Subject: Re: the .NET battle ends
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:52:00 -0700
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:52:00 -0700
on Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 02:28:43AM -0700, Tom Lord ( wrote:
> Three ideas are floating around on this list that are almost certainly
> wrong:
> 	Wrong idea #1:
> 	MS modified Passport because they were forced to capitulate.

I'm not saying this.  Or rather, I did, but checked myself.

> 	Wrong idea #2:
> 	MS is losing in some markets and just generally falling to
> 	pieces.  They came out with an "open" .NET in an attempt to
> 	avoid further antitrust prosecution, and to make nice with the
> 	rest of the tech industry.  We should like .NET cause it gives
> 	us a bunch of labor-saving specs to implement.

Microsoft risks failure.  Actually, it risks failing to grow and elevate
its stock price.  The latter has actually been happening for some time
now.  Revenues continue to climb.

I do see the company struggling for direction.  Not that it doesn't do
this as a matter of routine, but the struggle seems a bit more frantic,
and a bit less fruitful, than in the past.

> 	Wrong idea #3:
> 	SSSCA and similar legislative efforts are simply attacks on
> 	Free and Open Source software.

Not simply attacks on free software and open source.  But very effective
ones.  There's a confluence of interests, however.

The reason to be cautious of effects of legislation on free software is
this:  free software really couldn't care less whether or not Microsoft
lived or died.  Absent its efforts to exert influence on the rest of the
industry, the fact that the company exists doesn't matter to me.
There's the small matter of the fact that it does exert influence on the
rest of the industry, and has violated antitrust laws in doing so.


Karsten M. Self <>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave                    Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire            

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]