Windows XP and the Microsoft agenda - can it get worse?

[Korpo]

Unix/Linux-specific security exploits make up 4 of the 10 'Top10 threats to internet security' according to SANS, while Windows exploits make up a whopping 1 out of 10.

How (in)valid this claim actually is, is shown by all those internet worms MS is faced with. Call it Worm-dows!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
How (in)valid this claim actually is, is shown by all those internet worms MS is faced with. Call it Worm-dows!

Oh yeah?
How come my computer isn't ever infected with those worms?

Is it because I...*gasp* patch?

In fact, your whole argument is irrelevant because now, by default, EVERYONE patches whether they know it or not.

WinMe and WinXP automatically download critical updates in the background of your internet sessions and then notify the user to finish installing the patch after it's downloaded (involves clicking 'Okay').

Meanwhile, if I were running a Solaris box right now, I'd be pretty nervous.
But the whole Slashdot community seems to be trying to shove that under the rug. "Let's forget about it", they say. "We have bigger news: Microsoft released a patch for a possible exploit on WinXP! Who cares if the Solaris and AIX login (for root) exploits are still unpatched, XP has a patched one! HAHA M$ HAHA!"

Your whole attempt to make a point is laughable.

[Korpo]

So, if we stick to this habit of personal insults, your whole attempt to preach Windows on us "non-believers" is the only laughable thing here.

MS patch policy (let´s cover our source code, then cover what we know about security holes, and hastily release patches hoping nobody noticed it) isn´t exactly what I call "good". Sometimes they really use their "silent" approach to quickly produce patches, trying to avoid somebody exploits it before they can deliver. And sometimes they simply try to cover up their mess without releasing a patch, and somebody will notice (and perhaps abuse) that still. It´s simply not consistent.

Networked computers behind their own firewalls will not profit from autopatching. I remember reading that this was a major problem when dealing with worms. Installed MSIE had the feature, but cannot use it. Even more users then had problems with downloading correct patches for MSIE because of a confusing distribution policy.

Oh, well, and Solaris is no open-source Linux-equivalent, either. It is a commercial Unix, it is a niche product, and not by any standard comparable to Linux security. From your former posts I can read you should know better, but you are picking out this singular hole in a not-very-much-used Unix and try to make a point against Linux? This is bending the truth.

You should get your facts straight before arguing.

Yeah, you should.

[Korpo]

Now, this is truly a question:

Will there be only XP? I read they´ll drop ME, and XP is successor of 2000 which is successor of NT...

Well, if so, can you anyhow downscale XP to save ressources for using it as a server or is there "one version for all"?

[Asher]

Korpo: It's quite clear you're one of those people who absolutely think that open source leads to better and secure products. I honestly have no idea where people get that from, there's only one "superior" product out that that's open source: Apache. All other open source products are usually a step (or many) behind the closed course, commercial equivalent. You people also seem to forget the concept of support. While it is true open source doesn't mean free, it usually does.

In the end, you expect people to pay for something that's open source (meaning you CAN get it for free) just so they can get support out of it. Is that the reason why Linux is so much more difficult to use than Windows, so the Linux distro companies can make their money off of support?

Microsoft loses money on support, Linux makes money off of support. Funny how that works, also funny how that reflects in the ease-of-use departments.

Will there be only XP? I read they´ll drop ME, and XP is successor of 2000 which is successor of NT...

Well, if so, can you anyhow downscale XP to save ressources for using it as a server or is there "one version for all"?

If you don't know the answer to this question, why are you even trying to debate here?

There are 5 versions of XP, 2 of which are out now: Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional. The other 3 are in betas, and are going under the name "Windows .NET". They are Windows .NET Server, Windows .NET Advanced Server, and Windows .NET Datacenter.

The breakdown:
Consumer Desktop: Home Edition
Workstation/Power User: Professional
Small server: Server
Medium server: Advanced Server
Large server: Datacenter

Each one is built differently to support different things.

[Korpo]

If you don't know the answer to this question, why are you even trying to debate here?

Of course to be annoyed by answers that completely miss the point, most of them: yours.

In the end, you expect people to pay for something that's open source (meaning you CAN get it for free) just so they can get support out of it. Is that the reason why Linux is so much more difficult to use than Windows, so the Linux distro companies can make their money off of support?

No. Linux is evolving. And it evolved faster than anything before in the history of computing, or, IMO, anything else. Many Linux companies actually make money 2 things: Providing their own solutions for easing Linux (configuration tools, graphical frontends, etc.) and providing support for their distributions.

I guess I miss your point, but isn't it good, that you can get something for free? And isn't a basic truth in our modern societies, that if you lack a skill, you pay someone that does provide that skill?

Example: SuSE Linux. You pay for the box. You get a lot of documentation, you get support and you get the mediums as DVDs and CD-ROM it is on. Much cheaper than MS Windows XP. But it surely suffices for most of the tasks XP does, perhaps not for gaming (depends on your games preferences).

So SuSE makes money off their own tool software, support and providing documentation and a maintained distribution.

Let's compare what you can get for free: Debian. I'm using Debian 3.0 Woody testing release right now, and you cannot do that without being a "power user". Because it is a testing release, I actually needed to compile (yes, yes, you hate it) my accelerated Nvidia drivers, which I surely wouldn´t have had to in normal, stable dist. I'm doing configuring on command line / in conf files / with shell-based tools mostly. But I configured accelerated display with OpenGL, sound and multimedia support, and everything else I would need. Actually two thing don't run by now on my Debian, but on my Win98SE: My games and DivX. Soon enough I will be using DivX on Linux as well. I have StarOffice 6.0 for offfice productivity, XMMS for audio, etc. etc.

I got a fully working Linux for free (ok, 2.5 Euro for 5 CD-Rs). But it isn't surely the "mass-approach" to software, which other Linux dists seem to offer, as reviews for elx or the new Mandrake say, do.

Microsoft loses money on support, Linux makes money off of support. Funny how that works, also funny how that reflects in the ease-of-use departments.

Money MS wouldn't make, if it hadn't a monopoly. Let's repeat: MS OS monopoly lead to Office monopoly. There's simply no thing you can do in Office, that you can't with rival offices. OS monopoly leds to browser monopoly (and antitrust case). Browser monopoly is tried to be exploited to get server monopoly / to sell .NET (which is MS version of Java, that's why they put Java out of XP). All these monopolies should lead to a online ID monopoly (Passport) as well, and so on and so on.
Of course MS has lots of money, because they virtually blackmail anyone they have to do with. Their OEM license disallows rival OS to be preinstalled on any computer made by the PC manufacturers that houses Windows. So you virtually can't buy a Linux PC. And for every Windows-PC sold because of this ill business practice, MS earns more money.
These extortional methods of course do earn a lot of dough. And support is MS losing money, it's a little PR show for the average customer, so he doesn't get angry that he has no easy choice. MS is making money with Office, because they keep their document formats propietary (and we well know they aren't really backwards-compatible to their own old Office formats!).
Well, and ease-of-use.. you always forget that there is Apple, too.
MS isn't the only able to build ease-to-use computers. Apple has a better record for building reliable multimedia machines, and a free OS made it on the Mac as well. MacOS X is built on FreeBSD, as you surely know (actually it is a license rip-off). Its ease-of-use is well-documented, so where's you point.

MacOS is good for people who think the computer has little people inside it happily working away and thinking.

As if the average Windows user is any better.

All other open source products are usually a step (or many) behind the closed course, commercial equivalent.

They're usually younger. And other products as OpenOffice are worth mentioning as well, or XMMS (a highly configurable WinAmp replacement (even better)). Depends on what you want to do. I personally dislike GIMP, but it surely can replace Adobe and Paintshop.

Most of the commercial products, that are in a "decent" pricing category, don't offer much over their open source equivalents than a better-looking GUI. This isn't worth paying 50 $ or 200 $ to me...

Some other products you could use under Linux aren't open source, but available free of charge, and they do well, as for example opera, that beats MSIE in my point of view (especially the Windows version, that offers a decent mail and news client as well).

If you finally actually take a look, there aren't as many apps you are actually using... even in my "Windows times" I mainly used freeware, PD or shareware.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
No. Linux is evolving. And it evolved faster than anything before in the history of computing, or, IMO, anything else. Many Linux companies actually make money 2 things: Providing their own solutions for easing Linux (configuration tools, graphical frontends, etc.) and providing support for their distributions.

Linux is most certainly not evolving. Where did you get that idea?
Linux is a clone of Unix that's free and for the desktop. The design of Linux has "evolved" in the sense that it is far more usable now than it was 10 years ago, but also to the point where it's taking design things from Microsoft OSes. Linux itself (the kernel) is an antiquated design that relies on multiple processes to get real performance, the second you throw in heavy use of multi-threading the performance drops like a rock. The software that runs on Linux has been evolving, but only to the point where it tries to mimick what's already been established on the Windows platform.

Money MS wouldn't make, if it hadn't a monopoly. Let's repeat: MS OS monopoly lead to Office monopoly.

BZZT.
How can you possibly argue that? MS' OS monopoly lead to the Browser monopoly, but not Office. Office got a monopoly because MS encouraged users to give it to friends when it first started, and because it's the most full-featured office suite out there now.

There's simply no thing you can do in Office, that you can't with rival offices.

Oh really?
You seem to think StarOffice is an exact replica. Look at the feature lists, StarOffice covers basic functionality but not much more. You ever tried to book meetings across an entire company using Outlook? Compare that to the alternative office suites. Or how about comparing Paradox to Access? The freebie PowerPoint clones in Linux to PowerPoint itself?

Browser monopoly is tried to be exploited to get server monopoly / to sell .NET (which is MS version of Java, that's why they put Java out of XP).

Err...buddy, read up on .NET.
You seem to think .NET runs through Internet Explorer? Hahaha...
And .NET is *NOT* MS' version of Java, for christ sake. You're thinking of C#.

Well, and ease-of-use.. you always forget that there is Apple, too.

When did Apple release OS X for PCs?

MS isn't the only able to build ease-to-use computers. Apple has a better record for building reliable multimedia machines, and a free OS made it on the Mac as well. MacOS X is built on FreeBSD, as you surely know (actually it is a license rip-off). Its ease-of-use is well-documented, so where's you point.

Yes, OS X is easy to use. But that has nothing to do with BSD. BSD is the kernel, nothing more. All interaction in it is done through Apple's code, not BSD. And that's where ease of use comes in. The point is moot, as Apple's OS doesn't run on PC hardware (don't even try to pull that Darwin-runs-on-x86 BS)

They're usually younger. And other products as OpenOffice are worth mentioning as well, or XMMS (a highly configurable WinAmp replacement (even better)). Depends on what you want to do. I personally dislike GIMP, but it surely can replace Adobe and Paintshop.

GIMP cannot replace Photoshop. Have you even used the thing? It's powerful, but not AS powerful.
As for XMMS, it's nice to know that you can run WMAs under Linux now. Oh, you can't? I realize they're a proprietary to MS, but I much prefer WMAs to MP3s (I have a portable player).

Most of the commercial products, that are in a "decent" pricing category, don't offer much over their open source equivalents than a better-looking GUI. This isn't worth paying 50 $ or 200 $ to me...

Behold, the power of warez.

Some other products you could use under Linux aren't open source, but available free of charge, and they do well, as for example opera, that beats MSIE in my point of view (especially the Windows version, that offers a decent mail and news client as well).

Yes, I especially love the banner ads and the fact that it doesn't render many pages correctly (although it is pretty good at doing most sites correctly).

If you finally actually take a look, there aren't as many apps you are actually using... even in my "Windows times" I mainly used freeware, PD or shareware.

I have no idea what you're saying.
I spend half of my time in Linux these days, half of my time in Windows. I know about the programs available to both, and Windows ones are generally far more polished and powerful. And I pay the same to get those as I do to get the linux versions.

Your arguments here are a good effort, but they're kinda moot. You've yet to make a point why anyone would switch to linux, other than the fact that it saves you money.

How about the students who don't actually pay for their software in the first place? What do they have to gain by jumping ship to Linux? And how does that possibly outweigh the huge list of things they have to lose by jumping to Linux?

[Korpo]

Korpo: It's quite clear you're one of those people who absolutely think that open source leads to better and secure products.

If they are widely used, yes. The more users work with the software, the more developers work on a software, the better and more secure an open-source software usually becomes. A good initial project, as Apache, does usually tend to spawn a vivid community and a devoted developer team, and even attract commercial interest and firms, that will "donate" code in their own interest (as IBM or Sun). The many contributions lead to a fast-evolving software. There's nothing that evolves as fast as open-source software. Popular apps evolve fast, become secure, well-maintained and equal or better to their commercial equivalents. Unpopular apps die away. It's software Darwinism.

You mentioned Apache. A good example. Because its MS rival shows what closed-souce can, but needn't, lack. MS IIS is not as efficient, reliable or fast, or configurable as Apache. Well, MS was late with adopting a web strategy as we all know. And unlike the desktop OS monopoly they used to push MSIE, they had no monopoly to push their server software. So even now 60% or more of the servers are driven by Apache, now again growing more so! Apache simply evolved faster than MS could keep pace with. It's better and secure.
It became popular, and therefore "evolved better" than its closed-source rivals.

What is MS doing about it? .NET! Push a closed-source service model by your browser monopoly, and offer this services by your own servers. We need no better server, we need a monopoly-based service product to put the rival out of business... You simply couldn't do that with open source.

There is an easy open source rule: If it isn't secure, reliable and good, it will not be used. Unlike MS products open source products don't have a lobby/a marketing division/a monopoly when launched to push them. The fit ones survive. By offering quality.

And therefore I think that there are a lot of open source apps, that are better and more secure.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
You mentioned Apache. A good example. Because its MS rival shows what closed-souce can, but needn't, lack. MS IIS is not as efficient, reliable or fast, or configurable as Apache.

Actually, MS IIS is faster, more efficient, and far easier to use than Apache. Why do you think Apache is rewriting their webserver to become multithreaded? It's slower and less efficient in its current design. They're trying to fix ti.

Well, MS was late with adopting a web strategy as we all know. And unlike the desktop OS monopoly they used to push MSIE, they had no monopoly to push their server software. So even now 60% or more of the servers are driven by Apache, now again growing more so!

Not according to Netcraft. Here's the usage statistics:

See a trend?

What is MS doing about it? .NET! Push a closed-source service model by your browser monopoly, and offer this services by your own servers. We need no better server, we need a monopoly-based service product to put the rival out of business... You simply couldn't do that with open source.

Again, read about .NET. Also read about Ximian's plans for a .NET client.

There is an easy open source rule: If it isn't secure, reliable and good, it will not be used. Unlike MS products open source products don't have a lobby/a marketing division/a monopoly when launched to push them. The fit ones survive. By offering quality.

How much did IBM spend on marketing Linux last year? It was like $1B or so, wasn't it?
You don't think there's an open source lobby? Do you know which lobby was responsible for the DoJ-MS thing? Netscape. And Netscape is also responsible for MS creating its lobby to combat the Netscape lobby.

And therefore I think that there are a lot of open source apps, that are better and more secure.

Yet you could only name one that was "better", only in the sense that it is less a target from hackers than IIS.

[Korpo]

he design of Linux has "evolved" in the sense that it is far more usable now than it was 10 years ago, but also to the point where it's taking design things from Microsoft OSes.

Too bad MS did not invent these things itself. They did not invent the GUI, that's Xerox or Apple. They didn't invent office suites. Most of the things and services MS offers are actually hardware vendor innovations or things they ripped off of their business rivals. So why shouldn't Linux be allowed to do things the same way?

Linux is a clone of Unix that's free and for the desktop.

True: Linux brought Unix to the x86 architecture. It simply supports more hardware than any other Unix, more services, is available on more platforms... I call that evolution. You're confusing revolution (radical, abrupt change) with evolution (moderate, long-time change).

Access?

Oh yes. We all need Access. What good is it for? It is not a full DBMS, and severely limited, so what's your point?

The point is moot, as Apple's OS doesn't run on PC hardware

Did I ever restrict the discussion to PCs? No. Anyway, an awful lot of (future) users of XP will need to upgrade hardware or even buy a new PC, because XP is demanding on your hardware. So, if lots of people can afford to upgrade to a new PC with XP, they could as well afford an apple, so your point doesn't get any better.

Behold, the power of warez.

Ok, if that's your argument... Actually I thought we were talking about buying software as OS, or apps. But if you think it is a good thing to steal... well, then you strongly advocate open source. Open source projects don't because of software piracy But your app suppliers will on the long run do, if people think they can steal their property. Very valid argument.

other than the fact that it saves you money.

Well, it does safe me a LOT of money. Not only the OS, but the apps, and it saves me from hardware upgrades as well. Someone might give you XP for free, ok. But nobody donates you a new computer it will work on.

the huge list of things they have to lose by jumping to Linux?

Would you please specify this huge list to me first: What will they lose?

And why do you use Linux anyway?

Yes, I especially love the banner ads and the fact that it doesn't render many pages correctly (although it is pretty good at doing most sites correctly).

Oh yes, aren't those banners BIG!! I really can't look past them, they nearly fill certainly half of my screen *satire* That's no point. And if it renders pages wrong, that is because they don't conform to the W3C standards.. perhaps they were made in MS Offfice?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
Too bad MS did not invent these things itself. They did not invent the GUI, that's Xerox or Apple. They didn't invent office suites. Most of the things and services MS offers are actually hardware vendor innovations or things they ripped off of their business rivals. So why shouldn't Linux be allowed to do things the same way?

I never said Linux shouldn't be allowed to do things the same way. The only thing is the people who insist Linux is going to take over from Windows for the dominant desktop OS seem to keep forgetting that the quality of most Linux applications is significantly less than the commercial equivalents.

True: Linux brought Unix to the x86 architecture. It simply supports more hardware than any other Unix, more services, is available on more platforms... I call that evolution. You're confusing revolution (radical, abrupt change) with evolution (moderate, long-time change).

So how has Linux (the kernel) evolved over time, then?
It's using the same design as OSes in the 70s used, and yet you claim it's evolving?

Oh yes. We all need Access. What good is it for? It is not a full DBMS, and severely limited, so what's your point?

That's the attitude that demonstrates why Open Source developers will never make a decent replica of MS Office. Access is very useful for small businesses and personal use for easy DBs.

Did I ever restrict the discussion to PCs? No. Anyway, an awful lot of (future) users of XP will need to upgrade hardware or even buy a new PC, because XP is demanding on your hardware. So, if lots of people can afford to upgrade to a new PC with XP, they could as well afford an apple, so your point doesn't get any better.

No, people don't upgrade their computers because XP is demanding on their hardware. People upgrade their computers because ALL programs become increasingly demanding on their hardware. OS X is worse, actually. Even on high end macs the Aqua interface is reportedly sluggish.

Ok, if that's your argument... Actually I thought we were talking about buying software as OS, or apps. But if you think it is a good thing to steal... well, then you strongly advocate open source. Open source projects don't because of software piracy But your app suppliers will on the long run do, if people think they can steal their property. Very valid argument.

I have nothing against Open Source, it's just that it's not going to happen for widespread commercial use. It's just not. People who actually think it'll take over from closed source systems obviously don't understand the concept of capitalism.

Would you please specify this huge list to me first: What will they lose?

Don't you know how to access websites? Or perhaps compare the two side by side? Macro support is the big one.

And why do you use Linux anyway?

School. I use Linux, Solaris, and AIX regularly.

Oh yes, aren't those banners BIG!! I really can't look past them, they nearly fill certainly half of my screen *satire* That's no point. And if it renders pages wrong, that is because they don't conform to the W3C standards.. perhaps they were made in MS Offfice?

Hahaha. Gotta love that argument.
W3C standards are paper standards. They're too weak compared to the W3C superset MS offers. Prime example: It's impossible to put a background image inside a table cell complying to W3C standards. Even things like mouseovers are designed stupidly by the W3C, MS' way is easier and more powerful at the same time. And most importantly, Opera and Mozilla don't properly support the concept of layers! Why? W3C hasn't gotten around to moving its committee into drawing up specs for them. IE has had them for years.

[Korpo]

Well, actually your nice graph isn't showing what I mean. Due to recent worm attacks the trend turned towards Apache in December, and signs are, that that may be so in the future as well.

Why do you think Apache is rewriting their webserver to become multithreaded?

Apache is supporting some things for several times: a complete process-based model (best on Linux), a multi-threaded model (the ONLY POSSIBLE solution on NT-based Windows solutions that do NOT OFFER lightiweight processes) and a special Linux version that offers multi-threading within each child process of the parent process, allowing optimization between the process and the multithreading model.

And, better read up on multithreading. It's not necessarily the better technology. It's simply another way to do the same thing.

Again, read about .NET. Also read about Ximian's plans for a .NET client.

Of course I know that .NET will be server-side tech like Java servlets. And of course I know that Ximian to implement an Open Source version of it. Let me clarify my point:
MS mostly boosts .NET, which is imitating Java techmogy all the time, to incorporate it into their own servers to push their sales. And there were several rumors and articles about the fact, that MS will especially tune .NET and .NET-servers to work especially well with MSIE, and the other way round they will make MSIE that way it can use special .NET services other browser can't. Therefore using their monopoly to push .NET, their server business, and get into subscription-based software.
Ximian's open-source .NET is an effort to keep .NET open, and to avoid MS trapping us in a propietary trap again.

Happy Christmas anyway.

[Korpo]

W3C standards are paper standards. They're too weak compared to the W3C superset MS offers. Prime example: It's impossible to put a background image inside a table cell complying to W3C standards. Even things like mouseovers are designed stupidly by the W3C, MS' way is easier and more powerful at the same time. And most importantly, Opera and Mozilla don't properly support the concept of layers! Why? W3C hasn't gotten around to moving its committee into drawing up specs for them. IE has had them for years.

Actually the goal of W3C standards is to keep the web open for all participients. MS' corruption of those standards is a try at undermining this informational freedom.

You may have no principles or no understanding what freedom is, actually. It is important that everyone on the world has the possibility to access information on the web, especially without having to buy into a MS solution first.

All those nice and nifty add-ons MSIE might offer are only there to lock you into a propietary solution no other browser will understand. This is so that MS can sell you stuff because they locked all competitors out.

It's impossible to put a background image inside a table cell complying to W3C standards.

This is more important to you than the first-time chance for global, free communication? This is what MS is corrupting by undermining W3C standards.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
And, better read up on multithreading. It's not necessarily the better technology. It's simply another way to do the same thing.

I realize it's a different approach. The only thing is I'm one of those people who believe the multi-threaded approach is better.

Actually the goal of W3C standards is to keep the web open for all participients. MS' corruption of those standards is a try at undermining this informational freedom.

You may have no principles or no understanding what freedom is, actually. It is important that everyone on the world has the possibility to access information on the web, especially without having to buy into a MS solution first.

All those nice and nifty add-ons MSIE might offer are only there to lock you into a propietary solution no other browser will understand. This is so that MS can sell you stuff because they locked all competitors out.

That would make sense if the tags in IE were, in fact, proprietary. The whole argument is bogus rhetoric, because any browser can implement the tags if they want to. MS implements them because the standards don't allow for something, and they want to have it. So voila, they add in some new tags (Netscape also did this, if you'll recall). If the other browser makers weren't so damn arrogant to call themselves strictly W3C compliant, nobody gets hurt by their inclusion of MS extensions in their browsers. In fact, if those browsers supported what IE supported, they'd have a real chance of knocking out IE if they performed better.

This is more important to you than the first-time chance for global, free communication? This is what MS is corrupting by undermining W3C standards.

That's a very good example of a hyperbole.
MS having things like including images as a table cell background ruins global, free communication?

Let me ask you this, why are the W3C called standards?
Are there laws that say to make a website and web browser, they must conform to these standards?
No...
All they are is a bunch of "standards" written by some slow committee that they say everyone should abide to in order for easier browser development. The "only" disadvantage here is the committee moves slowly, adding in new tags takes forever anyway, and they intentionally drafted some of their standards which differed from the "real world" standard. What I mean by that is, they drafted some of their standards which worked differently than how IE has been handling it before they came out, then the zealots began shooting at IE saying it's not W3C standards compliant.

It's a silly little game to play. What it comes down to is IE is the real world standard, W3C is the paper standard.

[Korpo]

If the other browser makers weren't so damn arrogant to call themselves strictly W3C compliant, nobody gets hurt by their inclusion of MS extensions in their browsers. In fact, if those browsers supported what IE supported, they'd have a real chance of knocking out IE if they performed better.

One reason we're having this slow committee work, is to enable everyone who wants to implement a HTML solution, that they can rely on the fact there's a standardized version of HTML managed by an independent body, the W3C. If everybody would simply accept the fact, that MS would set the standards, MS would automatically win. Because MS would do, what it's best at: make regular - non-backwards-compatible - changes to their HTML version, forcing the web in the following situation: all other browser providers would always be a step behind to implement the MS solution. Differing versions, perhaps incompatible, would render the web more and more useless for non-MS users (worst-case scenario, of course). That sounds farfetched? It actually isn't.
Let's compare Samba. Samba enables Linux/Unix-Servers to manage a Windows-SMB-based network, hosting services for Windows hosts, etc. Recently MS threatened to remove/rewrite all features of the SMB protocol, that enable Samba to do its job.
It's one of MS basic business practices: Make it (nearly?) inusable except for their own products.
But back to the current topic: the slow work of the W3C is necessary to allow all participients in the market to longterm plan their apps and their rewriting.