Slashdot Mirror
MS Exec Testifies In Favor of OS Manipulation
Niscenus writes: "The NYTimes, where free registration is required, reports that a Microsoft VP, Christopher Jones, explains that Microsoft must be allowed to prevent competitors' programmes from being installed for the consumer's best interest. Most interesting quote: 'In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.' Any dualboot LiLo user who learned they can't defrag the hard way can understand this ..."
Is it just me, or does Microsoft seem really condescending all the time? I don't understand their PR policy of considering their users idiots.
...However appropiate that labeling may be. ;)
I was once in favour of some sort of moderate compromise. Allowing OEMs more leeway with what they can do with th OS and eliminating anti-competitive activies from MS at a sales level. (The "MS-tax", punishing alternative OS, etc.) After reading that, maybe we need to disband Microsoft, take the source code and OSS it. Not so much from a consumer standpoint, but if this the official MS line, then maybe MS shouldn't exist.
"Any dualboot LiLo user who learned they can't defrag the hard way can understand this ..."
Would someone explain to me what the issue he refers to is?
(Personally, I use System Commander 7 --- mouse-enabled boot loaders are a Good Thing (tm) )
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
What do covering up the start button and installation have to do with one another? I really don't understand why you need to prevent installation just to avoid having the Start button obscured. Couldn't you just make the windows task bar Always-On-Top? Or just disallow anything to be drawn there while not in fullscreen mode?
His argument is pretty weak for the VP of a major corporation. Hopefully the court sees through it.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
I'm completely disgusted.
In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.
Yeah, God forbid we should allow a competing operating system to start up instead of Windows. If this is the kind of stuff coming out of a Microsoft exec's mouth during trial, the states must be having a field day.
Now what's all this about the Start button? Maybe Microsoft has predicted that the next step for companies who are trying desperately to get into the desktop (Yahoo, etc.) to offer their own customized Start Menu replacements?
"even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows"
This is part of their *defense* against punishment for illegally using monopolistic powers?
KFG
You may say "But what if we make installation so easy that people can just do it later?" That's a flawed premise. Installation of Linux is already fairly easy, especially when compared with Windows' primitive text-based installer that can hardly do anything. Besides the fact that most people are never going to bother with the installation of a new OS, the problem is that people who convert to Linux will want to preserve their existing Windows systems. To do so, they will have to resize their existing partitions, which are increasingly in Microsoft's proprietary NTFS file system format. Resizing NTFS partitions, to my knowledge, is not possible with any Linux installer, and if it is made possible, MS can threaten to sue those who implement it over their NTFS patents (as they have done in the past), as well as alter the standard unpredictably. This makes it almost impossible to implement simple dual boot installation, unless you're willing to piggyback on NTFS and the Windows bootloader -- generally a bad idea for obvious reasons.
Simply put, if Microsoft keeps the OEM channel, gaining ground outside schools and developing countries will be hard.
And what, except posting this comment r u doing?
--tzan
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was right on: Cut out the OS - give it to a separtate company and let all the other's compete as they choose on applications.
As long as this clear separation is avoided, there is bickering and cheating - in particular from the side of Microsoft. They are very skillful in this game. That's why they got there in the first place.
The company owning the OS and writing applications to it always has an advantage and Microsoft tried and is succeeding in blurring the border between OS and applications to keep this advantage.
This opportunity to clean this up was missed due to the fact that the judges of the appeals court are wimps.
Just look at the possibility of being prejudiced. Has it ever been looked at if any of the judges or their close relatives had any stock or mututal fund with Microsoft stock in it? I doubt it.
The courage to do "what is right" is missing in the US judidical system, things are done which are "politially right" or "don't hurt the consumer". What a mess!
Very disappointing.
First of all, if MS isn't confronted on its monopolistic tactics, it might not be possible to run other software. The guy in the article was arguing for that ability.
Second of all, people are doing a lot of work to make linux better. Herculean efforts are underway as we speak. Hang out at the dot (dot.kde.org), or at any number of sites at sourceforge if you're missing out on it. Or at freshmeat. Or any one of hundreds of other sites.
Finally, the line about "microsoft and its gayness" was kind of offensive.
They've already done this with OS/2. They would disable the BootManger and instead of setting it back as the boot partition, they listed how to do this manually. They didn't tell you that the file you had to change was hidden either and you had to determine what partition NT was going to be listed so it booted from BootManager.
Microsoft is a marketing company, choice is not an option. Competition is not an option.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
What person has Linux installed (and set to default boot) installed on their computer that would be confused when linux booted or when the star button changed it's appearence? Even if the company was selling a dual-boot system, it would have been specified as such and most likely would still have boot to Windows by default.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It has. Try Lycoris or Mandrake. Nowadays you play Solitaire during the install. Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
MS's setup is the best OS setup I have ever used, period.
Then why doesn't the Windows XP installer recognize my FreeBSD and Linux partitions and allow me to select them from its boot manager, or allow me to resize or create any non-Windows file system? That's right, because Microsoft has a monopoly and doesn't need to implement certain functionality others do need to implement. Feature-wise, Linux installers are far superior.
Microsoft is the same way: they don't give you much, but they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting confused by too much choice. Come to papa Gates, he'll take care of you, just like papa Stalin did before.
You're probably talking about the last phase of the install that is run on the user's deployed machine. The actual Windows XP installer is based on NT's and text-menu based. And as I explained in my other comment, it is far inferior in functionality to all Linux installers (with the exception of hardware detection).
That's about as significant as all those insects trying to stop my windshield on a hot summer evening...
Let's take your notion to an extreme, and say that EVERYONE who is opposed to being limited to Microsoft Windoze make a stand and switch to the Mac OS on Macintosh hardware. If I have any sort of understanding as to the relative sizes of the users involved, not only would Microsoft not notice the absence of the "Linux Community", Apple would only perceive a 4%-5% increase in sales.
Given this, one has to wonder why Microsoft bothers to struggle for the last 5% of market share (they'd like to snuff Apple as well as Linux)... and it has to come down to a desire on their part to obliterate any possible alternatives to running Windoze, so they can make their immense income seem small against the potential of making environmentally-friendly versions of Windoze that bio-degrade over the span of a year requiring a new purchase at ever-increasing prices (.NET by any other name).
Alternatives to Microsoft products do not pose a threat to Microsoft's current operations, but do limit the amount of pain they can force upon the consumer in the future. Elected officials pose no threat to them, so long as we continue to have the best government money can buy.
So you're basing your opinion of Linux installers on a system from 4 years ago? Things have changed so radically since then it's difficult to make a comparison. I installed both Windows and Linux on my current machine, and I personally found the Red Hat 7.2 installer to be at least as easy to use, if not easier, than the XP installer. It didn't hiccup once, autodetected hardware that I had to set up manually in XP, and didn't require a reboot until the one into the finished system. That's the expected norm for Linux systems these days, and most distributions live up to it.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Instead of posting stories about Microsoft and its gayness
Pardon me, sir, but I am gay, and I certainly take offense to being likened to anything Microsoft-ish.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I've used WindowsME and there's NO WAY to cover up the START menu with an icon. That's fucking bullshit. I don't know why people let these lying pricks get away with saying that. Even if it were true, you can ALWAYS press the start menu button (now available on all Keyboards that come w/ OEMs).
I love the part about, "even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows". Please, there's no reason to think that's bad except from MS' exclusive point of view where good means it makes them money. There is no impairment of function by allowing users to start up into another OS.
When MS says they're doing this stuff to benefit the consumer, its pure fucking bullshit.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm not sure what the netcraft output means:
The site www.christopherrjones.com is running Apache/1.3.20 Sun Cobalt (Unix) PHP/4.2.0 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b mod_auth_pam_external/0.1 FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_perl/1.25 on Linux
The sun cobalt stuff is a little confusing. I think it's a linux box, though.
With no worries about antitrust prosecution, we're going to see a lot more of this stuff. We've already seen them state flat out that "donated" computers must have a legal Microsoft OS and attack the GPL directly; more FUD will surely follow.
The only question is how far their "customers" can be pushed. My guess is pretty far. Never underestimate the pointy-hair factor. Most places, "learning something new" is interpereted as "complete retraining". PHBs regard doing anything new the way a nun would regard going to work in a brothel.
About the only thing we can do is to make sure Open Source solutions don't get wired out due to:
1. Laws or standards that mandate the use of patented/licensed technology. (*Must* use GIF, *must* pony up US$5000 to Unisys.)
2. Laws that specify "maufacturer's liability" (release an Open Source program; get sued if somebody doesn't like it.)
3. Laws mandating DRM hardware/software.
I'm sure we're going to see a flood of these from the Microsoft keiretsu.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I'm not gay, and I thought that comment was in poor taste as well.
Not a good way to rally the troops, especially the same-sex partnered coders.
Why is covering up the start button a bad thing? If there is a start button to cover up, haven't they sold a license of windows? How does that impact their sales?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
MS's setup is the best OS setup I have ever used, period
Maybe the best YOU have ever used but there are few million people that could tell you that the Mas OS installer is definatly the easiest and most trouble free ever
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Which leads to the question what would happen when (after browser & co were made part of the Windows) Microsoft decided that MS Internet(R) is part of Windows. With Microsoft's ever-extending definition of what consitutes the Windows operating system this wouldn't be too far a stretch for their Marketing department I guess...
Christ. Every single OS installer out there is better than windows. Dos was simple. MacOS is simple... BeOS kicked ass, or so I'm told. I had less trouble with Netware 4.1, and at that time, I didn't know a thing about it. I'm trying to think of an OS that was really obtuse, but damned if there is one that made you fiddle around for weeks like windows will. Hell, even the early slackware installers (2.x) were pretty decent.
Translation: "MS's setup is the *only* OS setup I have ever used, period".
It was exactly this sort of nonsense which was the root cause of the French revolution. The parallels
are there. There will soon be another revolution in the US and this kind of thing will be sorted out most effectively.
But it's becoming a necessity!
I no longer blame Microsoft. I design hardware and software and I am begining to think that consumers are 100% responsible for the state of the computing market today.
Microsoft, as I see, it is simply responding to the pressures consumers have been putting on manufacturers all along. It's a sad state that is deeply tied to the design of computers.
The Operating System is a crucial part of the computer. Mostly because the computer has nothing to offer but performance. It's up to the OS to apply algorithms and extract functionality.
As a result the operating system isn't a feature of the computer but an altogether separate product in its own right.
The automobile may need an engine but the functionality comes from the dashboard which rarely affects critical performance concerns.
Until consumers show interest in computers beyond email and web surfing, I believe we're always going to be fighting uphill.
How come not many neighborhoods have a public server locally hosted that the community can use to communicate, check the policies, vote from home, attend neighborhood meetings?
Consumers are way too passive for any industry's good. We will have to take that into consideration for a long time I'm afraid.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Alright. The DoJ clearly isn't doing a good job. The states' case is just going to be appealed anyway and likely won't do a very good job either. Why don't we just apply the same standards you and I would be held to? Let's get together a jury of Microsoft's peers. Let's see here:
1) Microsoft is an OS vendor. Sun, Be (what's left of 'em), and Apple ought to be there.
2) Microsoft is an office apps vendor. Lotus might like a seat.
3) Microsoft is a video game console vendor. I'm sure Sony and Nintendo have some choice words.
4) Microsoft provides internet service. Let's add AOL/TW.
5) Microsoft provides a web server, a database, a mail server, and other such apps. Let's get someone from the Apache foundation, Oracle, Sendmail, and what the hell, the Samba team too.
6) Microsoft writes a lot of buggy code, so let's get an old Netscape exec in too to round out our dozen.
I'll bet we'd see some substantive remedies then!
Before you complain that Be is hardly a peer of Microsoft, consider how 12 upper-middle-class white folks can be considered peers of a poor black woman.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Doesn't matter. Boot viruses load before the OS does anyway. Although in one way it makes sense to speak of a 'dos boot virus' since most of them were written on, compiled on, and intended to infect, DOS machines, in another way it makes no sense at all, a boot virus is a boot virus is a boot virus. There is really no DOS involved, because of course the boot virus does indeed load on boot, pre-empting the OS (whatever OS it happens to be) and taking direct control of the hardware.
So, yes, a 15 year old 'DOS' boot virus can and will take down an NT machine. Or for that matter Linux, OS/2, Darwin, etc.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"Given this, one has to wonder why Microsoft bothers to struggle for the last 5% of market share (they'd like to snuff Apple as well as Linux)..."
Because they consider Linux a serious threat. I think they know more about it than you do.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes
[sarcasm]I hate those lazy bums...[/sarcasm]
This is not a priority for 99.99% of the computing population.
And yet none of this changes the fact that recognizing bootable parititions is a job required of a boot manager. 99.99% of all people out there never run Disk Defragger, does this mean it doesn't have to work right?
Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
Wrong. That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes. If your hardware doesn't work in Linux, you're supposed to submit extremely detailed bug reports to mailing lists where they won't care about your problems or solve them in a timely fashion.
Actually, the parent poster is a bit closer to reality. MS does not, for the most part, produce drivers. The hardware manufacturers are responsible for that. In the Linux world, it is almost always some geek that does it for free. As you found, those geeks often are not too user-friendly.
Now, the reason h/w mfgs often do not write drivers for Linux (or Macintosh for that matter) is due to the fact that MS has 90+% of the market That is mostly (or at least partially) due to their anti-competitive practices.
It is a vicious cycle.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
it's only associated like that because people are bigots and view homosexuals as lame and or stupid. as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, saying something is gay is the same as taking any other minority and applying it to some crap.. "man those cars are built by (n-word), they suck", or "microsoft is a bunch jews". calling microsoft gay demeans the gay community, irregardless of "gay" having different meanings in the past. The fact is, no one says that they're "gay" anymore when they mean "happy", gay means homosexual and every other meaning has faded away.
BTW for all of you reading this thinking just how much you hate gays, "the best defence is a good offence" applies. You don't like others because you don't like yourself. Deal with your sexuality first before hassling others about theirs.
Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
Wrong. That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes. If your hardware doesn't work in Linux, you're supposed to submit extremely detailed bug reports to mailing lists where they won't care about your problems or solve them in a timely fashion.
Wrong. Making a hardware driver is no easy task, and their existence is generally based on the availability of specs. If there are no published specs for a piece of hardware, then forget about ever getting a driver (or least one that is complete) except from the manufacturer.
For a short time I was involved in the gnokii project, which was an attempt to make unix drivers for a few serial-based Nokia phones. Many of us spent days trying to reverse-engineer the serial protocol using a "man in the middle" computers. After almost 6 months of work, gnokii was finally able to send and receive text messages. However, the ultimate goal was to be able to make data calls. Unfortunately, Nokia used a key-based authetication mechanism to enable data calls, which I believe was so they could license the technology to other driver makers (like TDK's mobile stuff). This would have been a dead-end for gnokii, but then one day the key algorithm surfaced anonymously. Now gnokii can make data calls, although I question the legality of it.
Anyhow, after around 3 years under development, the project is still not at version 1.0, and I would imagine most users of those old Nokia phones have gone on. New Nokia phones nowadays use standard protocols (the 8890, for instance, acts as just an IR modem. Works in Linux 100% with no driver).
The moral of the story? If Nokia had released the full specs to their phones then I can guarantee there would have been fully-featured drivers within just a few months. Instead, the gnokii developers were forced to dick around with reverse-engineering, which is almost always a lost cause. Seen the Linux driver situation for Winmodems lately? Just forget about it.
I once wanted to make program to query GPS values from my Earthmate GPS device, so I went out and sought the hardware specs. The Earthmate uses the Zodiac chipset, of which there is a full PDF file available. I coded a simple program to interface with the Earthmate in only a few days. Mind you, this was for Windows 98. Linux is irrelevent here. Specs are all that matter.
The source to the operating system is not what is needed. Besides, with so many Linux Zealots raving about how crappy windows is, I am not sure that it would really be taken advantage of anyway. What should be done is to have the file-formats open sourced. This would allow people to use the Data/Files they created on any system they want and with any application they wish. This much is currently expected with the right to rip MP3's from CD's you own.
As I see it, it is only right that you should pay for an application you use if it is sold as a proprietary application. However, you should not be forced to continue to use that application to manipulate your files if a superior alternative exists.
Neither Microsoft nor Corel nor any other provider of a quality word processor owns the copyright to works I create with their application. So why should they require me to use only their application to manipulate those works.
END COMMUNICATION
That's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time.
What are the problems with it?
1) it requires you keep track of that floppy, and remember that you need it. When you typically reboot your system once every three months, that can be a challenge.
2) it requires that your system check the floppy drive. It's common to take the floppy out of the boot sequence, to either speed up the boot sequence or to make it a bit harder for a casual attacker. (In an office, the BIOS may also be password protected. It won't stop anyone who knows how to clear the BIOS, but many casual attackers won't know this.)
3) it requires that your system have a floppy drive. Most of my systems don't - they have an IDE ZIP disk in place of the floppy.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I'm sure that, sometime during the antitrust cast against Rockefeller's oil monopoly, they cried about how the quality of oil the consumer gets would decline if they were'nt in charge of every drop of it.
Yep, the old "we're doing it for the consumer's benefit" plea. How can they continue with the "Msft is a giant because of consumer choice" party line and, at the same time, do everything possible to take away consumer choice? And I don't mean consumers 'chose' dos back in 1981 and so it's gotta to be that way forever. I mean, just like in the US once a politician is democratically elected he isn't in power forever, every 2-4-6 years he has to be chosen again.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In fact, they can even go so far as to install Linux onto it but without touching the default boot sector (so Windows boots up as usual the first time the system boots from the hard disk).
Then they ship a bootable CD whose sole purpose is to allow the user to configure the system any way he/she wants prior to starting the system. On of those options is to define how the partition mentioned above gets used: it can be used as another Windows partition, or the Linux installation on it can be "activated" (doing so will, of course, cause the bootloader to be replaced with the bootsectors for a dual boot system so that Linux or Windows can be booted). It should also be possible to configure various things about the Windows installation, such as which browser is the default, etc.
The vendor can then set up the system (they control the BIOS, right?) so that it requires the configuration CD the first time the system is booted (and thereafter until the configuration CD runs -- the config CD can change the BIOS settings so that the system will boot as normal once the user decides how he wants his system configured).
Point being that in this case it is the user who takes the actions, not the vendor. The vendor is merely giving the user the tools to accomplish the things mentioned above.
I'd love to see Microsoft try to argue against this in court in front of the judge, since doing this simply gives the user options and doesn't change the user experience except through the user's own actions. If Microsoft's position is that the user isn't fit to decide for himself what he wants, then it will be exposed by their objection to this scheme.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Mr. Jones answered: "I don't think people buy Windows because Microsoft is a monopoly. I go to work every day to build great products that people are going to love."
:-)
Unfortunately, counsel did not retort, "If you believe the users love your products, set them free. If they come back, they are yours. If they don't, they were never yours to begin with."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
unnatural, huh? so you suppose gay people CHOOSE to be gay? Why the hell would anyone choose to be gay? when did you CHOOSE to be straight? Sexuality isn't something you choose. Homosexuality happens in other animals as well, from aligators to penguins. Perhaps they chose to be gay as well, cuz it's the "in" thing to do??
lemme ask you this. if one of your kids turned out to be gay, what would you do? If you think you can control their sexuality, or "protect" them, you're wrong. Are you going to be disgusted at your own child?
As for your eating shit comment, I have no idea where you get this idea that gays eat shit, any more so than heteros do.
I don't care what other meanings it has, it's still offensive. If it's offensive, stop it.
Why is the argument for overly P.C.-isizing one's comments more valid than the argument for the reader to simply choose against taking offense?
It seems to me that there are two components to an offense: the offender, and the offendee. Why should the offender be compelled to censor his verbiage, and the offendee not expected to control his emotional reactions?
There will always be offensive people, but it remains *your* choice whether to take offense, or to simply ignore the comment. That choice is the difference between lot of unecessary distress, and a bit of serenity.
the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.
are they saying that some confused customer will create a new paration on their HD, format it, and install and configure linux on it all out of confusion???
how bout -5, homophobic and ignorant.
nice how you guys are posting as AC's, whats the matter, don't want everyone to know yer full of hate and fear?
It used to be possible to run gcc under the older versions of Windows (9X, NT, 2000). But under Windows XP, they sabotaged any attempt to make the Gnu libraries the default.
When you try to install the Windows version of gcc under XP, the OS detects that the MS libraries are no longer the default, and it immediately resets the links to the Gnu libraries to point to the MS libraries.
That creates a "jolting experience" for anyone who tries to compile Gnu software under XP.
The flintstones still refer to "gay" as happy, and if it is good enough for the children of America, it is good enough for me.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
You're probably talking about the last phase of the install that is run on the user's deployed machine. The actual Windows XP installer is based on NT's and text-menu based. And as I explained in my other comment, it is far inferior in functionality to all Linux installers (with the exception of hardware detection).
I realize I probably shouldn't be feeding the troll, but WinXP has no command line process to its setup. Having installed XP Pro on 10 machines in the past week (all from scratch) I the only "command line" aspect of the setup is the very beginning where you have to press keys to select the partion you want it installed on (as in "Press C to create a partition"). Win XP is by far the easiest install I've ever seen (which admittedly doesn't include Mac installs). It's literally select a few options and your done.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
For all of the people who don't understand how hard it is to write drivers for Linux I suggest to read Linux Device Drivers by Alessandro Rubini and Jonathan Corbet:
This book has 586 pages and it is still not everything there is to know about writing device drivers for Linux. And this is only if you have the hardware specification, because if you don't, then the reverse engineering makes it a whole lot more difficult task. Those "lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes" are actually working very hard to provide their drivers to the community, and they deserve a lot of respect for what they do for us, as well as for their great knowledge, skills and experience.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Ah, I'd forgotten about the reboots the windows installer requires, yes, that is really annoying, and linux does all in one sweep.
EnkiduEOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Here we have yet another senior MS executive who is saying that
- MS should be able to restrict competition if it thinks it's in the interests of the consumer
- arguing that the decisions that they made about Netscape (and found to have been illegal and against consumer interests) are in the consumer's interests
- arguing that having a machine boot up into Linux by default is bad for consumers. (remember that they argued that Linux is one of the few viable competetor to themselves).
They are, in effect, arguing that the DOJ agreement should stand because it would allow them to continue the sorts of anti-competitive actions that they've been convicted of, and that the agreement is supposed to remedy.Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
If you're going to do something as pointless as posting song lyrics that have nothing to do with the story to be discussed, then at least get the lyrics right (at least you chose a good song, although perhaps in your case you should remember that other Tremeloes' song, "Silence Is Golden").
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
There is one better than that... no setup at all. You buy your PC at Frye's, bring it home, plug it in, and everything is already set up and ready to use. That's what Microsoft has now, and what it is desparately trying to keep any other OS from obtaining.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's hard to sell office PCs at loss.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
of Microsoft to impair competitors' software and flood courts with cases where everyone and his brother who wrote any software for Windows will sue Microsoft for losses suffered from this?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I mean, seriously dude, what they're arguing here is that it's good that they're shutting out competition. That's about as anti-free-market-capitalist as you can get. A free market has competition. Microsoft is the OS market. And it's not good for consumers or OEMs.
I'm not saying that Rich=Evil. But I don't believe that Rich!=Evil either. But it's sure evident that Microsoft is Rich AND Evil.
You're right! This is horrible! People should only be required to submit extremely vague, generic bug reports (e.g. "It's not working right").
Actually, why should they have to submit bug reports at all? Can't the developers just know when there are bugs and fix them, remotely downloading the binary patch to every affected person's computer, even if that computer doesn't have a network connection?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
This post for instance, explains about how Microsoft added a software loop to Windows NT 4.0 to intentionnally slowdown the OS on Cyrix processors, so as to give partner Intel a competitive edge.
Well, even if MS does this (disable a boot manager), I am sure there will be some crackers over the internet to code some illigal software that disables windows from disabling the boot managers. What's more, this software might be included in standard Linux or FreeBSD (or whatever) releases.
Hmm...I kinda doubt that. If it was illegal (and I'm not sure in this case that it would be - I don't think running a boot manager is a DMCA violation...), I think most linux distributions would stay away from it, because they want to remain legal.
Now, if MS has it's way, and gets Free Software outlawed - THEN that open up a whole other ball of wax.
If you really want to show the courage of your
convictions lets see you stop liking women and
start liking men. If someone did this I might
reconsider how obviously wrong you are.
As it is, this whole situation with Catholic
priests is a perfect demonstration of the
situation. Here is a bunch of gay guys that said
"being gay is a choice, I don't have to be gay.
I can be celebate." Great outcome, huh?
Ah, now that is important! Okay, I'll continue my paranoia. Formerly, it was suspicious paranoia. Now, with your help, it is informed paranoia!
-Paul Komarek
Then why doesn't the Windows XP installer recognize my FreeBSD and Linux partitions and allow me to select them from its boot manager, or allow me to resize or create any non-Windows file system?
You know, I installed Debian Linux on a friend's PowerBook the other day, and I discovered something awful. The installer wouldn't let me resize or create any HFS+ filesystems! Dammit!
So we gave up and tried to re-install OS X... only to find that the OS X installer wouldn't let me resize or create any ext3 or ReiserFS filesystems!
Somebody's gotta put a stop to this conspiracy!
I love this guy's comments. IMHO, this was the worst week MS has had in the whole trial, including the week of Allchin's video.
After testifying under oath that Windows XP could not be modular, Gates confirmed under cross examination that it could be modular. That a modular version works, exists and is shipping. And that the only reason PC OEM's don't use it is because MS won't let them.
He also admitted that several of the actions the appeals court found illegal would not have been prevented by the MS/DOJ settlement, but would have been by the State's proposal.
Gates tops it off by threatening the court. Issue an order we don't like, and we will take Windows off the market. Thereby initiating a new dark age.
Then, this VP gets on the stand and says in effect that OEM's can put whatever icons they like on the desktop, but MS will still decide what programs carry out what functions. MS, in other words, would be compelled by the DOJ settlement only to appear to obey the law.
Don't think for a second that all this was lost on the judge. The one place MS' government allies cannot protect it is in open court. If she were so inclined, the judge could dismiss the State's case and rubber stamp the DOJ settlement and be done with it. Unless the MS boys made that impossible. Last week, they did.
I didn't make that comparison, you did. At issue isn't how many people Stalin killed, but his style of economic organization. Stalin built the Soviet economy by single-mindedly focussing on political unity, productivity, and centralization, which is quite analogous to the style of non-competition and centralization Gates apparently wants in the computer industry. And that's a quite valid comparison because, in the end, whether pushed by Gates or Stalin, this economic strategy is doomed to failure, even if it looks attractive at first. What's particularly obnoxious about Gates is that he proclaims himself a free-market champion when what he is arguing for is Soviet-style centralization in the computer software industry.
Do you think there might be some way you can have that evaluation published (on the web or otherwise)? I would really like to get my hands on something like that.
The URL in the story points to some poor guy who is absolutely not an MS exec and who finds it hilarious that he's linked from Slashdot, and writes on his page that "Well, now we KNOW that /. can't possibly check its links".
The correct page for this Microsoft executive is here.
There will always be offensive people, but it remains *your* choice whether to take offense, or to simply ignore the comment. That choice is the difference between lot of unecessary distress, and a bit of serenity.
Ignoring the fact that someone is hurting you is just as bad as ignoring the fact that you're hurting someone else. Fine, don't love gays. Not all gays love heteros. But why needlessly hurt someone when you can avoid it simply by using more appropriate words? Why?
In MacOS there are lots of "extensions" which extend the UI, by adding special hot spots, menus, tweak the (consistent BTW) save and load dialogues. I have used many and like some. What does MS gain by keeping these off of the OEM market? What's wrong with selling a Compaq Desktop with and "Enhanced Start Menu?". This may be confusing to some consumers, but some may benefit. Isn't that what an ecosystem is about?
And none of that part of the UI would be changed by allowing other programs to be installed. I agree that the basic UI paradigm hasn't changed, but it hasn't changed in KDE, Gnome or MacOS either. If it was changed, then people wouldn't buy it because it would make their computing experience confusing. This is called competiion.No argument from me on that point.
Make meEnkiduEOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
They all reboot after install to boot the installed system, AFAIK.
Yep, you can see them too at the Museum of Soviet Calculators, a way cool web site. Mostly, they were junky knock offs of Japaneese models. You had to be special to have one. I also remember reading about their failed efforts to keep up with the growing US PC market by making poor quality Apple II clones. Duh, you don't think a country that put gaurds around photo coppiers would make other means of publication available would you? Thanks for pointing it out for us!
Oh well, with the demise of the old devils our friends in Washington are free to clamp down and act just like the old USSR. Hopefully, the good people of Europe and Asia can get their acts togeter enough to provide US citezens with alternate places to live. Sheesh. As our government eliminates the Bill of Rights so that they can tax us all to hell, there's less practical difference between here, Canada, England and France. Competition, my friend, is a good thing.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If it's offensive, stop it.
Barking commands at people is not going to get them to change their minds or their behavior. Perhaps it might have been lost on some, but my post was intended to be funny. That said, I hate the fact that people use the word "gay" to mean "stupid," "poor-quality," "unfair," or any other negative term. How should I combat this?
What I won't do is complain and whine about how "offended" I am. That never works. What I will do is dialog with people and ask them, "Is this really what you mean?" I think many people throw the word "gay" around like a cheap whore primarily because they have no gay friends or family (that they know of). Once people realize that their words have meaning and impact on other people, then they usually change their minds.
And if they don't, then they're just bigots and get added to the killfile.
It stands to be said again and again: You have no right to not be offended.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Not for Microsoft. They have a monopoly. MS can and does FORCE all of the OEM's to install the newer operating system. Everything you say would be applicable but for the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly. I never said that Microsoft always provided an inconsistent interface. I said that Microsoft only provided it to maintain their monopoly, not for the good of the consumer or the ISV's. When MacOSX threatened to make the old Windows interface look, well old, Microsoft responded by making their interface INCONSISTENT with the old interface in order to add "snap".
No it wouldn't, it would hurt Compaq's bottom line becuase Compaq wouldn't be able to call it Microsoft windows but Compaq Enhanced windows. Just as the enhanced Sony Vaio interface, you claim, is hurting their sales. The converse also holds true, if Compaq were to create a useful enhancement to the interface, they would benefit the consumer and their own brand, not Microsoft. You seem to be under the impression that any alteration to the Microsoft UI would be labelled "Microsoft". That would be a trademark violation and illegal. OK, here's a few for you:- Adding the cofusing IE disk browsing in addition to the standard Explorer browsing to kill Netscape. By my count, there are in NT, three different screens to browse my hard disk, all of them different in subtle ways.
- Double clicking on mp3's launches MSMediaPlayer by default.
- Forcing OEM's to hide the Netscape icon in favor of the IE icon
- Forcing OEM's to prominently display the MSN icon over the AOL/Earthlink icon.
- Allowing "Open Office Document" to have a special place in the Start menu.
- Preventing OEM's from removing the IE icon.
- Preventing OEM's from showing the Real Networks icon on the Desktop.
- Preventing OEM's from installing QuickTime by default.
I'll think of some more. Have you read Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact? You really should read it. Boy, you really have been drinking the Bill-Aid. I never said it didn't benefit people. I did say that Microsoft doesn't provide much consistency across versions and that they change the UI to stifle competition. Show me a company which runs Windows95, 98, 2000, NT4.0 and XP and I'll show a company with a seriously harried IT staff. Most big companies upgrade everything at the same time because of inconsistencies from version to version. How? Alterations can be beneficial or detrimental. Are you saying that it's impossible to improve the Microsoft Windows interface? It's perfect then, eh? Changing the UI, BTW, doesn't have to change the underlying system calls (unless you're microsoft trying to fuck a potential competitor). The same software will still run. Ever heard of modularity? Microsoft has nothing to lose. Customers can't find things. Customers need retraining. Microsoft doesn't pay for training! If you think that people don't need retraining when they move from 95 to NT to 2000 to XP you are sorely mistaken. Which customers did they lose? They have a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Repeat after me: Microsoft is a monopoly.There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Uh, yeah. The Catholic Church big, rich, and evil. Just take a gander at the last 1,000 years of history there, Chief. It's not evil *because* it's big and rich, but it's big and rich because it's evil.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're right. The next time I walk down the street and give a black guy with the cheery greeting, "How's it going, nigger?" I'll give him your lecture on the necessity of controlling his emotional reactions if he he gets huffy.