Re: just who are these people?

["Eric M. Hopper" <hopper@omnifarious.mn.org>]

On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 02:01:46PM -0500, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> Eric,
> 
>> 
>>         There are hardly ANY Linux distributions that do not include
>> bundled networking technology.  The one that I think may not is designed
>> for embedded systems in an embedded controller environment, and it evens
>> comes 'bundled' with the device drivers for the serial port.
> 
> Big mistake.  Linux can not easily network with OS/2, BeOS or Windows
> because of the bundling.

	Umm, yeah it can pretty easily internetwork with Windows.  I
actually set up a mount on my system for all the network drives I'd
normally have access to under Windows here at work.  It was pretty
simple.

	I don't know enough about BeOS or OS/2 to know.

> Is Lantastic offered as a choice of networking in the Linux bundle?
> No?  Why not?

	Because nobody's bothered to either port Lantastic to Linux or
create a competing implementation that runs under Linux.  I don't
consider that to be the fault of bundling.  I'm sure that if such a
thing existed you could go find a Lantastic bundle out there somewhere
and download it.

> Please do not suggest that no one in their right mind might want to
> network a Linux box with an OS/2 box.  I have that need.  And, I want
> to satisfy that need with one and only one networking technology.

	Then go and write the software, or convince whoever owns
Lantastic now to do the port.  It's not as if their's a lack of
documentation on how to do it.  I doubt there'll be a big demand for it,
but there may be enough for it to be bundled together in a distribution
somewhere.


> Not if that technology is not available on all their systems.

	Which is why net BIOS and OSI were dropped in favor of TCP/IP.
You can go out and buy a TCP/IP stack for your OS, and buy a TCP/IP
stack from the same vendor for a different OS, but nobody actually does
so.  And it's not because of 'bundling' either.  It's because the
various TCP/IP stacks around the world interoperate pretty well.

> Consumers no more want networking technology limited to a single
> platform than they want their word processor limited to a single
> platform.

	Yep, that's why standards exist, and that's what they're for.  A
product is not a standard.  That's Microsoft's line.

> Consumers no more want networking technology limited to a single
> platform than they want their browser technology limited to a single
> platform.
> 
> Why do you think Microsoft put IE on Unix and the Mac?

	People largely don't care which browser they use as long as it
works.  They will pick the browser that works best for their needs.  If
vendors weren't trying to manipulate HTTP and HTML to attempt customer
'lock in', people would be picking browsers based on the features they
have that help them browse the net more easily.  This means that people
would probably have different browsers on different platforms.  The fact
that people _really, reallly_ want IE to be ported to their platform is
a sign of sickness, not of health.

> It is pure stupidity to suggest that a cross-platform technology
> should be limited to a single OS.

	Guess I'm stupid then.

> Networking is bundled with the OS but not because consumers want to be
> limited to a single platform.  Dominating vendors force that issue.

	No, people want standard networking technology that works well
with their OS.  They want their boxes to interoperate, but could really
care less whether or not the actual implementations come from the same
vendors or not.

> Wrong conclusion.  Linux may bundled it simply because no other
> network is available.

	Nah, I _know_ there are Appletalk stacks for Linux.  I'm not
sure what other protocols it supports.  You can bet that if some capable
person wanted Linux to support a protocol, that support exists
somewhere.

> Remember the multibillion dollar networking market ruined by Microsoft
> (and others).

	The IETF requires that two completely seperate interoperating
implementations of a particular networking technology exist before they
declare it a 'standard'.  That doesn't sound to me like networking
technology = vendor.

> This case is NOT because consumers want to be limited to single
> platforms.  Java would never have gotten off the ground if that were
> the case.

	*nod* I agree.  But it's foundering now because the only
conforming implementation you can get is from Sun in one way or the
other.

> All consumers want cross-platform capabilities simply because they do
> not want to be limited to a single system.

	Yep, but that in no way requires a particular vendors products
to work on several platforms.

> Please find a single consumer that wants their technology limited to a
> single platform.

	I could, but I won't bother because it's not central to any
arguments.

> You claim that is what they want.  No body wants that.  Samba would
> not exist if that were true.  Java would not exist if that were true.
> IE would not exist on Unix and the Mac if that idea were valid.

	But, Samba's existence is proof that it's not true.  Samba is
not a Microsoft product.  IE's existence on UNIX and the Mac are partly
PR moves by Microsoft, and partly because Microsoft has been trying to
destandardize the Web for a long time, and the partial success of their
efforts has created demand for IE where none would've existed before.

>> 	If there's all this harm from bundling, why are people so happy
>> that Linux distributors like RedHat exist?  After all, their _MAIN_
>> function is bundling.
> 
> They are happy about Linux because they have a choice of platforms not
> because they only want to benefit from a single one.
> 
> Can you understand the difference?  I personally want to benefit from
> the technologies offered by OS/2, Linux, NT, BeOS, Unix and the Mac if
> I can possibly do that.  Who in their right mind wants to be limited?
> Bundling applications and subsystems with the OS only harms consumers.
> 
> Please see the "examination question".  Better yet, answer it.
> 
> Simply concluding that consumers want this or that without explanation
> is of no value at all.  I have explained in detail why consumers do
> not want to be limited to a specific platform simply because
> networking is not available cross-platform.

	When you can say something relevant here, or somehow address my
point, then I will bother answering.

>>         The findings of fact are about Microsoft's behavior.  They're
>> about the behavior of a monopolist.  The whole bundling argument
>> changes drastically when the bundler holds a monopoly on one of the
>> products in the bundle.
> 
> Yes.  And Microsoft Networking is in fact a part of that bundle.
> Please see the 'examination question'.

	Why yes, it is, and I would be perfectly open to hearing
arguments that their networking technology should be seperated from the
OS on the basis that they're a monopoly and don't have any feedback
mechanism telling them whether there's demand for a different networking
technology on their system.

	I don't think this'll fly though because networking technology
is so universally included with OS's because people really do want it
that way.  I would rather see requirements that they have completely
open specs that aren't deviated from.

> And, when Linux likewise bundles networking, the harm is increased for
> all consumers.  It is not decreased.  Harm is increased.  When Linux
> bundles its technology, it helps prevent the multibillion dollar
> networking market from providing consumers when the choices they want
> AND need.  Consumers do not NEED platform specific networking.  That
> idea is pure stupidity. They want technology available across all
> likely platforms.

	*shrug* If there really were harm being done, someone would
create a distribution that didn't bundle networking technology.  You
didn't bother to listen did you.  Of course, you cleverly embedded this
bit of hearing avoidance far away from the original point that
invalidates it.

> Microsoft Corporation is an example. They bought Hotmail running on
> Unix.  Many companies who merge find they have multiple platforms. The
> last thing they want is any technology limiting their choice of
> platforms.

	*nod* So they did.  They tried to convert it to using their
networking technology, and discovered that their systems were not
anywhere close to being good enough to handle the load.

	And, strangely enough, millions of Windows users use Hotmail
without a hitch, despite the fact that it runs UNIX and uses the
networking technology that came bundled with that OS.  Could it be that
interoperability and a vendor's products being available across
platforms are not related?

> Microsoft Corporation itself is harmed by the bundling of their own
> technology with Windows.

	No, they're harmed by the fact that they produce bad products.
I doubt it really causes them any serious technical pains to be running
Hotmail under UNIX.

> Facts are easy to prove when you provide the details.  I see no
> details suggesting that anyone wants networking technology to limit
> their choice of platforms put to use in their company.  None.  I see
> no facts.

	*sigh* That isn't the point I was making.  Not only that, you
are blind.  The _fact_ that OSs with unbundled networking technologies
largely don't exist in a market in which they are COMPLETELY free to do
so proves that people don't want them.  If they did, they would exist
since there's nothing preventing them from existing.

Head...  wall....  hurts!  *groan*,
-- 
Its name is Public Opinion.  It is held in reverence. It settles everything.
Some think it is the voice of God.  Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet
broke a chain or freed a human soul.     ---Mark Twain
-- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org
                http://ehopper-host105.dsl.visi.com/~hopper) --