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.
"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"
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.
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.