit one thing about chips if Linux is used "anywhere" in the world he must know of it !
Even done to the local whore house !
Just imagine if Linux wasn't free, it's usage is in single digits now being free, if they charged for it (even a little) no one would use it at all ! !

Quote; Waethorn :

chips, get over yourself.

the market has spoken
----------------------------------------------------
No, the market has not spoken yet, this is just the beginning. But the EU has started to speak and put MS on notice. The EU may yet even the playing field for standards and how MS has to apply them. Thats really where its going now.

But I guess you Micro$ofties would rather talk about anything else than what this EU decision means for MS.

Waethorn are you a "Micro$ofty" ??
As for me ...sounds good :)!
As for Chips he is living in his own little world where Linux rules supreme (or is just about to).
Linux figures have dropped by 0.2% since last year, but they will rise (won't they chips), and then some day it will get up to a real high figure of say .... 5.0% (WOW)! !

"Just imagine if Linux wasn't free, it's usage is in single digits now being free, if they charged for it (even a little) no one would use it at all ! !"

they already do! Red Hat, Sun, and Novell: three of the major players are failing (albeit Sun's Solaris is a Unix-variant, but still!). Sun even conceded defeat by becoming a Microsoft reseller. compare the price of commercial Linux versions and support options, and they are ENORMOUSLY more expensive than Windows products (be they server or client versions). most companies completely shrug off free Linux distributions because there is no compelling reason to trust their day-to-day operations to a piece of freeware - there's even an IT manager for a major worldwide organization in one of Microsoft's case studies that says this! so the argument stands - you can't even give it away!

"No, the market has not spoken yet"

of course, this is turning into another "this is going to be the year-of-Linux" speech. it's been said before year-after-year since it's inception, and i've stopped holding my breath long ago.

"The EU may yet even the playing field for standards and how MS has to apply them."

there already is a "standard". despite what any kind of governing body would have it be, be it the EC (not the EU, which you incorrectly state), the W3, or ISO; the standard is Windows, Office, and IE. the market HAS spoken. whatever comes of ISO specification or the EC, people will continue to use (and buy) Windows and Office. sorry to say, but there is no value in Linux (whether paid-for or free), and that'll continue to be it's downfall.

Linux will keep floundering due to it's pathetic crApplications and poor integration.

"Waethorn are you a "Micro$ofty""

define "Microsoft-y".

i run a computer shop that built a business on selling home systems and SMB IT consulting and sales on Microsoft products. my company is a Microsoft Partner at the Registered level as well as being partnered with many other vendors, and am personally a Microsoft Small Business Specialist, and have several other certifications to my name, including CCNA, A+, Network+, MCDST, Linux+ (a waste of time), etc.

about 3-4 years ago, i tried "selling" Linux systems (ie. selling hardware but giving away the software), but nobody wanted it. telling people that they can't just buy hardware or software off the shelf, and saying that Linux is a completely different way of using a computer was a total turn off for everybody. i can say confidently that at the time, MY market has spoken. looking at worldwide usage, i can say that this is not an exclusive market either.

"As for Chips he is living in his own little world where Linux rules supreme (or is just about to). Linux figures have dropped by 0.2% since last year, but they will rise (won't they chips)"

funny how the biggest DRM platform of all - Apple's - can gain marketshare over open source. i look at that and laugh! i can honestly conclude something else about that too - the market doesn't care about DRM.

@Neil
"Linux figures have dropped by 0.2% "
where do you collect this information?
from yankee group?
from a MS sponsored study?
example:
When I buy a PC I with vista and replace it whit suse I increase MS figures.
Neil and other ms, will be a day when you understand the difference between what someone say and what someone can prove.
Sorry for my poor English.

Aurello
Sometime back Chips did a link showing the OS and how much (percentage wise) each OS had of the total number of computers used throughout the world.
The current rate for 2007 (2006 was 4.5%) was 4.3% for Linux !
Where that link is now I have no idea ...sorry !

@neil
What I meant is that actually there is *no way* (so no link) to determine linux os share. Redhat, Novell, mickey mouse OS subscription give us zero information.
(despite a lot of studies from big consulting firms)
So, we should avoid thesis based on not reliable assumptions.
I wish, as a little hint, know os client on ms-watch visitors , Joe can u provide us this one ?

"The current rate for 2007 (2006 was 4.5%) was 4.3% for Linux !"

Wow! I'd like to know who was smoking what when they came up with those figures!

last time i looked, Apple was less than 3%, and Linux was less than 1%. those were combined worldwide figures from online stats and compared to units sold for accuracy (for those that are sold - OS X, Windows, and commercial alternatives, ie. Unix, Linux).

The support cost of Linux-based application is not cheap . In fact it is much greater than Windows-based appllication

Give you all a real life example based on Scalix (www.scalix.com), so-called Microsoft Exchange Killer :

1) Microsoft Windows 2003 + Exchange Server + Windows CALs + Exchange CALs = X dollars (up-front investment) + free Windows Updates + Exchange 2007 SP1

2)Redhat Linux + Scalix Enterprise = Y dollars + Yearly Maintenance of Redhat + Yearly Mainteance of Scalix

In case 1 , no yearly maintenance fees are required to entitle for update for bugs

In case 2 , large amount of recurring maintenance fees of Redhat and Scalix are mandotary to qualify for version and bug update.

Although Scalix offers version update , but every version update causes a lot of problem which render for support cost, it breaks frequntly on minor update as well

Please refer to www.scalix.com/forums for all the problems of Scalix Outlook Connector

Be very careful when talk of ROI in Linux. Please tabulate a 5 years recurrance cost analysis and you will see the light .

The columnist of IT magazine and blogs good only on theory ...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

there you go. notice there are still more Windows 98 people online than there are Linux people. considering how unsafe Windows 98 is to use online now, that's just sad, but it sure doesn't say much about Linux either!

For years now, as soon as I installed Windows, the first thing to do was to install Firefox and VLC media player. Both are open source, but that is not the main reason I use them. The main reason is that they just do what they are supposed to do. And I don't even bother playing wma and wmv files since they almost always require the latest version of Windows Media Player.
So, I am very pleased with the decision and I am waiting for further developments. I hope that some day Microsoft will focus on product quality instead of finding new competition and eliminating them.

Thanks Eder!

Another word of advice for other Enterprising IT managers:

If you're using Exchange Server already in your corporation, DON'T deploy Blackberry's (or is that "Blackberries"?). What a HUGE waste of money it is for Blackberry Enterprise Server. Exchange Server already supports Windows Mobile phones and devices out of the box, and the devices are WAAAY cheaper and easier to set up.

I ran a cost analysis for several medium-sized organizations, and the TCO for BBerry's is just appalling! Over Exchange, the only added cost for Windows Mobile devices are the devices themselves. That's IT!

Already got all your users setup with Exchange mailboxes accessed via Outlook? Just get them to plug their new phones in to their systems equipped with ActiveSync for Windows XP or Windows Mobile Device Center for Windows Vista. SETUP: COMPLETE!

@Eder
"Give you all a real life example based on Scalix (www.scalix.com), so-called Microsoft Exchange Killer"

worthless example, Why I need an ms-exchange copy?
I need exchange in order to force pc client to use latest and greatest outloook release for exploit its full functionality ?
Because I'm not a MS salesman I simply avoid to install ms-exchange.
More, avoiding exchange let me to use other very interesting solution.
try a sub 3000Euro ibm power based LPAR and unleash your ROI skill.
sorry for my poor english.

Waethorn said: the market has spoken. with less than a whole percentage point of usage worldwide, you can't even give Linux away!

Funny then how Canonical IS giving Ubuntu Linux away on CDs with nice packaging. And the uptake is very encouraging. There are millions of Ubuntu users.

Waethorn, your "numbers" are garbage. You're talking of units sold? Well, most Linux users get their OS fopr free. They don't buy them. Comparing ubnits sold is pure idiocy.

Oh, and Linux IS being sold too. And Red Hat is doing quite well doing so. And that's despite the FUD from Micro$oft and its mindless shills.

Enterprises are entrusting their critical operations to open source software (Linux isn't freeware, which anyone who even bothers to look into it should know). I've seen retail chains, airlines, schools, training centers, software developers, etc. using it, and not just foer their desktops. They've dumped Windows because it was just too unreliable.

Step back into the real world. It's a lot different from what Micro$oft wants you to believe.

Well the US government has not had much success in stopping Microsoft's monopoly. Hopefully the EU can do a better job.

"Office has a high marketshare not because of Windows but because it's actually good. Firstly, it doesn't come bundled with Windows. Secondly, most rival products are just not good enough."

You don't remember how the market was back in 80's and 90's.

Word, Excel and Powerpoint were crap, if compared to any of the other tools of the time, like WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Harvard Graphics.

But Microsoft had years of advantage, for every Windows release.

When Microsoft released Windows 3.1, the competitors were still focused on DOS. And when the competitors were writing applications for 3.1, Microsoft released Windows 95.

In other words, Microsoft used Windows to improve the market share of their other products.

"1) Microsoft Windows 2003 + Exchange Server + Windows CALs + Exchange CALs = X dollars (up-front investment) + free Windows Updates + Exchange 2007 SP1

2)Redhat Linux + Scalix Enterprise = Y dollars + Yearly Maintenance of Redhat + Yearly Mainteance of Scalix"

Only if you choose Redhat -- but you have several vendors competing in terms of price and quality.

How about Microsoft? You become dependent of a single and powerful vendor -- which will exercise its power. That's a *huge* strategic risk!

Now, let's add to the equation:

- Security problems (virus, etc)
- Instability (downtime, etc)
- Frequent changes in license terms (Linux standard license is the same since 1991!)
- DRM and anti-piracy measures
- Vendor lock-in
- No exit

Of course, you may have reasons to stay with Microsoft: for instance, if that's the only thing you know, if you have invested too much and think it will be too costly to change.

But I still recommend trying alternatives: Ubuntu, Mac OS X, anything that increases your bargain power against Microsoft.

Waethorn
I'm even happier with those figures :)
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Neil and Weathorn you both crack me up. Keep those stats flowing. They're lots of fun except for one little catch. They only tell you how the market share is now. Not how it will be in the future.

If you're comfy with following the keep up the good work. If you want to lead then you need to start looking at where the market is going. With Dell and Lenovo (among others) supporting Linux, even ATI supporting open source while NVidia has done so for quite some time already. It is hard to miss the tell tale signs that change is happening.

Here is more stats to crack you up with, would you believe I actually first got this link from our old pal "Chips" !!
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
I must admit though I did do a "misquote" of the figure, but the Linux percentage is low don't you think everyone ?

I earlier quoted 4.3%, on the link it says "3.4%".
How generous can I get :) !

Aurelio
Be happy I looked it up special just for you, it took some finding too, I can tell you.
So Like Chips says Linux is just about to turn the corner isn't go very close to amybe as high as 5% (lovl):).
As Waethorn and Eder have said here Linux is cheap for business and it's not increasing in number if you research the link I have put.
By the way "lovl" stands for Laugh Out Very Loud !

Neil your link shows a 50% increase in Linux use and 120% in OS X use over the past 4 years. We can clearly see a rising tendency here and we are just beginning to see big sellers support Linux.

Neil, Waethorn, I don't get your point with all the stats you're throwing up. No one is questioning the present day marketshares of Windows, Linux, etc. Everyone knows that Windows dominates.

Your stats say absolutely nothing about market trends. Even fluctuations in marketshare (eg, Linux declining slightly year over year) mean nothing. If you guys had half a brain, you'd know that. The PC hardware market is again on an upswing. Consequently, more Windows licenses are being sold, because nearly all PCs ship with Windows by default. This says nothing about whether people keep Windows on their spanking new PCs, or replace it with Linux.

For example, I installed Linux on one of my computers (for free--I didn't pay for Linux). Does it count in the stats? Of course not. How would anyone *know* that I'm a Linux user?

Anecdotally, we know that Linux uptake around the globe is on the increase. It may not be happening in the U.S., but that says nothing about the future. I think it's likely that the U.S. will eventually give way to Linux, as its popularity around the globe continues to increase.

What's interesting is that since the US DOJ case, and with the failures of Vista's development and other things within Microsoft; Microsoft itself has realigned itself internally pretty much along the lines that the US DOJ was proposing to break the company up by.

Perhaps Microsoft saw the writing on the wall that its time was limited, and break-up was impending - it was just becoming a matter of when and by whom.

And perhaps, Microsoft did it internally now (or rather a couple years ago now) so that the groups could rework themselves and be able to be just as strongly bonded even if broken into separate companies...

So we'll see what happens.

1 Windows XP 83.36%
2 Windows 2000 3.87%
3 Mac OS X 3.71%
4 Windows Vista 3.66%
5 Linux 1.37%
6 Windows 98 1.31%
7 Windows 2003 0.69%
8 Windows ME 0.46%
9 Windows NT 0.06%
10 Mac PowerPC 0.03%

"You're talking of units sold?"

Read what I wrote:

"those were combined worldwide figures from online stats and compared to units sold for accuracy (for those that are sold - OS X, Windows, and commercial alternatives, ie. Unix, Linux)."

They are ONLINE STATS. They only cross-reference those to units sold for accuracy. Obviously free versions of Linux can't be cross-referenced, but the others are, so by process of elimination, the Linux stats are still accurate.

"Enterprises are entrusting their critical operations to open source software"

Some are, most aren't. The stats don't lie.

"Linux isn't freeware, which anyone who even bothers to look into it should know."

Free versions are. Companies aren't trusting those versions, and the TCO for commercial versions of Linux are much higher than that of Windows, sorry to say.

"- Security problems (virus, etc)
- Instability (downtime, etc)
- Frequent changes in license terms (Linux standard license is the same since 1991!)
- DRM and anti-piracy measures
- Vendor lock-in
- No exit"

Let's take these one at a time shall we?

"Security problems (virus, etc)"

Considering that corporate espionage is a the biggest threat nowadays, with Linux having the biggest number of insecure days to patching, and Windows having the shortest, I'd put security on Windows. I've talked to security professionals before and I've seen them pick apart open-source code for major security flaws in a matter of minutes, many of which were just stupid mistakes. It doesn't take much to protect systems. The big problem in the IT world is that IT professionals just aren't trained properly on how to lock down corporate networks. I've seen some real bonehead deployments before, and the worst were Linux deployments. Now all my customers use Windows platforms, and ROI projections are dramatically improved due to the limited number of service calls I need to make. With Linux, it was nearly a weekly visit. Now, I'm lucky if I need to visit once every few months.

"Instability (downtime, etc)"

There are several huge worldwide organizations that have already stated that Windows is more stable than Linux. One of Microsoft's case studies even said that their Linux server had to be rebooted daily!!!

"Frequent changes in license terms (Linux standard license is the same since 1991!)"

Take a look at the GPLv3 and tell me it isn't different. Also, considering that most Linux customers don't have intellectual property rights protection, whereas ALL Windows customers do, I'd say that's huge. The only Linux customers that do are those that buy Linux from vendors that are partnered with Microsoft.

"DRM and anti-piracy measures"

....and this affects business HOW? DRM's big brother, IRM (Information Rights Management), are what businesses are asking for, and anti-piracy measures don't affect businesses. DRM does NOT get in the way of non-DRM content either. The Linux lobbyists (Guttman, with his mysteriously missing proof) would have you believe otherwise, but it's all just FUD. The WGA notification problems from the past were minor, and only affected retail versions of Windows, not OEM, and not volume licensed versions.

"Vendor lock-in"

....again, how is this argument valid??? Considering that the Windows ecosystem is the most diverse, and there are more Windows software partners than any other, this is a moot point at best. Integration is where Windows server and client versions excell.

"Not how it will be in the future."

"It may not be happening in the U.S., but that says nothing about the future."

We can all play "predict the future". My prediction is that Guttman's email communiques to FSF BadVista.org writer and hippy slob, Dick Stallman, in which he encourages Guttman to manufacture as many false claims as possible about Windows Vista, will be retrieved from a hacked Hotmail email address and posted online. In six months time, the Unx.Black_Plague virus infects all Unix-based systems, from BSD Unix (including OS X) to all flavors of Linux, and the entire community reels at the thought that there are no security vendors willing to sell their products for a less than 5% combined marketshare.

"Your stats say absolutely nothing about market trends."

Oh yes they do:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5

Windows XP 80.48%
Windows Vista 6.26%
Windows 2000 3.66%
Mac OS 3.33%
MacIntel 2.82%
Windows 98 0.98%
Linux 0.77%
Windows NT 0.66%
Windows ME 0.53%
Nintendo Wii 0.15%
Unknown 0.09%
Windows CE 0.05%
iPhone 0.05%
Pike v7.6 release 92 0.03%
Series60 0.02%

Cervantes, I'd take my stats over yours. After all, you're comparing mine which targets over 40,000 sites, to yours which only lists 5,000+.

BTW, why the hell does this site have an NBC icon??? Joe! Are you stealing pages again?

Waethorn where do you get all this nonsense!?!? Linux not stable or secure. Please! I'd love to see where you got those stats and what spin you gave em to come up with this.

Regarding DRM. I don't think the open source community is at war or in some sort of vendetta with DRM. Quite the contrary DRM is a good thing with open source. DRM on documents and corporate information is a must. The problem comes about when you depend on only one supplier for DRM. Then it is your supplier who is DRMing you! You use a propietary DRM mechanism. The day you stop paying for it you just DRMed yourself.

Case in point a piece of software we have. Old and can't be changed because it too is closed source and the developer either went belly up or doesn't care to improve it. We can't edit the Access database with new Office versions because it is too old (Office 95 or 97 version). If we upgrade it to a newer version so the new Office can edit it then the old program won't read it. This is an example of how too much dependance on a single provider can lock you in even when you stay with the same provider.

For me this is simply not acceptable. If you enjoy these situations well fine with us, but it is not the general case. Imagine the prospect in a DRM scenario. "Oh sir well you know you'll have to upgrade to our new version ....", "But that would cost me and even then the old systems wouldn't be able to read my DRMed docs.", "Well sir you'll have to upgrade them too." Can you say ARRRGGGGG?

"Waethorn where do you get all this nonsense!?!? Linux not stable or secure. Please! I'd love to see where you got those stats and what spin you gave em to come up with this."

Easy. Former Linux customers, and current Microsoft case studies.

"I don't think the open source community is at war or in some sort of vendetta with DRM. Quite the contrary DRM is a good thing with open source."

Try telling Torvalds or Stallman that - the concept of DRM flies in the face of free software, and is contrary to the wording of the GPL.

"DRM on documents and corporate information is a must."

The proper IT term is IRM.

"We can't edit the Access database with new Office versions because it is too old (Office 95 or 97 version)."

Real IT would be fired for allowing such an old platform to still be in use, what with support being non-existant (for quite some time), and security being haphazard at best on the old versions as a result.

"This is an example of how too much dependance on a single provider can lock you in even when you stay with the same provider."

That's hardly Microsoft's fault. If you were dealing with any vendor, the same would apply. You said so yourself:

"the developer either went belly up or doesn't care to improve it."

Access databases aren't that complex to convert to new versions. Why, I've personally done several transitions from complex multi-gigabyte SQL databases from SQL Server 6.5 to SQL Server 2005 without a single hiccup (that's jumping 2 product revisions in between). Even moving Access file-based databases to SQL Server is easy work for a DB Admin with the tools that Microsoft provides. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "GET A NEW DEVELOPER!".

Windows 98 0.98% :Monopoly, extortion, foul play.
Linux 0.77%:Free world,free of charge, fair play.
Time for changing?
---------
"Thus 5000 (MS's bloggers),is it not?"
"Now you will know how MS is defending itself, now when a opinion seems to be whoring to Ms, it is simply because it is."

www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2185391,00.asp

"At the end of the day, yes, Microsoft said it would download updates automatically. But I think there is a big gap between the legalese in the EULA and the expectation a reasonable user or IT administrator would have when clicking on the "Turn off Automatic Updates" button in the Automatic Updates configuration screen."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2495951.ece
“Companies don't want to buy and maintain the stack of software that the likes of Microsoft force on them.

“They want innovation, not infrastructure – why bother with costly implementations when you can subscribe to business applications in the same way that you do for other utilities like water and electricity? It’s the end of software – the tides are changing and Microsoft is losing its hold.”

/www.maximopc.org/articulos/windows_vista_vs_linux_ubuntu_704_p1.html
(It's spanish)
Windows Vista vs Linux Ubuntu 7.04

Final conclusion:

The reign of Microsoft is approached its aim, is clear that for the things that we have compared here, daily use, Video and writing-desk 3D the Ubuntu does not have competition. By all means that in case that specific applications of Windows are handled that do not have support in Ubuntu or that the Wine cannot execute (Wine is the application of Linux which it allows to run programs of Windows under Linux, Photoshop, Adobe acrobat, etc) a system Windows is the best election. Nevertheless, for all those that already are in a system Windows XP and which they are thinking about updating the sad reality it is that the Vista Windows with a price of u$s499 for the Ultimate version this loaded of programs which we will not use generally with the highest value of sale and a real value of very low utility, at the moment does not exist anything that the Vista Windows does and that cannot make the XP with the only reservation of the Aero and the DirectX10 and those two points at the moment are not sufficient so that it justifies that no person happens of Windows XP (functional and perfectly stable with a handling of superior memory) to a version but heavy, full of Bugs.......

Do you want games? or job?

www.valvesoftware.com/job-SenSoftEngineer.html

Employment opportunities

Senior Software Engineer

Description
Lead engineer and architect......

Responsibilities
Develop an understanding of Valve's Internet business and player community and contribute creative web-focused design solutions to improve the experience of using Valve's products
Manage the operation of large clusters of machines running both Windows and Linux in a highly available system.
Utilize knowledge of networking .......
oversee and implement .........

Perhaps just drives.....
/www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=842&num=1
Introducing The RadeonHD Linux Driver

ah, bravo chips for being another troll. ah, i mean....what was your name again?

"Waethorn where do you get all this nonsense!?!? Linux not stable or secure. Please! I'd love to see where you got those stats and what spin you gave em to come up with this."

Easy. Former Linux customers, and current Microsoft case studies.

Easy, indeed. It's easy to spout FUD, just like you accuse others of doing. It's easy to say that you've had disgruntled Linux customers. It's easy to say that Linux customers have found TCO to be higher than Windows'. It's easy to spread all of this FUD without backing up your statements.

And you have the audacity to cite Microsoft case studies??? Of course, MS case studies are going to work in their favor. Nobody would expect otherwise.

I follow the trade press very carefully and you are the first--and only--person who has criticized Linux for high TCO, lack of stability, and poor security. Do I think Linux is 100 percent secure? Of course not. But nor is its security as porous as you suggest. It's just blatant FUD, unsupported by evidence.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1724

"ASP.NET is....the best server-side web application development framework in existence"

"The security of Windows 2003 has been solid, and in particular, the security of IIS certainly compares favorably to that of Apache."

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/CaseStudyDetails.mspx?recid=40

"When [NCsoft] upgraded its popular online game Lineage II, it needed a server computer platform that would sustain hundreds of thousands of user connections to a huge and richly detailed virtual fantasy world. NCsoft chose Windows Server� 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition over the Linux operating system. As a result, it can offer hundreds of thousands of users uninterrupted access to the game. By standardizing on Windows Server, NCsoft can easily find support for its computing environment and developer talent for its products."

"We don't have time for science projects. State government needs trusted, tested technology that's reliable, predictable, and cost effective. Choosing Linux would've meant I would've had to have spent extra time and money to develop in-house support expertise necessary to run it. By investing in Microsoft technology, we'll save the state $10.5 million over a 5 year period."
- Paul Campbell, Director, Central Management Services, State of Illinois.

"And you have the audacity to cite Microsoft case studies???"

yes! clearly these were Linux customers talking for themselves that Linux isn't worth the effort. that's the best proof of all! i'm sure in a court of law, you can get all kinds of "scientific fact" to back up your statements, but an eyewitness is the person that will sway a jury.

"It's easy to say that you've had disgruntled Linux customers. It's easy to say that Linux customers have found TCO to be higher than Windows'."

it's also easy to say that the rain falls up and the moon is made of fudge, like Linux lobbyists claim. however, my customers speak for themselves.

"It's easy to spread all of this FUD without backing up your statements."

i already did, sorry to say. my customers are even used as references on Microsoft's website, and no, i'm not posting that link, sorry.

In my last comment I stated; "But I guess you Micro$ofties would rather talk about anything else than what this EU decision means for MS."

This in a reference to Waethourne and Niel.
----------------------------------------------------
Clearly they would rather not talk about the EU decision and what it means for Microsoft, but would rather shift the debate to an attack on Linux.

Since we have two of Microsoft most ardent defenders here not wanting to discuss the EU decision, and instead wanting to attack Linux, I submit that MS is worried about the EU decision and Linux. Does anybody else sense the fear in the air from the M$ Shills?

Quote;
" Neil :

Waethorn are you a "Micro$ofty" ??
As for me ...sounds good :)!"
-------------------------------------------------
A Microsoftie is a term for people who are employed by M$. Nice that you finially admit it.
-------------------------------------------------
Quote;
" Waethorn :

"Waethorn are you a "Micro$ofty""

define "Microsoft-y".

i run a computer shop that built a business on selling home systems and SMB IT consulting and sales on Microsoft products. my company is a Microsoft Partner at the Registered level as well as being partnered with many other vendors, and am personally a Microsoft Small Business Specialist, and have several other certifications to my name, including CCNA, A+, Network+, MCDST, Linux+ (a waste of time), etc.
----------------------------------------------------
And there you have it folks, a "Microsoft Partner." NO BIAS there, LOL. More like a M$ $hill.

I don't know that the EU will be able to attack Office, since it's not bundled with anything for free. OEM's bundle it for an extra fee. Dell and HP's default bundles are WordPerfect; you have to pay extra for Office.

But, as I said in a previous thread, the easy answer is for Microsoft to just ship basic versions of its products to Europe, providing the extras only as part of a Plus Pack for a fee.

So the EU version of Office doesn't have SharePoint functionality, for example. EU consumers have to pay extra for that. And so on.

Chips: "Clearly they would rather not talk about the EU decision and what it means for Microsoft, but would rather shift the debate to an attack on Linux."

===================

Clear evidence of a paranoid personality. Chips & Marco together: the worst advertising for Linux possible.

The bickering between the Linux camp and the Microsoft camp would be funny if it were not so childish.

You're all like schoolchildren arguing about whose toy is the best. How boring and infantile.

The bottom line is that MS needs breaking up. One side for the OS and one side for Office. It does not create a level playing field for other software companies to create software as MS does not disclose all the API's. You cannot reverse engineer Windows to find them either.

MS is stifling competition and innovation. Linux is probably not the way forward due to familiarity and the cost of retraining staff. However I do believe that software companies should have access to the Windows OS as the Office team.

That is what I find unfair, and the EU ruling goes some distance to solving that. Until MS is broken up, it will still have an unfair advantage.

If that is what the MS defenders want then more fool them. It only demonstrates how clueless they actually are.

This was supposed to be a debate about the EU judgement and not a slanging match about the merits etc of various O/S. The Windows O/S contains applications which are not core to the basic need to run a computer. For instance if you do not use the internet you do not need Internet explorer. When you want to use the internet there are a number of "browsers" available which you can download and install or uninstall, however you cannot uninstall Internet Explorer because it uses code which is also used be other parts of the operating system. The same situation exists with its firewall, email client, media player etc. Given the option of using something given "free" with the machine or going out and paying for the product what are the majority of consumers going to do? The whole point of the EU judgement is force Microsoft to sell an O/S and then give consumers the option to install the other applications and Microsoft can give their products away or make a charge for them. The whole point of bundling applications into the O/S is to stifle competition.

Chips
I never admitted anything, I just said that I liked the sound of it!
By the way "This in a reference to Waethourne and Niel." if you are going to call people names at least have the common decency to spell our names right chips.

"A Microsoftie is a term for people who are employed by M$."

"More like a M$ $hill."

As is typical with the Linux camp, they can't get their facts straight. Not even when they define their own.

"Since we have two of Microsoft most ardent defenders here not wanting to discuss the EU decision"

It's already been discussed (to death). The EU wants to stifle innovation. Microsoft products are based around integration. They clearly think that a US company is a threat to homegrown alternatives that happen to be open-source - those companies that don't want to communicate with Microsoft on interoperability, and yet can't figure out how to do it themselves. All of the Linux partners that Microsoft now has are working with them for interop assemblies and it's paying off. Those that don't, bitch about not having free access to Microsoft IP. Microsoft is a commercial business. The two things there cherish most from their products is integration and IP. Will that change? Probably not. Does it need to? No. Should they be strong-armed into doing it? Hell no! As a commercial establishment, they shouldn't have to modify their products just because the competition isn't up to snuff, and they should do what it takes to keep that competitive edge and their best interests at heart. I'm sure their stockholders would agree.

Facts:
Microsoft is the King of the hill
Ms unlike before has got plenty of problems:
• Whole countries trying to get rid of MS: Russia, France.
• Continents like Europe doing their best to restrain it.
• Its ultimate Operative system: MS Vista is a wrecked train.
• Now MS has real competitors: Apple, Linux, Google...
• OEM in state of rebellion, unthinkable not long ago. Now setting up different OS to those of MS, and even better improving them OS.
• Applications surpassing the threshold good enough by far. These ones being much better that MS’s applications, e.g.: Open Office, Mozilla, Real Player, etc.
• And worst of all: The consumer’s perception. Most people are now annoyed with MS and if they can get rid of it, they will.

Conclusion:
Springtime is now over for MS, everybody knows this, and MS better than everyone else’s. It is enough reading the news to find out so, many of these measures are wrong, unfortunately for MS interests, but I consider that one of the worst one is carry on hiring bloggers and/or shills. In appearance is good for advertisement; however more often than not their opinions sound fake and people with common sense understand it this way, thus increasing MS’s bad image.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Chips, a good quote:
“Don Quixote of Mancha: It leaves dogs them bark Sancho friend, is signal that we are happening.”

Miguel de Cervantes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
..."And thus, the objectives will be achieves at the same time: To expose MS and uncover its Shills (when they respond desperately)"

Waethorn :

"The EU wants to stifle innovation. "

Microsoft has a monopoly over the O/S and associated applications, it has no reason to innovate. The "improvements" in Internet Explorer came in response to the growing popularity of Firefox. No competition=no innovation.

A couple of things Waethorn. First of all the matter regarding strifled inovation and the topic of integration. Let me clarify that there are different types of integration. The loosly coupled and the strongly coupled types. Microsoft seems to go to the later while Linux and other open source developments promote the former.

Exactly why Microsoft follows a more coupled integration is beyond the point. We can argue all the way from bad development to conspiracy theories, but that would be wasting our time. The final result is that a great deal of Microsoft products and Microsoft partner's products are bound by the implementation of a certain tool rather than the interface of such tool.

So when such tool evolves. Say from Windows XP to Vista (or one SQL server to another etc) or such the implementation gets all messed up and applications seem to not work. A clear example of this is the so called open document format that Microsoft proposed. XML is by definition an interface[between different applications] in this case and the fact that Microsoft's proposal was rejected means it is not implemented as such. It still holds propietary formats that depend on the implementation of the software creating them. I should be able to create MyExcel or oPenExcel and interact freely with MS Excel, but that is not the case.

The final result is that even future versions of a software can't interact with prior versions properly. Now if you have inhouse developments that can be troublesome as you'll have to upgrade your inhouse software to support the newer implementation specific (not inteface specific) solutions provided by Microsoft.

I see the EU targeting exactly this point and wanting Microsoft to open up to interoperativity in an interface oriented way rather than implementation oriented way. So your apps don't stop working once Vista SP1 comes out.

Now the other topic I wanted to touch is security and stability. I'm glad you hear and read all those press releases, but my personal experience is otherwise. It is no doubt that Windows 2003 is a great step ahead from Win2k and NT4 (ouch). But then again things couldn't have been worse. Could they? The problem comes about when you start working with more stuff on the machine or as I said in the previous posts you move from one system to another.

My personal experience with Windows security is very bad. I've talked with folks at TechNet here who don't know of an equivalent for Portsentry for Windows. Sure you can buy expensive addons to Windows, but Windows doesn't come with an integrated solution. Not only that their great security proposal was to change the signature of IIS to Apache. Wohoho!!! Like I can't tell what you're OS is from the other 15 open ports. TechNet's proposal, put somebody to monitor your ports! Talk about ROI.

Other experiences this past month include SAP folks wrecking a 2003 server because they needed certain security settings to have their app work. This opened up the server to intrusion. A major hosting company "upgrading" their site's Windows servers for added security and wrecking a set of applications hosted with them. To the point IIS would not work and they even got to the point of trying to run ASP on Apache before we moved to another hosting company. A Windows 2003 php instalation becoming non responsive and requiring reinstall and reconfiguration.

Windows 2003 is a great platform, just don't rock the boat too much mate. ;)

Waethorn, you keeping up with current events must have seen this by now:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2186101,00.asp

Now we all know there are Adobe PDF readers for Mac and Linux. Why is this only for Windows PCs? See what I mean...

Waethorn. Name one innovation you can credit to MS.
Just one. And then tell me that the EU wants to stifle innovation.

*ahem*

You also say the competition is not up to it. That is because MS abuses its monopoly position. This is the reason it has been found guilty in the EU, and in the US.

Did you forget that? How convenient for you.

It has nothing to do with the consumer and everything to do with protecting companies that couldn't cut it. Those companies complain and get some help.

So, MS develops the protocals on their own, and has to share so everyone elses software can work as well as their own. Whatever. The EU then wants to dictate the price they should charge. Again, whatever. They should be allowed to bundle anything they want. Bundling happens all different sectors of business, no one complains anywhere else.

The EC now just seeing one big money pit in MS, so here come the inquiries.

Joe; I am pretty impressed, How important is your little Blog to Microsoft?
First there was 1 or 2 Shills
after there was 3 or 4 Shills
Today you got: Waethorn, Neil, Reflexions, Pepe, Cervantes, uhura, Andre da Costa, Evans, and some other.
Tomorrow, how many will you have?

About 5000 MS employee bloggers, not all of them shills though. But most tend to be religious about MS. Then there are the actual MS evangelists, a paid postion, where there could be perhaps more than 2000 of them. So of these would fall into the shill catagory.

David, you must clearly have an agenda. How can you possibly condemn an initiative that promotes the support for companies that can give you alternate products. Be these better, more innovative, cheaper or just alternate options. As a consumer one is always interested in this[having options], but it seem you just want to take what Microsoft gives you( and impose it on others BTW). So you see it has everything to do with consumers and it seems the EU listens to its citizens. Thing the US seems to be forgetting.

Israel
Firstly it's "reflections" ... not "reflexions" !
Secondly how do you know that we are paid by microsoft (which I for one am not) !
Most, if not all of us, do not fit the "shill" description.
When you accuse someone make sure of your facts first please, and don't go by heresay (Chips main person for that, he'll say anything whether it's true or not).
Have you got ANY facts at all or is just because you THINK we are ??

Neil, Israel and chips, can we please keep on topic. Why don't you take your personal insults somewhere private. I believe MSN would be suitable, or Yahoo.

Thank you.

And when will this decision be applied across the market place. I want the ability to load my choice of browser / media player onto the iPhone.
I want to record & extract content from embedded credit card chips.

Will the EU now step in a push for Volvo to adopt universal mount points so I can fit my non-EU rally seats. Ok, its a Volvo - so no one is going to buy it, but they have to do it to be fair ... hey those who buy Volvos with the stock seats can afford to pay a little more.

If volvo were the dominant car manufacturer with 90% of the market share then you might have a point. You also might have a point if Volvo expressly forbids the publishing of any manual that allows you to take their cars apart. There are manuals that allow you to safely change the Universal Mount Points on a Volvo. No such manual exists for MS, and by writing one you would be sued by MS.

Again the iPhone accounts for what % of the mobile market?

None of your comments hold water as we are talking about a company that abuses its MONOPOLY position.

Volvo was prevented from acquiring Scania by the EU competition commission due (in its words) they would "dominate the Scandinavian market and hold a virtual monopoly" ... Ok - in the truck market space, and in 1 EU country (even though ruling effected whole of EU).

As for MONOPOLY ... there are other media players and tools that are available for purchase, and they can be installed and set as the default player/browser/etc. Why should and vendor have to pay for all low % use. How many of the eu special versions will be purchased? About the same % as Volvos with seats removed?

Novartis (Swiss pharmaceutical virtual monopoly) gets help from the same EU trade commission so as to maintain its position of dominance - so ok for some but not all.

If the EU is so into fair and level market positions why does it subsidize its own trade position within world markets. You want to talk of abuse of position, start by signing http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=email_socrates.htm, but by all means read up on the issue first.

Colin. The whole issue with the media players is that MS was leaning on OEM's NOT to install any other media player, or any other default other than MS. Until it was ordered not to by the courts. Please get your facts right.

My opinion is that NO monopoly is good for business. Are you saying that they are? It seems you come across that way.

I agree that Europe hammers the poor in Africa with trade subsidies for its farmers. America does the same. I think that is disgusting behaviour for trade blocks that are supposedly into "free trade". Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming I don't know about these things.

And to use the situation with Europe, America and Africa as an excuse that nothing should be done about Microsofts Monopoly is nothing short of abhorrent.

A good article, Joe.

I hope to read more articles on the same basis. Reaching over the seas is always a good thing (already because it seems that many americans have great difficulties in understanding what the EU is about).

And for once, even the comments were (mostly) readable.

Read everything you can about SAP, from the get-go. SAP and Microsoft now play together. SAP is Headquartered in Waldorf, Germany, where all the TI (intelligence) will be stored. The EU countries must follow Standards, or they can't import or export. Think about it.