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?
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.
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
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.
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."