Slashdot Mirror
MS Oversight Committee Hopeful Stephen Satchell Answers
Satchell:
Before I get to your questions, I want to say something. Given my druthers, I would not be "campaigning" for a seat on the Technical Oversight Committee -- I'd rather be writing code, publishing articles and books, and testing the hell out of computer products. I like what I do today. Unfortunately, I have to act as a grown-up and recognize that there are some things more important than my personal comfort. I feel that, given my skill set, the TC is where I need to be. If they'll have me. Bob Cringley wrote that I "wanted" the job. I don't blame Bob for the slight inaccuracy, because having been a magazine columnist I know what it's like to write to a specified "news hole." Sometimes nuances get dropped when you have exactly 500 words to get your thesis across.
I apologize for correcting spelling and punctuation in the questions submitted by the readers. Blame the writer in me. Besides, Slashdot has enough mispelt words as it is.
So as Art Baker used to say on television every week, "You Asked For It!"
1) What makes you the best man for the job?
by Binestar
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?
Satchell:
No, I have no special agenda or strong feelings about Microsoft pro or con. And I don't love or hate the company. Microsoft is neither "good" nor "evil."
And (as the lawyers would say) even if I did have some bias, I've proven to the satisfaction of the computer industry, and to the satisfaction of several judges over the years, that I can be fair and impartial in my evaluations even in the face of bias. (Most of the companies who suffered my reviews add the word "tough" to "fair" and "impartial" in their description of me.)
As I read the explanatory text in the Competitive Impact Statement (CIS), the Technical Committee performs investigations and evaluations of Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the Final Judgement as issued by the Judge, using software expertise -- which is a requirement for being on the Technical Committee -- to catch those things that might otherwise fly by a legal beagle. In other words, the TC is a fact-finding body, and as long as it finds the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts it will discharge its job fairly and impartially. The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) doesn't do as good a job of explaining it all, but will most likely be the controlling document.
Brian Kendig asked a side question that bears answering: "How will I be able to work with Microsoft without appearing to be biased?" Another question asked about how I would deal with the monster egos at Microsoft. I'll kill two birds with one stone; let me tell you a little story:
Over the years I have worked with the Telecommunications Industry Association, a "standards provider" recognized by ANSI. A number of years ago, a TIA Standards ballot crossed my desk, SP-2812, that described a method of encoding commands and multiple data streams in computer-to-modem connections for enhanced fax and voice-over-data support, among other things - the cellular people started using it, too.. Most of the work on this Standard was contributed by a Microsoft representative (MR), who was also the editor for the Standard. (If the MR in question wants to identify himself, he can do so - he reads Slashdot.) The Standard was virtually unreadable as balloted. After working a full two days to understand what the Standard was trying to say, I was able to construct a description that was clearer, covered all the corner cases, and left room for future expansion. I then voted "No" and faxed my vote and comments to the TIA. The committee chairman asked if I would meet with the SP-2812 editor - the Microsoft representative - as soon as I could. "Mr. MR has a huge ego," said the chairman. We met, we argued, we discussed, and we came to an understanding. I prepared a "contribution" that was a rewrite of the contents of the ballot. The result was EIA 617, better known to the rest of you as ITU Recommendation V.80.
2) Do you feel it is possible to have a unified MS?
by petree
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competitive? 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?
Satchell:
Yes. Interestingly, it's the TC portion of the PFJ that lets me make that affirmative. Let me explain my take on it.
The effective sales life of a version of commercial software is now one year. The time required to get redress for grievance via lawsuit is around four years. Four years is more than enough time for a commercial software company to crash, die, crumble to dust, and blow away so that there is absolutely nothing left of it. Even if the software company wins its case against Microsoft, it's a Pyrrhic victory because the company will have lost where it counts most, in the marketplace.
The key to making the Final Judgment work to the short window dictated by the commercial-software market cycle is that the TC and Microsoft's Judgement Compliance Officer can solve a problem informally, rather than the complaining party and Microsoft taking years to build and litigate a case. It costs everyone less money, too.
In the academic and non-commercial software market, the key bottleneck isn't time, it's money. Very few non-commercial software efforts can raise the money required to take on the 360-kilogram gorilla - most of the time the leaders of such projects just sigh and go to Plan "B." With the TC (and some changes, hopefully, in the PFJ to allow academic, government, and non-commercial software projects to have standing) the cost of resolving a disclosure difficulty drops dramatically. That means that researchers, government employees, and non-profit developers can spend time getting the job done, not scratching their heads wondering how to do the job.
3) Asking slashdot?
by heyetv
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"?
Satchell:
No. I welcome this opportunity.
I was asked by Slashdot if I would consent to be interviewed, and I agreed. This is no different than if ABC, CNN, InfoWorld, or The Wall Street Journal had called and asked for an interview.
Let me be blunt: I believe the Slashdot readership extends far beyond the boundaries you suggest. If you look at all of the questions that earned at least a +3 score from the reader-moderators, I believe you would see what I see: a broad cross-section of thoughts, opinion, and concern about the effects of the Microsoft Final Judgement. Slashdot questions are different than those that might be posed by a panel of journalists, or a panel of lawyers, or a panel of businessmen. I welcome the questions that Slashdotters ask because I suspect, frankly, no one else will ask quite the questions you have. And those (these) questions deserve answers from each and every candidate.
I would just as readily and as eagerly answer the ten most-insightful questions from, say, a community of Microsoft Certified Engineers or the Fraternal Order of Windows OEMs.
Slashdot isn't exactly a private club, either. My answers to your questions will be read (dissected?) by a wider audience than just those who have slashdot.org in the Bookmarks file of Netscape on their Linux or BSD systems. Count on it.
4) Restrict What?
by JJ
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be restricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future?
Endless loop:(n); see Loop, Endless.
Satchell:
That's part of the Great Debate between the Microsoft lawyers and the gaggle of Plaintiff lawyers. As you may have read recently, the Plaintiffs have divided on the issue over the number of yards to penalize Microsoft. The DoJ camp feel that ten yards is enough. The California camp feel that fifteen yards plus loss of down is more appropriate, and grumble that perhaps splitting up the Microsoft team into multiple "independent" teams shouldn't be taken off the table. It's now up to you fans to voice your opinion about the call. Unlike your federal elected representatives, the Department of Justice is required by law to respond to your comments, and the judge has to take that response into account.
The Technical Committee will then work within the framework of what the judge decides. I suspect that the rules of play following the pronouncement of the Final Judgement will require some tweaking and amplification once it gets going. The Court writes the rule-book. The TC will be the refs.
The biggest area of restriction that I see is Microsoft's use of NDAs to keep secret things that would block a non-Microsoft program from interoperating with Microsoft products. Much of the PFJ waxes long on this particular subject. Information is power.
5) What Would You Do With Passive Committee Partners?
by UberOogie
What would you do if you were saddled with two other do-nothings on your committee?
Satchell:
For the purpose of this answer, I'll assume that you do not intend to imply that I would be a do-nothing. Otherwise, what's the point?
There would be too many lawyers watching for a slacker to get away with it for long, I would think.
If you have never bid on a Federal contract, you wouldn't believe the amount of law that covers the behavior of contractors, and the PFJ makes clear that each member of the TC would be a contractor of the United States Government. When I prepared a bid for a Patent and Trademark Office contract, the applicable law as described in the Code of Federal Regulations ran for more than 150 pages.
The TC members had damn well better care, and work hard and fairly.
6) How tough?
by silicon_synapse
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?
Satchell:
Good question. One of the nice things that the CIS stresses is that the minor stuff is intended to be settled informally. That implies to me that "the most minor of infractions" can be cleared up quickly and without any attention needed by the lawyers, let alone a judge. That's good for Microsoft, that's good for the TC, that's good for the lawyers who should have better things to do, but most importantly it's good for the outside party with the complaint because, with the dispute resolved quickly, that outside party can get back to the business of developing and out of the business of bellyaching.
Not stated anywhere (yet) is what happens when there is a legitimate difference of opinion about what the Final Judgement really means. Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the meaning of clauses in the Final Judgement might be "kicked upstairs" for resolution or clarification; alternatively, if the TC staff includes a parliamentarian a proposal could be prepared and negotiated at the TC/Compliance-Liaison level and kicked upstairs for an up-or-down decision, again quickly. That's one of the many details that would need to be determined once the Final Judgement is in place.
More importantly and implied in the PFJ is that the TC's six-month report would be able to show any pattern of tendency toward non-compliance and edge-skating, a defect in the 1995 decree that made micro-infractions, to coin a term, almost impossible to track.
7) Playing the devil's advocate...
by BOredAtWork
While the methods Microsoft has used to become an industry giant are questionable, to say the least, the fact is, they are THE industry giant now. Microsoft is responsible for a great number of jobs, conducts research that would be too expensive for almost anyone else, and MSFT is a staple of a great many investment portfolios. Assuming you would become partially responsible for ensuring their compliance with federal regulations, part of your job will inevitably become spin control.
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 shock waves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dot-coms 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?
Satchell:
First, let me disagree in part with your first statement. Microsoft, from the beginning, had a set of axioms of operation that I believe were well-suited to the company as a start-up, served as well during its mid-growth, and led them into anti-competitive action when they became a monopoly. The axioms: "if you use it, you pay for it"; and, "we don't support products from other companies."
Some of the anti-competitive behavior described during trial was proven to be intentional and not related to company axioms, so I'm not trying to excuse Microsoft. That doesn't detract from the fact that some of their acts were good intentions coupled with bad choices, the usual paving material for the road to damnation.
Your question suffers from a touch of tunnel vision, methinks. Heikkile makes the point that Microsoft's actions go far beyond the borders and citizenry of the United States. I believe that the enforcement action that the various settlement documents contemplate will be sufficient to help everyone, not just the "American companies." As a TC member, I can put forward that anyone should be able to put forward a complaint...as long as it's in English. You can put that forward yourself, in your letter to the DoJ about your feelings about the proposed settlement.
The goal of the DoJ is to craft a Final Judgement that will stop anti-competitive behavior, reverse any gains Microsoft may have gotten from anti-competitive behavior, and keep Microsoft more on the straight and narrow in the future. The goal of the Technical Committee, as I see it, is to reduce the pain level to all involved when Microsoft strays over the line, to get Microsoft back in line with a minimum of fuss, delay, and fireworks.
I opine some more: by keeping the company intact, the PFJ doesn't upset the millions of business arrangements already in place, from developers to packagers to retailers to OEMs to volume customers. By DoJ's losing on the bundling/integration issue, Microsoft is saved from having to rebuild its operating system products and creating even more skews of its product line, which in turn saves on technical support by Microsoft and, more importantly, retraining at the OEM, retail, and IT level. In short, the DoJ/Microsoft PFJ already works to keeps the ripple effect down to something manageable, which says to me that the DoJ learned some things from its experiences with AT&T.
I repeat: the sole function of the Technical Committee is to keep Microsoft honest and to help them keep to the agreement they made with the Plaintiffs and the judgements of the Court. By doing my job to the letter, by the book, and according to Hoyle I would be minimizing the ripple effects while permitting Microsoft a chance to continue to do what it has done, bring product to market, and let the marketplace decide thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
8) To boldly go insane....
by jd
This may seem like a really obvious question, but how do you propose to oversee an organization the size and complexity of Microsoft, by yourself and maybe two others?
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?
Satchell:
It's obviously impossible. You're right, policing at the level you describe is a task too large for even 300 people, let along three. I doubt it's desirable, either. That would be like having your very own cop sitting in the back seat of your car every time you drive, writing a ticket every time you rolled a stop sign or cut a left turn (right turn for you Brits) too close.
If you read the Competitive Impact Statement, you will see that it contemplates that the Technical Committee will be complaint-driven. Because the process for the complaint (not yet defined, by the way) should be less onerous than filing a lawsuit with the 800-pound gorilla, people who feel that Microsoft has violated the agreement with respect to them will file complaints.
As suggested by the CIS, the TC will have to do some kind of triage and prioritize the complaints, and group like complaints together. Then they will investigate the complaints and work with the Microsoft Compliance Liaison Officer to see if there is a simple fix for the problem. If there is, the fix is put in place and the file closed and logged.
And if it can't be fixed? The TC reports to the Plaintiff committee, providing all information available about the complaint. It's then up to the Plaintiff committee to decide what to do. It could be as simple as a lawyer-to-lawyer phone call and directions to the TC and the Compliance Officer. It could be as complex as a special court hearing. Who knows? But all that stuff is above the TC's pay grade.
The PFJ anticipates that the TC may well need a staff. This wouldn't be a large staff, and would be sized according to the load. No, I'm not taking resumes... :)
One reason I suspect that the members of the Technical Committee must be "experts in software design and programming" is to minimize the "staff effect" that cripples the decision-making process in many oversight committees. If the members themselves have the background to understand the underlying issues, to judge the clues found in the source, books, and memos, and to assimilate the Microsoft technical and non-technical response, you eliminate the mini-trials that are the hallmark of the operation of many government regulatory boards. You also eliminate the exclusive judgement of staff, people who do not take the heat for their decisions like a member would or should.
9) The obvious question...
by Stonehead
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"?
By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..
Satchell:
As a member of the Technical Committee, my opinions in this matter are, frankly, not applicable. Other people decide the policy, the TC just implements the policy as set by the judge. But it's an interesting question, and I'm happy to take a stab at it. To wit, my opinion:
Richard M. Stallman asked the right question a long time ago: "If it's broke, how do I fix it?"
There is a BIG difference between "bundling" and "integrating" user-land applications into an operating system. If Microsoft wants to bundle a DVD-ROM full of stuff with Windows 2006, I say more power to them...as long as I don't have to have any part of Windows Recording Studio in order to install Syntrillium's CoolEdit as my multi-channel wave editor.
On the other hand, Microsoft has to be able to test and support functionality that the users want, or say they want. In the enterprise environment, the ability to install patches from a central facility is a real boon to the Information Technology department. Integrating everything together reduces the technical support headache for Microsoft. If it reduces the time for a tech support call, that's money saved, either for Microsoft for warranty support or the user if he or she is buying by-the-incident support services, or for the IT department if it provides its own support. Fewer variables.
And that is where "competition" and "user experience" clash. The optimal solution from Microsoft's perspective is also anti-competitive, not because they are worried about sales but because they are worried about tech support cost. The optimal solution from the perspective of Big Business is to standardize on a single solution that can be deployed, and if Microsoft's solution doesn't do the trick then Big Business will find someone else who can do the trick. The optimal solution from the perspective of the home user is that something happens magically. The optimal solution from the perspective of the SOHO user is to have none of it, because the SOHO computer is an attractive target for the Black Hats and the SOHO user doesn't want to have to spend $2K on a super-tricked-out firewall appliance between his computer and the outside world.
If it's broke, how do I fix it? Any solution MUST answer that question, for all users.
10a) Corruption?
by jamesidm
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the committee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?
-- plus --
10b) Re: Corruption?
by Odinson
Perhaps I could elaborate with my intended question.
Do you think board members should make themselves available for financial audits?
If so...
How deep into the board members lives can the audits go and how long after their stay on the board should their financial records be reviewed?
Satchell:
The Technical Committee has a report it has to file every six months (every month if I have any say) that details what it's done and the rationale it used for its decisions. An experienced lawyer is very, very good at seeing BS in reports like that.
And now for something I don't expect anyone here to believe: I've turned down bribes while I was a product reviewer. I turned down money. I turned down sex. I turned down neat toys. Several of my colleagues said I was a fool to turn down all that stuff - indeed, I have a long-running feud with a well-known writer over the importance of the appearance of being ethical. He tells people I commit "fiscal suicide." (Don't worry, I have equally nasty things to say about him. It balances.)
Ever been fired from a job because you couldn't lie? I have. Now you know. (Hint: it wasn't a magazine that wanted me to lie. Not that I would.) I'm just not good at lying. In order to be successfully corrupt, you have to be able to lie convincingly. I don't have that skill.
I expect that as a TC member I would have to file financial disclosure forms, that indicate major sources of income plus investments. I filed these as a journalist and as a reviewer, so I don't have a problem with that.
As for audits: people, please! This is the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE we are talking about. If DoJ suspects ANY problem, they have an in-house investigative arm that you may have heard of: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With the power to probe into any aspect of my life that they choose.
===
That's it for your ten questions as selected by Slashdot editors. There were other good questions that I think deserve a response, so I'll lump answers to them in the next handful of paragraphs.
First, in my lab I run 14 systems variously populated with Windows (98SE and 2000 Pro), Linux (Slackware and Red Hat), and MacOS (8.5) on a 6400. I have a couple of Sun boxes loaded with Solaris, too, but they aren't running right now. All but one Windows system dual-boots Linux. I have an early BeOS CD-ROM, but it's been a while since I loaded it. My 286 box has QNX on it, but that's been powered off for a long time. The last MS-DOS box bit the dust last year. I switch between operating systems frequently, choosing the one that is best suited to do the job that needs to be done. The general-purpose Linux boxes all have SAMBA, and one of those SAMBA boxes is my Windows domain controller. (I'm trying to get HP to give me Linux software to make my Network Scanner 5 work with my Linux domain controller - no luck. Anyone at HP listening?) I may be forced to load the copy of Windows NT Server I have on the shelf, or I may put the newly-acquired HP Kayak into that service. The house is wired with 100-base T, and there are a couple of ethernet switches to break up the collection into logical groups.
I have written software for resale that runs on Ultrix, SunOS, Windows, MacOS, Linux, MS-DOS, and Hunter & Ready's VRTX. I have written operating systems for embedded products, and worked on operating systems all through my 30-year career.
Some high points: Worked on ARPAnet while at University of Illinois. Software and system design for embedded-computer products at Rockwell, Recognition Equipment, Addressograph-Multigraph. Benchmark writer at InfoWorld. Technical editor at InfoWorld. Built modem test lab at Ziff-Davis Labs. SPECmark member via MacUser magazine (did SPECmarks for early 680x0 Macs). Editor of the modem testing standard for TIA (now EIA 3800). Reviewed and wrote about more than 600 products in over 400 articles. Wrote Linux IP Stacks Commentary for Coriolis Books. Work at the annual Glenn Tenney THINK conference. Cameraman for local PBS station. Test Manager at Motorola ISG on the soft-modem project. Ran BBSes, BIX Telecom Exchange, assisted with CompuServie IBMSIG. Wrote, sold, and supported OTTO suite for analog modem testing.
I have never worked for Microsoft or any operating system vendor in any capacity, technical or non-technical. Microsoft and its direct competitors, directly or through PR representatives, have never paid me a dime, given me a T-shirt, or gifted me with a logo-bearing yo-yo. All Microsoft products that I've gotten through the years were purchased, bundled with systems, or were evaluation units (clearly marked "not for resale") provided to me in my capacity as a member of the working press and obtained through [Microsoft's PR agency] WaggEd .
Some yahoo bitched about how obtuse my contribution to W3C was. My training as a writer taught me how to write to an audience. That contribution - a formal response to a W3C position paper - was written in Standard-ese. I hope the bozo sees the difference between that paper (written for stuffed shirts) and this little tome. Don't like it? Write me.
Remember the Cyberporn story Time magazine ran in 1995? A bunch of us on alt.internet.media-coverage who work in the press fumed and fumed about that story. After much discussion, and many complaints from others who fumed that we were taking over the newsgroup, we decided to form The Internet Press Guild as a resource to mainstream press people who got an Internet beat without knowing much about it. So far, nothing as bad as the infamous "Rimm Job" has hit the mainstream press since we started.
I was an OS architect a number of years ago, so I understand the mind-set all too well. Grew out of it, but I remember the feelings, the attitudes, the arrogance. It helps to understand the organization you are about to oversee. Microsoft is one of the few organizations I have ever encountered that exhibits the mind-set, behavior, and mannerisms of the OS architect.
If I don't get the job, I'll just continue doing what I'm doing today. If the TC that is selected does a bad job and the computer industry craters, I'll seek out a new career. It's that simple.
That should do it. Now some of you know just a little more about me than you did before.
PS: To be complete, I should mention I'm not the only one with my hat in the ring. John Dvorak announced his "candidacy" in his November 2, 2001 column in PC Magazine. You need to talk with him about his qualifications for sitting on the Technical Committee.
This doesn't discuss the primary deficiency in the settlement:
zero power of enforcement. If Microsoft ignores the panel, it just has to put up with the panel for another couple of years....when they still don't have any power.
What can this guy do to get MS to change if he has to? Nothign.
No, I have no special agenda or strong feelings about Microsoft pro or con. And I don't love or hate the company. Microsoft is neither "good" nor "evil."
That is very hard to do. Almost everyone I know has taken sides on the Microsoft issue. I hope what you say is true.
D/\ Gooberguy
Why not change the rule to "Top 10 highest scored posts, or all score:5 posts, whichever is larger"?
1. Because the interviewee was told to expect 10 questions, budgeted time for 10 questions, and doesn't deserve to have that sort of bait-n-switch pulled on them.
2. Because having 20 Score: 5 questions shouldn't happen - it's an aberration of stupid moderators who missed the opportunity to winnow down the question pool themselves, by desperately hoping they can mark up and help their own favorite Score:3 post, rather than mark down (this is one instance where "Overrated" should actually be used) a bunch of Score: 5 questions that they think shouldn't be asked.
sPh
I think you can look beyond Microsoft to see that many companies offer new versions of their software every 1-2 years. It's hard to find specific links with product version histories but I know that Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, etc. upgrade along that line. I also know that many business applications have new versions every year and often stop supporting older versions.
I am not condoning this but I can tell you that there as bad if not worse culprits than Microsoft.
I direct your attention to a part of my answer to question six:
Just because the resolution is informal and fast doesn't mean that Microsoft wouldn't have to take heat for the act. It just means that Joe Programmer doesn't have to wade through a court fight in order to learn how to interface with some arcane corner of Windows XP in order to get his product out the door.
"...but you can always say "answer the questions you like, combine some, and skip some if you like..."
/. isn't really a traditional journalism outlet, however given as much criticism as they recieve for that fact, why would they want to go further against basic standards of journalism? You do not let your interviewee pick the questions. If you do, your interview becomes no more than a sales pitch for them.
Hmm...perhaps your suggestion should be floated to mainstram media too... I can see it now. Barbara Walter's Interview with Osama Bin Laden.
BW: "Osama-Why did you arrange to kill 4,000+ Americans? What is your favorite color?"
OBL: "Brown."
Ok...so
This is a problem dealt with frequently, particularly during election cycles.
Put the SP-2812 story in context:
>Brian Kendig asked a side question that bears answering: "How will I be able to work with Microsoft without appearing to be biased?" Another question asked about how I would deal with the monster egos at Microsoft.
He was showing that he HAS worked with the egos at Microsoft successfully in the past. And it was in a situation where the person in question would have vigorously defended the document.
It wasn't a boast as much as a "I was in this situation where I could have been a slacker and done nothing. Instead I took the hard road and did the right thing."
To me it seems like this guy would do well in the oversight job.
-Jerry
Not in this industry, friend.
The effective sales life of a version of commercial software is now one year. The time required to get redress for grievance via lawsuit is around four years. Four years is more than enough time for a commercial software company to crash, die, crumble to dust, and blow away so that there is absolutely nothing left of it. Even if the software company wins its case against Microsoft, it's a Pyrrhic victory because the company will have lost where it counts most, in the marketplace.
The key to making the Final Judgment work to the short window dictated by the commercial-software market cycle is that the TC and Microsoft's Judgement Compliance Officer can solve a problem informally, rather than the complaining party and Microsoft taking years to build and litigate a case. It costs everyone less money, too.
Taking your word for it on life/litigation cycle time.
I suppose the one year life cycle is for potential competitors.
'Doze, itself, is converging on that, but a buggy release won't derail Redmond.
In the second quoted paragraph, though, you appear to believe that short-term cost savings can moderate Redmond's behavior.
Pockets don't get much deeper than Mr. Softy's.
Is the final tab of the whole DOJ fracas into nine figures yet?
Listening to Bill Gates on fair competition is like listening to Bill Clinton on marital fidelity.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Hmmm, all of the sudden I pity his wife :)
My wife left me ten years ago. I first moved to Nevada because she made me get the divorce, and I didn't want to pay an arm and a leg in New Jersey. The place grew on me, so I (for the most part) stayed.
So far I have managed to avoid further inter-gender entanglements.
I was looking forward to at last one anit-Microft rant. When last I checked, Adobe and Macromedia update their products on Apple also.
I will also give you an example that doesn't involve any Microsoft product at all. Our General Ledger software is running on AIX. We had to update to an interim release to correct an issue (that happened to be new to the latest version). Unfortunately, with that release they have minimum requirements in order to receive support. To meet those requirements we had to update AIX and Oracle. So not only did we have to update their product because of a mistake that appeared in their latest release but we also had to update the OS and the Database so that we could continue to receive support from them. I am sure that other people have other non-MS stories.
I think it is time you stop wasting your efforts bashing Microsoft and start looking at the deceipt and corruption that is in all companies. Profit and Customer Satisfaction are two diverging paths and every company will err towards the profit side.
Either he doesn't get it, or I dont. If it's me, somebody please set me straight.
The vast majority of Windows licenses are sold to OEM's. The OEM versions of Windows defer all warranty support back onto the OEM. It costs Microsoft nothing either way in this respect.
Retail sales of Windows are warranted by Microsoft, but this is a minor component. An argument could be made that better software reduces their tech-support exposure during the warranted period (for some fraction of their customers who would actually ask for tech support), but since it would also sabotage future sales after the warranted period (for the much larger fraction of their customers whom they can be expecting to upgrade) I'd argue this still weighs in favor of releasing poor quality software.
Enterprise sales (to corporate IT departments) actually benefit from "technical support headaches". As anyone who's spent much time in a corporate tech-support setting will tell you, buggy software:
Increases job security for everyone in the support organization, by maintaining visibility (think about the Maytag repairman) and corporate relevance.
Helps the CTO build a large empire, and increase his power base and scope of decision making authority
Helps individual techs justify additional certifications and training expense (resume' building)
And trying to characterize Microsoft's per-incident support charges as some sort of loss-leader just flies over my head. Microsoft is under no obligation to offer this service; they can discontinue it at any time. The fact that they do not is proof of the aggregate value of this service to their organization.
A good designer interested in "fewer variables" will design the machine as a set of discrete components, where problems can be quickly isolated to the unit level, where individual units can be tested in isolation, and replaced with new identical units (to isolate problems at the unit level) or with functionally equivalent units of unique construction and manufacture (to isolate common-mode problems affecting all units of a given design.)
Such a design would, for example, allow a tech to rapidly and cleanly rip out IE and replace it with Netscape to isolate browser problems, like an auto mechanic replacing the master cylinder to diagnose a problem in the brakes.
This is precisely opposite to what Microsoft was accused of doing, and was the focus of the anti-compettitive behavior from the original trial.
Methinks he needs to adjust his views. Microsoft, because they are a profit-oriented corporation, and because of their monopoly status, has no reason to make the software more secure, easier to troubleshoot, easier to maintain, easier to integrate with other products, or easier to replace with a competitors products.
Farming is their optimal strategy: as the incumbent, and posessor of the monopoly, they can define what computing is and garner the profits from known and conquored business much more effectively than they can compete with the Hunters trying to redefine the territory.
Compare this to the goals of free software and open source advocates:
functions exposed (source available)
secure against unauthorized functions (security oriented)
small, tight, clean tools (function specific)
seemless integration between tools (pipes)
which have only been made possible because its development was undertaken outside of the profit-oriented development marketplace.
What monopoly has a balance-sheet incentive for producing a quality product? And what for-profit corporation has any incentive which is not balance-sheet oriented?
If you want my support as the only person not selected, in part, by Microsoft, and representing computer users in this bargain, you'll need to demonstrate a solid understanding of this reality.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I would say that the one and only reason "comercial" software only last one year is because of the games M$ plays as a monopolist. There is no technical reason for the bit rot seen on M$ platforms. Other OS do not have this problem at all.
(Shit. This is what I get for being a professional writer, and over-editing my submissions. I should know better by now.)
In the third draft of my answers, I mentioned that the reason for the annual cycle of commercial software stems from the wish of the software industry to keep revenue going even in a saturated marketplace, the changes in government regulations that manage to touch a huge number of business applications, and the yearly Battle of the Budget when IT departments have to "justify" their requests for the coming year by spending every dime in this year's budget. Not to mention deafening "NEW AND IMPROVED" rollouts at trade shows, shows whose dates are set over a year in advance -- before a particular software project is launched that has to meet the date or the marketing people say the product will die...
Look at the software sold for other operating systems, and software that are operating systems in their own right. The pattern is very similar.
With academic software, look for the pattern of changes and releases that coincide with the boundaries of marking periods (semester or quarter). Out with the old interns, in with the new...
In Open Source software projects, the only time pressure is internal, or anxiousness from the user base.
This is neither punishment nor assurance of competition. I assume you are referring to the PFJ. The Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States have a real huge problem: their proposed remedy has to satisfy both the letter of the law and the perception of the Judge of the "public interest."
The people who continue to say "Break it up! Break it up!" fail to see the consequences of that kind of action. See my answer to Question 7 about ripple effects -- I talk about where we would be going if Microsoft were to be splintered. Once you have the "public interest" in mind, then you need to enhance your calm regarding revenge and retribution.
That aside, you bring up very good points: How do we convince Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and others that the playing field is indeed level? Make public the rules of the game, and then the industry will put forth a stalking horse to test it. (They always do.) Then we'll see.
How many six-month reports will it take to reopen the remedy phase? None, I hope. My expectation is that Microsoft will indeed toe the line, especially as they will now have a person whose sole job is to ensure they do from the inside. Three people will be on the outside watching for fouls. And the rest of the industry doesn't have to make big shifts to accomodate all this. Stable, we hope.
How will hardware makers be reasured that it's now OK to release driver specs or even include drivers and source for non M$ OS? I'm sorry, I've not seen anything that suggests that any hardware company was pressured or convinced by Microsoft to withhold information or to no release drivers for other platforms. On the kernel hacker's mailing list, every time someone talks about a company not willing to release information, it's the company that has made the decision, not Microsoft. Some of the companies who do write drivers for Linux make it clear they won't release source because they have decided to keep the API to their software secret -- their choice. I am still miffed that Adaptec won't release hardware API information for their RAID controllers, because I have one and prefer the security model in Linux for my file servers.
What company has said "We won't release our API because Microsoft told us not to"?
It seems to me that a number of MicroSoft's dirty tricks involve going to the legal system when they want to hurt someone, rather than doing something that hurts the victem and then resisting legal action.
If the TC can take complaints of the form "MS, via the BSA, is threatening to sue me for doing something I should be allowed to", and prevent MS et al from filing suit, the TC would have a major stick to use against MS. MS, being an information company, needs legal means for controlling the use of their products. If they had to ask the TC if they wanted to make anyone pay for anything, and the TC was looking unfavorably on their practices, they'd be sunk.
If an OEM knew that, if MicroSoft cancelled their special license, the TC would reject any MS copyright infringement suits against the OEM or their customers, they'd be able to make Windows optional with complete impunity.
If the TC found that a patent was anti-competitive, they'd be able to prevent MS from ever enforcing it.
Of course, this depends on the courts agreeing to send MS suits to the TC before granting injunctions or anything. If the point of the TC is to avoid slow and expensive lawsuits, it is hardly useful if it doesn't stop MS from suing people (and make MS threats useless).
He did this a little bit, I assume, with his extra responses at the end... I think sending the interviewee the URL of the discussion would be a better plan. That way (s)he can answer any questions- even if they're not rated 5 or even 4.
No sig for you.
ROTFL!
Characterizing ABC and CNN as "high-calibre news sources" and calling for "real journalists" on the payroll (and in positions of power) as a prerequisite to being a credible news "source" (I presume you mean "conduit") has totally made my day.
When was the last time you saw an article in one of your "high-calibre news sources" run by "real journalists" - where you had any PERSONAL knowlege of the events reported - where they got ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT right?
"Fact checking"? Under deadline? Give me a break! They check them all right - just enough to create plausible deniability for anything they get wrong. Then they cut out the ones that conflict with their agenda, filter the rest down to a level "their readership (read 'reporters') will understand", and write a political opinion piece disguised as fact. Their money - in their opinion as well as mine - comes from creating an entertainment product. Their power comes from creating an illusion of popular opinion in the minds of the busy, isolated, legislators and executives.
(Perhaps Wall Street Journal comes close to your ideal. They sell information to businessmen, who aren't in the mood to patronize suppliers of a product with excessive defects. Info World somewhere between - "News for Nerds" again - but more an outlet for news releases than investigative reporting.)
But go with your assumptions for a moment. What do "real journalist"s do when they're REALLY doing an investigative report?
1: They find people with information - or such people find them.
2: They interview them to get the information as they see it.
3: They get confirmation of the facts from other people - who have no more individual credibility than the original "source".
4: They MAY seek an opinion on the credibility of particular pieces of the story from an "expert" in the field (i.e. a member of an advocacy group, a staff pundit, or the guy at the next desk who once did a similar story).
5: They "write the story" - distilling it though one non-expert's mind into a coherent piece of prose that fits the outlet's style guide, genreal space requirements, and political agenda.
6: They hand it off to another "real journalist" - the editor (or editorial board), who decides whether to run it, whether it's SAFE to run, where to position it, and how much to cut out to fit today's edition's space requirements.
And all by deadline time - so on a busy day meat gets cut, while on a slow day the fat and entrails get included.
Now in case you didn't notice: The first four steps collect the informaion (along with a bunch of junk) and rate it, while the last two delete, distort, and bias it.
And also in case you didn't notice: Slashdot creates a mechanism to get the first four done, with broader access than even a large team of "real" reporters. Then presents you with the raw data and ratings but WITHOUT the filtering (unless set your browsing level too high and rejected some meat along with the heavily-panned stuff.)
WE get to be the reporter. And the good source. And the bad source. And the expert. And the pundit. And the spin-meister.
But we DON'T get to be the editor, cutting the story everyone sees down to "all the news that fits" - the space, bias, style, or the agenda. And if we as "reporters" filter the news through our lack of understanding or personal biases we affect only ourselves, individually.
Yes, it means you need to keep your bullshit detector on, because some of the crap that would be filtered out by a "real journalist" is still there. But so is the meat that the journalist would cut out. Meanwhile the "real journalist"'s personal misunderstanding of the facts is not a choke-point between the data and the reader. The "editorial board"'s political agendas and spin only make it as far as the initial subject selection and the editorializing comment in the "article" posting. From then on all spins and agendas have equal opportunity.
This is BETTER than any gang of "real journalists" can produce. And it will continue to be better until trolls, astroturf, or a too-fast or too-large influx of newbies causes the system to break down. Or possibly until the "real journalists" manage to get their act together.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the latter.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
if i had been you, i'd have done things differently.
i would have created a new account for the specific purpose of answering questions in this interview. it would have gone down in slashdot infamy that you got to the 50 cap with posts to only a single article.
i wasnt saying that you are a karma whore. i was saying that it would be exceedingly easy for you to get to the 50 cap with a brand new account with an opportunity like this.
I'm posting because people are asking good questions that deserve answers
thank you for answering me
My karma has been stuck at 50 for a long, long time, because I almost never post any comment that results in a mod-down
could you try something for me? could you please post a response somewhere using one of the redirects located this post in a response to another question somewhere in this article and see if you get moderated up. If it were me, i'd use the microsoft link as that would be somewhat on-topic here.
I think you were asking about the possibility of the TC becoming an ineffective paper tiger that occasionally has meetings and issues documents, but never actually curbs Microsoft. Just as our state Public Utility Commissions generally did nothing to stop the ILECs from destroying the DSL industry via sabotage and non-cooperation. That is a very real concern I'd like to see addressed.
The Technical Oversight Committee will only be as effective as the Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States will let it become. In order to do that, the DoJ needs YOUR input -- click on that link at the top of this article that says "voice your opinion." Send your letter stating your opinions. The other links will provide you with the necessary background information. DO IT.
If you don't, then don't come crying to Slashdot because the TC has as much power over Microsoft's encroachment into competition as the Congress of the United States gave the FCC and the State Public Utility Commissions to right the wrongs committeed against the independent DSL industry.
If you won't, who will?
(PS: My last name is spelled with two ells at the end.)