Re: My Migrations
- From: Richard <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 1, 12:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"tlmfru" <la...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
More to the point: all the target facilities are Microsoft products (I
think - correct me if I'm wrong). Is it really a good diea to convert all
the world to a proprietary product?
Yes.
Particularly Microsoft!Yes.
There would be much less wars and terrorism in this world if everyone
had the same religion, therefore it is a really good idea to convert
everyone to just one. Actually the wars and terrorism are because that
is what (some of them) are trying to do.
The problem with 'converting all to one product' is that then it does
not need to improve at all. eg IE won the browser wars with IE6. Not
because it was a good product but because it was on every machine sold
and was good enough. If Firefox hadn't come along there would have
been no IE7 oe IE8. If Firefox wasn't GPL MS would have simply bought
the company and buried it.
For all the
virtues of their products, they owe their dominance to superior marketing
and the bandwagon effect, rather than to technical superioirty.
I'd dispute that. We used to say the same about IBM in the old days. In this
part of the world it's called "tall poppy syndrome", but it is based on envy
rather than a dispassionate evaluation.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome)
I agree with your dispute. MS has crap marketing. They owe their
dominance to contractual superiority: to 'per box pricing' and
'loyalty discounts'. For example: if Dell/Gateway etc offer a
particular model with "Windows, Linux, or BeOS" they lose a million
dollar discount which is only given if _all_ machines of one model are
Windows.
If a competitor looks like gaining market share they simply buy them,
or release a product for free (eg IE) or cheap or bundled so the
competitor can't sell any.
The fact is that MicroSoft DID have some bad products and they still have
some poor products, but .NET is NOT one of those. And the difference is that
when you have the resources they have, you can get the best people and
improve the poor products. Anders Hejlsberg was bought from Borland to
provide C#, for example. I don't think he has ever regretted moving to
MicroSoft. Now he gets to do things he could only dream about before. He has
the resources he needs to implement dreams and we are all better off because
of it. He is not the only one, I'm just citing him as an example.
The only reason that MS made .NET (actually for years MS never knew
what .NET was supposed to be, it was a brand looking for a product)
was because Java was becoming successful and MS couldn't take control
of it. They couldn't buy Sun, they couldn't make their version take
over (they tried), so as a last resort they bought in Anders to build
something under the .NET brand.
Of course this has made Java improve too.
This is why it should _NOT_ be all one proprietary product, there
would be no reason to improve, ever.
My own experience with MS products has been one of consistent improvement..
After 25 years.
Vista has faults (most of them were enforced onto MS by pressure groups) but
they are being addressed,
'Pressure groups' ? MS has a business model that relies on
continually increasing revenue to keep the share price up. This allows
it to dilute the stock and pay its employees partly in share options.
This means that it saves cash (printing shares is 'free') and yet can
reduce its tax bill by counting the shares as payments.
It was easy when the PC market share was increasing but when the
market became saturated MS needed new markets: Servers, PDAs, Game
consoles, MP3 players, ...
MS wanted a share of the entertainment business, charging for music
and movie distribution. They needed to assure the movie industry that
they could control distribution and have them _only_ distribute via
MS.
What they forgot about, again, was the users. Most users do not want
DRM, when the company goes down the user loses their rights. Users
just want something that works like a CD does - without DRM crap.
I suppose 'pressuse groups' may be such as Dell and Gateway, ie MS's
customers. They wanted a new OS that required hardware upgrades.
Something that only needed the same hardware as XP, but was more
efficient would be useless to MS's customers (OEMs). Preferably it
would be 64 bit only so they _had_ to buy new everything.
Actually MS did announce that the next one after Vista would be 64bit
only so that people would buy more expensive machines this time
around.
and Windows 7 will be better.
"The Best Operating System in the World" is the next one from
Microsoft, the worst one is the previous release.
Note that Windows 7 is likely to just be "Vista fixed" rather than the
completely new thing they promised (just as they have promised Cairo
since 1992). MS simply need to dump the Vista brand to overcome the
stigma but it needs a workover too so that it isn't obvious.
(If it isn't then
I'll exercise an option and move to LAMP. Note that the fact that MicroSoft
is a monopoly does not preclude me doing that...).
The _only_ reason that Linux is an option to you is the GPL. If they
could have bought out the copyright holder(s) they would have and then
buried it. If Linux relied on OEMs they could have buried them as they
did with DRI, BeOS and many others.
The next revenue area for MS is the PC hardware itself. Or more
particularly the XPC. It is likely that a box based on XBox with
locked down BIOS so it will only run Windows is the next growth area
for MS. Instead of merely taking 15% - 20% of Dell/Gateway revenue
they can take 100% by building MS branded PCs and reserving the best
features for themselves while undercutting the prices until the OEMs
collapse.
In other words taking a leaf from Apple.
Meantime, XP with SP3 is
the first OS I have had on a PC that I am totally happy with. It has never
crashed or BSODed and it does what I expect of it.
Wow, 1981 to 2007, as quick as that.
No wonder you don't move to Vista, no wonder few move to Vista and/or
many go back to XP.
MS's major competitor has always been 'the previous version'. I expect
SP4 to ensure that you _beg_ for Windows 7 ;-)
Actually they will simply have .NET 4 on Windows 7 and not on XP and
your stuff won't run anymore.
This is not to say that there is anything wrong with Linux or Unix or other
non-MS OSes either. It is just that being anti MS because they are big, or a
monopoly, is, well, stupid...
No. It is not _because_ they are big or even a monopoly, it is _how_
they got to be a monopoly.
For example: Europe has united as the EEC and is big and is a good
thing (generally). It had been united previously and was even bigger
in the 1940s. The eastern part was also united in the 1950 and 60s.
Perhaps you may see some similarity of MS to the methods of one of
these, or perhaps you have only read the 'official histories'
published by MS marketing.
.NET was/is a fantastic concept and the implementation of it has borne out
the promise. Until you actually work with it you can't really understand why
it is important. It is a truly level playing field that allows all OO
languages to interact seamlessly...even COBOL. Apart from that it provides
programmers with many thousands of easy-to-use functions and components.
However, people who can't even see the importance of Object Orientation are
unlikely to recognize the value of such a platform. The fact that the non-MS
camp has produced an equivalent in Mono should indicate that the concept is
important. (Mono, BTW, is an excellent implementation. However it doesn't
yet have InterOP services (so COBOL can't play on it, unless it is COBOL for
.NET) or LINQ and will lag behind .NET until it does.)
It isn't the "non-MS camp" that has produced Mono. It is 'supported'
by MS and given a cover of independence. MS has paid Novell hundreds
of millions by various means. Of course Mono will be always a release
behind to ensure that it always unable to run important stuff so you
have to buy Windows eventually.
C# can run on either platform (or both). It is something that hasbeen
talked about for decades and never satisfactorily implemented, until now.
Actually Java has been doing that for years. It even runs on my Nokia
hand held. Acu Cobol has been doing it for decades, MF got close. UCSD
did it in the 70s.
I have taken Python/Glade applications and put them on Linux, Windows,
my Nokia, ASUS eee, with zero changes.
I get a bit tired of people slagging off MS when they don't really
understand or use their most significant technical products. I really don't
care about their applications like Office; if you prefer Open Office, go for
it. I use MS Office 2003 and will probably move to Office 2007 at some
point. It is easy to go with the flow, when it comes to applications. When
it comes to technical development, it is a different story.
MicroSoft provides a bunch of languages that integrate to .NET, an IDE that
is second to none (Visual Studio), has encouraged MILLIONS of young people
to get into programming and provided free support, tutorials, and forums
for them, and they have made it all available for FREE.
Of course it is 'free' as in beer, but it is not 'free' as in speech.
They had to make it no-cost because otherwise developers would use
Java or Python. It is like IE had to be free to drive Mozilla out of
the market.
Of course it will require you and your clients to buy each latest
version of Windows and use Windows servers.
Did your COBOL vendor ever do that? Even IBM at the height of their power
never gave anyting away.
No, but then the anti-trust laws meant something in those days. MS has
been convicted and is still being prosecuted but they just lobby and
donate their congressmen and ignore the laws.
Yet, is "only because they want to market .NET".
No. They want the world to buy Windows, and all MS software. If they
could achieve that _and_ have people pay for .NET they would do so.
However, there are other systems that can do enough that are free
so .NET needs to compete at that price level.
Wanna know a secret? .NET
would have gained acceptance whether they provided languages and an IDE for
it, for free, or not.
Of course it would. MS C++ plus VS used to cost quite a bit but still
sold significant quantity. Java killed that off. MS had to out-Java
Java otherwise it would lose its market to a genuine cross-platform
system and it wouldn't matter whether you used Windows or someone
else's OS.
C#/.NET would have a good market share if it cost money, but MS wants
100% market share, it could only get that by giving it away, and by
paying Novell to pretend it would be cross-platform.
Having a language independent framework is just too
important for developers to not use it.
Most developers use just one main language. In any case Java VM
supports dozens of languages too.
Developers would pay for the
products (and do, to get full and comprehensive functionality).
Nevertheless, I don't deny that giving people the chance to program for it,
and making it really easy to do so, has helped promote it. So they made a
good business decision, but we all benefit from it.
Of course the trail of MS's ex-partners left dead in the wake haven't
'benefited' from MS's business decisions.
It doesn't matter what they do, in some quarters they will always be wrong.
It has been said that "What's good for Microsoft is good for America".
That usually means it is bad for the rest of the world.
If they join or support a standards body it is because they are "seeking to
manipulate it".
They paid ECMA to write and fast-track OOXML, they paid their partners
to pack the meetings, they _did_ manipulate the ISO process. This is
documented, it really happened.
Nobody ever seems to give them any credit for having any
integrity.
This is business, MS has never shown any integrity at all.
Rather than being thankful, or even acknowledging that they have
done much to bring computer programming to the masses, we get people just
bashing them because they are MicroSoft.
Not _because_ they are Microsoft, but because of their business
practices. You obviously only read magazines that depend on MS
advertising revenue.
Interestingly I have some where here the Toyota edition of Road &
Track. This was the early 70s and it reviewed Toyota cars, did
technical analyses and basically raved about Toyota. As a respected
publication it established the market for that brand in the US.
Toyota had 'bought the issue'. They paid the editors, the publishers
the printing costs, the distribution, they sold the advertising and
collected the revenue. It may have had Road & Track on the cover but
it was, as admitted later by R&T, a Toyota publication.
Microsoft does that too.
Bottom line: .NET and C# are the RIGHT choice for Lee's Migration target. At
least for the foreseeable future.
You and Lee are entitled to make those choices of course.
But you completely misunderstand and misrepresent why mine would be
different.
And I DO
believe there have been problems reported with at least some of their
products. I don't need to spell out all the disadvantages of a monopoly.
You do for me... Have you considered the advantages of a monopoly? Sure we
all like to have a choice, but a monopoly doesn't necessarily preclude that.
Yet. They would, however, like to preclude that. IE was done to drive
Mozilla out of business so that they could not be a choice (mainly
because Mozilla was talking about 'cloud computing' back then). They
drove BeOS out of business so it would not be a choice (by paying OEMs
to _not_ install BeOS). They drove DR-DOS out of business (by bundling
Win3 with MS-DOS at the price of MS-DOS and by per-box pricing) so
that it would not be a choice.
They would like to make Linux 'illegal' so that it is not a choice
too.
Apple they need to keep around to 'prove' they are not a monopoly in
any anti-trust case.
Rather than just wave the banner of "Everybody knows..." why not sit down
and look at some of the benefits that can be provided by a monopoly? I was
taught that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
government. I still don't want to live in one. But I won't argue against it
on the grounds that "Everybody knows dictatorships are bad."
A monopoly or a dictatorship does not need to do _anything_. XP and
IE6 was the product for 7 years because 'better' was not needed.
Without Linux and Firefox there would have been no SP3 or IE7 or
Vista. No, wait, there would have been Vista because MS wants to
control the distribution of entertainment, and take a cut of that
revenue.
It is the final resort when arguing against MS... "Well, it's a
monopoly...we don't need to spell out how bad that is..."
Actually you seem to know nothing of why some disagree with
monopolies.
Nothing lasts forever. C# and .NET will someday be superceded. Not that
that matters - presumably Microsoft will provide migration tools - but
WHAT
IF the next best paradigm comes from IBM or Univac or even from some
outfit
that doesn't exist yet?
And WHAT IF people had bought Betamax instead of VHS? Ever wondered why
they didn't? We don't always get the products and services that we want. We
invariably get the ones we deserve. (It's a bit like Governments in a
Democracy, really...)
Good example. They bought VHS because it was not controlled by a
single company as Betamax was. Even though VHS was inferior it was
good enough and it was available from several companies who competed
with each other.
The same problem existed with HD and BlueRay. It was about control and
whether the media and the machines were available from multiple
vendors. At the moment it seems that DVD has won the battle and both
HD and Blueray will fail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: My Migrations
- References:
- Re: My Migrations
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: My Migrations
- Prev by Date: Re: date processing in z/OS
- Next by Date: Re: date processing in z/OS
- Previous by thread: Re: My Migrations
- Next by thread: Re: My Migrations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
