Slashdot Mirror
Dan Gillmor on WinXP
A reader writes:There's a new column from Dan Gillmor on SiliconValley.com about Windows XP. The column calls for an injunction stopping the shipping of WinXP. Dan's got a well thought out list of reasons why and how it would work."
MS has listened to those people and has removed their OWN JVM from the OS. Fair deal, right?
I guess not. Now there is NO JVM bundled with the OS and it's again foul play? What do you want then? bundling/integration or unbundling/not integration?
Java is not their tech. They can include whatever they please with their OS. Last time I checked, Sun isn't shipping their Solaris product with IE either.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
But who cares about facts when you are a silicon valley journalist and your readers will suck up anything thats anti-Microsoft even if it is utter lies.
The guy sounds like he wants to be the Rush Limbaugh of the tech sector. I guess next we will be hearing how Microsoft own the media and negative views of microsoft can never be heard.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Intervening in Microsoft's business practices, while it may give the suffering Microserfs some kind of satisfaction, won't really solve anything, and it certainly sets a bad precedent. Personally, I don't see what everyone's complaining about. I use Linux on a daily basis, and I certainly have seen nothing that would drive me back into the waiting arms of M$. We have a great operating system, what is everyone so scared of M$ for?
Is your company running tools written by ma
This is one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. Slashdot is almost entirely inhabitated by "M$ Windoze" hating Linux zealots that will mod-up any rumor or half-truth that is negative about Microsoft or Windows, and will simultaneously mod down anything that questions or disagrees with anything regarding Linux, Stallman, ESR, the GNU, etc. Your proposterous notion that saying something that sympathizes with MS gets instant-karma is absolutely hilarious. Oh quite contrary.
As an added touch you'll constantly see the marginalizing of non-Linux loving/non-MS hating opinions by waving them all off as "MS Employees". Hey, wonder of wonders, your post is a perfect example!
Sun simply told Microsoft that Java would NOT be "embraced and extended", that their Java tools had to be compatible with the standards Sun set.
The "standards" that Sun wouldn't submit to a standard board because they wanted to retain the right to change things behind the scenes and simultaneously come out with the new Sun version and the new version of the "standard" (which of course meant that Sun was guaranteed to be in the lead...at least hypothetically. Of course in reality the Microsoft JVM was superior).
...Suprised that all the Java programmers did not instantly flock to C#...they decided to take all Java support out of XP and force a large download for users that want Java..
Cutting analysis, especially given that C# is not available in a released product yet and is only available for those willing to beta test Visual Studio.Net. In any case most Java programmers can easily program in C# (and vice versa): It's just another tool for programmers to use. It's especially funny in that Sun has been pushing users to do a "large download" and download the "superior" Sun JVM for ages.
Java is hardly a standard and instead it's Sun's way of strangeholding the marketplace to try to sell more Solaris boxes. Of course in reality it has hardly turned out in their favour (I recently got a copy of JumpStart: What a POS! Does Sun not spend any money on R&D? Seriously this hodge-podge of poorly performing, quirky, completely non-integrated tools is an absolute travesty and is laughable compared to something like Visual Studio.net). The only guilty party for Java's removal is Sun and their injunction which had the specific intention of crippling Microsoft in the Java arena to allow Sun to become the "standard".
And who would buy it? What programs would run on it?
To be astounded at Apple's failure to act must be an exhausting condition. Apple has been sleeping at the wheel at least fifteen years. Even Steve Jobs couldn't think of anything to do with the company that was more innovative than pretty boxes designed for niche marketing to architects and hairdressers.
The idea is utterly crackpot. Jobs has already failled to sell Nextstep on x86 once and almost ten years has gone by since. The sole value in the Apple O/S is that the software manufacturer controls the hardware. So the whole system is guaranteed to work together.
As for the name recognition of Apple, don't be too sure that it has a good reputation outside the US. Resentment over Apple's past discriminatory pricing is still remembered. US Apple weenies might think the company the embodiment of good but I think of it as the company that wanted to charge me $3000 more for a computer because I lived in Europe.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
And Sun Microsystems, because they have repeatedly backed out of Standardization efforts they couldn't jury-rig, can change Java to make it incompatible with anybody else's implementation. And they can call it Java(tm).
I can't see Microsoft as being the 'villan' here.
Microsoft pretended to allow more competition on the desktop by saying -- now that Internet Explorer is totally integrated into the operating system and has an 80-plus percent market share -- that PC makers could remove the IE icon, but not the software code.
How does having code on a machine that doesn't do anything call for an injunction. If MS removes the icons, good enough. Otherwise we end up with courts trying to determine what libraries should be included, that's just taking things too far.
With transcendant hypocrisy, Microsoft complained about the damage to consumer choice when AOL said it would pay Compaq to put AOL only on Compaq desktops. Then Microsoft maintained its requirement, which flies in the face of supposed desktop flexibility, that PC makers give its Microsoft Network at least equal billing with any other online services.
I'll agree that it's somewhat hypocritic of Microsoft to be the ones saying it, and requiring MSN isn't justified. However, I do thing that AOL making exclusive contracts like this is bad for consumuer choice, and in general a bad thing.
Microsoft removed the Java environment from XP, thereby breaking thousands of Web sites that use Java. XP customers will face endless downloads to replace the functionality they'd come to expect.
People bitch when Microsoft integrates things, and people bitch when they don't. I think not including Java has something to do with MS's settlement with SUN, but I don't know the details.
Microsoft will force XP users to sign up for its Passport authentication system if they want to use key XP features. This is a dagger aimed at all kinds of other businesses, and despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary it represents a potentially massive threat to customers' security and privacy.
Back to people bitching about MS integrating things. If you don't want to use the features that require Passport, don't use them. There's features in almost every software package you buy that you won't use. If you want the features, but don't want to give MS that much personal information, then you can choose to lie like other people do. Your choice.
Microsoft is bundling all kinds of services into XP in ways that block competition, from photography software to video/audio playback. If customers want to use other vendors' products they'll have to jump through Microsoft-designed hoops.
So what should MS be allowed to put into an OS. Is a TCP/IP stack ok? They didn't have one in Windows 3.0. Would consumers really be better off if they hadden't added one? How about adding hooks for Audio, and 3D video? How about a text editors, simple email, a calculator, disk defragmentor? Should everyone have to purchase everything seperately. If consumers only had to pay and average of $10 each for the things they get for free in Windows (just the ones most people use), how much would it cost them? It's also just not cost effective for Microsoft to make dozens of Windows distributions so that you can just buy the features you want. The courts didn't determine that MS was overcharging consumers. Let Microsoft continue to add the things people want to Windows. If allows MS to update their OS as the market changes, and it's good for consumers.
Microsoft has added ''code-signing'' measures -- verification, supposedly, that downloads will be safe -- that could scare customers away from using software that competes with Microsoft's offerings.
People bitch about MS's lack of security, and then they bitch when they try and do something about it. People downloading malicious code and running it is a serious problem, and code-signing is a way of warning people. Yes it can possibly have a detremental effect on some developers. There's almost nothing Microsoft can do that won't have a detremental effect on some developers.
Windows XP contains harsh controls on users to prevent unauthorized copying of the software. If you reinstall the OS after upgrading your hardware in ways that Microsoft considers questionable, you'll need Microsoft's permission.
I can understand that some people find these controls irritating and offensive, but how do they really hurt anyone. You've got a reasonable period of time after you load the OS before it becomes a problem (30 days maybe). SO people testing and reviewing hardware shouldn't be effected. You can upgrade a couple parts without a problem, and if you're going to upgrade more you just need to revalidate your license. How does this really hurt anyone who isn't trying to pirate the OS.
If you haven't guessed, I think MS should be allowed to add new software to their OS including IE. I don't think they should be able to enter exclusive marketing agreements which tie Windows licening to other products like MSN and Office. Obviously there's a thin line there. I don't want to be forced into a subscription that includes MSN, Office, and Windows. But I don't want to have to buy everthing I need to use my computer a la carte either. Where would I draw the line? There isn't a very large market for Systems without a web browser, test editor, or even and IP stack. These are quickly becomming essential features in an OS distribution, and don't add significant cost to the OS. Let MS bundle / integrate them. Most home users don't need a full fledged office suite and it would significantly increase the cost of the OS. MSN also would greatly increase the cost of the OS, and most people really don't need the junk it offers, they just want an internet connection. Keep it seperate. This is a hard thing for a court to determine, which is why the courts should keep out of these thing unless there is clearly harm to consumers.