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.
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
by Eben Moglen
It was hardly a surprise. George W. Bush told us during the campaign that he thought United States v. Microsoft shouldn't have been brought in the first place; Al Gore, who could hardly say that, limited himself to making a campaign appearance at Microsoft's Redmond headquarters. But what was surprising about the announcement that the Justice Department would not pursue the breakup of Microsoft was that the decision had become so easy for the politicians who really made it. The coalition of "campaign contributors" that had stiffened the Clinton Administration's spine against Microsoft in the first place had changed sides.
The most important are Microsoft's erstwhile enemies, the hardware manufacturers-Intel, HP, Compaq and the rest of the PC-makers, who, although still determined to drive down the share of any new PC's price paid to Microsoft, are very temporarily in its corner. They are all, without exception, in very serious trouble. In the United States, PCs are sold to corporations or to consumers, at Christmastime. But US business has all the computers it needs, and more. 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. Desktop PCs are already selling at fire-sale prices, and if this winter's products don't move, some Very Big People will fail. The announcement that HP will use "$25 billion" of grossly overpriced HP stock to buy an almost worthless Compaq will save Carly Fiorina's job for a while (a religious doctrine of US capitalism says you can't fire a CEO-even one who has missed three consecutive quarters of earnings projections-while she's in the middle of this big a deal), but although the merged company will probably soon fire twice the 15,000 workers it has already said will go, no one but Bill Gates can save HP/Compaq and the others.
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, that is, but not for the manufacturers, whose interests for the next few months lie in supporting Gates. 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. Or southern California's either. Hollywood is now Gates's staunchest and most loyal ally-unlike the hardware manufacturers, even in better economic times the content moguls have nowhere else to go. There are now two kinds of computers in the world: Windows computers, which their users cannot technically understand or modify, and free software computers (usually inaccurately called "Linux" computers), running the enormous body of software made by the best programmers on earth and given to everyone to use freely, modify and redistribute. 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 [see Moglen, "Liberation Musicology," March 12]. These systems allow users, who need pay nothing, to exchange music with anyone else in the world-thus giving the five companies that control the world's popular music the heebie-jeebies. Windows XP also contains facilities that might soon allow the movie and television companies to control all video distributed through the web, or at least to hobble any serious competition they might meet there. In the world of "convergence," where what we have seen as separate media (radio, television, movies, recorded music, books, magazines, newspapers, video games) are all "bitstreams" delivered to digital devices, the oligarchs of culture and the monopolist of software are discovering that this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Can we learn anything here about the general antitrust policy of the remarkably pro-corporate Bush Administration? Only that when corporate America was divided on what to do with Microsoft, there was room to care about competition. When all corporate players agree-which is the moment when antitrust law should be most important-it has the least influence on this Administration. What's next in the history of United States v. Microsoft? Much sterile legal maneuvering, leading to a settlement that will leave Gates's empire unchained and undiminished. But only temporarily. The best software in the world continues to be free. Free as in free speech: free to use, free to copy, free to modify. As users learn what free software can do, manufacturers won't need Gates anymore. 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. Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.
"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?
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.
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
Right. Who presided over the DMCA? Billy Clinton. Who presided over the greatest erosion of our rights in the last century? Billy Clinton. You think Gore was going to go anywhere different from Bill (aside from under the desk with Monica, that is)? I don't. Gore sacrificed those votes to Nader by being completely bought by business himself. He just had an oh so slightly more left vision of the world than Georgie, but he's just as much a creature of campaign donations, that's for damn sure.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
The paper contains many run-on sentances, improper punctuation, and cliches.
I agree with you but it would be good for you to run your message through a spell checker before you submit no? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Hahaha. Sorry, but the irony was just too obvious.
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
I don't think Gore is "Bush, but to the left"...
He is also not just the mirror-image of Clinton. He was constantly in Clinton's shadow during his two terms, but would've been a very different president had he been elected. He's also much more technologically-competant than Clinton, and especially Bush.
Although McCain might've won the republican primaries, and made everything completely different. He had lots of ideas about campaign finance reform that I would've liked to see put into action (and I think they might still be...).
What ever happened to We the people, for the people, by the people?
s/people/$$$ and you'll have your answer.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
This article has no business being on Slashdot and is just more anti-Microsoft zealotry.
It's at least interesting that The Nation ran this with no apparent understanding of the amount of questionable rhetoric it contains.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
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
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.
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.
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.
So as I am concerned they are losing money. 'nuff said.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
The need for proper spelling is as important anywhere. It portrays your intelligence as well as the overall intelligence of the community you belong to. If no one on Slashdot can spell properly, it will be said that "The entire Slashdot community is a bunch of uneducated people".
So let's all make an effort to spell and punctuate properly.
Yes. The MP3 thing is factually incorrect. Actually most of this guys comments are either just plain wrong, or wishful thinking anyway.
I don't understand what it is with some people. They do not like the way the world is now, so they dream that the world is even worse than it actually is. For what purpose?
I tire of zealotry. The events this past week show how dangerous it can become.
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!
BNTW - if you want to go after a real monopoly, consider the US Postal Service or the Social Security system.
Huh, neither one of them has doubled their price for the services they provide in the last decade without losing market share. Probably cause the evil government regulators won't let them.
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.
Cutthroat is one thing - breaking contracts (JVM), not paying royalties(Spyglass), using secret contracts to deny your competiton market entry (OEM licenses), losing money to drive your competitiors out of business (Netscape) - the list goes on. These aren't cutthroat, they're crooked. {sarcasm} If the mob gives me good protection, they've made me a happy customer, it doesn't matter that they had to break the law to do it.{/sarcasm} I'm so sick of this nonsense.
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.
I guess I must have been halucinating when I saw Win2K running quite fine on my brother's PII 266 w/ 64 Meg of ram (hey - I never said super fast). My PII 300 with 256 Meg of ram runs win2k quite well thanks very much. I agree that Linux can be stripped down to be lighter and faster but there's no point spreading crap like this.
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.
How is he going to fix the problem himself? All he could do is ask MS and cross his fingers it's not like he has the source code or something.
War is necrophilia.
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.
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
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.
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).
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
That's the drawback of being able to speak and write in more languages than one. In french, the punctuation must be outside of the quotes.
Actually, " is illegal in french. and must be used.
Thanks for the pointer, though.
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.
The possibility of Linux becoming more widely used in schools and colleges scares Microsoft witless I'm sure.
Now wait a minute. This is not a war with Linux on one side and Windows on the other. It never has been There is only the issue of getting a desktop OS that is reliable and generally works well for what people want and need to do. Windows does that right now. Linux does it too, for the most part. Linux is better in some ways, but the differences are fairly small and technical, and no one really cares, so people use the one that has the software they want. It sure would be nice to have an operating system that provided significant benefits over what Windows does, but Linux isn't it. It's more or less the same thing. Now something that provided significant, tangible benefits to the user...now that would be something worth positioning as an alternative.
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.
Sorry....I must have missed something between the part where you agree with me that Win2K can run well on fairly modest hardware and you said I didn't know what I was talking about?