Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Rejects Microsoft Settlement
Quite a number of people have written over the last few days regarding the BBC news report that the Department of Justice has apparently rejected Microsoft's proposed settlement. Unless something is reached today, this means it will be up to Judge Jackson to decide what to do on the 28th.
Well, no, its not very hard at all to argue that AT&T's breakup hurt the company. They now compete with Sprint, MCI, Worldcom, and soon all the babybells they spun off. They were the only game in town before. Definitely good for us consumers though, and that's what really matters as far as the Sherman Antitrust Act is concerned;)
Go get some perspective.
Yet another hypocritical statement from one of the /. rabid-zealot crew. Microsoft is a company, not a government. They cannot set laws, tax you or have their own military. In the absence of these things it would be quite difficult for them to "control your government ... and your country." Get over your paranoid hysteria and calm down. Go smoke a joint or something.
I really don't think anything has changed at MS. Despite their unbelievable disaster of a trial, I really think they assume the rest of the world is dummer than they are. I really thought Justice would pussy out somewhere along the case. But they have held firm. Good for them. In the past they would have made some has assed announcement that they had reached an 'agreement' with MS - that MS was really 'sorry' and that they had learned their lesson. Barf.
We have the rope, the noose is tied, let hang the mfs.
Also, I really hope no breakup happens, let the entire rotting turd of a company slowly fade into computer history. Ain't going to happen tomorrow, but it will. It's mind boggeling to think of the damage they have caused to the entire computer industry. Hopefully the industry can get its act together and figure out a way to have standards without monopolies. Wishfull thinking...
>I think breaking up Microsoft would be bad for computing as a whole.
`computing`? I dont think the ability for computation to take place would be adversely affected by any legal judgment, unless it inhibits electron flow in some way. Do you mean the computer industry? Why, though?
>the second most valuble company in America.
You mean profitable? `Valuable` means it`s valuable TO something or someone, and its hard to see just who that would be, apart perhaps from their shareholders.
Fluffy nonsense.
I think the implications of the "OpenSource Windows" solution would be much more severe than those of a breakup.
I think most of the folk here mainly want available source, not open source. In an interview, Judge Jackson said making Windows open source would violate the takings clause, and thus could not be required.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>This community is so hypocritical - The ONLY time Slashdotters would
>ever enjoy a court case involving a software or web company is if
>Microsoft was at the butting end. Linux needs to win in the
>marketplace, it doesn't need help from the courts.
Let's see...people rather enjoyed the prospect of DoubleClick being hauled in front of a court...most of us don't have a problem with script kiddies being locked up/and or being put to death...Linux One certainly doesn't seen to have very fans... All in all I'ld say your comments are nothing but the rantings of a disgrunteled Microsoft Astrotufer.....
>I vote ESR as Leon. He's got the gun thing going for him, too. Hmm.
>Now I have to go write that fanfiction idea. (Grin)
>Now, what OSes would Nene use? I'm thinking dual boot BeOS/Slackware,
>with a nice bright, cheerful bashprompt theme under Linux.
BUMAS running some form of Windows 2000 would be a perfectly logical explaination of why they tend to go berserk...As for Nene it would more likely be some kind of BeOS/Linux/BSD hybid rather than a dual boot type deal. The idea's yours if you want it.....
>>Despite what
>>the computing industry as a whole, making it so that computers have
>>moved from being the domain of long-haired hippies at geek enclaves
>>like MIT to being available for everyone.
>Was it MS? I think IBM played a bigger part. Let's face it, without
>IBM, MS would not be as big as it is.
Actually it was Apple,Atari,Commodore and IBM that brought computing to the masses. Micosoft has always played the role of the parasite.
>UNFORTUNATELY Perhaps if Microsoft were to be allowed a military wing
>(as befits its status as the #1 corporation of the #1 country in the
>world) we would see less of this liberal/Socialist BS and regulation,
>and a bit more gung-ho good ole fashined US CAPITALISM.
Hmmm...Microsoft changes it name to GENOM? And then Linus's daughter will have to create suits of powered armour and form the Tux Sabers in order to avenge the death of her father...
No, it wasn't possible UNTIL the DOJ got involved.
Don't try to revise history on us now.
Oops. I did ask for that one. But one mistake isn't as bad as all of his. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but consistent incorrect usage of spelling and _grammar_ belies a problem of greater magnitude.
Yes, I misspelled grammar. I didn't do it, however, because I didn't know better, but because I made a mistake.
I'm not perfect, by any long stretch. However, I at least know the correct way even if I do mess up sometimes.
Hear! Hear! Excellent. I don't think a clearer explanation has ever been given as to why a Microsoft split would work from a practical (and business) standpoint.
.oO[ M$ Strategy: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. ]Oo.
... that they won't reach an out of court settlement, that would be the equivalant of Microsoft winning the case. And that is a Bad Thing(tm). ---
> Remember, this is the second most valuble company in America.
I think what you really meant was the second most voluble company in America.
I can refute that one. I mean, there have been interfaces quite similar to Bob all over the place. General Magic had one for their PDA many moons ago, and some early work done by (IIRC) IBM in the 70's also had that sort of interface.
Generally they were limited to offices, and not kitchens, or the other useless rooms that Bob has, but I'd think that it's a ripoff.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Aah...
See, I don't think that companies should have the same rights that individuals have.
First, many rights are not awarded to individuals, they are inherent in the human condition. Second, given as how corporations are simply groups of individuals, I'd much rather leave things in the hands of the individuals instead of a gestalt entity.
But granting nearly every applicable right that human beings exist to what is effectively a piece of paper? That's nuts, IMHO.
And it's worth noting that traditionally businesses have been private individuals (quite admirable) or partnerships of private individuals (ditto). Corporations were usually very special cases, and are more like what we'd now think of as a publicly granted monopoly. The charters were rather difficult to get, and many had expiration dates. Corporations that didn't serve the public (the trade off for all the benefits that corporate status includes) to the satisfaction of the government could and did have their charters revoked.
At present there's a movement to decharter Phillip-Morris. To my knowledge no companies have been dechartered for a very long time, but I'd ascribe that to business convincing people that it's not even an option, rather than there being a lack of cause.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The current issue is *not* a class action suit. MS is being tried for violations of antitrust law. The theory is basically that by increasing competition in the marketplace (a good thing) consumers benefit. This recognizes that the govt. can't adequetly satisfy consumers, but that some corrections have to be made to prevent the system from being abused.
Furthermore, this sort of thing isn't taken lightly. The government wasn't complaining about MS back in the 70's, when they were doing software for the Altair and the Apple. Nor in the 80's with their IBM and Mac software. Only because they've grown to become a monoply AND have abused their monopoly status in ways that are clearly defined and have been on the books for a century, are they in trouble.
So when the playing field is level, it doesn't matter if the players are equal or not. Only if a player unlevels the field do problems arise. Do you really think that any company has a chance to overshadow MS, given their historic response to such threats? I don't. This means that revolutionary new stuff might get squashed b/c MS perceives it as a threat. Everyone is harmed when we're denied innovation. MS is against innovation, as a matter of fact.
(Of course, I can't think of a single product that they invented - everything's ripped off or bought from someone else)
Personally, I don't think that a breakup is the best way to go. I'd rather see MS carefully overseen by the government for 10 or 20 years, and prevented from entering into new markets. This will give the new markets time to develop without fear from MS. Additionally their influence in other areas (e.g. OEM pricing) would have to be equalized so that they could not exert pressure by those means. This would permit them to innovate all they wanted in the markets they already have. But not in any others - until they had competition anyway.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
ATT had been prevented from entering into a significant number of markets due to their monopoly status. Internally (AFAIK) they were more than willing to be broken up, as it freed them to do new stuff.
However, this is besides the point. Antitrust law does not exist to protect companies, it exists to protect consumers. I don't know about you, but ATT charges a lot less for long distance calls now than they used to. I'm happy, and I really don't care if they have slim profit margins. They're making money - they don't have to get greedy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You're trolling of course, but there are no checks and balances in a capitalist free market.
Fortunately, we don't live in one. The market *IS* controlled by law. This is good. If you disagree then you will cheerfully accept that I can conduct any manner of economic transaction that I like. Perhaps I'd blow up your house if you don't pay me.
Me, I'd rather control the market by some mechanism.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Okay, I'll accept this. I would likely have fewer problems with MS if they were never a corporation to begin with, as it most likely never could have gotten so big anyway. But given as how this is the real world, that isn't the case.
My objection to MS's behavior stands.
And while a private suit could have technically achieved the same end, it's well known by now that the party with the most money is increasingly favored - not the one who deserves justice. This isn't as much of a consideration for the govt. And they're having quite a lot of success as compared to the private cases, which are proceeding much more slowly. Justice delayed is justice denied....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Usually, those who feel that MS has broken the law, and who also feel that their code should be made public, believe that this would keep MS from further monopolistic manipulation via API changes.
Having their code open-sourced is another matter entirely, and shouldn't be confused with simply publishing it.
I have no doubt that someone, maybe not Slashdot fans, but someone, would be able to find the bugs that lead to instability in the code, and recommend patches to MS. Given MS's attitude toward bugs in the past, though, I wonder if they would even be able to accept and use these outright gifts.
Those libertarians are soooo naive.
>The idea's yours if you want it.....
Thanks! I'll send it along to the usual anime fanfic newsgroups in a week or so.
I vote ESR as Leon. He's got the gun thing going for him, too. Hmm. Now I have to go write that fanfiction idea. (Grin)
Now, what OSes would Nene use? I'm thinking dual boot BeOS/Slackware, with a nice bright, cheerful bashprompt theme under Linux.
it is far easier for a normal user to have their browser as part of the OS than it is to have it as a separate application.
That's arguable. There IS a fact that goes with this that CANNOT be argued, however, and that is that there's no choice to get rid of the "browser" that's "a part of the OS" and replace it with a browser that I want.
If we had a choice as to whether or not to enable the drool-proof paper (aside from the omnipresent "Don't use the OS, then, stupid!" choice) piece of it, I don't think there would be nearly as much ado about it.
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
I used to think it was good that MS were going to be legally thwacked over the head, but I've come to the belief that it's wrong to "win unfairly" - wrong for them, they should be stopped from tying etc, but wrong for us too to beat them by legal force rather than quality.
Umm, clue check here. Judge Jackson didn't reject
the settlement, the DoJ did.
In a revolutionary move Judge Jacksson today judged that Microsfot should be divided into 2 parts.
/* Yes I'm bored and should not have posted this */
MS Legal and MS Software. Where MS Software would be completely owned by Judge Jacksson himself.
This supposedly makes him the richest man in the world.
When asked about MS Legal Mr Jacksson was quoted as saying 'I don't want to have anything to do with those fools'.
Put it this way -- you wont catch me shorting them if a breakup is announced ( would you ? ) I think it would be good for their competitors, and the breakup companies would still do well.
It's all well to ask them to "open their APIs", but what does that mean ? What's this MSDN thing, doesn't it document their APIs ? The problem is that it's difficult to prove the existence of "undocumented" APIs, and there are always going to be inadequacies in any documentation. For example, what do you do if they document some of the APIs badly ? This would make them no worse than ( for example ) early GTK , aside from the fact that GTK was OpenSource. Now if MS released the source for their APIs, that would probably be adequate if extreme
You might argue that the breakup is a bad idea, but do you have any better ideas ?
I agree with you that MS have brought out some "good stuff", but I don't see how a split would place that in jeapordy.
I don't think trying to "limit Microsoft's practices" will help too much -- it's too heavy handed, and it forces the government to buy into things like software design ( a very bad idea )
The second thing I have a problem with is Windows forking. The last thing the industry wants/needs is a Windows fork.
There are some things that are very well documented -- for example, python, perl, make. And some things that aren't.
BTW, I have "Beginning Linux programming". It's a great book.
"It should be understood by those skilled in the art that a Web browser, such as Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer, is separate from the operating system." -- Microsoft patent attys., August 1998
This is why win98 only lasted a few days on my computer before I upgraded back to win95.
-BA simple break up just won't do anything... There'll still be one company with a monopoly on the desktop OS market, another one with a monopoly on the productiviy suite market, and an internet company will a few billion in it's coffers. That's far from leveling the playing field.
So far as shares go... I'd almost think people would want MSFT broken up if the performance on ATT and the baby bells are any indication of what would happen to the Baby Bills. In the time frame since the breakup, IBM has increased something like 200% in value, while all the baby bells and ATT went up 800 or 1400% in the same period... I don't remember where i read it, though it was probably on news.com.
I think it all has to do with who installed it and who's using it. My friends have WinNT boxes that crash constantly, as well as Win98 boxes that seem to crash every other time they attempt to connect to the internet, where as my Win98 box has been running fine since 98 came out. The only hiccup it's ever had was when i upgraded the video card... Which unfortunately had the side effect of curbing my interest in Linux, being that the card doesn't seem to want to work with Redhat 6.0 in even VGA mode... command line is all i can get to now.
It all goes to say, it doesn't really matter so much about the operating system, it's who's using the machine.
That's bloc, and what do you know of it?
The QUALITY of commercialized Western television is HUGELY inferior to the QUALITY of the Communist propaganda spewing idiot-box...
Yeah, you couldn't rely for a second on the accuracy or impartiality of the news reports, and most movies were thematically slanted towards the 'party line', but the QUALITY of the content was exceptional.
Arts and Sciences were much better represented then they are in the US. Kids would actually get value out of television, not just a brain-numbing babysitter.
The QUALITY of Eastern Bloc TV was pretty much parallel with that of the BBC. State control meant that you didn't produce sterlie and politically correct crap that people would watch addictively (like soap operas, Springer, Rikki and other drivvel) where you could then plant commercial messages in their stupefied, hypnotized little minds. The priority WAS on delivering something that would add intellectual value for people who were repressed, opressed and frustrated. Make them think about things other than taking up arms against their government. Keep the inferior feeling inferior, and keep the intelligent occupied.
Eastern Bloc and the BBC TV are/were much more valuable to the thinking mind than the crap that US commercial TV pumps out on 500 channels 24x7.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Those are really the only options.
Opening the source code is unlikely to accomplish anything. I expect it would be a year or two to before anyone outside of Microsoft got the source to *compile*. This is like Mozilla but a *lot* worse.
If you're trying to restore a competitive environment, regulation is a lousy way to do it. The company will have to be micromanaged in order to prevent monopopy abuses. They'll be just like SBC in the telephone market. Yuck.
A breakup, on the other hand, can actually work. It's the only method, in my estimation, that can actually work.
Linux easier to use ? You kidding yourself, beside Windows does not crash as often as you think. I yet to see people drop Windows because it crashes.
Unix had plenty of time to invent user friendly desktop. It failed, end of story.
This judge is heavily biased against Microsoft. ... and furthermore, why is this happening anyway ?
What kind of justice is that
Who are you to say that browser shoudn't be part of the OS ?
Simple question.
Try using photoshop on a gif of a hires 24bit scanned negative on w95 or w98. Now, resize the gif using interpolation. Do that 10 times. If you can make it that far...
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
The party is not over until the Judge (and the appeals process) says it is. Microsoft is an Illegal Monopoly that much is fact. The *nix desktop is alive and well it was just hampered a bit by the Monopolist Bill Gates. Now that the emporer's clothes (I mean Bill's) are coming off and the world is getting a glimpse of the real Micro$oft - thanks in part to all that free press the DOJ is providing - People are looking to alternatives to the buggy solutions they have been stuck with. Linux is happy to fill in here. You gotta like the economic model too!
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
And Maritz's quote:
'The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to [] position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on Windows. The stronger way to communicate this is to have a 'new release' of Windows and make a big deal out of it. . . . IE integration will be [the] most compelling feature of Memphis.'
Confirms Micro$oft's true Monopolistic, illegal intentions.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
I believe Bush pocketed a wad from Microsoft, and he has already made it pretty clear where he stands concerning this trial.
Don't have any sources, so maybe someone else can confirm this?
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Both Algore The Inventor Of The Internet and Dubya Bush have said that they will drop the Microsoft matter completely once they get into office. M$ must have given each of them mucho dinero for their campaign coffers.
Do you have sources for these claims? I believe Bush only said he would prefer to see a settlement, and I don't think Gore even placated Microsoft when he gave a speech directly to them.
Anyhow, regarding the relevance (or rather lack thereof) of what a new Prez wants see my above post.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
It seems that the selectors of the stories that get posted are in a lose-lose situation, if this comment is to be considered. If you don't review Win2k, you are censoring. If you do, you'll be bashing Microsoft.
There really is enough of Microsoft stuff in slashdot already, we don't need another bashing round. Are win2k reviews "news for nerds" ? "Stuff that matters" ? Methinks not. If you really want to find about how the OS is doing, you can find the information elsewhere, and if you can't, well.. my non-PC tendencies might prompt me to say "you suck", but since I'm such a nice guy, I won't say it.
Despite what /.ers seem to think, Microsoft has done a lot of good for the computing industry as a whole, making it so that computers have moved from being the domain of long-haired hippies at geek enclaves like MIT to being available for everyone.
Was it MS? I think IBM played a bigger part. Let's face it, without IBM, MS would not be as big as it is.
MS has managed to make crashes a normal part of computing for many people. To me, this is a bad thing(tm). Why do I have to reboot a WinX machine when I install software? Here's the most annoying question on the planet -- Do you want to reboot your computer? NO! I just want the fscking thing to run my new program!
Imagine MS with OS competition. You would get a better quality product. The consumers and business would benefit. MS would have to produce a higher quality product than their competitors in order to stay in business. People will buy higher quality products if they are available.
Take the automobile situation in the US. When the 70's gas crunch hit, Japanese cars sold like hotcakes. US automakers lost business because their product was not as good as the Japanese cars. Competition made both American and Japanese automakers produce better cars which in turn benefited the consumers.
MS made contracts which forced OEM computer manufacturers to ship MS OSs exclusively or pay higer prices for MS software. Given the razor thin margins on hardware, the manufacturers had no choice but to sign up. This gave MS the market share to screw the consumer. And they did.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
I think that last point is why most Linux users complain so much about Windows crashing.
Take a stock Dell machine, a stock Win98 install, and a stock MS Office install. Use them for a week. Tell me how many crashes you get. I'll bet on at least one. That's too many. I'm not claiming that windows boxen crash every half hour. What I'm claiming is that crashes have become a part of life for windows users.
They seem to think that they are OS "gurus" and start to fiddle around with every setting they can find in a vain attempt to "tweak" their system.
I know a group of users that use MS OSs, and MS products exclusively. They aren't "tweak"ing their systems, they are just trying to get work done. They have crashes. They don't know how the OS works. They don't understand that to get Win98 to behave you have to do some minor "tweak"ing, like turn off active desktop. Install IE5 so that Win98 will crash less often than when using IE4. Turn off the eye candy. The list goes on.
BTW, strap on a pair and stop posting anonymously.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
In many countries this is a common practice. Thanks to the net and MP3 this is going to change :)
To put it simply: "the source code, the whole windows source code, and nothing but buildable source code"
Nothing? Forget that! I want the source to Solitaire and Minesweeper - without those integrated tools(tm), my Windows experience would be but a pale shadow...
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
maybe it's bad for tomorrow, but the market will right itself with surprising ease, and at Internet speed, no less.
--
+&x
And with Active Directory Services,
Are those like Novell Directory Serives?
later, troll.
--
+&x
Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system
If that was true, the DOJ would have no case. To gain a monopoly, or near-monopoly, in a market is not illegal in itself. To use that power to kill competition in the marketplace is something else. If the DOJ can't prove that Microsoft's actions have harmed consumers, they have no case.
It seems, from reading the Finding-of-facts, that it is very likely that they do have a case.
I'll give you a couple of hints. OS/2 for Windows, WABI and DR-DOS.
I would feel sorry for the thousands of employees, the foundations that Gates supports
That is a circle argument. That a given industry employ a lot of people does not automatically mean that the industry is needed, or even beneficial for the society as a whole.
For example, the tobacco industry employs a lot of people. That does not mean, however, that the industry is beneficial does it?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Being a monopoly is NOT, i repeat NOT, against the law
/.
I've read most of the articles in this thread, and I can't remember seeing anyone seriously claming that being a monopoly is against the law.
When you all wake up and enter the real business world and actually have to do some real work to support yourselves
Some of us does. Some of us still think that MS has stepped over the line a few times too many.
MS should be fined or penalized otherwise, but should they be completely shut down?
Oh yeah, I can see it now:
Judge Jackson: "Shame on you, MS. Be gone!"
MicroSoft: *poof*
Get a grip on reality, would you?
try to think of this situation happening to Redhat or Caldera or even Sun
If any of them had acted the same way as MS, they would have been ripped apart on
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Actually, without Microsoft, the computer industry would likely have been twice the size it is today.
Microsoft played an important part in the suppression of computers as everyday items that anyone could use. All Microsofts competitors (Apple, Atari, Commodore, Acorn) in the late 80's and early 90's had operating systems that were vastly easier to use and ran on cheaper and far more capable computers.
Truly, IBM was probably worse at that time, but Microsoft has done nothing to advance ease of use and computing for the population at all.
But do you not understand this? It is _Microsoft_ who choses this for you. It is they who chose to violate the law. It is they who chose to engage in illegal behaviour. And they have far more capability to contemplate their actions than the average criminal. The court merely ascertains that they have violated the law and attempts to provide an appropriate sentance.
So, how does it feel when again _Microsofts_ choices result in problems for you?
It's a pity you don't know the difference between what Judge Jackson's role in this process is and reality.
Jackson has -nothing- to do with the settlement offers. That is being handled by a second Judge (as mediator), and the lawyers from the DoJ and Microsoft (under orders from their respective bosses/employers). Jackson -wants- the sides to settle, because he's -going- to rule against MS tomorrow. Unfortuantely, MS most likely wants to be let off with another slap on the wrist, and the DoJ ain't going to get screwed by them again.
Screw me once, shame on you, screw me a second time, shame on me. They ain't going to allow themselves to be screwed again.
Again, while the rest of your post makes some excellent point, the cluelessness of the first sentence on how this is actually handled in the court system taints it.
What is it about variety that scares the shit out of so many people?
"Windows Distributions" Hmm... let's think about it a little. Maybe Windows is such a sucky, unstable, bloated OS precisely because it doesn't have any form of competition, not even itself.
I mean, if someone put out a mismatched Linux distro, without any regard for maintaining a coherent set of binaries, libraries, daemons, etc... it would definitely be a total failure, nobody would use it, and it'd wither and die.
On the other hand, Windows has a single source (it's multiple versions), and no other can produce Windows. So, there's no need to improve it, just add more and more features / bugs, so users keep coming back for more (either features or bug fixes / new bugs).
Also, Microsoft has locked-up the interoperability idea in so many people, that it's inconcievable (for the "normal" person) for products of diferent vendors to interoperate. The idea is "I need Microsoft products in order for them to talk to each other", and that's killing much of the network world. M$ can get away with perverting protocols because of this.
Just my 2 cents.
-elf
Can you imagine the resulting lawsuits? When every Tom, Dick, and Harry discovers their code has been integrated into Windows without permission? And what about all of the code written just to break the competitors programs? By the time the dust settles, there will be nothing left of MS.
Microsoft programmer - There seems to be a bug in this section of code, but none of it makes any sense to me...
Microsoft manager - Who wrote it?
Microsoft programmer - It is something we appropriated.
Microsoft manger - Then it's not a bug. It's improved functionality...
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It uses 95 win explorer, much much faster on my 233.
/_____\. .......|
CY
vvvvvvv../|__/|
...I../O,O....|
...I./
..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//|
...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.|
I agree, and not only that, but I think that when you're your own competition, your sense of innovation, if you have any, quickly declines because you begin to think, "Hey, they're alright with what they've got. It works. Why bother making something new?" The more new products you make, the more opportunities for someone to:
Therefore, it's easier to say "screw innovation" when you're a monopoly.
Or, you don't say "screw innovation" - yet you run out of ideas when all the people in your company are the same today as they were yesterday. They've still got the same ideas, the same terms of how they think things should go, the same problems to hash out, etc. So you hire new people. ok, fine. But still, if you're the only one out there in that market, what's your challenge? Where's the need for innovation when you've got no one to outsmart?
So, poo on Microsoft. blah.
Insert mind here.
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Mi crosoftPeng.html Since return-on-investment must govern the development of an application for a platform, the "more innovative, smaller" platforms are squeezed-out by an over-bearing monopoly competitor. For example, if you asked a developer in 1997, "why not make a Linux or Apple version -- there is an INERTIA against them for developing for a MINORITY platform, because it costs them some extra developers to PORT anything that is not in conformance with an industry STANDARD in the operating system. So, because it costs money to deviate from these standards, the smaller platforms face a significant barrier to entry because of INERTIA. This is why it is so important to understand the difference between an OPEN standard, and a PROPRIETARY standard. This inertia can be used to affect standards across the board. By uncessarily bundling and tying their browser to the OS, Microsoft sought to gain control of the open public standards established by the W3 consortium, and replace them with their own propritary standards so that they would have an unfair monopoly advantage. The results of this can be seen in what happened to the workload of Web Designers coding for two different versions of HTML. Because Microsoft sought to "embrace and extend" the HTML platform for their own benefit, the HTML became fragmented. There were effectively two versions of HTML. One was the open standard adhered to by Netscape 3.0, and the other was the Microsoft-ized version of HTML in Explorer 3.0. Because of this, all web designers were forced to make TWO versions of their HTML web pages, in order to accomodate Microsoft's "Explorer html 'extensions'". Due to Microsoft's "innovation" -- national productivity went down, because people had to do double the work -- coding once for "standard" HTML, and again to ensure compatibility with the proprietary Microsoft HTML extensions. This continues until those "extensions" became more standard than the original, because they kept giving their browser away to ensure that everyone had it, and used it, thus suplanting an industry-agreed standard with their own proprietary "standard". Fortuneately, public pressure helped to bring the HTML in the 4.0 versions of Explorer and Netscape closer to each other. The solution to the Microsoft problem lies in this -- that there must be seperation of RIGHTS (i.E. Who sets the STANDARDS), and of Economic Interest (those who produce the software which EMPLOY the standards, and go by them as a guide to create the product of their labour called the "Operating System Platform"). So long as they remain coupled, the abuses of monopoly power will be able to continue. The solution to monopoly problems is to deccouple the FEELING / RIGHTS / STANDARDS DEFINITION BODIES - from the PRODUCERS / THOSE WHO PRODUCE WHAT IS DEFINED BY THOSE STANDARDS. Microsoft's monopoly has resulted from the ability for a proprietary standard to exist. The proprietary standard could not arise if you decoupled these two functions. Instead of having the vested-interest manufacturer defining their own standards and letting the economic force run amuck, it is in the public interest to have economic power trimmed and pruned to grow appropriately to what is good for the consumer (the people) by the democratic exercise of FEELING, rights, and standards definition as a seperate, non-biased entity. A failure to seperate these two will always eventually result in a situation where an abuse of monopoly power can arise. If we are to ask -- who is it that should set the standards? It should not be those with an economic interest in furthering their own protocols. It should be determined by those who love the technology for the technology's sake -- the peer-to-peer open sharing of code by geeks are best qualified to do this. Through this sharing, they will ensure that the best technical solution will be found. The standards thus established are open, and shared. Once these standards exist, then any company can produce and economically benefit by creating products which follow these standards. There must be a seperation of STANDARDS SETTERS and STANDARDS IMPLEMENTORS. But it is important to understand that this is a reciprocal relationship. Otherwise, unrealistic standards that don't relate to real-world need will arise. The standards are to be created by consideration for the user; for the user. The economic force to carry out and pay people to implement a system conforming to this need however must remain seperate from the standards-defining body. The best way to do this is to ensure that Open Standards are adhered to, and that Proprietary standards are not allowed to arise. This is best done by seperating the standards setting body from those who have the economic force necessary to deliver a product based on those standards. Listen to Richard Stallman -- he has the best solution for re-regulation of normal industry operation -- to remedy any harmful ways in which Microsoft may operate. References: - Social Threefolding, Rudolf Steiner: http://www.anth.org/socialthreefolding/tsnindex.ht m - Linux - By the People; For the People: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/so cialLinux.html - Towards a Threefold Social-Economic Order: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/St einer-Social.html - Richard Stallman on How to Deal with Microsoft: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4999.html - The Microsoft Halloween Documents: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ --
Newspaper reports from Washington say officials are highly sceptical of the proposals from Microsoft.
The error: sceptical, which should be skeptical.
"Sceptical" is how the Brits spell "skeptical."
Now where's me aluminium pots?
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Just for the record: according to the story, it wasn't the judge, it was the DoJ's legal team. Just like in any prosecution (legal or civil), the two sides can "cut a deal" that bypasses the need for a judicial ruling. OK, there might be exceptions to that "rule" I just stated but at any rate this wasn't Justice Jackson's doing.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
wow, i'll remember this the next time i want to show someone that their SSL server isn't enough.
VA to Andover: Know your role, shut your mouth. Andover: would you like your salad tossed now?
Good point, except that Ford shouldn't be allowed to make their radios part of the engine block, effectively preventing the end-user from choosing a pioneer radio instead.
Who else has a big enough stick to swing at the biggest-softball-in-existence (now 2nd I suppose) that is Microsoft?
Intolerant people should be shot.
If Microsoft chooses to give software away they are crushing other companies, but if others give software away thats OK?
Someone doesn't understand the term intent do they? How about motive?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Not only that, but they only offered to "de-integrate" IE from Windows on W95,W98! So what! Are they even MAKING those anymore? Yeah, big sacrifice there, MS. They still want to keep it "integrated", (i.e. "Kuwait is now part of Iraq!"), in W2k, etc.
Kinda sounds like:
But, traditionally, Windows has been marketed as an OS that didn't need a "nerd" to run. You could pull any Joe off the street that was halfway computer literate and they would be able to use the simple point and click administrative tools of the OS to be able to flawlessly configure and maintain your enterprise systems. Think of the salary and benefits savings! You don't have to pay someone buku bucks just to install, configure, and maintain your enterprise systems! You can hire a MCSE, which are in plenty of supply and relatively "cheap" (compare them to CCIE's).
;-)
No, unless Microsoft has drastically changed their marketing hype for Windows NT/2000 then I don't think it qualifies as nerd news worthy. If they have changed thier hype, then get rid of the friggin GUI as a REQUIREMENT! Yes, a GUI is nice to have, even on Linux servers, but they should generally not be run in a production server environment.
Me thinks you in denial! Accept what Microsoft is telling you! Windows NT/2000 is not nerd news worthy, because you don't need a nerd to use or understand it! It's a simple OS for simple people
There are other large database companies or offerings that are comparable to Oracle (think DB2 for gosh sakes). Oracle does not have a monopoly on databases. Microsoft does have a monopoly on consumer desktop Intel OSes. That has already been ruled. No matter what happens from here, that fact probably can't be successfully argued.
About Novell are you talking now or then? If you are talking about the past then you may have had a case. But, the industry was not as wide-spread as it is now. Now, networks are ubiquitous. If you are talking about now, Novell certainly does not have a monopoly on network operating systems. I think it would be a streatch to say that Microsoft does, yet, but I think this is their clear goal. The merging of their consumer desktop OS code with their server OS code is a clue as to how they want to extend their desktop consumer OS monopoly into the server area. Isn't the EU looking into this?
I couldn't help noticing that one of the possible options shown on the bbc's news item was the possibility of open sourcing their code...
Is this really still an option?
How probable is it that it will happen?
Even if it doesn't, it's interesting to think of the effects on the entire world of IT...
For one thing, all those 65k bugs in y2k shouldn't take long to be corrected. New products would all work seamlessly with MS stuff, you'd also get some interesting code forks... Perhaps it's a move that would even guarantee microsoft a longer life span than any of the other options.
But seriously, can anyone let me know what the main effects would be?
The 9x "kernel" is a sinking ship. Who cares if you give away the blueprints to the Titanic after it hits the iceberg? They're merging the OSes into just the NT kernel. -witz
No. Spiteful because it does not make any argument, simply an assertion on a tired and shallow political theme, whilst deliberately insulting a large section of the /. readership. Europeans, I mean, not Linux/open source bigots.
Personally, I find being called a has-been unix zealot quite funny.
(Rest of this reply deleted. dontfeedthetrolls)
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
Great, so we end up with a bunch of lawyers getting rich off of sueing MS. How does that help consumers? Even if they win huge class action lawsuits against MS's pricing of Windows what do consumers get? Maybe a check for $10?
The settlement would have given OEMs the flexibility to distinguish their products, which is what they wanted. The government would have had some ability to oversee MS's business practices, which would likely leed to more fair and consiestant OEM pricing. Microsoft would have retained control of what features their products contain (with the exception of IE).
The government doesn't seem to think that any settlement that doesn't even the playing field is good enough. Why would anyone want a government leveled playing field. How can any company be expected to inovate and create a better product, if the government will just dictate a level playing field.
I think that MS has done a lot of bad things, but the remedy needs to address the problems. The lawsuit was supposed to address integrating IE into Windows. I believe the States also complained about MS's OEM pricing of Office and Windows as a package. The rest of the testimony was supposed to just show a pattern of poor behavior on MS's part. Why is it that the government's resolution to the problem (breaking up MS) doesn't seem to be a very good solution to the charges they brought against MS?
My main concern at this point is that the government doesn't seem to be trying to help consumers as much as Microsoft's competitors. The worst thing that could happen from this trial is that a legal precedent of the government regulating how software is developed could result. That could be much worse for consumers than a monopolistic MS. After all Microsoft does innovate to some extent, and someone could always just build a better OS and compete with MS. However, few things stifle innovation like burocracy. If you've ever tried managing a software project you know what I mean. It's bad enough trying to get marketing to decide what they want, and determine what you can do with the resources at hand (time, personel, hardware, money). Immagine if those same indecisive marketing people were trying to second guess what the government would let them do? Immagine what happens when your product's significantly better than your competitor's and you start affecting the sales of some company in another Congressman's district. Even if that Congressman's not corrupt, is it his duty to fight for free enterprise, or to fight for the jobs of his hard working constituants, or even the tax revenues that allow the government in his state to perform their operations.
We really need to keep the government out of determining how products are developed, because the results aren't likly to be anything the software industry or consumers really want.
Remedies should address the charges. The charges were tying IE to the OS, and something about how MS unfairly prices Windows and Office to OEMs.
OS/2 isn't involved. If Microsoft changed their pricing strategies and seperated out IE, that should address the charges.
However, this case now appears to be a political issue, where the AGs are out to advance their political careers rather than address the needs of consumers. Maybe I'm sceptical, but it looks to me that wether MS wins or loses the consumer is likly to get screwed in the end.
Although people seem reluctant to admit it there are likly thousands of known bugs in your typical Linux distribution. I don't work on Linux myself, but it seems like our developers that do run into their share of bugs in the kernel, many of which people already know about, and that's just the kernel. Win2000 contains a lot more than what *NIX users would consider a kernel, so comparing it to the Linux kernel isn't really fair.
I'm always skeptical when I hear how open sourcing a project makes bugs disappear. It seems like when there's a bug in LINUX, it's ok, people know about it, and they're working on a fix. It'll likely make it in the next stable kernel release in 6 months or so. If there's a bug in Win2000, then Win2000 is horribly buggy crap, and people people shouldn't have to pay for software that has to be patched. I understand not liking to pay for something that's not exactly what I wanted, but face it, no large software package is ever bug free. MS products do seem to reach a lower quality standard than I'd like, but they do seem to be trying to address this, if somewhat slowly.
So should the DoJ take up cudgels against Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler et al. on behalf of Blaupunkt and other ICE manufacturers because the big motor companies have integrated the same product?
--
Cheers
Cheers
Jon
Yes, compared to every other software company in the world, they do. Check out MSDN some time.
Stuff like SMB etc aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about documentation for application developers.
MSDN is a cohesive and well maintained resource for developers. It has hundreds of GB of useful articles, documentation and source code, updated basically hourly.
So much of the work done on Linux is poorly documented. Sure I can look up the man pages for "printf", but what about documentation on for example...KEdit's exposed interfaces? No I don't want to read the source.
Many OSS developers leave it up to people to read their source rather than document their work, cause the documentation isn't the fun part.
So you're telling me that the MFC class hiearchry wall chart you got with VC++, the numerous and well documented class descriptions (you're expected to know Win32 cause MFC just wraps Win32), the 1200MB MSDN samples and documentation that comes with VC++ and the source code to MFC is not enough for you?
Try searching for once, you'll be able to find heaps of books on MFC programming on amazon.
Yeesh.
And what's this about "don't get me started on VC++", i'm interested to know what problems you have with it. It's the best C++ IDE out there, excellent compiler and debugger, intellisense, edit-and-continue etc etc etc.
There's a hell of a lot of professional developers out there that manage to develop windows applications without windows source code - cause microsoft are the only company in the world to document ALL their work well enough (look at MSDN & Technet).
And open source maybe good for some people, but not the consumer, forking windows isn't good.
No, NT and 95 don't count, cause most homeusers are guided to use 95, and all the versions of 95 and compatible (with very few exceptions).
Even win95 software will generally run ok on NT.
Not that source code for NT would be bad, just that saying it won't harm consumers is very narrow sighted.
>It's a great shame that Judge Jackson has decided against Microsoft's offer of a settlement,
Do you know the terms of this offered settlement?
If you don't they why can you say the rejection of the settlement is a shame?
For all any of us know, the terms offered were $5 payment to the FSF, and a promise to not do it again.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
The SlashDot slogan should be:
"News for nerds...stuff that matters to us left wingers here at Andover."
I'm still working on a clever footer.
You may think is fair but its also illegal. Andrew
It would be the same if the "top" musician took a baseball bat and broke the other musicians' arms so they couldn't make any more music. Andrew
Well, there you have it.
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
Visit
Forcing MS to take IE out of windows is extremely dumb and would set a dangerous precedent of the gov't saying what can and can't go into software. Consider this example:
Ford makes lots and lots of cars. They don't have radios. There is another company, say pioneer, which makes radios for fords and lots and lots of people like having radios in their car so they buy them. Ford sees this and starts including a radio as a basic free feature on the car. Users rejoice but unfortunately pioneer has just been squeezed out...
This is exactly what is happening with IE and netscape. No one would say ford shouldn't be allowed to include a radio with all of their cars just because pioneer will have to do something different then. Why should ms be told not to include a browser, which most all users would want, just because it might hurt netscape? Too bad but that is business....
May be too late for anyone to see this, but anyway...
Just because IE is in windows doesn't mean you have to use it. I have netscape 4.7 and IE and I will admit to using both of them because they are both good for different things. Just because IE is built in to the OS and and I can't easily get rid of it doesn't prevent me from using a differnet program if I so choose...
It wasn't Judge Jackson, it was the DOJ.
Microsoft has done a lot of good for the computing industry as a whole, making it so that computers have moved from being the domain of long-haired hippies at geek enclaves like MIT to being available for everyone.
Microsoft has done a lot of good for Bill Gates, by stealing what those long-haired hippies at geek enclaves like MIT developed for free and then turning around and forcing the public to pay big bucks for their stolen goods, even if they didn't want it!
Spoken like a true Microsoft employee. Boy, Gates really has you serfs brainwashed, doesn't he? What an audacious, atrociously self-serving statement! To say that the personal computer would have gone nowhere in the past twenty-odd years without Microsoft, is to demonstrate that you have an arrogant, belittling attitude toward the entire industry, and all of the real software innovators out there. Bill Gates was, and is a snake oil salesman, who had the incredible luck to be in the right place at the right time at the beginning of a technology that could only mushroom into the most pervasive industry of the end of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, he is also the, greediest, most unethical, paranoid, megalomaniacal individual in that industry, and for those reasons no one can know what the computer industry would be like without Microsoft today, because Microsoft has held the entire industry in its death grip for the past ten years. With Bill Gates on the scene, there has been no true innovation that has not been strangled, or prostituted to Microsoft's lame system. If you want another opinion, and one which takes into account ALL the facts, and not just what Bill Gates wants you to know, I believe that the computer industry would be years ahead of where it is today if Microsoft had not been around. It would be all open source instead of closed and obscure and proprietary, and one would not have to pay for bug fixes that are released every three years under the guise of an upgrade.
By forcing Microsoft to limit their practices you are forcing the ordinary consumer who wants to own and use a PC to accept something which is second-best in terms of easy use - it is far easier for a normal user to have their browser as part of the OS than it is to have it as a separate application.
This is pure hogwash that Microsoft has tried to force down everyone's throats, but it is brainwashing drivel from Redmond that the intelligent observer, and the court, I might add, has seen fit to reject out of hand. Only a blooming idiot who doesn't know how to click on an icon would want his browser as part of the OS everytime he boots up, and such a moron probably would have no clue how to use a browser anyway. The only person who wants the browser to be integrated with the OS is Bill Gates, because he wanted it to be impossible for people to have a choice and use Netscape instead of IE. This has been proved in the court.
Anything which aims to make computing easier for the masses, like AOL have done, seems to attract rabid flamebait rather than honest praise.
Anything which aims to make computing easier for the masses has not been adopted by Microsoft-- Bill Gates has seen to it that everything that goes into Windows is not cross platform, and excludes non-Microsoft software. Macintosh is far easier to use than anything Microsoft has created and is far more cross platform than Windows is. Microsoft is not AOL, either, so don't try to ride on their coattails. What attracts flames, and justifiably, I think, are comments like yours, which ignore the facts and try to promulgate the fictitious bullshit that originates and continues to flood out of Redmond like bovine diarrhea. You can bullshit all of the people some of the time, and you can bullshit some of the people all of the time, but you can't bullshit all of the people all of the time and not get caught. That is something Bill Gates and company has not learned, and I think they never will learn it. Once a snake oil sales company always a snake oil sales company.
Erchie
In the Register article, it says that Microsoft wants to be freed of having to admit that it is guilty of antitrust violations. The DOJ has backed off of demanding that Microsoft be broken up, and that's a good thing I think, because to break it up would be like cutting off the head of a monster that then grows two in its place-- who needs a whole slew of Microsofts all over the landscape, like great globs of chickenshit all over the barnyard. But to allow Microsoft to be convicted of antitrust violations, and then make a settlement which allows them to walk away from the legal consequences of such a conviction, is an insult to the justice system and the American public. It would be giving Jeffry Dahmer a slap on the wrist for his cannibal crimes and telling him he should become a vegetarian.
Erchie
And when he goes offshore, I hope he takes all of you knee-jerk Microsoft apologists with him. You can all go to China, where the right to choose is a crime.
Erchie
Another example of Microsoft's "innovation"-- the effective use of Active Directory excludes all other software that Microsoft does not market. The user can't benefit from it unless he has a 100% Microsoft shop from top to bottom. It sounds great for Microsoft, but it is horrible for the consumer.
No, wait-- It is probably going to be really bad for Microsoft, too-- because it is going to open them up for another DOJ antitrust suit!
Boy, you Microsoft people never learn, do you.
Erchie
Three of the four sources you list are quotes from Microsoft officials. Who can believe them anymore? They have proved they will do anything, including lie to promote Microsoft.
The other source says that China will not ban Microsoft. So What? That means nothing.
Erchie
Yes, the government has a strong case. Judge Jackson has ruled Microsoft a monopoly. Judge Jackson may impose big penalties against Microsoft. The truth is that none of the remedies ordered by Jackson will be implemented any time soon.
By not settling, Microsoft can tie this whole thing up in appeals for decades. In the mean time, they can continue their monopolistic practices.
True. They cannot set laws, tax you or have their own military.
Well they can not directly set laws, tax you. They can buy off politicians who can effectively do that, so the end result would be that they could. Military is a loose term. They actually could get a large group of security persons and essentially have a military. I'm not too sure this would happen though. In the human condition there is greed and people can be bought, I can, and because of this MS can control our government. Politicians whore themselves everyday.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Friend, if you claim that Microsoft has never prevented anyone from making a compatible system, you're either not familiar with computing history or pulling a Clintonesque word game. Are you not familiar with the FUD games Microsoft played with Windows to kill off DR DOS? Do you not know the history of win32s, and how Microsoft kept changing it in order to break compatibility with OS/2? I commend the book The Microsoft File to your attention.
I don't think splitting up MS would be good for the IT sector - MS has brought out some good stuff, like it or not, and has created the environment where almost every business can and does use a complex IT system - that they can "administer" themselves.
Look! We're stealing marketshare anyways! As long as MS keeps away from "wetwork" it can do all it wants in my book.
(btw: It's really early in the morning here - I'm listening to corrs and making something that's _really_ _really_ cool - if I finish it, maybe it'll even get on slashdot front page tomorrow. :-)
:wq
Maybe Dexter could just build a big-ass machine to settle the MS anti-trust case; but I say call the Justice League in!!
"You point your finger at the moon, the fool stares at your finger."
There is precedence for this: Michael Milken was banned by the SEC from ever trading or dealing securities again. He's still rich, and active with charities, an educational venture, and (I believe) some real estate business, but he can't work in the world of finance. What a fitting punishment for Gates, Ballmer, et al. That combined with a $1 fine would be simply poetic, since the damage the ban would have on the value of the stock would be much more devastating.
It seems obvious MS has broken the law with it's abuse of monopoly power... even if you disagree, as a citizen you need to accept what the courts decide. A lot of people around here just want to serve their own purposes, though... "open source this so I can do that," or "it'd be neat if they made them port software X to operating system Y." When we look back at what happened with the oil monopoly, it was a lot simpler back then--crude oil is crude oil, it's not like different oil is selectively compatible with refineries like software is selectively compatible with OS's. The way to break up a monopoly is to cut it into smaller parts and let other companies compete with the parts... but even if you siphon off MSN and MS Office from windows, linux still can't compete with windows until it can run Photoshop and Quicken and Barbie Fashion Designer... Is there a way that Jackson could make a change that would make this possible? Turn over all the defacto standards (DirectX, etc...) to something like the W3C and give MS and RedHat and Sun and Apple equal influence over them? Would that help?
Please moderate this up, its refreshing to see a truthful depiction of a typical users struggle with Microsoft Windows. I thought I was the only one...
Lars -
Microsoft is still developing the Win9x/MSDOS code, see such stories as "Windows Millenium"
From such a misinformed post, it is obvious you don't work for Microsoft, thank you.
Lars -
"Why are you posting on Slashdot anyway?"
He gets paid by his employer to. It is a well known fact that Microsoft has its employees troll the Open Source forums, trying to pollute and divide the participants' beliefs. The Japanese call this tactic "fukuro-gaeshi no jitsu"
Lars -
I'm the Technology Manager for a group of student organizations at UMBC, known as Student Media. This encompasses the radio station, newspaper, and yearbook (and soon a creative arts journal).
The offices, for the most part, have Windows98 running on the machines. For the most part, this is OK...sure, every once in a while the machines crash, and sometimes they forget their network settings, but we expect this, no? Oh, and of course, the occasional macro-virus, despite the auto-updating version of McAfee. All of these machines are used by one or two people.
We also have a newsroom, which is a place where all the writers can go and write their stories. Some writers have weekly columns, and some write one story and then never show up again. The section editors use these machines, because they don't have their own offices. A similar situation exists at the radio station...all of the Music Directors share an office, because space is tight.
These multi-user machines SUCK. Despite the fact that we have them completely locked down (as far as we can), they consistently break in new and exiting ways. The only way that we can keep them at a reasonably sane level of operation is to use Ghost to wipe the hard disk each week, and replace it with a fresh installation image. The same is true of the NT machines in the university labs.
We have 3 older machines, P90s w/ 16M of RAM, which just don't run Win98 well enough. I've made them into Linux X-terminals. These machines are right next to the Windows ones in the newsroom, and get plenty of use. They have been around for a year, and do not break. This is a sharp contrast to the Windows machines. We'll not even mention the fact that people routinely download and install things like Quicktime 3, even though 4 is already on the machines (back to Windows now.)
Windows may work OK in a setting where 1 or 2 people use the machine (98 is NOT a multi-user-OS!) But in a setting like this, or in an "Internet Cafe" (I'm theorizing on that one, but they're similar enough), it's abominable.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
You guys make like they keep it locked in a vault some where.
Just how do you think you do an implmentation of the WIN32 API? Just magic and guessing? No.
You License the source code from Microsoft. They are a in it for the money company so to have a gander at the source it takes big iron and money. Nothin less nothing more, just a little green.
Jeremy
As can be read on http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/cp-25.03.00-00 0/ (german only, sorry), Microsoft proposed to lay "parts of their business practices" and "parts of their software" open to the governement.
Maybe they think that this would leave enough control to them, to go on comfortably like they did up to now.
A governement is controllable, and I think, they can easyly control which parts of their sources they show to whatever gov. organisation.
I agree. Yours is a pretty decent post.
Back in the day, I remember the DOJ forcing a media conglomerate in our town to sell off some stations -- the owner was pissed and hated it, but he had to obey the law, just like us little people. A company can't do anything it wants; might does not make right.
In another instance, a company I knew of was regulary breaking the law; failing to honor contracts, etc. Eventually (it took awhile) the city rescinded their right to do business.
How many of you have seen restaurants closed down for a week by the health department? I've seen several. They fail to properly handle the food, they get penalized. At least there are other restaurants...think about that one.
Microsoft attained it's position by breaking federal and state laws repeatedly. They grossly violated written contracts with Sun, IBM, Novell and STAC, and in the case of Borland, launched a covert operation to brain-drain the company through a elaborate "technology day" at a nearby hotel, which was in actuality a Microsoft recruiting center. This was a completely illegal manouver (brain draining a competitor is a crime in California) but it did give MS Borland's high end developers, including Anders Helsjborg(sp), the chief architect of Delphi, arguably the most terrifying piece of software BG ever saw. In every case, Microsoft tied up the various plaintif's resources until the bitter end, only offering to settle in the final days of the trial.
Microsoft is the mafia without the murder. Although I bet you could find some people who were pushed to suicide after there companies were ruined by MS. Murder? That would be a stretch.
Criminal behavior used to obtain their current market share? No doubt whatsoever. This wasn't innovation, this wasn't healthy corporate aggression. It's the cogent, repeated use of criminal behavior to increase profitablility and market share.
The government intervention is proper. When freedom fails, the government has to step in to correct the injustice. Just as you would call the police if you saw a crime committed, many companies in many states have had enough. And many citizens have had enough. They overwhelmingly support action against Microsoft.
As I recall, IBM wiseley settled their case with the DOJ in the 1970's. MS, Sun, SGI, Apple probably never would have happened without that settlement. I have heard part of the agreement allowed the R&D departments of competitors, as well as inspectors from the government, to review IBM engineering tasks prior to implementation, and some measure of control.
Is IBM dead now? Were they broken up? No, and no. IBM is a big, powerful, robust company that is fairly cutting edge in a number of technologies. Does IBM sell anything you can't get from a competitor? Not really. The solution worked.
Similarly, the DOJ needs to come up with a system to end Microsoft's illegal activities, and implement the necessary strategies such that MS' market share is (eventually) dropped to 33% (or less) of the desktop and/or servers.
Micosoft forced this issue by failing to recognize what it means to do business in America. There are rules you have to live by, like it or not. Microsoft could have a very favorable, healthy image in the eyes of the government and the public if they would have dome the right thing -- settle the case, admit their errors, accept that they would be forced to lose market share for the common good, and as a penalty for illegal behavior. But no, Bill Gates won't have that. It's all or nothing, baby! Megalomania roolz!
So be it. You made your bed...
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
"What is the most common question you are asked by friends and acquaintances, when the find out that you study/work in the computing field?"
:)
:)
"Four out of Five computer professionals surveyed say: "Can you fix my [Windows] computer?" (While the comment is a little toung in cheeck, among the rather large number of computer professionals I know, the statistic would be 37 out of 37 surveyed)."
Well, I can't say I'm no stranger to that. However, you're conveniently leaving out the fact that some of those "Can you fix my computer?" comments may not be related to Windows itself. Of all the times that I've been called over to a friends' or relatives' house to fix their computer, it's either been software related (be it a bug in Windows or not) or hardware related. Just because someone asks you to fix their computer doesn't mean that Windows is the culprit behind it all. [Enter needless flame] Way to spin doctor though
As for your comments about how easy it is for everyone to use Linux, so be it. However, for further reading, I suggest you check out this link about ease of installing Linux. This is also a good link to check out. But you'll probably dismiss it as pro-Microsoft bias. *rolls eyes* Oops, more needless flamage
Oh yes, for the record, no, I'm not a Microsoft droid. But after posting a pro-Microsoft opinion here and there, people seem to assume so.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
As for MS they really don't seem to be hurting much ... 567 billion dollars and the second most valuable company in the world. I don't know about you, but I think 1 billion could pretty much set me up for the rest of my life fairly well. But this has been absolutely great for Linux and other operating systems. RedHat especially knew how to play off the situation. There were a number of Linux IPO's and even better I saw more drivers start to come out for hardware in linux. Maybe it's all just coincidence ... but I doubt it.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
And when it's all said and done everyone can have some Distributed Open Cookies and Milk. They can call it project DOCM and link it to www.docm.org. And when it's all said and done they can keep the clients going by trying to prove OJ guilty. But not before both a Mac and Linux port are made.
The whole thing can be set up as a client to search for aliens. Everyone will buy it. Such silly people ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
> Well, compared to the documentation available for Linux
What? Aren't man pages good enough for you?
Then there is always the excellent 'Linux
Application Development', which is aimed at
anyone who has coded before. In fact, a lot of C
calls are standard across platforms. *points to open(), et al.*
So, where is the lack of documentation?
Have you actually looked?
Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
You forget that companies that didn't sell to MS were run into the ground by MS developing the same product and then "integrating" it into Windows. Examples that come to mind are IE and Media player. I'm sure there are many others that I can't thing of right now.
Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
First of all DR-DOS was completely compatible with MS DOS. It was also a VAST improvenment over MS DOS 4.x. But was really no better than MS DOS 5 or 6. There were virtually no differences between them as far as consumers were concerned. DR-DOS needed to be MUCH better than MSDOS to win over an established product, they weren't, so they didn't.
Second of all. At the time, M$ was not a monopoly, and per-processor licenses were legal. The only became illegal AFTER M$ became a monopoly, and at that time M$ stopped allowing that as an option.
Also, M$ NEVER REQUIRED per-processor licenses of PC manufacturers, they merely gave a discount to those that choose that method. The discount is justifiable because the bookkeeping that M$ has to do to know what to charge is much simpler.
Per-processor licenses started after M$ discovered that IBM had under-reported and underpaid by SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS for Licenses of MSDOS and Windows.
Finally, The incorrect error messages weren't on purpose. This is quite simply a lie. You belive it because you WANT to, not because there is any evidence to back it up.
tj
Heh. So I guess there are hoardes of ISP's out there that depend on Windows NT for their 24/7 mission critical servers, eh?
Most IT managers wouldn't do that, because their jobs depend on the infrequency of things crashing at critical times... they depend on stability and redundancy, because when every last one of your customers is calling to complain that the DNS server isn't doing anything, you can guarantee that many of those customers are going to go away in a short period of time.
Tell me that these people do not drop windows because it crashes. Because, after all, windows is so great and wonderful.
---
I can't wait for proper speech-recognition.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Well, that was an impressively knuckleheaded comment.
/.ers, secure in their guru-like
Lessee... First off, the settlement was rejected by the DOJ; the judge had absolutely nothing to do with it. Second, how do you know the offer was sensible? For all we know, the offer was that Janet Reno would get a free copy of Microsoft Bob. Third, dragging the case out does, in fact, benefit a whole lot of people. As long as M$ is up on antitrust charges, they pretty much have to play nice. Do you honestly think M$ would have allowed companies like Compaq to ship Linux boxes without the case going on? They sure did all they could to keep people from shipping DR-DOS and OS/2 systems.
Fourth, GUIs came out of Xerox, and were first released to the public by Apple. M$ just copied them, and poorly; the gui that Apple's been using since the mid '80s is STILL better than the ones M$ ships today. IBM, Intel, AMD, et al. in various ways all have a hell of a lot more to do with the inexpensive hardware we have these days; all M$ has done is keep the price of PCs higher than they need to be through monopoly pricing. Hell, even Atari and Commodore had more to do with it than M$.
>Microsoft play an important part in the
>promotion of computers as useful tools, and
>people know that they can use a Windows machine
>even if they don't have any knowledge of
>"kernels", "drivers" or "environment variables".
Yeah, and anyone who knows someone who knows something about Linux can have their system set up so they don't either. And everyone I know has huge problems with drivers on Windows. Never had a problem with Linux...
Oh yeah, and MacOS, BeOS, OS/2,... Linux ain't exactly the only option out there, and most of them "just work" at least as well as 'Doze. Since most of them "just stop working" a hell of a lot less.
>By forcing Microsoft to limit their practices
>you are forcing the ordinary consumer who wants
>to own and use a PC to accept something which is
>second-best in terms of easy use - it is far
>easier for a normal user to have their browser
>as part of the OS than it is to have it as a
>separate application.
Why? Do you honestly believe people are too stupid to install the free browser on the CD that shipped with their system? Is that too complex for you? I firmly believe that 90% of the people on this planet are too stupid to live, but even *I* give them more credit than that.
>However I'm sure that this view will offend the
>majority of
>knowledge of how to compile a kernel, set up
>Apache and write Perl CGI scripts. Anything
>which aims to make computing easier for the
>masses, like AOL have done, seems to attract
>rabid flamebait rather than honest praise.
Why do you get so defensive just because we're brighter than you? The reason it attracts flames is because bullshit like AOL and 'Doze *makes our lives harder.* Why do idiots like you insist on rabidly flaming Linux instead of honestly praising it for the sheer number of headaches it's saved sysadmins around the world?
I'm wondering whether this was a decent troll, a lame attempt at astroturfing, or an actual, bona fide, idiot...
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
>First of all DR-DOS was completely compatible
>with MS DOS. It was also a VAST improvenment
>over MS DOS 4.x. But was really no better than
>MS DOS 5 or 6. There were virtually no
>differences between them as far as consumers
>were concerned. DR-DOS needed to be MUCH better
>than MSDOS to win over an established product,
>they weren't, so they didn't.
Then why did pretty much every comparison done by the trade rags end up choosing DR-DOS? Why so many rave reviews, *including* DR-DOS 5 and 6? Answer? Because it *was* a much better product.
>Also, M$ NEVER REQUIRED per-processor licenses
>of PC manufacturers, they merely gave a discount
>to those that choose that method. The discount
>is justifiable because the bookkeeping that M$
>has to do to know what to charge is much
>simpler.
Umm... Those discounts were significicant enough that they cost the company FAR more than a minimal savings in bookkeeping. The only real benefit to M$ was to make it uneconomic to ship any OS other than MS-DOS on an ix86 system.
>Finally, The incorrect error messages weren't on
>purpose. This is quite simply a lie. You belive
>it because you WANT to, not because there is any
>evidence to back it up.
Then why did they encrypt this particular error message, unlike any other? The ONLY reason is because it was to drive people away from DR-DOS, which was anticompetitive, and they knew it damn well, and were trying to hide it.
Go away, Microsoft astroturfer.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Well forcing microsoft to open it's source code
would not harm consumers in any way, and would
give (professional) people chance to see what the
hell is going on there, just in case.
Let's hope that the Europeans actually get round to investigating MS's other racket: MS Office.
IMHO it's not much of a racket, at least not in North America; there's still WordPerfect Suite. Maybe nowhere as big a market share but to me it's a superior product. And they just released the full suite on Linux...which makes me giggle. In a good way of course...
My PID is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9 my parent process. Prepare to vi.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
IMHO they're more worried about the hundreds of Sherman Act suits that would follow any kind of a ruling by Judge Jackson; that's why they tried to get some kind of a settlement in before it went back to his court. Little-endian users can't do much against them; class-action suits at triple damages would be a bunch more than the 'rounding error' payouts they've had to make to date.
My PID is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9 my parent process. Prepare to vi.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
I would like to see M$ get broken into at least three parts; I also don't want to see what's going to happen to their stock price if that happens, considering how many companies have their employees' 401k retirement plans hooked to it. Kind of a two-edged sword; I'm glad I am not the one who has to grab it.
My PID is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9 my parent process. Prepare to vi.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
If the judge decides Microsoft needs to be broken up, fined, etc. what will happen to Microsoft?
I'm not a big Microsoft fan, but I think breaking up Microsoft would be bad for computing as a whole.
Then again I'm not crazy about Microsoft getting a slap on the wrist with a padded stick. Remember, this is the second most valuble company in America.
Where is the happy medium?
My email is real.
It seems to me that the possible breakup of microsoft would probably would yield a new *operating system* company and an *application* company. As a very small person in the IT game i have a large difficulty talking my clients into using open source software such as linux on the desktop. They are familiar with the name Microsoft and at least part of what it means to runs their software. One of the problems viewed by the unitiated is the lack of suites of office software (You and I know this isnt true, but some people are too stubborn to convice otherwise). Now if the fracturing of Microsoft yielded an operating system company and an applications company, and lets say for hypothetical purposes that Bill would run the application company (which i personally think he would). Bill could easily port office to run on i386 linux and all of its other processor variants (alpha, ppc). Now lets say that this happens now there is a big name company on the destop of every linux system around, and the name linux grows and grows to fit the destop role that everyone seems to think it is destined for. What do you think, is it plausible. Is it not scary?
From the link:
:-)
>Newspaper reports from Washington say officials are highly sceptical of the proposals from Microsoft
The error: sceptical, which should be skeptical.
But then what do you expect when the sh*t hits the fan?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
IMHO a fair solution would be to open source both windows 9x and NT whilst allowing competitors to release their own Windows distributions compatible with the standard API calls etc.
That way someone out there could release a version that had the same functionality but without the code bloat... 'Redhat Windows' anyone ?
It would be fair and would introduce real competition in the market but I can't imagine Bill saying yes to this one...
Both Algore The Inventor Of The Internet and Dubya Bush have said that they will drop the Microsoft matter completely once they get into office. M$ must have given each of them mucho dinero for their campaign coffers.
So, even if M$ loses the case the appeals process will stop next year because the new honchos at DoJ will be ordered to drop the case by Janet Reno's replacement (whoever that may be) on orders from the new occupant of the White House.
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Do not pass linux! Do not collect 200 dollars...
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
You pass yourself off as someone whose spelling and grammar are correct but you didn't even spell grammar right! Hint: its spelled with an a, dillwad. You go as far as to base the intelligence of your post on correct English! So I guess your entire post can be be disregarded? I hope your network is OK since you obviously can't be trusted to run it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
#2) My point was simply that people give away superior products for free, and so the fsck what. See #1. I did not complain one bit for being provided a free OS that works better than Windows. If Linux proliferates because of this I really don't think anyone is going to step up and cry about it if it ends up hurting Microsoft. Again, its the govt. I fear, not MS.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Really? Netscape crushed? Last time I checked they were still viable, although its now rolled into AOL(yeah, like they're really any better than MS) If Microsoft chooses to give software away they are crushing other companies, but if others give software away thats OK.
To see Microsoft as a monopoly, you really have to limit yourself to the Microsoft view of the computer industry. Since we all know there are several OS choices, the monopoly argument just does not hold water. Just last weekend I bought a brand new computer with no OS and I installed Linux on it. No one forced me to choose Microsoft.
I fear government intervention in the computer industry far more than I fear Microsoft. Wait till all those folks who are going after MP3s and other intellectual property issues start meddling with Open Source and trying to get that off the internet. Then we will know the enemy. Its not Microsoft. Its Big Brother.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Good idea. If the DOJ requires MS to release source code to all of Windows, I wonder how fast MS will start backpedalling on the issue of whether the Internet Explorer web browser is or is not an integral part of Windows.
I remember the days when I had to use another software pakage in order to use my modem. I wouldnt like to buy IE or netscape in order to surf INTERNET. You can have more things in windows that You ever had ever had, in other OSs, like it or not. Without Windows MS the developement that We have seen in computers and INTERNET would be imposible. Windows made a systems for the mases not just a few lucky people, thats why they were successfull. Most people need just functional OS, not the fastest, but the friendliest and most soported, without having to build your OS piece by piece. OKey some of us can spend a lot of time tweaking a Linux system, but can every body do that?
Microsoft have not been prosocuted for being sucessful, they have been prosecuted for using illegal methods to achieve that sucess.
I love how so many people bash Microsoft one day, and then the next time they post, they demand the release of Windows X - open source! I find it hard to believe even the army of programmers found on /. would be able to make significant improvements to the code. If the code is so bad, as many claim, why do so many of those same people fight for its release? Not that I approve the M$ monopoly or anything..
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
It would be the same if the "top" musician took a baseball bat and broke the other musicians' arms so they couldn't make any more music.
i dont see a problem with that. fair's fair: the other musicians have a duty to defend themselves. if they cant be bothered, they cant complain.
--
Just say that Judge Jackson rules that MS must, in penance for its past crimes, post all of its source code on this internet and quietly go out of business. All senior executives will be put in jail for violation of anti-trust for a term of 5-20 years, and barred from working in the computer industry except as a janitor for life. My question is a serious one: As a developer trying to make products that will help my business (in the financial sector) succeed, how am I helped by this scenario? Be honest with yourselves: how many anti-MS zealots are motivated by jealousy? Would you *be* Bill Gates if you had the chance?
My only concern is this: is this a civil case? It might not be an option without a criminal suit. But I really want to see Gates, Ballmer, anyone else responsible for setting the tone of this company, behind bars for however short a time. It is a point that must be made in some way. Hitting them with a pie in the face is just silliness. Hitting them with an Uzi in the face is being LIKE THEM in spirit. That's just wrong. They need to be held accountable for the type of behavior they've forced MS into believing is normal and sanctioned.
- Put all the responsible decision-making execs in jail for an absolute minimum of six months, or at least six weeks. This includes Gates. Hell, being put in jail for six _days_ would be enough to provide a reality check. Anything.
- After the jail time the execs would be barred from working in the computer industry. If it's good enough for Kevin Mitnick... Note, no fines. Who would notice? These are robber barons.
- Microsoft gets found formally guilty of abuse of monopoly power.
- And fined one dollar.
- No more would be necessary.
Seriously. No breakup, no huge fines- all that is needed is to cut off its head (the execs that continue to resist market-owner complacency and bureaucratic internal rot), make it vulnerable to a million class action suits, and allow it to follow the usual course of gradually encroaching irrelevance and out-of-touchness, like the last days of the dinosaurs.The head guys at MS are _crazy_. They are a particular type of crazy that makes it possible to whip a vast organization into action and motivate it with their values. Unfortunately, their values are quite criminal: "win, cheat, don't get caught and if you are, lie". Run this way, the whole company becomes one titanic mugger- but its natural behavior without this continuing drive from above is far lazier and less dangerous. There have been many reports on how Microsoft suffers from the usual bigness syndrome- middle managers building status by _not_ answering their phones to look busier, that sort of corporate idiocy. Dilbertization. You have to have a grudging respect for a upper management that can restrain this tendency at all, through fear and insatiableness and fits of temper when needed- the natural tendency is for MS to get fat and happy and lazy, but the upper mgmt. are CRAZY and will NEVER be satisfied, hence the current situation.
Make MS vulnerable to class action suits by a guilty verdict, and remove the crazy upper management. Jail Gates and co. and block them from working in the industry again. And then leave Microsoft to go its own way, following its own lead, and it will dwindle and be reduced by the market forces it's been trying so hard to avoid all this time.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Do you trust Microsoft, whose legal accumen has been a critical weapon since its first DOS license agreement and before, to submit any settlement terms that wouldn't have several loopholes they can rush through?
Especially if you're the DOJ. After Microsoft laughed off the consent decree last time, the DOJ will be very unlikely to try to use that tactic again. At least not without imposing a lot of safeguards. I'd hate to think the DOJ is stupid enough to trust Microsoft twice.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Shouldn't the objective behind punishing them for being a monopoly
First of all, they are not going to be punished for "being a monopoly." That is not illegal. They will (hopefully) be punished for illegal maintenance of a monopoly.
be not to hurt them just to be hurting them but to "make good" to those who were damaged whatever damages they suffered?
Unfortunately, to making good to those who were harmed would be impossible. Some have estimated that Microsoft has over-charged consumers more than 10 billion dollars. Additionally, they have done irreparable harm to competition in the software industry. We can't know what could have been if Microsoft had not used their dirty tactics to kill off and prevent competition. It would likely mean that consumers would have more choice in what OS to use and the OSes would all play together a lot more nicely than they do now.
Finally, the point of the "remedies" portion of the trial is to do whatever is deemed necessary to restore competition the x86 OS market and prevent further harm to consumers through high pricing and lack of choice due to lack of competition created by Microsoft's business practices. The point is NOT to punish Microsoft for what they've done. That will likely be done through private lawsuits on the behalf of those who were harmed in the most financially quantifiable ways.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Hmm.. I reinstalled Win98 about 6 weeks ago when I upgraded my system. After the first try, it kept detecting my modem at startup even though it was already installed and working. When I finally let it try to install it again, it COMPLETELY screwed up about 70% of the devices on my system. There were resource conflicts everywhere and I couldn't begin to sort them all out. So, I reinstalled again. Now it still detects my modem on startup and I have to cancel it every time.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The previous poster was complaining about Microsoft getting sued by a bunch of people if they are found guilty. I think that's pretty much the way it should be. The current case is supposed to determine whether or not they actually broke the law, and if so, in what ways. Then, with that determined, remedies are supposed to be carried out to make sure they don't do it anymore. That's as far as the DOJ case goes. Then it will be the people who've been screwed by Microsoft's dirty tactics turn to get their pound of flesh (times 3) from the company.
This should win back some of Microsoft's ill-gotten gains which will hopefully help to restore a bit more balance to the market. If Microsoft can't easily afford to give away products and rely on monopoly profits to starve out the competition or use other dirty tactics (such as buying out an OEM's contract with a competitor so that only MS products get distributed and the competitor withers and dies along with consumer choice), they might actually have to compete.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I forget whose site it was, but one of the "Boycott Microsoft"-type sites out there had a long-standing challenge to the Microsoft supporters who visited the site: name any Microsoft product that was truly innovated by Microsoft and not either bought from someone else or blatantly based on a ripped-off idea. Many products were advanced for consideration and rejected. Finally, someone advanced one suggestion that nobody could refute. Yes indeed, folks, it seems that Microsoft does innovate. The name of this wonderful sparkling gem of good-for-consumers innovation?
Microsoft Bob. The precursor to the Office paperclip "assistant".
I don't think any more arguments need to be stated. Microsoft should clearly be banned from innovating any more, lest millions of computer users worldwide suffer permanent sanity loss.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Well why the hell not? MS wouldn't have all of the perks of being a corporation if not for the government. And it's not as though antitrust legislation is new - it's been around for a hundred years. MS could afford lawyers early on. Bill's always been rich, and his dad's a big name lawyer. They knew the rules, and they still chose to break em. I have no sympathy for people that expect to get away with breakin' the law.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Microsoft is not in trouble because they are successful and earned a monopoly position. Microsoft is in trouble because while they held that position, they abused it in ways that I and the US government believe violate the law.
Perhaps whatever happens to Microsoft will be bad for consumers and perhaps it will be good for consumers. Which is it? I don't know and I don't think it should matter. Illegal acts should not go unpunished.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
MS wouldn't have all of the perks of being a corporation if not for the government
:)
Exactly why the less government involvement the better.
I have no sympathy for people that expect to get away with breakin' the law.
Agreed, hence the "It's up to the courts to decide". IMHO the US Government should never have been involved in the first place. A private suit could achive the same end. But big brother has a bigger stick eh? *sigh*
Not that i won't be laughing when MS gets spanked don't get me wrong
Okay, I'll accept this. I would likely have fewer problems with MS if they were never a Corporation to begin with, as it most likely never
/becoming/ a corporation, my objection has to do with them geting perks /because/ they are a corporation. Companys /should/ ONLY have the same rights awarded to individuals.
:) No where did I condone their behavior.
:) and while i /do/ like i guess it's just that I wish it didn't HAVE to be this way
could have gotten so big anyway. But given as how this is the real world, that isn't the case.
That it is the case doesn't make it right. I am not talking about MSFT
My objection to MS's behavior stands.
Really now
And while a private suit could have technically achieved the same end, it's well known by now that the party with the most money is increasingly favored - not the one who deserves justice. This isn't as much of a consideration for the govt. And they're having quite a lot of
success as compared to the private cases, which are proceeding much more slowly. Justice delayed is justice denied....
agreed 100% doesn't mean i have to like it though
It'll be a big win for the DoJ if it can get a guilty finding against Microsoft. This will allow other people to sue MS much more easily. Caldera was bought off by the rich boys from Redmond in a case which could have done *serious* PR damage to MS. The DoJ prevented a settlement by making it appear that it wanted to break MS up. Now it's saying it doesn't want a breakup, leaving MS no time at all in which to come up with a proposed deal which doesn't involve this.
Well done, guys. You've beaten them at their own game.
Let's hope that the Europeans actually get round to investigating MS's other racket: MS Office.
this lawsuit has moved beyond what is immediately good for the consumer. a lot of people have argued that microsoft is being made an example of, despite having made good products. i am not going to argue about whether they make good products. but this is about much more than whether microsoft's continued existence is beneficial to the economy.
microsoft has flaunted the law. repeatedly. they settled lawsuits in the 80s, and broke their promises. they have perjured themselves in court, made highly inconsistent statements, have extended delays as much as possible, and generally have not made a Good Faith effort to treat the legal system with the respect it so often demands.
one of bill gates' strongest assets is also his weakness. his father was a lawyer. a very good one. bill gates thinks like a lawyer. you see this in interviews with him today, you even see this in his argumentative Byte interview with Dennis Bathory-Kitsz from the early 80s. he understands the court system well enough to know that people can play games with the law. and that they do, and that many people can do it quite successfully. but he is not a lawyer, and it shows.
one of the things you learn in law school, through repeated readings of case studies, is that Law Takes Itself Seriously. you can only fuck with judges up to a certain point- then they get medieval on your ass. bill gates has fucked with the system before, and got away with it. he thought he could do it again.
he was Wrong. im sure people have heard of "the wheels of justice". its a good metaphor. those wheels are really slow, but they are also huge, infinitely heavy, and very hard to stop once theyre set in motion.
microsoft cannot be allowed to escape unscathed. their behavior has shown a flagrant lack of respect for law, the justice system, and indirectly, all that it stands for. the judicial system doesnt like people who dont follow its decrees. it has the power to punish those who do, and will... because ultimately, if microsoft can get away with it, then others might try as well.
law is based on the threat of force, not the actual administration of force. in order to preserve order, the system must make sure it is respected. that people exhibit both FEAR AND RESPECT.
we all know microsoft has not respected the justice system. its been patently obvious even with bill gates' own testimony. in short, they have not provided a good example of how businesses should behave in relation to the law. so the justice system is forced to act, and microsoft has only succeeded in making an example of themselves.
unc_
that people are happy w/ Msft, once you learn your way around it's basically consistant and other than the little oddities (the freeze's etc that you mentioned) it IS easier for your average non-pro folks to use. If I were giving free help to a Linux newbie and they really didn't seem to be interested I'd heartly recommend, "I think you'd be better off with Win98/2k".
However what *I* want is: leave the rest of us alone! To each his own. A lot of people really ARE better off with the Windows they've learned. I've known many folks that had a painful time transitioning from Win3 to Win95 GUI, and know some that still use the Win3 file manager in '95! GREAT! I'm ALL FOR IT!! Just don't try to force *ME*, who is quite comfortable and in fact enjoys the nitty gritty bit level control over my network, to use nothing but Msft - Have some respect for *MY* point of view, keep Msft OFF MY BACK! That's the whole point of this suit - we DONT want to stop Msft users from enjoying their products (remember, 27% of them aren't even paid for, per Msft) we want to stop Msft from crushing out every product WE enjoy using. The LAST thing we want is to take someone's choice away. What we DO want is a choice ourselves! Not everyone wants proactive handholding help or training wheels welded on, or an annoying Word processor trying to guess what your trying to do and making it twice as hard as just getting out of my way and letting me do it what I know how to do in the first damn place.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Did you ever consider your parents' reluctance to consider Linux as an alternative might be a reflection of your own pro-Microsoft bias?
While there are a (very) few applications for which Linux simply isn't an ideal solution (video capture for the nonce being one, running some games being another), I challenge any reader here to consider the following:
What is the most common question you are asked by friends and acquaintances, when the find out that you study/work in the computing field?
Four out of Five computer professionals surveyed say: "Can you fix my [Windows] computer?" (While the comment is a little toung in cheeck, among the rather large number of computer professionals I know, the statistic would be 37 out of 37 surveyed).
The only reason users consider Windows to be "easier" to use than, for example, Linux, is that it comes preinstalled on their computer. Using just about anything which is already installed is, by definition, easier than installing something new.
However, once users are confronted with installing Windows again themselves (and this happens to anyone who uses their system with any regularity sooner or later, c.f. bitrot and MS IE or Office's behavior with respect to DLLs shared by non-microsoft products like Netscape and Word Perfect), they are amazed to discover how much more difficult it is to install the latest release of windows 98 than, say, Linux Mandrake. How does one demonstrate this to them? By sitting back and letting them do the work, and being present to provide moral and technical support, and consume their beer in the process.
Once installed, Linux is just as easy to use as Windows, as far as the end user is concerned. When it comes to maintenance, it is even easier, especially if you run Mandrake and use their "update" feature. What's more, it doesn't break on them again in six months! In fact, herein lies one very huge advantage to turning ones non-techie friends onto Linux, where possible: the amount of time you'll spend helping them fix their system yet again will go down dramatically.
I have turned more non-technical people on to Linux than I can count. Not one has returned to using Windows. Not one. These aren't geeks. These are artists, pilots, teachers, authors, and musicians. I haven't done this by "preaching about Linux's robustness" as you put it, but by simpy handing them a Mandrake or Red Hat CD and offering to help them install it. As I said, my "help" for the most part has been to sit back, drink one of their beers, and watch them do the work, answering an occiasional question here or there.
Oh, by the way, the average "clueless" user is much smarter than you arrogantly give them credit for. They do give far more than "two shits" about the robustness and reliablity of their system. They don't care nearly as much whether they are using Microsoft Word, StarOffice, Word Perfect, Abiword, or whatever, as long as they can get to know the interface quickly, and can read and write files in the same filke format their friends and collegues use (usually either Word or Word Perfect). They may lack the technical jargon to express their desire for reliability and robustness, but it is readilly aparent in every sigh of disgust when they lose an hours work due to a system hang, and every frustrated plea upon meeting me: "Can you please fix my broken [Windows] computer?" and in every instance when I diffidently suggest they might want to try Linux and am met with an enthusiastic "Yes!"
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This is just the Microsoft way of making you think you are getting something when you are really not. Opening windows source isn't going to benefit too many people. The source is a big mess and too large to sort through without spending a great deal of time on it. Think about it. In linux... recompile the kernal source the way you want it. In windows... change it and beg microsoft to put it in?!?
If Microsoft releases source code, it has to **build** and it has to create the **same** binaries as the released ones. That's a no-brainer, but, we still might have to do some explaining to convince the DOJ that that's the only way it will work. Furthermore, it has to be source code for **all** versions of Windows, current and future, or it just plain won't work. And finally, it has to be the source for **all* of Windows, not just the kernel.
To put it simply: "the source code, the whole windows source code, and nothing but buildable source code"
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
> you have a bunch of little MSes that still have all the existing insider communication channels
The thing is, as a publicly traded company, each baby-Bill would have to file financial statements and be accountable to its stock holders. Let's assume they were split between the OS (Windows, NT, etc) and the Application (IE) companies.
Look at the findings of facts and you see that, among other things, MS gave away IE and actually paid off AOL's contract with Netscape. These are profitable to the big MS because they maintain their applications barrier to entry. Developers will continue to develop for Windows rather than cross-platform solutions which guarantees future Windows revenue.
If MS were split, the application company would have to give away IE and pay AOL to take it all to protect the profitability of the OS company.
If I were a shareholder of both companies, I'd sell all my MS-Apps stock and buy MS-OS. The OS company wouldn't be able to compensate the Apps company for its losses, and the Apps company would go under.
This is what MS was doing when they were "leveraging" their monopoly. They were willing to take losses in one part of the company to insure monopoly profits in the other. By splitting the company up, you take away the ability to cross-subsidize.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Look at today's (Mary 27) HNN: http://www.hackernews.com/arch.html?0327 00
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
"You have always had a right to choice. I'm just curios why you think it is YOUR right to make my choice now?"
Microsoft: "Yes, you've had your choice all along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Why doesn't MS wait for the ruling? Aren't the secure in the fact that they are not a monopoly?
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Anybody know which candidate(s) they have bribed, um, I mean contributed to for the 2000 elections?
(Anyone who thinks they aren't trying this as part of their game plan is extrordinarily naive. They already "lobbied" to have the DOJ's budget cut. Instead of playing by the rules, M$ is trying a more "cost-effective" solution -- gutting the umpires and/or buying their own.)
Actually, this seems like a pretty good idea to me. If they had to give all OEM's the same pricing, perhaps with a scale to take volume into account, they wouldn't have a lot less leverage to punish OEM's who dare to sell computers with other OS's. It was largely the per-processor licenses and the ability to crush OEM's with excessive prices that they used to keep other OS's out of the market.
As to what is keeping their prices in check, that's a good question. Here's a little quote I found about M$'s earnings:
For the 6 months ended 12/31/99, revenue rose 22% to $11.5B. Net income applic. to Common rose 26% to $4.61B.
A little rudimentary math indicates that M$'s is clearing a whopping 40% (and rising!) profit margin. Now, I'm not an MBA or anything, but most companies would probably be happy making a quarter of that. Hell, most companies would probably be happy with a tenth of that. In a quick search of other large, famous companies, I can't find a one making more that 15%, and most are making less than 5%.
But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept.
I mentioned this once before in one of the numerous discussions about this trial, but here it is again:
So what if there's a new administration at the Justice Dept.? The case is being prosecuted by the DOJ and the Attorneys General of 19 states. Yes, you read correctly, 19. What are the chances that all 19 states have a 'new administration'? I think the answer is pretty obvious. There is no reason to believe that the other prosecutors would just walk away from this case because a 'new administration' up and ordered the DOJ to drop it; and that's assuming a new administration would even be so rash. I mean maybe the public is still sympathetic to MS (and they are unfortunately), but wouldn't people want to know why a trial was succesfully prosecuted, and then suddenly dropped? I don't see a President sticking his popularity on the line right at the start of his administration for just one campaign contributor, no matter how generous.
Furthermore, the other attorneys could get on quite well without the feds since the most expensive/difficult part of the trial is over; I'm pretty sure they would be capable of 'cleanup'.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
The astroturfers are out in force today, ain't they! Just wait until tomorrow, after the verdict comes down.
Meanwhile, those of you who are infatuated with the "brisk sales" of Win2K might want to re-read what I posted on the topic last week.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No surprise. You can expect a steady stream of offers today, tonight, and tomorrow right up until the verdict comes down.
These offers are necessary for PR ("We tried to settle, but the DOJ wasn't interested."), and would also be useful if the prosecution finally made a mistake and accepted one.
The obfuscation in the weekend offer was useful on both counts: for public consumption, it merely needs to sound like a good offer; for the DOJ's consumption, obfuscation makes a mistake more likely.
But dis-integrating the browser? Get real. The browser wars are over, so the offer is way lame. Not to mention the fact that people have figured out how to dis-integrate it without MS's permission. This part of the offer is just for form; the substance lies in their insistence on their "right" to add whatever features they want to their OS. In other words, they're looking forward to the next * wars, where * != browser.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Besides, i feel its better when people express there opinions, and not the lack thereof. So go have fun shoving grits down your pants and let people with half a brain speak.
OTH, i'm not here to preach. Your freedom if ignorance is as much my freedom to speech. So have fun saying whatever you want to say. I'm not gonna stop you.
Wine is a great project, but only came about as a means for linux to emulate the windows environment to run the windows applications. Wine by no means was a commercial effort to compete against windows or microsoft.
As far as closed API's has anyone ever tried writing a competing product to Oracle RDBMS that is compatible? Nope, can't be done, but do we Sue Oracle for that? I mean have you seen there new licensing schemes and how they rape the consumer?
How about Novell, do we get to sue them because nobody could make a compatible product? Weren't they the cause of the downfall of that good ol' company that made Banyan Vines and lantastic? Is it my right to sue Novell for that?
Just some thoughts.
You forgot. "Microsoft uses uncompetitive busines practices to force new OS on unsuspecting businesses. Consumers still have little choice."
BTW, for those of you wanting to save time. 3 of those were written while looking at the same Microsoft press release, one ends "Finally, I'd like to announce that Windows 2000 Magazine has purchased my WinInfo newsletter and Web site, along with my SuperSite for Windows, a Web site dedicated to the future of Windows computing. ", and the China one has a couple interesting points, it should have been shared (Esp with the Linux/China rumors that get posted.)
--
+&x
Tell me. As a consumer, how will i be any better off with Microsoft being sued?
This is the wrong question. The question is, how would I as a consumer have benefited had Microsoft obeyed the law? Once the law is broken, then the question becomes how do I as a citizen benefit from laws that are uniformly and fairly applied?
I don't understand how people can pick at microsoft for writing the OS and the Applications.
This is just muddled thinking. Microsoft is not being sued for producing both applications and operating systems. It is being sued for specific acts by which it illegally leverged its monopoly power in operating systems to limit consumer choice in application software, and to limit downstream partners' ability form business relationships with competing third parties.
As a consumer, would you benefit from a more vigorous competition for office suite software? How can this happen, when MS keeps API information secret? Would you benefit from lower prices? How can that happen, if Microsoft compoletely controls the downstream distribution channel and punishes OEMS who run their businesses for their own benefit and not Microsofts?
After Microsoft will sun be next? Will they have to split the processor division from there OS division? Doesn't that give them unfair advantage in the market?
The answer is, self evidently, no. Sun's having both hardware and software divisions is neither illegal, nor does it harm consumers. Just as Microsoft's having OS and application divisions is not illegal, nor does it in itself harm consumers. Let's be very clear here -- Microsoft is being pursued for specific illegal behaviors, not for their structure. Structural punishments may well be applied, but only because Microsoft has shown cannot be trusted to behave legally and responsibly. In the end a structural punishment may be better for MS shareholders than severe punitive government oversight of day to day operations.
Or is it because the consumers who don't
know about Sun and other Systems out there don't think to sue them too?
Or is it because Sun is not a monopoly and therefore cannot be accused of abuse of monopoly power?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You raise some good points, but miss something very important. This is not (or, at least, should not be) about being Anti-Micro$oft; it's about offering other operating systems. I also am a very firm believer in using the appropriate tool for the job; as well as being very much pro-*nix, I am a M$-Certified Professional, and spent a lot of time with NT, Win9x, NetWare, MacOS, and DOS. There are times when Windows 95 is the most approriate choice -- I would probably never recommend Linux to a non-technical person if they didn't have an interest in learning about it -- but there are many, many times when it is not. Too often people choose the default, rather than the best option. Kind of like when you build Perl -- many questions say, "If you don't understand this question, just hit ENTER." This is not always the best option (although it is correct much more often in the case of Perl than it is with OSes).
From our perspective (the users out there who care about what OS/tools/software we use), there are much better options that M$ windows/office/visual *++ -- but for many casual users, this may not be the case. But this is not the point. This whole thing is about decisions being made for you. Nothing more, nothing less.
This, by the way, is why I will never again use an Apple operating system without an 'X' in it.
darren
Cthulhu for President!
(darren)
Disintegrate IE? Now thats a solution that would make me happy! ;)
God Fucking Damnit
[later...]
So yeah, as an educated consumer i know what fits MY bill.
Who were you educated by? Microsoft PR?
The history of the PC is replete with the smoking carcases of innovative companies that tried to compete with Microsoft:
- DR-DOS
- Stac Electronics
- Netscape
- Blue Mountain Arts
- TV Host
- Internet Electronics (Did you know that "IE" is not a trademark of Microsoft?)
- etc.
Perhaps you can tell me what, exactly, Win3.11 had that Win3.1 didn't except an incompatible API that broke a number of competing products.--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
This is very true. I was a beta tester for Windows 95. I remember being frustrated by the fact that the beta copies would not install on my DR DOS machine. I was forced to reinstall MS-DOS 6.2 on the machine before I could installWin95 beta. I submitted this bug to MS and of course no further action was taken on it.
-JD
Really? Netscape crushed? Last time I checked they were still viable, although its now rolled into AOL(yeah, like they're really any better than MS) If Microsoft chooses to give software away they are crushing other companies, but if others give software away thats OK.
OK, I know you pro-MS guys would say anything to amke MS look better, but this BULLSHIT is a bit too much: to state MS did not crush Netscape. Well, MS only choke the mostimportant source of revenue for Netscape, effectively causing it to fall under an almos-as-slimy corporation as AOL.
And how did MS choke Netscape's main source of revenue? (yes I have to write this, too, because I guesspro-MS guys will ask it)? By (not only) developing and giving a good quality browser away for free (because MS has a LOT of cash that they can throw away for such purposes); and even PUTTING such browser in every Windows shipped with every PC in the world.
Please, spare us the BS that not even you believe.
Sigged!
Goodness me! Who moderated this spiteful little post up?
Now I know it's probably a bit passé to accuse ACs of astroturfing these days. But just from a linguistic point of view, isn't this lovely marketing-speak?
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
Quite so. :-)
And what has changed between the time MS's lawyers insisted IE was part of the OS and now?
Before, Microsoft wanted to use their power in the OS arena to gain power in the browser arena (no pun intended).
Internet Explorer has since become a considerably more popular (and, let's face it, simply better) browser than Netscape. At the same time Linux has begun to erode the popularity of Windows.
So now, Microsoft want to use their power in the browser arena to gain power in the OS arena. As long as IE doesn't run on Un*x, separating Win and IE does not affect this aim.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
...including releasing source code for Windows...
This is just the Microsoft way of making you think you are getting something when you are really not. Opening windows source isn't going to benefit too many people. The source is a big mess and too large to sort through without spending a great deal of time on it.
Think about it. In linux... recompile the kernal source the way you want it. In windows... change it and beg microsoft to put it in?!? I don't think so. If you wanted to change how windows worked you would need to distribute your version of windows with your software. And that's assuming that Microsoft would allow you to do that. Even so, you probably would only get it by buying Microsoft VC++ (kinda like MFC source) or some other MS product. Don't expect microsoft to make a GNU Windows!
Hacker 18, cracks details of Bill Gates's credit card
> Tell me. As a consumer, how will i be any better off with Microsoft being sued?
Tell me, have you R E A D the findings of fact? Can't you S E E how unbelivable evil they are? Isn't it O B V I O U S that the govenment has to intervene? Do you realize how U N I N F O R M E D your opinions are?
Please read:
Halloween I
Halloween II
Findings of Fact
And theres plenty more material I can point you to. Work on those first. Or try Stephenson's stuff.
Without the Sherman Act, your entire life would be run by GlobalMegaCom. It's a patch to the flaw of capitalism.
Please note that the link to the findings of fact is to the original version, released in November 1999. A version, apperantly with slight corrections, was released a month later "by court order", but it's HTML format has quite a few problems... which comes as no surprise: META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"
It's not about fairness. It's about the long term future of your country. Go get some perspective.
BUT having said that, I must say that once I got it, it was a real breeze. Somehow, the steep learning curve always plateaus out. Maybe that's a cool philosophy to live by, no?
Well, I can't say I advocate this for everyone. But that's the difference.
But that ruling would be followed by arguments by both sides in court over what the remedy should be. It's kind of like the "sentencing hearing" after a guilty verdict in a typical criminal case.
The legal and political strategies are interesting. MS would be wise to settle, because that way they could find some terms that are mutually acceptable. If they argue their side and then let the judge decide, they are likely to fare worse. But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept. On the Justice Dept side, they know if they get a break-up it will be appealed, and they could be out in a year. So they want to settle, too, but they have such an overwhelming case that they need to get some major concessions from MS in order to accept any settlement and present it to the American public as "justice served."
Michael Mann, I think I have the subject for your next movie.
But no, they had to try to tough it out. They tried spin control. They tried faked evidence (remember the infamous video?). They tried political threats. They tried bogus technical arguments. They tried meaningless concessions. But it didn't work, which became clear when Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact.
The judge was clearly hinting "you better settle this thing, or you're going to lose big". But Microsoft still didn't seriously try to settle. Dumb move.
So in a few days, the judge will issue his findings of law, and they're probably going to say that Microsoft is doing lots of things that antitrust law says are illegal. Then the penalty phase starts. If DOJ and the state AGs want a breakup, they'll probably get one.
Microsoft can appeal if (when) they lose, but the appeal gets fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, bypassing the circuit courts, due to a change in antitrust law from a few years back. They can't stall for more than a few months.
So Microsoft's own actions have put this thing on a track where the alternatives are narrowing down to breakup or nothing. And "nothing" is, at this point, very unlikely.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The MS Monopoly Game
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Other reports on ZD Net and CNet are saying that the DOJ is backing away from a breakup as a proposed solution
-----------------------------
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
Yet again another attempt at anti-MS FUD from the rabid Linux zealots of /. I hear all of this anecdotal "evidence" of how Windows machines crash every half hour, yet in my experiance this is simply not true.
/. pages from burnt-out sysadmins who are SICK of this crap.   Especially if you have a different OS on older hardware, sitting side by side with it, with all kinds of stuff loaded, and it can achieve uptimes in the hundreds of days!
This is a true story.   I walked into my office this morning and discovered a PDC with the BSOD.   Fortunately a reboot "fixed" (in quotes) it.   A second machine within the same domain also had the BSOD.   That didn't fare as well and I had to waste my day reinstalling it and the backup software, blah.   This isn't some "anecdotal evidence".   This is a fact.
Yes, it can crash, but this generally occurs with poorly written software that doesn't conform to MS guidelines or when the OS has been setup incorrectly.
I can see "poorly written software" possibly causing problems but with all of the "undocumented features", how can a developer really code software using these so-called "Microsoft guidelines"?.   And what does "or when the OS has been setup incorrectly" mean?  If you go through the default install of NT 4.0, put on the latest service packs, keep ALL screen saver activity off the console, configure the video at the undocumented recommended resolution of 640x480 16 colors - WTF else is there to configure?
I think we've all seen enough on these
We're not making this up to spit on MS.   The day they produce a product as stable as DOS 5.0 (which I had running on a 486/33 for 8 years WITHOUT having to reinstall it), then I will buy it.   Otherwise, I hope the judge sticks it to 'em!
JMHO.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
But Oracle doesn't come preloaded on your PC, and Oracle has competition from DB2, MySQL, PostGreSQL, SQL Server ad infinitum...... The benefit (see I can spell) of this lawsuit is to open the OS market to fair competition. OS/2 has almost died due to MS policy and the cowardice of the other PC manufacturers, Netscape for almost the same reason, but at the centre of this is the Machiavellian monopoly at Redmond. Remember that you would not have such a huge choice of hardware as you do if IBM had kept the PC architecture closed, what we want now is the same opportunities on the software side without MS putting pressure on the PC makers. We need compatibility until the playing field is level again and we have a number of competing OSs with real innovation coming from competition.
Perhaps what the DOJ really wanted hard core monitoring and business practice changes and was just pushing for the breakup angle to make anything less seem like a consession... bind the company up in red tape, like with IBM, and you'll punish them severely. Of course, you don't want to hobble them permanently, just long enough to stimulate actual competition and innovation, then set em loose again. Maybe then they'll produce something of reasonable quality at a reasonable price... after all, they'll actually need to compete.
And for all you MS apologists out there who say that MS innovated and all that blather, perhaps they did... but at a far reduced level than the innovation that would be produced in a stimulating, competitive environment. That's exactly the problem with monopolies: When you are your only real competition, you tend to get fat and lazy, and the consumer suffers.
Shouldn't the objective behind punishing them for being a monopoly be not to hurt them just to be hurting them but to "make good" to those who were damaged whatever damages they suffered?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Let me see.
Playstation 2, in one country, in one day, sold as well as Windows 2000 did across the entire world in about 3 weeks (actually 22 days). And Playstation 2 did not have any OEM preload channels to claim as "sales".
Yes, Windows 2000 is selling well compared to the original NT 4.0 (which was hardly a hit before Service Pack 1), and compared to some unspecified "expectations". However suppose that your average machine turns over in 2 years. Then Microsoft's sales are consistent with replacement alone on about 33 million machines. Of course the installed base of NT is a lot larger than that, and NT tends to get replaced more often than once every 2 years.
Hmmm...doesn't seem like much "pent up demand" there!
No, if the Windows 2000 news doesn't improve at some point, Microsoft is in trouble.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Like other 'natural' monopolies ('natural' in that they have successfully established Wintel as the defacto privatized standard of interworking components, and people will continue to want to buy into that standard for compatability, just like settling on a language or system of weights and measurements of conducting business) - I mean, how ELSE are prices going to be settled, just 'trust 'em'? Personally, I can't even SAY 'capitalism' w/o saying 'competition', so if the competition is over, what's the price regulating mechanism? Charge what the market will bear? Hardware just keeps getting better and cheaper, but Msft software seems to be getting better and more expensive. Shouldn't they have to get prices approved like the local power company monopoly does?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It seems to me that capitalism is predicated on a free market where prices are dictated by supply and demand, and that this mechanism of price control breaks down in the presence of a monoploy. Thus anti-trust legislation must a pivotal aspect of a capitalist economy. Anti-trust legislation would be redundant in a centralized socialist economy because prices would be determined centrally. Therefore the US use of anti-trust legislation suggest to me that the US is a capitalist, rather than a socialist economy.
I don't see how being offshore would help either. If the US, EU or Japan can't prosecute the company, they can impose punitive duties on its products. Since all three have at least examined anti-trust charges, I don't see any of them kicking up a major stink with the WTO.
Say for example that "serious" companies (serious defined as having a certain revenue level) were allowed to access the source. That'd still lockout startups and open source efforts. Not to mention the various ways in which the license that is written "to protect Microsoft's intellectual property" could in turn restrict the ability for people to write GPL-resulting code.
In short, the fine print is rather important. Do you trust Microsoft, whose legal accumen has been a critical weapon since its first DOS license agreement and before, to submit any settlement terms that wouldn't have several loopholes they can rush through?
I pored through the Java contract Sun wrote when it became public, and believe me, that one was pretty tight and there were still a few subtle but critical holes that MS was able to drive a Mac truck through.
The very art of compromise and give and take the DOJ would need to eliminate the big holes would still leave need small holes MS could exploit steadily and with substantial strategic success due to their market power.
I remain highly skeptical that any conduct remedies could succeed (in fulfilling the purposes of the Sherman Anti-trust Act) in the face of a relentless, aggressive, and highly intelligent competitor with immense market (monopoly) power.
--LP
The Register had this story posted a bit over an hour ago, which talks about yet another offer made by MS since the rejection of the last one. I'm not reposting the whole thing here, though. Aside from not being broken up, MS are still insisting on not being made to admit they're guilty. Seems like MS is getting really desperate!
Look at what Andrew Schulman had to do to demystify the Window95 hype.
Look at all the undocumented functionality that MS Word used, but nobody else knew about, until it was reverse engineered.
But my opinion is, let them exist. Let the CONSUMER Choose. NOT a lawyer. I feel you are doing the BIGGEST Injustice by making my choices for me in court. Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system, had they done that it would have been anticompetitve. But simply existing without anything better or no one stepping up to the bat does not make microsoft an evil empire.
One little problem with this is using extremely questionable practices and buying out companies left and right even if they have a better product may be business. But, it is they who are keeping you from the best possible solution. This doesn't rely on the court but in there decisions not to play fair. It is your savior who has dug there own hole.
Now no matter how much you like there products they will be getting a slap on the hand thusly deserved.
Anyone who lets themselves be fooled into thinking that a large corporation is doing it for the consumer is eventually going to find out they care nothing about you or your issues.
off and out
- The DOJ seems poised to win, and you don't settle easily when you're winning
- Microsoft is likely offering minor concessions
However, I heard that Microsoft was actually offering a number of substantial concessions, including releasing source code for Windows. It seems odd the the DOJ would pass on this, as it could seriously change the marketplace.I guess the real question would be: is Microsoft offering to release the Win 9x source code, only to turn around and concentrate on the NT codebase? And would they immediately make API changes to make the old codebase incompatible? Perhaps that's what DOJ is thinking.
Anyhow, I certainly don't have the answer. I don't really like government getting into all of this anyhow, but I don't particularly care for Microsoft, and what they've done to the industry, either.
If anything good is to come of this, they should get Microsoft to release any rights to OS/2 source code, so IBM could open source OS/2, if they want to. That SOM stuff could be very useful to the KDE and GNOME projects.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Hehe, you do have some good Points. But i don't believe this warrants anticompetitve lawsuits from the goverment.
:) ( think about it....That was my point to a 'T' )
Well that was, and is, up to the courts to decide. In my opinion I would agree, the less government involvment the better.
Wine is a great project, but only came about as a means for linux to emulate the windows environment to run the windows applications. Wine by no means was a commercial effort to compete against windows or microsoft.
Exactly
As far as closed API's has anyone ever tried writing a competing product to Oracle RDBMS that is compatible? Nope, can't be done, but dowe Sue Oracle for that? I mean have you seen there new licensing schemes and how they rape the consumer?
Nope, but in all fairness, there is many more Databasing programs out there then Oracle with much more open standards ( sorry, examples escape me, not up on that I admit )
How about Novell, do we get to sue them because nobody could make a compatible product? Weren't they the cause of the downfall of that good ol' company that made Banyan Vines and lantastic? Is it my right to sue Novell for that?
You're not, and we're not suing Microsoft, the US Government is. Let me just finish by saying I agree the government is sticking it's nose where it don't belong. We are comrads in arms in that respect. But I do not believe Microsoft is without fault, I just don't think it's the government's place to spank 'em.
Sgt Pepper
Its not a lawsuit in the normal way of things, its a goverment/legal ruling on whether a company is anti-competitive.
As for why this is a problem, have you ever seen old style eastern block TV, monopoly gives no drive to improve quality. The aim of a company is to make as much money as possible for its shareholders, this is enshrined in law, that they treat consumers fairly is not.
If the world had no monopoly rules then you'd see a massive merger of Big Companies into monopolies, this would enable them to make more money and not care for competition.
Basic rule of business
"Fuck 95% of the industry but leave the other 5% to prove you used KY"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
As a small long-term (5+ years) stockholder of Microsoft, I wouldn't mind the company being broken up rather than to have some restrictive remedies. In five more years, I'm confident that I'd still be doing better than the market index.
The remedies you suggest are pointless:
Opening APIs without opening source is irrelevant; knowing the syntax of calls without opening the precisely-defined semantics (bugs and all), something really only available with reference source code, is useless for the purpose of interoperability, which is what customers most want between their various software programs; this is one (of several) important reasons why Linux has succeeded as a centralized UNIX platform when all past UNIX standards efforts have failed.
The hard-charging culture and high intelligence at Microsoft (along with a dose of legal savvy that has been with the firm since the DOS license agreement) will basically make "curbing business practices" largely ineffective at solving the issue of Microsoft's wielding of monopoly power. In two years, the issue will just reassert itself, and we'll be back to square one. While Microsoft management seems to think that stalling tactics would be profitable (I'd agree this is factually true; every day cements their dominance further), such tactics are shortsighted evasions of a willingness to recognize the validity and purpose of anti-trust law, and the refusal to tackle the real problem of distrust and fear that their previous behavior and relationship with partners has earned them from friend and foe alike. (Try naming one serious Microsoft partnership that has succeeded. They're like the bully of the playground who wins and keeps trying to but in when people leave to play another game. A breakup would help break this cycle of counter-productive dominance.)
As a stockholder who has watched his small MS holdings go up 10x in the last five years (wish I'd bought 10x more!) I wouldn't mind a short-term dip in return for a more workable, less threatening long-term corporate structure.
Sure, as a stockholder I have some concern that a dip would cause employees to flee their golden handcuffs, but at the end of the day, this is like a gust of wind carrying a huge load of acorns off a heavily laden tree. Like a tree struggling to reach the sun (justifying itself by describing the increase in square footage of shade for consumers such an effort would generate,) Ballmer et all can't succeed in their struggle against the law of large numbers forever without getting smaller and more focused. Microsoft would be able to play more effectively in a lot more strategic markets (e.g. WinCE) if they presented less of a threat to everyone else. A breakup would help them reduce their threat profile more effectively than any API opening or business practice remedies that would leave them on their enjoyable but pointless treadmill.
--LP
But my opinion is, let them exist. Let the CONSUMER Choose. NOT a lawyer. I feel you are doing the BIGGEST Injustice by making my choices for me in court. Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system, had they done that it would have been anticompetitve. But simply existing without anything better or no one stepping up to the bat does not make microsoft an evil empire.
In my opinion, choice has been the first thing to go out the window (sic) since MS reached such a high level of market share. Until about 1 year ago (well after the case started) there was effectively little or no choice to be had when buying a computer for home use. You either bought a pre-loaded Window machine, often with MS Office bundled, or an Apple machine. In many ways, the bundling of MS Windows + Office has done more to throttle the development of competing apps than anything else - it is an insidious method of halting the competition before it has begun. How many people will buy a second Office suite to replace their pre-bundled one? Only those who know precisely what they can or can't do with the MS Office suite, and that does NOT represent a majority of the computer-buying market.
Sure some of you don't like the "Windows Tax" when you buy a new PC
So you think I should pay for something I may never use, may format off my hard drive as soon as the computer is powered up for the first time? Again the situation is better now - more vendors provide computers with alternatives (i.e. Linux), but the MS dominance of the bundled solution market is still extremely widespread.
Why would someone want to choose something that is Niche when they can choose something that is a standard?
When I work, I want to work with an environment of my choosing. When I need to exchange files with other users I want those OPEN standards to be available so that my file can be interpretted by their system, regardless of their operating system. For interoperability, all we need is exchangable file formats and open networking standards to allow us to communicate and pass information between systems.
I would feel sorry for the thousands of employees, the foundations that Gates supports, the 5,000+ college students that could loose scholarships, the grants and donations to the city and areas of which microsoft works (redmond receives lots of support from microsoft).
So you are arguing that because MS contributes so much in charitable ways, its sharp business practices and leveraging of its market positioning to its own ends is acceptable? That argument is extremely fatuous.
SGI, Sun, Sparc, Alpha, Mac, Amiga, RISC OS, RS2000, Aix, FreeBSD, NeXT, DOS, Novell DOS, CPM, TRS 80. They were all your choices. You chose a PC witch Built its foundation in Windows. You didn't Choose a 10,000 dollar Sparc to not run Solaris on it, so why should it be any different here.
Why would I necessarily run Solaris on Sparc hardware? There are other choices. But this is a diversion - take a look back at the previous contender in the PC marketplace - OS/2. What happened there? MS leveraged its market position and made it difficult for OS/2 to get a foothold in the market. Result: another choice goes west (although you can still get OS/2, although it hasn't really changed a lot in the last few years).
What you seem to miss entirely is that MS has managed to make the OS market into a MS-only field for 95% of computer users. And in my opinion, they have acheived this by leveraging their marketing might to remove any competition in the field. So yes, most applications are written for MS Windows, because that is where the market has ended up. My concern is that had there been a wider playing field, we would now be in a better position to choose which OS we wanted to run, and that interoperability between systems and OS's would be vastly improved over the situation we have today.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
It's a frequently made statement that MS did the world a favour by bringing the windows desktop to the consumer. I think it is uttered repeatedly without the consideration of what the world could have been like if computers had remained something of a black art.
Enabling millions of people to use a computer without having to learn a thing about them is not a service to IT. I get the feeling that a lot of users, having strained to figure out the perils of the taskbar, thought to themselves, "Great! Now I can ask some <i>real</i> dumb questions."
So thanks MS, for making sure most of the computer hardware produced in the world will be wasted on some some lazy bozo, to perform such useful tasks as finding and storing pr0n. Not to mention passing on that e-mail from Bill Gates about the disneyland tickets to every person he's ever met.
Thanks for wasting countless man-hours as trained professionals answered questions like "What's a cursor?"
Thanks for making it possible for Intel's shoddy 8086 architecture to mutate into the leviathon, overheated, overpowered, underdesigned, hacked together monstrosity we call pentium.
Thanks for MS Bob. That was a laugh.
Thanks for a horde of standards shattered and torn in the wake of your monopolistic greed.
Thanks for the death of Netscape. They weren't great, but at least they tried to read the RFCs.
Thanks for the Melissa virus, and all it's friends. You made that all possible.
Thanks for keeping IT dishonest. Now that everyone saw how well it worked, we can follow your business model. Lie, lie, lie.
Thanks for Visual Basic, and a horde of programs designed to make managers think they can produce code without hiring programmers.
Thanks for helping IBM put the final bullet into DEC's dying corpse.
Thanks for winmodems.
Thanks for the Blue Screen of Death. And memory leaks. And all the other bugs you couldn't be bothered to fix.
Thanks for DDoS attacks.
Above, thanks for all the morons who think you brought something to the IT industry. Pop quiz: If I come to your house and give you ten bucks, then steal your car, are you going to sit around saying, "Well, he did bring me ten bucks."?
Wake up. MS didn't do anything but lie and steal and hinder real development. If they hadn't brought computing to the common man, some other loser would have. Say, Apple. Or Xerox. Or even Amiga.
More aptly, what if 95% of all popular music was controlled by only four or five record companies and those companies formed a trade association whose main purpose was to keep its members' products selling for high prices instead of allowing "the market" to determine what a given song was worth?
The end result would probably be wholesale music piracy using technology the record companies couldn't control.
Not that anything like this could ever happen in real life, mind you; this is just Monday morning speculation on Slashdot...
- Robin
First of all, let me just say that that was a very well thought out post, and very well spoken. There's just one point I'd like to discuss..it's when you say here:
/do/ think they try to prevent others from being able to interface to Windows in a fully compatible, open way. Full Disclouser of all Windows APIs and Protocols would be, in my opinon a very satisfactory resolution to this whole mess.
:)
Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system, had they done that it would have been anticompetitve
This right here....this is exactly what they HAVE done. This is the whole crux of most of our feelings behind Microsoft. Why has WINE been in development so long and still can't run 80% of the software out there ( Disclaimer: Percentage exactly unknown, last time I checked though it was still a large amount of software that either didn't run or was buggy ). In fact you back this up later on in your post with:
Sure it may not be an OPEN standard, but gee golly sir when i go to the story and there is 400 games and 1000s of applications i can run on my computer. THAT IS A STANDARD!
A closed specification ( or "Standard" ) is meant for one thing....to prevent compatibility, so you can be the only kid on the block with those nifty APIs. Which change...from release to releast from Service Pack to Service Pack. Now I'm not making any kind of suggestion on how evil Microsoft is, or what should be done to punish them. But I
Ah well, thanks for listening, and again, nice post
Sgt Pepper
Whatever the solution the judge comes up with, I think the absurd platitudes from the hoards of paid Microsoft astroturfers hear have every reason to fall upon deaf ears. We've heard it all before, and most of us see as clearly through the lies and propoganda today as we did when this all started a few years ago. If you must insult our intelligence by spewing such nonsense here, don't come crying to daddy when the followup posts are a little hot under the collar.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system, had they done that it would have been anticompetitve
DR-DOS was compatible (and superior in every way). MS purposely, actively and consciously used several mechanisms to stop it, up to and including per-processor licenses (which were illegal) and purposely incorrect error messages...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I for one, USE linux. Let me say that again. I USE LINUX. and I also Use Microsoft. I don't consider them the Evil Empire, since in my time with computers i have used other OS's such as OS/2, FreeBSD and Solaris and for the Desktop *I* chose to run Windows.
I don't understand how people can pick at microsoft for writing the OS and the Applications. After Microsoft will sun be next? Will they have to split the processor division from there OS division? Doesn't that give them unfair advantage in the market? Or is it because the consumers who don't know about Sun and other Systems out there don't think to sue them too?
Flame me all you want, slashdot is about opinions and not about whats right or wrong.
But my opinion is, let them exist. Let the CONSUMER Choose. NOT a lawyer. I feel you are doing the BIGGEST Injustice by making my choices for me in court. Microsoft has NEVER prevented anyone from making a compatible system, had they done that it would have been anticompetitve. But simply existing without anything better or no one stepping up to the bat does not make microsoft an evil empire.
Sure some of you don't like the "Windows Tax" when you buy a new PC. But for the average consumer, why would they want to go out and choose something else that there friends or neighboors don't use? Why would someone want to choose something that is Niche when they can choose something that is a standard? Sure it may not be an OPEN standard, but gee golly sir when i go to the story and there is 400 games and 1000s of applications i can run on my computer. THAT IS A STANDARD!
I would feel sorry for the thousands of employees, the foundations that Gates supports, the 5,000+ college students that could loose scholarships, the grants and donations to the city and areas of which microsoft works (redmond receives lots of support from microsoft).
I'd feel sorry for all the ASP's, Developers and people who make a living off software because that is what the chose.
You have always had a right to choice. I'm just curios why you think it is YOUR right to make my choice now?
SGI, Sun, Sparc, Alpha, Mac, Amiga, RISC OS, RS2000, Aix, FreeBSD, NeXT, DOS, Novell DOS, CPM, TRS 80. They were all your choices. You chose a PC witch Built its foundation in Windows. You didn't Choose a 10,000 dollar Sparc to not run Solaris on it, so why should it be any different here. Like i said, Sun will be under the radar next, hell RedHat could get sued for anticompetive faults with Microsoft coming up and saying they're dumping there product for free to saturate the market.
I believe the rights of the consumer belong to the consumer, not to Hypocrites, people who are anal about things (fuck you to people who will pay more attention to my spelling rather then *MY* opinions).
Like i said, i use linux. I run HP-UX systems, i have a few dozen Sparcs, and yes i have 250 Windows Workstations on the floor and yes, i have a few dozen linux workstations. So yeah, as an educated consumer i know what fits MY bill. And my employees know what fits there own. So let it be.
I will not list all the things MS is guilty of. I will rather let my fantasy flow in the direction on how would I punish that evil corporation.
..." repeat previous 10.000 times). Or they will edit the sources so that the comments are missing. Or they will flatly forge it.
:o)
So, IMO, opening up the source of windows-es is not enough, because we know MS will try to give us the code that is not totally valid ("oh, you meant the source of THAT version of Windows? We thought you meant Windows 3.0 - OK, OK,
Breaking Microsoft up won't work, either. They have been preparing themselves for this since about 2 years. They have formed the communication paths between an OS and an application company to be. A vertical breakup (two or more smaller microsofts, which would compete among each other) won't work for the same reason, and then once the breakup is complete, these mini-microsofts will focus on either the OS, or one application.
Federal monitoring of their activities? That will never work, or it will work as well as the UN monitoring of the Iraq nuclear and bio-weapons labs.
So what, then? Well, here is my proposal (apply ALL themeasures in the list):
- Fine them to pay US$ 100 bln, to be distributed to MS products licensees. For home users, that would amount to approximately a grand/person.
-All the upper management jailed to serve sentences of 20 to 40 years, depending on their position. Alchin would get 30, Gates and Ballamr get 40 (each). VPs would get 25, etc.
-The word "Microsoft" would be fobidden from use on posters, T-shirts and other advertisements, and placed in the same cathegory as the symbols of the Nazy era.
-Federal agents would break into the Microsoft premises, and remove the material with the source code. It would be published in it's entirety, on the Internet, with possibly many mirrors, with noone holding the license rights. Or maybe something like the BSD would be ok. (MS will be forced, of course, to renounce to any copyrights).
-the MS campus in Redmond would be transformed into "The Museum of Monopoly" (I like this one) and the upkeep will be payd by the Bill Gates foundation (I like this even more) forever.
The current MS employees (the ones that didn't make it to the jail) will have the option to work in the Museum of Monopoly. It means, the janitors will be pretty much in place, the only problem are those people who made all those buggy products. (Add Access 2000 to the list of "most buggy")
OK, I have my flame-protector suit on, go ahead
Sigged!
Where do I start?! I should just keep my mouth shut, but I can't resist...
Tell me. As a consumer, how will i be any better off with Microsoft being sued? Driving the costs up because of lawsuits? Fragmenting a stable market with many more buggy programs?
Well, tell me, as a consumer, how much worse off are we because MS used their monopoly to crush companies like Netscape and many others that would have brought choice and lowered prices in consumer software?
I don't understand how people can pick at microsoft for writing the OS and the Applications...But my opinion is, let them exist. Let the CONSUMER Choose. NOT a lawyer. I feel you are doing the BIGGEST Injustice by making my choices for me in court.
Well, you may be a little preturbed that you may not be able to get Win2002 at the same level of quality and low cost that you're used to, but what about the injustice to all those people who couldn't choose their OS or browser because MS effectively blackmailed PC suppliers and bought out or crushed competitors.
The real beef is not that MS writes an OS or applications, remember, but that they use their monopoly position in the OS market to unfairly compete. If this is in fact true (that's Judge Jackson's job) then they deserve to be punished for robbing the consumer of potential better and cheaper options.
Sure some of you don't like the "Windows Tax" when you buy a new PC. But for the average consumer, why would they want to go out and choose something else that there friends or neighboors don't use? Why would someone want to choose something that is Niche when they can choose something that is a standard?
I just don't see how that is relevant. The point is not that MS is standard. Everybody agrees they are (at least for Joe Average). The problem is that they use their position to effectively prevent Joe Average from having options and choice.
I would feel sorry for the thousands of employees, the foundations that Gates supports, the 5,000+ college students that could loose scholarships, the grants and donations to the city and areas of which microsoft works (redmond receives lots of support from microsoft).
Sure MS gives money to lots of worthy causes. What they give back, though, is a tiny portion of what consumers never should have spent. Just think of all the scholarships, grants, libraries and public projects that could have been supported if instead of buying thousands of site licenses for MS-everything, universities, schools, and municipalities everywhere could have had access to standards-based interoperable PC OS's, which would have allowed cheaper and better application software. Think of all the developer man-years that have been chewed up in porting applications to stay compatible with each obscure API change in MS software.
Sure this is all hypothetical. We'll never know what could have been. The point is that many people believe that MS forced the market down the road we're on by unfair business practices.
You have always had a right to choice. I'm just curios why you think it is YOUR right to make my choice now?
I'm not making your choice. I just don't want MS to make my choice for me.
I believe the rights of the consumer belong to the consumer,
Well, you got that right at least.
Back to schoolwork - see ya!
Mozilla
"Microsoft is popular because it is easier for non-techies to use. Not True. I personally have several examples (a pilot friend, a sister, a mother, and a friend's grandmother) of people who were very uncomfortable with computers running windows because, whenever it would crash, they felt they were making mistakes. The result - they were afraid to use the machine much for fear of "breaking" it. In all cases they found Linux running X and gnome or KDE to be far easier to use, because it works reliably and consistently. They work in confidence that, unless they are doing something as root (and teaching them to understand what that means took all of about 30 seconds), they cannot break the machine. Net result - they are using their machines more, with greater confidence, and, though still illiterate by our standards, they are picking a few things up while being able to get the work done they need to. Most of all, they are no longer afraid of their machines."
...expecting this post to be moderated down to (-1, Pro-Microsoft Opinion)...
Here's a little story for you...
My parents are probably the definition of the clueless newbie. They can run programs and surf the Internet, and that's about it. They use Windows 98 SE on their computer at home, and you know what? They have yet to tell me about getting a Blue Screen O' Death. Windows may stall on them, it may freeze on them, but they haven't gotten any of the problems that Linux zealots claim every Windows user experiences. In spite of these occourences, they still use Windows.
Why?
Because they know that they can run their favorite programs and get work done. You can preach all about how Linux is the best and how reliable it is. But if my parents can't send e-mail, use programs like TaxCut and Word, play their games, or use their digital camera, they will not use Linux. My parents have a hard enough time dealing with figuring out how to send attachments or how to format a document in Word. You think they want to deal with the fact that their printer or digital camera isn't recognized under Linux?
My parents are able to work in confidence, as you put it, because they know that they can't "break" the computer unless they tried. It took myself a few minutes to explain to them what they should and should not do. And it's worked. I haven't come home from school to the sound of "The computer is broken!" My parents aren't afraid of their computer, hell, they've been doing more work on it now than they have before.
My parents aren't the only people to be used as an example. I have several friends and other family members who are quite happy with Windows. They haven't told me about having a system meltdown either. So much for Linux zealotry.
My points here? Linux is a good OS, there's no denying that. But if people can't run their favorite programs and use their hardware under Linux, they won't use it. The average clueless newbie could give two shits about stats which prove that Linux is reliable, they want to know if those stupid games someone sent them via e-mail will work. And if they can get their work done, they're happy, regardless of what OS they use, be it Linux, FreeBSD, or God forbid I say this in such a Linux-centric setting...Windows.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters