Interesting opinion page on McrSft / Ntscp server controversy

[Thomas Dowling]

> From: Heath Rezabek <hrezabek at fiat.gslis.utexas.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Interesting opinion page on McrSft / Ntscp server controversy
> Date: Wednesday, August 14, 1996 5:13 PM
> 
> There's a thought-provoking essay on the O'Reilly site [O'Reilly, btw, 
> publishes some of the most solid technical books on the market] by Tim 
> O'Reilly at
> 
> http://software.ora.com/news/msnt40_limit.html

If you haven't read this, it has to do with Microsoft's policy on the
number of TCP/IP sockets that can be opened under the NT Workstation 4.0
license.  It does not (AFAICT) deal with any "McrSft/Ntscp server
controversy".   Essentially, the current version of the license--whatever
that means, since NT 4.0 just went to manufacturing the day before this
essay was written and wasn't available for purchase yet--has a 10
simultaneous user policy although Microsoft has publicly backed away from
this decision.

Microsoft seems to be backtracking some, waffling a little, perhaps being
pokey in getting a new policy through the legal department that writes
their license agreement verbiage, and certainly looking to turn NT Server
into a cash cow.  Tim O'Reilly might just possibly be turning up the heat a
little to hide his embarrassment over the fact that he flamed Microsoft on
comp.infosystems.www.* for their original policy *after* they had already
backed down from it.

(And let's not overlook that fact that Tim's company has a competing
product that has gotten a lot less press recently than offerings from
Microsoft and Netscape.  He wouldn't be using a seeming editorial to keep
his place as a player, would he?)


> 
> .. My problem with Microsoft, from a librarian's perspective, is that I 
> cannot tolerate the notion of a financial force carryign such direct 
> control over the media and over computer-mediated communications & 
> resources; "We'll fund your library, but you have to replace your entire 
> reference collection with this nice set of books generated by our PR 
> department..."

I think we can all agree that if NTW 4.0 really gets into users hands with
this restriction, it represents a nearsighted and dumb decision on
Microsoft's part--certainly not their first, but not a sign that they're
dictating the content of anyone's library.  But if you're so concerned
about the degree of control Microsoft exerts, why would you even be looking
at NT?  I think the people on this list could provide plenty of non-MS
platform alternatives.


Thomas Dowling
tdowling at ohiolink.edu
("Hey, I've got the CIA and Aliens beaming reruns of I Love Lucy into my
brain--you think I have time to be paranoid about Microsoft's web server
strategies?")