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 ..."
It is somewhat akin to saying a GE refigerator can prevent a non-GE toaster in the same house to protect the homeowner. People are losing sight that a computer is a tool on which programs are loaded. No where does it say that one appliance should dictact your other appliances, nor should one piece of software dictate what other software can run.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
"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.
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'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.
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.
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)
It used to be that OEMs like HP would provide all sorts of user-friendly tools to help new users orient to their computer. These tools would occasionaly replace various bit of Windows functionality in some cases. An example might be a specialized "Start" button that would pop up a friendly menu tailored for the software that HP chose to install. HP might include a registration wizard that popped up the first time a person hit the Start button, etc.
;-) Windows "look-and-feel". They claimed that this hurt users by breeding confusion. Later on, HP released statistics from their tech support department that showed users had a far harder time without HPs changes to Windows, contradicting Microsoft's claim. Furthermore, HP saw the percentage of registrations fall; I'm sure that Microsoft saw their Windows registrations rise.
Microsoft rewrote its OEM contracts to forbid such behavior, publically claiming that it hurt the integrety of the "consistent" (their word, not mine
More recently, Microsoft has claimed that allowing OEMs to customize Windows before shipping a machine to a customer violates their Windows copyright. In effect, I believe their argument is that the OEMs are creating an unauthorized derivative work. Ironically, it's because of Microsoft's successful defense against Apple that look-and-feel is not protected by copyright, and hence the OEMs cannot possibly be violating Microsoft's Windows copyright when they mess with the desktop icons and start button.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that the witness was trying to confuse or pursuede the judge with this statement. That is, Microsoft is trying to spread FUD in the courtroom. I'm really hoping that Judge Collen Kollar-Kottelly has learned enough computer history to be able to discard such nonsense. Failing that, I'm hoping that she is smart enough to recognize unsupported FUD and dismiss it when making her decision.
-Paul Komarek