Microsoft Du Jour - Talks, Upgrades, Salaries

Jeff writes: "CNN is reporting 'In a dramatic move, the new judge in the Microsoft case Friday ordered the government and the software maker into five weeks of intensive settlement talks, until Nov. 2.'" Other MS submissions coming in today: USAToday discovers the new upgrade scheme, designed to milk every last cent out of those who've locked themselves into Windows; tech-report.com goes a bit more in depth on the same subject; ZDNet hoists the black flag; MS discusses its plans to control how you compute (by the way, the license agreement for Windows Media Player now allows Microsoft to disable any software on your computer - you do read those license agreements, don't you?); Gates got $666,000 last year but won't have to apply for welfare just yet.

Comments

Let's help!

[cvd6262]

Analysts expect non-profits and small firms to be hardest hit. Habitat for Humanity, which builds houses for poor people, could have its technology budget wiped out by the increases, says Teresa Pudi, vice president of information services. [...] Habitat for Humanity is considering the free Linux operating system. But because Microsoft is so dominant, it will be difficult for firms to switch. Windows runs 92% of PCs. Its Office software has better than a 90% market share, Gartner says.

Anybody want to post contact info for those of us who whould like to help H4H migrate? (You know, it could count for my community service hours...)

Its not anti-trust anymore. It is anti-control.

[javabandit]

I have to say, I have never seen anything like this, ever.

I honestly think that over the next 20 years, we will see Microsoft's control rise to such a level that not even the US government can oppose them on any level. I mean, they are able to manipulate entire markets. With the flick of a switch, they alone can bring things to a complete halt. With the deprecation or removal of an API, they can put people out of business, or send companies into bankruptcy.

The introduction of .NET makes it even more evident.

Microsoft... this company... in 20 years will control everything important. They already control 95% of the desktops. They will control almost all messaging. They will control almost all authentication. They will control almost all digital rights management.

Taking down Microsoft after they have such a level of control and we have such a level of dependence would be like us dropping our cars and going back to horses and wagons -- not going to happen.

Honestly, its time for people to wake up before its too late. Do not support this behemoth anymore. Its not about a simple anti-trust case.

This is about one company controlling the most fundamental mechanisms upon which the entire world depends.

And THAT is extremely dangerous.

Is an Optional Copyright Term Limit A Solution?

[ClarkEvans]

While open source is laudable, the problem is that it confuses "free beer" with "freedom", i.e., "gratis" with "free". This is unfortunate. IMHO, we need to think hard about a system that provides "freedom", but does not restrict a programmer from earning a fair wage.

One possible solution, which I've encountered resistance talking to Congress people on the hill is to add an "optional" expiration date on a copyright, and allow the source code to be submitted via electronic media.. Thus, when you submit your copyright you can optionally choose to limit your copyright to N years. Further, the copyright office could "hold" the source code and make it public on the date that the copyright expires.

Americans *love* stats. What would happen if "copyright term" ended up as one of those columns? And "open source at end of copyright term" was another column? In this way we could compete not only on features and price, but also *when* our software becomes public domain. This is a simple solution, backward compatible, and can be implemented by the copyright office without legislation. It just requires the media to notice that copyright doesn't have to last forever and that making one's code open source can be part of the license agreement.

Maybe we can turn the tables on the "capitalists" by creating a new form of competition... competition for the change in software, competition for when software becomes public property.

Best Wishes! Clark

P.S. For an alternative idea, which is much larger in scale (but may not work as well), you may want to read Distributed Copyright and my letter to Judge Jackson on May 23, 2000. It may not be perfect, but it has some ideas that you and others may want to build upon.

A setup program

[The Cat]

(Adding to the discussion of how to make Linux better)

RPM is great (unless you're trying to compile version 4), but Linux really really really needs (in addition to Office compatibility, a great browser and a great desktop) a standard setup program that will work on most, if not all, versions.

I'm aware of Debian and apt-get, etc. (and those are great) But there should also be a "double-click setup.exe" process of installing programs on Linux, and a similarly easy way of uninstalling them, with NO ERROR MESSAGES ABOUT MISSING VERSIONS OF SOME OBSCURE 9k LIBRARY FILE OR HAVING VERSION 1.07 OF A PROGRAM WHEN THE NEW PROGRAM WANTS VERSION 1.08!!

ALL required libraries should be included with every setup archive. Period. Sending people (even developers) out on the Internet in search of some library is the fastest way to make using Linux very irritating.

Then, perhaps we could have Installshield for Linux, which would be awesome, especially if it worked with apt and apt-get. ^^

Just another $0.02