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.
It's ok for them to use it in render farms, but when was the last time you saw them being happy about people playing DVDs on Linux?
They want maximum revenue with minimum cost, and they don't really care about the ethics of getting there.
"One for us, none for you; two for us, none for you..."
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
"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.
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?
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.
don't bother reading and just moderate away as Troll
Well, I don't have any mod points, but you're right, you DO need to be modded down.
OK, so your biggest beef with the article is this:
requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers
To which you reply with this gem:
the hardware requirements are negligably higher than that of W2K. The memory has been doubled under the"Recommended" arena from 64MB to 128MB
So, in essence you're saying "this article sucks because the author is 100% totally and completely correct!"
Sounds a little like blaming the messenger to me.
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.
Well ... those things aren't in opposition :)
Most programmers in the country (around 90% is the number I've heard, I cannot back it up and would love to see contrary or supporting numbers) work on custom software for companies, doing things like tying together accounting systems with company email systems, or designing custom commerce systems. They can use Free software all they want, and get paid what they can get away with ;)
They can also modify the code they work with -- and If they're not publishing the results, that's the end of it. Game over, they used free software and made money. If they modifying the code *and publishing* the result, the only restrictions they accept (under the GPL at least) is to provide the original source code they were provided (sounds fair) and the source code to their modified version (again, sounds fair to me) along with a copy of the license, which says others are similarly constrained in their republication, etc etc.
Under the BSD license, also considered Free by the Free Software Foundation, things don't even go that far -- the developer can say "Hey! This is a nify little solution I've worked out from freely availble tools licensed such that I can proprietize the whole thing and sell it for one ... billion .. dollars." More power to 'em. If the price is past a certain threshold, others will put together a similar combo and either sell or give it away. Churn.
"Therefore, the best developers will naturally be working on the developments that make the most $, and that != free source."
Premise flawed, conclusion does not follow :)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
So as I am concerned they are losing money. 'nuff said.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
You can preach all you want about how much their code-base has changed and their software has improved (if indeed it has), but that one small debatable statement is not really what this article's about.
The fact of the matter is that Micro$oft's pricing schemes, strong-arm tactics, and shady business deals have not changed. In fact, they have gotten worse. And until that improves by a great deal, then yes the so-called "super-linux-rulez-MS-sucks" crowd will be impossible to please-- no matter how "perfect" the OS becomes.
I've been trolled, but...
So "Innovation" is putting in features that users have been demanding for years ?
Here's a tip: innovation means coming up with something that no one else has thought of. If shareware utilities ahve it, and consumers know to want it, then it isn't innovative, it's missing.
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: innovation
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
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.
By the very nature of the beasties involved, no M$ product meets any of the above criteria. YMMV, but hey, it's your money, and it's a free country. I'm not arguing from ideology here, I'm talking about using common sense. A computer is a durable product.
BTW...if you define innovation as Leveraging new and unusual ways to lock users into license verification and developer lock-in, then you're right. Just like the Pentium 4, XP is the definitive OS for making the marketing departments of many software vendors happy. But I'm not going to be running it. I'll be running winblows 98se and *nix until they're outlawed. If I want to play a game, I'll do it on a PSX2 or similar dedicated game machine, which is remarkably inexpensive and well-suited for the task. All my boxen are either 486DX or Pentium machines, and they still seem perfectly capable of programming, illustration, spreadsheets, and StarCraft.
Other than elaborate PC games, is there really any reason someone _needs_ XP (besides the fat-cat software publishers, M$, and Big Brother)? You do understand that just like the Auto Industry, M$ wants consumers to buy a new OS (hopefully by buying a new system) every year. And as long as the luser-base is stoopid enough to throw away their money, the fat cats are going to happily churn out new crappy products to make the luser-base happy.
Sometimes it's not about FUD, it's about visualizing being on the business end of the M$ boot stepping a human face forever. Sure it's not so bad now, but someday they'll have those suckers resoled with cleats.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
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.
MS doesn't make any hardware. Why would they bloat the system on purpose?
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems.
If no one buys new computers, no one buys Microsoft products. So far so good.
Now the tough part. Microsoft has to CONVINCE consumers that they NEED the new operating system. They achieve this is a few ways. First, they discontinue support and patches for old products. They say "That is an old product - please upgrade to Windows and Office XP". Secondly, they only support new hardware in the new operating system. Thus, if you get a new computer, you HAVE to have the new OS. Third, they make it very easy for users of the new Office software to make documents that are not backward compatible. About a third of all people who need a new version of Office will just buy a new computer to get it pre-installed.
The plan is multi-faceted, but has proven to work in the past. The easiest solution for most people is to buy a new computer. And if they buy a new computer, they will only have the pre-install option of getting Office XP. Then they get onto licensing terms, which get worse every year, until all of your dollars are belong to Billy G.
And you still end up with an OS that provides the same basic functionality to 99% of all computer users that Windows 3.1 did.
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.
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
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems
OEM revenue was $4.72 billion in 1998, $6.40 billion in 1999, and $7.01 billion in 2000.
Since the revenue was $15.2bil in 1998, $19.7bil in 1999 and $23.0bil in 2000, that's hardly the "vast majority".
Sorry. I meant PROFIT when I said MONEY. Not gross revenue.
In the case of computers, most users are not like gamers. They do not want or need the latest and greatest. If you surveyed most people, you would find that their business needs are completely met by Windows 95. They do not need another OS that requires 4 times more RAM to provide them the same user interface, the same office suite, and a few new bells and whistles that were mostly non-functional from the business point of view.
Indeed, this is Microsoft's entire motivation for getting people into XP. People are buying computers less frequently now. Microsoft sees this as a direct hit in the wallet. In a licensing scheme, however, they can stop the loss. XP is all about licensing software instead of buying it. In a licensing scheme, people pay Microsoft yearly whether they NEED it or not. They have no choice.