Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft And US Have Until April 6 To Make A Deal
bahwi writes: "It looks like Judge Jackson has decided to wait until April 6 to issue his next ruling. Most of the states and the Justice Department want a structural change (read "company breakup") and don't want to settle for anything less, but Microsoft keeps saying no. The last two paragraphs are an interesting read, too. Read more about it at
Wired."
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
And do you have any evidence that they want to mandate including features in the OS? After all, Judge Jackson found, in agreement with the DOJ, that MS caused harm to the consumer by depriving the consumer of the choice of not buying a browser. Yes, they wanted MS to provide netscape, but only if they were going to ship the OS with their browser. I can't see any evidence that a browserless OS would have upset the DOJ at all....
Offtopic, but if the forked kernel were Real Good (tm), Linus would incorporate the changes back into the main fork. It's GPL'ed, he could do that... Pick one, either the OS is useless, and consumers, being not, on the whole, drooling zombies, would switch to one that isn't, OR nobody would switch to Linux (unless you're arguing they'd go Be, or Mac or something, which is at least arguable). Or consumers are drooling zombies, in which case we need the government regulating pickle widths 'cause they're too stupid to go to wendys.I used to have a 4 MHz Z-80A CP/M system with 64K and dual 8" DSDD floppy drives. That "obsolete" system was noticably faster than the original IBM PC. The floppy drives were twice as fast and had three times the capacity of the 5.25" drives in the IBM PC. The CPU was also faster, probably due to the sloppy ports of many programs to the 8088.
Software vendors produced hardware independent programs for CP/M, giving hardware engineers freedom to use new technology. They were not locked in to using the 6845 (video), 8250 (serial), 1791 (floppy) and the Intel PIC, CTC and DMA chips. Except for the 6845, these chips still exist in modern PC chipsets.
Digital Research was a much nicer company than Microsoft. If you wanted to, you could buy a copy of CP/M, write a BIOS for your hardware, and have it running in a matter of a week or two. You didn't have to be a DRI approved OEM with a DRI approved business plan to build a CP/M system.
The IBM PC resulted in a decades long stagnation of hardware design and gave control of the systems software to Microsoft , who expertly exploited that control for their own benefit.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Linux, kick-arse development? What *are* you talking about? Windows has fantastic development tools: I've recently been playing with FreeBSD devlopment, and getting paid for Windows stuff. Going back to Visual C++ feels like the most productive thing on earth - Dereference a pointer, and up comes a list of the methods you can call and public members. Call an API function, and you get a tool tip to hand hold you through all those parameters. Even call across a COM boundary and get tab completion - seen that done with CORBA recently? I didn't think so. Can't remeber what the return codes mean? Press F1 and you'll get a nice concise page on what the function does. And, yes, the Win32 API is a piece of clouded thought like you can't imagine, and MFC is ten times worse - but they're getting better: ATL is really quite powerful, and the OLEDB classes and MSDE between them make an excellent back end.
:)
It just costs *so* *fucking* *MUCH*!.
And you've got donkey's all chance of porting it to a stable platform.
Says he, donning his flameproof suit. And yes, I'll get to KDevelop soon, but right now I'm busy with ddd - which I thought was quite good till I got Visual C back.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Windows is a decent operating system. Microsoft did NOT get to where it's at solely through muscling its competitors or engaging in anti-trust practices, although that HAS played a part.
No matter how buggy anyone claims Windows is (and I have to agree, it isn't nearly bug-free) the fact remains that:
1) It's a whole lot easier to set up and use "out of the box" than Linux. This fact has little to do with anti-trust practices (except driver support and that's just nitpicking)
2)Microsoft's office suite is damn good. Some may argue that it's "good" because of anti-competitive integration with the operating system, but regardless, objectively, it is a feature-rich, fast, and easy-to-use suite. Nobody I know has ever had a problem learning Word.
3)Breaking up Microsoft will have little effect on its day-to-day business. Sure, the overhead will increase, but I don't think it'll help foster competition. It shouldn't be allowed to unfairly push manufacturers, but breaking it up will have no effect on all this.
4)Microsoft shouldn't be punished for having a better product. Netscape (which helped initiate the litigation) complains about IE, and although I agree it shouldn't be forcibly packaged without alternatives by OEMs, the fact remains that today IE is way better than Navigator. Shell integration aside, IE crashes on me less often than Navigator.
To sum it up, the case seems like punishment for Microsoft for being too successful.
And one more note: why open up the Windows source code? How is that going to foster competition? Perhaps forcible documentation of everything in Windows is a good idea, but making them release source code sounds like an over-envangelized idea from
I know it's considered de rigeur 'round these parts to call for structural change. After all, the usual argument goes, it would be bad for Microsoft -- and whatever is bad for Microsoft must be good for Slashdot-ers ... right?
...
Wrong. I think a Microsoft broken into operating system, Internet tools, and applications would be a much more formidable competitor. No longer hamstrung by its reliance on legacy apps and a single operating system, developers would be free to push the MSXML DOM, for example, onto multiple platforms; it would put IE onto Linux; it would port Office apps to Linux and elsewhere.
A structurally altered Microsoft would be worth more -- not less -- on the market than the current monolithic Microsoft. I would even applaud it doing a Seagate and taking part of the company private in an LBO, do some tweaking and pruning, and re-emerge a few years later in a blaze of market capitalization.
Because free to innovate and chase opportunities -- as well as to better attract and reward engineers -- the company would once again be the worst nightmare of most of its competitors.
But a monolithic Microsoft, especially one stung by having to a) agree that it had done wrong, and b) sit under the eye of DOJ overseers, will be a mess.
Careful what wish for
P.
http://www.groksoup.com
Would you mind giving the law's statute number, so we know you aren't pulling this out of some nether region? I would guess that the "law" you are quoting is more of a regulation by the FDA, which is not a law!
Moreover, McyD's may elect not to put any pickles on your burger. They are not required to make burgers with pickles. They have a choice.
As you (and other posters) have observered, breaking up MS will
increase their total market capitalization by increasing the stock price of each company
allow MS to enter other markets
give MS a chance to abandon the legacy crap and move forward. In other words, "Don't throw me into dat briar patch Breir Bear!" If anything, this makes structural remedies more likely to be accepted by MS.
You might ask, "Why then is MS saying they are opposed to breakup if it will benefit them?" Simple: by playing this game they depress their stock price, allowing the head softies to buy up more of the company stock. Then, the breakup happens and their wealth skyrockets.
www.eFax.com are spammers
OK...
:)
Nobody here likes Microsoft. So before replying to me with "YEAH BUT LINUX IS 3l33t AND BILL GATE$ IS EVIL!" keep in mind that I am aware of your opinion.
Here's mine.
I am afraid of the US Federal government in my industry. I am cheering for Microsoft even though I am a Linux user who doesn't like Microsoft's licensing practices.
Why?
Did you know that there is a federal law determining the minimum width of a pickle on your McDonald's hamburger?
There is. That's the result of opening the Federal Government's floodgates.
I know: "Well, gee, if there wasn't a law, McDonalds would only put a tiny sliver on the burger."
No, they wouldn't. Because if they did, we would go to Wendys or Burger King or any one of a million other restaurants. Even though McDonalds is, by far, the largest restaurant chain.
Yes, this applies to Microsoft.
Our industry is, for the most part, unregulated. If I release my own word processor tomorrow, I can give it the features I want. If I want a spell check, I'll add a spell check. If I want a talking paperclip, I'll add a talking paperclip. It's my software.
That's not what the Justice Department wants. It's no secret that they want some authority over what Microsoft adds to their next generation operating system.
That is fact.
And in the beginning, everyone is as happy as hell, because the MS behemoth won't add "their" application.
The Federal Government won't let them. Yeah government!
But then we find that Microsoft Windows 2004 doesn't support a talkback feature to assist the deaf in word processing.
The Federal Government will have the authority to make them.
Remember: there is a law mandating pickle sizes at McDonalds. There is no limit to where government authority can take us.
Now, maybe you say, well, good! The deaf should be able to use word processors. Go government!
It's not that simple; the government won't be focusing only on Microsoft. They can't go on forever making "Microsoft laws."
They'll be making "industry laws." Now, maybe your startup with the 20 billion dollar IPO can afford to add mandated features. Mine cannot.
That is what I am afraid of. Please don't tell me that the government will rest once they get a bit of leverage over Microsoft. They will not. If they'll go so far as to regulate pickle size, they'll regulate anything.
What is the solution?
The solution is not content regulation. (For reasoning above... once the regulation in this area starts, it will never die. You think software is bloated now? Wait until the "mandate" list arrives in Redmond.
The solution is not opening the Windows source.
I know, this is a point of contention. Software should be free and all that.
For one thing, we all know that there are many security holes in Windows. I'd say thousands. We also know that most banks/high security institutions run Windows as their primary OS.
That is trouble.
Please don't say "Open Source != security problems."
On Linux, you would be right. Linux was designed free from the beginning, and the gaping holes have been patched.
But Windows? The massive security problems that would be exposed might take years to straighten out, far enough time for our savings accounts to be purged by a greedy cracker.
Please, also, don't demand MS release the source to their competitors in order to level the playing field.
This sounds nice, but then I ask you "what competitors?" If my startup want to do it's own Windows, will I be able to? Or will Sun be the only company allowed?
A playing field of MS and Sun is not an attractive one.
Also, if the Windows source is released, there is a good chance that the consumer applications market will suffer. Unix was forked, fragmented and has been permanently damaged. And Unix was a well designed system.
Linux may well be fragmented. It's only a matter of time until the kernel is forked. Then what? Sure, now we can say "No real Linux user would switch to the forked kernel."
But what if the forked kernel was good? I mean Real good. You'd switch if there was something in it for you. A faster server or some such.
Unlikely? Yes.
But in Windows? If the Windows source were released, you bet your ass there'd be a fork. Probably a month later. Because Windows is not well designed. It is not efficient. It is a bad OS.
At first, sure, a forked Windows would be great. We'd all get the better one. Right?
Until it was forked again. And again. Until we get another Unix trainwreck, where the app I wrote on Sun Windows doesn't work on AOL Windows, Microsoft Windows or Red Hat Windows.
I'm a poor startup. I can't afford to write ten versions of my program.
I also don't want the government to demand that vendors offer every OS to every customer on every computer sold.
Sure, Dell could afford it. But could Mom and Pop operations struggling as it is to compete with CompUSA? It wouldn't hurt Gateway to support ten flavors of Linux, BSD, Be, Windows and Amiga. But your corner store couldn't do it. Not in a million years.
In essence, forcing OS distribution on a sales level would serve only to help the titans by killing their smaller less financed competition. And God knows if you want to buy a computer WITHOUT a WinModem, you can pretty much dismiss Gateway/eMachine/Dell/HP/Compaq altogether.
The government should not levy a "standards" list for Windows, where everyone can develop according to the specs. Let's face it, the US Federal Government is not the fastest moving body in existence. I don't want to have to wait three years for the government to release study after study to determine that the best place to position the scroll bar is on the left. As a business, I want to say, "We're doing it this way. If it works, we'll be big. If we don't, we'll die" rather than "When the government releases the big specs sheet next year, we'll be able to write the windowing interface. Until then, we're stuck on writing mode 13h solitare."
Oh, and please don't force them to remove their web browser or bundle a competing one.
An OS without a browser out of the box is useless to almost everyone. Almost all new OSes come with browsers from Linux to PalmOS to Be to Windows. Nobody would be helped by removing the browser, and don't kid yourselves - nobody would switch to Linux just because it comes with a browser and Windows doesn't.
Bundling multiple browsers wouldn't help either. Who gets bundled? Netscape? Mozilla? Lynx? All of them?
Aren't we the ones complaining that Windows is bloated? Can you imagined forced bundling of products? What about Solitare? I be the Hoyle people would love to get a shot at that. And why not? What's so special about the browser?
So what should they do?
Restrict their licensing practices. Don't let them sell Win98 to Dell for $1.00 and to Compaq for $100.00. That'll severely limit their leverage over what is bundled with new PCs. It would have virtually eliminated the catalyst for this trial in the first place, the browser bundling war. And if HP wanted to ship their PCs with Sun Java VM, that would be fine.
Oh, and one last thing. The notion that breaking up MS would cripple them is ridiculous. The powerful MS would be the one who sells Windows. They would still have a monopoly on OSes, and their stock would skyrocket on the first day of trading to, likely, MS's present day value.
That would make Gates richer. Do you really want that?
I welcome debate, but not flames, please.
GenChalupa
Be has basically NO printer support what-so-ever which knocks it out of the "Operating System Contender Category" let's call it the OSCC ...
Of course, we all know what happened that fateful day when RMS couldn't get a printer driver....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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.