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
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
Please don't throw me into that briar patch, your honor!
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
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.