Good use of "sound bites" to cover the potential of breaking up
MS.
A portion:
"Antitrust attorneys, economists, and software
executives debated the
effectiveness of breaking up the software titan,
licensing its source code,
or imposing rules of business conduct. The
conference on "Which Remedies?
Appraising Microsoft," was sponsored
by consumer advocate Ralph Nader's
Essential Information group and the
Consumer Project on Technology."
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990430S0017My
two cents' worth:
In my personal opinion, I see Linux as taking care of
Microsoft' monopoly in
the long run. The one real power Microsoft had
was its control over the
operating system. Until now, no one has had a
choice other than MS-DOS
since Windows 95 (A.K.A. Chicago) was introduced
utilizing one of the most
massive advertising campaigns in history.
Before then, we did have DR.Dos
and PC-DOS (IBM), but there was too much
industry infighting, mostly by
competing third-party software vendors such as
Wordperfect and Lotus and
their rivals. This allowed Microsoft to form
unusual alliances that allowed
one competitor to have an unfair advantage
over another whom had aligned
with an alternative OS (operating
system).
The history of software is eerily analgous to war. With
differing allies,
when one side lost, a whole lot of different and seemingly
unconnected
entities lost as well. Except than since MS-DOS was
"integrated" with
Windows 95, there became little need for another
command-prompt operating
system. Any operating system that was to be
sold would have to either
replace the MS-DOS underlying Windows or create a
Windows-like shell for the
competing product for bundling with the OS.
Of course, there has never been
a real competitor to Windows for the
PC. OS/2 Warp was never even a serious
competitor. If it was, IBM
would have sold its PCs with OS/2 Warp instead
of Windows 95. The Mac
OS really doesn't count, because it is designed to
run on different
hardware. Sort of like comparing a microwave with a
toaster oven.
They both heat food quickly, but there is little similarity
as far as the
mechanisms are concerned.
Now here comes Linux. Microsoft no longer
carries a command-prompt OS that
isn't bundled with a shell. Just three
things impact Linux's current
ability to usurp Microsoft Windows
environment. First, it is difficult to
install. However, this
will probably no longer be the case by the end of
the year. Second,
There is no "unified" Windows-like shell. There are
several
different GUIs (Graphical User Interface) available for it, each
with their
own advantages and disadvantages. The Windows shell is simply a
GUI
itself, by the way. Third, Windows-compatible software vendors
will
need to make a Linux version that will be fully compatible with the
data
from the Windows version. One will need to be able to take an
Excel
worksheet and be able to open it in a Linux version of Excel.
Obviously,
Microsoft and a number of other software vendors will absolutely
refuse to
create such software versions, leaving their competitors or
volunteers to
fill the vacuum. And eventually, they will. My
prediction stands: If
Microsoft and its allies want to still be in
business, they must abandon the
MS-DOS OS and port their wares to run on a
Linux OS.
Competitors will rush to have the best software on the new OS,
leaving those
that hesitate struggling to catch up. Since these
goliaths won't do that
until it is almost too late, Linux has already
conquered the monopoly. The
forgotten "head" has been
severed, and it simply will take time for the body
to discover its own
demise. Therefore, remedies focusing on the short-term
would be
better. If the software industry DOES fragment with MS being
broken up,
software vendors will more quickly gravitate towards different
operating
systems. Obviously, Linux will be the NEW operating system of
choice
for those not wishing to continue being bound by MS-DOS, unless
Caldera
brings back DR.DOS. That is unlikely, considering the amount of
work
involved in dramatically updating it to work with
Windows-compatible
systems.
Another interesting point is that
Microsoft is planning a critical core
change by substituting, or
"killing", its 16-bit MS-DOS OS to one that only
supports 32-bit
and 64-bit applications that will be the basis of
Win2000/NT5. This
will be Microsoft's breaking point, I think. Since
companies will
eventually be forced to upgrade their technology
infrastructure to one of the
networking operating systems, many of the
smaller obstacles blocking Linux
will be removed. Companies may very well
ask, "If we can't use our
16-bit programs and have to start over anyway,
what is the use of spending a
great amount of money for a Microsoft-based
system or a very low-cost and
stable system as Linux?" This would provide
even more competitive
stimuli to develop high-quality applications for
Linux.
These opinions
are my own. If someone agrees with me, it is merely
coincidental, or at
best, a case of divine logic unerringly hitting home.
<G>
Robert
Reese~
rwr@mindspring.com"If I have
to take M(ain) S(treet) to get to where I want to go, I'd rather
take an
ALTERNATE route." - rwr