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.
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.
...
The really sad thing is, that only the minority are thinking. In a democracy, the majority decides, and that's how you get a country where thinking is outlawed.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.