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?
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
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"
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
The article can also be found on Netscape's news site here.
Why? Microsoft own and write (or have bought the companies which wrote) the applications that are shipped with Windows, and would claim that they are all part of Windows. A linux distribution contains both Linux and multiple applications - often several applications which serve the same function. So a typical Linux distribution encourages competition whereas Windows stifles it.
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.
M$ on the otherhand restrained third parties (Dell, Gateway) from shipping Windows with other software such as Netscape, or other OSs such as BeOS, installed on the machine.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
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.The States that oppose the settlement are right. Nothing but an OS, no browser or media player.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. What's an OS? Just the kernel? Are you allowed to add a file browser? A GUI? A network stack?
Every one of these used to be available as an extra-cost add on for Windows and other OSs. Trumpet used to make good coin with Winsock: do we make MS strip the TCP/IP stack from Windows? (It wasn't just MS: we paid serious dollar$ for a TCP/IP stack for the VMS cluster I used to admin.)
Indeed, perhaps even the kernel is removeable: Win3 ran fine with DR-DOS underneath instead of MS-DOS, despite what MS said.
I have a really hard time with this: where *exactly* do you draw the line on what you include? Does that line move? Selling an OS without modem support and a network stack would be suicide today, but it wasn't ten years ago.
A web browser IMHO has reached the point where it should be included as part of the OS: there isn't a single OS on the market today that doesn't bundle one. A media player might be under the umbrella. Just try and strip Quicktime out of MacOSX and see how far you get.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
None of the Linux distributors have illegally abused a monopoly, which is why they are not required to stop abusing a monopoly, which is why they are therefore not having the same kind of restrictions put on them. Got it now?
... I have to disagree with people. All they were doing was giving people features they want.
Are you saying that instead of having one set of rules, we should have several that depend on the size of your organization and the amount of power it wields?
I have no problem with the government coming out and saying the MS abused it's monopoly by forcing people to only sell computers with windows installed. However, when it comes to the question of wether or not MS abused it's monopoly by also distributing a tcp/ip stack, a web browser, a media player, notepad, etc
People bitch and moan around here because the MPAA and RIAA are using the government to prevent them from have to change their business models with the times. Well, I find it awfully ironic that it's pretty much the same thing that Netscape did with the trial.
InitWindows() {
long futzLevel = 0;
if(RealMediaIsInstalled()) {
futzLevel++;
ReclaimMIME();
}
if(QuickTimeIsInstalled()) {
futzLevel++;
ReclaimMIME();
}
if(NetscapeIsInstalled()) {
futzLevel++;
AddMSIEIconToDesktop();
}
if(AOLIsInstalled()) {
futzLevel++;
AddMSNIconToDesktop();
}
if(JavaIsInstalled()) {
futzLevel++;
SetIEFailureLevel(GetRandom(7));
}
AddBriefcaseIconToDesktop();
AddMediaFavoritesToIE();
SetBSODInterval(futzLevel);
SetRandomDiskAccess(futzLevel);
ShuffleDLLs();
SendInformationToMicrosoft();
if(UserIsHotmailUser())
AddToGlobalSpamList();
}
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
"Are you saying that instead of having one set of rules, we should have several that depend on the size of your organization and the amount of power it wields?"
No, hes saying that when a company breaks the law they should be punished. MS has been convicted of breaking a law, hence they should be punished by forcing modularity.
You have the right to own a gun, however people who are on parole can be restrictred from owning one.
No, hes saying that when a company breaks the law they should be punished. MS has been convicted of breaking a law, hence they should be punished by forcing modularity.
Anti-trust law is about leveling the playing field when one company is more powerful than another. It's not about changing the rules to give one side or another an advantage.
What's an OS?
/bin/sh is an application; hell, anything that the user sees is an application. The things the user sees that might be considered the operating system are really side-effects of the operating system, such as process scheduling and file system caching.
In UNIX, this is easy to answer. The OS is the kernel and its API. Everything else is an application. Even
The term "operating environment" is more accurate for what we call Windows or Solaris, for example. These are the operating system plus bundled applications that make the system useful.
There is an important distinction to make between Windows and Solaris, however. Sun is slow to integrate third-party applications, such as Perl, into Solaris and does so only after enough users demand it. Microsoft, on the other hand, is quick to add things driven by their desire to dominate a particular market. This distinction makes is clearer how to deal with Microsoft.
The lines dividing what to package and what not to package should be divided by market. Can Microsoft include the operating system? Of course. Can Microsoft include a web browser (a distinct market), also, after being convicted an illegal monopoly? Yes, but it must be completely modular and completely optional. How about a trial contract with MSN (a distinct market)? Yes, but only if it is clearly separated from other applications and clearly documented (currently, they try to make it part of the Windows "experience"). How about an office productivity application (a distinct market)? Yes, but it should also be completely modular, optional, and have an open documented file format.
When you consider that Microsoft is trying to dominate several markets simultaneously, dividing what is and isn't "part of the OS" becomes pretty simple.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
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!
And the reason you keep saying it is because you still don't understand what Microsoft got in trouble for.
The court case was not about the bundling of the browser. It was about the forceful tactics used by Microsoft against OEMs who wanted to ship Netscape Navigator. The OEMs were told - in no uncertain terms - that they would ship IE instead of Netscape or Microsoft would force them into bankruptcy.
OEMs should have the right to change bits as they see fit. Microsoft removed that right. This is the same reason why the so-called argument that "KDE ships with Konqueror!" is so idiotic. Vendors like RedHat have the option to ship KDE with or without Konqueror. OEMs like Compaq were not given that choice with IE on Windows.
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.