Rockin' on without Microsoft

C/Net ^ | 8/20/2003 | David Becker

[Bush2000]

How's your IBM stock doing, Nick...?

[Southack]

"And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one."

These sorts of things kill me. My little company makes a fair amount of money each year, and we're a MicroSoft shop.

But our clients are screaming about things like the lack of official corporate support for old versions of OS's, languages, tools, etc.

And it isn't just that MicroSoft is dropping their support for their old versions, there are also enormous backwards compatibility issues. Got some applications out there that are working fine, but using old Access 97 db's (and worse, due to MicroSoft's OS architecture, using the old dll's)? Well, tough because someone just upgraded to Access 2000 and converted a working mdb file, so now your old, fully functioning, bulletproof proprietary software isn't working any longer because it can't read its own database due to the new Access 2000 format.

Got software written in Visual Basic 6? Well tough, the new Dot Net isn't backwards compatible with it.

And it's more than just a lack of support combined with a lack of backwards compatibility.

Install your default copy of Windows 2000 and your ports are left open by default, meaning that it takes about 20 seconds for the Blaster virus to hit you with an RPC call before you can even download a ZoneAlarm firewall to stop such hacks. Want to preview your email? Tough, because the MicroSoft default is to execute scripts in those preview panels as soon as your new email message arrives.

And then there is rebooting. Oh. My. GOD! Make the slightest change, or heaven forbid, actually add a device, program, or driver, and off you go into the world of rebooting Windows.

MicroSoft is so successful, of course, that it's difficult to gain any traction criticizing them. In my case, I want to see changes that will make the businesses of my clients run smoother, faster, cheaper, more efficient, and safer (and the changes that I ask them for wouldn't exactly hurt my own lifestyle, either). But I haven't made as much money as Gates, so I must not have any credibility on the matter, right?!

The sad thing is that I'm on the same business side as Gates. I don't want to see some new Indian OS, browser, and utilities come out in some unexpected marketing Blitz that wipes out my business before I have even a change to change to compete.

I need MicroSoft to be successful. MicroSoft's flaws are a direct threat to my bottom line, but yet it wouldn't take that much effort on their part to clean up the existing software (changing defaults on ports, for example, isn't asking for the Moon), legacize rather than abandon support of the old tools, and move towards an architecture that doesn't rely upon the ridiculous and completely unneeded Registry and re-booting.

Some of my clients are large, and some are quite small, but none of them are willing to throw out 2 year old PC's, 2 year old proprietary software, and 3 year old OS's just to "upgrade" to a new system that requires proprietary software re-writes, faster PC's, and keeps the hated flaws of the worst of the old products' beahvior (e.g. having to reboot after an installation). None of my clients want to hear that their current OS's and off-the-shelf tools are no longer going to be "supported", even if they would never use the support. This has to do with corporate liability, among other things.

In short, there was a point in time where K-Mart never saw Wal-Mart coming, and I don't want MicroSoft to be so self-absorbed that it drags my firm into a Blue Light Special sale.

Just a few changes. A few tweaks and MSFT can remain dominant for another two decades, but without them...

Who knows.

[supercat]

I didn't mean to steal your car. It was purely accidental.

There have been cases in which people have accidentally used their key to enter and, in some cases, start a car that wasn't theres. Indeed, I've even once accidentally unlocked the wrong car once (same make, model, and color as mine, but it didn't have my stuff in the console); when I noticed my stuff wasn't in the console I figured out it was the wrong car, got out, and used my key to relock it.

If someone is driving a stolen car, odds are a claim that it's "accidental" is apt to be met with some skepticism. If, however, there are facts to back up the claim (e.g. the person in wrongful possession of the car has rightful ownership of a car of the same make, model, color, keying, and interior decoration/contents, and the latter car is in the parking lot from which the wrongfully-possessed car was taken) my impression is that such mistakes do not result in any sort of prosecution.

[TheEngineer]

One of the things I really don't like about MicroSoft is that they are cutting off support for older OSs. This is known as "holding a gun to the end user's head".

Everybody cuts support for older OSs. It's a fact of life. If a company offered "infinite support", they'd have to sell the product at a prohibitive price. But let's shed some daylight on your statement.

I've been using Windows2000-Pro, with free security patch support, for 3.5 years. Microsoft has announced that security patch support for Win2000 will end ~2007. That's 7 years of security patch support.

In contrast, RedHat announced that their security patch support for any distribution will end 12 months after release.

As is usually the case, you get what you pay for.

[justlurking]

Irrelevant. The owner is responsible for having a license for software installed on a machine -- even if the software isn't used.

That's correct. But, if the software was left there inadvertantly and isn't being used, it's effectively vacates any accusation of willful violation.

Straw man. You don't know whether the clerical staff even touched the computers. Maybe they were incompetent morons who felt more comfortable with typewriters. Or maybe they installed another word processor (WordPerfect), etc. Or maybe they dual-booted into DOS because they were afraid of Windows. Whatever. It's an unanswerable and unproveable contention on your part.

It's no more or less answerable or proveable than your contention that the violation was willful. If you don't like speculation, that's fine. But, that standard goes both ways: you can't engage in speculation yourself and expect it to be accepted as fact.

It wasn't an attack. I sincerely wanted to determine whether you were under the influence of illegal narcotics at the time you posted.

BS. But, I've given you fair warning: keep it up, and you'll be history.

As long as they choose open-source...

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I regularly recommend proprietary solutions from other vendors to support my specific specialty, because they meet the need better than anything else. My own company sells a significant suite of software that is proprietary.

But, I've also written significant amounts of software that require an open-source program to interpret. It's already installed on most Unix systems, and is readily available (or buildable) for almost any system in widespread use today.

[LibKill]

As is usually the case, you get what you pay for.

Fair enough, TAASTAAFL.

Linux is user supported. I'm starting to think that it might be worth my time to become a Linux Geek. And that would be hard work in my case.

FReegards, FRiend.

[Bush2000]

That's correct. But, if the software was left there inadvertantly and isn't being used, it's effectively vacates any accusation of willful violation.

Irrelevant. Nobody is trying to prosecute these people criminally. The BSA is trying to get the companies to make restitution for software that they're not entitled to be running.

It's no more or less answerable or proveable than your contention that the violation was willful.

See above.

BS. But, I've given you fair warning: keep it up, and you'll be history.

Release your anger, Jedi. It only makes me stronger.

[justlurking]

If he forgot to pay his taxes, would that be considered incompetence? If he forgot to pay the electric bill, would that be okay? How about forgetting to pay payroll taxes? How about not realizing that it's illegal to dump toxic waste in a public park? Is that okay, too?

Sorry, I went for the preview button and missed. So, I'll address this last point separately.

If he forgot to pay the electric bill or taxes, he would have received fair warning of his delinquency, rather than someone showing up at the door with guns.

And, your toxic waste example is a strawman, because it requires a willful violation of a law that only a 6-year-old wouldn't know about.

You're willing to bend over backwards for the guy on software. I'm just trying to understand how much idiocy you consider acceptable.

I'd like to see evidence of willful violation, or at least a widespread violation, rather than a few dozen unlicensed ones among hundreds of separate applications, or more than 6 of 72 desktops.

What about you? If you forget to pay your electric bill, is it acceptable for the utility to shut off your power without any prior notice? Do you ever make a mistake? Can you live up to your own standards for perfection?

And, you keep dodging my question: would your company survive a BSA audit without uncovering any violations, inadvertant or otherwise?

[Coral Snake]

I have been a participant on these "flame wars" in the tech
threads of FR for about two weeks now. As far as the subject of banning is concerned the fact is that if ALL the abuse of the FR posting policy ON BOTH sides was reported
that all the members of BOTH SIDES would probably be banned.
I think it is really time to cool it.

[justlurking]

Irrelevant. Nobody is trying to prosecute these people criminally. The BSA is trying to get the companies to make restitution for software that they're not entitled to be running.

$65,000 in fines plus $35,000 in legal fees for a few dozen unused applications on 6 out of 72 PC's is a lot more than "restitution".

Release your anger, Jedi. It only makes me stronger.

Now that's funny. You seem to have more than your share of postings removed by the AM's. I think you are confusing increasing bitterness with strength.

[supercat]

If they were intentionally stealing software, the number of unlicensed programs and non-compliant desktops would have been much higher

Irrelevant and unprovable supposition.

In places that don't mind software piracy, there will seldom be more than one licensed copy of anything. For places that do mind, there will be pretty close to one license per person. There isn't that huge a middle ground.

One of the big problems is that, in an era where Borland's No-Nonsense License (which debutted with Turbo Pascal 3.0) is more and more necessary, it becomes less and less used.

Essentially, the No Nonsense License states that a piece of software may be used "like a book". Just as one book may be read in many places, so too a piece of software may exist on many machines. On the other hand, just as a book may only be read by one person at a time (unless two people are reading the same page together), so too may software only (legally) be used by one person at a time, unless two people are sharing a computer.

The fact of the matter is that since copyright law and software licenses would be unworkable if enforced literally(*), honest people generally act as though Borland's licensing terms are the ones in effect. This applies not only to computer application software, but also to such things as music. If the software and music industries would recognize this, I think they'd be much more respected.

(*) As a simple example, the copyright statutes explicitly allow only a single backup copy of software to be made under "fair use" statutes. Consequently, anyone who does a full disk backup of their system would be violating copyright if they didn't destroy the old backup copies before producing new ones. Since such a policy would be insane for a number of reasons (not the least of which are (1) the legitimate need for backups from different times, in case it's discovered that a file was corrupted or altered sometime before the last backup; (2) the difficulty, when using many forms of backup media, of expurgating only selected files; (3) the danger of the primary hard drive failing sometime between the destruction of the old one and the successful and complete creation of the new one). Such a policy would thus be insane and unreasonable, and yet it would be precisely what strict copyright compliance would require.

If the BSA or RIAA were interested in trying to promote goodwill compliance with copyright, they'd get a lot more respect. Instead, however, they regard as theft behavior which is necessary and proper and thus dilute their legitimate claims of theft.

[Bush2000]

If he forgot to pay the electric bill or taxes, he would have received fair warning of his delinquency, rather than someone showing up at the door with guns.

And if he didn't realize that his company was [hypothetically] pirating cable -- or stealing electricity? Do you suppose the marshals might show up?

[Bush2000]

$65,000 in fines plus $35,000 in legal fees for a few dozen unused applications on 6 out of 72 PC's is a lot more than "restitution".

May that be a lesson to you.

[Bush2000]

If the BSA or RIAA were interested in trying to promote goodwill compliance with copyright, they'd get a lot more respect. Instead, however, they regard as theft behavior which is necessary and proper and thus dilute their legitimate claims of theft.

They were acting on a solid lead from an ex-employee. This wasn't a random search.

[justlurking]

I think it is really time to cool it.

If you really mean that, then it's time to demonstrate your committment to it. You can start by knocking off your postings like this, this, and this, and this.

When you do so, I'll believe you are sincere. Otherwise, don't waste your breath.

[justlurking]

And if he didn't realize that his company was [hypothetically] pirating cable -- or stealing electricity? Do you suppose the marshals might show up?

You are changing your story again. You asked:

If he forgot to pay the electric bill, would that be okay?

As I pointed out earlier, he would be given notice if he was delinquent in paying his electric bill. That's not theft, until he refuses to pay the bill.

[Bush2000]

You are changing your story again.

Catch up. I'm asking a new question.

[justlurking]

May that be a lesson to you.

Ah, so it's not about restitution after all.

Thank you, you have made my point: that the penalties imposed on this business owner were petty and vindictive.

[justlurking]

Catch up. I'm asking a new question.

Why? Because you didn't like the answer to the last ones?

[pointsal]

Thanks for the post.
I am sitting here after having spent two days with the computer-guru trying to get my sick system running again. Now, I have to deal with the re-install idiots at Microsoft.

Thanks again.....Linux looks better every day.