Sun sues Microsoft for 1 Billion dollars.

[Nemesis77]

<< Then you know that the largest cost to a company in rolling out a new OS is end user training, I'm not seeing any call for Linux and alternative office suites, indeed I have many clients who are still very happily using NT4.0 as it meets their needs, it's paid for and they don't wish to go to the expense and loss of employee productivity involved in teaching Sue Ann and Kelly down in the typing pool all the in's and out's of Linux >>



true, the biggest cost is the training and such. But there's training involved even when moving from one Windows-version to the next. And you can make Linux look ALOT like Windows if you want to. take a look at Lycoris for example. And Open Office and the like don't act that much different from MS-Office. Even some of the buttons look identical. Desktops act in similar manner, you have icons that you click. I know of several cases where Jane/Joe Average learned to use Linux-desktop in matter of minutes.

For example, government of Finland is considering switching Windows to Linux. If that happens, about 140.000 computers will switch from Windows to Linux. 28 persons were involved in testing Linux, they ranged from IT-experts to secretaries. 18 said that they would be prepared to switch to Linux right away, only 5 said no. So it seems that even mainstream people wouldn't have any problems working with Linux.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< They already have. Linux looks better than XP, it's just as easy to use >>

Well I guess I haven't tried that Distro yet .




<< Oh, how are you planning to sell that OS, since MS has denied OEM's the right to sell that competing OS? Buying that OS from retail and installing it afterwards is too complicated for about 90% of PC-users. >>

On the other hand, installing Linux and having it up and running like Windows seems to be too complicated for 99.9% of all Computer users too. However, if you can give me a link to this great new distro that is better looking and as easy to use as XP I'll be sure to let others who might have a jaded view of NIX Weenies and the Wunder OS know that Linux is not just for the ELiTe HaXoRs anymore. Trust me, I don't mind if I'm proven wrong.




<< Why are you people so dense. >>

I don't know, why are you such a snob?

<< Nobody said Windows is responsible for being compatible with all applications. >>

That point was made out of context to the original topic.

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< Then you know that the largest cost to a company in rolling out a new OS is end user training, I'm not seeing any call for Linux and alternative office suites, indeed I have many clients who are still very happily using NT4.0 as it meets their needs, it's paid for and they don't wish to go to the expense and loss of employee productivity involved in teaching Sue Ann and Kelly down in the typing pool all the in's and out's of Linux >>



true, the biggest cost is the training and such. But there's training involved even when moving from one Windows-version to the next. And you can make Linux look ALOT like Windows if you want to. take a look at Lycoris for example. And Open Office and the like don't act that much different from MS-Office. Even some of the buttons look identical. Desktops act in similar manner, you have icons that you click. I know of several cases where Jane/Joe Average learned to use Linux-desktop in matter of minutes.

For example, government of Finland is considering switching Windows to Linux. If that happens, about 140.000 computers will switch from Windows to Linux. 28 persons were involved in testing Linux, they ranged from IT-experts to secretaries. 18 said that they would be prepared to switch to Linux right away, only 5 said no. So it seems that even mainstream people wouldn't have any problems working with Linux. >>




Yes, they are training costs involved even in simply upgrading Windows version but not nearly as steep as on totally changing platforms

Also, most business clients aren't going to be bothered wasting their time trying to make Linux look more like windows,
when they can simply install Windows !

 

[Nemesis77]

<< On the other hand, installing Linux and having it up and running like Windows seems to be too complicated for 99.9% of all Computer users too. However, if you can give me a link to this great new distro that is better looking and as easy to use as XP I'll be sure to let others who might have a jaded view of NIX Weenies and the Wunder OS know that Linux is not just for the ELiTe HaXoRs anymore. >>



Well, I gave link to Lycoris in my other post. Then there's of course well-known distros like SuSE, Red Hat and of course, Mandrake. As for Linux looking as good or better and Windows...

KDE
Enlightenment
Gnome
Ximian Gnome

Honestly, only reason why someone would prefer Win-GUI is because that's what they have looked for last several years. Objectively looking you couldn't say that "windows looks better". Oh, and those screenshot I provided were unthemed shots, you can basically make the desktop look like anything you want. If you don't like the way it looks, change it!

 

[manly]

<<

<< They already have. Linux looks better than XP, it's just as easy to use >>

Well I guess I haven't tried that Distro yet .




<< Oh, how are you planning to sell that OS, since MS has denied OEM's the right to sell that competing OS? Buying that OS from retail and installing it afterwards is too complicated for about 90% of PC-users. >>

On the other hand, installing Linux and having it up and running like Windows seems to be too complicated for 99.9% of all Computer users too. However, if you can give me a link to this great new distro that is better looking and as easy to use as XP I'll be sure to let others who might have a jaded view of NIX Weenies and the Wunder OS know that Linux is not just for the ELiTe HaXoRs anymore. Trust me, I don't mind if I'm proven wrong.
>>



What about Mac OS? It's been out for much longer than Windows, and has been easier to use than Windows until perhaps recently. Your argument that Windows is supreme because no alternative is credible is laughable considering how flaky the DOS/W 9x lineage is, not to mention that Mac OS was better years earlier. In reality, Windows is just a monopoly. Design a better mousetrap, and guess what? It'd still have to somehow gain market share against an operating system monopoly.

I can't fathom why you cling to the belief that there are no credible operating systems besides Windows, rather than accepting the fact that they had de facto control over PC OEMs.



<<


<< Why are you people so dense. >>

I don't know, why are you such a snob?
>>



Sticks and stones...



<<


<< Nobody said Windows is responsible for being compatible with all applications. >>

That point was made out of context to the original topic.
>>



That point was simply a joke because nobody ever said Windows has to proactively maintain compatibility with all 100,000 applications in the world.

The anti-trust case isn't about defending "innovation". It's about making sure Microsoft doesn't abuse its special market position.

The sad irony in the whole case is that Microsoft's trial defense was so completely inept, and yet they appear to walk away from the government case pretty much scott-free.



<<


<< I don't see why it's so difficult to believe they haven't done so since. Proving it in court is a different matter >>

Why is that? If it happened and what you are saying just isn't the drivel from a Fanaatical NIX Weenie then it shouldn't be so difficult. Of course trying to manufacter the "Truth " would be. >>



It's difficult to prove without insider knowledge, including access to the source control system used for Windows development.

It's difficult to prove because Microsoft has essentially limitless resources for legal defense, and any opponent would not only have to make their case, but have the cash reserves to actually stick it out that long.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Yes, they are training costs involved even in simply upgrading Windows version but not nearly as steep as on totally changing platforms

Also, most business clients aren't going to be bothered wasting their time trying to make Linux look more like windows,
when they can simply install Windows ! >>



they don't have to try make Linux look like Windows, it has already been done. The whole idea behind Lycoris is to make the switchover from Windows to Linux as painless as possible. And in the long run there would be big savings. The study in Finland suggested that on licenses alone the government would save something like 26 million euros each year (that figure could go up is MS keeps on increasing their license-costs). I think that figure is rather conservative. Also, that figure doesn't include the savings they would get from increased security, stability and reduced maintenance-needs.

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< Yes, they are training costs involved even in simply upgrading Windows version but not nearly as steep as on totally changing platforms

Also, most business clients aren't going to be bothered wasting their time trying to make Linux look more like windows,
when they can simply install Windows ! >>



they don't have to try make Linux look like Windows, it has already been done. The whole idea behind Lycoris is to make the switchover from Windows to Linux as painless as possible. And in the long run there would be big savings. The study in Finland suggested that on licenses alone the government would save something like 26 million euros each year (that figure could go up is MS keeps on increasing their license-costs). I think that figure is rather conservative. Also, that figure doesn't include the savings they would get from increased security, stability and reduced maintenance-needs. >>




Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer. >>



Hey, I'm not trying to drive you out of business . Besides, I like you too much to do something like that . All I'm saying that there are real alternatives, but they don't get enough attention.

 

[Dat]

well i have mixed feelings on this - lets look at the history of microsoft and java and examine why ms doesnt not ship a jvm

orginally ms violated its contract with sun because it built its own proprietary jvm. does this sound familiar? ms making something that only works well with ms products so that it can monopolize the industry? heh. anyhoo if ms had its way, applications written in java, a platform independent language, would only run on the windows platform. so sun sues ms and wins. ms no longer can make jvms because they like to break contracts.

microsofts new .NET technology, the encapsulation of all of microsoft enterprise technologies, from which microsoft makes a ton of money competes directly with java's J2EE technology. now adays if you wanted to build enterprise systems - you essentially have two choices - .NET or J2EE. it is as simple as that. microsoft decision not to support a JVM will strengthen it .NET push.

now I dont agree with MS having to ship anyone elses product on their OSes. if that was the case then MS will have to ship with netscape, word perfect - etc.

the reason that the courts were/are going this route is because microsoft used criminal tatics to dominate the OS market in the first place.

Sun's approach is that since microsoft got into the position of monopolizing the OS market, they have to make amends by providing support for competing products or the microsoft monopoly will never go away. If microsoft dominates the market, then innovation will die. granted microsoft gave us a decent OS but how do we know what we COULD have now adays if not for MS.

i am for splitting microsoft up. seperate the OS from the software products. thats the only way to guarantee that competing software products (WordPerfect) will have a chance to survive and provide innovation. If you look at the software market now, would there be any company crazy enough to invest money in a WordPerfect application? No - and because of this, we never get a chance at seeing better and better products than MS word 2002/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/etc...

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer. >>



Hey, I'm not trying to drive you out of business . Besides, I like you too much to do something like that . All I'm saying that there are real alternatives, but they don't get enough attention. >>




LOL, what I'm trying to tell you is that the average business client doesn't think like geeks do ! They do not care about the deep intracies of the office computer OS, the mystery of the registry hold no fascination for them, hours of endless
reading manuals and tweaking doesn't appeal to these people it simply annoys and irritates them.

 

[yellowplastic]

<< Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer. >>



There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software.

If you continue pushing buggy Microsoft software on your customers, you better get ready for some multimillion dollar lawsuits against you in the near future.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< LOL, what I'm trying to tell you is that the average business client doesn't think like geeks do ! They do not care about the deep intracies of the office computer OS, the mystery of the registry hold no fascination for them, hours of endless reading manuals and tweaking doesn't appeal to these people it simply annoys and irritates them. >>



That is 100% true! And while you CAN do all that (well, excluding the registry) in Linux, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. You can just use it and not care how it's internals work. Right now most Linux-users are enthusiasts who like to tweak it, and then tweak some more. But you don't have to do that if you choose not to.

My GF doesn't care how Linux works. She just wants to log in and check her email and surf the net. She doesn't need to know how it works to carry out basic tasks with it. She just clicks the icons. And that's just how it is with Windows. People don't need to know how Windows works if they only do some basic stuff with it.

I haven't used Lycoris myself, but I have heard alot of good things about it. The GUI is simplified, it handles like Windows does, it has all the productivity-tools built in, it has been tweaked to be as easy to use as possible. It could be THE distro for Linux-newbies. The user has no need to tweak it.

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer. >>



There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software.

If you continue pushing buggy Microsoft software on your customers, you better get ready for some multimillion dollar lawsuits against you in the near future. >>





Rotflmao !! based on what ? how great Mandrake or Redhat are ?

 

[manly]

<<

<< Well, I'll be watching the Fin's with interest then.In the meantime I'll continue to sell and support the MS products my clients prefer. >>



There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software.

If you continue pushing buggy Microsoft software on your customers, you better get ready for some multimillion dollar lawsuits against you in the near future. >>



ROTFLMAO. I know you're dead serious, but that's just too much for me.

Americans will be lucky if UCITA isn't pushed through.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Well, I gave link to Lycoris in my other post. Then there's of course well-known distros like SuSE, Red Hat and of course, Mandrake. As for Linux looking as good or better and Windows...

KDE
Enlightenment
Gnome
Ximian Gnome
>>



Lycos sure is Purdy... I've used Red Hat, Mandrake and Debian and from my experience they weren't nearly as intuative as Windows though they ran on a Celeron 333 with an i810 Board faster than Windows. They were interesting I will admit and I can see where someone would really enjopy tweaking with them if they had the time and inclination but they aren't ready for "Prime Time" Desktop for Mom, Sis and Uncle Joe.

Yellowperil

<< There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software. >>

What's that smell?? It smells like an Idiot just crapped his pants and left them in this thread for all to enjoy.

 

[Descartes]

<< microsofts new .NET technology, the encapsulation of all of microsoft enterprise technologies, from which microsoft makes a ton of money competes directly with java's J2EE technology. now adays if you wanted to build enterprise systems - you essentially have two choices - .NET or J2EE. it is as simple as that. microsoft decision not to support a JVM will strengthen it .NET push. >>



Note, Microsoft has ALWAYS had direct competition with J2EE. Indeed, there are many facets of J2EE that are obvious clones of Microsoft's technology! Both companies have used the ideas of others, that's nothing new. When (if) Microsoft builds a version of the .NET runtime for say, Solaris, should Sun be required to include it in their product?

 

[Descartes]

<< There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software.

If you continue pushing buggy Microsoft software on your customers, you better get ready for some multimillion dollar lawsuits against you in the near future. >>



I'm sorry, but your perpetual dissemination of tripe upon us all has begun to sicken me. How in the hell are VARs, OEMs, ISVs supposed to be aware of all potential bugs in the third-party software they deploy? There has not been a single application in wide use that hasn't been found to have bugs. You're expecting a VAR, non-programmers who know only little more about software than the end-user, to be liable for bugs within someone elses software? That makes sense.

 

[Geekbabe]

<<

<< There is a great push for software liability law, that would make corporations that produce flawed software, and people who recommend such software, liable for the losses incurred due to such software.

If you continue pushing buggy Microsoft software on your customers, you better get ready for some multimillion dollar lawsuits against you in the near future. >>



I'm sorry, but your perpetual dissemination of tripe upon us all has begun to sicken me. How in the hell are VARs, OEMs, ISVs supposed to be aware of all potential bugs in the third-party software they deploy? There has not been a single application in wide use that hasn't been found to have bugs. You're expecting a VAR, non-programmers who know only little more about software than the end-user, to be liable for bugs within someone elses software? That makes sense. >>



The only thing someone in my position faces potential liabillty for would be if I were grossly neglectful of my duty
to protect client data. A good backup system in place ? it doesn't matter if the OS occasionally needs to be blown away
restoring from an image is not that big of a deal as long as you've kept the data safe!

 

[Descartes]

<< The only thing someone in my position faces potential liabillty for would be if I were grossly neglectful of my duty
to protect client data. A good backup system in place ? it doesn't matter if the OS occasionally needs to be blown away
restoring from an image is not that big of a deal as long as you've kept the data safe! >>



Exactly, or if perhaps you were a security consultant doing an analysis and some unpatched (known) holes in the OS facilitated a security breach. Conversely, you should not be liable for a breach due to holes not yet known in the OS.

 

[Dat]

<< Note, Microsoft has ALWAYS had direct competition with J2EE. Indeed, there are many facets of J2EE that are obvious clones of Microsoft's technology! Both companies have used the ideas of others, that's nothing new. When (if) Microsoft builds a version of the .NET runtime for say, Solaris, should Sun be required to include it in their product? >>

Sun should have to include if it they were found guilty of engaging in unlawful practices to kill competing technologies and creating a monopoly, which MS did. I agree with you that the act of forcing MS to install a JVM sounds stupid but in light of the fact that microsoft is a monopoly, what other measures can be taken to prevent them from maintain the monopoly? (other than splitting up the company)

 

[Spike]

Everyone is just jumping on the "lets sue microsoft because we are jealous of all there money" bandwagon. Get a life sun....

 

[manly]

<tongue-in-cheek>Actually, in a perfect world, if you recommended Exchange server + Outlook to clients, you should be held criminally liable. </tongue-in-cheek>

We chuckle only because we live in an inperfect world without software liability laws.

And I totally disagree that backups indemnify for losses resulting from the recommendation of known faulty software products. That's only the case if you value businesses and people's time as worthless.

Since analysts routinely peg the major Outlook worms as costing business in the billions of dollars, obviously most people don't hold a time is worthless viewpoint.

 

[WDCentral]

I have a question - how can they legally sue for this!!! this is microsoft's own software... they can do what they want with it.. this is such BS how the hell can the government let this sue go through!!!!