[mdlug] OT: Microsoft Monopoly

[David Lane]

Oh, and Microsoft plays NICE?
 
I will agree that MS's activities might not be "Anti-trust," but there close. 
One reason that there was an actual "Anti-trust" law suit was because they were 
close to forcing or "Leveraging" their own resources. And the thought of 
breaking them up would not have been a bad thing. Because if the applications 
division 

 
I would like to NOT have Windows in my home. But I have to use Visio and a few 
other windows based applications. I know if MS did port a few applications to 
Linux there would be those that will actually pay money for the applications.
 
So you are a Linux shop and you want to use Oracle that is no problem, same with 
UNIX, AIX, BSD and of course Windows. 

 
But lets say some yahoo wants MSSQL you cant just load it on one of your "UNIX" 
servers. (I work in education and there are a lot of applications that IT is 
forced to support because the “That” platform is the only platform that the 
application is delivered.) So NOW you have to buy a new Windows server just for 
that application. 

 
I have seen many Unix shops become Windows shops in the past 6 years.  Microsoft 
is leveraging and my question is how much of it is in the spirit of competition. 
If there was not an AMD then Intel's prices would not be reasonable or "Cost 
effective".  Without the competition that AMD offers, your $400 build would be 
800 or even 1200. With Microsoft your $400 build would be $600, oh you need an 
office product 749.  
 
Lets think back, in the 90’s UNIX was the server environment, but the Microsoft 
resource that help make a dent in the server game was MS Visual Studio (eWeek). 
The cost UNIX programmers was way more than windows programmers. The bean 
counter pointed to the overall cost of a windows programmer in compared to a 
UNIX programmer.  Even though the windows applications were buggy the 
applications went forward. Leveraging MS resources was a good business strategy. 
 That is one reason that MS got there, But their size could be there issue.
 
BUT in “Anti-trust” there is also a mass issue. And the choice to go with 
Microsoft is it’s mass, so that is what I’m hearing.  The MASS of Microsoft is 
influencing IT choices, not performance or security. 

 
Even though we know Linux out performs Windows in raw performance and security 
IT tech leaders are making a windows choice, and more than a few point to their 
size. Does anybody else see that trend?
 
David C. Lane 



________________________________
From: Jacob Todd <jaketodd422 at gmail.com>
To: MDLUG's Main discussion list <mdlug at mdlug.org>
Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 6:31:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mdlug] OT: Microsoft Monopoly

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:30:28AM -0700, David Lane wrote:
> (OT; But it is on topic because Linux resources are being replaced by windows)
>  
> Recently I was informed that a Linux server is being replaced by a windows 2008 
>
> server.  I started to think about “Microsoft Monopoly” case. MS must have a 
>very 
>
> good legal team. 
So because someone choose to use Win2000 instead of Linux on a server, Microsoft
has a monopoly? There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning.

> But I still think that Microsoft is leveraging to move Linux out. I hate it 
>when 
>
> good performing resources are replaced by Windows Servers, “Because it is 
>easier 
>
> to support.” If Microsoft were not “anti-trust” the applications division would 
>
> have ported MS Office to Linux. 
This doesn't really make sense. Of course Microsoft is going to try to get 
people
to start using Windows server over Linux, Linux is one of Microsofts biggest
competetors in server environments. I don't understand the statement about
``anti-trust.'' It's a very ambiguous term.
 
> I buy and use MS products, sure but sometimes it is because I have to. Not 
> because it is my first choice. MS leaves me with no other choices.  And that is 
>
> why I feel MS is “anti-trust.”
Microsoft does leave you with other choices, there's OO.o, LaTeX, troff, 
abiword,
kde's office software, et cetera. If there's something that these other systems
can't provide because Microsoft threatened to enforce their patents on the
authors, that is the fault of the State for providing monopolies in the first
place.