Wal-Mart Online Music Store -- WMA, $0.88 for every song

[Asher]

Apparently Ballmer did say "Linux is a cancer" in 2001. My apologies.

Though Ballmer is notorious for exaggerating. Microsoft's official position is the GPL and similar licenses are "viral" in that if any piece of GPL code "infects" a commercial product, the entire product must be open sourced under the GPL.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Doesn't it frustrate you as an end-user when the company who makes the products you use artificially and intentionally restricts you from shopping at other online stores?

None of the online stores I know of offer high-quality Vorbis files for 10 cents a pop anyways.

The way I see things, WMA is a threat to open exchange of information much like electing Hitler is a threat to democracy.^-^

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
None of the online stores I know of offer high-quality Vorbis files for 10 cents a pop anyways.

The way I see things, WMA is a threat to open exchange of information much like electing Hitler is a threat to democracy.^-^

WMA isn't a threat to open exchange of information, because DRM is optional.

There is not supposed to be an open exchange of information with copyright-protected material, hence why DRM exists.

People who are anti-DRM are either incomprehensibly stupid, intolerably naive, or simply trolls.

[St Leo]

Oooh, can I be intolerably naive? Please? Pretty please?

I guess DRM could be tolerable if DMCA were repealed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

WMA isn't a threat to open exchange of information, because DRM is optional.

Of course, it will remain so for eternity. We can count on Microsoft.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Of course, it will remain so for eternity. We can count on Microsoft.

Of course it will remain so for eternity. If future versions such as WMA10 make DRM mandatory (stupid, not feasable, but I'm just supposing), people would just continue to use WMA9.

Simple, isn't it?

[Agathon]

Doesn't the EULA of Windows XP have a sub clause that says, "If this product causes complete system failure, Microsoft will not be liable and I will realize that I have been ****ed in the ass"?

Wait... every software EULA says that.

But Microsoft are better, they follow through on the promise.

[Fake Boris]

Monopolies in the domain of computing are a threat to the free exchange of information - much more so than non-monopolies, in any case.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Monopolies in the domain of computing are a threat to the free exchange of information - much more so than non-monopolies, in any case.

The problem is, this is a nice sweeping philosophical statement but it doesn't make much sense if you care to think about it.

Most of the server apps out there (which distribute information) are not Microsoft products.

Screw the high-level philosophy and get to the real meat -- give me an example of how Microsoft is a "threat to the free exchange of information". Not hypothetical doomsday crap, tell me using facts and figures of what can be supported by evidence.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Of course it will remain so for eternity. If future versions such as WMA10 make DRM mandatory (stupid, not feasable, but I'm just supposing), people would just continue to use WMA9.

Simple, isn't it?

Yes, especially since Microsoft is bound to make it easy to downgrade for computer illiterates who buy new boxes.

[Agathon]

Hysterical doomsday crap.

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
Yes, especially since Microsoft is bound to make it easy to downgrade for computer illiterates who buy new boxes.

Why would a computer illiterate know or care what DRM is?

DRM is seamless to people. You can still burn it, you can still transfer it to your MP3 players.

The only people throwing a hissy fit about DRM are zit-faced internet pirates, zit-faced tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists, and zit-faced morons who don't know what they're talking about.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem is, this is a nice sweeping philosophical statement but it doesn't make much sense if you care to think about it.

Let's see.

Most of the server apps out there (which distribute information) are not Microsoft products.

Your point is that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Which pretty much implies that you agree on the danger posed by monopolies - your strategy is to demonstrate that Microsoft is not one.
BTW, that has always been Gates' mantra: he never cared to defend the idea of a monopoly, but he has always claimed that Microsoft isn't one.

Screw the high-level philosophy and get to the real meat -- give me an example of how Microsoft is a "threat to the free exchange of information". Not hypothetical doomsday crap, tell me using facts and figures of what can be supported by evidence.

First, I'm quite surprised by your statement about server software. Didn't you bring the numbers a few weeks ago to demonstrate that Microsoft had the larger market share in server OSes?

The theory about Microsoft is simple. Sociology tells us (with nice proofs) that means of communication are the driving force behind history. Study of capitalism shows that markets tend towards consolidation. Current facts are: Microsoft is a big fatass insanely rich company, that has the potential ability to achieve unprecedented control over means of communications (i.e., the software behind the hardware). By virtue of market consolidation, it very likely will.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Screw the high-level philosophy and get to the real meat -- give me an example of how Microsoft is a "threat to the free exchange of information". Not hypothetical doomsday crap, tell me using facts and figures of what can be supported by evidence.

Blah blah blah. Doc/xls/ppt undocumented. Vast troves of documents will become unopenable once Microsoft goes out of business and hardware capable of running current applications becomes hard to come by.

Recent patent on their ripoff of SVG/XUL.

A truly thorough DRM scheme would be used by RIAA/MPAA to squelch independent competitors.

Recent patent on FAT. NTFS still undocumented.

I guess the fact that IE doesn't understand HTML, CSS, Javascript, or PNG can't count because anyone can install a browser.

Ach, whatever. I'm going to sleep.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Let's see.

Your point is that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Which pretty much implies that you agree on the danger posed by monopolies - your strategy is to demonstrate that Microsoft is not one.

My strategy is to demonstrate that the comment is not relevant.

I'm of the camp that believes if Microsoft was truly a monopoly, there would be no Linux and there would be no Apple. I'm always continually perplexed by morons who chant about how everyone should switch to Linux -- clearly implying a choice -- while at the same time claiming Microsoft is a monopoly, leaving no room for choice.

First, I'm quite surprised by your statement about server software. Didn't you bring the numbers a few weeks ago to demonstrate that Microsoft had the larger market share in server OSes?

Server OSes SOLD.

I was speaking about the actual applications which distribute the information -- the HTTP Servers (which run on both Windows and *nix). Apache is far and away the #1 HTTP server.

The theory about Microsoft is simple.

Did you miss the very obvious part telling you to not bother with theory and high-level crap?

The reason everyone keeps going back to those in anti-MS arguments is they have nothing else. They're relegated to "what-ifs", which is hardly substance for a real argument.