Slashdot Mirror
MS Anti-Trust Litigation - The Case For Standards
Ken Krechmer writes "Microsoft Anti-Trust Litigation - The Case for Standards is the title of an article which won first prize this year at World Standards Day. Since it offers a somewhat different proposed resolution of the Microsoft litigation, you may find it interesting. See http://www.csrstds.com/WSD2000.html to read and post if desired (it is available for free republication with attribution shown)." Not sure I agree with all of the conclusions, but the piece is very thoughtfully argued and constructed.
There is no incentive for any operating system provider to embrace and promote an industry standard open API. That is true of *nix providers as well as MS. There are now multiple porting tools to help application providers recompile their industry standard open unix API code on MS Windows. Some tool sets are better than others. Do you think that any current *nix provider would help promote that? Of course not. MS should promote it, but they mistakingly are afraid to.
Was a few dollars in taxes worht the IRS provoking this incident?
It's no different than police initiating high speed chases that results in innocents getting killed.
Don't worry about thinking different, just think for yourself!
This discussion may be a moot point because the election has changed the landscape for anti-trust to the point where there may be no action at all against Microsoft.
See the New York Times article on the developments with Ascroft as Attorney General.
Accounting is old.
Software is new.
I don't believe, however, that they are fundamentally different.
Accounting is about keeping track of a lot of data, doing a lot of math, and following precise sequences of instructions in order to correctly
process the data and get the result desired..
If we were talking sociology, or religeon, I would agree that they are fundamentally different from software. But accounting... no.
Everyone seems so convinced that software standards change fast because that is somehow their nature. But really, if you step back and think about it, other than one or two types of virus, software does not change it's interfaces/behavior by itself. At least, not much so far. It takes _people_ to change all this stuff, and the frequency with which they do so is based on their own personal motivations and quirks. I believe this is a self-reinforcing myth.
Do we want this continual turmoil of newer and bigger and better standards in software forever?? I believe that like most other technologies, most common types of software will reach a stage where they are 90% perfect and the cost of continuing to update them and break compatibility with older systems will not be worth the effort, and although minor updates, security fixes, and the like would happen, for the most part, you could take a computer and install a bunch of software on it, and then just __use__ it for years without worrying about upgrading the software, operating system, browser, or their intercompatibility.
I mean, Toasters can do this!
Someday, maybe not in my lifetime, computers will be simple and easy to use. For real, not just in marketing speak (which translates back to english as " ").
On the other hand, some types of software will never stop being changing, just like art and music will never stop changing.
<i>I took my first programming class in Ada.</i>
When it comes to computers.....yes
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Keep M$ right where they are while the rest of the world goes past 'em.
So you are saying with all the money microsoft has, and with all the push they seem to create towards the internet, that we should let them tell the world that we should all use their new propriatary standards they have come up with for the internet? Oh, and by the way to use them you must use windows with internet explorer...
I find the fact that people seem to forget that microsoft has been working towards making as much confusion on the net as possible. vbscript isn't something all browsers will run. They did their best to subvert and change java to be windows only. Took a law suit to stop that.
If you really think M$ will sit by and just go away because they don't want to play nice, you are very wrong.
A break up would do us all some good, including microsoft.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
I agree, we do need standards. Linux could use a few more standards, actually I think linux needs a definition of what makes a distro linux. Of course this is just my opinion.
As for M$ and standards, yes they did come up with some good things. I do give them credit for one major acheivement, this above everything else they have done, they figured out how to make an os that an idiot can use. My mother uses a computer with windows, if I handed her linux I bet she wouldn't touch it for more than a few min and never touch it again or be harrassing me forever on what to do with it.
M$ has done some good for the computer world. Think in terms of advancements in the computer world. If we didn't have every moron out there buying a computer would we be seeing the continual advancement in hardware? Maybe, but large sales tend to promote more advancement, so you can have more sales. So M$ has unintentionally helped us all to a degree by getting the morons to buy computers.
Now that we have many good standards to help us all work/communicate with each other. Lets keep things moving allong smoothly and rip M$ to peices before it has a chance to mess up what it has inadvertantly done.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Or LNUX?
Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
Make that Dubious and Asscroft...
sorry, couldn't resist that...
bad troll...
File standards are important, and I agree that thats the #1 thing that detracts business from "competitors" to Microsoft... the inability to interoperate with Word/Excel. The constant upgrade cycle forces businesses to upgrade in order to stay "compliant" and in the loop.
There needs to be a standards body for these types of documents. Make it an open standard, and get as many people to implement it as possible. Even Microsoft can read other companies formats... with enough pressure, you could possible even get them to use that as their standard...
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Some of the points of this article - relating to the AT&T debacle - are the approach of a brainwashed Redmondite... "We have standardized telephone jacks, so therefore we need a standardized operating system".
That is the sort of analogy that people make, and it's an extremely bad one. Telephone jacks are what connect multiple phones together, and a telephone is what a user uses.
A better analogy would be, "We have standardised telephones, so we need a standardised operating system". Except, that analogy is based on a falsehood--we don't have standardised telephones. Some of us have red telephones, some of us have blue ones, there are ones that you strap to your head, there are corded and cordless ones, there are cellular telephones, there are telephones with littel caller-ID displays built right into them, there are ones with volume-boosting buttons, there are ones with key-pads for people with poo vision, there are autodialers, there pieces of software that act as telephones, and there are... many types of telephones.
The way that the telephones interoperate, however, is standardised. So, let's use that as the basis of our analogy:
"We have standardised interoperation mechanisms for our telephones, so we need standardised interoperation mechanisms for our operating systems."
Protocols and file-formats.
If my computer can communicate with everyone else's, because they all uses common data-interchange formats, then for what reasons would I--should I--care about what Joe-down-the-hall's operating environment looks like to him?
Regardless of what it looks like to him, it's going to look the same to me, so it might as well look like whatever make Joe-down-the-hall most comfortable.
-rozzin.
Known example: Back in 1996, Powerpoint 4.0 (and an MS Outlook beta) used an undocumented method in Microsoft's 32-bit implementation of Winsock 1.1, which meant that if you used another vendor's implementation (ie. either Trumpet or FTP Software's), those programs would crash.
Microsoft acknowledged the error when FTP pointed it out, and submitted a patch for Powerpoint; the call was also gone in the finished Outlook product.
In this case, the Winsock standard is AFAIK administered by another company (Stardust) in agreement with Microsoft, FTP Software (early implementors of TCP/IP on DOS and Windows) and Sun (back when they were happier with Microsoft).
Ever go to a website on your linux box and have most of the punctuation on the site be question marks? That's because Microsoft had their own character set for a while that wasn't quite ASCII. All web pages made in MS Word used it. I think they've fixed it now, but I don't have MS Word, so I can't check...
You jest, but...
The big thing holding back non MS OS's is the fact that Microsoft keeps changing their file formats for Office apps. The majority of business users would not care what OS their computer ran, as long as they can work with MS Word and Excel files. By keeping the file format a running target, MS even creates incomatability between their own applications. Open file formats for key business apps would allow others (Word Perfect, Star Office, Nissus Writer, etc) to offer MS Office compatability (by this, I mean, seamless, no problem openning, no problem with formating, etc) and allow other OS's a foot in the door of the business desktop. Who cares if Microsoft gets broken up as long as it's 'possible' for other companies to compete with them.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Your comments about Microsoft document formats being de facto standards is correct (at least at this point in time - remember when WordPerfect was a standard?, or Lotus 123?, or Harvard Graphics?, etc., etc., etc.)
The whole point of the article is that this is not a good way to create standards, because standards created in this way heavily favor the monopolist market leader and tend to stymie competition. Standards created this way also cause compatability problems even within users of that standard because the economic concerns of the standard creator (e.g., selling more upgrades) take precedence to the economic concerns of the users of the products. This is why almost no proprietary standards are even partially forward compatable.
As a example, take HTML, which is a more-or-less open standard. I can open a modern web page using an older browser like Netscape 2 or even Mosaic. I will not see the formatting provided by the newer features of subsequent versions of the HTML standard, but I can at least open the document and see the information, even if it is not formatted correctly. With a Word, WordPerfect, or Excel document, you can't even open the document at all with an older version, even if there have been very few changes to the format.
The article simply makes the point that it is the entire industry that should determine an open standard in preference to a single company determining a proprietary one.
Now, often open industry standards work well, and sometimes they don't, I've seen it both ways. But the article proposes that forcing Microsoft (and other companies) to adhere to open industry standards would be a way of removing the "increasing returns" nature of the market and allow companies to compete without an artificial "natural monopoly" advantage.
I wonder about the whole article...
"However in the 20th century, certain monopolies focused on providing the best product and price to their customers. Microsoft did just that, and judging from their economic success, they accomplished this extremely well."
So because they are succesful, they must be putting out the best product at the best price? By this logic, why was Standard Oil, and AT&T broken up? MS doesn't have the best price. MacOS, Be, *BSD, and Linux all cost less. Which one is better is a another topic...but I don't like rebooting, so MS is the worse choice IMO. YMMV.
Well, I wish InfoWorld and the other trade journals had all their archives online, as I followed this "urban legend" while it was being originally reported...
>>Accouting is the most convoluted, outrageous set of standards and priciples that anyone ever could have dreamed up.
Thanks. Without really understanding, I believe you. Now take a careful look at all the interfaces between pieces of computer systems. These include, as a smallish part, the automation of various rules, standards, etc of accounting. It's big, too big for any one entity to even keep up with it.
... promote the general welfare ...
>>Don't look to the government, you know they'll just screw it up.
Too true, but it is the responsibility of the government to not screw it up.
Label Microsoft Office as NON-STANDARD SOFTWARE.
Agreed, except that the file formats for ALL office applications should be open. Essentially, he who owns the format own the data.
>>On topic with the original subject, however, I don't think anybody will be successful in forcing Microsoft to adhere to open standards. They can't do Kerberos right and they have a long history of nodding and saying they are going to do just what you ask them to, and then doing something else. Microsoft WANTS vendor lockin, and they NEED it for their business model to work. And they will continue to fight being brought into a competitive marketplace with every tool at their disposal, including out and out lies and disregard for government orders.
Yep. Microsoft was at the right place at the right time, but I don't think they _can_ compete on a level playing field.
ASCII and UTF are supported by Microsoft in their original forms
Umm, no.
Ever visit a website that was created with MS products? Ever visit it with non-MS OS/browser? Take a ?close look? at why things that should contain apostrophe?s has question marks instead?
It's because MS has it?s own version of ASCII, that?s not compatable with real ASCII.
But really, this just underlies the bigger issue: MS can't make their software standards-compatable, even when they write the standard themselves.. witness PPTP - a MS protocol from day one.
According to the standards paper, a PPTP server can't accept multiple concurrent connections from a single client (which makes sense - it's a tunneling protocol).. however one PPTP server that exists does allow it - and guess who's version it is? - MICROSOFT's!
The ARB is an industry-based standards body, much like those that set standards for video equipment, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc. The fact that the ARB isn't a government organization has nothing (as far as I can tell) to do with the observation that MS has a poor record for supporting open-standard APIs.
For an example, you can review the OpenGL vs. Direct3D history.
really? its not that i dont believe you, but do you have a reference?
tagline
... hi bingo
I apologize in advance for being so damn offtopic... But don't you think this is a good time to use that "Don't apply +1"? I'm glad this comment was so important to warrant the score boost.
Standards contain definitions that tell one how to implement them. For instance, the meter is defined as a particular number of oscillations of a particular wavelength of light. Furthermore, the standard details what substance needs to be excited in a specific fashion to produce that light. Now that is a standard. It is nonetheless a standard even though most people in the US don't use it (though it is everywhere else).
Tell me, where do I find out how to make my own import filter for Word (one that will actually WORK that is)? Microsoft's "standards" are only standards WITHIN Microsoft. They are closed implementations to everyone else. Popularity has NOTHING to do with what is and is not a standard.
With luck, there'll never be a M$ product ported to any version of Unix (OS X) or Linux or to any other platform than the x86.
Sorry, your luck ran out several years ago. If you want to, you can fine IE for UNIX. I don't think you want to, so I'll forgo the link. But it's there.
You have this backwards. It's not whether or not MS provides a Web browser that conforms to open standards like HTML that were created outside MS, although others responding here have pointed out the "embrace and extend" technique. It's that MS, as a "monopoly" on the desktop OS, controls a set of interfaces (APIs) that all applications developers must conform to. And the main point of the original paper is that MS doesn't document them well and changes them at will.
Point: There's an entire magazine, whose name I forget but from whom I receive subscription ads regularly, whose complete editorial policy is to publish articles documenting cases where MS's implementation of the API differs from MS's own specification. They've been in business for years. If you've written Windows code, you have no doubt run into system calls that work properly on one version of Windows and not on a different version. I know I have.
Point: It's fairly well established by people using debuggers that some MS applications make system calls that are not documented. Assuming those calls confer some advantage (like they replace a broken call with a working one), then MS developers have an unfair advantage over everyone else.
Point: Each new version of Windows contains a large set of new system calls. These are not published in an open fashion in advance, but selected developers are allowed early access. If they were developed in an open fashion, they might very well be structured quite differently since many experts disagree with "the MS approach" to some OS functions.
Point: MS is currently free to move code back and forth across the dividing line between operating system (the running operating system) and applications. The HTML rendering from IE is the most celebrated example of this.
Point: File formats can be (and are) changed arbitrarily. MS provides online documentation of, for example, the Word file format, but you have to accept terms that specify you may not use the information to build a competing product in order to download the doc.
In the 64-bit version of Windows Whistler, it replaces the MBR partition table with something called the GPT GUID Partition Table. It's major purpose is to do away with the limitations of the Master Boot Record and the various ways hard drive manufacturers use hidden sectors. It it is also a way to to eliminate any other OS to be installed, and it can also be used as a cheap way of doing copy protection as well.
Windows 2000 has something called Dynamic Disks. If you wanted to create a volume set, or a RAID partition in NT 4.0, you just simply did it. Now in 2000 you have to convert your disks to a Dynamic disk to use the fault tolerance options. However if convert to Dynamic Disk, you can no longer allow other OS's to see that whole harddrive.
First of all, all those dollar signs really make you look intelligent.
Now, you say MS Office needs to be seperate from VC++ and VB. Well it is. Office is only integrated with VBA (its macro/scripting envirometn) - which BTW, you are able to integrate into your own applications (Wordperfect is integrated into VBA).
VC++ is a development envioroment, I hardly see how it has to do with publishing the full APIs like you imply (from your silly OS compiler commment).
VC++ comes with MFC, the class library set microsoft use to write Office in. If you would just look, you'd find out MFC is free, and comes with source code. The VC++ wizard also lets you produce applications that conveniently allow document embedding just like Office.
Since you seem convinced MS Office is leading cause it uses "special API calls", would you care to point out anything microsoft does in MS Office which seems IMPOSSIBLE to do in windows without secret API calls?
Can you backup your claims?
I'm sure there are exported dll functions that are in windows which aren't documented. But that means they aren't APIs. They are used internally by windows - or aren't yet finalized so can't be published for developer use. That is fine, and only is a problem if you can prove other microsoft products (office in this case) use these undocumented API calls. Spying on the API calls Office makes, I've seen no such thing.
If you could somehow find these secret apis that office uses, you'd have to show that these secret APIs somehow help ms office - and disadvantage corel office or star office (note: star office on windows has just as much, if not more more power than star office on linux).
For example, the api call isn't simply a utility dll function that reverses a string. (that wouldn't be impossible to do in windows if microsoft didn't supply the API).
what a load of crap
Maybe netscape should have tried speeding up their browser by writing a better rendering engine. Just like ie, opera and mozilla has.
Netscape's speed problem has very little to do with winsock or secret apis.
I maybe pro microsoft. But I don't talk about absolute crap.
Just replying to your title. VC++ and VB are just the language and compiler. They have nothing to do with using the hidden APIs. If I knew what the API calls were, I could use any language/compiler combo that is compatible with the Operating System to access the "hidden" APIs.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Do we really want our government defining and enforcing protocols and standards for operating systems, desktop software and networking protocols?
I certainly don't. However, maybe a legal definition of what a "standard" is would be in order. That way Microsoft couldn't legally claim their products are standards compliant. They would either have to join the standards camp, or be known as the non-standard software company. As it is, they talk about "Microsoft Standards", an oxymoron people have accepted blindly.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
This would have the effect of requiring microsoft to either (1) open up some of the internals of one of its current operating systems or (2) provide a "naive" yet correct implementation of everything in windows. Either way is fine for me. What is not satisfactory is the idea of just publishing the MSDN documentation and calling that an interface specification. It's useful information, but it is not a spec.
I am not so sure that microsoft would be able to give real specifications of what all of their APIs actually do without releasing their source code. Just look at their bug lists. They have no idea what's going on in there anymore.
... they could just write 100 random bytes to any non-Windows partition every so often. Eventually, users would decide that Linux was too unstable to have around.
And also note that Gordon Slade, "the senator from Microsoft", isn't coming back. And I don't think his replacement will be quite so friendly to MS.
The article takes a legal perspective: the compatibility monopolies section fails to acknowlege the connector conspiracy principle that we all know from the famed JARGON file. It completely misses vital necessary points that are common knowledge among the technical elite, and in the bias the conclusion falls on the wrong side.
When I read things like
I am acutely aware of the writers' ignorance on the subject. The problem with this fantastic assumption is that Microsoft products are *not* the best, even on price/performance ratio. The rest of the article is suspended over the vaccum of what *wanted* to be a supporting pillar of truth.What I am afraid this article may suggest (to the wrong people) is that the Microsofts and IBMs of the world deserve the right to "innovate" new interfaces, but they must be mediated by a central authority. I fear this authority who will guarantee nothing about the under the table licensing schemes and pre-release engineering samples, but *will* guarantee that software patents worm their way in like a liver fluke as a safeguard for the incentive MS and IBM had to create all that superior technology.
Then again, this is preaching to the choir of "Standards" people. Just remember: standards are created by consortiums of big corporations when and if their legal departments see fit. Also remember to use free software: it rules (and The Law just drools).
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
It seems to me that one of the biggest things in this whole case that M$ is doing is not publishing thier full API. That is, M$ programs have an inherent advantage over non M$ programs, because the third party programmers don't know these "secret calls."
/. much.
Note, this does not nessesarily call for M$ to open source thier compiler. It just means that they should be forced to document all API calls that they use.
As for the current situation, the government should give M$ 2 weeks to "catch up," and release all the calls. After this time, there should be a $1 Million bounty on all calls. Also, if a call is found, M$ must reimplement all thier uses of it.
I wish I could take credit for this scheme, my brother came up with it, but he doesn't read
Anyway,
--Alex the Fishman
I can't say that I have the answer, because I don't. But surely there's a way not to require everybody to use the Windows API, but require that MS publish a complete definition of it, available to everybody. I think that one thing .NET will allow is for MS to actually implement something IBM, back in the "big iron" days, was rumored to be working on--a perpetually-changing "fan dance" interface. Back then, it was supposedly going to frustrate the "PCMs" (plug-compatible manufacturers); now it can frustrate programmers. If software and data are fetched across the network rather than kept locally, it simplifies doing "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" on a massive scale. Requiring full, open documentation of MS APIs is what it will take to avoid this kind of lock-in.
This "feature," by the way, wasn't present in the beta of W2K, but was in the release.
"The Rich Text Format (RTF) Specification provides a format for text and graphics interchange that can be used with different output devices, operating environments, and operating systems."
From the above-mentioned link. I don't see how I am misreading that rather bold statement. Or even the fact that Microsoft does attempt to achieve (at least?) Mac/Wintel RTF compatibility. They certainly have wanted to push RTF as having (on some -- very basic -- level) the potential of interoperability.
From Microsoft's standpoint, that is likely a desired outcome or position to take. Legacy support issues do not disappear overnight, nor do documents done up in "dustbin" fashion.
What? The similarity in name to this RFC just a coincidence? I know, an RFC a standard does not make, but it is pretty close...
Microsoft's RTF 1.0 Spec (old) seems to share a common origin, andstrikes me as legitimate "extension" of a non-standard. Problem is, they keep on extending it. This upgrade notice certainly suggests that even Microsoft cannot keep their RTF specs in order from one release of Office to the next!Oh, how I remember this particular set of conversion issues...
Microsoft appears to be at revision 1.6 of their RTF Standard. So, I guess I would agree that it is an internal "technology" -- but Microsoft's declaration of RTF as a cross-platform document spec seems to have found a cross-purpose in their all-to-frequent alteration of that spec.
Anyone care to explain how Java's implementation of javax.swing.text.rtf differs from wherever Microsoft is at currently, with regards to their own RTF Specs? Is it *another* RTF Specification altogether, a subset of Microsoft's Specification, as complete an emulation as they dare construct?
Then, unfortunately, consumers will get what they deserve.
Just because the majority are idiots doesn't mean the government has an obligation to protect them from themselves. We don't think it's right, we occupy a unique position to try to get that changed. Don't look to the government, you know they'll just screw it up.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
If Microsoft is allowed to operate unchanged until a software interface standard is chosen, they'll be home free. The process to decide such a standard will make an original PC running Windows 1.0 look fast.
I use Linux, and am very happy with it for my house use. But, before all you keep a/b how terrible MS is, and how their products were not the best, why not think a/b the facts? MS has a monopoly. Are you going to say the poeple never had a choice what software to use? Of course not, they did. and MS was the best. so it became #1. and b/c it is still the best, it willr emian #1. Think of your old grandmother, can you see her using any other OS? not Mac, b/c macs are just stupid, and not linux b/c I for one dont' want to have to explain to my grandmother ohw to compile a tarball she downloaded just to get aol instant messanger clone that won't have anywhere near as simple functionality as the original. So maybe MS has a monopoly b/c hte majoriy of computer users are NOT programmers, and their windows OS is the best for them. So stop being jealous that Microsoft produces good products and figure out why it does, and make linux better at it!
-- Henry Cipolla
Because most consumers are idiots and will buy whatever is spoonfed them and backed by the most advertising money, most likely Microsoft products, as opposed to judging formats by their technical merit.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
An MS Linux distro wouldn't really be a good attack on GNU/Linux because it would most likely be absolute shit (as per their 'standard') and nobody would use it. On the other hand, they might make one that IS absolute shit and say, "This is how bad unix is. Come back to mommy microsoft, we'll make it all better."
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
But in the 'old days' once that information was out, it was out for good, and all the people could do was complain. Now if a company's information is found out in some way and distributed (MS distributing Kerberos in a zipfile), they'll try to use the law to destroy the source and then blindlessly attack anyone who posseses it.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
But, that IS what the government is for!
The FDA, BBB, FCC, SEC their purposes are to protect US citizens from this kind of thing. The only thing stronger than a major international corporation IS a government, and if that's what it takes to stop abuse of power than that's what needs to be done.
This isn't an invitation for the government to control all facits of computing, it's just a message to them to start 'trust-busting' and make it a fair economy.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
You have to admit, it is a bit worse when the companies have to buy laws to prevent it. If the law is bad, then there's nowhere else to turn and society breaks down.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Umm... where in the article does it say that the government will control standards?? All it suggests is that the government require Microsoft to open its API's. How do you conclude from this that the government wants to control protocols??
All it's trying to do is to require MS to open whatever API's it's currently using. Does that mean only MS API will be allowed? No.
Poll Mastah
I don't know how many times you have to hear this but it is the truth and will be born out in court, "Microsoft is not a monopoly."
Okay, so what standards have they subverted?
Java and Kerberos come to mind. To both they add proprietary extensions that don't work under the original environment.
I think they may have screwed around with SMB (their own standard) to screw with Samba's compatability.
Others?
It doesn't matter. They'll have to compete with their proprietary system against an open system, in a noninterested environment. If Open Software can't beat them then, it doesn't deserve even one tenth the hype it's gotten.
I'm sure that the MS OS company would have no interest whatsoever in supporting open standards in application interfaces, except perhaps for show.
"Open", no. "Accessable to all developers equally," well, that's part of the breakup. MS OS won't want Linux to suddenly have its API... but that doens't matter, because Linux (et al) will be able to out-perform MS OS and woo all of the APP developers, including MS APP. (See the same comment about equal competition above.)
The information monopolies and their conjoined interests require new thinking, not just the "we'll break them up and let the market take care of it..." that worked with Standard Oil over a hundred years ago.
I disagree. If you are the best fisherman in the village, and everyone else gets out of buisness and you become the *only* fisherman, the village council shouldn't try and find a new fisherman just to break your monopoly. You'd have to jack up your prices tenfold and they buy all the docks in the village--and then the village council would force you to let someone else try and out-fish you, thus eliminating your abusive monopoly.
I'll have to think about the article's proposals before I come to a decision. Government setting standards in certain areas can be a good thing, but there are risks of course.
Now that I think about it, the government shouldn't worry about the software standards. They should worry about the Buisness Model standards--like forcing equal competition, reasonable copy-protection, intelligent and non-abusive EULAs...
There should be a new government agency for software and the internet. Why?
Because it will keep all of the other agencies one more step removed. If the government decides that there should be standards, it would be through Congress, and a new angency would be made (or an old agency would be expanded.)
Nah. Britian would go to war to protect their trade. Guilds would hire mercinaries to rough up those who tried to work despite them.
All told, I'd rather the @#$ use the courts than the street toughs.
Nowhere in the article did I see mention of the early Industrial Revolution, or the guild system that preceded it. A "monopoly" has some very good points (like unity and standardization, just like a guild; or letting someone reap the benefits of their innovation, like a "trade secret" monopoly) but it isn't as important as standards.
The article's abstract is simply wrong; "proprietary information" dates back hundreds of years, and predates the age of Robber Barons by several centuries at the very least.
It may be enough to force companies to disclose some of the methods they use to maintain their level of control of the market. Forcing Microsoft to reveal that they alter file structures to limit competition or hide system calls may create enough consumer anger to force them to make some changes or open up standards. Right now most of these techniques are known just to IT folks.
The press releases about VB being the most used programming language in history came out about two years ago. Before that it was COBOL. Look it up if you think there's anything else close. And remember that for every C++ programmer, there are about 100 VB programmers.
The language that a few e-mail viruses (actually trojan horses not viruses) were written in is not Visual Basic but VBScript and could just have easily been written in JavaScript if the script kiddies who pasted them together had copied those routines instead. Most actual viruses seem to be written in C, by the way.
ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. You're probably referring to Ada Augusta Byron, Countess of Loveless (or the DOD specified programming language but that would make even less sense.)
2 - You are trying to oversimplify my statement. What I am, in fact, saying is this: Standards are only good when they are IN FACT standards. A standard that only works on one platform is HARDLY a true standard. Standards, by reason, should be able to be implement on ANY platform - Windows, UNIX, OS/2, MacOS, BEOS, etc. To claim something to be "The Standard" when it only operates on a single platform is JUST WRONG.
No, I'm not oversimplifying, I'm restating.
So you are saying that standards aren't True Standards but are something else unless they are standards? But then they may or may not be "The Standard" (which is a newspaper) OK.
And you're saying that a de facto standard is the only real standard but only if it is implemented on multiple platforms but a fully documented standard controlled by an open international standards body that isn't used on more than one system isn't a standard. Oh, and lastly to be a standard, it has to appeal to what you thing isn't JUST WRONG.
By the way. To actually answer your point, there are lots of standards. Some are designed to be cross platform, some aren't. The UI standard for the MacOS is a standard. It is hardly cross platform. The specifications for IBM's PL/AS programming language is a standard. It is not cross platform. Cross platform standards need to be cross platform. Other ones don't. Your deciding that only one type of standard should exist may be self gratifying but it isn't based on anything else.
This is an Urban Legend.
The only time anybody researched and documented the "secret API calls" in Windows software, they found less than a dozen used in all of Office. None of which offered any performance benefit. Almost all of these were duplicated by published calls (the developers used some older beta format calls and didn't replace them). They also found that WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 actually used more of these "secret API calls" than their Microsoft equivalents.
In the case of Java, Microsoft provided both compliant and extended versions of calls in all their tools and runtimes and documented which ones would only run on Windows systems. Whether they used the right naming convention is what the meat of the case is about not whether they had the right to extend Java to add Windows specific calls. That is something that Sun specifically allowed.
If Microsoft had to wait for Sun to provide a public standard for anything, they'd still be waiting while Sun tries to find a standards body that wants to be a rubber stamp.
The question was about Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Whether they were sold in a bundle at the time is irrelevant. But if it make you happy, translate Office as "the Microsoft Applications that were later bundled in Office". The time period of the "big scandal" was the early 1990s at the time of the Apple lawsuit and the first FTC/DOJ suits. The end result was the same. The "Secret API" urban legend is just that. (and a way for MS competitors to explain why their stuff is slow)
So you are arguing that de facto standards based on what programmers are really using are good and standards held by international standards bodies are bad. So you are saying that the Visual Basic language is good since it is the most popular de facto standard for a programming language in history and C is bad since there's an actual standards organization specifying it?
You'd have to look hard to find it. The accusations were big front page articles. The analysis that showed that MS didn't do what they'd been loudly accused of was a small page 4 (or so) article since "Man didn't really bite dog as implied in earlier stories" isn't headline material.
Okay, so what standards have they subverted?
I don't know if it rightly counts as a standard, but how about RTF? If I save a document in RTF format at work (Word) and take it home, and try to open in in WordPerfect, it fails to open because MS has done something to the RTF to make it unreadable by anything* other than Word/Office.
And what is it about Word that turns a 20K WP file into a 37K Word file?
*Ok, I'm not certain about that. I do know that WP won't read it, nor will whatever my roommate uses...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
In all of his cited cases, there was someone (market, government, etc.) who forced the companies to accept Open Standards. The mere presence of the Open Standards was not enough to make companies adopt them.
Frankly, at this point in time, the market cannot hold Microsoft to an Open Standard. Perhaps some day, they will. But for now, if someone dictated to Microsoft what the open standard where, Microsoft could ignore them and feel no ill effects.
The Government could attempt to dictate that Microsoft use the Open Standard...but, aside from legalities and basic wrongness of such a move, it would require that the Government monitor Microsoft for compliance. Generally, the Government does not like to have to monitor business for compliance. (Besides, the Government has ALREADY been monitoring Microsoft for compliance...and it got us here.)
And just because standards are not open, doesn't mean they aren't useful to the consumer. IPX was the standard for LAN access for the longest time. Netscape 'owned' the HTTP standard for the longest time, regardless of what the W3C said (now Microsoft owns the HTTP standard). The assumption that Open Standards are the savior is faulty.
I won't go into the questions of WHERE these Open Standards come from, or who dictates the changes there-in.
Are you kidding us? There isn't a browser out there that fully supports the HTML standards. Netscape is far worse than IE is in this regard. Methinks you are grasping at straws here...
-
The IHA Forums
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Monopolies in any sense kill competition. No matter who is a "competitor," if it's the David (e.g. Linux or Apple) against the Goliath (of Redmond), the task is sometimes so great that it can't be sucessfully accomplished. It doesn't help that the media is constantly looking for a new "David" to fight Microsoft, pushing its stock through the roof until they don't make Microsoft suffer immediately. Then their stock falls and they are seen as a let down. Bad Media. We slap you on the hand. Some of the points of this article - relating to the AT&T debacle - are the approach of a brainwashed Redmondite... "We have standardized telephone jacks, so therefore we need a standardized operating system". It's more directly geraed at "innovations" suuposedly allowing for future innovation. Microsoft buys all the innovators. Hmm. Don't break up Microsoft, but put a closer eye on them than the CIA had on the Kremlin in the cold war.
// john athayde
# x@boboroshi.com
# http://www.boboroshi.com/
// john athayde
# x@boboroshi.com
# http://www.boboroshi.com/
Just a thought...
Joshua
Terradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
okay, I guess you made your point that you won't accept my arguments just as I won't accept yours.
So, I guess we have proven to the poublic that we are stubborn and maybe we can even settle this with agreeing to disagree.
However, it is distrurbing that you immediately had to lash out in a rather childish manner [after having claimed a few lines earlier that different opinions and discussions was all the net was about].
Either way, I don't really 'hail' from any country as such. I mean I've never been longer than a few years anywhere and have lived and worked on four continents.
Quite frankly, I tend to be loyal to whatever country it is I'm at, at any given time.
In my opinion, any type of patriotism of ill concieved pride in a spotty history of anyone's country is just an expression of insecurity or even a hidden fear of not being good enough as a person. But then, that's my personal opinion.
Of course, if 'hailing from' for you means where my parents or their parents 'hailed' from, well, then I'd say part Scott, part German, part U.S.American [South, of course] part something else.
So, what does that make me? A tight-arse, pighead with an attitude?
frankly, i think the 'article' raises some interesting points, and most /dotters don't understand them.
...
let's see. most of the comments here immediately take the 'force M$ into O/S' position, others keep more in line with the article regarding 'standards'.
well, how about crediting M$ with making the computer revoltion possible in the first place? how many of us would have our type of job today if it wasn't for windows spreading computer use globally? sure, standards and lower hardware prices play an important role as well, but if M$ hadn't set a standard all by itself [Windows], then we'd still be battling with interfacing VAX and NIXes and apples [mcintosh platform] would be sparesly spread in some well to do households.
give M$ some credit, for chip's sake.
that said, i honestly think that the whole case and associted discussions should be marked 'redundant'. the government was too late, too slow, too assuming and the whole affair is [score 0, flamebait] at best.
think about it. if the purpose was to shake M$ and scare them into rethinking their strategy, then the mission is partly accomplished. but breaking them up now, where new technologies and the internet give them a run for their money anyway, is somewhat childish.
will the o/s-linux community come up with the next big thing? will they spend billions on developping and supporting [especially supporting] a standard setting innovation that is available to non-nerds at a low price?
M$ certainly has it's flaws and bullying is never a good thing. But now, the public/states are using M$ strategies to force changes that are not necessarily beneficial to consumers. Or how would you call the use of state monopoly on power to inflict changes on a company - and millions of users?
finally, who is holding car manufacturers responsible for the fact that things start to break down and need replacement just as the warranties run out?
shipping software with bugs and making money on service packs is what pays the high development costs in redmond. nobody forces anyone to run with faulty new M$ software.
I convinced management at our company to run Win95 OSR2 on desktops and NT4 IIS4 on servers.
no blue screens in months.
given development times, all you gotta do, is wait for M$ to release SP3 or 4 and then upgrade and you got a reasonably stable platform to work with. our three linux nerds in the trial department are too busy messing with the o/s to really produce anything else for them company.
my quarterly report will recommend to replace the linux boxes with win2k
So you are arguing that de facto standards based on what programmers are really using are good and standards held by international standards bodies are bad. So you are saying that the Visual Basic language is good since it is the most popular de facto standard for a programming language in history and C is bad since there's an actual standards organization specifying it?
1 - I would like to see your figures on Visual Basic being the most popular programing language in history. It might be the most popular in the last three years for Virus writers, but we have a long history of programing languages going back to ADA. I am sure that there have been PLENTY of programing languages which have beat out Visual Basic in popularity.
2 - You are trying to oversimplify my statement. What I am, in fact, saying is this: Standards are only good when they are IN FACT standards. A standard that only works on one platform is HARDLY a true standard. Standards, by reason, should be able to be implement on ANY platform - Windows, UNIX, OS/2, MacOS, BEOS, etc. To claim something to be "The Standard" when it only operates on a single platform is JUST WRONG.
You... make... no... sense...
ADA is a valid programing language. Simply because it is outdated and of little use in modern society does not mean that it does not make sense in the context that I used it. ADA was really the first 'modern' programing language and it is in that context that I used it in my argument.
Now. What I am saying is very simple: Having a document that declares a product, protocol, or whatever to be a 'standard' is not the same as being a 'real world standard.'
Here at my company, we have a document that outlines our 'standard' installation of Windows NT 4.0 Workstation on our computer systems. Although that standard is in place, there is not a single machine with an installation that mirrors that standard. A difference that makes no difference is no difference and a standard that is not a standard is no standard (obscure Star Trek reference.)
Look, I personally don't have a problem with Microsoft. I am an MCSE and I make my living supporting their products. But I wouldn't want MS to be the ones declaring the 'standard' for information systems components any more then I would want SUN or IBM to do so.
As far as the press release about Visual Basic... that makes me even more incredulous. I used to write press releases when I was a Journalist in the U.S. Navy. Press Releases are nothing more than propoganda which allows an organization to make a statement without having to have it's facts closely scrutinized. I remember writing a wonderful press release I wrote about one of our helicopters rescuing a Marine who had fallen overboard. It was full of heroism, yada yada yada. As a matter of course, however, I left out the fact that the young Marine had jumped overboard in a suicide attempt after receiving a "Dear John" letter. That's why I never read press releases. I wait for non-biased reviews.
So then you are saying that since ADA is not a programing language, then obviously Visual Basic is not either? It must be Visual BASIC?
Give me a break.
Who cares how you capitilize it as long as the meaning gets transferred.
Don't forget thier Netshow player, it was available in ELF binary format.
The article suggests that the government stamp all standards. First of all, I am a paranoid, don't trust the government type. I could not feel good about a system where our government picks the standards for us. No competition for technological inovation there, folks.
Here's my idea: Have the government pass a law that would force all software written in the United States to be Open Source. (Yeah, Yeah, I can see the loopholes already). The upside would be that since everyone could see each other's code, it would be easier to adapt to their different file formats.
If that's too anti-buisness, then how about requiring open-sourcing of the modules in a program that read/save a document, web page, et all to disk?
I agree whole heartedly. Next thing we see is a press release that congress just passed a bill that says our national OS is based on a kernel that crashes for no reason. And then the next point they make is "Rebooting is OK". Dear god...
___________
I don't care what it looks like, it WORKS doesn't it!?!
It is a better solution than the US government has come up with. If you break up MS into the OS and applications then it will still be MS...just the application company will have a different label(But will have written all over it "Microsoft Windows only"). And I disagree with not releasing the source code. That would make me happy. Have MS come join the Open Source community, and see how long they last hehehe. If that did happen, I can see wine supporting EVERYTHING, heh. Just one last thought. Linux != MS haters. MS has been innovative and it provides users with a computer experience a little more advanced than Mac OS. But I still say... "Real Computer Nerds Use Linux"
___________
I don't care what it looks like, it WORKS doesn't it!?!
- Require new PCs to be dual booting, with a required different companies to provide the OS.
This could be done even further by supplying some sort of BIOS level OS install and driver manager.
So for example, you install in some boot-manager partition, the drivers for the attached hardware, and some boot manager utility. You then boot into this, run fdisk from here, and install the OS, which would configure its drivers from data stored in the OS and in the boot-partition.
- Require this to be retrofitted for OS's written in the last 10 years or so. This could mean that some sort of OS installer/driver library thing would be written and distributed at cost. You could then run this installer on a 486, and then install a OS/2 or linux cd and install these on the 486. The installer would then build generic drivers for the OS in question on the fly. The OS installer could then boot from some partition and copy things from the original cd and the partition.
- The base code of MS Windows to be approved before release, issued frozen, or otherwise issued that a predefined level is issued. The binaries can be made available until user references ceases (something like air-craft components?). For example, Windows 3.x + DOS is still a good client for running under BeOS, Linux, OS/2 or Win32. Vendors can then add certian features on top of the base code, sort of like how Linux-shells work. If MS wants to make improvements, these can be done via plugins, like they have done in the past [Multimedia Extentions for Win30, Win32 extenstion for Win31, IE for Win95, Media Player]. Something like how Apple apprently uses a BSD base code, I'm told.
- Remove all of the fluff from the base Windows OS. For example, the WebTV and IE stuff could be removed, because these were not always in Win32 OSes, and are not needed.
- Actively encourage emulation level Win32 and Win16 clients for other OS's. In the first level, MS would be required to actively assist in the completion of Win16 clients for a wide range of OS's, like Linux, OS/2, BeOS and Apple. In the second round, a Win32 client with features compatible to Win95.
- Actively deny MS access to certian markets, in order to promote open market. For example, It might be set up to deny MS access to key internet features. (users would have to use the alternate OS for these). MS could be denied first-mover rights on Windows for key issues.
- Requirement to use some open format document standard. This would allow for alternate companies to access documents, much as we do now with bitmaps, movies, data bases, web pages, etc.
Unless we do something like this, the whole ecconomy can be held hostage by a single company.OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Fortunately, Bush may not have any say in it yet. Sure, he can stack the DoJ any way he wants to, but the case has been tried and a verdict has been rendered. And Bush has no control over what the Judicial branch does with it.
If I'm not mistaken, it's too late for the DoJ to just decide to drop the case. The only way this should come into play is if MS wins their appeal. Then the Bush DoJ could decide not to appeal to the Supreme Court but instead levy a fine or some other half-assed settlement.
BTW, IANAL. Or a politician.
A wiser person that I once said "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."
How about we leave government out of the process, and let consumers dictate the market?
espo
A standard to me implies some kind of documented specification that is complete enough to create/recreate from that specification. Some examples are POSIX, X.509, HTTPD/HTML, PKCS#11, etc. To me, Microsoft has not declared themselves a standard, but rather a convention. They obfuscate system calls, continuously change their document formats (so even older products by M$ cannot read them), etc, etc.
This is not yet another M$ bash per say, but a plea to Microsoft that if they want to become a standard, please publish that standard.
A standard is many things. Among those, simply "the most widely used measure". If the gold ducat is the standard way of paying people, it matters not a hoot whether the king, or anyone else, has defined it exactly. In that sense, standard means average. And that is the sense I mean.
If 9,993 of 10,000 business docs are in Word format, then Word format is the "De Facto Standard".
Hey, I don't like it any more than you do, but we are stuck with it for now. Try to send 100 business contacts a WordPerfect file and see how many return it to you as unreadable.
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
"The article simply makes the point that it is the entire industry that should determine an open standard in preference to a single company determining a proprietary one."
I make the point that while it SHOULD do that. it matters not one hoot what it SHOULD do as long as people do not do that. I.e. I agree with you, we should not have MS version XYZ be the syabdard du jour. But like it or not, we do.
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Here is what to expect: "If _I'd_ been running the show when the whole thing started, this never would have happened!"
Microsoft are not going to be rescued by Bush. Microsoft is slated to be the bad example- "look what happens when these left wing pinkos get their way!". I would be very surprised if Bush's people don't appreciate the potential benefits of allowing the (difficult to overturn) antitrust case to go through- they may possibly even be counseling the Supreme Court to go ahead and hose Microsoft rather than be partisan again on behalf of Bush's interests. It makes for potentially a very good argument to avoid breaking up or regulating _other_ monopolies that are less financially overextended, more capable of massive kickbacks. Microsoft is rationing freaking paper clips at this point: Ballmer is trying to instill a new culture of economy. Do you know what that means to Bush's people? "This one's empty- time to let it drop and start sucking on another"
That's business.
Get ready to start doing things without Microsoft, because they are in for a very _hard_ fall: I don't think they believe they will be thrown away like a used candy wrapper. They believe passionately, fanatically, in the _principle_ of full-throttle unregulated free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, politics is about expediency, and there are better monopolies to cultivate at this point, for a politician: ones with better public image, no nasty court record, more MONEY available to give to pols.
Bush is not going to cave to Gates: what's in it for Bush? He's only going to keep saying Darn it! If only I'd been in time! He's dumb but his people are not that kind of fool.
M$ is a monolithic entity. That is its Achille's heel. Breaking it up compounds the problem by forcing it on them and they'll try to force themselves on us.
I don't want M$ to start thinking out of the box. With luck, there'll never be a M$ product ported to any version of Unix (OS X) or Linux or to any other platform than the x86.
Keep M$ right where they are while the rest of the world goes past 'em.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
There is no way Bush will let the current breakup plan stand. And I don't think that he's going to be enthusiastic about regulating Microsoft in anyway. I think that this New York Times article which suggests letting Microsoft off with a huge fine is an all too likely possible outcome. The one saving grace may be that 19 states are also plaintiffs in the case, so as mentioned by another NYT article, the case may still go on even when Bush caves into Gates.
"That fat, dumb, and bald guy sure plays a mean hardball."
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Office? This is before MS Office. Try the early 1990s (see the end of the article).
You want no drug regulation, and go back to when cocaine was in "soft" drinks and doctors died of heroin overdoses? Do the words "opium den" mean anything to you? Remember the first drug war, when the U.S.A. was trying to keep the opium flowing and was using gunboats in China? (Go look up the history behind "The Sand Pebbles" instead of just watching the movie)
You mean the same way MS Excel was using undocumented O.S. routines which its competitor, Lotus 1-2-3, could not use (was it in Windows 3.1?). I think Lotus won a court case about that, although it wasn't mentioned in the MS Antitrust case.
Microsoft stock price is less than half what it was a year ago. (Note there was a split recently, so double the $46 price to $92 to compare to a year ago)
Let me take a simple example. If the complete specification for Word's file format were published would anyone have any reason not to use Word Perfect other than the quality of the software? Not if WP's implimentation were 100% compatible. Then the choice would be based on WP's features vs. Word's features.
The key is enforcing publication, not enforcing particular standards.
I certainly don't. However, maybe a legal definition of what a "standard" is would be in order. That way Microsoft couldn't legally claim their products are standards compliant.
Or maybe some method of giving "standards" some kind of status similar to trademarks. Such that an organisation could be legally prevented from using the name of a standard if they didn't comply with it.
Read the MBR at bootup, and if it doesn't contain Microsoft's code, tell the user there's a "boot sector virus" and Windows won't start to save the user.
Actually that's a problem created by BIOS writers. The MS MBR abuse is the Win 9X installers which write their own code into the MBR quietly (like a virus.)
no, really, i'm interested in this one... what would MS do? on boot up, when the wonderful WINDOWS screen comes up, check the boot partition, and install itself everytime?
i cant see it happening...
tagline
... hi bingo
Somebody with a debugger who knows better would catch them at it sooner or later. I don't think even Shrub could save them from the fallout THAT would generate.
The government could insist that any technology of Microsoft's that it uses adhere to those standards. They could furthermore insist on having NO trouble reading and EDITING documents documents made with non government versions of their products. Otherwise, it's no fat contract for you. Or, even better, the government will refuse to use ANY form of Microsoft's products unless ALL APIs and file formats are exhaustively, clearly and CORRECTLY defined. This might embolden some of Microsoft's other large customers to insist on the same thing. If this played out correctly then Microsoft doesn't have to be broken up, subjected to government oversight, or reveal their source code that no one here would want anyway.
No, but the government can dictate that an "independent third party" define the protocols...like, say, the IETF, or W3C, or ANSI.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I agree. Governmental politics do not belong in the creation of standards, but that is not what scares me.
What I find most objectionable is a government agency taking on the premise that they (FBI,CIA,NSA) belong there, and thus are inherently endowed the right to define standards (PGP) along with the right to enforce them as governmental regulations (Since no "common man" would need open DVD standards, DE-CSS - ever).
Think about how much teeth this scenario could give to endeavors such as Carnivore, encryption craking statutes (DE-CSS) and encryption - prevention statutes (PGP would die)
Gah - my apologies, at a LAN party and another slashdotter at the party wrote on my machine while his was rebooting. (It's a damn good thing the contact information on here is nearly two years old, I don't need any flames.)
:D
Well, at least he actually made first post
The problem with this argument is that the software and accounting industries are fundamentally different in the dynamism of their standards.
Accounting is, due to regulation, history, and external pressures, a largely static and conservative field. If it were not, then there would be no faith in our economy as there would be no yardstick by which to measure performance. This would cause our faith based economic system to collapse. This is the type of industry the government can effectively regulate. They are great at enforcing standards on conservative industries in which the natural movements are measured in decades and not months.
The software industry on the other hand is fundamentally a dynamic, fast paced, and "next best thing" industry. Standards come and go with the wind as new technologies are developed, making things dreamed of only a few years earlier suddenly possible. Government does not work fast enough to keep up with this pace of change. Laws can't be passed fast enough and regulating bodies can't hold hearings quick enough to keep up. The system is too dynamic.
Government does a great job setting and enforcing slow moving standards like "how to measure a second" and "what constitutes income". The software industry however moves too fast for the government to remain relevant and act as anything other than a drag on progress. If the converse were true, we would all be programming in ADA.
I understand your point. However, why not let the market do this for us. Word is case and point. Nobody is going to store a word document in a database. Distributed computing will demand that the format be parsible and well-formed. When a business would like to catagorize, search-enable and archive its docs, they won't want to use MSWord.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I appriciate the arguement, and recognize its temptations. However, your example, Accounting, is a classic case against government enforcement. Accouting is the most convoluted, outrageous set of standards and priciples that anyone ever could have dreamed up. While they were implemented with the best intentions, the rules of accounting have become a beaurocratic nightmare far more frightening than Microsoft. I have a hard time diferentiating enforcement from definitions. Government writes the law and enforces it.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I wonder. Will the MS app development company really be interested in competing in open standards-based application arenas? Or will they attempt to drive everyone else out of the MS-Windows application market? I'm sure that the MS OS company would have no interest whatsoever in supporting open standards in application interfaces, except perhaps for show.
The information monopolies and their conjoined interests require new thinking, not just the "we'll break them up and let the market take care of it..." that worked with Standard Oil over a hundred years ago.
I think new thinking should be applied to the media monopolies that are developing. For example, I think the requirement that AOL open up AIM would do a lot more to level the media playing field than to just have AOL/TW divest of a few TV stations here and there.
I'll have to think about the article's proposals before I come to a decision. Government setting standards in certain areas can be a good thing, but there are risks of course.
---
MS Kerberos, while different from Kerberos to you and me, does comply with the Kerberos standard as defined. The Kerberos standard explicitly allows extensions of the nature that MS made to the Kerberos standard. Blame a poorly worded/written standard for that.
Mmmm.. Donuts
against the public good (say, raising prices to an unreasonable extent ... which MS has done.)
Please. The claim that prices have been raised to an unreasonable extent is ridiculous at best. Remember who the competition was? SCO, SunOS and Apple. Windows was always MUCH cheaper than the effective cost of either of those operating systems - and still is. Oracle software sells for millions of dollars v/s the hundreds of dollars that SQL Server costs. Would you prosecute any of those companies for price gouging? Classical economics fails for software because the supply curve is essentially flat. Yes, the software probably costs more than you and I want to pay for it but so does a lot of stuff. Just because it's not tangible (just bits on a CD) doesn't inherently mean it lacks value.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Now that Dubya won, er stole the election, the federal portion of the M$ case is a good as dead. They will quietly drop their appeal, and it will be up to the states to pursue it. In the meantime, many so-called experts (read: the punditocracy) are saying that the market has magically become more competitive, and a remedy of divestiture is not needed. It's total BS, as any economist worth his salt will tell you, but the public believes USA Today over economists any day...
I wouldn't be surprised if the case just goes away. If, by some divine act, it eventually ends up before the Supreme Kangaroo Court, I can just imagine what the current corporatist justices would do to it...especially if Shrub gets to appoint a few more Clarence Thomas or Scalia types...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Getting changes to the standard approved would probably take much too long (how long has it been since the last revision of, say, Postscript, or the X protocol?). While there are definitely some good points for it, it also slows down additions of new features. Not always a good thing.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Read the MBR at bootup, and if it doesn't contain Microsoft's code, tell the user there's a "boot sector virus" and Windows won't start to save the user.
Block everything else, market it as protecting the user -- has been done before.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
It's a good idea, but it has its problems.
What if YourOffice 1.0 adds a new feature that needs to be stored in the document?
Either you break the standard, or you extend it.
If extending it is allowed, Microsoft will abuse it by finding some excuse for storing everything in vendor extensions.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
We do have a government-approved standard. It is called Ada.
This would be just like Ada, except that it would cover every conceivable standard!
And, best of all, there is no escape!
The crux of the issue: Who controls the standards. Microsoft has yet to comply with any standard I know of. Microsoft instead uses "innovative" (yeah right Bill) alterations to exclude compatability (ie Win2K Kerberos). Microsoft even dragged its feet to get on board with TCP/IP (IMHO). What about the blatant failure to fully implement JAVA so as to promote their own software development. And most importantly, the supposed collaboration between Microsoft and INTEL on the PIII. Ask 3Com what they think of Microsofts "open standards development (ie NDIS). The only way to provide for a level playing ground is to split the Applications from the OS and provide true open application interface standards. The divorce needs to be so complete so that the only way the two can talk is through an OS/Application open standards organization (as yet non-existant) that would include multiple OS platforms and application developers. This could also preclude a future case with AOL. If there is any item that I've brought up that you don't have a background on then you need to do some serious research to understand the true insideous nature of the OS/Application monopoly.
"Microsoft has been willing to relinquish control of some interfaces (e.g., Interactive Messaging, XML, Universal Plug and Play, etc.) to expand their markets."
How does Microsoft have control over any of these interfaces?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Specification of standards should be - and is - available for anyone who needs them, and everyone should be - and is - able to use them in their own implementation. Standard formats specs should be reviewed by an independant organization to ensure implementation-independant comformity. Therefore MS document formats cannot be considered "standard".
It is in most peoples interest that the information they intend to make public is accessible to everyone in their target audience - regardless of the platform they choose.
This is increasingly important as the internet grows older and the wealth of information increases. There will be more documents and information in old formats laying around. It is in most peoples interests that old information which may still be of value and importance is accessible without having to pay someone for deciphering.
Just my 2 cents worth..
Basically preventing Microsoft from calling `MS Kerberos' Kerberos. There would need to be some indication that it was different. We can descend into largely useless debates about whether or not Microsoft's implementation is within the scope of the standard or not (as that arguement CAN be made), but I don't think that it moves the discussion forward. The Kerberos issue may not be the best example, but it comes readily to most trying to have this discussion.
You do run into problems with enforcement in cases like the SQL standard. Nearly every RDBMS or ORDBMS expands on the SQL standard or fails to fully implement it. As it is common practice in that application industry, it is taken for granted that special care be needed to make code portable. HTML is another issue in much the same case as SQL, though I don't seem myself complaining about mandating that browsers support w3 standards.
-fp
I don't believe that Microsoft has tinkered with any of the other standards I mentioned. ASCII and UTF are supported by Microsoft in their original forms. HTTP obviously. XML was co-authored by Microsoft, so their support for the standard is implicit.
I understand that MS development tools have not fully embraced the ANSI/ISO C/C++ revisions, but then again, neither has gcc.
On the whole, it doesn't really appear that Microsoft is any better or any worse than their competitors when it comes to the key protocol standards.
They made no such claim.
For what its worth, RTF has already been consigned to the dustbin of history, and MS itself is pushing XML for the type of applications RTF was once used for.
From what I can see, they support all the important standards. What standards of note would people see Microsoft operating systems support?
Maybe a little Off the immediate topic but..
Does anyone else get the idea that Linux will be the number one defense M$ will have when trying to defend itself from the anti-trust advocates?
Im sure M$'s market position would have even allowed them to embrace/extend/extinguish Linux in some way (making dual booting impossible would be a good method to slow/halt adoption for private use...)
Does anyone else feel now that the BSA has elected Republicans which are even greater corporate $whores$ than their predecessors - when the Anti-Trust suit gets dropped we will expect to see M$'s real reply to Linux.. weather that be a Linux Compat. Layer, or a M$ Linux distro (*shudder*) or ?????.
What Im saying is this is basically the calm before the storm for Linux...
How long did M$ take to marginalize OS2 - and OS2 had the full backing of IBM... I recognize that GNU/Linux has strengths that OS2 (and Windows) will never have (using the present proprietary SW models) but M$ will surely think of something... what will that be? Dont say this dotNet crap...
Under Bush, Wintel will be broken into two seperate corporations: one which monopolizes the hardware, and one which monopolizes the software.
There. That should remedy all those monopoly problems.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
There's nothing wrong with a monopoly. the problem is when that monopoly is used against the public good (say, raising prices to an unreasonable extent, or leveraging the monopoly to a different market sector--both of which MS has done.)
Splitting up MS will divorce the interest in the different markets--thus eliminating the abuse that the government has found. "Windows, Inc." can be a monopoly all it wants--but it can't use its justly owned monopoly in an abusive manner. After all, they can't help it if no one can compete. *grin*
that some of the 'standards' do need to be made open in order to encourage competition. If Microsoft isn't required to open up some of these standards, how are competiters supposed to compete?
If the only company that knows the 'best' ways to interact with the OS is Microsoft Applications (or whatever the company is named), then you might as well not split the company up.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
Remember, there is a big difference between having some organization stamp it's approval on a piece of software and claiming that it is a "standard" and having the programing community actually use your software (which is where real standards show themselves.)
Microsoft has consistenty fought against true standards with it's "embrace and extend" strategy. Microsoft simply has the muscle to get it products declared a standard before it's competition can see it coming - hence Netscape's JavaScript is considered proprietary (even though it is open souce) and Microsoft's JScript is considered a Standard (even though it is closed source).
What's more, having your programing languages declared a standard by the ECMA is totally meaningless to me. I don't live in Europe.
Microsoft? Adhere to standards?
FAT CHANCE.
You'd be better off just leaving Microsoft alone... they will kill themselves off eventually.
The article looks great. Really it does. But unfortunately, you would have to be absolutely ignorant of the way that Microsoft does business in order to even begin to believe this proposed "solution."
Open standards are great. They are wonderful things. They are also very common and popular things that are supported by just about every hardware and software company in existence. Including Microsoft.
Take for example the web browser. MSIE supports all the open standards regarding html, Java, etc. But then they go one step further an add additional functionality to the standards to create their own brand of "standard." Just look at the MS/Sun Java case. Microsoft's policy has always been "embrace and extend." Embrace the standard and extend it to meet their own ends. One could create an open standard for every Windows API, but that wouldn't stop Microsoft from extending the API ahead of any standards. (and while we're at it, isn't an API a standard anyway?)
The problem with standards is that standards bodies are usually too slow to react to rapidly changing market conditions. Even if you propose it yourself, you could end up waiting many months or years before a standard could be created and approved to deal with your specific issues or needs. In that same time, you could have written something to do it "your way" and gone through a couple revisions (especially with software). Is it really practical to have to always wait?
But ASS-uming that this suggestion of enforced open standards actually COULD have some effect, it's not the effect that we want. So Microsoft has "open standards and API's" and now everybody can write compatible code (as if they couldn't now). How does that address the real issues of the monopoly abuses? Access to undocumented API calls was just a small slice of the pie. MS would still have their dominant position. They would still be bundling products. They would still be forcing vendors to sell a Windows license with every PC sold, They would still be threatening vendors not to pre-install the competition's software. The proposed "standards resolution" does nothing to prevent all but the least significant of abuses brought forward in this case.
It's almost as if these two profs are arguing that if there were open standards created for everything in Windows that somebody would sit down and code a 100% compatible "windows clone". ASS-uming that there were a 100% compatible "windows clone," who would buy it when you're stuck paying for Windows and getting it pre-installed on your system anyways? If the the two OS's can do the same thing, then there is no incentive to switch, is there? IBM produced a version of OS/2 that was completely compatible with Windows (in fact, it basically had all the Windows code built-in), and how much of a market force did that become? It was a niche product at best.
The most important point the paper makes is this:
Hence the popular argument that splitting up MS may accomplish nothing. MS is a monopoly, but the solution is not the traditional solution. A new type of monopoly requires a new type of resolution.
...and a very well written paper.
It could have done a better job addressing the primary Microsoft strategy towards open standards:
embrace, extend, destroy.
1: Embrace: fund the standard (perl, kerberos) and make it a vital part of your OS. Get a large user base to follow you.
2: Extend: create "extensions" to the standard which are trade secrets, which no one else can implement.
3: Destroy: Leverage your userbase, using your new extensions, to destroy the old userbase. The standard is now closed.
This is a very difficult strategy to implement, and Microsoft is a master at it. Don't say they don't know how to innovate- they are brilliant criminals. Look at the AARD detection code! A self-modifying, debugger-defeating virus built into an OS. Now that's innovation!
The point here is that Open Standards are not enough. Microsoft has a lot of brilliant developers, and even if you have a nice open standard, it doesn't help if Microsoft releases a new "open standard" - government approved, mind you - every week. This is called "churn", and it means introducing artificially new technology every two years (95, 98, 2000, blah blah, new paperclip) and forcing your users to upgrade (subscription model). If you can develop new open standards faster than the world can keep up, you've beaten this system.
Never underestimate Microsoft. The world is littered with the corpses of companies that did.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I have been using PCs since the early 80s - the CP/M days and even before. The major drag then was 'no standards'. You could not transfer a document from one OS to another - forget it, you could not even move a floppy from one machine to another. Or a casette tape. Or address a serial port in the same way on two machines. Etc.
When Wintel appeared and became popular, this changed - big time. Suddenly we could all share commands, floppies, documents, code... it was great.
And this is still the case. At work, all our tech guys use Linux machines. But they run VMWARE on top, because everything you do in a business environment involves MS.
When someone sends you a resume, it is in Word format. A spreadsheet, in Excel. A presentation, in powerpoint. A database, in access format. I work with people all over the world and it's simple, this is the standard.
People want standards. Me too. Sure, I can accept a Wordperfect resume, and spend an hour cursing trying to convert it to some other format - inevitably this takes and hour and only partially works. So do I want to keep life simple, or spend that hour? The former: all resumes must be in Word or ASCII format.
In Linux too: do I want to stick with RedHat or use a 'better' distri? Go to deja and ask a question and 7/10 answers are about RH. So that is my Linux standard.
What I am saying is, standards are good, becasue they enable faster growth - and they are made 'de facto', not by committeees. Don't knock it: people will always take the easiest way.
Michael
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Do we really want our government defining and enforcing protocols and standards for operating systems, desktop software and networking protocols? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but keep the government out of protocols and standards. I don't want to "elect" the best operating system, the best network protocol, the best script language, etc.
Someone you trust is one of us.
The government decided that there had to be standards after the 1920s fall, AND they do it intelligently--they have the various people in the market get together and agree on the standards, and then they enforce them.
And in software, we wouldn't be choosing the best method, we'd be choosing the standard method. If you have a better method, use that and convice people to switch.