Slashdot Mirror
Why The U.S. Surrendered To Microsoft
hoggardb writes: "The Nation has an excellent column by Eben Moglen, general counsel of the FSF, on why the U.S. has surrendered to Microsoft: because the big campaign contributors like Hollywood and PC manufacturers now want Microsoft to stay a monopoly." Not everyone will agree about the PC makers, but the Hollywood argument is harder to sidestep. The free-marketeer in me especially likes the last paragraph -- Moglen didn't get to be general counsel of the FSF for nothing.
WTF? I'm fast today
Why should the laws be dictated by Hollywood. What ever happened to We the people, for the people, by the people?
This is going to be a travesty of justice, whether or not you believe MS should be broken up.
If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won.
If Gore had won, we would see the government acting in a different way.
A vote for Nader was a vote for big business... maybe that should be his new slogan!
This makes no sense. From what I hear, Hollywood has "seen the light" with Linux, as it dramatically reduces their costs. Therefore, I doubt they care about what happens to Microsoft.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
If anyone has a mirror of this, can you post it here? Looks like the site is Slashdotted already....
Cheers,
Vic
I though the gov. was supposed to be working to the intresests of the people, not for a person.
sad sad sad that M$ can control everything
thenation.com should be thenationsflimsiestwebserver.com
Sung to the tune of the Village People song "Macho Man". Italicized parentetical statements should be spoken in between sung parts of the chorus. "Goatse" should be pronounced "goatsay" or "goatseh". Ready? Here we go.
Ev'ryone you know has seen that goatse-goatse man,
Stretchin' out his anus as wide as he can!
Prolapsin' that rectum, go man go!
Showin the whole world his giant butt hole!
Ev'rybody wants to meet the goatse-goatse man,
He's been grossin' out web surfers from Maine to Pakistan!
You can see his picture on goatse dot c-x,
But who can say they've met him in the flesh?
Hey, Hey, Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey!
Goatse-goatse man!)
(Doesn't that hurt?)
I want to meet the goatse man!
Goatse-goatse man!
(What's the biggest object you ever fit in there?)
Where are you goatse man?!?!
(four-to-the-three-to-the-two-to-the-one-and...
Goatse-goatse man!
(Can I have your autograph?)
I want to meet the goatse man!
Goatse-goatse man!
(So, what are some of your other hobbies?)
WHERE ARE YOU GOATSE MAN?!?!
Lyrics are freely distributable under the GPL, the Goatse Public License.
Why would it be that other industries help the government feel that they should or should not prosecute. They're not the only ones who have been harmed, therefore they don't have the right to request the government not prosecute.
Microsoft has clearly broken a law (as determined by the courts). Therefore, the governments duty to its tax-paying citizens is to determine the best rememdy and enact it. Otherwise, the government is not functioning properly.
And hope OpenOffice is up to snuff for it soon.
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Hollywood is *WHY* the DMCA exists.
If Hollywood is looking for an OS that can 'dramatically reduce costs', it is not GNU/Linux and the GPL. Mac OS X (based on BSD), or any of the other open source BSD's can 'dramatically reduce costs' without the GPL's stated goal of removing IP rights.
And Microsoft has come to the table offering 'content control'....exactly what Hollywood wants.
"Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all."
They say at the end of the article. The truth however, and saddly, is diferent. While it is true that MS is maybe at one of its more important moments, they are doing very well and none of the threats to its monoply will stop them, they will continue. Why? Because of the perception of the avareage american computer user.
If any of us see in what the marketing is focused on any computer related thing we will find one common denominator: Ease of use.
What does this mean? That the public does not want to spend time thinking or learning, thus the people won't assimilate a product that is differnet from what is mainstream, the companies , on the other hand, can - and do- tell the "people" what they want, ans that is what MS has always done, in Linux is the otherway around: people think of what they want. It is sad, but that does not mean that Linux will disapear or become weak because there are people who read slashdot and actualy enjoy thinking. If the whole effort from corporations to make everybody's life 'easier' by taking away the efforrt you put in thinking companies like MS will always exist. And the minority, who is against the conventions of 'mainstream' will keep on using Linux.
That's why Linux as a social tool is far more important than Linux as a technological tool.
--Manuel
"I hate quotations, tell me what you think"
The best software in the world continues to be free. Free as in free speech: free to use, free to copy, free to modify.
Yes, free so long as you don't create any software that might be in violation of the DMCA and you end up in jail. This seems like bit of overly optimistic cheerleading rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. Whatever happens to Microsoft, it hardly makes a difference if Hollywood, the RIAA, etc. are working to restrict our freedoms through the legislatures and the courts.
There is certainly a semi-symbiotic relationship betwwen the PC Manufacturers and Microsoft. Since Microsoft is the only real choice for many folks, it's in the best interest of both companies for Microsoft to release new OSes and software with more bloat so people are forced to buy faster hardware. Oh, and Microsoft is more than happy to restrict your ability to acquire any other OS with your hardware, because then the truth would come out that their software is bloated, both in terms of features and price.
-- PhoneBoy
The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone, including the poster.
Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.
Ummm... no. While linux companies crumble and fall apart, dying to figure out a way to make a buck off of something free, Microsoft continues to do well. (Have they ever even had a "round of layoffs" in their history?)
I agree with the author's points about why the gubment is doing what it's doing, and why all the companies that wanted a piece of microsoft are now backing it. But I think he's deluded if he thinks anything is going to change for the better, in terms of software choice for the consumer.
PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Is there no more obvious problem with the system of government than this? It is obvious that money interests have an unfair and unjust influence over government in practice.
The problem is that we can offer no incentive, as individuals, for the government not to listen! Even if we elected the least corrupted politican at each election, that doesn't prevent the next one from being influenced in the same way as the previous. All the emails, all the letters, all the faxes and phone calls do not carry the weight of a casual million dollars from a money interest group. The law does say, after all, that at some point, the politician can keep the money once out of office so where is the motivation not to listen to the money?
But now we are in a position of asking the very people who profit from this system of government to stop profiting from it. I'm a very imaginitive guy, but I cannot begin to imagine how we can persuade against this. They "vote themselves raises." Who wouldn't vote himself a raise?
Is it possible, then, that we can sue the government through the court system to stop taking PAC and other money? I'm sorry if that means campaigns will not be as flashy as they have been in the past... there are other ways to get advertising out anyway. (If a PAC 'really' believes in the candidate, then it would buy the advertising directly so that we can see conclusively that campaign funds go to the campaigns.) In a government of checks and balances, is it even possible that we could ask the court system to make illegal this obviously corrupting process?
If anything Microsoft is not stupid. They are never going to make a piece of software that is a "all in one fix". Then they would only sell one thing. They are never going to make something that they can't improve, that would be killing there money stream. As long as there is something to fix, add, or tweak they have a reason to create a "new" os.
Lets make something crystal clear when you put Microsoft vs Open Sorce. They have different goals. Microsoft is to claim the market share and reap the rewards of profit. Open Source is to share, improve, and make better to finish something. Microsoft will never "finish", and I hate to put it to you they make things easy, and in this world that is enough. When the open source movement sees that it is not the features but "ease of use" is when the tides will start to turn. The world does not care about if it can control the software, the OS, or the kernal. They care about sending and e-mail, making a spread sheet, and buying a DVD online without having to learn perl, or reading a book.
Make it easy, and hide the hard stuff. That is how you win, and Microsoft knows it. We as open source, praise the hard stuff. We love it, we bask in it as if it was holly water, and it is our downfall.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
So, I wonder what impact Bush's decision to drop the case against Microsoft will have on national defense? We all know about security flaws in NT, and with certain government organizations pushing for more adoption of WinNT and its derivatives to lessen their dependance on network administrators for UNIX systems (among other reasons) we will probably have more stories like the USS Yorktown which when NT entered one of its known failure modes crashed the entire system leaving the ship dead in the water. In fact, the Yorktown has been towed in to port several times because of "Smart Ship system failures".
The Navy's plan to move from UNIX to NT (IT-21) is shortsigted, and possibly dangerous given that control of their command and communication systems is going to be NT based. One could easily imagine entire task groups being disabled without a single shot being fired by inserting viral or worm based attacks. Granted NT has TRUSTED versions, but many of the security holes and failure modes are still present. Relying on a corporation whose model for the dissemination of products is deadline based rather than product based ensures that their software will always be "not quite done or ready for release" as their goal is making money, not ensuring quality software with good engineering and tight security.
It's bad enough running across the BSOD in my research, but I for one would not want to be seeing the BSOD in the middle of a fight. "Hang on Commander, we need to reboot before we can engage incoming targets." Screw that noise.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Thank you....
Whereas I see that a lot of people can't be bothered, slowly people will learn from their friends about the alternatives. Sadly GNU/Linux still does not stand up to "Windows" in many areas. A simple example. Go to a website and try to view one of many movie trailers. What software for GNU/Linux immediatly seeks out a plugin, downloads it, installs it, and plays the appropriate file with the appropriate codecs. Although this really has nothing to do directly with this topic, it's just one of the reasons why people "choose" Windows over GNU/Linux. Do you expect a source-newbie to install and compile OpenQuicktime? Or libraries that it depends on? That's what some people do with their computers, they are entertained by them.
Computers, if evolved beyond the ridicilous mouse-keyboard paradigm, can actually be extremely usefull, more so than today. Why should I care about libraries, dependencies, repetative-compiling tasks? Isn't the whole purpose of computers to do the repetative routine work so we can focus on the interesting/creative/challenging things? Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not have to do repetative tasks, life's not long enough for constant kernel recompiling!!! New feature added to new kernel? Great, let it update itself by a clearly defined mechanism. Yeah it's utopia, what'd you expect?
Everybody in this world isn't all about progress, some are about couch-potating, some governments don't even allow women to have education (Afghanistan). Some don't care about WTC, some do. From all the complaints of Windows, how many choose to find a solution? Why is security being tightened up now? Because we're forced to? What happened to the "war against pollution"? Will that happen, too, only when we're forced to? Will we stop using Microsoft's products only when we are forced to? Only when a terrorist exploits some government-run Windows box and attacks the USA (or another country) that way?
Who cares, I felt like ranting publicly. Ignore me, if I'm wrong what I'm saying won't matter in the long run anyway.
This Eban Moglen guy is a total taken-the-koolaid "information wants to be free" open source moonie. This editorial is about as informative as a Steve Ballmer column on "Why Windows XP is right for you"
As always, Time puts their articles online. This one, 'Microsoft Uncut' describes the case in less than flattering terms.
[extract from article] "Supporters of the antitrust lawsuit are worried that last week's announcement by Justice may be only the first shoe to drop. The next, they fear, could be a fuller capitulation, with the government settling the suit on terms that will let Microsoft continue to abuse its monopoly position"
-Kraft
Live and let live
This essay is a classic example of why open-source and free software are not taken seriously. The paper contains many run-on sentances, improper punctuation, and cliches. Things like this are what prevents any idea from receiving the approval of people who can make a difference. His writing style is equivalent to an average high school Freshman. If Moglen hopes people will take him seriously, he must first learn the English language.
Yes. As evidenced by this article, he probably got to be general counsel by being skilled at telling people what they want to hear.
In fact, if you'd like to participate in the brave gnu free world of open/honest communications/commerce, maybe you could acquire this flashy URL from us, to conduct your business. fud is dead.
Last Christmas was a disaster for the hardware makers, and with layoffs up, recession looming and Americans' credit card debt at an all-time high, this one looks just as bad.
When has Americans' credit card debt NOT been at an all-time high?
It's not that Microsoft's ease of use is the point nor any "single" platform to foster -- because Linux is actually heading to the right way and soon will become the "de facto" standard platform.
I think Govt will embrace Linux and foster it rather than windows. We already read plenty of news (army, navy, etc) adapt to the open source software.
I think Govt would only help Microsoft if they could install a backdoor for each version of Windows. Remember, IANAL, this is just a speculation. Due to the closed-sourceness and security by obscurity, this is a very good plan. By doing this, our "benevolent" "big brother" is allowed to peek into virtually every single windows computer in the planet -- on behalf of "justice".
Meanwhile putting a backdoor in Linux would be flamed by the whole world and somebody would release a "patch" to remove it out. Thus, make it once again "vulnerable to the terrorist". Such patch, will be supposedly declared as illegal. Even worse, due to this nature, Govt may limit the use of open source software! (My speculation).
Hollywood doesn't support Linux is untrue, I suppose. Not because of the thriving "illegal" DVD decoder in Linux, but mainly because Linux is cost effective and many modelling software has been ported to Linux.
This is just my 2c, don't take it at face value.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
I will have to disagree with the Eben Moglen's conclusions regarding free software. He certainly presents a logical and cogent argument, but, Microsoft and other commercial entities will always have the best software irrespective of the underlying business practices; They simply have more money to throw at developers, development resources, and research. The future of software is not free, it belongs to those with the resources to devote to research and development. Capitalism is, for the most part, more powerful than altruism. Why would any developer worth their salt work on free software when they can get paid? Therefore, the best developers will naturally be working on the developments that make the most $, and that != free source. There is certainly the trend of deriving revenue from free software (consulting fees, hybrid licenses (ie. Sistina's SPL), etc.), but I think recent history proves that this revenue is marginal at best. Closed source is how I put food on my family's table (I have some code in Xp), so I am a little biased.
;): IMHO, Open source / free software is only good for "clean-rooming" into a closed source product ;)
Here's a log for the fire
Yes, every time we spend $$$ on Hollywood and/or MS products we vote for them, that's in excess of 90% in both cases.....
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If you're a linux zealot that hates microsoft then don't bother reading and just moderate away as Troll, save yourself a few minutes.
/. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product. Quite a lot, I might add, that customers have been bitching about for years and years. For starters, they finally got rid of the hideous Win3.11/Win9X codebase, which BTW they have been trying to do since Windows95 came out. Windows 98 was supposed to be based on the NT kernel, but there was far too much resistance from the consumer base who was claiming that their legacy applications would not run, thus MS had to release another version off their 3.11 base. Windows98SE was supposed to be an indication that they wanted to stop yet again, and WinME was supposed to be called Win98TE (third edition) but marketing thought that it would be a very bad idea to do that again.
The article looked reasonable until I read this:
He can do this by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences, thus requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers
What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on
In any case, they have finally released a product that is, IMO, much more user friendly, finally away from the Win3.1/9x codebase, which is what people have been asking for for years. Sure, it does take a bit more processing power, however I noticed that on a fresh install, NOT ONLY does it boot in less time than linux does (30s from POWER ON to completely logged in. It's insanely fast), but it also takes LESS memory on boot than W2K did. MS did extensive user testing on their new modifications to their interface to make it much more friendly for Mom&Pop and the traditional Win9X user base, and included the options to turn this off so that you can go back to the W2K style interface. They have also abstracted the user interface layer sufficiently so that it is possible to create your own user interface entirely, as these people have done to give you whatever type of interface you want. They have made the system much more robust and fault tolerant, indeed even more than W2K. They've added driver rollback, system restore and numerous other features to save people from their own mistakes, they've implemented a much more rigerous testing plan to ensure that drivers can't cause a system problem, they've implemented a system where drivers that are known to cause system problems will have the user warned prior to installing (and before you scream foul here, you can not only disable this, but you can edit the list yourself. It will not prohibit you from installing anything that you are determined to install). They have made it very simple to use webcams and cameras and scanners and other devices with very very little effort at all, they have given simple file sharing and networking and firewall and routing capabilities for home networks, and countless other features designed to be nice to the users. Indeed this is one of the largest changes that has happened for the average user since the Windows 95 release.
In addition, the hardware requirements are negligably higher than that of W2K. The memory has been doubled under the "Recommended" arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares? I'm glad they did this too because the memory management algorithms in W2K were far too old and based upon the premise of never having enough memory so swapping was agressive.
My system is much faster now than it was running Windows 2000.
They've added in many new support features like (Essentially) a built in high efficiency PCAnywhere/VNC based on the terminal server system that is fast, and designed in this case to allow other users to connect to your desktop to interface with you and help you out to configure that printer that you just bought and can't figure out how to setup. There's numerous other enchancements that I won't bother to go.
So how do the users respond? Actually most of them like it, but there's always the super-linux-rulez-MS-sucks crowd that is impossible to please and screams foul when MS does what they've been asked to. There is no winning no matter what they do.
If God gave us curiosity
Hollywood gave to Gore you morons. Stop trying to look for corruption where it's not.
The upcoming Land Warrior System using Windows 2K:
a re .htm
8 7, 00.html
r ri er.windows.idg/
http://www.sbccom.army.mil/programs/lw/LW_Softw
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/landwarrior.htm
Problems using Windows NT in the Navy (not sure if they carried through with it on this probject):
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,139
Windows on the next generation Aircraft Carrier:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/08/ca
My personal worry is the landwarrior system. If windows bluescreens there from the rigors of combat, you may be left with a soldier completely out of the communications loop. Even worse, the system is designed so that the soldier can use an HUD to call in mortar fire. Any thoughts on what a slipped bit can do to targeting?
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I think, the US knew there was going to be some sort of 'military crisis' (but they didn't know exactly what, where, etc.), and they wanted to tie up all loose ends before this 'military crisis' happend... It had nothing to do with who gave money to whom, etc... it is simply the fact that the US government had fore-knowledge of what was to come (again, not specifics, but they had a good clue they were going to war), so they cleaned up the internal affairs of the country nice and fast...
Oh, and on a side note, anyone notice the huge increase in ARMY and NAVY ads on TV in the last 3 months??? hmmm...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Home: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/ pdf: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/micro soft-surrender.pdf
ps: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/micro soft-surrender.ps
Plus more of his articles
Go to Windows 3.1, or even Win 95. You could get wrong answers due to the improper division and rounding errors.
Oh, such quality!
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
The government is not functioning properly when it passes laws against companies that do nothing to harm consumers. And despite having a rather poor product, many consumers prefer an easy-to- use, expensive MS program to a stable product that takes some effort to learn.
In 1996, several of the developers at a company I worked and myself discussed the possibility of a Microsoft break-up. The conclusion: the break-up might help Microsoft in the long run.
If we take AT&T as an example, we will all notice that the Baby Bell's and AT&T may be competing, but they are also quite easily squishing out the competition around them. Since none truly have a monopoly (at least outside of their respective regions), regulations have been harder to make against them. Just think about what we call them: Baby Bells. They may be very fat babies, but the citizens think of them as babies.
Microsoft's size is also a deterrent for growth. Sometimes it is easier to dominate from a smaller position. It is much easier to organize and grow. If we keep Microsoft as one large corporation with shakles, we will probably do the country a greater service than breaking it apart and waiting for them to get us later.
Personally, I was worried that the Justice Department was going to just slice Microsoft apart and not really force the law on this slippery snake. With the only punishment the government wants to get being financial and restrictive, they are more likely to get it. I don't see this as favoritism but wisdom.
On a related note, I have a question for all of those hating Bush without reason when it comes to the decision (made be Ashcroft, not Bush) concerning not breaking-up Microsoft. What would be the ideal punishment? Would it make a difference if the restrictions placed around Microsoft's neck were instead around two companies?
If the restrictions are good enough, I would not care how many companies the Microsoft monopoly had in it. I just keep seeing them getting off easier if they are broken up. The judge might think they have been punished enough by a break-up and forego any thing further.
Do you actually believe your own propaganda?
Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.
If Microsoft is headed to the boneyard, then the free market works, Microsoft's non-government-sanctioned "monopoly" (AT&Ts was government sanctioned, like every other real monopoly) isn't worth squat, and this crusade by a bunch of success-hating left-wingers (and certain alledged Republicans with Microsoft competitors in their districts) has been much ado about nothing.
The converse, Microsoft's continued success means the free market doesn't work, isn't necessarily true, before y'think about throwing that one at me.
One more time: FEED ENGINEERS, NOT LAWYERS! The money spent attacking Microsoft could have paid for a helluva lot of Linux desktop development. And had Mozilla at 1.0 by now.
Am I missing something, did they drop the case? AFAIK the case still moves on. No, they aren't going to split them up, but many will agree that was a short sighted solution (read: this ain't the Bells!) So, how has the US surrendered to MS?
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
>My personal worry is the landwarrior system. If windows bluescreens there from the rigors of combat, you may be left with a soldier completely
>out of the communications loop. Even worse, the system is designed so that the soldier can use an HUD to call in mortar fire. Any thoughts on what a
>slipped bit can do to targeting?
Not to worry.
Those problems will be fixed in the *next* version. Promise.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's not a matter of financial contributions. Republicans in general believe in the market place sorting things out.
If you really think that Linux is better, then you have to market it and convince people to switch - don't look to the government to make it easier.
Business is pretty cutthroat, but in all cases the competition is directed at who can make the consumer happiest. MS has suceeded here better than anyone else. That's why they have a dominant market position.
I have yet to meet anyone who can convince me that natural monopolies are bad for the economy.
BTW - if you want to go after a real monopoly, consider the US Postal Service or the Social Security system.
Lets put it this way. My OS requires 8mb RAM.
Yours requires 128mb RAM. Who's OS is bloated?
Less time than Linux? heh. Im running a K6-2 550.
I can boot linux in 6.3 seconds. How long does yours boot? 10? 15 seconds? HA.
WOW. Driver rollback. Lets see, Linux has had this for.... YEARS. Its called modules! Looks like it took M$ YEARS to catch up on technology to me.
A firewally that comes with the OS? Unix has had this for years also, Its called ipchains. M$ has just now cought up.
I don't know about you, but I don't want an OS to run 64mb ram by itself. Mine runs around 12mb RAM on boot with only Apache running. I can spend $20 on more RAM than having to spend it on the previous MORE that you are refering to. That means I can do MORE with my system,a nd use less resources than you. Im still running a PII 300 512k Cache box w/352mb RAM running Linux. 2.4.9.
W2k won't even boot with 300mhz. Mine runs perfectly. Even the last specs I was running 200mhz/48mb ram ran Linux fine. w2k with the same services running wouln't even boot. So why would I bloat my system up when I can run it lighter & faster?
My system is much faster now that im running 2.4.9
Ive had remote support such as SSH, Telnet, and Java telnet. How much bandwidth does youre remote access take up? 10 megabits of bandwidth? Mine takes up 2400 baud.
YES. Your OS is bloated.
Mode me down & I mod you down.
I'm no punk bitch !!!
I wouldn't mind that much if Hollywood tried to lock up its junk tightly, but the problem is that in such a world of DRM and controlled platforms, independent content producers end up having to go to the software publishers for the privilege of publishing. That's not because the software publishers provide any useful service, or because the software publishers have any particularly great technology, but because they hold the keys that independent publishers need to get access to the multimedia clients and document readers. This gives Microsoft and places like that an unacceptable level of control.
PS: I would try to dig up this information on the RIAA site, but when I try to connect to it, I get the message "ODBC Error Code = 08004 (Data source rejected establishment of connection) [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect."
I like the Nation but even they get it wrong:
There are now two kinds of computers in the world: Windows computers... and free software computers
Macs anyone? Are Apple's numbers so insignificant next to Linux that they don't deserve a mention?
Best software in the world free? That's more arguable opinion than fact. Both sides have their winners and losers.
it's easy to dislike Microsoft - after all, they are remarkably successful at offering obviously flawed and limited products. yes, they clearly use network effects to promote their products, which is exactly what any good business does. their actions are quite possibly too agressive, agressive enough to infringe on certain laws. but they are not immoral. the moral aspect of this issue is the willingness of companies like Sun, Oracle and Netscape to resort to politics when they can't compete, when their products are worse than Microsoft's. you may disagree on how the nation's antitrust laws apply to Microsoft, but why should it be appropriate for these failed competitors to get the cops to beat up on Microsoft? it's clearly not just a matter of "enforcing the law" or some such tripe - after all, Intel is free to permute its pinouts in a blatantly anticompetitive manner, or simply refused to lisence them.
if Sun/Oracle/Netscape were serious, they'd be asking for updated or more specific laws. immoral companies routinely use stupid politicians, gullible judges and ridiculous laws to abuse their competitors. routine doesn't make right.
The US "surrendered" in the same way that Microsoft "won" the appeal.
Mr. Moglen seems politically naive. Hollywood is not monolithic, and Dubya cannot simply say "surrender" to the DOJ. It's not that simple.
He has the same myopic view that got MS into trouble at the trial. They thought that the real world works like the computer industry. It does not.
The greatest effect Microsoft has had upon the world of software is the way it lowers customer expectations.
After years of leading the market with medium quality products, Microsoft has passed the first test in becoming a traditional standard. People have learned to live with the BSOD, and even joke about it instead of seeking alternatives. Not exactly good news for those in the know, but like it or not, Bill is a marketing genius.
It's bad enough running across the BSOD in my research, but I for one would not want to be seeing the BSOD in the middle of a fight. "Hang on Commander, we need to reboot before we can engage incoming targets." Screw that noise.
The British lost a ship that way during the Falklands War. They had an incoming target that "split in two" (it was two mirage jets in close formation), and they had to reboot their targeting computer to get a firing solution for their missiles. By the time they had it was too late.
Wasn't even windows. Shows you how critical software reliability can be.
Windows XP has been designed to help the movie and music businesses by degrading the quality of the MP3 music-file format that currently fuels the world's music-sharing systems like Napster
Media Player never had full support for MP3s but MP3 tools can be written to support XP. On a review on Firingsquad.com
The bottom line here was that I was free to completely ignore Media Player 8 and use Music Match just like I could on any other Windows 95 or 98 machine.
So as I am concerned they are losing money. 'nuff said.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Ja, we got an IBM eServer xSeries 340. Its not top of the line, but its IBM server quality hardware, and it aint cheap. We get BSOD about once a month running NT.
Its a hunk of shit I tell you.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
"The government is not functioning properly when it passes laws against companies that do nothing to harm consumers. And despite having a rather poor product, many consumers prefer an easy-to- use, expensive MS program to a stable product that takes some effort to learn."
But a company that has a monopoly in any given area and uses this monopoly to lock out potential competitors is hurting consumers!
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
I find it incredibly sad that you all have to
depend on the Microsoft breakup to try to boost
linux, get over it. If you want to support linux
you shouldnt have to depend on the down fall of
others.
There is no more "We the People". Because there are few if any voices representing the common citizens in the halls of US and State government, we no longer have what I would call a representative government.
Most 'elected' officials have made a business of serving commercial interests, and sometimes even foreign governments, against the interests of their own citizens.
Some new political system is required. Computer geeks traditionally have not been well organized, but that needs to change.
The problem we've really had has been the Movie Distribution houses, and their stupid CSS scheme. The real problem with CSS is that if you use a 'standard' system (a dedicated player, or DVD drive in Windows), you are completely unaware that every time you buy and use a DVD you are supporting an unfair, and IMO illegal by Copyright Law piece of software.
Oh, well, there is nothing we can do about the masses, but we should be lobbying the politicians to change this.
Anyway, it doesn't seem that the Hollywood has succumbed to MS, so much as the movie distributors have given in to idiocy.
foxxtrot
-- this
Having been working with and around the Navy's computers for nigh on 6 years now, I've come to realize that the people making decisions don't have a clue. The IT-21 decisions (I'll try to find a link for that...) were based in complete lunacy by people who had to have been paid by MS themselves.
All of the major networks that I played with were Win-based, including several at USNA as well as those on every boat I visited (including, notably, the Seawolf). In virtually every case, the network was a hosed-up nightmare. I can only think of one that was even realistically usable, thanks to an absolutely incredible sysadmin. All of the others had so much downtime (and other manner of problems) that they were barely functional.
To illustrate the point most dramatically, I was in a tactical simulation one afternoon, on a Win-based network. Our ships had run across the enemy in force, and we prepared for the incoming aircraft. Unfortunately, we were unable to fire any missiles, as the system locked up before the first shot was fired. We sat helplessly and watched as our fleet was destroyed. Fortunately, that was merely a simulation, but it isn't hard to imagine a similar problem happening in real life -- and nevermind the problems of fighting with a ship whose network may be under attack!
I shouldn't have to reference the SmartShip failure, either. The Navy's experiment with a computer-based ship started out as a Unix project, but was switched out to MS at the last minute. On one occasion, a null value in a database crashed the entire ship's computer system, disabling the entire ship. It had to be towed back to port. Imagine that happening in battle.
With leadership like this, we hardly need enemies!
Hollywood has no desired interest to keep microsoft a monopoly. They only have window PCs littered though the occasional office
If you looked at the overall IT budget for hollywood you will see the bulk of it going to SGI, linux, macos, amiga and other non-ms operating systems. Windows isn't used for doing special effects, editing, system controls and it would be a very long time before microsoft will able to penertrate the movie industry. Man, when was the last time you saw windows been shown in a movie? They use there own special movie OS.
Anyway thats my thoughts on the matter
Ease of use? Well, don't give 'em Windows then.
You may think Windows is easy because that's what you were brought up on. I was brought up on Windows, but it is a pain in the bum!
Today I was editing a text file, and I went to move down a line, but my j key (from vi in case you didn't know) didn't do a thing! I had to move my hand waaaay over to the arrow keys, press the dang key, then move my hands waaaay back to where I was typing.
Text areas are difficult to use.:wq
First: He characterizes the US govt's revised strategy against MS as a "surrender." It is no such thing. The US govt decided to drop the breakup pursuit so they could focus their witnesses, evidence, etc. on the area of the case they actually have a chance of winning. The breakup scheme has been repeatedly discredited as punitive, structurally inappropriate, and ultimately bad for consumers. In fact, the crippling regulation that the DOJ may now seek could be an even more deadly punishment for Microsoft.
This incorrect characterization of these events as a "surrender" is FATAL TO MOGLEN'S ARGUMENT. For if there was no "surrender", then the _supposed_ shift in sentiment among corporations cannot be shown to have had any effect.
Lesser points:
1. Where is the evidence that the hardware companies cited ever supported action against Microsoft? Or that their position has changed? I know of none.
2. The author of this article serves w/o fee as general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, so this is as objective an analysis as I might expect from the CEO of Oracle.
3. He characterizes WindowsXP as "bloated" to encourage a "round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading." This analysis could not be shallower. Yes, advancement of technology will require computer upgrades, but what other choice is there? To hold technology constant? To tell consumers "what you've got is good enough, improvement will be too expensive for you, my dear little consumer"? I would prefer to give consumers *the choice* of whether they would like to upgrade or not; those that don't want to spend the money are not forced. Consumers are not as stupid as many like to think.
(Further factual errors abound in this paragraph: that there are only two types of computers; sweeping and dopey characterizations of complex technologic issues e.g. the decision to cap mp3 "ripping" from Media Player at a certain bit rate, etc. etc.)
Anyway, that should give you an idea of my thoughts on this.
Blake
Here are a few references ...
http://www.ultraviolet.org/mail-archives/kplug.199 8/9794.html Quotes an article, starting:
There were some other juicy pieces from people in the navy, but URLs have changed. Try attacking the archives with Google.
There's so much more to popular software and operating systems than cool algorithms and features only a geek can appreciate. As I've said in other posts I was a marketing slime in the early days of my career. As a product manager I had to try and get the engineers to add features, that users asked for. Boy what a nightmare. The common response was "we don't do things like that, so real user don't need it." I'd have mountains of user requests for a feature and they'd say the same thing over and over. Since then it becomes easy to spot software designed by engineers and not marketing user research. Mac and Windows do lots of things that don't make sense to Open source crowd, but they are things users want. MS would of not of got the market share they have on arm twisting alone, they had to have a product people wanted in the first place. So even if you think you have the greatest software and developers around, it won't do you any good unless you're filling the needs of the masses, and that takes listening to them, not dictating what you thing they should like. At this time KDE and Mandrake are only ones trying to give users what they want, but their software still has a lot more maturing to do, before they are going to get the masses coming to them.
Wasn't there an article not too long ago about CGI companies switching to Linux from Windows NT? Pixar maybe?
Open Source failed Hollywood, and all media creators, by claiming those creators could no longer sell there product for $20, one that costs a quarter to make, and must now give it away for free.
Remember all the horrid stories about Metallica and Napster here on slashdot? And most everyone saying it was unfair to sell those CDs at such a huge markup? After all, they've been doing it for twenty years now.
There are a lot of very rich people staying rich, with elegant homes on prime real estate, with bowls of cocaine on the tables and teenage girlies all around the pool. And you think a bunch of programmers can take that lifestyle away? Get real.
The government? Five percent of America controls the government, as long as unemployment stays under 10%. Did someone say McDonalds? Or was that WalMart?
The new laws on the way say three important things:
1) The NSF shall be funded by the dotGOV to create a workable DRM infrastucture. This will allow people with the right-to-use to actually use the binary object in question.
2) If the NSF cannot perform the task in a reasonable amount of time, a corporation will be given the green light, and will be exempt from anti-trust laws (who could that be?)
3) It will be illegal to sell or transfer a device (hw or sw) that does not protect the IP rights holder.
Never mind that all the people who once stole on Napster are now stealing on BearShare. Never mind that nearly all the people, in either case, were/are running Microsoft products.
So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.
I think that is a bunch of crap. We need to focus on doing the right thing--reasonable protection for IP, reasonable non-interference with personal behavior--if a musician wants to give something away, or an author wants to give away a book, they should be able to "mark it" free.
Just like we do with books, we should be able to trade IP -- give it away, loan it out, buy or sell it.
All that is needed is some type of client-server infrastucture, complete with (I imagine) a one-time decryption key process. The client-server infrastucture would keep track of the current rights holder for the objects, aloowing the current holders to decypt and use the binary object.
There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.
Society operates this way right now. There is no need to have two policeman ride along with me to insure I am not bad--it's just a matter of my realizing that crime or violence is not a acceptable solution to life's struggles. The penalty exceeds the payoff.
Applying a similar concept to the IP situation--harsh prosecution for using cracked s/w, distributing cracking s/w, etc.--should be more than enough to satisy Hollywood and the Government, plus it's the reasonable thing to do.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
NT cannot be made to be trusted or trustworthy, in the software engineering sense - unless someone audited it line by line.... ships dead in the water, KNOWN failures, KNOWN issues. Only option is hand coded/crafted code. Same issue arose with planes going to fly by wire to fly by computer. Boeing was not that stupid. I say implant a NT controlled pace maker in the guy who forced this decision, and really let him know it is a life and death decision HE will personally have to live with.
arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares?
I hardly call a $20 upgrade an "expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrade".
It's not expensive, and it's certainly not pointless as any system would run better with the more memory.
In a modern computer with a couple of spare SDRAM slots it's a $20 upgrade, sure, but you're talking a machine which is already within the spec for the latest version of Windows in every other regard
What about my laptop with two memory slots each with a 32Mb chip already in it, and memory at closer to $100 per 64Mb chip - I have to buy $200 worth of memory, not $20 worth - not to mention throw away the two chips I have.
What about older hardware (i.e. Pentium 166 with 72pin memory sockets).
Just because the most recent hardware upgrades cheaply doesn't mean older machines do, and it's people with older machines who are more likely to have to upgrade even to _read_ documents created by people with newer machines. This is the real side-effect of Microsoft (and other vendors) changing formats to push sales.
Some people are sick of the US playing silly foreign policy and imposing their narrow-minded view of the world.
Some geeks think the same of Microsoft. Throwing their buggy software down every throat, playing dirty tactics to eliminate competition, etc.
I *pray* that the next target of the terrorists is Microsoft, their chairman, their HQ, their developers.
It will be its price.
The acceptance of XP will be slow because it is relatively expensive compared to the added advantages that most users will get. Remember, right now most home users use their PCs to send email and surf the web at 56K. Even serious multimedia users are a small percentage compared to the email/web crowd at this point in time
I will agree that with XP, MS has finally produced a consumer OS that at least comes close to being worthy of the hardware it runs on, even though it attempts to bring with it multimedia format lock-in. With the retail price so high, however, and the fact that MS has made it more difficult to install one copy on multiple PCs, I suspect that only a small percentage of existing PC owners will bother to upgrade off the retail shelf, and even if they do, they may not upgrade all of their machines.
Even medium sized businesses (that don't get huge site licensing deals) will hesitate because of the cost. Our company has already decided to stick with '98 for the time being.
That leaves much of the uptake of XP to new hardware, which will of course come with XP at greatly reduced OEM prices. It will eventually gain dominace though this, and the fact that broadband and multimedia will eventually grow, but the PC market in the US is beginning to saturate as many families now have PCs capable of email and web surfing, and the growth will be slow.
You guys would make the John Bircher's proud!
The John Birch society views every event through the filter of "it's all a communist/insider conspiracy". You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The greatest threat to Microsoft's monopoly is the coming generations of computer users. Their plan is to indoctrinate them early - hoping that the "stick with what you know" philosophy will prevail. The reason that it is a threat is very simple: At the moment Microsoft manages to get by with "ease of use" arguments (that aren't even all that valid). That sells very well at the moment because currently the majority of the buying public are older computerphobics who simply don't want to know. The younger generations, on the other hand, have a much better intuitive sense of computing - and the generations to come will only be more so. Ease of use will cease to be such an overriding factor - "good enough" in ease of use will be all you'll need.
The possibility of Linux becoming more widely used in schools and colleges scares Microsoft witless I'm sure.
So they're trying to lock down the content suppliers with juicy promises of padlocked content that every last dollar can be wrung from. The catch is that that could be a serious turn off for content users. hence the SSSCA, which, I'm sure, will have Microsoft rolling on the floor laughing should it ever get passed, as that ought to seal up the last of the holes.
It's amazing how all of this ties in together really. Amazing or frightening. One of the two.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
But youre an idiot. How would you know? You make idiot statements as if they are fact and you have yet to make an intelligent remark in the last 2 years. Sad. I think you need a life. Moron. Just realize you are stupid. We are all stupid. it's ok. You are dumb, just like all of us. Now keep your mindless rambling to yourself. When you have information and not idiotic, drivelling, analysis, then I will listen. But you have not said a useful thing in the last 2 years. Sad, really.
I'd like to know what you're doing with your two *nix machines. But I have to agree - my Win2K workstation has been able to match uptimes to my Linux and Solaris workstations.
But there's an important distinction. This isn't a matter of Windows overtaking other technologies. This is a case of Windows finally catching up to where other's have been for years.
And its about time.
If you want to play games, you have to upgrade your machine every 12-18 months anyway. PCs are not like gameboys, where the hardware you bought ten years ago will run new releases.
But then linux doesn't have any games so it probably doesn't affect many /. readers (unless you count wrestling with vi as a game).
Win2K has made a great home OS. Its much more stable than the Win98 install it replaced, and my user base
I was never under the impression that WinNT 4.0 made that great of a workstation (or at least, a home machine - having said that, win2k has performed admirably on my laptop too).
--
If you're a capitalist and you have the very best goods, and they're free, you don't have to proselytize - you just have to wait.
This is a grave error, that has been made by many good companies when Microsoft moved in on their markets (OK, in most cases their products weren't free, but the point still holds). Even if you have the best product in the world, there is no substitute for proselytization (some of us call it marketing).
I know its nothing to joke about, but I see this text on MS website.
First para, right hand column.
Attack on America: How you can help.
I'm currently using WinXP RC2 and it doesn't degrade the quality of the MP3 music file-format. My MP3's run just fine with WinXP, and furthermore WMP8 will have an add-in that allows you to record your CD's in MP3 format for up to 192kbps.
he claims there are only 2 kinds of computers that people use (Microsoft Windows and "free" OS's). Not true and don't shove me into some marginal niche either. There is always the Macintosh. It may only hold the 5% spot of the market share but more and more people are seeing how well it is serving as an alternative to Bill Gates dream. In fact, it was the inspiration for Mr. Gates GUI OS. Please don't deny me my right to use a better OS on better hardware.
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
A quick check on Google Zeitgeist shows that there were more Macs searching the web (4.18%) then Linux (1.18%).
There is also 4.35% in the 'other' category.
It's very depressing reading Slashdot, Newsforge, et al. Just about everyone seems to be missing the point. The MS monopoly, and the DOJ cave-in are only part of the beginning of the end of open source. All the work of Torvalds, Cox, GNU, Mozilla, Debian, FreeBSD, etc., will all be made implicitly illegal by the SSSCA. Open source OS's and the type of copy protection required by the SSSCA are mutually incompatible. The copy protection wanted by the movie and music corporations will be guaranteed by MS. That's why they will support the monopoly. Expect to see MS soon make copy protection part of Windows Media, sounding the end of MP3.
Open source and *NIX have had a great run, but the DOJ decision and impending SSSCA will finally be what ends it.
There's a lot of doom and gloom on this message about the un-stoppability of Microsoft, and I would like to remind everyone of one thing.
You can't kill open source.
It was there before RedHat, VA Linux, and most other commercialization efforts.
Open Source is not driven by money, it is not driven by profits, and so, no amount of FUD can eliminate it. We don't NEED money/companies/etc. to survive.
In a nutshell, we can't lose, because we can never go away. We will always be there waiting to take over when the world grows tired of microsoft.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
My perception is that Bush didn't really tell the DOJ what to do, it was more subtle than that. The Republicans, having taken office and putting their own people in high positions as they have the perogative to do, got rid of many of the anti-trust experts and litigators they hired for the case, put some junior people on the job who don't know much about anti-trust, and those are the people now making these (IMHO poor) decisions.
--LP
Moglen's work with the FSF is pro bono. He gets to be the general counsel of the FSF for exactly nothing.
Regards,
-l
Okay, all you OSS monkeys... I like open source, linux, etc. as much as the next guy (in fact one of my boxes at home runs linux and is essentially my secondary computer). However, Microsoft, though they might be the harbinger of Armageddon, is a cornerstone of the industry and a vital part to the success of the NASDAQ. Breaking up Microsoft could have some serious side effects. Bush didn't do it just because he is a capitalist [thank God]but rather because he knows what is good for the market. End of story. http://www.obsessionsystems.com/
While it's true that for the most part BushGore were on the side of big business, Microsoft was a fighting point. Whereas Dubya was using the phrase "we shouldn't restrict innovation" in his speeches, Gore campaigned in favor of antitrust action in the software industry while visiting Redmond. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:
Let me repeat -- Gore said this at the heart of Microsoft's campus, to their faces. He's also an old fan of Macs, and his campaign web server ran on Linux/Apache/PHP.
Sorry if this handful of talking points isn't convincing enough for you, but I am dead certain Gore wouldn't have ordered DoJ to surrender like this.
"Bush, who lost California big time in 2000, won't carry it next time either, but he certainly isn't going to let northern California's biggest bribes all go to the other side."
Hello, most of No. Cal wants to see MS broken up, not the reverse. Does Oracle and Sun mean anything to this writer, along with countless other firms who are either dead now (netscape et. al) or on life support due to MS activities. If this was true, Bush would be shooting himself in the foot.
The MS folks have given a lot of $$ politically to both sides, moreso to GOP, but they hedged their bets, and Bushies caved, no suprise, and that point can be effectivly made (and is, look at Rep. Conyers recent letter to Ashcroft askiong for details of sr. Bush officials meeting with MS folks). But to say that is a grand conspiracy and that Northern California wants an MS monopoly is just ridiculous.
Once again, the nation, takes a point that could be made, but sees sinister conspiracy in all capitolism and damns the sytsem. It just aint there, and it is a hallmark of their shoddy journalism. Follow the $$, enough MS donations to convince anyone of what is going, and it was Ms caused Bush to cave, no one else. Trust me, Gates and Ballmer can do a good enough job themsleves, they don't need Hollywood helping them. Moreover, those guys are not going to waste their chits helping po' Gates when they got DMCA to expand and Holling SSSCA (see wired article) to implement.
GOOD FUCKING MORNING!!!! Our government has been broken for about 50 years.Duh!!!
If we got rid of the mpaa there would still be a hollywood, the mpaa is just another bottom-feeder sucking off of the movie industry. (this is not saying the movie companies are so innocent, just that the mpaa is not the movie industry and getting rid of them would not be end of the movies, it just might take a little longer for movies to go from the theatre to home video).
Microsoft is a natural monopoly...meaning that the reason it is there because no one filled in the gap. It supports all forms of technology. If it was broken up then the economy would be destoried. Matt
The new business model - provide high-quality, long-lasting vehicles - does seem to be working quite well for the companies. They can charge a lot more for the cars, and the high-tech features ensure that customers still have to bring them in regularly for service.
If you feel the FSF, GNU or open source users are being paranoid, I urge you to check out the opposition. Such studges as MS-NBC being openly biased are "spreading the word" throughout the popular press. What do you think of Windows XP? Shouldn't the fundamental discussion be about privacy and your trust of this new operating system? It is no wonder that many people in the US are being misled and Microsoft is able to divert the Government from their mission of looking after consumer's interests. Microsoft will stop at nothing.
Technical support is a nightmare from most vendors, but what about in house support. I don't know how it is where you people are, but I know it's tough to find good *nix people up here in Wisconsin. People with MCSEs, however, are a dime a dozen...
When did that happen?
I don't know why people think Microsoft won, just because they didn't get broken up.
Microsoft are extreemly dependant on the secret agreements with the PC manafactures to preserve their huge profits. The goverment has threatened to ban these very agreements as part of the "compromise" penalty.
Not all of the world are the US of America. I happen to think that is a good thing. For example, you might remember those days when exporting cryptography was a crime. Cryptography tools were then written outside the US.
And there are places where the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has nothing to say at all. Again, I think that is a good thing.
"Otherwise, the government is not functioning properly."
Tell us something we don't know. The government has been controlled by those with more cash than the rest of us for decades.
"Moglen didn't get to be general counsel of the FSF for nothing."
He certainly didn't get to be General Counsel of the FSF for his objective, fact filled, well researched and well reasoned commentary.
I am in Sydney (Australia) MCSEs fall out of trees when u shake em but it doesn't mean they actually know anything. Especial when your problem is the actual OS or something that you can't fix cause you can't see the source. In such times the MCSE says: "lets call MS support", and then the same thing happens as in my original post.
The only real reason that most businesses I know of go with MS is just because it is a big corp, which keeps management in their comfort zone. I am convinced that is all there is to it.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
So MS treats the average american computer user like an unthinking dolt. And this and many other FSF supporting posts identify Linux for the THINKING user i.e. the Windows users are unthinking. Ease of use is , if not a sin, to be derided.
What is wrong with a computer being as easy to use as a hammer? I don't know the details of how my car works nor do I think I need to. So why can't my computer be the same?
MS is high-handed in it's way but some of the posts I'm reading here aren't much different. Come on, we can't all be gurus of everything we own. Let's each do our chosen thing well and hope others will help us out in all the other things we don't know so well.