Slashdot Mirror
States Drop Planned Presentation of Modular Windows
sketchkid writes "CNBC just reported that the nine states have dropped their planned presentation of a version of Windows XP without certain "middleware". Apparently, Microsoft said the news of this presentation blindsided them and that they would need "an indefinite period of time to prepare its response", but the states don't want to prolong the case any more."
Does modular Windows actually mean I can take out the junk I don't want to use, like, ohhh, the Window ASPs, and replace them with something good, such as Linux? Wait, I can do that already anyway.
Isn't demonstrating a modular Windows key to the States' case showing it can be done? Maybe they had problems with their version and didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot...
One question. Why? Wouldn't this seem to be the keystone in the case?
Lousy facepalm.
noooooooooooooo!!!!
they're wussing out???
darn those MS Lawyers...
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
That's not a bad strategy... announce that it will take forever to prepare a rebuttal, knowing the states want this trial over with NOW. Although its curious that the states obviously dont think this testimony will be strong enough for the end result to be worth it. Bottom line: It's dirty tactic, but legal, and afterall, it's Microsoft.
Once upon a time...
I guess Microsoft bought them off too
I dunno if it matters much -- there really isn't any big argument about whether some stuff could be separated from Windows, only whether it "should" be separated. In some ways, the states may gain a benefit since the judge knows there is a demo out there showing it works (sure, she's supposed to disregard evidence that wasn't formally submitted, but how can you really ignore an offer of evidence that goes to the very core of the case?)
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
Think of it from the States' point of view: "Yeah, we've got a version of the OS running modularly, but you didn't want us to show it. So no, you can't see how we did it. But you'd better get cracking."
In addition, they don't actually have to demonstrate its stability and all that -- it's just taken at face value that it's stable enough, since that's how it was presented when it was introduced.
This is great. Looks like a win-win scenario for the States.
"Apparently, Microsoft said the news of this presentation blindsided them and that they would need "an indefinite period of time to prepare its response" you mean prepare its excuse..
MS Marketing and sales personnel probably make presentations on XP Embedded every week. Surely MS can just fly a couple of their marketing people to help fill in the gaps where the demo falls short.
It surprises me that M$ could be "blindsided" by that announcement. You would think that with all of the resources M$ has at their disposal (what with their $40 billion in cash reserves) that they would have already been prepared for all angles that the states would take.
IMHO, I think they were just stalling for time in the hopes that the states would drop the matter. Which they did. Chalk one small victory up for the evil empire.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Not that surprising really. Having used Embedded NT in the past I was more then a little confused as to what they where going to demonstrate. Sure, embedded windows is modular during the rollout phase. However once installed it cant be changed. In other words you cant install Word onto it once its up and running. In this respect it is not a good example of what the DOJ is after MS to produce, a modular end user OS.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
That's what you get for clicking "online M$ update" when you're trying to prep a demo...
And what was the computer name? DOJ-DEMO or 9ST-THINWIN? I bet m$ never saw it coming
and sorry bout the a/c - misplaced my Palm 505...
In the Microsoft Dictionary we find: Prepare (v) Rig.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Every time, these convicted criminals get the breaks, if not from the Justice, then from those supposed to pursue the case to its penalty resolution. Now they are in the position to dictate the terms of their own remedy.
There is a special spot in hell being warmed for these guys!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I wonder if anyone has checked Microsoft's checking account for any recent 'transactions' with the guy who was to testify.
For M$, anyhting can be bought.
The states had MS nailed on the modularity issue. They should push on. I smell some campaign funds being spread around.
It's MS's product. How long can it take for MS to study an MS product and work up a defense?
This isn't even as fun as the Wookie defense.
wouldn't that be another way of saying they have no way to defend against it because despite MS claims it can be done. this sounds very much like an admission of guilt.(vieled of course)
Hard to say whether this was good or bad for either side. I think the states really don't want to drag things out anymore, inasmuch as one of the major planks of any remedy is expeditious application to make up for literally years of unrestrained behavior by Microsoft.
Lately, though, it seems that the states' legal team screwed up in some filings and when MS pulled witnesses at the last minute, they lost windows of opportunity to present evidence that the proposed DoJ remedy is woefully weak.
Still, I would not be at all surprised to see a ruling that the states have a valid claim, followed by the DoJ and MS agreeing to another round of talks to bring the settlement closer to what the non-settling states want. Anything else would result in chaos, given that MS has to conduct business in settling states and non-settling states simultaneously.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Perhaps the states know that whether or not they can show it can be done is more of a moot point. The point of the penalty phase is to enforce the penalty, and if the penalty is to modularize Windows then they have to pay that penalty despite the cost. Whether or not they've alredy done it with XP Embedded doesn't really matter as much.
Granted, I think showing off XP Embedded would have been a good thing (from what little I admittedly know about it) but perhaps they've got enough already. We all can acknowledge that speed is of the essence.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Don't be such a tool.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
I hope the States at least mention
www.98lite.net
and its
http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html
Been how many years since that company proved explorer could be taken out of 98.
Is anyone else tired of seeing tiny scraps of news about MS on Slashdot everyday? There's two articles about MS today, one yesterday. Thinking back, it seems that there have been one or two stories posted about Microsoft everyday lately.
I like Slashdot for stories about tech, science and geek curios. Could the editors leave reporting every detail of the trial to CNN, and focus on more interesting stuff? Please?
Oh, you said *Windows*? We thought you were talking about windows, you know in your house. An operating system, of course, how silly of us. Sure, you could modularlize it, no problem.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
It is very interesting. The plans to demonstrate a version of Windows with removable features was abruptly canceled nine states. Because they made the decision to avoid prolonging the case after Microsoft said it needed an indefinite period of time to prepare its response.
I'm surprised that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was unhappy with the states for introducing the material in the eighth week of hearings.
It really would take an indefinite time period to un-fuck windows. Anybody who has done coding for an O/S or a large application knows the difficulties inherent in un-fucking any kludgey pile of spaghetti code.
More problems would be introduced in the process, rendering the final product very unstable. This is exactly what Microsoft wants to demonstrate--that the O/S can not function with IE removed.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
It's ironic seeing that advertisment with a hand handing over cash in the article with the M$ story. I bet that's exactly what the states saw when they dropped their display of modular windows.
"By Jove Sherlock, I've found the bloody knife with Moriarty's fingerprints all over it!"
"That's astounding, Watson! I want to see this evidence. Moriarty, how do you feel about this?"
"The law allows me time to consider this evidence, and I will need an infinite amount of it."
"Well, we don't have an infinite amount of time, therefore we do not have enough time to consider the knife. Too bad, I really wanted to see it."
"Case dismissed."
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
I really, really, really hope this is a good judge. There is plenty of good signs, she allowed this demo, but she's been *really* careful to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and every turn. Microsoft has been convicted and that conviction has been upheld on appeal, so she has only to set a fair and reasonable sentence.
The real concern I have is that she's been so good there is not going to be much room for an appeal either way ...
An attorney for the states said they had made the decision to avoid prolonging the case after Microsoft said it needed an indefinite period of time to prepare its response.
Why didn't they at least wait until the judge made a comment about this? If MS did indeed state this, isn't a contempt of the law/judge, since MS already have stated this is impossible, and therefore should only be given a fixed time to prepare. As I remember the judge found this information rather useful for the case/ruling.
If the judge does not refuse this withdrawel of evidence, I figure the states have already lost.
Argh, this made my head hurt.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
I had this hope, you know, that the people here who said "the states are just holding out for money" were wrong; that the states actually cared. I saw this demo and thought "yes, this may be the final straw." Clearly I was naive and overly optimistic.
I'd like to know what a lawyer has to say about whether Microsoft would indeed be given "indefinite time" for its response or would rather the Judge would tell them they're screwed. The fact the states gave up their most damning presentation just because Microsoft basically said they had no defense is to me unforgivable. Is there no hope? Do people not care anymore?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Other then the fact the dude is a millionare. ???? How? How could that have happened? Well, he's so well know for the OS, that Red Hat gave him a ton of shares that neted him a cool few million. Then, he was hired by transmetta for a few million every year because of his skillz. Yes, that's skillz with a z =P
OK... So I go to read the article and I got this advertisement
:)
It isn't the text... it is the image right next to the article!
Mod this up as funny!
Robber (M$): gimme all your money!
Victim (9 states) sure! let me just holster my gun that I could have killed you with!
I don't think that was a good move. They had evidence that could have possibly proven Bill G. lied in court and that Windows could be made modular. Any attack would have been better than no attack at all.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
Just until the next version, (what, Longhorn?) to come out? That'd kick the legs right out from under the whole wossname, eh?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
From their decision it looks like the states are commited to beating Microsoft. They obviously want this to get solved now.
On the other hand if they had waited this out it would have been severely damaging to Microsofts case. Oh well.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove. In reality reducing it to a demo of someones hack to put XP embedded on a PC only risks making it look bad. In reality, I think it's better this way.
Remember: Everything Bill Gates et al said on the stand would lead the judge to think it can be done... and if she thinks that a demo cannot do anything more...
I was happy to see the judge allow the demo in the first place, but not so much so she would see it, but because it shows she's open to evidence that Microsoft is culpable and not particularly honest in what it claims to the court.
-pyrrho
Dragging this whole affair out has been to Microsoft's advantage since the beginning, and they're squeezing every possible drop from it. In the meantime they continue to work unregulated and haven't changed any of their business practices: the playing field of the browser war (which initially started this) has altered dramatically since. It's likely that unless new evidence of continued abuse can be brought to the attention of the courts, andy remedy handed down will be both out of date and inadequate.
Any spoon would be too big.
Snapshot that embedded XP release, 10 to 1 they pullit and revamp it to
change the past, thats why they need time. They totally would sacrafice
a product to win a court case.
I've just run into somthing similar as reguards to winsock direct, they've
pulled all the docs and sample driver away because they are going to change
it and don't want developers to develop for it in there advertized DDK way.
They don't want to admint they totally messed up, so they are covering it up,
revamping it and re-releasing it.
mycal
This isn't a total victory for them. Granted they didn't get to enter it into evidence, but everyone heard it is possible. It's not as good as a demonstration, but you can bet the judge got the point, even if it can't be used as a legal justification for her ruling.
[/mnt/win_ntfs/program files/internet explorer]% more 98lite.bat
/y "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"
deltree
Of course it CAN be done. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that by removing IE's core components, you also tend to break a lot of applications. No one seems to freakin' mention that for 98lite to COMPLETELY remove IE from Windows 98, you need to provide the Windows 95 explorer.exe, comctrl32.dll, and shell32.dll files. Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.
So yeah, from a _Windows 98_ machine, it's impossible to remove all of IE's "core components" (well whatever you consider them) and still have a functioning Win98 machine, without additional modifications. You will undoubtedly break some apps, or have future apps be broken that have shdocvw.dll or mshtml.dll (a LOT) as dependencies.
Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux and tell me how that goes. Remember Linux is "modular"!
how can the states create their own version of Windows without violating the DMCA?
You need to think a little bit more like lawyer to see how they can score points in the trial.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
this isn't a troll, this is truth
Actually, bringing in a major piece of evidence eight weeks into the trial with no warning is usually considered a dirty tactic.
Check my journal and Trollaxor.com when it comes back online. I thank you for your interest in my work.
--Weenus
The amount of trouble MS would have to go through to get windows un-fucked, and the amount it would huirt the functionality of their product, is not really an issue the court should care too much about.
What matters is, what is needed to restore competition in the computer apps market? Once the answer to that is known, that is what the court needs to impose.
The thing that everyone keeps forgetting is that if MSIE is hard to extricate from the OS, *it is because microsoft designed it that way --for the sole purpose of evading court orders to extricate the two--*. It is very, very important to keep this in mind. It is not becuase of technical reasons. It is because with windows 98, microsoft tried to start intertwining DLLs with the purpose of making a "seperate the OS from the browser" order quote "impossible" unquote to carry out.
With that in mind, any crap that happens to microsoft as a result of the final judgement against them is not the court's problem. "You can't impose this judgement because we're going to drag our feet and we've been spending five years trying to ensure this judgement will be really hard to carry out" is not a reason to drop the judgement, it's a reason to fine the MS executives and split up the company, since htey've made it clear they will spit in the face of any judgement performed against them and made it clear the only way to get them to comply is to force them into a break up.
The "Ich bin ein Berliner" thing is actually inaccurate. Yes, there is a pastry in Germany called a "Berliner" which is sort of like a jelly doughnut -- for that matter, there is also a pastry called an "Amerikaner", which is like a large frosted cookie (don't ask). But Germans actually roll their eyes when American tourists laugh about Kennedy's quote, because the Germans not only perfectly understood what Kennedy meant, but also Berliners actually *do* call themselves Berliners.
Technically, he could have said "ich komme aus Berlin" (I come from Berlin) to avoid the theoretical confusion, but in the context of the speech it wouldn't have made any sense.
The Germans still revere Kennedy for having had the balls to stand up to Khrushchev and the DDR for putting up the Wall (or the "anti-fascist protection barrier" as the East Germans called it). Many German cities have a road or park named for him, more than any other American president or other foreign leader I can think of. There's even a memorial to Kennedy near the site of the Wall, which of course has "Ich bin ein Berliner" in huge letters on it. They hardly thought the quote was embarrassing. In context, it was a very stirring speech, one of the best he gave.
(Compare that to Clinton's rather lame "Amerika steht an Ihrer Seite, jetzt und fuer immer" -- "America stands at your side, now and for ever". Grammatically correct, but boring. Reagan didn't bother with German, but his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is at least more memorable.)
Anyway, see http://www.watzmann.net/scg/faq-25.html for a discussion of this.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
What the hell are the "Windows ASPs"?
For Microsoft to even possibly offer a "modular" version of Windows will lead to significant fragmentation. How would it even be possible for them to sell their OS in the market?
Now about Microsoft's software monopoly, specifically, Internet Explorer(IE) and Office. IE is integrated with Windows because these days, a web browser is a necessity, just as a calculator, or CD player is. Don't tell me it's not a necessity, because it IS. How many of you out there use a CD Player or Calculator as much as you do a web browser? Most of you don't, and one could even interpret that as meaning a web browser is MORE of a necessity than a calculator. But I don't really think that. I do however think that Microsoft has the right to bundle and integrate IE with Windows, just as they have the right to bundle Disk Defragmenter. And if there's a superior product like Norton SpeedDisk, people will use that instead, without needing to have the ability to uninstall Microsoft's Disk Defragmenter.
I think that IE's integration with Windows is great. Take for example the thumbnails you get of webpages and images when you select a file. I think that most people love that. And if you don't like it, and it slows down your computer, you can turn it off for God's sake. IE is the reason you can now right-click on a file or directory in your start menu, select "Rename" and be happy that you don't have to right-click on the Start button, click "Open", navigate through to the file, then rename it. There are even cooler time-saving things you can do if you install PowerToys, but that's off-topic.
Let's say Internet Explorer is no longer bundled with Windows. I'm pretty sure that AOL is bundled with every Windows computer on sale today and that AOL installs IE ever since version 3.0. That kind of defeats the purpose of removing IE, doesn't it?
To allow remedies that would make Windows modular would simply force Microsoft to remove Windows off the market. It would require significant re-engineering of the entire product, a task that could take years.
Windows XP Embedded is totally different. It's not meant fot the desktop. Ok, so it's the Windows XP kernel. Big deal. I doubt one could make a modular version of Windows with simply the XP Embedded code, that could run *every* single application that Windows XP can.
For the love of god please drop this needless Microsoft bashing already. You linux people come off as nothing more than a bunch of whiners who will do nothing but piss and moan to get your way. How about exerting your energies into making Linux more stable and feature filled? Huh, how about it? Put up or shut up. I have spent the last few months working on mods for Linux which will improve its threading and real time scheduling. What have you guys done?
Yah I thought so.
Oddly, this is exactly the same amount of time it would take M$ to apologize to everyone they have screwed over the years.
2. Microsoft bundles IE with Windows
3. Microsoft sais it would be difficult/impossible to unbundle it again.
I just don't get it.
I also can't build an extension of my house on the neighbours ground (= violate a contract) and later say "hey, hey, it will cost me too much to tear that extension down"
Can please somebody enlighten me why it is relevant how difficult a modular version of Windows can be done?
Why this strange double-standard?
Look, the bottom line is that of course it's modular and of course Microsoft has put connections to try to bind things together (in, many times, a really poor hack as I pointed out in a previous comment).
:-) )
The legal tactic the Gov is using is smart (for a change). They are pulling a "Microsoft" - say they are going to do it, so now people know it can be done, and then not doing it because it wastes time.
Go Gov! (in this case
If new evidence is going to be introduced, the Disclosure rule means that the defense (aka Microsoft) are entitled to see it beforehand, so they can make a defense.
Microsoft can't stall forever. The judge is supposed to set aside time for MS to regroup and plan, i'd guess about a month tops of recess until the case goes back into session. But that's what happens under normal circumstances, which begs the question:
WHY, oh WHY didn't they do that? It appears that the States didn't want to wait the extra time. So it moves forward to a verdict a month ahead of time. This sounds bad.
It's laughable. Everyone wants Microsoft beat down. Why? Anti-Trust laws were made to protect the consumer and so far this case has had nothing to do with consumer protection and everything to do with helping other businesses compete with the top dog. I have always had choices with respect to operating systems and what I want on them. I have always been able to add third party software OTHER than MSes to my PCs and have been able to set that software as the default for specific files is THAT APPLICATION allowed me to do so. Windows has never been prohibitive to myself nor millions of other consumers. True, I could not remove Media Player and IE. Never bothered me. Just ignore them.
The fact of the matter is that this case is based upon a bunch of corporate screwage that occurred. Other companies cannot compete with MS. Why? Because they're just that good. You know, the way that Linux is good. MS innovates. *shrug* Get over it. Look at the GUIs created for Linux releases and tell me what they look and act like? Windows. Why? Because it's good. Because consumers like it. Because it works (most of the time). Open your eyes. If you live in America, accept the capitalism that rules our nation and will always rule our nation. Life is unfair. So is business. The government trying to regulate business is akin to a socialist state. USSR anyone?
~Soukyan
Wake up dude. Hurting Microsoft will only hurt our economy. Wake the fuck up. Linux is shit, garbage, trash. WAKE the FUCK UP!
If Microsoft can get away with stalling more power to them. This whole fucking case against them is nothing more than a pile of shit and you fucking know it.
Hurting Microsoft only hurts the US economoy!
WAKE THE fuck up!
When will you guys ever learn. I have never ever seen such a bigger collection of stupid people in the same spot - ever!
They could only be planning an obfuscation, not a proper defense. The fact is, not for the first time, they lied shamelessly, they were called on it, and they don't want to admit it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Capitalism rules. You couldn't be more right.
Fuck free software and open sores. Fuck linus and his socialist tendencies. Fuck you slashdot fools.
$$$$ In the good old USA - GET OVER IT (and yourselves)!
The Slashdot editors only purport and bash Microsoft the way they do because it keeps them employed! Get it? You weak minded followers don't realize that, do you?
Now, go compile yor kernel.
And this differs from Microsoft's normal development procedures...how? They are perfectly capable of rolling out a completely new version of spaghetti-code Windows every two years, right?
I'm glad they dropped it... I use and enjoy Linux, others use and "enjoy" Windows (for better or [usually] for worse).
:) )
I still cannot fathom why the states want MS to strip Windows down to just the operating system. How could that possibly help the average consumer? Using the same unbundle apps from the OS "logic" to somehow level the playing field I can imagine a dim future where MSW will still be >> $99, but then add a browser add notepad, paint, defrag, solitare... Hummm, the states have now upped the price of a PC by a few hundred dollars(*see below), thanks for nothing. The large PC makers, Dell, Gateway, HPQ( or whatever that nonsense is known as) will stock their computers with software for people and what about the smaller PC manufacturers? They'll be out of business. I thought this case was about monopolistic practices, seems to me like they're just opening a whole different can of worms.
If MS wants to bundle software, good for them, its a product. People buy cars with tires, some toys come with batteries, etc etc etc... They don't let you "shop" around for third party add-ons at the purchase time.
Whatever happened to the blatantly illegal activities, price fixing, OEM threatening, EULAs that make no sense, the judgements against MS from
OS/2 days where the Judge had to rebuke the DOJ at the time for bending over backwards to not prosecute these activities. I feel very sad about the turn that this case has taken, maybe MS is right, its starting to look like AOL/SUN/etc have given the states more than just pointers, but directions as to what to prosecute.
ps. I haven't seen anyone post here that in fact Win9X runs under DOS. Yes, try it, make a boot disk, boot, c:\windows\win and there you have it, win9X == X + Qt + KDE == X + GTK + Gnome. (yes NT,XP,PeePee is different, by how much? dunno, but I doubt the GUI is the OS... they're just mingled
* You say run Linux... etc etc etc, "A suckers' born every day" - PT Barnum, sometimes people need to be protected from their own ignorance. Remember that people are still buying MSW even as you read this.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/xp/eval
and they say this:
any comments...
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
If MS really were allowed to have even a reletivly "short" period of time (a few months, as much as ayear), they could easily push super hard and complete th e"next" version of windows, so when the states finally present thier modular windows, MS can respond, "Oh, hey look at atht. You guys were rigth after all. Ok we'll start making modular XP. Oh, but we stopped selling XP two months ago, now we sell Windows ZP, where every single system call must first be translated into html and passed to the internal webserver to be proccessed, we call it 'local web services'."
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
If you say that something can be done, but only in an infinite amount of time, then that's logically equivalent to saying it can't be done. So, if MSFT wants to say they'll take forever to come up with a defense, ipso facto it means that there is no possible defense. Therefore MSFT is guilty. QED.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT HOW MODULAR WINDOWS XP/NT IS !!!!!!
will it allow OEM's to include multiple OS's on the bootloader without fear of recrimination from MS ?? NO (rip BeOS)
will it allow third party developers to openly interact with MS systems/formats/protocols - without resorting to reverse engineering which is now illegal (DMCA) ?? NO
will it stop MS from embracing and extending open standards and protocols and hence locking out competitors ?? NO
MS is brilliant - they are kicking up a huge fuss over something that at the end of the day doesnt impede their monopolistic practices/status much at all. The choice at the end of the day will still be MS + XYZ modules or MS + ABC modules - ITS STILL WINDOWS!!!!!!
Dude, he wasn't given it. He is the reason that there's food on the tables of the employees of red hat. They gave it to him because he earned it honestly. Everything he's done up to this day has been honest. He's even turned down millions just because he didn't want his name associated with any one distro and stiffle competition.
Would a modular version of Windows be good for:
1. Consumers?
2. Linux/Open Source alternatives?
3. The technology industry?
4. Microsoft?
I'm trying to imagine a modular-windows world. What would the pros/cons be? Is this an appropriate "punishment" for Microsoft, or should we be careful what we wish for?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Because unix works.
Browser in kernel? Why don't you build Empire state building in your kitchen. It'd look great as New York.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Something that rang my alarm bells about the 'modular embedded windows' is the fact that it doesn't have an automatic mechanism for installing additional programs.
I can't rule out that some unscrupulous hardware vendors may customise an 'embedded/modular Windows' to only allow installation of certain apps, namely apps supplied through the hardware vendor.
So you don't like the browser on the computer you bought from Acme Discounts Inc? You don't like the advert bars, and your browsing history being periodically sent to their servers? Tough shit! You're not allowed to install another browser.
Solution would be to install another OS. But, surprise surprise! Acme Discounts Inc has done some weird shit on the motherboard that requires a special driver, only available as a part of their custom cut of 'modular windows'. It won't take any other OS. Attempts to write a driver to work around this are forbidden under the DMCA!
Welcome to the death of the standard PC, and the birth of the corporate controlled 'computing appliance'! Imagine Acme Discounts Inc selling such hobbled machines below cost for years to kill the competition.
Yes, M$ are bad bastards, yes, they have a history of unconscienable conduct in the marketplace, but there are people who are just waiting for the first opportunity to do much worse!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
If it's really so easy to rip out the shell, then why isn't Microsoft demonstrating this in court? If it's as easy as you imply, then this shouldn't be such an issue.
I've only known one person who ran Litestep, and it was apparently very crashy, which to me implies that it's not quite so easy a thing.
In reality, the problem isn't just ripping out IE, like you say. The problem is all the business practices surrounding it. The inability for OEM's to bundle a competing browser, like Netscape or now Opera, on their systems. I bet a lot of random desktop users would be quite pleased with a bundled Opera.
Frankly, I could care less about taking IE all the way out of my system. The libraries it brings with it provide a lot of nice functionality. I'd like for them to not be loaded at startup, but rather be loaded on demand since I use Mozilla and rarely go to help files, but that's a small thing. But what I really want as a consumer is to have some choice when I buy a system. I don't necessarily want all my bundled software to made by Microsoft, and it's quite astonishing in many ways that people are forgetting this. This is the whole point of the modular windows penalty. It's not to get rid of IE, but rather to provide choice to customers, and thereby allow competition to re-enter the market.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
So they've created a version of Windows without some of the bloat. Great. But can't we do this ourselves?
If the states are able to create a modular version of Windows from what's already available, why hasn't someone already done this and distributed it on the web? This would most likely create a crippling effect for Microsoft in numerous ways. The obvious would be that they'd get REAL pissed off, but that's only a side effect. One trend that could be started is an underground revolution of sorts, where we create our own Windows distributions, passing it on to our friends and co-workers. This could possibly lead to the furthur development of projects like WINE and just disecting those stupid API's. Plus, if we do manage to pull off a stable Windows (yeah, I know, oxymoron alert), revenue spent on Windows tech support from computer manufacturers could possibly be redirected towards making a higher quality and/or cheaper product. Not to mention it would stop your parents from bugging you to come visit, mainly because their computer keeps freezing up.
Just imagine, perhaps one day you'll hear yourself saying, "Back in my day, we had a BSOD every day and a GPF every hour..."
This whole Microsoft trial has given everyone, pro- and anti- Microsoft a bad feeling. The pros because they feel that the world is out to get them and the antis because of all that MS has done to abuse it's position and it's total lack of respect of anyone and anything else. What saddens me is that it seems that MS will never lose any trial because even if they were to be broken up or whatever they would just ignore the judgement, as they have in the past and they would no doubt adapt by by moving all applications into the OS for example. It seems no American government will ever be able to or want to stop them.
In other words I think this trial is a waste of time. I think it would be better to fight MS's abuse there where one can, i.e. when they make a clear cut illegal licence or EULA and above all for OSS people to continue to improve the UI of Linux and to work towards making applications like OpenOffice and Mozilla better. At the same time it would be wise to continue the personal efforts to show schools and businesses that OSS can be just as good if not better.
Apart from that the one legal measure that would be the most telling would be an audit of MS' code to see where it truly comes from.
A previously promoted lawyer was demoted and returned to the US after Microsoft exceutives learned of the cancellation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
it's nice in the middle of one's day to read a well written rebuttal such as this one.
;)
mod this up, and have him replace Jon Katz
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
Finally someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.
All of the people who continue to whine and complain that MS doesn't open their code to allow other people to look at can't keep playing the violin for themselves. Mod me down, call me a troll, whatever but the bottom line is that you are asking for something that is never going to happen. If I owned a business that made money off of software code, I wouldn't allow a competitor to view the code. Plain and simple. It would be bad business and just plain stupid. If the so called "purists" are so eager about everything being open sourced, how about letting me examine your bank account? Your cc staements? What's that, I may steal something from you and make you lose money? My point exactly.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
How about they spend the next month modularizing their OS...Of course, one has to wonder how difficult it must have been to add security to all that spaghetti code...
I want to be alone with the sandwich
For instance, take the first embedded systems to be offered to the general public: calculators. Check this article: "Buried Gold in the SR-52", by Cliff Penn, Byte magazine, Dec 1976, pp30-34, to see how you can hack a calculator to do things the designers had never thought of.
the subject says it all
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
I think Microsoft may have played into the States' hands.
Announce XP modular demo. You wouldn't announce it if you couldn't do it; announcing you can do it and willingness to back it up are all you have to do. The actual demo is little more than yet another Windows desktop minus a few icons. Judge would have been bored and is probably smart enough to take a screen shot, delete the icons and see for herself.
And then Microsoft yells "Fire!" If modular Windows is such a "bad" idea, wouldn't Microsoft already have x^y reasons why it wouldn't work? Why would they need to go back to Redmond for a couple of years and root around in the attic for rebuttal info?
Getting them to want so much time to prepare rebuttal is pretty much an admission that "we tried it and it didn't work" or "it won't work" is a load of bullshit because they DO know it will work.
MS had to either put up -- rebut the demo -- or shut up. Now they don't get to rebut and they have to quit talking about it.
(There was a great Law and Order where the prosecutor did this kind of thing. He couldn't bring up a particular piece of evidence, but he could allude to it. Alluding to it was all he had to do since the awareness of its existence was 90% of the damage).
That is not an urban legend. Kennedy technically did call himself a jelly filled pastry, but people understood what he meant since it wasn't an obvious error to people who don't speak German. The correct way to say "I am a Berliner" is "Ich bin Berliner." The "a" or "an" is implied when stating that you are a citizen of a particular place. It is a minor error, and most people will still understand the intent of the sentence.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Windows has been modular from the beginning. There's no way anybody could install 95/98/me/nt/2k/etc. without seeing this. Hell, part of the installation requires that you select which optional modules you want to install. Windows has had modular base paths since 3.x. Windows for Workgroups anyone? All kinds of networking stuff that wasn't part of the 3.0 package. How 'bout NT workstation and NT server? Same base package, different options. 2k Pro/Server/Advanced Server? Same base package, different modular options. XP Home/Server/Embedded. All built on the same base.
If M$ gets away with this "Windows can't be modular" bullshit, then we deserve to live with their monopoly because we've allowed our legal system to go the Hell.
Didn't anyone tell Micorsoft what this trial is about?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the BIOS is encrypted, and the chip that performs the decryption commits Capcom Suicide when tampered with, then you can't hack the computer.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft could release the API
IE is an ActiveX control. Microsoft has already released IE's API; otherwise, no app would be able to embed the IE control. Look through the MSDN library for more information.
then a 3rd party could implement the interface.
Done. Here's a drop-in replacement for IE that uses Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine. However, it's missing a few IE proprietary features such as document.all and the VBScript language.
That would create the possibility of non-microsoft providers of mshtml.dll.
The Mozilla control page links to a tool that patches mshtml.dll apps (even IExplore itself) to use the Mozilla control instead.
Will I retire or break 10K?
DOS doesn't require IE to run.
Now that Microsoft has discontinued Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition in favor of NT-based XP, it's no longer licensing MS-DOS for use on new mass-market PCs. All operating systems that are sold on new desktop machines include a shell that uses IE components and the Microsoft IE DOM.
Linux doesn't require KDE to run. Many KDE apps require konqueror components to run.
Most graphical apps on *BSD and *Linux don't need Konqueror because most X11 apps aren't KDE apps. On the other hand, Explorer is the only desktop environment on Win32 with any market share. Remember, when Microsoft gained a desktop OS monopoly, it had to start playing by different rules.
Many Win98 apps require IE to run.
Most of them don't really require Microsoft® brand IE but just an ActiveX control that exposes the IE API. Such controls include this Mozilla control, which implements everything in IE but document.all, VBScript, and security holes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This whole case is a joke. I mean seriously. Microsoft is a buisness. Buisnesses are created to generate revenue, i.e. money. When one has a good idea and goes with it. Others think the idea is good and come up with there own leagal versions creating competition. How else do you kill competition? You result to The Art of War. You go about legal means to get the point across that you are the better of the competition.
Microsoft has done precisely this. They have followed Sun Tzu's teachings like any "good" business prfofessional would do. Business is war. Capitalism is war. Survival of the fittest. No holds barred anything goes so long as you win. What you call strong-arm tactics and bullying, I call fighting a battle. How else would Microsoft have the money they have if they didn't make the deals with the OEM's.
You can say they threatened OEM's all you want. I Don't think any threats really happened. You are blowing this up to somthing it never was. Take this for an example. You own a company. What you do is sell computers to consumers. You originally sign an agreement with Microsoft to have Windows installed on your systems. In this agreement you agree to a series of terms that give you the ability to have Windows in all its form and grace. Now you decide down the road you want to break a few of these terms. Microsoft is going to respond with, "if you do this you will be in violation of our agreement and hence will be taken to court because we had a valid contract that you agreed upon."
This isn't a threat. This is simply Microsoft enforcing the rules you agreed upon. YOu break the rules and you lose your license to Windows and MS and you go outta business. Slow death. You could run Linux on all your systems, but most OEM's deal with consumers who are typically computer morons, so showcasing an OS that #1 isn't an industry client standard and #2 wouldn't run the applications that are compatible with the standard. What I mean by that is, you have kids who want to play the latest Warcraft 3 for example... you go buy it but can't get the damn thing installed because you are computer illiterate and have no idea what OS you got. ALl you know is it looks pretty and has a penguin as its mascot.
Slow death.
You can call Microsoft anything you want, but it will never change their position in the market as #1. It doesn't matter how many peoples opinions you change. Linux isn't a client standard like Windows is and never will be. The only head way Linux will make is as a workstation or as a server but never on the client level. Clients are rulled by the computer illiterate who want somthing that works and has great Product Support for their volume. (Stop, read that last sentence again so you don't freak out and go OMG, WTF, HDH)
Well that is all I really have to say but on a closing note. Ever notice how communistic pure OSS individuals are. Everything free, everything equal. Communists had this ideaology. Where if your neighbor had a car, you had a car. If they had a house, you had a house. Now really think about this one. Communism doesn't work that well. If you have doubts about that. Go back and read your history books.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
The states probably never had a modular version, or at least not a stable one.
What this DID do, is place in the minds of the court that it can be done. It doesn't matter that they actually show something, just planting the idea was all that was needed. Microsoft played right into it by not wanting the demonstration to happen.
Strike up one for the states!
In the words on Al Pacino in Heat, "Don't Waste my MOTHER FU&#ING TIME!!" Youve got to be kidding me, they don't want to "drag it out" any further. Well lets see, its only taken them...... something like 4 years+ to get this far, without stop, to try and nail Microsoft on these issues, and their going to stop now? Especially when they hold the nail that would crucify them? Ive got a better picture of whats going on... Lets see, a bunch of lawyers... One of the biggest, richest companys in the world.. so my question is how much do DA's cost these days??
Of course just deleting IE from win98 both is possible and will break some applications. But that's not really the point. Microsoft has integrated IE into the core functionailty of Windows and of course many app vendors have come to depend on that.
The point is that tightly integrating IE into the core functionality of Windows was a design decision rather than some inevitable law of nature as MS wants us to believe. If they wanted, they could have set things up so that browsers and HTML handlers other than MS's could be easily plugged in and integrated in place of the equivalent IE-based components in a way that would have been transparent to third party software, but they made a design decision not to do this.
The correct Linux example would not be glibc but, say, replacing Mozilla with Netscape or Konqueror. With modern desktops like GNOME (and I assume KDE too, although I don't use it much) things are set up so you can easily do this in such a way that any compliant application that needs an HTML URL handler will transparently use the one you specify.
Microsoft didn't say that it would cost one billion dollars to make a modular version, they said it COULDN'T be done. Here comes a guy that did it for very little money (I'm not sure of the specifics, but I guarantee he didn't spend a billion dollars on it). Doesn't that show that Microsoft outright lied? If he did spend a billion dollars on it, that's still less than 1/2 (closer to 1/3) of Microsoft's FIRST QUARTER PROFITS. And whose fault is it that Windows isn't modular in the first place?
Sure it's possible to make a modular version of Windows, it's just that Microsoft wouldn't be in control anymore, people could choose what they want for a web browser, media player, or chat program. The problem with that for Microsoft is that if other standards become widespread, people might be more likely to choose another operating system and they would begin to lose money. I know they just hate the popularity of MP3. Anyone with Linux or a Mac can use those files. They wish everyone was using the proprietary windows media format so they'd have to be running Windows. MP3 became popular before MS could strike however, and the world is a better place for it.
As for support, why can't they just say that they won't support audio players that are not theirs if an OEM installs it? I'm sure they don't now since other ones are available. I see no difference in installing a different audio player as a consumer and having an OEM manufacturer do it.
Consumer: I can't play MP3 files.
MS: Are you using Windows Media Player (R)?
Consumer: No...
MS: Sorry, that is not our product, use Windows Media Player next time
If someone installs Winamp now, does microsoft stop supporting their Windows operating system? Maybe that's the next step in the MS plan: "You have to use what we give you and install only MS products, or we will not give you support."
Consumers are not being helped by this philosophy, they are being robbed of more and more choices as the years go on. Microsoft is trying to move towards a time when every developer works for them and they are in control of every piece of software. Frankly as a developer, that scares the pants off me.
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net
Seems that every major business that deals with legal battles does it the same way: tie it up in procedure and red tape until the plaintiff either runs out of money or looses interest.
Thing is, this is MS' response to the demonstration. Does this include questions refering to the operation of the scaled-down version? If not, give to 50 people & then call them as 'character' witnesses
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
FINALLY! Someone else who knows the true. It was Linus who planned the 9/11 attacks. I thought I was the only one who knew. You are a bunch of communists who are against capitalism. GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE USA! Start your own god damn country if you don't like the system. Otherwise, start competing in the system rather than thinking everything should be free.
No one is saying that Microsoft has to give away their software for free, just that they have to compete on a level playing field. If they make the best product that users want to use, they can charge whatever they want for it, even if they do make 33% average profit off the products they sell in this tough economy.
What the anti-trust laws were created for was to keep companies from battling on unfair grounds. They can make whatever product they want and sell it for whatever price they want. It becomes unfair when a company uses their overwhelming position in a market to keep others from competing. Having a consumer landscape devoid of choice sounds more communistic to me. Make everyone have Windows so that if you have Windows, your neighbor has Windows. If you use Windows Media Player, your neighbor uses Windows Media Player. If you have Internet Explorer, your neighbor has Internet Explorer. I'm writing this reply in Mozilla right now, which I've found to be superior to Internet Explorer for everything but accessing sites (mostly MS sites) that require IE to run. Thank God that HTML isn't a proprietary Microsoft protocol.
Think of it this way... Imagine for a second that years ago one company produced tape decks and had a monopoly. They were the only company that produced tape decks and made a huge profit. Right now a simple portable radio could cost twice as much if it had a tape deck in it. Sure you would be guaranteed that it would be compatible with all audio tapes because one company makes all the equipment (hasn't that happened anyway?).
Tape decks are so great that they soon take over 95% of the stereo market. Imagine that a stereo could only have one audio component at a time without taking it apart and replacing it (much like installing a new operating system yourself). Now the company that makes tape decks decides to charge manufacturers for a tape deck in every stereo they produce, even if it only comes with a record player. Most consumers want to have tape decks so there is nothing the stereo producers can do unless they want to spend twice as much for the tape decks, and if they don't put a tape deck in the stereo anyway, they'll have to pay for it so they go ahead. If a user want a record player, they can buy it and take apart the stereo to replace the tape player themselves.
Now imagine that another company invents the CD player. The quality is better, the CDs last longer, and you can skip between songs. But no manufacturers produce stereos with CD players because they would have to pay the other company for the tape deck anyway. In addition to paying for the CD player, you'd be paying the first company for the Tape player even though the stereo had a CD player instead. Who would buy these stereos that cost twice as much and don't support the readily available audio tapes? What company would produce CDs when so few people had the equipment to play them?
The answer is no one. It would not make economic sense because the Tape company would be making money even if their product wasn't being used. This is what Microsoft has done with their requirement that PC manufacturers pay by computer they sell instead of how many copies of Windows are actually on those computers. What stereo company is going to stand up to the Tape deck company when they face losing 95% of their customers?
This is an example of a company using their position in the market to unfair advantage. These practices stifle innovation and are to the detriment of the consumer (that's you ane me by the way).
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net
Agreed. Too bad this site is maintained by a bunch of commies.
No one is saying that Microsoft has to give away their software for free, just that they have to compete on a level playing field. If they make the best product that users want to use, they can charge whatever they want for it, even if they do make 33% average profit off the products they sell in this tough economy.
What the anti-trust laws were created for was to keep companies from battling on unfair grounds. They can make whatever product they want and sell it for whatever price they want. It becomes unfair when a company uses their overwhelming position in a market to keep others from competing. Having a consumer landscape devoid of choice sounds more communistic to me. Make everyone have Windows so that if you have Windows, your neighbor has Windows. If you use Windows Media Player, your neighbor uses Windows Media Player. If you have Internet Explorer, your neighbor has Internet Explorer. I'm writing this reply in Mozilla right now, which I've found to be superior to Internet Explorer for everything but accessing sites (mostly MS sites) that require IE to run. Thank God that HTML isn't a proprietary Microsoft protocol.
Think of it this way... Imagine for a second that years ago one company produced tape decks and had a monopoly. They were the only company that produced tape decks and made a huge profit. Right now a simple portable radio could cost twice as much if it had a tape deck in it. Sure you would be guaranteed that it would be compatible with all audio tapes because one company makes all the equipment (hasn't that happened anyway?).
Tape decks are so great that they soon take over 95% of the stereo market. Imagine that a stereo could only have one audio component at a time without taking it apart and replacing it (much like installing a new operating system yourself). Now the company that makes tape decks decides to charge manufacturers for a tape deck in every stereo they produce, even if it only comes with a record player. Most consumers want to have tape decks so there is nothing the stereo producers can do unless they want to spend twice as much for the tape decks, and if they don't put a tape deck in the stereo anyway, they'll have to pay for it so they go ahead. If a user want a record player, they can buy it and take apart the stereo to replace the tape player themselves.
Now imagine that another company invents the CD player. The quality is better, the CDs last longer, and you can skip between songs. But no manufacturers produce stereos with CD players because they would have to pay the other company for the tape deck anyway. In addition to paying for the CD player, you'd be paying the first company for the Tape player even though the stereo had a CD player instead. Who would buy these stereos that cost twice as much and don't support the readily available audio tapes? What company would produce CDs when so few people had the equipment to play them?
The answer is no one. It would not make economic sense because the Tape company would be making money even if their product wasn't being used. This is what Microsoft has done with their requirement that PC manufacturers pay by computer they sell instead of how many copies of Windows are actually on those computers. What stereo company is going to stand up to the Tape deck company when they face losing 95% of their customers?
Now lets say that another company creates an equalizer to improve the sound quality of tapes (CDs and Phonographs too for the few people that use them). The Tape company soon decides this is a good thing and starts including it's own 5-band equalizer with every tape deck it produces. Sure they cost more to produce now and some people don't care or would rather use the other brand of equalizer, but isn't it better to have a standard equalizer for everyone to use (sarcasm)? Now the Tape manufacturer tells the stereo companies that they cannot sell their equipment with a different equalizer connected to the stereo, even though there are 10 band equalizers out now with lighted displays. The Tape company claim it's impossible now to separate the equalizer from the Tape deck, even though a guy down the street did just that and was going to bring it into court, but the Tape company would string the trial out another year.
This is an example of a company using their position in the market to unfair advantage. These practices stifle innovation and are to the detriment of the consumer (that's you and me by the way).
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net
Next, you may as well say that programs that require WP 5.1 or MS-Office or Ventura installed make these applications part of the Operating System.
The 98lite product shows that it is the installation of windows, not whether all of IE is part of Windows, that is the issue.
It's not that this is the first or last time that MS has blurred a monopoly product and one they they ultimately monopolised.
DOS Bits of DOS [eg DOS32] were shipped with Windows 3.x, and Windows shipped with DOS. You needed both bits to get Windows to work together. Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd ..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names.
Messenger Once a loose addon, programs are now being threaded through msmsg.exe.
glibc is modular in the sense that it can be replaced separately in an update. In this sense, it is more modular than command.com. Nothing stops a rival from making a faster or better "glibc".
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
anyone seen an analogy of Bill Gates to Senator Palpatine? In the near future he will rule everything with an iron grip.
Win 95 and win 98 even you can install windows
without explorer or msmail or even microsoft client
for windows networking.
The only reason they are bundled was to leverage
their monopoly.
It would be cleaner design if it was seperate.
Sure at this point it would be a bit of work to
undo it.
But since it should never have been done in the
first place let them sweat it out.
Unbundle all the browser and the mediplayer
and the messaging client from the os.
Make Soft do it.
To beleive it has to be bundled is to be a Fucktard.
the judge didnt cancel the presentation, you idiot
Microsoft doesnt want windows to become like more like unix. it doesnt want the horrible fragmentation of unix or even worse the lack of complete cross-compatibility across appplications. they don't want people to have to download a set of dependencies every other time they have an application (no, not everyone stays on the internet all day)
the browser isn't in the kernel, you idiot. it's still a seperate application, one which many others depend on.
So....what was your point? "unix works" sure it works in some cases, but it does not work on the desktop, fanboy. you're to idiodic to know much about unix (esp if you really thought there is an internet browser in the windows kernel
no, you idiot. it didnt prove anything to the judge except that the states have weak lawyers
because i have the solution to all their problems.
You see, Microsoft just has to rename to "Fuzzy Bunny Corporation" and immediately, the Slashdot editors, Linux zealots, Mac zealots, and judges will ike them.
I mean after all, who doesnt like fuzzy bunnies?
I can't rule out that some unscrupulous hardware vendors may customise an 'embedded/modular Windows' to only allow installation of certain apps, namely apps supplied through the hardware vendor.
That's exactely the reason some vendors use Linux on their appliances: they can control what's gonna be installed on the machines. Think of the OEone for instance.
Sad that the judge has to believe Microsoft's `more time' lies (methinks he protesteth overmuch).
Windows XP Embedded requires 64M to boot. Urk. Not much missing from that, except maybe MS-Office.
Lotus Notes... now there's an ironic choice. Who here remembers `DOS ain't done 'til Lotus [123] won't run?'
Windows FL is a great badge idea. Truth-in-advertising laws might compel them to use it. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This has been discussed to death by a lot of German linguists. Any native speaker will tell you (and my wife is one, and I speak German fluenty as well) that the form "ich bin ein Berliner" is perfectly acceptable, indeed in the sense in which Kennedy was speaking, it was the *only* correct way of saying it.
A German would say of a person who *is* from Berlin, "er ist Berliner" (without the article "ein"). But a German who means figuratively that a person is from Berlin would say "er ist EIN Berliner". Kennedy was not from Berlin, therefore he had to say "ich bin ein Berliner". There was no error, except on the part of non-German speakers who thought they caught Kennedy making an embarrassing mistake.
Take a look at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa021 700b.htm to get the full explanation.
Furthermore, a person from Hamburg says "ich bin Hamburger". But no one would really think twice about saying it. A person from Frankfurt says "ich bin Frankfurter". So what? Just about any German city has a kind of food -- sausage (Braunschweiger, Frankfurter), beer (Dortmunder, or Berliner -- yes, it's also a type of beer) and so on -- associated with the name. That's not a reason to avoid saying "ich bin [insert city name here]". That's ridiculous. If the Wall had been in Rüdesheim instead of Berlin, Kennedy would in your theory have been saying "ich bin ein Rüdesheimer" and therefore saying he's a German version of Irish coffee -- which is silly. And wrong. If that were the case, there are a lot of German Irish coffees running around.
I have yet to hear a German say that Kennedy was wrong to say it the way he did -- on the contrary, all Germans I've spoken to (and given that I have lived in Germany for years, that's a lot) think it was a great speech.
This is, in fact, a classic urban legend. In other words, something that has been repeated so often that people believe it regardless of what the evidence may show -- and in spite of the fact that it's just plain wrong.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Doesn't making and demonstrating a reverse engineered version of Windows XP (or any Windows for that matter) fall directly in violation of the DMCA? That would make not only the programmer who's making the "XP Lite" operating system, and the court that ordered him to do so, criminals...
As the ol' saying goes, live by the sword, etc etc etc...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
It's pretty standard to ask huge amounts time to prepare a response when new evidence is introduced to court. Its inconceivable that the government lawyers were surprised.
This is clearly a climb down on their part and an embarrassing one too. The only answer which make sense is that their genuinely were problems with the "modular" government version of windows.
Example: Install RealOne Player, Install Oprah browser. Delete IE files, Delete Windows Media Files. Result: RealOne Player wont start because its dependant on IE.
Neither would AOL if you chose to install it.
If the courts demand the MS remove IE thousands of applications will have to be rewritten to support cases where there is no browser embedding support.
MSFT would have a field day demonstrating broken apps and the fallout on the software industry.
Methinks that the US government is so damned corrupt, (and capitalist for that matter) that when the lawyers for the states provide damning evidence to beat Microsoft to a pulp, Microsoft waves its almighty dollars in the faces of Senators and Congressmen.
What a laughable democracy.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Sheesh, every time they get a good chance (and yes you have to wait a LONG time when you get legal system + MS), the states back out.
Damn pansies!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
"Install Oprah browser"
You don't really want to do that. Haven't you noticed how it seems slimmer one day, then bloats up overnight? Or that once it starts working well for you, it wants to take over the whole computer for itself?
looks like the campaign contribution trickledown is working, not the worry of the states case.
ahh dictatorships er um monarchies er um bolshivickism er um stalinizm er um capitalism er um
Looks the same to me
But still, MS *could have* designed a widget (or control or whatever) with a standardized API in such a way that another API compatable control (e.g., gecko) could have been easily substituted by simply replacing a dll, or even adding a new, differently named dll. They could have, for example, had the main HTML control be simply a wrapper that looks in the registry to find out which actual API-compatable dll to call to implement the control via their component embedding mechanism (COM? I don't know windows terminology that well). I would think this could have been done in a way that could be transparent to the app and hence binary compatible.
Again, the point is things could have been modularized by design and still be easy and transparent for app vendors, but for seemingly obvious reasons, the decision was made not to do this.
"Whaaaaat!? You are telling me it is going to take a prolonged period of time to get back to me? Get real. Grow up!"
Now the company that makes tape decks decides to charge manufacturers for a tape deck in every stereo they produce, even if it only comes with a record player.
I see you are doing an an analogy here. I see whre you are taking it but what is a record player an analogy of? I need some detail here because that is just confusing.
Most consumers want to have tape decks so there is nothing the stereo producers can do unless they want to spend twice as much for the tape decks, and if they don't put a tape deck in the stereo anyway, they'll have to pay for it so they go ahead.
This is one of the points I have been trying to make. Consumers want windows. I am glad you concur.
Now imagine that another company invents the CD player. The quality is better, the CDs last longer, and you can skip between songs. But no manufacturers produce stereos with CD players because they would have to pay the other company for the tape deck anyway. In addition to paying for the CD player, you'd be paying the first company for the Tape player even though the stereo had a CD player instead. Who would buy these stereos that cost twice as much and don't support the readily available audio tapes? What company would produce CDs when so few people had the equipment to play them?
What the hell are you trying to say here? You lost me with this paragraph. I tried to take it apart but it does not make any sense. I assume that the Tape Player is still Windows and now I naturally assume the CD Player is Linux. But if a company that makes computers wants to have a CD player instead of a tape player they could install the CD player without having to pay for the tape player ever again. Then again they lose their market because everyone wants tapes and a tape player. Am I even following you here? What happened to record players?
And the equalizer comment also didn't make a lot of sense. But here I go. I assume that the equalizer is a web browser. What you are trying to say I suppose is that there are better browsers out there because of the 10 band 5 band analogy. But companies can't bundle other equalizers with the tape deck? Are you smoking crack? I have seen OEM's install Netscape right along side Explorer. Nothing wrong with that.
So I really can't post anymore because... you analogy was bad and didn't flow. So I will end on this note. Find a better analogy so I can start and intellectual debate with you or don't post at all. My god... I feel dumber for just reading that.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Keep in mind that the issue here was the remedy hearing. The District court had already ruled that Micrsoft had obtained a monopoly, that they had used their primary monopoly over the operating system to illegally extend that monopoly to other aspects of the PC market. The appeals court unanimously ruled that Microsoft had illegally used it's monopoly to exclude competitors.
Keep in mind that Microsoft had been given numerous opportunities to settle prior to the actual ruling. Microsoft was even given the warning through the findings of fact. When Microsoft attempted, during the Jackson remedy hearings, to nullify the findings of fact and the findings of law, essentially refusing to accept the judgement of the court, Jackson decided that a remedy hearing was merely going to be an attempt to goad the judge into displays of obvious bias. Jackson defined his remedy - taking the reccomendations of the prosecutor, as is customary in nearly any district court sentencing hearing. Jackson even asked the DOJ if they were really comfortable with the division of the company.
Keep in mind that prior to even beginning the remedy hearing, Judge Kolar-Kotelly would have been obligated to review the entire transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the rulings, the appeals, and the appeals court ruling.
Since Microsoft had made such an issue of the "appearant bias" of Judge Jackson, Judge Kolar-Kotelly did a masterful job of maintaining a poker face throughout the remedy hearings. In many ways she even appeared to favor Microsoft.
Since it was Microsoft who originally requested the consolidation of the cases, and it was Microsoft who had tried to split the states, and the Bush administration had violated an agreement which required unanimous agreement of all states, the case was spit. Normally, this would be double jeopardy, since this would have been two possible sentances for the same crime. Because it was Microsoft initiating both the consolidation, and the split settlement, the could very easily be required to accept both the settlement, which would establish the previous rulings of fact and law, along with the interpretations of the courts, which means that Microsoft could not appeal the judgements.
At the same time, the point of a remedy hearing is two-fold. First, there is the issue of assuring the compliance with the rulings of the judiciary. Microsoft made a big mistake when they claimed that the judge would be violating the separation of powers by altering the settlement This would have been true if Microsoft had settled the case prior to the rulings. Unfortunately, because Microsoft had waited until after the rulings of not only the district court, but also the appeallate court, it was the D.O.J. who was treading on thin ice. They had conspired with Microsoft to alter the rulings of the judiciary, attempting to alter definitions within the rulings, and the specifics of both the district court, and the of the appeals court. It is almost unthinkable that a circuit court judge would set aside the unanimous ruling of the appeals court.
During the dessenting states' remedy hearing, Microsoft had already shown their intent and tactic for circumventing the provisions of the proposed settlement. Microsoft has already taken measures to exclude competitors - but in a non-preferential way, by putting all of their APIs under the "security" exclusion. They unifomly required that all OEMs overpurchase software, that all corporate customers accept a new "XP License", which included measures to further exclude competitors. Even though the new licenses allow corporations to use previous versions of windows, they are far more restricted. For example, they are not allowed to use GNU software, such as Cygwin. They are not allowed to run Linux as a guest under VNC for windows, and they aren't allowed to run Windows as a guest under Linux. Corporations who accept the new terms will also not be able to run Windows under Linux using Win4Lin, even though they have the licences.
Microsoft has attempted to claim that it's competitors helped to draft the remedies proposed by the dissenting states. Ironically, the companies cited by Microsoft were the same ones who had been shown during the evidentiary hearings to have been harmed by Microsoft. Microsoft seems to have forgotten that a key provision of antitrust hearings is providing remedies designed to compensate for the advantage held by the monopoly holder. The remedy can range from divestiture of assets, to nullification of contracts, to the formation of regulatory agencies which micromanage the monopoly.
What remains now is how Judge Kolar-Kotelly plays the hand. She has a hand full of trump cards, and she has been playing them close to her chest. As much as she didn't want to be the one to set judicial precedents, she is now faced with the challenge of trying to stand for the integrity of the Judiciary.
I definitely agree with you that most consumers want Windows. That's the point, that MS is using their position in the market to force people to buy Windows that normally wouldn't want it. Democracy is based on majority rule, but protecting the rights of the minority. If computer manufacturers want to save money with MS, they are forced to sign a licensing agreement that says they have to pay MS for every computer they produce. They do of course because 95% of their customers want it and saving that money helps their bottom line. The problem is that they then have no incentive to make computers with different operating systems because they're paying for Windows anyway. This monopolistic practice prevents other operating systems from getting a foothold.
What the hell are you trying to say here? You lost me with this paragraph. I tried to take it apart but it does not make any sense. I assume that the Tape Player is still Windows and now I naturally assume the CD Player is Linux.
First of I want to say that I have Windows on two computers in my house and Linux on one. I'm not a Linux zealot, and I believe that Windows is a better operating system for desktop use. I think X11 is the death of Linux on the desktop. I would have liked to try BeOs out when it was available, but I wasn't going to pay the extra money to get it and bother with installing it when Windows was already on my computer. I think the desktop OS market is largely devoid of choice due to Microsoft's machinations.
But if a company that makes computers wants to have a CD player instead of a tape player they could install the CD player without having to pay for the tape player ever again. Then again they lose their market because everyone wants tapes and a tape player. Am I even following you here? What happened to record players?
That's exactly right. Dell for instance could start selling computers with Linux installed (or BeOs if it was still alive, or another new OS that comes out), but they would lose the price benefit from their deal with Microsoft. 95 percent of the computers they produce would start costing more money and they would be in a less competitive position in the market, hurting their sales. MS is shutting other operating systems out of the large OEM market, never letting them get a foothold and build their market share.
I think the record player could represent other choices before MS gained a monopoly, maybe OS/2.
And the equalizer comment also didn't make a lot of sense. But here I go. I assume that the equalizer is a web browser. What you are trying to say I suppose is that there are better browsers out there because of the 10 band 5 band analogy. But companies can't bundle other equalizers with the tape deck? Are you smoking crack? I have seen OEM's install Netscape right along side Explorer. Nothing wrong with that.
The point is who wants to buy a stereo with two equalizers? I sure wouldn't. An OEM manufacturers cannot make the 10 band equalizer the default one, the consumer would have to switch it to the default themselves, and the 5 band built-in equalizer would always be there.
The analogies don't fit perfectly because we are talking about different products (software/stereos). Also there was never one company that owned exclusive rights to tape players. There is no way to make them perfect but I believe they do show a point. If you require more help understanding any of this feel free to email me.
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net
If I remember my calculus correctly (and this is nitpicking, btw), if an input variable is approaching another number, and it can be proven to get as close to the number as you could ask for, and that the function is continuous (contiguous?) at that point, then for all mathematical purposes a number infinitely close to another number behaves exactly like that other number, and QED is equal.
With an indefinite period of time, one can get as close to an infinite period of time as another person could ask for. Likewise, the outcome of the process will be the same. Therefore the slope of the function is the same, and QED the OJ defence has worked yet again.
The ______ Agenda