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 ..."
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
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
That's just it. How many of the 280 million people in the U.S. know, for example, what a kernel is? I don't know if it's fair to equate "computer illiterate" with "idiot".
However, many of these novices end up purchasing new computers and hoping they can learn something without breaking the thing. You can imagine a call to Windows tech support from someone using Windows that has had the Start button removed.
Dual boot could be a problem depending on how it's done. If there was a giant Windows logo on the front of the box, but it booted into Linux by default, then you could have some confused users.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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!
I might be wrong here but..
When you buy a computer pre installed with OEM Windows, the support comes from the vendor, not MS. Ever see an OEM disk? It specifically states to contact the vendor for support. How would allowing a vendor to install whatever make it harder on MS? If the vendor installs it, the vendor supports it. This is no different for OEM hardware. MS will help you if you call them but you will pay for it. Sounds like MS is trying to increase the FUD factor for a practice that has already been in existance for years.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
"You can imagine a call to Windows tech support from someone using Windows that has had the Start button removed."
You know, you have a point there. I think that in order to protect everyone from having to ever think again, we should take this to its natural conclusion. Since very few people know what a soffet is, I propose that the world forcefully aggregates all building materials and building technologies to a single company (how about Black & Decker, since that's a well-known company).
I further propose that any attempt to produce any non-B&D tools, machinery, or compatible technologies be punishable by multimillion dollar fines since any new construction will obviously be infringing on B&D's intellectual property. After all, it's well known that building materials and techniques were all invented by Black & Decker.
Any improvements to existing technology must also be banned because it might hurt Black & Decker's profits and the resulting tools may confuse non-builders who believe that complex projects should build themselves.
Also, Black & Decker should be allowed to automatically seek out and destroy competing tools in order to ease the confusion of the end user. After all, swinging a hammer with a blue grip is much different from swinging a hammer with a red grip. Such disparity in the end user's experience is harmful to the industry. Imagine what would happen if the end-user bought a toolbox with a big Black & Decker logo on the side, but found a non-Black & Decker hammer inside. Oh the horror.
I'm 10 years in computer service bussines and I've never heard that kind of things. I've heard that Microsoft drivers cause software bad blocks, IBM even released DFT (must be invoked if driv consists MS Operating System) memo around to resellers.
On the other side, I've already seen for quite a few times Windows destroying MBR block (no Linux was on the scene). This and bad sectors were caused by software error in 90% so I think more like LILO was trying to load from MBR and yes, LILO was causing noisy sounds.
Not to start a flamewar, but counting my machines: Windows disk failures 6 : Linux 0. And I'm mostly deploying linux servers with multiple hard drives.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
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.
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)
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
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); }
The problem is with service packs and updates. If you remove stuff arbitrarily, it is extremely difficult for Windows Update or service packs to work properly.
¦ ©® ±
And when Microsoft causes Windows service packs to deactivate application software like Eudora, and replace it with other application software like Outlook, and dosot on Federal Interest Computers -- as they have done, then Microsoft has committed a felony. And should have been punished accordingly: not simply broken up into different divisions, but broken up, dissolved, and all their assets confiscated.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
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.
And which OS would be a successor for Windows?
- Linux - forget it. Fine for techies, unusable for computer illiterates.
- Minix - ahahahahahaha! No comment.
- Other Unices/BSD - see Linux.
- BeOs - gone.
- QNX - fits on a disk, contains a GUI and a browser. But it's still far too geeky.
- Several Windows Clones/free implementations of the Windows API - latest thing I saw was a blue screen, so a part of the kernel was already there.
- A new development? Stuff it. We need something now. And right now there is nothing that could match Windows when it comes to companies and "normal" consumers.
I guess not only companies would be fucked. What about you? What about me?Microsoft dead is a damn bad thing, if you ask me. (No, I don't work for them, no, they don't pay me. This is just my opinion.) Splitting stuff like the HTML control (the Internet Explorer is in fact just a window around that control) from the rest of the OS would be a stupid thing to do. But letting vendors place other icons on the desktop - damn, who cares?
(In desperate search for a cool
Unusable for computer illiterates? When did you use Linux last? Redhat 5 with Kernel 2.0??
Redhat is not the most user friendly (they market for the server end.) Use a desktop based distro, like Mandrake, SUSE or hell, even Lycoris.) my mother uses Linux (SUSE). No problems.My wife uses Linux. My GRANDMOTHER uses Mandrake (installed myself and givena s an xmas present) no problems....so what about it not being usable to computer illiterates?
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
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.
Linux - forget it. Fine for techies, unusable for computer illiterates.
If Windows ceased to exist, you'd be very suprised at how fast Linux would become usable by the masses. Remember neccessity is the mother of invention. I'd bet overnight, RedHat would be a billion dollar company, within a week, every Dell would ship with Linux and within a month IBM would be fielding a new version of OS/2. There would be no shortage of companies rushing to fill the void and of all the alterentive OS's, Linux is the closest to being viable on the desktop.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development