The Microsoft Scheme
 

As a newbie I'm not privy to too many things technical, or “inside-information” in the computer world, but it just struck me today what Microsoft is doing. Microsoft knows very well that standards are being set for the industry and that they have no alternate course but to conform themselves. Yet by delaying the pace at which they themselves conform—because they can as the industry leader—they end up stifling the pace at which standards are being set, in effect buying their time as the leader.

The one thing I don't understand is why the standard setters tolerate their scheme. Any ideas?

Probably because they are financed or bribed my M$.

Probably some, but I doubt that there's a concesus of scandal among the standards-leadership.

Wrong way to look at it. They don't "tolerate" it...because there's nothing ANYONE can DO about it. What would you think they could do? Send the police down to Microsoft Headquarters, put a gun to a programmers head and FORCE HIM to write something that obeys the standards?? MS does what they want to, same as any other company. It's up to the consumer to buy it/use it or not.

Joe Sixpack who buys a PC at Wal-Mart doesn't care, as long as they get their email, and can watch a video online. They don't know/care about DRM, viruses, or whatever...they know they push the button, the computer comes on, and they click the icon to do something. MS drags their feet, so that they can push THEIR version of the 'standard' out...look at IE. No one actually cares anymore what MS does, really....folks who know better simply load Linux or buy a Mac. Apple has seen their share of the desktop market grow (albeit slowly), and Linux encroaches more and more on the desktop, not to mention the back-end server market.

The people who write the standards just write the standards. If Microsoft doesn't conform to those standards, it's not their problem.

Not exactly. The most obvious decision for them(Microsoft) would be to make their own standards, protect them with patents and those standards to their own products, and ensure that either nobody except them will make any profit using it or that anybody using the standard would split their profit with them. I believe that any big company cares only about money and about nothing else. So they will conform to existing standard only if it is very profitable for them. If conforming to standard brings no profit, they'll ignore it. If your standard isn't attractive, it won't be used, obviously. Once you understand that "they care ONLY about money", everything gets very simple.

Ahem. AFAIK, standard setters has no power over their own standard. You can invent any standard you want, but if it isn't used by anybody, you'll simply waste your effort. The ones that can use the standard are people with cash.

That was another thought. But then the standard setters, if they wanted to, could easily publicise--blow the whistle so to speak--Microsoft's failure to conform, but they don't.

I'm talking about the standards, for example, set by w3c, et. al. If Microsofts were to blatently disregard most of their standards, don't you think they'd lose considerable market share?

Uhh...yes, they DO, frequently, and loudly. There is absolutely NO shortage of articles about MS's failures to obey standards. Check any tech-related website you want, the W3C site, IEEE, etc., and you'll find lots.
No...because again, the consumers who know/care about such things already ignore Microsoft. But, since Windows ships on PC's already, the folks who don't know/care (most consumers), happily use it. Can you honestly say you've not heard about any of the failures in Internet Explorer? Silverlight? Windows Media Player?

There is no great conspiracy, sorry.

Consumers don't read these reports, technical folks do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't publications like, "Smart Computing" and other consumer computing publications rather friendly towards Windows? Does't most mainstream media cater to Microsoft?

I'm not naysaying here; in fact I've already stated here I don't believe there's a general scandal. I'm just saying why don't the change agents let consumers know what's really up with Microsoft?

They can hijack and modify them. "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Standard is a paper. A software company will conform to it only if it is profitable or if there's no other choice.

Consumer's don't care and won't care. In order to understand the meaning of the "problem", you're need to be "good with computers" which requires a noticeable amount of experience (few years?). Majority of people have other things to do instead of tinkering with computers.

For example: I recently heard a story about a (non-english) MMO company who installed kernel-level copy protection software onto machine of their every client. You can't get rid of that, it is probably vulnerable, and technically it is a ready-to use botnet. Now, try to explain the problem to "average" person...

Another thing is that even if you're skilled, I see no reason to treat a standard as something sacred.

Market has it's own dynamics.

Front end software from Microsoft is the most recognised and practiced. Therefore they are able to get away with anything.

Secondly, and even more important, even though Microsoft is a member of most standards organisations and committees, they dont participate but just hang around in the background and make their own alternative versions. The latest example was seen in the Open Document Format.

OK

Right but if the authorities would let the people know that they're being taken as suckers, that they do have better options, and that the multitudes of the issues that come up for Microsoft users are totally unnecessary, I think they would listen.

Sorry, most of that's still over my head. I am learning though.

Well yeah, that makes sense. Microsoft isn't going to be friendly with their competitors, most of whom aren't secretive. They'll hang around the meetings just to be in the know, so they can work the system.

But then doesn't MSFT eventually conform to most of these standards?

Standards are decided by international consensus. If there is no unanimity, there is a vote with each country getting one. It needs two third majority to make a standard. Also, there can be multiple standards.

As of writing, open document format is a standards and open xml (the microsoft proposal) is just short of the two thirds needed.

Importantly, Microsoft is in the drafting committee of the open document format but didn't make any contribution.

OK

I like that.

My version is "copy, co-opt, and crush."

You history of Microsoft's attempts to bend, warp, and twist standards is excellent. As I recall, I think their attempt to foist off *.docx" as an open standard was their most recent attempt.

I know one middle-sized organization that uses MS Office where the common practice is to "save as Word 95," because docx is so open to earlier versions of MS Office.

To go back to the original post, MS doesn't care about standards. It never has, except where the success of competition has forced it to (for example, the success of Firefox, the customer frustration over the incompatibility of Windows media formats with players other than Windows Media Player).

Microsoft cares about getting persons into their walled garden and locking them in.

So what happens if ODF cleans house. Will Microsoft eventually conform--based on the history of other standards that won out against Microsoft?

Based on MS past performance, I would expect them to start using it, then, in the next version of the software, start introducing changes so that, ultimately, *.msod? is ultimately no longer compatible with any other Office suite.

That has been their pattern, and it's the only pattern they know.

So then, does the burden of change fall to the open source community, to make our systems & apps more "user-friendly?" Hands down, open source is better. It's more stable, more powerful, more useful. Maybe all we need to do to eclipse Macrosoft (sic) is add some "cosmetics." Really, I think that's the only incentive MSFT gives end-users, and the reason why Microsoft holds sway.

Man, that's jive!--the effect of greed.

not just most BUT ALL media caters to M$ ever seen windoze adds on science channel
and history channel

starting at the same time Revolution OS came out

why on earth would M$ need to run adds for windoze not adds for the newest version mind you
BUT windoze it self

I submit these adds were to keep Revolution OS off the channels

I forgot to say Revolution OS is the story of linux here is a link to it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...85592627775409

Frankly, the user-friendly war has been won long ago. The "Linux is not user-friendly" myth goes back to before my Linux-time, when getting X to run was a challenge.

Sure, there are some Linux apps that are immensely complex. There are some Windows apps that are immensely complex. I doubt there is a way to make high-level video-editing or photo-editing simple. But the stuff the average user does--look at websites, play videos, write documents, and email stuff--is no more complicated in Linux than it is in Windows.

But what boils down to "user friendly" for most users can be defined as "what I'm used to."

What made Windows successful is that customer brought Windows home with them when the bought a computer. In the minds of many, Windows = computers.

Microsoft knows that comtemproary Linux is user friendly (except maybe for Arch, Gentoo, and LFS, which are build-it-yourself), even as MS promotes the notion that it's not.

Heck, when I started with Slackware, with v. 10, I loaded up a computer with it and sent it to my daughter, who is not a computer person. She used it quite happily for years, because she is a typical home user.

The "Linux is not user friendly" thing is a smoke-screen. The most user unfriendly thing about Linux is having to install it yourself. Most home users have never installed an OS and think is a mysterious and magical process which they cannot possibly understand.

That's why MS fights so hard against major computer makers' making Linux available from the factory.

MS knows that, once users can easily obtain Linux without having to install it themselves, the Windows, dot-net, and ActiveX are dead; that they'll have to rewrite Office to run on Linux; and that it will be starting that run from way behind.

End of tirade.

Microsoft is a publicly traded company, so its' duty/goal is (obviously) to earn cash and keep shareholders happy. They will conform only if doing so will help their main goal. If you want to make them do something, you should look at situation from their position.

1: "user-friendly" has nothing to do with standards or microsoft.
2: Nobody really controls opensource community, so you can't place any "burden of change" upon it. Things happen when many people suddenly decide to do same thing.

No it isn't. "To each his own". Proprietary companies try to dazzle customers with useless features, and opensource constantly delivers half-baked products (plus opensource has ideological fanatics) that never reach final version. Both available options suck. IMO, if you think that one of them is better than another then you don't see complete picture.

Concentrate on only one thing and you'll fail. Quality of "cosmetics" (gui) contributes to overall quality of product and IS important, but if you'll concentrate only on "cosmetics", you'll end up making a bad product.

When did Revolution OS appear?

The movie is made in 2001 - i.e. 10 years a go. For computer world that's quite a lot of time.

I'm not complaining. Heck, I'm really fascinated and sold on Linux. But I've noticed navigating files in Linux is often still awkward, even in the gui.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Is it that MSFT has more "fight" or clout? What effort has the open source community made to win over computer makers?

Also, I think a big weakness we have is that it seems you can't even get a mainstream printer that works on Linux machines. I mean that's an absolute necessary for a computer user (again I'm not complaining, but it's a major issue for me, having to go over to Windows every time I want to print something).

That would be awesome, Windows at the tail!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the case with Microsoft is hopeless insofar that they will ever cooperate--with standards, maybe we should make open source software more appealing to the common consumer, assuming we mean to contend with Microsoft.

I agree 100%. Just don't "throw the baby out with the bath water," either.

I find navigating in either Konqueror (I prefer it to Dolphin) or Nautilus easier than in Windows Explorer current. (I have Win7 box so I'm up-to-date.)

As regards printers, HPs work great in Linux. So do many Epsons. I don't think you get more mainstream than HP.

More to the point, where the customers go, the hardware makers will follow. If enough customers demand Linux compatibility, hardware makers will provide it.

Konqueror, that's slackware right? Just installed slack on an old laptop. I tried slack over or about a year ago, but couldn't get it running right, but I think I burned the disks too fast. So far so good, this round.

I'll note that. Thanks.

No, any distro. It's one of the default KDE file manager/web browsers.

Having a large installed base means that you very much set "a standard." However, casting the company as "The Evil Empire" is slightly misguided. Fun, yes, but misguided. Slightly. Very. ;)

Not exactly. Whether you like it or not, dot-net is widely used by programmers, so it won't simply go away and die. It will be possible to port office to linux (wine already did half of the job) by providing wrappers for system calls. As for windows/microsoft - the goal of the company is not to sell windows, but to make money. If windows will become unprofitable, i think they'll get rid of it and switch to different product.

Nothing the matter with wanting to make a profit. But when it causes you to shut out good people, like the open source community, and stifle societal progress, thats pure greed.

You seem to assume that greed is "bad". Can you prove it?

There seems to be a clique here who will disagree with everything I say. Yet, I'll take a stab at this for the fun of it:

If a person shows no self-constraint in any area of life, what's the outcome? Take milk. I like milk. Milk is good to me. But if I drink a gallon every day, I'm certain it would become bad to me. Agree? (doubt it) Point taken? (not likely)

You seem to be mistaken. If you can't have a little fun and/or don't know how to argue, that's your own fault.

It depends on your build, weight and life style. 1 gallon is 3.7 liters. On a hot day you'll drink much more liquid than that. Also there are diets that require drinking gallon of milk per day...

No, people don't disagree with everything you say, but you do seem to troll quite a bit, and nit-pick.

You said earlier that you don't believe there is a conspiracy...then wondered why the "authorities" don't let people know there are alternatives. What, exactly, would you like the "authorities" to do?? Go on TV, hold press conferences saying "Hey, you with the Windows...you can load Linux! It's TOTALLY LEGAL! REALLY!!"?? A Windows buy-back program?

Windows comes pre-loaded on most PC's, period. That's why it's the currently dominant OS on the desktop. Again, why do people leave it there? Because it's EASIER TO...some grandma doesn't want to download/burn/install Ubuntu, and again, doesn't know/care about DRM, OSS, or anything else. She knows that she clicks the IE icon, little Johnny's facebook page comes up, and she can see pictures. Why is greed not bad sometimes? Because it drives companies to be more profitable, stock prices to go up, etc. Is it ALWAYS a good thing? No...but it's not always a BAD thing either.

How does MS "shut out" the open source community? Answer: they don't, because they CAN'T. There is no board of directors, management committee, etc. for OSS, and the leadership there is would welcome MS's involvement....if it didn't also come with strings attached to it, and that's where the problem is. Neither the OSS leadership nor MS is going to budge on that one way or the other, so they each do their own things.

Sorry. Perhaps I mistook you. Do you just tend to argue with people in general?

Are you talking about any specific examples?

Yes, SigTerm does that. When he pisses me off enough he will go on my ignore list.

That makes good sense. But have folks in the Linux camp firmly promoted distributing machines with Linux pre-installed? Or are there contracts between the hardware makers themselves and Msoft that preclude this? Why, in your opinion, has Linux not been a match to Windows in that market?

On your other note, I still don't get this "trolling" thing.

Yes, but only if something interesting (new info, new tactic, unusual opinion, etc) might happen during argument.

IMO, on a "computer" there are high expectations. "consumer" expects to be able to run ANY windows software they want without any problems. Linux can't do it yet. I think opensource developers will have more luck making anything that is not a personal computer - gadgets, appliances, (maybe) cellphones/smartphones, routers, robots, toys, military hardware. I.e. any area without a set "standard behavior"/user expectations. Trying to fit into desktop market now will be too difficult, plus it is too late - "average" people have high expectations that are hard to fullfill. In my experience KDE pretty much illustrates problems associated with linux trying to get into desktop market: KDE has plenty of software built in, but a lot of it looks like a cheap rip-off or a mock-up of a commercial programs, sometimes hilarious bugs are present (I still remember a Krita version without eraser instrument).

Chaotic development, lack of goal/vision, inability to cater to tastes of larger user base.

Well, recently I've been studying XML, and I've run into the incompatibility issues between IE and other browsers with DOM documents and XSLT translations using javaScript. I just thought, "this is stupid, again." And then I thought, there are still workarounds, however clumsy they may be. So, ultimately, the technologies are compatible, but not seamless. I guess I just thought in order for them to be compatible at all, MSofts code being secret, they must be conforming, or they must have conformed on some points along the way. Right or wrong?

Yes, they have, several times. Again, re-read what I and others have said before. Grandma doesn't WANT to learn anything new...a choice in OS? Nope, don't want that. Dell tried it, and hardly any got out the door, because hardly anyone wanted it pre-loaded. Again, the ones who KNOW load it themselves. The ones who DON'T, use Windows. That's why Linux doesn't 'match' Windows in the desktop OS market, as has been said several times. The hardware makers have deals with MS to custom brand their Windows, and get HUGE discounts on it...in return, MS gets to be on all their desktops. Market forces at work...stock prices rise, etc.

Any amount of basic research on this would explain it all.
Yes, I realize that.

Thanks for letting me know that about you SigTerm. I'll try to remember that. If I object in this vein again, I would appreciate if you should remind me.

Okay, but probably sooner than later, she's clicks, and "breaks her computer." That only happens on MSoft for the most part (at least in my experience). Surely the average computer user knows how frustrating computing can be. What they don't know is how smooth Linux usually operates and how convenient it is in comparison to Windows.

Maybe the next Linux campaign should be small startups, putting out Linux systems, with guaranteed fixes and service at their storefronts for a very reasonable annual service fee. Such as these would have a much steeper "discount" on any software that their customers may need than Microsoft vendors. Just a thought.

lol!

You are STILL missing the point. They don't CARE. They know Windows, and are NOT INTERESTED in learning ANYTHING new. The ones who are, do so, and don't need to be coddled, coaxed, or bribed into doing something different...they just DO IT.
Not thought this out too well, have you? Your idea to put Linux on desktops involves people PAYING for what they can get for free? And how, exactly, are you going to sell someone on the idea of an "annual maintenance fee" on a computer they already own? They don't do that with MS now, do they? They buy the PC, and that's it. And before you troll more about "well, they pay for anti virus! etc.", yes, but the PERCEPTION will be that they don't pay a maintenance fee, and if they need to take their PC to an 'expert', it's more complicated, and complications are scary. Windows is familiar.

And where are the PC's going to come from? Building them from parts isn't a 'brand'...see again, familiarity and comfort-in-whats-known. I buy Vaio laptops..had good luck with them for many years. There may be others that are BETTER, but unless I know someone I TRUST that has one, and I've seen it in action, I won't switch to an 'unknown', any more than most others will do so with no point of reference. And to sell a computer cheap enough to make a profit, you'll have to use crap hardware, which will take the reliability of the OS out of the equation...if the hardware breaks, the computer is down, just as much as it's down if you get a Windows blue screen.

Guess I'm just of the school of thought that believes, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Also, I'm thinking, "very nominal fee," as in, less than just the cost of your virus upgrade.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if I'm echoing a sentiment that someone else has also stated.....

It largely comes down to the consumer. If the consumer (Be he a corporation or individual) is willing to buy MS products (Whether out-right or by purchasing products that come with MS crap preloaded) , then that is all they need. And they have used nefarious business practices to guarantee that the consumer will be offered practically nothing except for their own products, and even think them "indespensible", no matter how crappy they are.

Someone buys their first computer at Wal*Mart...it comes with Windows....they learn Windows...Windows is all they knoiw...it's familiar....when they have a "computer problem" they don't realize that they are having a Windows problem...they think it's their computer...they eventually get a new computer...with Windows installed...or upgrade to a newer version of Windows if keeping their old computer, because "the current Windows OS is great and all the previous ones are junk"[until the next incarnation is released, then the current one becomes garbage and the newer one is the good one!).

Most don't even realize that there are alternatives to Windows...and even if they did, they'd stick with Windows, because it's familiar.

Thank goodness there's a real alternative for those of us who care.