Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CTO Testifies at MS trial
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann testified on behalf of the 9 states in MS's trial. From the article on SF Gate: "Red Hat Chief Technology Officer Michael Tiemann said Microsoft adds 'extensions' to critical communications methods that computers use to transmit security information, print, and perform other tasks. Those extensions are proprietary to Microsoft, he said, and despite recent actions Microsoft has not been forthcoming in releasing details of those changes.""
Were these words used at all in his testimony?
You elitist prick
At this point, is anyone really suprised? Hell, I'd almost say that it doesn't even qualify as 'news' anymore. Let's hear it for capitalism!
"I hope they legalize drugs so you hurry up and fucking die." Charles Bronson (the band, not the man)
I hope people don't read this as a troll comment. You make a very good point about dudes and girls that are dumb lashing out at others because they just can't "figure it out".
+1, Insightful my friend.
Nice to have someone bring up "Embrace and Extinguish " in a court of law. Now, at least, people other than geeks and techies know about it and can see it for what it is.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
umm, that is the majority of the world. Get over it. It isn't going to change probably ever.
as far as MS having to divulge its secrets in protecting their networks, I don't think that is viable. I am no MS fan by any means, but I don't see why they should be forced to allow open access from other OS's.
If they want to block out whatever, I think that they should have that right.
The thing is over and Microsoft has pretty much won. How do these 9 states think that holding out any more is going to do anything? Especially with another 6 years left with this administration that totally supports the Big M.
IMHO, It is implied that computers are performing their tasks with a certain level of quality / reliability, but without being able to view / test source code on the actual methods used for security, etc on Microsoft machines, there is no way to validate the quality or reliability of their software.
Sir_haxalot
stuff |
I thought most people knew about this already - so what's so earth shattering about it?
Video Game cheats, hints a
I'm sorry, but Redhat wasn't even a company, AFAIK, when Micro$oft did most of the things that they are on trial for (OEM stuff that killed OS/2, Be, etc. for example).
And at one point in time everyone is this stupid person until they learn a *nix OS. Some of the best programmers and admins I know started with an MCSE, ugh.
That's not a mirror, it's a frame. Here's a *faster* mirror.
Looks like the players previously too cowed to come out into the open and talk about M$ tactics are now talking: in detail and in court.
At this point, though, given how much Windows XP sucks, the FBI security warning about it, the slow rate of adoption in the corporate setting.... does it really matter what the guy from Red Hat says?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
I saw a Red Hat exec. on Fox News the other day talking with Neil Cavuto (sp?) about their just released financial results. He was rather unimpressive in his answers about Red Hat's results, its future, its business plan, competition from MS, etc. This is not meant as flamebait at all, but if I was a RH shareholder, I would have been very nervous after watching that interview.
As the "flagship" company for Linux, with all eyes upon it, I hope RH has some top notch execs working behind the scenes. Running a business takes *alot* more than just great coders and passion. Especially when competing against one of the most ruthless companies on the planet.
Proprietary protocols are but one of Microsoft's ways to keep customers nicely handcuffed.
Just as an example, look at the hoops the folks doing the Samba development had to jump through in order to make Samba able to mount Windows shared drives.
==================================
neophase
You're just too cool for your own good. The problem is, that they leave these highly extensive systems to l33t hax0rs like yourself. For real now... There are too many people like yourself who consider somebody "Stupid" for not understanding. Perhaps if you gave people a little more chance to learn, or maybe you should take the oppurtunity to teach them. Instead you'd just rather give the "I'm better than you" attitude. That's part of the reason that the many *nix systems aren't as mainstream.
Wow, I'm impressed you took up that much real estate in one post without a single factual statement. Bravo!
heads up next time
you have been trolled (not by me mods)
Photos.
Quoted from The Washington Post:
This is an interesting proposal that I hadn't heard about before. Does anybody have a complete list of what the unsettling states have asked for?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Lest we forget, Microsoft broke the law, and this is being suggested as a punishment for having done that. The question isn't "is this fair?" it's "is this an appropriate punishment for the crime that has been committed?". I think it's more appropriate than many of the punishments that have been suggested, but considering that this isn't Microsoft's first offence, I think a structural remedy is more appropriate.
-- this is not a
" but if I was a RH shareholder, I would have been very nervous after watching that interview." - why would you be nervous? From what you've said it was just one exec who was unimpressive in his answers - he may just have been being realistic - and you're right a lot of eyes are on RH now - but you need people who like their job to make a company succeed - it sounds like this exec didn't - hopefully he's the only one.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Well
Technically, if they decide to hold out long enough, they can do nearly anything they like.
Unfortunately, most likely, the 9 states think that holding out more will eventually lead microsoft to offering those states lots of money to make them go away. (I still say the recent tobacco-company settlements in texas and elsewhere are going to have bad consequences for just years to come...)
However, they are, like, you know, sovereign states. As the representatives of the law of those states, if those 9 attorneys general just keep holding out, as long as they feel MS has violated the fair business practice laws of their states, they have it perfectly within their rights to (they can at LEAST do this much) block MS from selling software in that state.. which would be a horrible catastrophe for microsoft, not so much because they couldn't make money in that state but just because software sales in that state would suddenly become a huge source of funding for any new or existant company or companies that might want to become serious competitors to microsoft. That state would become a neat little hole in the software market barrier to entry.. and microsoft depends on that barrier to entry being impenatrable.
This has nothing to do with what the states *can* do. The states are, well, remember, *sovereign states*. They set the rules within their boundaries, except where amendments to the U.S. constitution stop them. The states can do what they like, and since microsoft has is currently in the eyes and laws of the states an outlaw awaiting judgement, the attourneys general and state courts can render judgement however they see fit.
The question is what the states *will* do-- when will the attourneys general give up and wander off, or be rotated out of office and replaced with pro-monopoly equivilents.
I don't think anyone realizes exactly how big the amount of power these states hold at the moment. Microsoft's banking almost everything on the hope that these states will eventually be placated by some settlements and turn around a couple times, forget anything happened, and go to sleep..
But if they don't.. and the states decide that justice carried out against microsoft really is what they want, and decide to exert their power as soverign states.. they can pretty much do what they want.
I'll admit it. I started from a PC/Microsoft world:
After dinking around with TRS-80's and OS-9 from Microware, I had to choose a new platform. In hindsight, I should have gone with an Amiga or an Atari - but the rivalery between C64/Atari 8-Bit/TRS-80 would not die in my mind.
The PC had a good things going for it: A cheap OS from a funny-named corporation called "MicroSoft" and cheap compilers(with editors) from Borland.
I'd grown up in a worl where an OS cost $400 (at least) and a good compiler was $600. Oh, and that funny-named corporation was selling a passable word-processor for $150. Electric-Pencil still stung in the pocketbook for $400.
Unix was not a option: I had no access to a university, and Xenix was too expensive. Pluss, Unix had a 'difficult' reputation and came with a 'difficult' language cryptically called 'C'. I diden't know abot *BSD and Linux untill 1995.
Of course I know better. Now.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
There are those programmers who exist that are simply to stupid to produce an easy to learn, fully functional operating system.
My friends, co-workers, and I refer to these individuals those who suffer from A*PWCFTD, or Another *nix Programmer Who Can't Finish The Details. Signs include programs that never quite make it out of beta because everything sort of works, but nothing is standard and some features are never added because the programmer got bored after solving the hard problems and didn't want to put the finishing touches on the app. Or the programmer said, well, I finished it enough to pretty much scratch my original itch, I don't care if no one else can use it.
Do YOU know anyone suffering from this?
Yeah, I know. I let a Troll bait me. That's why I'm doing the AC thing. But I will tell you this. The consistency and polish of amatuer windows programs usually, but not always, exceeds that of *nix programs. If kylix takes off, this will change drastically.
If it was Matt Szulik, he's even more unimpressive in person.
Yeah, yeah, like this is news.
We know that MS plays like this, Mike Tiemann knows this, and so do all the lawyers and judges hearing what he has to say.
But the events of last week showed the judge was more interested in closely following a particular legal track.
Are these allegations going to be entered into the proceedings of the court, or are they likely to be stricken out as "hearsay" because they do not very strictly address what the court wants to hear?
Maybe I'm getting the 9 dissenting states' separate suit confused with the remedy phase of the original MS trial. My apologies and hopes that someone more knowledgeable can clear this up for me...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
More importantly, what exactly is Microsoft so "guilty" of in this situation (I assume Red Hat is bitching about the Kerberos extensions). Read this article by Theodore Ts'o, one of the Kerberos developers at MIT. Microsoft changed its Kerberos extension in response to feedback on its initial design. Now it is true that it did not document the extension fully, but if you think about that article, Ts'o is really saying that Microsoft is not doing a good enough job of embracing and extending...because if Microsoft documented its NT PAC, they would have eagerly helped make it a standard.
Anyway, what Microsoft is doing with Kerberos is perfectly legal and allowed by the standard. Sure it might hurt Red Hat -- so what? Red Hat is a competitor of Microsoft!! It's not clear what Red Hat really wants from this case. Would they be happy with anything less than Microsoft going open source, releasing all their intellectual property, and a government guarantee of X% market share for Linux? If so, they are dreaming and I have little sympathy for them.
- adam
Tomorow on slashdot.... School childern throw rocks at bill gates Windows XP crashs Someone comes up with the crazy idea that microsoft is a monopoly Steve balmer "LOVES THIS COMPANY YEAH!"
Hacker Media
From what I gather, Microsoft is adding extensions to communication protocols that they developed. True? If that's the case, then so what? They are free to do so. They aren't modifying some existing standard so that it's inoperable with other products. They're not hijacking a standard (like they did with Java). So what's the problem? If Microsoft developed the protocol, aren't they free to do with it whatever they like.
Just because you don't agree, don't mean it's not right. It's all a matter of perspective. I, myself, agree with most of these sentiments. I've had linux crash a number of times (more than I had with win2k), and all I could attribute it to was hardware drivers. The problem isn't a big one for me now, but a year and a half ago, it was a major pain. And the stuff the poster mentions about the file systems is pretty accurate, regardless of whether or not it was meant as a flame.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
The problem is that the states are spending nearly ALL of their time discussing issues that were not part of the initial trial, nor the appeal. Since this is the penalty phase of the case, new evidence will most-likely be dismissed by the judge, so while the topics being brought up make for great headlines ... it will amount to sensationalistic garbage come the end of this phase.
Lame
Because, unfortunately, PR can make a difference in a company's success. If I owned a lot of stock of a company, and I saw a high-level executive looking lame on national TV, I might be a little uneasy about my investment.
The quote that was presented at the beginning of the article is nice but come on! It is proprietory to MS and they have been less than forthcoming about changes they have made. And for good reason. They own the extensions. It is their OS. What are we gonna do hold them at gun point?
Give us your extensions o' glutton of stock
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Let's just look at the numbers. The fact that a company that has been going out of business for 25 years rips off a dying OS is no basis for a system for creation of theft!
The states also want Microsoft to divulge the blueprints for its Internet Explorer browser.
Microsoft, like most software firms, jealously guards its technical data.
I don't really like the term blue print for source code, the source is more that the blue prints it's the building materials, labor, blue prints, land, and building inspection all toether. With blue prints you can find materals to build a house with and use them accordingly,with source all you need is a compiler, and you have the product they created. This entire article in my opionon was written to make the whole of america believe what most slashdot readers already know, MS is evil, they are not however telling nontechnical america the real reasons why the anti-trust lawsuits started, why they should realease there source, or how they have put their competiotors on the brink of bankrupsy.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
Once again.
You are limited in your actions even if they might otherwise be legal if you do them to maintain your monopoly.
Straw man.
The nine states are seeking enforcement of good old standard antitrust law that has said essentially the same thing for nearly a hundred years now. If Red Hat asks for anything beyond the scope of the law be assured that the judge (you know, someone who has actually made a career out of studying this stuff) will surely show them the door.
It's not as though antitrust law was dreamed up in the last few years just to "get" Microsoft.
This is fine, as long as they call the protocol something else. Instead of Windows 2000 "supporting Kerberos and IPSEC" is should be advertised as "supporting MSKerberos and MSIPSEC"...
So? What is wrong with using proprietary software? IBM has token standards (proprietary), Cisco has routing protocols (IGRP+EIGRP: proprietary). Do I need to go on?
Just because something is proprietary doesn't mean its bad. Also, we don't need everything to be open. Some people actually like to make money off of ideas.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Godspeed, mr ATM, you're our only hope!
(when is the story of your daring exploits going to be made into a Showtime Exclusive(tm) miniseries?)
People should wake up and see the light.
Eeking out a small profit is just part of
the downward spiral of Linux. Pretty soon
all the hype will die off and people will
realize what a waste of tremendous effort
it was to try and reduplicate what's already
in BSD.
Imagine this.
... [burst into tears] he hit me, pulled my hair, took my pizza and [more cries]
The bully M$ is standing at a corner, wearing a tight T-shirt with pizza
stains, and equally dirty shorts. His hands red with pizza sauce and ketchup.
The poor boy RH gets called in by the Law. He is bitting his nails, shivering
under his wet shirt.
The_Law: "Come here RH, don't be afraid, tell us what did he do to you?"
RH: [looks suspicously at the bully, afraid to utter a word he might regret]
M$: [smiles with evil, knowing nothing more than a wrist slap will happen to him.]
RH: He
The_Law: [ANGERED] M$$$
M$: [shocked]
The_Law: Don't EVER do that again to RH, now go and play together.
M$: [takes RH by the collar, and to the play ground]
RH was last seen going down the slide, face first. M$ pushed him, rumor has it.
> Well the last time I looked Netscape was fucking FREE
:)
But what about the first time you looked? As memory serves, Netscape had to offer their browser for free because MS started offering IE for free. MS wouldn't have been able to afford to offer IE for free had they not used their success as an OS monopoly in the browser market.
Why does it not surprise me that XP tech support lacks any knowledge on the history of their own companies wrong doings?
I'm only pointing this out because you're asking for replies, and you seem to omit the aforementionned detail in this post, which really just furthur drives home why you work for Satan
"Old man yells at systemd"
Who moderated that insightful?
It's a troll I see posted verbatim all the time.
This is another article on the testimony, this time by Reuters at Yahoo.
It mentions the barriers Microsoft tried to impose on getting linux pre-installed on a system.
What would make much more sense to me is complete documentation of the formats used in Office, with a mandatory N-month lead time (they were convicted of monopoly, weren't they?) before implementing new, um, features [yeah, that's what they are, features...]. This would allow compatibility filters from the competing office suites, and remove the window of opportunity for new versions from MS while the others chase the changes.
Oh, and the penalty for failure-to-disclose would be public source release of Office; that would almost guarantee they behave, since there'd be legions of open-source eyes looking for any inconsistencies.
Amen Brother!
/all | more" let alone actually doing something useful.
No Admin in his right mind (Linux user or not) wants his clients running Linux. Hell, I have a hard enough time getting them to type "ipconfig
It's human nature to pull for the underdog. I liked OS/2, I use Linux from time to time. But I am realistic about this whole thing. It's not my religion, and I don't need to spend 20 hours a day in front of my PC. I need to sit down, get some work done, then get on with my life. The day that Linux can match Windows in that regard is the day that Linux surpasses Windows. More power to them, but they're always facing an uphill climb. You must remember that MS has a LOT of programmers, and a lot of TALENTED programmers at that. In fact, I'm sure most of them are CS graduates. If only that were true with Linux.
Lets see... I've been using netscape since version 1.02 and I seem to remember it being free then too. That was about a year before IE came out. And I downloaded every version of NS after that until AOL bought them.
And I don't think he was trying to make a point, he was just ranting.
Is it wrong to add something to your own product? (I consider a protocol also a product). It's just a new version, with new features and then Mr. Redhat can't compete, so he justs talks a lot blabla to get attention... yawn.
If Linux wants to 'win' they should develop a better product. And even if they have a better product, then they should try to get new users and MS-stuff-users using their products.
If you don't, you lose, that's the whole idea of a free market. Not only in computerindustry, but just anywhere there is one.
I tried Linux Mandrake a few times, but I'm not really impressed about it. There was always something that didn't work when I installed it.
Sure, I get it too work with some help, but that's not an option for pc-noobs and people who don't want to put that much time in it (which I can imagine, I must admit). They just want to install and it should work.
Sure Linux/Unix is a good product, but it's just what you want to do with it and how much time you want to spend on making it work the way you want it. If you have the time and you want to use it that way, that's your opinion and I think you should support your own idea's. But other people just don't.
I can live with other OS's and other supporting their OS, but I know many who don't. So, c'mon guys, on whatever OS your computer is running, stop acting like clowns and stop this useless conversation.
If you hate Unix, you'll always hate Unix and if you hate Windows, you'll always hate Windows. There's no solution and I don't think this conversation will ever end... at least not in the next ten years.
*sigh*
Looks like I'm going to read a lot of conversations like this and it looks like I'm going to write a lot of this (also useless) messages to get you people live with each other. But heh, that's just me...
I've read the word zealot used in reference to Linux people, but I understood it when I watched the interview a couple of months ago with Tiemann, Ballmer, and some of the other big names. I forget the particular open source event it took place at, but I remember feeling embarrassed for the guy because of the way he was acting. He was lashing out at Ballmer and MS and in that particular situation it was totally unprofessional.
I wouldn't accept his testimony for anything other than blind/passionate MS hatred.
Microsoft implemented the CIFS protocol in Windows NT 4.0, where it is used for network file access in Microsoft Windows NT. Client systems use CIFS to request file and print services from server systems over a network.
...
...
Desler said that none of the three latest moves were necessary under the proposed settlement--also known as the consent decree--in the antitrust case between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which requires Microsoft to disclose to third parties any communications protocol implemented in a Windows desktop operating system that is used to interoperate with a Microsoft server operating system.
"The CIFS, Kerberos and SISLP announcements are above and beyond the conditions of the consent decree. As such, this is yet another step we are taking to enhance the interoperability of Windows clients with non-Microsoft operating systems," he said.
For crackin' ice. Sometimes I wonder if I was fooled for 10 years and Microsoft really is a lying sack of crap. Let's see, CIFS is used for clients to request file and print services from servers...and the settlement requires Microsoft to disclose any communication protocol implemented in the Windows desktop that is used to talk to a server...and CIFS does not apply and is "beyond the conditions of the consent decree"?!?
I'll assume for now that this spokesman is just an idiot, but if not, this could indicate a very narrow interpretation of the decree on Microsoft's part. That is, if they take "implemented in the Windows desktop" to mean only network client code that is "in the desktop" (as opposed to in the kernel, say)...I figured "in the desktop" just meant "in the client"!
FYI I think Microsoft should release *all* it's source as I stated a year ago.
- adam
I am not a supporter of Microsoft and its products, but it seems sometimes that people are jealous of its success. Yes, ms stole windows from apple, but they stole it from Xerox. They played around with it, and now 93% of all computers on the earth run some version of ms windows. They were the ones who made it work, they are the ones that are making the billions, and they are the ones that make people jealous. I think we should back off, ms will fail one day, lets let them go down in flames on their own.
Netscape was always 'free' in the sense than it was shareware and pretty much no one gave them money for it.
That was ok for them, because they wanted to sell server software.
Unfortunately their server software sucked, and things like Microsoft Back Office and Apache worked better for people.
As far as "not buying the products", you tell me where to buy a Windows-free PC and I'll run there; oh wait, you guys are harassing white-box shops that do that, and you certainly won't be able to get one from the major companies like Compaq, HP, Dell, etc.
One day, this will be a movie. You heard it here first.
As far as "not buying the products", you tell me where to buy a Windows-free PC and I'll run there; oh wait, you guys are harassing white-box shops that do that, and you certainly won't be able to get one from the major companies like Compaq, HP, Dell, etc.
Some Dell models can be ordered preloaded with Linux
Look at:
dell.com/linux
compaq.com/linux
hp.com/linux
etc.
Kerberos was not invented by Microsoft.
/. could be so misinformed, you must be a troll.
They just took the existing standard and added a little bit to make a version incompatible with everybody else who wasn't a psychopathic landgrabber.
This is typical Microsoft behavior. I cannot believe that anyone on
This is the same as if someone moved into the city park and started growing corn. Very antisocial.
First off perform a spell check. Second, Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing it's monopoly position. By being a monopoly you are held to a different set of ethics then your competitors are. While it's perfectly alright for me to constantly change the way my API works in order to throw my competitors for a loop, my competitors can work around me since I don't control the market. When Microsoft does it they break everyone else's software all while they roll out a replacement for their now broken rival's software.
Computers are quite a different beast than any of the technologies before them. Capitalism and competition get us a long way, but at very high environmental and social costs. I'm not convinced that competition is the best way to produce software. Infact, I'm convinced it's not. It saddens me that this country (culture) is so concerned with the details of the laws that we cannot think about real change, which is what is needed.
Cheers, Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
They? Why should it be up to M$? Whoever pays for the product should get to decide how it's used. If I have this stuff licensed and I want it to inter-operate with my other (non-M$) systems, I sure as hell ain't gonna let the vendor dictate to me otherwise, either directly or by closed protocols. This is restraint of trade. The federal courts say that M$ is a lawbreaker.
They have that right? What about our rights? Are we mere consumers or are we citizens?
In my book, consumer==livestock at the feed trough.
This
Instead of suplying people with an alternative they want to ban/regulate/whatever microsoft?
Just because they have free labour doesn't mean they have a god given right to harass people with other business-models.
"If Red Hat asks for anything beyond the scope of the law be assured that the judge (you know, someone who has actually made a career out of studying this stuff) will surely show them the door."
This is probably exactly what will happen.
Oh yeah, you forgot to say "M$ sux, Linux rocks!"
Don't question the party line here amigo. Any intelligent questioning that doesn't conform is labelled flamebait.
/. is the most immature collection of "nerds."
Ever.
"Microsoft, like most software firms, jealously guards its technical data. "
What do they mean by this??? Beeing jealous is when you want SOMEONE ELSES stuff, not when you rightfully protects whats yours.
Has Redhat (or anyone else) some kind of god given right to get for free what Microsoft spent millions of dollars on developing.
I don't like MS past forcing on OEMs to just sell MS products and other illegal actions, but for fucks sake, they DO have a right to develop software that they don't give away for free.
GET REAL!
You may be remembering it incorrectly. Netscape was free for student use. If you were just a regular person they wanted $40 for it.
You could still download it for free, but officially that was just for a 30 day trial period.
30 seconds are up. You are an idiot.
I'd expect a lot of this kind of behavior from MS. They will do something that they claim is out of the goodness of their heart, and not required by the settlement, but actually is. However, since MS is performing the required action, there is no impetus for whoever enforces the settlement to go out of their way to prove that it -is- required. They aren't going to engage MS' lawyers just to counter some PR. Thus MS manages to turn everything it does because it essentialy has to into positive PR. If it works well enough, it could sour attempts to go after them further, because they've shown themselves to be such nice guys. Thus they use today's judgement to prevent future ones.
I don't like them, but sometimes I have to be amazed by their saavy.
The enemies of Democracy are
All I want say is....
Country roads.. take me home.. to the place.. I belong..
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. This is called the "remedy" phase of the trial. That means that the reaction to a guilty finding of antitrust law is not punishment. It's a remedy to bringing back competition to the market. So the *only* thing that the judge has to order is something that she believes will bring a remedy to the problem of non-competition w/in the market.
Now, of course, Microsoft is guilty of being an illegal monopolist. So they're subject to a huge number of civil suits. Punitive damages (i.e. punishment) may be part of those trials. But the result of the antitrust trial will be a remedy, not a punishment.
This is significant because the standard is only to restore competition to the market. AFAIK, that's all that antitrust law calls for, and it seems like something much less painful for Microsoft than punishment.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
please mod parent up. This moderations system sucks. Is this post really on a level with toilet humor and other juvenalia? If it is a troll, it's on-topic and totally appropriate.
The thing is, these aren't *PCs*.. they're servers. Big difference. This guy is looking for a *personal computer*, not a server machine.
"Of all days, the day on which one has not laughed is the most surely the one wasted." -Sebastian Roch Nicol
Nope, I don't know anyone "too stupid to use *nix." Not since this hit the street.
And by the way the sentiment that you're expressing is a huge problem for Linux. It will never - not ever - become a widely used desktop operating system until elitists like yourself realize that there is a lot of genuine value in software that is easy to learn and use. Until and unless that happens Linux will remain a geek toy and a server OS. But maybe that's what you types really want.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Instead of getting your news second hand, Microsoft has been kind enough to post daily transcripts from the proceedings. They even have some exhibits posted. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/nonsettli ng.asp
Warning: This comment is not anti-Microsoft. Please read at your own risk, and be sure to capriciously mod it to -1 Troll ASAP.
If you don't like it, don't give your custom to Microsoft or any companies that have voluntarily chosen to ally themselves with Microsoft.
I was just in Barnes and Noble the other day. It seems the Linux section has been reduced to half of what it once was. Of course official Microsoft training books have replaced it. It looks like Blockbuster to me when I'm in that isle now. Too many copies of the same shit.
Has anyone else noticed this phonomenon?
Nonsense.
When one side has acted illegally (which the courts have already ruled) and the other side is using the courts to get some relief from those illegal acts, how is that the same thing?
Your memory is really bad. Navigator has been free since pretty much day one. Yes, Netscape did toy with the idea of getting licensing revenue from corporate sales, but it was always available for free off the website, and they never hounded individual consumers. Especially in the early days when most people were running beta's, since the production versions didn't work right.
I have some quotes from Andreessen where he explains right from the start that they will be offering the browser for free, because the money is in the server software.
Before you go questioning Microsoft's memory, you better refresh your own.
You guys have been complaining for years about how MS is evil and you'll continue complaining for years and years. The fact is, like it or not, MS will still have a 90% marketshare. If Linux users could code as much as they could whine, Linux would have beaten MS a long time ago.
According to this article at CNN, MS is saying RH did little to popularize Linux.
What is illegal about this? W3C comes out with standards for HTML. Companies build products around the standard. One company makes extensions for it so it works better and so they don't have to wait for a standards organization to approve it. No developer is forced to use the extensions.
I can build my products the way I want until RedHat says I can't? What's the uproar about?
points to an article regarding MS's implementation of RFC2617 for digest access authentication for web access - upshot is IIS and IE play together nice but IE and Apache / IIS and Mozilla, Opera, Navigator don't...
I don't really like the term blue print for source code,
But it's such an apt description. After all, the courts have determined that taking a machine with a bunch of switches and flipping some of those switches constitutes making a "new machine" that can be patented. Of course, you can't just flip any old switches and get them patented, but if you give some real world meaning to the switches being flipped, patent away!
Heck, I finally realized that I have been thinking about math all wrong all these years. I used to think that there was no difference between an algorithm and a use of that algorithm with real world numbers, but I must have been wrong. That's because these are two totally different things since you can't patent an algorithm running on a computer if it's just the algorithm itself, but you can patent it if it's somehow related to the real world. That simply blew me away when I finally came to the stunning realization that word problems are different and harder than "math problems". After all, I grew up thinking that word problems were easy since you were just doing the same thing as the regular math problems, except you gave some real-world meaning to the numbers being used, but man was I wrong.
That's where the blueprints come in. If the software running on the computer is somehow related to something in the real world, then it stops being a bunch of ideas and just using a machine, and becomes a Real Thing, a New Machine! And, we all know that if you want to create a complex Real Thing you'd better have some plans, and blueprints are the perfect thing for that!
Yes folks, by the miracle of modern technology, we can take two pure ideas (mathematical algorithm) + (giving real-world meaning to numbers) and obtain (A Real Thing That Can Be Patented).
It's the New Math: (Pure Idea)+(Pure Idea)=(Real Thing).
Can't you see that? So the "blueprints" analogy is just perfect.
You just don't get it and you need to go back to third grade and look at all of your math books again and understand this time that "word problems are really tough because they aren't the same as the pure math problems where the numbers have no real world meaning".
That's the most amazing thing of all. If you have a computer program that will solve some homework problems for you, the computer is just your plain old computer when you're using it to solve the regular math problems. However, the moment that you start to use it to solve a word problem, it becomes a New Machine! Because even though the steps it does are the same, since you gave real world meaning to the inputs and outputs, you have taken two pure ideas and made a Real Thing. Aren't you proud of yourself for building a New Machine just to do your math homework? I know I am.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Other companies do it! Why do you think most printer warranties are voided if you use non-oem cartridges? Same thing for warranties on most other products that have 3rd party competitors.
/.
Everyone does it.
Should Apple be required to let competitors build clones? Of course not, it's proprietary info and you can't play unless they want you to.
Personally, I like programming on M$ better than any other platform because everything fits like pieces to a puzzle unlike what I see out of most Open Source endeavors where too many chefs spoil the soup.
This is my OPINION of course, but I guess that makes me a troll on
I have noticed a trend in Microsoft's approach to 'standards' and that is that they completely ignore the 'spirit' behind the idea of 'open standards'. One of the key reasons to define open standards is to promote system interoperability. This interoperatility allows two different systems to interface with one another.
Microsoft has begun using open standards as a multi-edged sword: First, to leverage the scalability of these protocols. Second, to save them the 'innovation time' required to develop their own protocols. Third, as a rallying cry/advertising claim/defense against criticism.
The problem is that they are not using the standards to promote interoperatility.
There are two strong examples of this: Windows2000 authentication and Kerberos. Microsoft decided to exploit a (graned) 'user-definable field' in the kerberos packet to store custom information for their authentication scheme. Perfectly legal. But then they listed the contents of the field (as they use it) as proprietary and therefore shutting out any other Kerberos server to provide authentication to a Microsoft client.
A second example is in the Exchange 2000 server. All of the Exchange servers are now capable of using SMTP as their inter-server communication protocol. In fact, they have implemented the SMTP Pipelining RFC (1854) to increase message rates between servers that support that extension. Again. All very valid. Then they also created what they call ESMTP: Encapsulated SMTP. This is different from the ESMTP standard: Extended SMTP. Encapsulated SMTP makes the body of the message proprietary mime type and only another Exchange SMTP server can decode that message. No other server can read it.
Where these aren't technically extensions to the protocol, they do violate the GOAL behind the open-protocols, which is what makes me believe that Microsoft might be even more malicious than people may believe them to be, and that all of these 'exploitations' are so subtle that the court, the general public, and even a lot of systems people will completely miss, untill it is too costly to remove the components from their infrastructure.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Take a closer look at the Dells. Some are "workstations". Obviously not quite the same as a cheap desktop (and I'm all for inexpensive desktops) but it isn't just servers...
Plus look here for HP's which aren't nearly as jazzed up as those Dell workstations:
e x.html
http://www.hp.com/workstations/products/linux/ind
So you can buy a desktop preloaded with linux. If you want a cheap one do it yourself. There isn't much benefit in HP or Dell providing one. Note that I didn't read this whole thread as I don't feel like wasting time doing so as the arguements are probably the same old regurgitated crap. So if you guys are argueing about cheap desktops oh well.
So then you suggest we just blindly follow laws? Have you forgotten about the DMCA already? The "monopoly" laws are NOT fair. No more so than the music industry telling you what you can do with music that you bought. "Monopoly" laws are designed to punish successful companies.
Why don't you try to make a point next time?
Remind me not to buy your book.
According to my recollection, all the votes in florida never did get counted officially.
The present junta and Microsoft form a symbiotic relationship.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
It seems like your distress is analogous to those who see someone use the word "to" when they mean "too" and cringe. Or at the very least, reread the sentence.
I know it's semantics, but that's half of what you're talking about, isn't it?
Why the fuck can't microsoft just make software? Why do they fucking have to exclude other os's from there products and the potential market that could develop?
It makes zero sense for Microsoft to flat out fucking ignore the Linux/BSD market place. The share holders should tell Bill and monkeyboy to get with the ticket and make software no matter what the platform. Instead, they are just making fools of themselves, driving any credibility they had into the john and losing money on schemes like xbox, ultimate tv and msn.
Maybe if you got billg's dick out of your ass you would have a clue.
The problem with "your" products are that you really don't buy them. You only get a license to use them. If something breaks you don't bother to fix it, just reinstall and reboot until it breaks again. Your job is complete bullshit. Who do you support and how many times do you say reboot in one day?
Guess what? I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK! As I long as I can continue using and improving the Linux experience, all you Windows and Mac users can continue fucking yourselves.
Should have been "the distress of those" ? But then, I'm a Windows programmer, and quite late on my current project :-)
Actually, I could live with that --Microsoft having to release all its source-- as the sole penalty they receive from the government. Make it a one time shot, and then everyone can take off from the same starting point. My guess it would be damaging mostly from a PR standpoint as more people would learn how they intentionally disabled interoperability with other software.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
And we welcome you, brother.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Microsoft objected to Tiemann's accusations, repeating their complaint that new accusations are not appropriate for the current hearing,
Kollar-Kotelly refused to throw out Tiemann's testimony, though she said she would not view it as a new violation.
As plenty of other folks have pointed out in this thread MS has been found guilty, the question now at hand for this trial is what's to be done about it. The RH testimony bears directly at ongoing practices by MS which are when exercised by a monopoly (imo) illegally enforce that monopoly.
Yes MS objected on the gounds you state, and the judge clearly agrees that no this is not a new crime for which they will be tried but that it is evidence which bears on the penalty-phase of this trial.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
In terms of world demographic, if the infrastructure of the net continues to spread, then Open Source Operating Systems and Apps will win by dint of being more readily available to the less affluent states. In the long run the file types of Open Source will predominate. But as Keynes pointed out, 'In the long run we're all dead.' Put in this perspective the battle between MicroSoft and Open Source becomes a tug of war between two factions of the Industrialized First World Nations.
It may seem mean and low and ugly but at least it's being played out in a supposed open and transparent fashion in the courts of the land rather than say, what might have been the case, a century ago, or the larger portion of the geopolitical world today. Who knows maybe we'll all learn to play nice and share?.... Yea, right.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
Actually, I disagree. I think it aughtta be federal law that ever computer operating system come with a copy of its source.
At this time I don't think people quite realize at what risk they put themselves at by using a closed-source OS. The OS is what makes the computer do stuff, and I want to be damned sure my computer is doing the stuff I want it to do, at the same time as disallowing stuff I don't want it to do. I don't think I have to clarify on that. I don't want hotfixes.
While the general populous has no direct need for the source code for an OS, bugfixes come alot sooner that way. Why shouldn't the source be included? I am sure these geniuses can figure out how to freely distribute source without hurting thier cash flow... Plus, it'd keep companies like M$ alot more honest. I'd like to see M$ get punished for what they've been convicted of, but I'd also like to see a piece of pro-consumer legislation out of the deal. The taxpayers could end up saving money, too.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
Regardless of what various militias, racists and dissident groups might say, the individual US states are not *sovereign* in any globally accepted (or proper English) sense.
AFGHANISTAN is a sovereign state.
PANAMA is a sovereign state.
The USA is a sovereign state.
The individual "states" that make up the USA are not sovereign, because they do not have independent right to make war.
This was settled by force around 1865 or so.
The main thrust of your argument (the states have considerable ability to prosecute Microsoft without Federal interference) is correct.
--Charlie
Does Microsoft really care if they get sued? Probably not very much as long as the politicians that they purchased can limit Microsoft's liability.
I had to laugh when I read that Microsoft was complaining that the states were bringing up new violations.
States: "You are still violating the law!"
Microsoft: "Put it on our tab."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
No, he is remembering correctly. The first shareware version of Netscape was v1.1N.
It's insane.
Basically: MS is a competitive business and has been competing for however many years. One day the government decies that, while MS has been using the same business practices all along, "Oh, well back on this day we've decided you were a monopoly. From this day forward the competitive practices you've been using were illegal. Maybe you should have recognized that you were a monopoly and immediately became non-competitive just in case. We're going to punish you now."
It's totally absurd. The government should decide whether or not they're a monopoly, then set restrictions on the types of competition the company can engage in. They weren't declared a monopoly in 1995, so they shouldn't be punished for legal [for a regular business] actions they practiced in 1995.
That is an absolute load of hoooey.
You cannot buy a Dell desktop from their website unless you buy both Windows and MICROSOFT OFFICE/WORKS!
Do you actually research this before you post????
I dispute the statement that I am astroturfing however. First of all do you mean on behalf of the book, or of Microsoft. For the book, I am not being sneaky, I just put the site as my homepage (having nothing better to put). For Microsoft, it's true I worked there, but I don't anymore and I'm not posting because of some secret plan to help Microsoft...just interested in truth, justice, and high karma (which is getting dinged by those bogus Flamebait mods).
Driving on Redmond Way around 5:20 pm today, saw a dark green Jetta (I think) with a /. country oval (like the ones in Europe). Was it you?
- adam
How open-minded the Linux zealots are... reminds me of Soviet communism.
IANAL, but "hearsay" evidence is when a witness reports evidence that is second hand (or more). For example, when if a witness says that someone told him that "such and such" happened, that is hearsay.
This evidence may ultimately be ruled by the Judge to be irrelevant, but it is unlikely to be hearsay evidence, given Tieman's position.
Oh, well back on this day we've decided you were a monopoly. From this day forward the competitive practices you've been using were illegal. Maybe you should have recognized that you were a monopoly and immediately became non-competitive just in case. We're going to punish you now.
They signed a consent decree around that time. There is a long road from monopoly to the DOJ becoming a plaintiff.
"...isn't this where/"
"/we came in?" -Pink Floyd, The Wall
I laughed and laughed o_O
When did the world go completely insane, and where can I get off? :P
In theory, this would work. But don't we know the .doc file format already? It's just a collection of COM objects. The problem isn't that the file format isn't documented. It is. The problem is that you have to emulate a massive chunk of windows just to view an Excel file.
.net and passport in general. And there needs to be a whole boatload of other things done at the sales and finance level that I don't even know how to approach.
/., and as a result we forget the contradiction right in front of our faces. On the one hand, some say "Microsoft's products are shoddy" and "nothing wins on technical merit" and then other people say "if you give us the file format, we'll win". The solution to this problem is not a purely technical one. We need real restrictions on how these people operate. There is some fundamentally wrong things in the way they do business, and statutes need to be set up so that no one else can do these kinds of things again.
No... the monopoly problem goes way way beyond the simple "Document it and it'll be fine" solution. We need to get some real business and legal restrictions. OEM's need to be allowed to alter the desktop as they wish. They need to be able to install alternative OS's on their machines. There needs to be some serious inquiry in to
We tend to focus on the technical side of things here at
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
In fact, this is M$ second offense, and they disregarded rulings that were made after the first one. SO, not only were they ruled as being a monopoly, but they went against previous orders given them in a previous suite.
/. account with this one :( )
Given this, and the fact that they control, through their malicious, monopolistic, behaviour, the desktop market, strong action must be taken in order to correct the problem and stop them from continuing the practices they've been ordered twice not not to continue.
Office suites are just the tip of the iceberg. They own the PC gaming market, they are slowly taking control of the Internet and its protocols, they violated the Sun Java license, and with every new OS (and often with patches to an OS), they change an important protocol or API further making competition and interoperability even more difficult (including operability with previous versions of their own OS/applications, forcing expensive upgrades).
As a computer professional (software developer, administrator, hardware developer) of over 25 years experience, I submit the only course of action acceptible is:
1. Split the company into two pieces, OS and application, both completly separate.
2. Require them to divulge all API's (such as DirectX, ActiveX, etc.) allowing competion to copy those API's for interoperability and competition. This includes source code and documentation, and anything required by the competition in order to implement the API in a competing application/OS.
3. Require them to divulge source code and documentation on all M$ proprietary protocols such as the Kerberos extension, MAPI, etc.
4. Require them to divulge all Office file formats such as Excel, Word, etc.
5. Require them to divulge all information, and possibly source code, for all macro languages such as that used by M$ Word.
6. Restrict them from changing any of the API's, protocols, etc. listed above in any way without releasing a detailed specification outlining those changes so that interoperability can be maintained by competition. The specification must be released some amount of time before it is implemented so as to allow the competition ample time to implement the required changes. The time period would be set by the competition and the judge, and M$ would have no say in the matter.
7. Void all contracts, licenses, etc. restricting PC venders from installing another OS on OEM PC's other than a M$ OS. Implement provisions that such a contract, license, etc. is null and void and actionable by the PC vender with stiff penalties.
In this way other operating systems and application developers can re-enter the market and be able to compete fairly, and continue to do so. Operating system source code, Office source code outside of that required for the porting of the various API's, etc. is not necessary.
Remember, M$ broke the law. Fairness (as has been said before) is not a factor. The only factors are how to correct the wrong they have done, and the damage they have caused; how to keep them from doing it a third time; and how to bring competition into the market quickly and easily, and keep them there.
Rohan427
(My main PC is broken and I can't login to my
Paul G. Allen
And it's not exactly something Microsoft is quiet about either. They even refer to this - "embrace and extend" - as their corporate philosophy. (A better description would be, "copy [the existing standard], change [it somehow], copyright [the changes], circulate [to create a new "standard"], control").
What can be done about it really isn't clear. Perhaps we need some kind of 'documentation GPL' that these standards could be releated based on.
Ultimately the only law that could be passed that would really hurt Microsoft is a law banning the sale of any software that runs only under Windows ('conspiracy to commit monopoly' or some such charge). Of course, it would also devastate the PC software industry, which would kinda stink. Oh well.
hehehe.
It's said that linux surpasses windows at some time. I do agree with the guy.
The moment is there........