Below:

-----
This message or posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
Any opinions or policies stated in this mail are my opinions and do not
necessarily constitute those of my employer.
Harvesting of this address for purposes of bulk email (including "spam")
is prohibited without my expressed prior request.  I retaliate viciously
against spammers and spam sites.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@weird.com]=20
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 4:04 PM
> To: David Lawler Christiansen (NT)
> Cc: NetBSD User's Discussion List
> Subject: RE: IP: Wal-Mart PC, Operating System *Not*=20
> Included: $399 (fwd)

[...]

> > I didn't ask whether the practices to which you refer have been=20
> > "proven".  I asked which ones.
>=20
> I meant exactly those ones documented by the courts.  No=20
> more, no less.

I ask you to enumerate your specific complaints, not because I want you
to cut and paste crud from the lawsuits, but simply because there are
lots of them and many of them say conflicting things.  Pick a case and
start there.  You mentioned the Jackson ruling, but even that isn't 100%
clear in some cases and some of it was stricken.  Remember what I said
before: much of what people think about the Empire is speculation
anyway.

Most people I have encountered (and I'm sure there are people on this
list who DON'T fall into this category, *cross fingers*) do NOT
understand the implications of any of the lawsuits they discuss, or the
settlements about which they complain.  They're just ticked because
we'll still exist, or because we have good (or bad) lawyers... Nobody
ever wants to admit that we just MIGHT be good at one or more things--
they're more interested in trying to knock us off the hill. =20

Remember that what's driving most of these lawsuits is NOT the rights of
the consumer (IMHO), it's the rights of our competition.  I don't agree
with all of MS's actions, but we're certainly not the first/only ones to
perform some of them. =20

> > As I've said in the past, hardware companies don't take software=20
> > terribly seriously.  Why would they?  They're more interested in=20
> > crafting nifty gizmos and in their eyes, "anyone can be a=20
> good coder,=20
> > right...?"  This means they're usually understaffed to=20
> maintain even=20
> > drivers for Windows, let alone for the gazillion-odd free=20
> unixes there=20
> > are out there.
>=20
> Perhaps you're forgetting Apple, Sun, IBM, DEC, Pyramid, HP,=20
> Cray, Sequent, Tandem, and so on and so on and so on. =20
> They've all been innovative on the hardware side, and they've=20
> each also taken their systems software very seriously, to the=20
> extent that some people have even come to like them more for=20
> their software than their hardware. Most of the above have=20
> even innovated in some areas of systems software (well maybe=20
> not Apple, at least not without counting NeXT as part of them=20
> :-), and sometimes more than once!


Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear (if so, this would be my fault): not
ALL hardware companies are this way, but by and large, it seems like
they are.  However, your answer is orthogonal to my argument-- you're
refuting some of my opinion, but actually moving closer to proving my
point:

In most of those cases (Apple, Sun, DEC, HP, and Cray are the ones with
which I've had the most contact), the software "innovations" made by
that company were restricted to their own hardware.  MacOS would be a
bad example, but otherwise Apple has (example) Quicktime, but IIRC most
of their other software only runs on MacOS.  Why?  Not because Apple has
an innate hatred for other platforms, but because it's WORK to maintain
closed-source software across multiple platforms. =20

Many drivers, like I said, are closed-source (for reasons good or bad--
beyond the scope of my argument).  Maintaining those drivers across
multiple platforms is work that costs money.  If they don't feel the
need to spend (or waste, as some of them may see it) money maintaining a
driver that won't gain them much, that's their decision.  The best you
can do is convince them that there's an untapped market of (for example)
NetBSD gamers that would develop OpenGL applications that would support
the hardware if nifty-graphics-card-maker would just publish the specs.
This would sell them at least XXX number of new graphics cards.

The unwritten assumption that I gathered (and you did not deny) is that
you feel MS ultimately responsible for people not releasing software for
non-MS platforms.  If this is what you're trying to say, then, like I
said, you are dreaming.  MS doesn't have the time, currency, or desire
to pay people NOT to write drivers for competing operating systems.
Particularly when (and I point fingers at nobody in particular) some
OS's are doing a great job of doing that on their own.

> There are those people who will even argue that M$, a=20
> software-only company, hasn't innovated anything on its own=20
> except marketing.  I wouldn't go quite that far, though I=20
> would say that the kinds of technical innovations coming out=20
> of M$ over the years have been rather on the small scale, and=20
> more of the type that can inevitably be produced by a million=20
> monkeys....  It seems to me that only recently has M$ been=20
> able to use its very significant monetary resources to=20
> attract significant people in computer research circles.

This is not about how much money MS spends on Research or even how much
innovation comes out of it.  You don't need a Research branch to be
innovative, and you do not even have to innovate to be a successful
business-- my parents have been selling ice cream in a store in western
Iowa for 24 years.  Ice cream technology hasn't changed significantly
since the shop opened in my grandfather's day, yet the business is
successful.  I should point out that my parents' store has no Research
division.

[...]

> > Now we get to the heart of the issue-- you're complaining because=20
> > someone provided for your needs before, but no longer does.=20
>  For some=20
> > reason, rather than blaming the company whose service has=20
> regressed,=20
> > you hop on the bandwagon and blame that darn Microsoft.
>=20
> I continue to blame M$ because it has been shown=20
> unequivocally that M$ either engineered market conditions=20
> which unfairly forced their competitors out of existance, or=20
> where that wasn't possibly simply bought them outright. =20

However, even if Microsoft forced some competitors out of business, it
would (A) not be the first company to do so, (B) still not prevent your
hardware company from writing drivers for non-MS operating systems.  I
would even go so far as to argue that many companies forced themselves
out of business due to their own incompetence.  Sometimes you can have a
good product and still die out because your infrastructure sucks.
Sometimes the market isn't ready for you.  Sometimes, you just don't
have the right people, or succumb to simple bad luck. =20

Unfortunately, businesses are big into blame-management.  When your
business fails, it's quite profitable these days to blame The Evil
Empire.  It's a great way to diffuse blame and eliminate responsibility.
While I'm sure our success has played a part in some business failures,
and like I've said before, I'd never accuse us of Sainthood, I think
most of this is, quite frankly, BS intended to cover personal failure.

> I=20
> blamed M$ long before the courts collected evidence to=20
> substantiate what were previously just my personal opinions.

No offense, but of course you did.  I did too.  Then I investigated the
facts and eliminated the posturing.  Having access to MS internal
documents didn't hurt either.  We're not saints, but IMHO we're not
responsible for the things you're complaining about either.

Did you know that some people are convinced that MS is responsible for
Global Warming?  Or that we've secretly replaced the political leaders
of the world with clones running Win3.11?  It's easy to hate success.
What's harder is to search for the truth with an open mind. =20

[...]

> >  How exactly is it
> > that MS prevented that company from providing you with non-Windows=20
> > software?
>=20
> Read what your courts have told you.  I don't need to rehash=20
> it all again.

Actually, I'd appreciate it if you did.  The Jackson Findings didn't say
(IIRC, and it's admittedly been awhile) that we were paying people not
to develop non-Windows software.  I'm sure we did provide incentives for
people to develop Windows software or port non-Windows software.   I
think the briefing said we also provided licensing or pricing schemes
that sometimes could have prevented people from SELLING non-MS software
(IMHO a bad thing, but maybe JJ should go after Coke, Pepsi, and United
Airlines for doing the same thing), but I don't remember reading
anything about us actively killing development of alternative software.
I should point out I read that we stopped doing those kinds of licensing
schemes, too, which is a good thing. =20

However, strangely and despite all of the obvious objections, Dell still
doesn't offer Linux PCs... It must still somehow be MS's fault-- wait,
could it be simply that Linux is a terrible Client OS?   ...Or perhaps
that the OS marketspace is already saturated with choices that users
just don't understand?  Naaahhh.  Couldn't be.

> > > The only cost that's fair to hide in the bundle price
> > > is the cost of performing the bundling service (pre-install=20
> > > of the customer's chosen software, configuration, etc.).
> >=20
> > "fair" is an interesting term.  Fair to whom, out of curiosity?
>=20
> Fair to the customer, obviously.  The very fact you've asked=20
> such a question is revealing in and of itself. =20

...as is your assumption.  Read on.

> If you don't=20
> understand who such regulations are intended to protect, and=20
> implicitly accept the correctness of such protection, then=20
> what exactly do you think would be fair?


There is fairness to the consumer and fairness to businesses.  The two
are a balancing act (IMHO).  If you go too far in one direction the both
sides end up suffering. =20

To completely oversimply this argument, is it fair that software costs
money sometimes?  The cheaper the software gets, the better it is for
consumers.  However, without money to pay for software development, the
software companies die.  Every few years, a few companies rise, creating
innovative software, then die for lack of money.  The cycle continues
nastily, producing neverending tides of bad (but new) software that
never gets any better, and consumer confidence wanes.  People begin to
expect the software to be bad, or for the company to not exist in a few
years.  Nobody ends up being employed because the industry per se
doesn't exist.  How is that good?

If we're too "fair" to companies, the consumers suffer horribly.  When
the Computation Center at my university didn't want an IBM mainframe,
the IBM salesman walked the hierarchy from his boss to the Governer to
reverse the decision.  "Nobody's ever been fired for buying IBM"...
That's an example of screwing consumers, and it ends up hurting the
company anyway.

Yeah, consumers have (and NEED) rights.  You'll get no argument from me
about that.  Consumers deserve protection to ensure that their welfare
is considered and not trampled upon. =20

My point, however, is that fairness is two-sided-- businesses have
rights too.  Most people don't see that.  It appears you don't either.

>=20
> > Fairness isn't even the issue.
>=20
> It sure as heck is!  Indeed some have claimed it is the=20
> fundamental issue.

Okay, let's make it part of the issue.  It's unfair that there are no
drivers for your widget.  However, to enforce that fairness, you should
go after the company that makes the widget, not whine about the market
leader.  Your manufacturer is being unfair to you.  However, is it fair
to FORCE that manufacturer to maintain additional infrastructure to
develop and support devices for only 1% (a guess) of its business?  NOW
who's being unfair?

> >  Many hardware manufacturers negotiate
> > prices on a bulk rate that may be variable... RAM's a great=20
> example,=20
> > because the prices sometimes change by the hour.  Think Best Buy is=20
> > going to go reprint labels just because Dell got a better price for=20
> > RAM?
>=20
> RAM is a commodity.  The OS is not.  (everyone's RAM adheres=20
> to publicly documented engineering specifications -- however=20
> M$'s OS does not work (from the user's P.O.V.) like mine and=20
> cannot run all the same applications as mine, even though=20
> they both work on the same hardware and they both may claim=20
> to implement some common APIs)

The OS is a component like any other.  You have shown this, because the
OS can be replaced.  Whether there is, or is not, public documentation
for a component is irrelevant.  See also below.

> Are you trying to say that the hardware manufactures have=20
> negotiated a bulk rate on M$ OS software and they're not=20
> going to (be able to) stop buy from M$ even though they can=20
> now use an OS with no licensing costs whatsoever?

Re-read my post.  You said that you wanted disclosure on the sticker
that said how much the manufacturer paid for the OS.  I said that some
components have variable costs, and sometimes those costs (such as the
cost of the RAM or maybe even the OS) are not appropriate to tell
consumers.  I then listed some of the reasons, of which this was one. =20

> > Even if this were possible, it's NMF-- you should take it=20
> up with the=20
> > manufacturers.
>=20
> I suspect if Bill Gates were to have his way then nothing at=20
> all would ever be Micro$oft's fault -- [...]

I'm sure he would.  I'm sure anyone in charge of an enormous
multinational corporation in which he had a large, personal stake would
love to disclaim fault for anything-- whether it is or is NOT the fault
of that corporation or that person directly.  That's not a BillG thing,
or an MS thing.  It's an everybody thing.  It's not ethical, but it's
likely to be what happens.

> Your rhetoric not uncommonly mimics much of his,=20
> whether you claim to be towing the company line or not.

Hey, I don't agree with everything Bill says, or think that everything
MS does is right (something I've said numerous times).  However, I'm
guessing that Bill's opinion is the same as mine on this issue:  It's
NOT our problem.  There's NO way it could be.  We CANNOT be held
responsible for other people's shortsightedness or lack of resources
even if it does happen to benefit us indirectly.  Period.

-Dave=20