Slashdot Mirror
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.
(*shakes from fear realizing that probably a large number of people out there are eating this garbage up as if it were as natural as poop.*)
Go Lakers!
Here's our opportunity....guys...if Linux is ever to be a viable operating system (at least to Corporate America) - it needs to take advantage of this....
CFO's do listen with their wallets...make Linux EASY to use, even at the expense of some of the more configurable options...and secure, and you'll see it become a viable file/web server in the market...I laugh when I hear people griping about MS service packs and a kernel has to be recompiled every week.
Follow the cue of Linux embedded devices...easy for users and admins.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
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...)
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
"the license agreement for Windows Media Player now allows Microsoft to disable any software on your computer "
Make sure you're not running Windows Media Player on the same computer that handles granny's life support.
Though if that computer is running windows, she's in trouble anyway.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
http://www.habitat.org/getinv/
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Did anybody else get this? This is like that shopaholic girlfriend/significant other/wife that explains how she saved money by spending hundreds of dollars at a sale. Sheesh!
You forgot:
vi vi vi
The Editor of the Beast
Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes
now is an "optimal time" to settle the case out of court and that they could strike a deal "if everybody is reasonable and acting in good faith."
Good faith? Microsoft? US Government? I wonder what colour the Blue Screen of Death is in her world?
--
E_NOSIG
But his real compensation is in mortal souls and the eternal suffering of mankind, not salary. People put too much emphasis on paychecks, but often things like job satisfaction, such as that derived from torturing and humiliating the offspring of Yahweh, and perks, such as being legion and hanging with Elizabeth Hurley, are more important than the money.
There are also other ways to make money on the side. I mean, the South Park guest appearances alone... The Exxon and Republican endorsement deals... Plus, $666K is better than 35 pieces of silver. (adjusted for inflation)
I swear, as soon as my employer stops paying for my software I'm going to take a stand. Golldurnit.
When the action against Microsoft first started, my thought was that it was typical -- the government was taking action after the time when it was most needed.
It was my opinion then, and is still my opinion, that the market would take care of Microsoft, just like it had with IBM (the previous 800-lb gorilla of the computing world). The government could try to stop Microsoft, but the market would ultimately do a better job.
Now we see statements like:
Q.E.D.
In time (no, I have no idea how long), Microsoft will be just a player in a new computing world. I don't know what the new world will be, or who its biggest player will be. If I did, I'd be buying stock like crazy.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Yeah, yeah, Apple is as much a business and corporate entity as Microsoft, and as such cannot be trusted any more than Microsoft...
:)
Yet if you evaluate the Mac platform, here's what it offers:
Good (not great) compatibility with the Windows universe, without succumbing to Microsoft
Great UI, Install, and useability
Great hardware, if a bit expensive for said hardware
Good (not great) with the GNU universe. It's BSD, first and foremost, so some allowances have to be made
About the only market it isn't able to compete strongly in is games, which Linux has issues with, if for different reasons. Macs + OS X can work with the server space, desktop workstations, development, scientific computing, graphics, office work, and web work.
Caveat, though, is that there is still a very strong reliance on the Classic environment, hopefully to go away very soon as more apps are developed and ported into the Carbon and Cocoa environments.
Still, all the Linux people can probably drop right into a Mac and OS X fairly easily
GPL Deconstructed
Exactly. This question came up last week and I did a Google search for 'Microsoft EULA'. Nothing except custom educational EULAs. They aren't publishing them on purpose....
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
why 666k? shouldn't 640k be enough for anybody?
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Please... for the love of God. Document your OS programs as if you were speaking to retards. Make little pretty diagrams. Make installation instructions for the layman. If GUI, then have tooltips. Make a tutorial. Even a flash demo with instructions....
Just document. Any documentation is better than none, but unfortunatly, in OSS none is often what is to be found.
-Kraft
Live and let live
Wow. So they can automatically put stuff on your computer that will disable software they don't like, and potentially take away your ability to play "Secure Content."
This is pretty intrusive, as things go. I, for one, would prefer in general that nothing gets installed on my computer that I don't specifically authorize.
Note that there seems to be a corrolary effect here. If they are sending stuff to your computer, your computer is really reaching out to their systems, and potentially is providing identifying or other information to them. Scary.
But of course the scariest bit is the "use other software" clause. It's not even qualified! By this reading, they can disable any other piece of software on your computer! Fear.
Of course, it is in the digital rights section of the agreement, but I'm not sure if that forces the "any other software" clause to be software relating in some way to digital rights.
- target
dingdingdingdingding!!!! We have a winner!
It's of no use to switch to an alternative that can't interoperate with the De Facto standard everybody and your mother is using. There is no and cannot be a positive feedback loop like the one MS currently holds with its offerings of products and OS for the likes of linux, BeOS, *BSD, MacOS, etc., etc..
There will be no killer app for linux, no developer focus on the Mac and no interest in niche OSes simply because MS is too entrenched and ubiquitous to make an alternative attractive. For an alternative to become viable MS would have to practically fall on its own sword and even with its current licensing trend it is obvious that is not happening. I mean honestly how much money is MS losing because Habitat for Humanity may ditch for linux?
So no, all those "whiners" don't have a choice unless they want to live in a vacuum. This is why monopolies are bad. This is why we have anti-trust laws.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I have to say, I have never seen anything like this, ever.
.NET makes it even more evident.
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
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.
Also:
6.6.6.6
IP address of the Beast
66:66:66:66:66:66
MAC address of the Beast
Route 66
Highway of the Beast
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
I work for a software company. Now, my employer (and many other companies such as Veritas, 3COM, and others) has two different revenue streams. The first is from license sales. The second (bigger, dependable, easily forecasted) chunk of our revenue comes from yearly renewable support contracts, which happen to include access to the latest version of our software. This is fairly common practice.
Microsoft has found itself in a position enviable to most software companies. The biggest competition it faces is from older versions of its own software. So they're doing the obvious thing and removing themselves from the competition.
The advantages to Microsoft are obvious. Immediate cash gain, better sustainable revenue, faster phase-out of old product.
Do I like it? In the short term, no. It's expensive as hell and my budget as a partially microsoft shop has taken a huge hit. But in the long term, it removes one of my great annoyances.
It's a complete pain in the ass to have to check the license trail on a typical windows system. Say a computer shipped with Windows '95. I took that '95 license, applied it against another computer when I replaced the windows '95 box (assume non-OEM license), then appied an NT4 upgrade license, followed by a Win2k upgrade license.
That leaves me with 3 different pieces of paper to be accountable for on a moment's notice. Under the new system, I simply need to have the original operating system license, and a software assurance certificate. The advantage to me from a clerical standpoint is obvious.
This doesn't make it all better in the short term, but as a shop that frequently upgrades to the latest and greatest, it will save me lots of time in the long haul.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
- Isn't opening a Pandora's Box supposed to be a bad thing?
- Who the hell would buy a book that they could only read on Tuesdays?
It seems they're thinking too much about what they can do, and not enough about what they should do.-sk
How many of you remember when Scully left Apple and Micheal Spindler was large and in charge?
He stood in front of the assembled masses and said "We are committed to maintaining high shareholder value."
Microsoft is now doing exactly what Apple did. Microsoft is working to maximize its cash flow, and that means taking as much as they can from the pockets of its customers. Doing anything BUT this might subject them to shareholder lawsuits.
Just like IBM once did. And Apple once did. Both companies had a crash and burn phase, and have had a rebuilding phase. Microsoft is now heading to the crash and burn phase. They will eventually rebuild, as they are a cash rich company.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
The whole phrase "digital rights management" is a BS term if I ever heard one. It's all about use restrictions. They only call them "rights" because it's a nice feel-good term, even though it doesn't describe the technology at all. Just replace "rights" with "restrictions" and the quotes read much more easily and honestly:
This will open a Pandora's box," he said, promoting the idea of "elaborate restrictions." These, he said, could move the concept of buy-once restrictions to time-based restrictions -- "you can make it so the user can, say, only read this book on Tuesday" -- or location-based restrictions.
And here I thought that was the number of the Beast computed by the original Pentium...
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
From Webster's dictionary (www.m-w.com):
"Main Entry: Pandora's box
Function: noun
Etymology: from the box, sent by the gods to Pandora, which she was forbidden to open and which loosed a swarm of evils upon mankind when she opened it out of curiosity
Date: 1579
: a prolific source of troubles"
And this is how their own "Director of worldwide marketing" describes it.
it's nice to think the market will do to MS what it did to IBM, but you must remember that with IBM viable alternatives which functioned *identically* to IBM's product were available.
with MS there is no 'windows clone' to switch to, the only way that the market could take care of MS is by switching to another product, and right now there is nothing. linux is not what most people need. i doubt it ever will be.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
ZDNet sure is being tough here. They sure are making a *bold* stand here. When I followed the link the Microsoft Ad for Office XP in the *middle* of the page took up more space than the damn article.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
The truth is, the new upgrading scheme might become a boon for other "movements", including Open Source. IT directors will see the new scheme and make one of two choices:
1.) Follow it, and receive the "discounts" incurred with every 2-year upgrade.
2.) Not purchase anything.
This is different than previous licenses, where "not purchase anything" meant skipping an upgrade cycle. If Microsoft penalizes IT directors for skipping a cycle by charging more for the next cycle, IT directors will simply skip that one too. They aren't stupid. They will wait until they have enough money to purchase the latest and greatest upgrade, and move everyone at that point (at a much longer base than every 2-3 years).
"Locked in" means absolutely nothing. In fact, if this plays out logicially, the opposite will come true.
66, the favoured sexual position of the beast.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
My boss used to say that the best way to fight silly rules is to follow them to the letter.
I hope Microsoft continues to piss people off. The more absurd and draconian the licenses are, the better. It will convince people to look elsewhere.
The reason people stick with Microsoft is because its easy. The more difficult Microsoft makes things for their customers, the better it is for the alternatives. This is the downfall of monopolies.
This trial crap is just a rear-guard action. I say let Microsoft go completely. Given all the shit they try to pull, they'll hang themselves. The court system is just drawing all this out. If the public gets smacked, they'll smack back hard.
The only thing I wish the government would do is force Microsoft to reveal all its agreements with venders. The public hates the perception of a conspiracy against them.
They need to suffer blowback!
(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
Regular people are starting to see that this whole monolpoly thing really isn't a good idea.
Maybe so, but people still want to be able to use the software they know: Outlook, Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, Word, PowerPoint. I'm not saying that it's good software, just that many, many businesses have gotten themselves reliant on it. When pro-Linux people talk about the monopoly, the angle is always "If people don't use Windows, they'll use Linux." But this isn't necessarily how things will work or even what people want. If anything, the Macintosh looks like the more reasonable alternative.
That said, Microsoft seems to be simply protecting its file format. They can only affect software that can read protected WMA files (which, at this point, only includes Media Player). It would be silly to assume, especially in a lawsuit-driven atmosphere like copyright infringement, that Microsoft would allow other software to visibly change/take over rights management from the OS. Just think if record companies started getting into a lawsuit war with Microsoft!
Bottom line: it's their file format, not an open one, people. They are free to control it however they wish. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Where do you want to go today?
Better make up your mind quick, your license expires in 10 days.
Hammer of Truth
It's just not that simple for most companies.
Back in the mid '90's when larger companies (+500 users) were migrating from either terminals or Netware or both, the options were Win 3 or Apple.
At that point in time MS was not the company it is today. MS was just another vendor. Who new things would end up like this? And now years later it is massively entrenched. (And no Mac OS6 & 7 were not viable on an enterprise desktop).
Today we have more options. Both OSX and Linux are viable alternatives on the desktop. However the key really is an office package that can gracefully handle *eight years* worth of documents, spreadsheets, databases and such. Star/Open Office just isn't quite there yet. What are you going to port the 18472 Access databases floating in you organization to? Apache, PHP and MySQL? C/C++ and MySQL or Oracle? Either way the development costs would be huge.
Spend some time in a 3000+ user environment. Migrating from MS products to another platform is a *massive* undertaking (no to mention the user training issues and costs involved).
From an exec's point of view: I can take it in shorts and play the MS game, it will cost me 10-20% more than it did last year but it things will be pretty much business as usual. Or I can migrate my entire userbase to another less costly and restrictive alternative that at a minimum cost to my IS organization of around 100 hours per user to migrate (including training and document/data conversion).
Now tell me - what are you going to do? Like I said, it's just not that simple.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
...But just when are people going to realize they DO NOT have to put up with this BS? (Skip to the end for something that's not redundant.)
I love how the ZD Net article is titled: "Time to stand up to Microsoft" (and right plop in the middle of the article is an advirtisement for "Windows Solutions"). It's utterly absurd.
Linux and other free OS solutions are WITHOUT A DOUBT usable in a business setting. They are proven to be largley inexpensive, relatively easy to deploy, don't have seat/use restrictions, and show better performance records.
Duh.
I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think it's important to proliferate this message to as many people through as many channels as possible. CLEARLY, corporations who feed Microsoft are still uneducated that free software solutions aren't "low quality" just because they don't cost money.
(Original thoughts follow.)
What causes people and businesses to constantly whine about how much Windows sucks? Meanwhile, they constantly shell out the bucks to pay for new/more copies of it, all the while completely ignoring the free software alternatives. Do they think the situation is ever going to improve?
I know it sounds rash, but it is not possible for any largely used, proprietary solution to "improve". Proprietary solutions involve one controlling body. It's a tyrrany, not a democracy (as people are complaining that Microsoft "does not listen"). ONLY free software will get better because it is not driven by greed and profit alone. Greed snowballs and gets bigger and poses more influence on the product. That's the Microsoft case.
The longer they last, the more greedy they will become, the more money they will want to suck up. Unless there's no money there to consume, the beast will only get stronger and bolder.
Why bother.
Wow. Was this a ZDNet article... or a /. post? =)
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
So everybody that wants to listen to their CD and transfer the songs to a MP3 player will be able to do so. Those people using Windows and Windows compatable products won't see a need to switch. No big deal. They'll keep using Windows.
A co-worker just had his first encounter with a region coded DVD. Couldn't find it in the US so he bought it from the UK. He wasn't happy that his DVD player wouldn't play the disc but out of the 10 people at the lunch table not a one cared. It was an "oh well" to all of them and nobody was interested when I tried to explain why it happened.
I think the same thing is going to happen with Windows. A bunch of annoyances that just aren't big enough for the average user to give a rip about. (No pun intended.)
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Female Prison Rape in NY
In addtion to the Windows, Office, and Exchange upgrades that Microsoft is trying to make mandatory, they have instituted a similar scheme covering a product over which they have much more control. By "expiring" MCSE certification for hundreds of thousands of users, they are trying to force people to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP certification. This provides instant revenue from people paying to take tests and buy test prep books, but it also dovetails nicely with the software upgrade scheme.
Forcing MCSE upgrades creates a pool of people qualified to support the new software that companies are forced to purchase. They actually have the leverage to force IT people to learn new software so companies will have people qualified to install and manage the new stuff, thereby removing one of the biggest roadblocks to constant upgrading.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Did anyone else get a M$ ad in the "hoists the black flag" article? Here I was reading about how Microsoft's monopolistic practices were making the world a horrible place and right in the center of the page is an ad touting Office XP's "Features you need, when you need them"
I find it rather humorous that you can't use microsoft software to create a webpage that disparages the company, but you can use their copyrighted promotional material (I am assuming M$ has copyrighted it's advertisments) on a site that does just that.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
This is really infuriating IT people -- a lot of large companies wait months, or even a couple of years, before doing an OS upgrade, mainly because they need to see if the new version will break anything. As it is, a lot of companies are still using NT4 over Win2K, because they haven't gotten around to upgrading, or because they're waiting for XP. If Microsoft had already instituted their proposed license changes, they would have to pay full price for XP, not just the price for an upgrade.
Ooh, there's a good idea, let's trust Microsoft to decide what "disable" means. The examples you're giving don't actually disable the software -- they just change file associations. While you may be right -- maybe they just mean changing the file associations -- I don't want any software to come bundled with an OS with that kind of clause in the license, because it gives them a blank check to use in the future. And given the legislation they've pushed for, like the UCITA, I wouldn't put it past them.If you search Google, you find this Microsoft page that allows you to sill download it all with one program. I just can't find the path to this page on the Microsoft site. I knew a full download was available before, so I had to find it.
a skwiz.asp
/. keeps putting a space in the display text.
http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/ntoptionpack/
It gives you download.exe and from there it automates the download.
P.S. The link works, I don't know why
With the deprecation or removal of an API, they can put people out of business, or send companies into bankruptcy.
MSFT has already done that sort of thing already, at least with 3D rendering APIs, and of course, to Netscape.
Industry analysts acknowledge this sort of thing. Go here, and look for the Dan Kuznetsky quote:
.The old Software Publishers Association knew about it. They issued a white paper on the topic. Read pages 12 to 15 of that document for an older view of the problem.
Let Microsoft price itself out of business if they want to.
Frankly, as a personal user of Windows, I can care less whether or not corporate users get sweetheart deals by buying in bulk. Hell, maybe if they paid the same price for Windows XX that I did each upgrade, then maybe the price for everyone else would be less. (then again, maybe not)
Sure Habitat for Humanity could take it in the shorts, but under the new pricing scheme (yeah, it's a scheme) they STILL will pay less than I do.
Here's an idea: Maybe I should incorporate in order to get a better deal out of M$...
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!