How can we prey on you today?
Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:09:24 +0800
[: hacktivism :]
apologies if the attached image didn't make it past the listserver - full article at
Well, the US Govt went for Mr Gates eh. I don't actually approve of this. I
think business should be free to operate as it sees fit. Other businesses
would have been free to compete with Microsoft on an even footing but for
those very laws Microsoft is being prosecuted for breaking. That is, the laws
create distortion in the marketplace. This is not news to the pollies - it's
what gives them a job.
But, there's little point fantasising about a pure free market. Them Big Boyz
in the White House reckon they're running the show, let them think that.
More to the point, the Microsoft verdict comes at a strange moment for
computing. The high profile of the case caused prudent IT managers to
spread their risk, as it were. And that was years ago -- and this is IT. Which
means that well before the verdict arrived, Microsoft's fate was already
Microsoft has never enjoyed a good reputation with tech-savvy folk, and
now managers have good reason to agree.
And all the while, alternative, more friendly systems have expanded their
installed base. In particular, the rise of GNU/Linux, and its "free as in
freedom" culture of open source code and peer review -- of sharing,
basically -- has changed forever the IT landscape.
Why would IT managers stake their businesses on low-quality software
made by a firm being mauled by the strongest government on the planet?
Especially when the alternative has proven to be industrial-strength. Indeed,
its strengths are just beginning. The open-source model harnesses feedback.
It is an organic model that grows -- it learns from its environment and adapts
This sustainable approach is contrasted by Microsoft. The closed Microsoft
approach does not facilitate feedback. This causes them to become less and
less adapted to the environment over time.
And while Microsoft was busy hoarding closed Windows APIs, the open-
source community (which essentially embodies most of the "old skool"
internet crew, and the authors of most software in use today - even IE 3 was
based on Mosaic), was adding elegance to a marvellous set of protocols
which Microsoft simply had to support -- such as TCP/IP and HTML.
Microsoft's monolithic culture comes through in their software. Their
response to open standards (once they noticed them, and learned to accept
they could not wish them out of existence) was to hurridly implement them,
then go and invent bunch of proprietary "standards" (such as ActiveX) that
don't work properly and create a large support overhead.
The paradigm is plain. They don't want to be compatible with you. They
want you to be compatible with them -- and bill you for the privilege. And
the judge has said, they use their market power to force you to do that.
The consequences of all this are that Microsoft has lost the faith of the
general community; it has allowed rival platforms to gain a hold in pockets of
tech everywhere; and it has demonstrated a lack of business intuition and
integrity that has sent a clear message to the highest of corporate levels.
It's a dog, mate.
It is true that Microsoft hurt the community. Just last night I saw a web page
say "if you want to edit these pages, you must use FrontPage, because it has
inserted so-and-so special codes....". Yet on another webpage, I was
reading how installing FrontPage installs Personal Web Server, and how
PWS is vulnerable to attack from hackers in a number of areas.
So if you want to edit these pages, you have to make yourself vulnerable.
It's a dog, mate. And with this decision, now everybody knows.
. ^ Stuart Udall
.~ \ http://cyberdelix.net/stuart.htm
revolution through evolution
[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]