Slashdot Mirror
MS to Implement Some DoJ Settlement Terms Preemptively
lysurgon writes: "The New York Times (free registration, blah blah blah) is reporting that Microsoft will today announce it is taking some steps in implementing parts of the original DoJ settlement, a settlement which is still under review and not yet official. It's seen as a tactic to influence Judge Kollar-Kotelly's deliberation on the more stringent restrictions asked for by nine states attorneys general. Looks like MS wants to get off making some cosmetic changes (no surprise there), but given their rather stormy relationship with the judge, it could backfire. The other interesting thing is that at this stage, without an official ruling, no matter what they do or why they say they're doing it it's legally voluntary." Update: 08/05 17:00 GMT by T : HeUnique adds a link to another story on ZDnet which tosses in a few numbers while remaining fairly vague on what exactly will be released and under what terms.
I'm not optimistic about the whole settlement, but is it possible MS is changing? Seriously, is it possible MS is taking a different approach and is softening? Given the huge amount of attention on security by the government and the public, is MS actually changing? Not that anyone at /. would for definitively, but what is really happening with the latest move?
so what? what exactly are they going to do? the article is extremely light on details.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
The whole MS monoploy lawsuit has come down to removing a few icons from the desktop. Like that is going to create a great deal of problems for MS? The States that oppose the settlement are right. Nothing but an OS, no browser or media player. If you want that then MS must sell it on the open market. MS isn't going away and the lawsuit must force a more level playing field.
It's about time they got round to doing something about it. Hopefully they will open up their source code to Windows 98 so we don't need to use WINE any more!
Microsoft is about as clear on details as this Monty Python quote on politics:
"I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am."
-Valiss
Let's get this outta the way now: Implement, and EXTEND.
Red Herring. Boy crying wolf.
Here's an article from CNET, with an interesting quote from a Jupiter analyst.
d _t op
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948328.html?tag=f
Given that Microsoft has in the past stated that all of the DOJ's proposed remedies were unacceptable to them, isn't this a dangerous move to suddenly implement these previously unacceptable remedies voluntarily?
What is to make supporting multiple versions of Windows unacceptable in the future, given that these remedies were once unacceptable in the past?
Is there something I'm missing, or could their legal department really be that incompetent?
I hope that *finally*, their arrogance and insane, childish brinksmanship through this whole process comes back and bites them in the ass.
load up the page of comments and see an ad of Microsoft Visual Studio .NET.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Not that I hope this tactics works.
Personally, I hope it backfires
[shrug]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Terrorism is destroyed lives, broken bodies, broken hearts.
Whatever your opinion of MS is, your comments are so unbelievably callous and shortsighted that it's a sad state of affairs when you are modded insightful.
It's seen as a tactic to influence Judge Kollar-Kotelly's deliberation
Rather, one of the terms of the settlement with the DoJ was that the terms of the consent decree would be implemented immediately (in the next release) without waiting for the settlement to be approved.
IIRC, Microsoft would have been in violation of the settlement if it hadn't done this by now.
Mmmm.. Donuts
From the article:
So basically, it's saying that they are just changing the paperwork of their contracts with computer manufacturers (which is no work on their part) and releasing bits of code out to the public (also no actual work being done). But we're not saying which of these we're doing, how much of these non-mentioned goals we will accomplish, or exactly when we can expect these non-mentioned amounts of non-mentioned goals to be completed (or at least expected to be completed).
I will be anxious to hear what is produced from the phone call happening later today, but right now, there is too little information to assume too much.
Slashdot - Come for the creative thought, stay for the lesbians!
The article can also be found on Netscape's news site here.
More MS EULA Fun
[ Microsoft ]Posted by timothy on 09:28 AM August 4th, 2002
from the if-a-eula-falls-in-the-forest dept.
gray code writes: "The Register is reporting that Microsoft has placed an interesting wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 that asks for the same remote admin rights as the Windows Media Player patch that raised such an uproar. I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much." Update: 08/04 15:05 GMT by T: Helix150 writes that a separate EULA for W2K's SP3 "contains this nasty bit: 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the
This is great. MS is putting restrictions on free speech. The ACLU would love to hear about this.
Dosen't any contract that contains an illegal request nullify the entire contract making M$ EULAs void?
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
see this story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=5 78&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020805/ts_nm/microsoft_code _dc_13
On the other hand, if there is a consent decree, there's no restriction on what the terms of such a consent decree must be.
What bothers me is that the consent decree route is supposed to be an incentive for a defendent to avoid the cost and time of a trial. It hardly makes sense for them to consent at this point, unless they know it's the only way to avoid a harsh judgement.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Therefore, the purpose of this move would be to antagonize the current judge into doing something which would call her decision into question, as Judge Jackson's was after the trial.
Very very confident if you ask me.
sPh
but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism.
I swear that I will never understand people like you.
Her's a free clue: IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH. Politicians don't care because the public doesn't care. The public doesn't care because IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH.
If you think you are oppressed by Microsoft, then I suggest you go study some history and learn what real oppression is all about.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The argument is what an operating system is. MS claims it is basically a full distribution. Most of the Linux companies give distributions as well. Basically, what AC was referring to is allowing alternative distributions different from Microsoft's.
The OEMs want this basically because they can sell placement in their distributions (or at least buy cheaper). Microsoft, of course, does not want this, as it means they have to make each component better than the alternative, instead of just having a better total distribution. It also (perhaps more importantly) allows Microsoft to create full branding across multiple programs, creating the notion of using only Microsoft software ("mind-share"...everything I use is Microsoft, so I should chose Microsoft's version of the next application/server I need).
If you want to create a distribution with kernel-only, that is certainly possible (although it would be of limited usefulness). More important is that you can create a distribution that re-implements all of the functionality currently provided by the other programs and ship your own binary-only Linux (modulo kernel code: I'm not sure what it's license is).
So, when's the last time Microsoft blew up your airplanes and buildings and stuff? Microsoft's activities and terrorism aren't the same ballpark. Hell, it isn't even the same sport.
"There is no leeway for arguement in that."
From now on I'm ending all my posts with that statement.
--
pants ahoy
Please don't throw me into that briar patch, your honor!
Monopolistic terrorism? Are you serious?
/. is surprising.
If there's any sad state of affairs to speak of, it's the fact that people deem it necessary to call anything they disagree with 'terrorism' for the sake of sensationalizing. I'd expect it from politicians, but to read it on
Terrorism is murder, death, mayhem. Whatever your opinions on Microsoft (and I'll reserve mine) they are in no way as evil as those who would kill innocent men women and children to further their own agenda.
Comparing a successful capitalist corporation, albeit one that has been found to have violated the law in numerous ways, with those who would kill thousands only for attention is irrational, and makes a mockery of those whose lives were taken from them.
From the article:
Now, from what I gather from this, it means that M$ would release the computer manufacturers from their agreement on how the desktop is arranged and set up (not really any work on M$'s behalf, just changing legal wording) and releasing bits of code to the public (also no actual work).
But so far, we don't which of these goals M$ plans to implement, nor do we know how much of non-mentioned goals would be accomplished, nor do we know when non-mentioned portion of non-mentioned goals would be completed (or at least attempted to be completed).
I think this will become an interesting topic once the statement from M$ comes out answering all these questions, but for now, there is just too little information to make an informed opinion.
Of course, if you want to just "knee-jerk" M$ and how bad they're gonna be, I'll lose no sleep.
Slashdot - Come for the creative thought, stay for the lesbians!
They must have just made the conference call before I wrote this. Logged onto yahoo and saw "Microsoft to reveal Windows source code" and immediately cleaned up the half-chewed chicken melt pieces that fell out of my mouth and onto my lap. anyway, here's the link (sorry, I'm very rusty with HTML)
d =5 80&e=3&cid=580&u=/nm/20020805/bs_nm/microsoft_code _dc_13
r a legal manuevering.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&nci
It's still unclear as to what parts of windows will be "revealed" and under what terms or even to whom. IMHO it looks like play-the-good-guy-and-smile-real-big-for-the-came
Just another freak in the freak kingdom.
for those who don't want to register at NYT:
here's a link at CNET
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Is anybody else sick and tired of the misuse of the word terrorism? I mean next we'll be hearing that Athlete's Foot is a form of fungal terrorism.
Hint. Billy G has yet to order anyone killed. When it comes to bad guy status, he's strictly middle-of-the-pack.
Hmmm... I hope that comment doesn't fire up his competitive side.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
This government has bowed to corporate interests at every turn.
I'd have to agree with you there. But whichever side this case goes to, the government is still bowing to corporate interests. Let's try and remember why this whole thing started.
Consumer's rights? No. But when you have Sun, IBM, Netscape (now part of that tiny upstart AOL) lobbying around Washington, then the Justice Department takes notice. This is less a battle of consumers against a corporation then a battle of Corportions against a corporation.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Give me a break!
It's pathetic when the U.S. Government can take a hard line on terrorism in traditional forms, but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism.
JonKatz, is that you? OK, you are seriously trying to compare terrorist acts with... bundling a web browser and media player with an OS?
Granted, action needs to be taken (and, it is), but this is NOT terrorism... or even close.
Mark
Wrong, they are just trying gain blind public trust.
As from now, they try to push DRM and positive aspect of company info will probably help them a bit. Same as for every new Win version "works better, works faster..." people read and believe, same game they are playing with this preliminal cooperation with DoJ (there's probably some closing speach that'll show them in different new light).
"always be prepared", yeah but unfortunatelly in negative aspect. MS is a company and tryes to make money. Public interests are not really important. The more they grow, the more they'll try to take such blind steps to gain public into new restrictions that make them money.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I think MSFT is doing this on purpose. Much like they force standards by pushing them into the market through the power of their channel (if everyone is using them, they're standards right?), I think they are complying with the weaker restrictions to A) make themselves look friendly, B) to make it look like the case is over, and C) to make the states that are clinging on to stronger sanctions look like bullies. My guess is that it'll work and the pressure for more restrictions will be dropped by the end of the year.
If they release a stripped-down version of Windows without a web browser, what good will it do? Microsoft already owns something like 95% of that market, and its only competitor, Mozilla, isn't so much better than IE that anyone will switch back. I suppose that they haven't won the "Media-Format War," for lack of a better term, so maybe a version of Windows without WMP might help. But I don't think it'll make that much difference.
The real reason that the Microsoft monopoly is invincible is that there are no competitors. Linux on the desktop isn't working out too well. BeOS is out of business, and while there are Open-Source BeOS clones, they aren't ready yet. OS X is frickin' sweet but it doesn't run on i386 hardware. None of these options, even if viable, would allow users to run their old Windows programs.
The best case situation is that Microsoft behaves a little better towards the folks they've already beaten. Nothing in the proposed penalties (that I've heard about, anyway) will keep Microsoft from crushing competition in the server/Enterprise area, or from implementing their Palladium project.
In my view, an effective set of penalties that solves current and future problems would contain the following:
- Full Disclosure of their APIs. There should be a mandatory waiting period between the release of a modified API and the release of MS software that implements that API (so that competitors have time to implement them too). Proprietary HTML extensions count as an API for this purpose.
- Ensure that Palladium is a fully open system. It should be compatible with Linux and other Open Source projects both at the technical level and at the legal level. In other words, GPLed software should run on Palladium-enabled hardware without violating the GPL.
- Ensure that
.NET runs on UNIX. Even the graphical applications. - Anyone should be able to write software that understands Microsoft file formats.
- Windows network protocols should be well documented in such a way that other companies can write software that interfaces with Windows clients (like SAMBA) and Windows servers (like Ximian Connector).
These are the penalties that the states should be demanding. These are the penalties that will allow for the creation of competitive alternatives to Windows. Until this happens, we're fucked.It just means that Microsoft will start making the url links to the Windows and MFC API documentation on MSDN BOLD. :)
I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests.
... (I can't believe this is still sitting at "Insightful"):
Just to pile on
Corporations are simply a collection of individuals who have voluntarily agreed to join forces. As long as they are pursuing peaceful ends (and, please, no confused blather that one is "forced" to buy Windows, or Office, or a computer, for that matter), these individuals are constitutionally protected in their activities. So, this conflict between "individual freedom" and "corporate interests" is a chimera, a logical fallacy. When you restrict the non-coercive activities of corporations, you are impeding the free association rights of the individuals which comprise the corporation.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
Yet another predictable result of having Republicans in the white house...
Twenties Retirement
The US Government is the biggest barrier to individual freedom in this country not Corporate interests. If you don't like the policies of a corporation, you can avoid the company and cease to do business with them. You can't avoid the long reach of Congress. They rule at the other end of a barrel of a gun.
This is yet another side effect of the US's desire to remain an economic superpower.
America's status as an "Economic Superpower" is not due to American Government policies but due to the American worker. American's are the most productive work force in the world. No Government program or law can enhance that productivity only limit it.
It has changed from a Representative Democracy to a colossal beauracratic corporation. Perhaps we should call it The United States of America Inc.?
Please read a history book on America. The United States is not and never was a "Representative Democracy". The United States is a "Constitutional Republic". Perhaps we can call your post, "The United Collection of Uninformed Dumbassed Opinions, Inc."
As someone who was in NYC on 9/11 and lives next to what was the World Trade Center, let me give you some advice. Nothing, not one thing, is comparable to that atrocity. The people that used to occupied the empty apartments around me would completely disagree with you comparing Microsoft to Al Qaeda. That is, if they were STILL ALIVE, jerk...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
So i guess there finially revealing the code for paintbrush I allways wanted to know how that was written????
This might be a miss step by MS..this only adds to the 9 opposing States arguement in demostrating that MS has the technical know how and the motives to change and accept a stiffer judgement..
It does this in two ways.
Remember MS's arguement has always been that any change wil drastically affect them economically..has not happen yet even with the first change to accept the terms..(the first change was to eliminate exclusive delaing contracts back 2 years ago)
Two, it indidcates that Ms wil only deal with the actual terms they agreed to not what nay Judge can hand down...basically thumbing their noses at the court again but in a more polite manner..still will not wokr!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
that with SP3 you can now remove Internet Exporer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player using the windows component wizard in add/remove programs... Has anyone tried removing Internet Explorer yet, and how does it affect the system?
Yeah, I understod that. And that's why I said it's not a head start to nicer public relations (or being fair), but head start to new projects. It's a classic "wolf in sheeps...." to hide something not so good with some nicer impressions, combined with chances to get something good out of the DoJ verdict since they've played fair.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
SHWEET!
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
On the topic of Microsoft and Antitrust,
Is Linux really a threat to Microsoft in a antitrust sort of way? Since there's no corporation behind it, if Microsoft wanted to, say, force manufacturers to include hardware that would break Linux, then they're not infringing on another company's right to access a free market. After all, antitrust laws were not brought about to be _fair_, they were brought about to prevent a single company from controlling an entire market and hurting the economy. But the loss of Linux wouldn't immediately hurt the economy (despite the fact that, as we all know, if Linux were to die, and IIS to take over, life on this planet would end).
So does Linux count as competition to M$, in a Free Market sense?
So in theory..you can shop around for judges until you find one that will see your side? Interesting..
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
One remody that no-one even seems to think about is.
The source code and/or hardware details for any driver writen fot the Microsoft Windows OS should be made publicly and freely available.
One of the things that kills the competition is lack of fully-featured hardware support.
It escapes my why hardware manufactures don't do this in the first place? unless there hardware is buggy as hell and the drivers contain hackarrounds?
An an example...
Got an USB ADSL modem?
Get the Linux driver
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Products don't have monopolies. Companies do.
what one true os?
Linux is what YOU make it
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This Reuters Market News article says "Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code and internal operating rules, previously kept secret, that outside software developers can use to write programs to run on Windows."
:^)
I calculate this (385 bits) to be about 48.125 bytes. I'm not impressed.
I do not understand the difficulty that some people have defining terrorism. Terrorism is the deliberate killing or injuring (or attempted killing or injuring) of non-combatants in order to further a political goal. (Note that all military goals are political.)
Bombing Dresden was an attempt to cow the German population into surrender. Bombing a bus in the West Bank is an attempt to cow the Israeli population into surrender.
Killing a German soldier or an Israeli policeman (or for that matter a Palestinian militant) is not terrorism. Killing civilians accidentally while trying to kill soldiers or government agents is not terrorism.
Levelling a city sheltering Palestinian militants, rather than trying to kill militants and in the action destroying some property and killing some innocents, would be terrorism. Killing school kids on a bus, or families driving to their homes, or even 1-year olds *in* their homes, in an attempt to make the Israelis tired of occupation is terrorism.
Attacking Afghanistan to destroy a regime sheltering our enemies is not terrorism, even if in the process some civilians die. Attacking civilians because you want them to change their government rather than die would be terrorism. Attacking US civilians in an attempt to change US foreign policy (support of Saudi monarchy, one presumes) is terrorism. Attacking a US warship in an attempt to change US foreign policy is not terrorism.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
"If you think you are oppressed by Microsoft, then I suggest you go study some history and learn what real oppression is all about."
I'll get right to it. After my next paycheck I'll be able to download one hour's worth or 100 pages (whichever occurs first) of Official Microsoft Palladium Certified History Of The World on my MS Lemming PDA. I better make sure nobody is reading over my shoulder or that I draw anti-establishment conclusions from history!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
from yahoo article at: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=5 78&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020805/ts_nm/microsoft_code _dc_16
"Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code and internal operating rules, previously kept secret, that outside software developers can use to write programs to run on Windows."
385 bits huh.... couldn't even let us have the rest of the 49th byte.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The OEMs want this basically because they can sell placement in their distributions (or at least buy cheaper). Microsoft, of course, does not want this, as it means they have to make each component better than the alternative, instead of just having a better total distribution.
If Microsoft sells the OS to OEMs at a lower cost without the extra products (or a reduced cost based on the number (or which) of 'middleware' applications they remove), then the OEMs will have every incentive to use anything but Microsoft's 'middleware', regardless of what their customers want and/or the quality of the software vs. competing software. The reason is simply this:
1) they get a price cut from MS
2) competitors will pay them to include their software
3) the OEMs are working on slimmer margins all the time, making almost anything that increases their profits worthwhile
I think the OEMs should be able to ship whatever 3rd party software with their computers they want to put on there. However, I don't think they should be permitted to be the people that make the final decision on what 'middleware' is on there, especially if it only benefits them (monetarily) to remove as much of the MS software as possible.
At the very least, the scheme MS has devised for WinXP SP1 (allowing end users to enable/disable middleware at any time) gives the users the choice of what's being used on their system, rather than the OEMs' profit-driven choices being hard-coded.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Depends on what they're opening up. Does anyone has a list of protocols that will be opened, and under what license? As with typical big media coverage, there is not a single link to something with information.
They say they're going to open up 113 protocols, somehow I don't see them opening up their crown jewels. SAMBA is already kicking their ass performance and pricewise, without an open protocol, can you imagine if the SAMBA guys got the specs to play with? Imagine every mailer out there being able to play with Exchange server, including all the groupware features. I don't see MS opening these protocols up.
I think what we will see is things like MS_BOB_API.DLL and old COM garbage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Want a good example of how an administration that's in bed with big business will compromise the public good? Gee, this settlement must be tough enough if the company enacts parts of it willingly, as a negotiating ploy in order to get the rest of it through.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Unfortunatly those items are pretty much a wishlist and I don't think they will ever happen. All MS has to do is claim "security" and the DOJ will be forced to roll over for "national security concerns". You also forgot to mention open the MS Office file formats.
IMHO this trial has been a waste and no real change will come from it. The only thing that will break MS's monopoly is when the compter Desktop dies. That is at least 10 years away, so lets hope some of the other handheld/phone/PDA/appliance makers get their shit together. Then again with $40 billion in their coffers, it will be tough to keep MS from competing in any new market.
You know, originally I was against a physical breakup of MS, but now I think they should be broken up into 4 different companies. A desktop/app , a server,a handheld, and an internet company. Maybe that is the only way we can restore fair competition?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
A convicted child molester awaiting final sentencing has voluntarily stopped giving cherry flavor lollypops to children. He continues to insist that prison time and losing his job as school teacher are unacceptable.
He further argues that it would be inappropriate for the sentence to place any restriction on his freedom to use candybars to lure children. While he admits he has used candybars in this manner, the district attorney got his conviction based on solely on cases where he used cherry lollypops. Candybar evidence was never presented in court due to budgetary constraints the complexity of the numerous brands and flavors of candybars involved.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
WordPerfect 5.2 forever!
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Which is taken directly from Sun's framework, and improved it just a bit. .NET's language independence is a bit exagerated. It is not possible to create a VM which would be able to hold all different kinds of languages. It simply does not make sense, since there are many different type of languages. .NET languages are not the real languages. They are crippled and extended versions to fit into CLR.
.NET. Sun's way is much better. By the way, there are Java 3 gossips around. Beware the Gosling's new attack. Remember, he designed Java 10 years ago. :)
.NET 2. Mono will always come with a minimum 2 years lag behind original .NET. .NET to Ecma. ADO.NET, Winforms, and maybe the most important, Enterprise Services framework (which contains very important parts, such as transactions.) are not given to the Ecma for instance. Since MS holds the patents, it is not possible for Mono or any other .NET implementation to implement them. Mono already step back from its previous claim and said they will not implement Winforms etc. So, .NET will never be cross platform. Tweaking? Oh, please don't make me laugh. .NET is there for more than 2 years. Mono is there for 1.5 years, still no release. After the release, nobody will trust it at least until it proves itself. MS even have problems with it. .NET, even on Windows platforms is not moving fastly. Lately Billy_the_McCarty said .NET needs 4 years to mature. Java is already mature, and it is already cross platform. .NET? Why should I care about Mono? Everything it promisses is already available with Java NOW. Which is mature and cross platform already.
I personally don't see anything beautiful in
Mono, actually, do not interest me a gram because of the following reasons:
- MS already started
- MS did not give everything about
- What estonishing speed are you talking about????
- What I am seing is, everybody is moving to Java. Why should I wait for
Dear Bill, do you have a
I know the courts pretty much follow the Id Software philosophy of "When it's done" ... but is there any rough timeline of when a decision is expected in the trial being decided by Judge Kollar-Kotelly?
There just aren't enough moderation options
This is exactly what they will be releasing (from an inside source)
MS actually lied...they only released 384 bits (48 Bytes). The last bit is just null
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Think about it. If you are accused of breaking law you either:
A. Didn't do it and plead innocent and stand by that plea
B. Did do it, plead guilty and throw yourself on the court's mercy.
C. Did do it, have no intention of pleading guilty, and try every trick in the book to not get punished.
Now look at Microsoft's behavior and decide which of these options fits them.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
Didn't the FTC examine those APIs in the early 90s, and didn't Microsoft claim that there wasn't any reason for them to use undocumented APIs in their applications, or something like that? Internal APIs are hard to avoid, and you can get into deep trouble if someone relies on them (because you cannot change them after that). If Microsoft was using these APIs for applications (and not system components), then they knew that they made two fundamental errors: they violated the previous FTC agreement, and good software engineering practices.
Both errors are hardly surprising, though.
I thought Satan already was a born again Christian.
What's a sig?
... but the source for those last two come with VC++ last I noticed.
DCMonkey
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/aug02/08- 05settlementmilestones.asp
(until they move it...)
It's supposed to be "Score 3, Funny", dummies.
- The Processor cycle eater (will grow / shrink according to the size of Intel's yearly 'donation' to Microsoft)
Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code and internal operating rules
;-)
That would be approximately 48 bytes . . . is this really front page news?
Win3 was not an operating system. It was a GUI. Linux follows this principle as well, with Linux being the operating system and having a host of available GUIs of various stripes and denominations. Technological advances should increase the number of options out there, not to make it easier to push whatever Ballmer wants to push. I was happy with a commandline word processor and DOS games like Quake and X-Wing. And I was pissed as hell when Win95 came out and took away my command line (if i had chosen to upgrade) default. This was the violation, If you ask me. MacOS has that too, but MacOS is a graphics-based box, not as much a work machine as a PC. And where Microsoft turned particularly evil was when they purposely did things to make the average user less likely to learn enough about computers to be able to handle simple tasks themselves, and by making it difficult for real tech/hacker types to deal with low-level things like manual device configuration rather than letting plug-and-pray systems FUBAR your entire setup. As a result, quality has heavily slipped, and yet it still finds its way into every box out there...sad, really
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
ok there are a hell of a lot of soft devices out there.
1: I'm not asking for all the graphics rendering stuff in a printer driver &co to be relased just the basic IO stuff.
2:there are a hell of a lot of devices that arn't so soft, GFX cards, Mpeg decoders, many soundcards etc.... they do not have great implementations under linux, e.g. S3 video cards
3: There's a lot of old hardware out there that definatly isn't soft.
4: A lot of chipsets have linux development support from the hardware manufactures e.g. ADSL chipsets, but no-one makes a linux driver for them.
5: It ain't that hard to reverse enginere something if you want to make a clone. but it's not cost effective to have to reverse enginer something just to write a driver.
Have a look at the xbox reverse enginering that's gone on latley and the XBOX is a basterd to hack compaired to most hardware.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Well, OEMs could be forced to offer the MS distribution (and provide it if the customers want it), while at the same time being allowed to offer their own distribution. This way, there would be fair competition: OEMs couldn't prevent the MS distribution to be sold, but MS cannot prevent the OEM distributions to be sold either. Then it's the customer to decide which one he wants - as it should be.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
From this link:
Does anyone else think it's funny that Microsoft likes to err on the side of reasonableness?
I wonder if we're really looking for Microsoft competitors, or just looking for Microsoft to act the benevolent part of being a benevolent dictator.
While everyone wishes there was a viable desktop alternative to Microsoft, there isn't one and NO set of DOJ terms (except, maybe, open-sourcing of Windows) is going to bring forward a desktop alternative.
I think most people would be happy if MS would just appreciate that they own the market for PC desktops and many corporate server installations and quit trying to own the *world*. If MS actually focused on producing quality, secure products, providing sane documentation (more sane than "see technet article xyz123 involving registry key additions and changes...") for products and APIs, and licensing terms that didn't feel like sodomy I think most people could live with it.
The computer biz largely thrives on standards; you don't have to guess or reinvent the wheel every day, and I think the MS desktop standard is certainly not that much worse than any other monopoly desktop standard would be other than the bloodthirsty, all-your-base-are-belong-to-us marketing philosophy.
They already are....
If anyone want's the microsoft access file format, drop me a mail.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Make sure you spell it correctly.
Synergy is your friend
No! Really? They wouldn't try to do that, would they?
One of the problems with such a protracted legal process is that it allows the guilty to apply influence after the case has been made, the facts determined and guilt found. The whole process is contemptable. If I get a speeding ticket, I can't get a reduced penalty by going to court and saying "look, I'm not speeding now".
Sigs are bad for your health.
As has been reported, companies are not updating their Windows and Office programs as Microsoft had hoped (and was counting on for revenue). Part of the reason for this is Microsoft's declining image in the areas of security and compatibility. The masses really are beginning to view Microsoft with the same attitude IBM was looked at in 1985... Disdain.
So Microsoft has this to combat as well as the impending DOJ outcome. They are trying to hit two birds with one stone. If they let Balmer do the throwing, it will likely just break a window.
If anyone believes this is something out of the goodness of Microsoft's heart... I've got a copy of Windows to sell you.
What I'd really like to see opened up is either the MAPI extensions used for calendaring/scheduling, or the Exchange wire protocol used to do the same. If either were opened up, we'd be able to extend groupware servers like Citadel to handle Outlook calendaring/scheduling with the same capabilities as an Exchange server.
Let's go, Bill: put your money where your mouth is. Is your software good enough to stand on its own merits instead of being propped up by platform lock-in?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
From the AP Wire news story:
> It [Microsoft] said that [opening the OS software completely]
> would allow them [competitors] to "clone" Windows,
> prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and
> development on the operating system.
Hmmm... that hasn't happened with the Apple's open source Darwin software.
If anything, the introduction of Mac OS X and its Darwin OS has led Apple to invest more time and energy into its research and development, partially because they can draw from the Open Source community.
Of course, I have a hard time imagining that the open source community would flock to Windows' aid if it became open source. There's still enough enmity against Microsoft that I think most self-respecting open source developers wouldn't touch the Windows OS with a ten foot pole.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Example: the broadcast ban, generally thought of as a big concession by the tobacco industry, was in fact a deal to get the anti-smoking ads off the air. Smoking, which had been falling, flattened out, as both sets of ads left the airwaves. This displaced a generation of effective anti-smoking ads. Example: warning labels on packs: the industry negotiated soft "may be a risk" language for the warnings and then got 30 years of teflon in court. This displaced real warnings (e.g. visible in ads, use of graphics, warnings about addictive product, list of additives and emitted substances, etc.)
Many more examples could be cited. The history is long and ugly and it leaves one fact uncontested: whenever the tobacco industry offers to make a deal, whatever concessions it's offering, it already knows would have little effect on its business. It then holds up these concessions as real reform and a sign of its good faith. Politicians usually fall neatly into line, shouting that this is real change and big progress. The industry smiles quietly and sails ahead, signing up another generation of 14 year olds (median age).
Veteran tobacco industry watchers call this "give an inch, gain a decade".
A longer-winded summary would be, figure out what looks good and really doesn't matter, make a big thing of offering that, and see who goes for it.
Any similarity between Philip Morris and Microsoft is entirely up to the reader.
XANDROS:
Support USB and ADSL?
Yep.
Got wide range of hardware support?
Yep.
Got a lot more that's going to be exciting?
Yep.
Got Milk?
Yep.
God forbid that we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. T. Jefferson.
And I'll never understand people like you either.
MS was proven to have broken the law and yet nothing is being done about it. This is wrong. Period.
Furthermore, using what the general public does and doesn't care about as a final measure of whether something is important or not is beyond facile. By that reckoning Dale Earnhardt would've been elected to office posthumously and King of the Hill would be on for two-hours five nights a week, followed by a Cops mini-marathon.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Yes, .NET needs time to mature. Yes, Java is mature but Sun has not released control of it to anyone and has done barely anything with it when they could've premptively lynched .NET before it came out. But they didn't and it did. .NET is very fast on windows .NET, specifically C# and especially in the financial sector. :) is that you have an open standard (pple going to say "ohh but M$ is going to change this...kill that..", lets not speculate -- I'm in the "right-now") and a VERY fast moving mono GPL project. :) Who cares? To each his own, and all that shit. :D
Yes,
Mono is implementing W.Forms and ADO with the same interface even if MS didn't release their code and the IL spec is OPEN and any changes are open as well (hoping).
Actually what I am seeing is everyone moving to
IMHO, the "beauty" (/. posters are so melodramatic
The bottom line, thought: If you want to use Java, by all means keep using Java. I'll use both
BTW, web services are really cool. (trust me, i viewed them with the same skepticism as everyone else, until I tried them
why run from Vincenzo?
"Which is taken directly from Sun's framework, and improved it just a bit."
.NET is more inspired by WebSphere than by J2EE, since J2EE wasn't fully spec'd when the design of .NET started
.NET will never be cross platform."
.NET events and EVERY MS employee i've spoken to has told me it will NEVER be cross-platform.
.NET, you shared the kool-aid with Miguel.
actually ALL services frameworks will need to look pretty much alike (call it services "plug compatabilty"). BUT, it is much more likely that
"Sun's way is much better."
bearing in mind that ALL the services platforms are still much more "vapor" (in terms of their "long term" design goals) than reality, WHY is Sun's way much better?
I know hardcore developers who work with all 3 plaftforms and they find that there ARE huge problems with cross-platform compatability (most esp the various clients' JVMs) with J2EE. They've told me that WebSphere is the most stable, albeit the least-featured(HMMMM). Many of them like ASP.NET and the CLR quite a bit, but hate C# desperately. As usual, YMMV.
"So,
Who said it would be cross-platform? I've be to a number of big
If you're think of MONO as the cross-platform version of
MS will NEVER support ANY cross-platform technology that is competitive with their own.
Sun is trying to do the same thing with J2EE, Blue with 'Sphere, HP's is off in the vapor...
Currenty, ALL WEB SERVICES PLATFORMS ARE ABOUT VENDOR LOCK-IN.
They are not about; technology, developer support or customer facilitation.
We just have to pick the best for each specific customer/job/spec we develop and hope that one of these technologies (or another) matures past the "competitive advantage" stage of development.
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
"Terrorism is murder, death, mayhem. Whatever your opinions on Microsoft (and I'll reserve mine) they are in no way as evil as those who would kill innocent men women and children to further their own agenda."
From the American Heritage dictionary terrorism is defined as:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Preface "force" with "economic", and replace "governments" and "political" with "corporations" and "financial", and it sounds like a perfect description of MS behavior to me. Amoral behavior is amoral regardless of the arena.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
So then, what exactly is Microsoft trying to coerce society or the government into doing?
What force or Violence have the used?
Injecting words into a definition like that can seriously change the meaning of a word. Let's say the USA is defined as 'The United States of America' preface "America" with "South" and we've got a definition which is pretty much as similar to the original as yours.
Calling MS's actions terrorism is ridiculous. Is Enron a terrorist organization? How about Worldcom? To me, it's more appropriate to say that the US' actions in WWII, Nicaragua, Columbia, etc.. are terrorist than Microsoft's. We, as a nation (organized group) took part in both unlawful and threatened use of force against people and property, with the intention of intimidating and coercing societies for idealogical and political reasons. Micrsoft's actions might fit your 'prefaced' version of terrorism, but I prefer to stick with the actual definition of the word.
Why do I feel like I'm just fueling the trolls?
"Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code
That's it?! They really think disclosing ~48 bytes of code will get them out of hot water with the justice department? I think not...
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Yup, should be useful. More seriosly though, I work with WinCE quite a bit. They released some of the OS source under a look-don't-touch license. This helps a bit, but still is insufficient to work very effectively.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
NYT(FRBBB)
MS was proven to have broken the law and yet nothing is being done about it. This is wrong. Period.
Ever heard of the concept of the "punishment fitting the crime"? I will grant that Microsoft has been found guilty (although it's debatable whether they should have been, particularly from a judge ruled to have made major errors), but that does not mean that the punishment should be some draconian death penalty that people like you seem to want.
For example, the USFL sued the NFL. They won. They were awarded one dollar. I think awarding the damaged part(ies) one dollar would be about right.
And by the way, this is not to defend many of Microsoft's policies or their software. I just don't see that "being mean" to one's competitors (PARTICULARLY completely incompetent competitors like Netscape who produced absolute crap software) is a crime.
The fact is that Microsoft has dominated because their competition has been idiots.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code"
I estimate the download to be approximately 48.125 bytes, uncompressed.
Well, OEMs could be forced to offer the MS distribution
OEM's (or anyone else) should not be "forced" to sell anything at all.
Because I sell Pepsi and can purchase it cheaper than Coke, does that mean that I should be forced to sell Coke as well? As a business owner I will buy the product I choose based on what I think I will be able to sell and the price that the wholesalers will try to charge me for it.
>If the customer wants what I'm selling then I'll do well and my business will survive.
If the customer doesn't want what I'm selling then he has the option of going "across the street" and buying the product that he does want; if I want to stay in business I had better start selling a product that the customers want.
That's how it's supposed to work.
If OEM's want to sell a stripped-down MS Windows or a full-version Linux, or even throw in a used tractor tire "free with every purchase" then that is up to them and that's not for you or me to decide. However, the problem here is that Windows has become such an entrenched monopoly that you simply can't sell computers into a mainstream market without also selling MS Windows. And that is the problem that the states and DOJ are supposed to be solving.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
We're not children, we're adults, and are therefore supposedly capable of choosing for ourselves what software we want to use.
Heh, that was funny... Now let's go back to the real world where the federal government decides for us what software we can buy.
Microsoft said it plans to disclose 385 bits of computer code and internal operating rules, previously kept secret, that outside software developers can use to write programs to run on Windows.
Those being 1011001010010110110......
--
Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.
This one would probably be sufficient. If anyone sufficiently motivated could write a file-compatible office suite, and the file formats were published, so that independent auditors could test compliance...
You could have good old-fashioned competition in office suites again. Price wars! Ads on TV! Beautiful spokesmodels!
Now here's where it gets weird. Say it happened, and someone (who? w3c? Microsoft? ANSI?) controlled the file format. If this happened, then neither Microsoft nor anyone else could add new features to their offerings without notifying the rest of the world that The One True Format was about to change, and allowing some lead time for everyone else. Would that speed up or slow down the introduction of new features? I'm not sure I like this much. Have I missed something obvious?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ah, one of my favourite quotes. Well, it sounds better of course because then you get the full "demented whinge" effect, plus lots of harrumphing "hear hear" agreement from the old farts in the 'audience'.
I think this is a parody of some predecessor to Question Time, a current affairs panel series, or possibly The [David] Frost Show which was inflicted on the US as well.
How about a different set of rules that depend on whether or not your organization obeys the law?
This is one of the crucial areas that is giving OEMs problems and certainly protects Microsoft's hold on the desktop.
See my journal, I write things there
Fileformats are a key issue and do not seem to be addressed either. It's not just an issue for competitors. How many MS users have upgraded because of changes in MS-Word, MS-Excel, or MS-PPT file formats? Also, if you go over to renting software, License 6.0, the day you give up your subscription is the day you lose access to your own data...unless those files can be read by a non-MS program. Additionally, the DMCA probably could be used as a hinder unless the file specs are public.
Apply Occam's Razor to the ZDNet and CNet articles and you'll see that, like most such press releases, there's really nothing there but a few kernels buried here and there. From the ZDnet article : if other companies got too much access to the inner workings of the operating system. It said that would allow them to "clone" Windows, prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and development on the operating system. Perhaps this is a form of not complying or a softening up to the end of the MS-Office and MS-Windows product line.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Why I think that they will not? Because Miguel de Icaza changed his mind and said Mono will not implement WinForms. I don't know if he changed his mind again. He looks like changing his mind every now and then. There was a discussion about it last week or the previous week here at /., Icaza himself said he changed his mind, and will not implement WinForms. I would spot it if I had time. Please look for it for yourself.
Well, using a system is something, trusting a system is another. J2EE is around for how many years? Its is now mature, after all these years. IBM's application server reached version 6 or something. After Mono's release, I would not dare to use it for couple of years. If it is gonna be used in serious project, it has to get mature and prove itself, which takes years.
Please get a life. .NET will never be cross platform. MS would never let it. AND, WHY should I wait anyway? JAVA is working RIGHT NOW, and it is already MATURE, and it already PROVED ITSELF, and it is already CROSS PLATFORM COMPATIBLE, and there are many J2EE servers (open/closed source), web services implementations (open/closed source), thousands of ready to use libraries, frameworks, projects (open/closed source) to chose from:
http://www.javaskyline.com/webservices/
http://www.javaskyline.com/serv.html
Can you show me a .NET server available on the market? Just show me one. Even MS released "nearly finished" version of its .NET server AFTER ONE YEAR LAG. Forget about being robust, and mature, it is not even finished yet! After its release, minimum 3 years for bug fixing and adoption.
Do you recognize that ALL the big firms of the IT market already rolled their dice, and chosen Java for their application servers? For example, Sun, Oracle, Sybase, IBM, HP, Macromedia, BEA, JBoss, OpenEJB. ALL of them are based on J2EE. All of them are mature, proved themselves after years of improvements.
Well, I believe, .NET will be used extensively on Windows platform. On Linux, probably for couple of client side applications.
Dear Bill, do you have a
.NET is very fast on Windows. So what? For example, unmanaged code calling is not fast enough, although it does not have JNI like layer. My firm tried to call some C++ functions and Active X controls to test .NET, they abandoned it immediately after huuuuge performance hit. .NET will never be cross-platform-compatible. .NET? They did not release the most important part: Enterprise Services Framework. Say goodby to .NET transactions in Mono.
Also, do you guys understand that cross-platform-compatibility is important especially in the last 2 years?
Sun has not released control of it to anyone. So what? Did MS released all parts of
I am seriously seing every firm here is trying to getting rid of Windows, and moving to Java. I think the recent increase in Java projects and interest in Java programmers proves my claim.
Dear Bill, do you have a
Why Sun's way is better?
.NET server? MS released last week after one year lag "nearly-finished" version of their .NET server.
Check out the following to see the options:
http://www.javaskyline.com/serv.html
http://www.javaskyline.com/webservices/
All the big firms other than MS have J2EE based servers. Such as: Sun, IBM, Apple, HP, Fujitsu, BEA, Oracle, Sybase. Oh, there are also open source choices: JBoss, OpenEJB.
Can you show me one
Dear Bill, do you have a
As a dedicated Microsoft user (and a linux user) I have to comment on the posts I am seeing about how bad it is that Microsoft has preinstalled icons or software in Windows. Sure, it has been structured in such a way as it is basically a necessary part of Windows' function. But if you do not like Internet Explorer, simply DON'T USE IT!! Use Netscape, or Opera, or any number of other browsers. If you do not like that little icon on your screen, simply get the FREE utility TweakUI, and remove it!! Besides, why are all these people complaining about these features and ripping on Microsoft using Microsoft products to begin with if they hate it so bad? Interesting.
You mis-interpreted what I wrote.
Your example is quite off: If someone decides Linux is better than Windows, and he wants to sell exclusively Linux (or BSD, or maybe OS/2 or whatever), then he is of course allowed to do so, and no one can force him to offer Windows as well.
The point is that if he decides to offer Windows (this is, what makes him a Windows OEM, after all), that he would have to agree to offer the customers the Microsoft distribution besides his own Windows distribution (he would definitvely not be forced to actually sell it - if the customer likes the non-MS distribution better, he can sell them that, of course). That's like saying "If you sell drinks made of Coke, offer the pure Coke also". You may disagree to that as well, but that's quite different to "If you sell Pepsi, then also sell Coke". One is about products of different vendors, the other is about the bundling of products of the same vendor. (Also note that currently he is only allowed to sell the MS distribution - if he sold a modified CD with IE replaced by Netscape, even while saying so and offering the normal version as well, MS could sue him)
What you may have missed is that this is on the hypothetical situation that Windows is not only sold in the "Microsoft distribution" (i.e. in the bundling you currently get), but that OEMs are allowed to create their own distributions (with Netscape instead of IE, with replacements of the media player, or even without it, maybe even with a different desktop, if that can be replaced).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
NET is very fast on Windows...My firm tried to call some C++ functions and Active X controls to test .NET, they abandoned it immediately after huuuuge performance hit. :) .NET class) is most likely due to something called "cross-thread marshalling". This is when the runtime has to convert complex (non-blittable) data types for interop and, yes I agree, it can be dreadfully slow. But at least the option is there if you have a simple COM interface and don't want to rewrite yet. I just think of unmanaged code/interop as an extra feature.
/puts hans over ears/. It won't be with that attitude mister! j/k:)
.NET ("6 mos. or more exp") jobs around. Especially in the financial sector for some reason. Although web-realted J2EE jobs are all over the place, I think.
.NET and Java and that .NET projects like Mono (and Rotor) *will* be cross-platform. :(, anyone with similar probs?
Hopefully, it'll be fast on Linux too
The unmanaged code bit (calling COM interface wrapper
Also, do you guys understand that cross-platform-compatibility is important especially in the last 2 years?
Yes..NET will never be cross-platform-compatible.
Ahh! I can't hear you!!
Seriously, why do you *not* want it to be the true cross-platform compatible solution? Why do think it won't be? That's the MAIN reason I got so interested in C#. If it doesn't deliver I'll move back to Java. Simple as that. But I hope it does.
Sun hasn't released anything to a standards body like ECMA, MS has. That's the most important point. Of course they still have ADO/winForms closed, though, so...
Transactions? Isn't Mono using GNOME-DB (modeled after ADO anyway) as the DB API behind ADO.NET? That's what I last read a few days ago.
I am seriously seing every firm here is trying to getting rid of Windows, and moving to Java. I think the recent increase in Java projects and interest in Java programmers proves my claim. Hey, I see a lot of Java jobs but I see even more
Well I hope there is enough room for both
On a side note: I tried my darndest to get mono compiled last night on my Slackware box with no luck
why run from Vincenzo?
Or maybe we could order it.... on 400 CDs. And then, Microsoft wins again, he have made another sale!!!!