Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Wends Onward
Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a
timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses.
Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you
stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.
Acoording to the Register... Basically, MS is claiming that removing IE will destroy Win2k, WinME, and the ability for them to develop future operating systems.
Hmm, I wonder..........Insanity defense?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.
Oh please, please, please!!!
Nah, that sounds just too good to be true.
I am a genius; therefore, you suck.
I can personally decide to stop using it. That is, I can stop using it a home. However, in 99% of the corporate environments out there, Microsoft is the only game in town. Corporations can't just stop using Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't just allow companies to go cold turkey. Even if you have excellent arguments, it is hard to get Microsoft out of companies. Forget about the technology and start thinking about their marketing machine.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Slashdot uses the word "wends" properly.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Will anybody file a motion for trial by combat?
This
(offtopic) /. that geeks had no real control. I say we have decent control now that us ageing geeks have positions of influence. Do not lose hope, the only real fear should be what platform you will chose when everyone uses a Unix lookalike...
When I first arrived at this job under two years ago, I was limited in the number of non MS servers I was allowed to provide. Just 1.5 years later, ditching windows wholesale is near a reality as it is 'too hard to support our driver and our hardware' (quote from management) for windows users.
A few years ago it was being argued on
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
In case you were wondering the nine states that are not settled yet are:
:-)
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Florida
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. Utah
9. West Virginia
Also the District of Columbia.
I wish they would state this in each article.
Then I look forward to the federal judge modularizing Micro$oft into several Pico$ofts!
The company also is preparing a broad attack on the case as being inspired by Microsoft competitors,
such as AOL Time Warner Inc., Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems, as a means of crippling the
software company.
Who are they trying to kid? What percentage of microsoft business is msn internet access? The msn access has been rated one of the worst isp's on a regular basis. Doesn't oracle primarily do databases.
If microshaft puts this out and people actually buy it, my entire opinion of the species goes down a couple of notches.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Fuck Slashdot
cf. "Last November, Allchin presided over the launch of Windows XP Embedded, which consists of about 10,000 components that can be assembled into custom products..."
Can't, won't or don't?
.:the truth is a lie undiscovered:.
Just in case some of you don't get the reference, check out this video of Steve Ballmer at a MicroSoft pep rally.
It really speaks for itself :-)
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
The way I read that is quite simple - he's a guy who might actually understand a little bit about the SCOPE of Windows as an OS and knows what an incredibly monumental task it would be to go in and clean up all the little kludges and hacks and all the general design changes it would take to make Windows compliant.
He's not saying "Screw you, DOJ" he's saying "WTF, do you think we're gods?"
The states are being unreasonable and probably indeed bought by the companies he mentioned at least in part - don't you think that Oracle would love to see MS take a fall? I KNOW they would.
AOL? Same thing - I'm sure they would love to market an AOL Windows or their own crappy version anyway. They've talked about it in the past (their own OS) as has Netscape.
Bottom line - MS is not always the evil empire. Sometimes they're the ones getting fucked.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
This reminds me of the time Harold Ballard had a large Hamilton Tigercats crest painted under the ice at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. When asked to remove it he basically said it was his arena and he could do whatever the hell he wanted in it.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft can basically do whatever the hell it wants to with it's products...
You're using her as bait, Master!
And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT
If the settlement continues to carry on (like M$ keeps on trying to make it do) and they continue this assertion this might seriously hurt windows dominance. Corporations don't like uncertainty and if they think no more windows is a legitimate threat they just might decide to put a few of their eggs in another basket and get some other boxes.
I stole this Sig
It occurs to me that Microsoft might actually be pleased by this never-ending legal "battle". Besides the nearly constant news coverage which is easy advertising that comes with the relatively marginal cost of the lawyers fees (from a multi-billion dollar corporation's standpoint), it also allows them to continue doing as they please without anything such as an injunction to prevent them from continuing to expand their monopoly and snuff out would-be competitors. During the past 6 some-odd years of high-gear courtroom battles, Microsoft has only had to contend with a single injuction (circa '97) which was later thrown out on appeal. This means they've had plenty of time to virtually wipe out Netscape, Be, and a slew of other companies by using the same illegal tactics they continue using today.
It's been shown for years that Internet Explorer can be removed safely from Windows with only a minimal loss in functionality, yet it remains. Participants have been after the Window's source code for years, yet it remains safely locked behind Redmond's doors. Illegal, anti-competitive practices have been on-going, if not accelerating over the course of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that this on-going court battle has yet to solve a single problem with the software giant, and has probably only helped it. Let's not forget that were some sort of settlement reached with the Federal government some time this year, (don't hold your breath) it would almost certainly have absolutely no real consequences, and if the initial settlement proposal is any indication, may only serve to allow Microsoft to further force its products into the marketplace, giving it further penetration in such areas as schools where it has been lacking.
Then one may look at the other nine states, who appear to be seeking a much better legal settlement against Softzilla. They want the source, they want IE out, and they want other versions of Windows available at a lesser cost without the unwanted "features" Windows buyers pay for. Well first of all, this would probably drag on for years, meaning no changes would take place. Were there to be a settlement, I doubt Microsoft would aggree to anything which does not eventually come out to their benefit; ie. selling a stripped-down version of Windows at a cheaper price would probably increase rather than decrease their sales figures. Were there a judgement issued against them, they would most certainly appeal time and time again, adding yet many more years to the total length of this litigation, by which time, any possible good coming forth from the judgement would have long since lost any tangible meaning.
In all this, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should be trying Microsoft and large corporations like it in a tribunal much like the ones being used around the world for war crimes. A swifter, more final form of judicial proceeding is obviously needed for a company who's resources allow it to drag on court battles for year apon year, thereby pretty much defeating the judicial system in place. Draconian laws obviously had to be updated to deal with high tech companies, perhaps the courts should take a note from the legislators and realize you can't treat M$ like Standard Oil.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The simple fact of the matter is that if Microsoft had honored the first consent decree they probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they thumbed their nose at the court and went straight back to business as usual. They deserve to have their products pulled from the market at this point. The industry would be far stronger if it had to figure out how to live without Microsoft.
March 5, 2003: Ask Slashdot: Does anyone still make games for Windows XP, It seems like all the cool stuff is being made for Linux only.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Thank you for a) potentially increasing the cost to subscribers and b) hastening Slashdot's conversion to a subscription-only site and eventual demise. Have a nice day.
What does the MS trial have to do with wends, sorbs, or trees in the rose family?
"The reason the non-settling states have proposed relief that is significantly broader than the [settlement agreement] . . . is no secret," Microsoft attorneys wrote. "They seek to advance the commercial interests of Microsoft's competitors."
Nine seperate states out to aid Microsoft's competitors? Who would that be, the rest of the computer industry and anyone who's ever dreamed of programing so much as a digital watch? Pathetic paranoia, or rampant propaganda. It's almost as good as today's earlier anouncement that the US government would fail, Universities would stop researching, and the world would end if M$'s software model failed to earn lots of money hawking the same old shit forever to a gullible clientel. From Mr. Mundi's Zdnet quotations:
If there is not commercialization there (because the big bad GPL supposedly denies this, bzzt - wrong!) , a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do," said Mundie.
They really are afraid, but why? What do they know that we don't? I've read that M$ is a kind of ponzi scheme with the emloyees being paid in stock options, that pay no dividens, instead of cash... Could the Enron disaster be hitting home?
Blah, enough irresponsible speculation tonight. As I sit here at a Debian powered 486 with a big 24 megs of ram and a 420MB hard disk used as an Xterminal to a more reasonable computer, I know it just does not matter. Microsoft can dissapear tomorow and I would not notice. If I can do it, anyone can. Really.
Go away Micro$haft, you have earned your beatings and are begging for new ones with the new XP licensing system, SSSCA, DCMA and other unAmerican activites.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Perhaps he should look at the Jargon Filke for a proper definition.
15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
16 moment ago and I --
17 A. Hmm?
18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
23 It's kind of like a variable to the
24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
25 know --
It seems that the fact that Microsoft could make this threat and make it sound so dire, is further evidence of Microsoft's monopoly position.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
37 billion in the bank and even today, M$ still insists that they are offering consumers "Value".
If they cut the prices in 1/2, they'd still make money hand over fist.
It is quite suprising to me that a company "Clearly convicted of a Monopoly in these United States", can sit there and dictate what they think is clearly harm to consumers. It's like AT&T saying, "If you break us up, who will offer long distance?" "Who will offer phone service?" "Who will supply any type of quality and price competativeness?"
Well, that just goes to show that even AT&T was wrong in there arguments. We still have phone service, and yes mom, we have some, though not alot, of competition.
M$ would have us believe that this ruling would cause a major buckle in the computing industry, but in fact, it would put the M$ developers on the same playing field as the rest of the world.
Live on competition, destruction to monopolies. Innovation exists not in monopolies, but in competition.
This is also quite scary. Check out those sweat stains!
Lesson learned; don't wear business casual when you intend to do high-impact aerobics.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Touchee ;)
And, for the record, I have nothing but respect for you personally. I just don't have a problem with disabling the ads here and bypassing part [most?] of your revenue stream.
Then Steve Balmer is the alien that says "You are smart, you can make us go"
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
His position only makes sense if MS management is so weak that they haven't been able to force their programmers to document their internal interfaces and file formats... in which case they should thank the courts for coming in and making those bastards document their work since they're blowing off billg and Balmer.
Yeah, right.
I'm sorry, but this is should be a non-brainer. Every major API and every file format should already be documented - or the person in charge of that group should be fired on the spot for incompetency and his/her replacement's first task will be getting that documentation in place. The same managers should also have in place a review and approval process for changes in that API.
Bottom line - either Balmer can produce the requested documentation by releasing internal documentation, or he's incompetent. Or he's taking his lead from the Enron leadership and deliberately lying because he figures that jail time for perjury and contempt doesn't apply to the likes of him.
(Of course, I'm sure that the internal documentation includes hundreds of unpublished calls that they've denied exist. Tough shit - they made their bed and it's time they lie in it.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
From the Washington Post article:
Microsoft will assert that under the law, antitrust sanctions should not be punitive, nor should they be designed to help competitors.
Hmm... IANAL, but I sure thought that was *exactly* the point to the antitrust law. The violater should be stripped of it's illegal gains and the competitors are supposed to benefit by a leveled playing field. Duh...
If I'm wrong, can someone please correct me.
When I read that line I blew Code Red out my nose. Is there no depth to which these bastards won't reach? No lie that they won't tell? I guess all those jocks are really getting theirs for calling little Billy G a wimp back in high school. Microsoft - Bill Gates ego made manifest in the form of the most powerful lying, cheating, stealing marketing corporation.
And further in the Washington Post:
the company would be forced to pull its latestWindows computeroperating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.
Go ahead Bill, take your marbles and go home, won't hurt my feelings a bit. Besides, you know this is a PR spin tactic. You have no plans to do this, your ego wouldn't allow it. And, you have shareholders who would never permit it. In addition, it would open you up to even more litigation. Don't make bluffs that it's not possible to follow through on.
If our legal system buys this BS, it's *really* time to pack it up and go live on that island in the South Pacific.
Feh!
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
The fact that they CAN and apparently are willing to use pulling their "premiere" product from the market place, I think, shows that they know they are a monopoly. They are essentially thumbing their noses and saying, it's our way or the highway; and while wo know there ARE in fact alternatives, it is not feasible, nor is it plausible, to have the entire world switch away from Microsoft. Yet the fact that they can leverage their monoplolistic stronghold in their own antitrust trial is amazing! just my 2 cents OctaneZ
The above link logs off Windows XP users, demonstrating once again the quality of Microsoft code.
Bush's education improvements were
It seems to me from reading the timeline, and a little plain observation, that Microsoft has had a singular tactic since day one: appease where strategically possible, otherwise, stall. They will argue the dumbest point to death. It seems from time to time they file motions only to force their opponent to respond.
I'm sure this is, on some scale, pretty much standard legal maneuvering. What bothers me is that since MS has so much money, they can basically just keep stalling, delaying, and appealing until the cows come home. Since this isn't a murder trial there's less impetus, it seems, to hurry up and wrap things up - after all, it's not like Bill and Steve are weaing orange denim.
Does anyone know of any information about this legal stalling? Is there any precedent, or even any grounds, to say "please stop mucking about and get on with the fucking case"?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
And there you have it, in your own words. Dell had to agree to pretty much any terms Microsoft cared to set, or else Dell would have gone bankrupt. If that's not a "gun to the head", what is?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In the unlikely case that Windows actually does get pulled, the world might not be screwed as Microsoft would want us to believe.
Consider that Apple has programmed MacOS X to be easily ported to new architectures. The underlying OS, Darwin, already runs on many Intel-based machines. With this operating system for the people who lack the confidence required to try linux (most of the market) and linux and BSD for the rest, Apple would have everything to gain from releasing their OS for sale on the Intel platform. The world still might be withing Jobs reach.
Granted, trading one monopoly for another might not be the best thing to happen to the world, but Microsoft would surely try to fight its way back and a strengthened Linux would be fighting away, too.
In the alternative distantly possible case that MS removes IE from their OS in a day after being ordered to do so and prevents Apple from making such a move, at least some MS people might get nailed for lying for years about the feasibility of removing IE from their products. And with the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, people really might look at a non-MS browser.
I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws. In my view, this makes Microsoft a state-sponsored monopoly. If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code, others could develop software compatible with Microsoft's, thus destroying their customer lock-in strategy and the entire basis of their monopoly.
So let them take it away. Proof positive that they hold the monopoly position they've been convicted of building through illegal means. After that there'll be no doubt in anyone's mind (except for the BillyG-fanboys, of course) that they're guilty as sin.
Not that any of this matters. Kotar-Kelly is well aware of what happened to the previous two judges on the MS case and isn't about to sacrifice her career to fight a rigged game. MS will get a slap on the wrist and continue on its merry way, fucking over anyone who dares to defy it. And the Bush administration, along with the corporate whores in Congress, will provide MS with whatever aid it needs to retain its monopoly and avoid any punishment for its actions.
It'd be nice to try actual capitalism for once. You know, that idea of free, unimpeded markets where the laws applied equally to all players. Just my personal crack-pipe dream.
But hey! If the SSSCA passes it's all moot anyway. MS will be the only player in town in the U.S. Forever.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I couldn't decide which smartass comment to make, so what the hell? I'll post 'em both.
...And a collective cheer was heard from computer users worldwide!
...and...
Good! Pull 'em! Start over and hope you can get it right this time. I mean, the previous code must have been horrible if it wasn't possible, as you claim, to remove something as unrelated to operating system funtionality as the web browser!
SIGFEH
without serious hacking. _THAT_'s what's this is all about. Sure they can replace a lot of lines of code to make Windows XP have a true modular interface for a webbrowser component so that that webbrowser component can do the help system, be the webbrowser of the system, work inside the filemanager (explorer) and be the desktop shell.
But that will take serious time and effort. Because it's not DESIGNED that way. Like the Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel where you can't just say "I want this and that in stead of what's in it now". You have to do serious hacking and patching and TESTING, since it will make the system probably unstable.
IE is the result of the usage of a lot of system components that are used ELSEWHERE in the system also. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making statements like "[he] is telling a big, fat lie", because you don't know jack shit about system design nor developing large pieces of software.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
So they product a version of windows without IE and maybe some other things. Nobody would buy it. Everyone would just buy the full version. Why don't they just do it and keep everyone happy.
Sig is taking a break!
I don't think so. If MS will create a system where all it takes is a set of com components that then can be used as IE is used now in XP, would Netscape adopt that scheme and create such a set of components? They don't even do that today with NS6.x. They don't even use the native windowing code of Windows to render the interface. So chances are that MS will change XP, strip IE from it, create that interface so other browsers can plug right into the system, but no browser will! Sun made a Java plugin for IE. Did you see them advertise for it so users would download it? No. I bet the majority of the XP users doesn't even know that Sun makes that plugin.
And there is the problem: the USER doesn't care. Only MS competitors, blind zealots and professional whiners care. The USER wants XP with a browser. It comes with a browser, so he/she is happy. "Oh, there are more browsertypes? Are they better? No? Why would I want to use them then?".
So ask yourself: is this really about the customer (i.e.: the USER) ? Or is this about the sour grapes of the MS competition plus their loudmouth supporters?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Ballmers performance was particularly bad in the other parts of the video that Microsoft didn't include.
.NET.
Other snippets from the video are on ZDNet and show Ballmer being worryingly inept as the CEO of multi-billion dollar company.
He totally fails to remember the products that allow OEMs to build modular versions of the Windows platform including Embedded Windows XP and Windows CE
This is just another example of why Judge Jackson got so pissed off with the Microsoft executives as they are blatantly lying to the court, and judges hate it when people lie to their face when they think they can get away with it.
(sorry couldn't find a link that doesn't have the annonying ad first)
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
The video deposition is now available from CNET. This version is a much better quality for broadband users.
THIS is an argument? They are trying to say that if thier product is mandated to NOT break the law then it can't be sold or supported any longer?
I don't know about you, but that sounds like PROOF that the software is *inherently* illegal.
If they are able to pull it off, that ploy would beat even the Chewbaka Defence...
"Judge, please! If Mr. Thugga can't sell smack to minors, how exactly s he going to addict the youth in his neighborhood?"
"We are sorry to inform the court that if Auther Anderson is no longer allowed to cook the books, then they will simly not be able to defraud investors."
"I'm sorry your Honor, if my client were to go to jail, he would have no choice but to stop killing people."
"If my client is not a wookie, you must aquit..."
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
The Linux kurnal may well be monalithic, but even thats changing, however I can compile in only those things I require.
If I don't have a scuzzy card then I can ditch the support for that from the OS.
No LAN card then that can be ignored.
Try doing that with Windows.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
I ment: I want a different VFS, a different VM etc. You can't change that overnight. That takes serious effort and testing to see if all applications work with the new element in the OS.
Of course I can compile different stuff into the kernel. You can do that with windows too (install different services, drivers etc). It's about replacing OS parts with other parts from 3rd parties.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
We have Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, saying "You can't enforce the law on us, because then we would be _forced_ to intentionally do horrible damage to the economy of the tech sector. We wouldn't want that now would we?"
He is saying this to a _judge_.
I think things have gone well beyond the stage where David Boies is needed to bring to light the insanity of the defendants. These guys have no idea how deep the hole is that they're digging for themselves... "Let us go free or we'll destroy the economy singlehandedly" is not a sensible argument for the defense of a monopoly. These guys simply do not grasp that they are subject to law- and it's becoming painfully obvious- and the other shoe will have to drop.
With luck, Judge Improbably-Percussive-Name will be able to restrain herself from expressing sentiments of outrage and scorn- but she is damned well going to understand how Judge Jackson felt.
While the threat to take Windows away may work as intended, and underline its importance to such a degree that noone dare put too much pressure on Microsoft, politicians might realize, that the fate of Windows, being so important to the US- and World- Economy, can't be trusted to the hands of a single large corporation. That way Microsoft risks to have their business run by politicians through legislation, overviewing comitees and the like. A sure way to ruin a business.
---
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
You had me nodding through the second sentence.
The next sentence about the Linux kernel is not correct. True, the mainline Linux kernel is monolithic, but it can be stripped down into dynamically loading modules fairly easily. There are some logical dependencies in it such as USB devices requiring the USB subsystem, but none that cause stability problems if they are added in a specific combination. Each part is stable/unstable largely on it's own.
The Linux core that remains afte the modular parts are removed is in design still monolithic, but is about as small as a similar microkernel OS. In addition, there are non-monolythic ports of Linux to some processors.
In the case of IE, it is optional...on MacOS and WinCE. That MS can't/won't make even modest changes at the browser level for the Windows95+ and WindowsNT+ lines is laughable. They and others outside of Microsoft can and will if properly motivated; they've done it before, they're doing it now, and to pleed otherwise is just nonsense.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Why are we forced to rely on testimony from Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer that "IE cannot be removed"??? Subpoena the whole damn windows / IE programming team, grill the hell out of them and get the TRUTH. I doubt either Gates or Ballmer are even qualified to answer the question of separation.
So what you're describing is much easier to do with Windows.
While I agree mostly with what you've said -- both Windows and Linux have kernel based modular device support -- the ease of use part is not correct.
Under Linux, most distributions are pre-configured with the kernel consisting of modules. If you want to remove any module, you can without rebooting safely as long as it is not being used. Hotplug support and manual enabling/disabling of parts of the kernel using insmod/rmmod or runlevels make module management simple if not automatic.
Drivers under NT serve the same basic function as modules under Linux. NT Drivers are usually loaded at boot time and can not be unloaded. The exception are hot plug devices...just like they are under Linux.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Ok, we all know they make their real money on Office, but does anyone actually think that MS would be so dumb as to simply pull Windows off the market completely and give up their OS monopoly?
They're smart enough to know what would happen:
1 - All those Windows machines would keep running. They might be able to "remotely deactivate" XP machines via Product Activation somehow, but Win9x/ME/NT/2K machines would stay in operation for quite some time.
2 - As Windows machines reach the end of their life, people will look to buy new ones. Computer vendors aren't going to stop including an OS just because Microsoft isn't providing one. They'll find some other OS (most likely Linux) to install and configure. Those "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" ads would start touting how Dells have the best versions of Linux installed.
3 - Customers would gradually come to be able to work with Linux the way they worked with Windows. (Not using it's full potential, perhaps, but using it enough to type up reports, browse the web, and send e-mails.) Software vendors would have to follow suit and release Linux versions to hedge their bets.
4 - MS would change their mind, and re-release Windows. By then, Linux would have a much larger stake in the OS market. This isn't to say that MS couldn't regain dominance, but it wouldn't be easy for them. And if they didn't, their Office suite might be replaced by someone else's which works on Linux. (Which would mean they'd lose most of their revenue.)
I don't see MS possibly putting themselves in a position like that. The MS execs might be many things, but they're not stupid.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
But haven't decades of attempting to turn software from an art into science and engineering told us a few things:
- Make the code modular, cleanly separating functions.
- Clearly define the interfaces, avoiding side-effects wherever possible.
- et cetera
Had they followed these practices, re-packaging Windows to change feature sets would be a piece of cake. As someone else mentions, don't they offer this modular packaging on embedded XP?
So let's walk the logic tree on this:
Either Microsoft could modularly bundle WinXP, or they can't. They say they can't.
-> If they really can, and say they can't, they're lying, lying to the courts as well as the public, including their customers.
-> If they really can't, then why can't they? Good software practice says they should be able to. That leaves two conclusions:
--> They did this intentionally, making Windows into an inseparable mess to confound competition and the cours. (Sounds akin to malfeasance to me, but IANAL)
--> It just happened, and Windows grew that way. But wait a minute, isn't Microsoft the biggest and most profitable software company in the world? If they can't do it right, who can? (tongue in cheek for the prior questions) If even Microsoft can't do software 'the way it should be done', then maybe nobody can, and we should *really* examine carefully any trust we place in computers. Maybe we can't really trust them at all. (this sounds to me like misfeasance, but again, IANAL)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I wonder how many bananas and hours of coaching it took to get monkey boy under control and teach him how to act like that?
>:D
BlackGriffen
This is kinda funny, actually. Ballmer used "foo" as a miscellaneous identifier for a Sun product because he couldn't remember the name and it turned into:
15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
16 moment ago and I --
17 A. Hmm?
18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
23 It's kind of like a variable to the
24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
25 know --
0315
1 Q. Let me --
2 A. You'd need to read it back to me. I
3 use the word Foo quite a bit.
4 Q. Okay.
I'm a 2000 man.
Microsoft did this: "If you want to sell all your prebuilt PCs with Windows95, we'll charge you $X per MS license. If you sell any PCs with another operating system, we'll charge you $3X for per MS license."
When DR-DOS was released way back when, Microsoft announced that they would have a superior product out in six months. So sales of DR-DOS fell well short of projections. Over a year later, MS came out with the latest version of DOS - and it was inferior to DR-DOS. It didn't matter, their lying had the intended affect.
Internet Explorer and Netscape were fighting a war on the desktop for most popular internet browser, and for a while they were about equal for speed and quality. Microsoft jacked up the prices of Windows, and bundled IE with it. Since consumers had no choice but to pay for IE, Netscape sales plummeted. Microsoft now had millions in cash to pump into improving IE, while Netscape scrambled to stay alive. That's when IE got a leg (and an arm, and a head) up over Netscape. IE wasn't better than the Netscape browser until after Microsoft cripped Netscape inc.
There's plenty more. These aren't rumors or rantings of a crazed Linux fanatic (I use MS, dammit!). They're documented. MS didn't get their monopoly by being the best in the market. They clawed their way to the top with a two punch combination of tremendous advertising (which is legal) and screwing their competition any way they could (which is not).
Let's look at this from another perspective, one a bit less ignorant.
Back 10 years ago or so it was very uncommon for Unix distributions to ship with TCP/IP implementations. They were frequently add-on pieces, usually costing a goodly sum of money. Most customers didn't want TCP/IP at the time because all of their users were connected to the Unix box using serial terminals.
Then things changed, and it became the norm to network your machines and so all Unix distributions began including TCP/IP by default.
Now let's say the government comes along and says "By integrating TCP/IP into your OS you have destroyed a market for third party network solutions. You must remove it."
Think about that one for a few hours. Is it possible? Would it be a good idea? Would you want this?
That is what Microsoft is claiming.
The OS does do things the browser and media players do. Have you ran WindowsXP lately? Have you noticed your media types are now Objects of the OS? Microsoft has matured the OS into a system of objects by which the OS controlls access to.
Notice, they DO controll access to, but they don't control the only access. You can write a program to replace Microsoft Media player much like Real Audio does, you can write a plugin for the media player to play DVD's like several other companies do. You can do whatever you want. Winamp takes over all media types and plays them just great, if not BETTER then microsoft has or ever will.
Buy yes, the media functionality is just part of the OS, much like it was part of BeOS's design.
Slashdot's ignorance on OS indifferences bewilders me.
Certainly. US anti-trust legislation states that if you have a monopoly, you may not use that monopoly to lock competitors out of the marketplace. By effectively prohibiting Dell and other companies from shipping competing OS's with their PCs, Microsoft effectively prohibited competitors from competing in the OS market. Hence, Microsoft broke the law.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I personally think the case against Microsoft has managed to be ineffective despite having all the facts on their side; but I think the problems are with the politics (read: George Bush punting from the 3 yard line) rather than the laws themselves, which were enacted reasons that were and continue to be valid.
As a side question, what other company besides Microsoft provides an OS that can run the bulk of the applications available at any software store? I'd like to know.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
True, to an extent, but the problem is most people own Intel-based PCs, and thus Macintosh software is not an available alternative for them. Note that with OS/X, Apple could port their OS to the Intel platform quite easily, and yet they don't. Why not? Guess which company also has a near-monopoly in the Office Suite market, and leverages that power to keep other companies (like Apple) from competing in the OS market? ("if you so much as think about porting OS/X to Intel, we'll cancel Office, and then nobody will buy your hardware anymore...")
This legislation is only harming you and I. If it is successful, then MS's products will only become more expensive and of lower quality than they already are.
That would be fine with me; perhaps it would counteract MS's strong-arm tactics enough that some competition would creep in. At the very least, it would make it more obvious that there are many people who are 'locked in' to Microsoft products and couldn't change no matter how much better the competition is -- which in turn might lead to a demand for resolution to the problem.
Not to mention the 'Microsoft is too important to be held accountable for their actions' argument is ethically unsound -- should Microsoft be above the law merely because they have crushed out all opposition, and hence made themselves 'indespensible'?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
You're right that the legislation itself may be useless; but at the very least it may have a chilling effect on Microsoft's future actions, and on the actions of other companies who might try similar tricks. Hopefully now they will ask themselves "Could this be considered an anticompetitive use of our monopoly? Is it worth the risk of spending years in court defending our actions?". Many will decide that no, it isn't, and will choose a more ethical way of conducting their business instead.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.