Slashdot Mirror
Talk to the Man Who Wants to Oversee Microsoft
Imagine "campaigning" for a job that doesn't exist, may never exist, and is sure to be full of heartburn for anyone who takes it on. Stephen Satchell is a self-declared candidate for the three-person committee the Feds might appoint to ensure Microsoft's future good behavior. Satch is certainly qualified; he's been online nearly forever, he's worked with computer operating systems darn near as long as computers have had operating systems, and he's certainly not afraid to speak his mind. But even the best-qualified job candidates need to be interviewed before they are chosen, and Satch has consented to have Slashdot readers conduct the initial interview in this hiring process. One question per interviewer, please. We'll email him 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and post his answers next week.
Do you have any special agenda to get across or have anything for/against Microsoft that would make it so you were not impartial in your oversight of any federal rulings? As much as most people hate them this needs to be done in a fair and impartial way. WIll you be able to be fair and impartial?
Do you Gentoo!?
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competetive? Specifically, if the United States government leaves Microsoft as-is (no "break-up") do you feel it is possible to regulate a company that in the past has shown no respect for government intervention?
Of course, certain personalities are more interested in making policy decisions than technology decisions, as well as vice-versa.
Do you plan to stand over Gates and Balmer cracking the anti-trust whip, or do you intend to deal more with the executive board as a whole, saying 'You can't do that' to certain policy decisions.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Just one of the standard interview questions, I guess, but I personally would like to see Microsoft working on their "Quality" as opposed to the "Quantity" of software. I wouldn't hate MS so much if I couldn't easily slam their products like I can now. Microsoft OSs don't have good uptimes. Microsoft products have security issues out the wazoo. Microsoft has their hands in everyone's pockets, but they're not trustworthy (as far as quality software goes).
Q: Where do you see Microsoft in 5 years?
Q: What will you change about Microsoft if you were CEO?
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the commitee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?
Do you think other operating systems have a chance to actually compete with microsoft?
What operating system do you use (be honest)?
If you are using Windows, what can other OS's do to make you switch?
If you aren't using Windows, what made you switch?
Has anyone really just asked "One Question Per Post"? I guess these are all related and can be answered all together... sorry.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
... That the only monopolistic practices of Microsoft are those that were publicized by the suits?
For example: Isnt it a monopolistic practice to make the Kerberos Login protocol closed so only Windows workstations can connect to Windows servers??/ Isnt that illegal leveraging into the computing server market?
Anotherone (although maybe immmaginary): Microsoft Passport will be a server side and client side technology. It will implement the server side only in Microsoft web servers and it will probably be imposible (by licencing lock-out) to implement them in a UNIX server. Isnt that illegal monopolistic leveraging into the web server market?
Alex
NO SIG
Are you concerned that tying yourself to Slashdot, a known haven for us *nix freaks that are generally hostile towards Microsoft's actions, will harm your chances of obtaining this position, as it would require that those appointing the position perceive you as "objective" ?
Hell, I declare myself a candidate the job. Send me ten questions and I'll answer them. :)
My understanding is that the proposed committee has one chosen by MS, one by the government, and those two pick the third.
So what's the process to go from "self-declared" to serious contender for one of the slots?
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be resricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future?
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Why in the world would you *volunteer* for this no-thanks sort of job? Keep in mind that one-third of the population will think you're doing too much, one-third will think you're not doing enough, and one-third won't care.
One reason for Microsoft's monopoly is the proprietarity of their operating system. Conversely, the reason why open source products such as Linux work so well is that the operating system itself is publically available, while companies can use it to make money off of support, documentation, and separate resources which improve the use of Linux (i.e. HardDrake, Red Carpet, etc). This allows an economic model of computing in which competition is possible, and it means that programs written for Linux will work under most distributions, thus taking the software industry out of the hands of a single all-powerful giant.
What would your plans for Microsoft be in this regard? Obviously, having MS open up the Windows source is not a realistic goal, but do you feel that there is any way to establish a set of non-proprietary operating system standards that would re-enable competition in the desktop market?
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
In a typical capiltalist world, businesses are kept in check by the market and the government, and can't become monopolies. How do you believe Microsoft surpassed thse checks?
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Microsoft is sure to test their boundaries and see how far the overseers will let them go. How much would Microsoft have to stray from the new regulations before you make some noise? Would you be tough and bring to attention the most minor of infractions? Or would you be more lenient and use your judgement to make sure the intent of the regulations are observed?
What would you define an OS to include. If it includes utilities such as a defragmenter that is also sold separately by another vendor, is that really so bad? In essence, how much of Windows, the OS itself and packaging would you remove to make it not violate antitrust laws?
Mr. Satchell,
I poked around the net a bit trying to do a bit of research about you (Google's cache of your page at fluent-access.com, which seems to be down right now, and the Amazon entry on your book on Linux IP stacks)
What do you think of Ralph Nader's positions on Microsoft, and his qualifications to be on this committee as well?
And what do you think of Richard Stallman's proposal for dealing with them?
o/~ Join us now and share the software
To break Microsoft's chokehold on the industry will send their stock into a tailspin, cause their R&D cycle to slow, and cause a chaotic move for power in various niches by everyone from giants such as IBM to various smaller companies that most people have never heard of. This will cause ripples (or shockwaves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dotcoms that show up and fail at trying to corner a niche to the price of new computers.
My question for you, then, is the following: If you do assume a role such that you oversee Microsoft's compliance with federal guidelines, how will you keep the ripple effects caused by your enforcement in check, and how will you justify the ripples that inevitably are created to the American people?
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Microsoft has managed to avoid scrutiny by companies, courts, governments and even users. Many allegations made in the trial, such as "knifing the baby" remarks alleged by Netscape, would simply not be visible, by simply looking at Official Policy Documents. In fact, probably very little actual policy DOES appear in their Official Policy Documents.
In short, you can't hunt ghosts with an electron microscope. You need knowledge of what the right job is, and then you need the tools to do it.
Do you even remotely imagine that this is even possible?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How do you think the transition from watching what Microsoft is doing to implementing punishments for bad behavior might actually work?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"? .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..
By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the
Given the abundance of galaxy-sized egos at Microsoft (especially when you start approaching the top), are you at all worried that your ability to deal with these people will be hampered due to plain and simple personality clashes (never mind the natural reticence to even talk to you)? Or are you expecting that your mandate (if and when it comes) will be enough?
It seems that in industries with high costs of initial production and extremly low costs of replication (i.e. Software), there seems to be an unusually large incentive for becoming a monopoly and an unusually powerful advantage in maintaining that monopoly once formed.
Short of open source, what measures need to be taken to in order to insure that one monopoly (Microsoft or another) isn't dethroned simply to be replaced by a different monopoly?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I know this is an American settlement, but do you think Microsofts behaviour should be regulated in the rest of the world as well? How would you go about that?
In Murphy We Turst
competent, fair & trustworthy
One major question remains in my mind....
Say you have a company like microsoft, who rightly or wrongly acts as if it has the political clout to do whatever it wants. You see them do things like break compatibility with competing products (lotus/borland), dump software info a thriving market to starve it's competitors (netscape/qualcomm), deny deserving employees fair and equitable benefits (MS "Temps"), and block competitive access to markets ( Be/Apple ).
Assuming you can come up with a sound remedy for these types of problems, how can you get them to actually stop abusing it's monopoly power when it's monopoly power is the battleaxe it uses to hack at apart it's competitors in various markets, yet you cannot take it from them?
How do you hope do deal with the limitations in the current agreement? If I have this right, you can't speak publicly, and -- far, far more ominous -- you can't testify.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly with Windows and it's strong position with Office, MSN, and Hotmail to force or coerce everyone to use their Passport service. How can you prevent this leveraging of one monopoly to gain another monopoly? Especially given the fact that Microsoft has already gotten away with such leveraging several times before. (Also, can you comment on Microsoft's statement that they want a cut of every Internet trasaction?)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Microsoft can be expected to obstruct the oversight comittee as much as possible. The Microsoft appointed member of the comittee will probably also obstruct the comittee. Not that too much obstruction is needed, since the comittee only has the power to report violations and the current administration does not seem eager to enforce the law. Please explain why you think anyone, and you in particular, can have any affect on Microsoft under these circumstances.
My questions are:
Under what conditions would you support the release of Microsoft source code?
Which programs would you support the release of source code for? Windows XP? All currently shipping versions of Windows? Explorer? Office? Back Office? Or every single product Microsoft sells?
How would you ensure compliance for the release of Microsoft source code?
Would other programmers/companies/geeks etc. be able to use Microsoft source code for their own projects, or would they only be able to use it engineer backwards compatability with their own programs?
Would computer manufacturers be able to compile and load their own version of Windows NT/XP/Whatever on machines without paying Microsoft?
What sort of license would Microsoft source code be released under? GPL? BSD? GNU? Something else?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I'd be curious about your opinions regarding the breakup of AT&T, and the subsequent behavior/performance of the Baby Bells. Would you be willing to advocate the breakup of Microsoft if it lied to the commission or broke its promises? If not, what would be a suitable punishment? Basically, what are your views of the enforcement of the settlement and the consequences of punishment for failure to abide thereby?
-Styopa
http://saveie6.com/