Slashdot Mirror
MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud
Bruce Perens writes "Microsoft's new "Software Choice" campaign is all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. It's too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn't see through the rhetoric. Read the full story at The Register." Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government. The gloves are off - on both sides.
I quote:
> Free Software, also called Open Source, is itself a kind of open standard - its source code is its own reference.
Someone tell me a little editorial breakage didn't happen after Bruce dropped off the manuscript??
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
i am pleased to see government agencies mandating that open source software, or at least software that wasn't written by micro$oft goons be used.
maybe they're beginning to see that there *is* more than one company out there writing software.
or maybe i'm asking for too much
mechanicos ergo cogito
Sorry for the troll!
-Mark
The radio station near my house plays both kinds of music:
country AND western.
Such as Outlook vs. Outlook Express
Perhaps you prefer Frontpage to Frontpage Express?
Hmm...looks like CA is about to serve up some Lawyers via the Lawyer Express
Find out how much money Microsoft has given to California legislators, then look at how much money the Open Source Movement has given and you'll easily figure out how this vote will go.
It'll never reach the floor for a vote.
It's really easy to get hung up on the "Microsoft doesn't get uptight about the idea of patented technologies being in open standards" strawman that gets dragged out every time they launch an initiative.
It's about choice, people, every bit as much as the Open Source camp purports to be. Locking patented technologies out of open standards means that you cannot choose the best technology for a given task because of someone's arbitrary complant about the 'freeness' of a part of it. To me, that's as chilling as saying we must all be locked into proprietary software, and it worries me when I hear the people supposedly on this side of the argument trying to determine my rights for me.
There are no laws mandating free software.
There are considerations for laws blocking out proprietary software.
Big difference, ya know.
Why should entire nations be bound to EULAs and license agreements made by a single company?
That company would be able to dictate national policy in almost all technological and many economical matters.
The worry used to be about separating church and state.
Now we worry about big business and state.
Btw, by your comment "I thought you guys were all about freedom", that heavily implies you are not an OSS supporter.
Do you think "embrace and extend" is the way to go?
What about when Microsoft "embrace and extend"s the next killer app you wrote in your spare time?
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949241.html
Exactly. If you work with Microsoft Windows XP every day, and you consider it thoroughly, you find that the situation is worse than people commonly say.
If you haven't seen this article about Windows XP problems before, it may interest you. I wrote it to try to show the aggressiveness behind Windows: Windows XP shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
If you have seen the article before, and you view it again, reload your browser, because the article was recently updated.
It's wonderful that government agencies are beginning the realize the liability of using a closed, proprietary, software product from a company that seems to care more about control than about making money.
not to be a wet towel, but how in the fuck is supporting open source being anti-american.
wasn't america founded on the principle that the people should have the choice to buy/sell/use/live/work what/where they want?
please, keep it in your pants next time
mechanicos ergo cogito
And think how much more money will flow into the lobbyists. I wonder if California just trys to make these laws to bring in millions for lobbying and even MORE money.
Like legislating CO2 emissions, the automakers are dumping piles of cash into the state to fight it.
Interesting idea, discuss making controversial laws, pull millions into the state economy.
Backup Problems Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [microsoft.com].
The article refers to problems cloning and duplicating "Windows XP" machines. If you actually bothered to read the article you would see that this would cause no problem for backups. And if you actually got up your ass, you would find free utilities on the web to modify SIDs automagically when you want to clone an install to many machines.
yeah, i'm completely anti-m$.... sitting here at my Win2k machine, with my M$ intellimouse....
i'm definitely a clone of the evil robot, you should deride me, to protect me from the evil secret of space... robot
just because i don't like the way the M$ corporation practices business doesn't mean i'm going to shun it, but at the same time, i AM going to use the right tool for the job, which means using multiple os's, and more than one brand of software.
and being a government employee, i do have to work every day with M$ software exclusively... fun fun. when i get home, though, i have a *CHOICE* of which OS i want to use, and i exercise MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE wisely.
thanks for your time
mechanicos ergo cogito
"Microsoft is going to flood San Diego with free hardware, free software and free services," Pennington predicted.
I'm sure this will happen because we all know that M$ has thus far solved all its problems by throwing money at them. This will be no execption. Wishing he lived in San Diego right now...
I don't agree with this: development has nothing to do with it. The royalties come into play when the software is used, so the government might have to pay up. That's ok, it will still cost them less than MS licensing.
The source can still be open, but using it will oblige you to pay royalties. A lot of you will complain about this, but the goals of using Open Source within the government are (or should be):
In the end, everything's better than all the money going to a single company.
Economists predict the risk to governments who consume Microsoft-tainted hardware is considerable. Once /this/ insidious operating system enters a into the eco system of the victim government, it may take years to fully rebuild the country's infostructure.
So Open Source couldn't compete with the Allmighty MS so they chose to use the cowards way and try to convince the government to make a law that will force Open Source programs on people. Way to go.
How about hypocrisy hey?
I was getting into BEOS, then Be died and took my hope for an excellent OS with it. OpenBeos is making huge strides, and I plan on supporting that with one PC at first, then others as it matures.
My point though is this: I am all for choice. MS could do alot for the industry if they'd actually cooperate with Open Source rather than try and be the Only Source.
OS X is an excellent example of a *nix that is user friendly. Part Open and part closed, it shows that choice isn't about locking you in. Its about inviting you in.
OpenBeos is where its at. :)
Very cogent viewpoint here. Programmers should be naturals at creating (and debugging) laws, as well as using our rare skills to enact social change. I hope someday soon there will be a mass realization amongst us that we hold the balls of government and criminal monopolies in our hands.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Windows XP Pro for the Itanium was released the same day as Windows XP Pro for the x86. AFAIK (and I am not a Windows hacker) it has all, if not more, of the same functionality. Bruce may be reading a little too much ./ People here seem to think that AMD's press releases about XP for the Hammer mean that MS won't support the Itanium. The fact is that they already have.
I'll grant that there is no evidence of "enthusiastic support" (does this mean a Windows 98 port?) If this was his main point, though, it got lost under the cry for an excellent Windows port.
However, Microsoft is also a taxpayer - although in some years they've managed to avoid U.S. corporate income taxes entirely. As a taxpayer, perhaps they should be able to embed the result of government-funded work in their products and charge other taxpayers for it a second time.
It's just that Mr Perens' article had the tone of something out of the Revolutionary Worker, and conveyed the same about of credibility / objectivity.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Probably not. Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft - they have a HUGE lobby effect on our government. Combine that with their cash flow - they can pretty much buy whatever vote, or avoid whatever damages in court, they care to. We have seen this over and over again.
In order to effectivly release microsoft's strangle hold on the industry we need to do several things:
It's these kind of sleazy tactics that microsoft likes to use as well... case in point... NOW SUDDENLY they think they have a patent on portions of openGL - why? because SGI sold them certain IP rights (which is probably illegal to begin with to something that is open source).
Patents and IP rights on software and algorithms simply don't make sense, and as we have seen over and over again, only result in someone trying to lock the industry and drain money from everyone and everycompany.
Secondly... outlaw, or EXTREMELY CURTAIL lobbies. While lobbies *might* be important, they are too dangerous. There are much better ways for the government to receive information (e.g., hauling up experts in front of congressional hearings, etc). Lobbies are funded by people who DO NOT represent te rest of us. They have self-interests at heart only, and they swing deals with government that do not help the people. This includes MICROSOFT, which has a HUGE lobby effort in DC.
Additionally, why would ANY government (especially foreign ones) in their right mind go with Microsoft. Microsoft is a US company. If I was a foreign government I would DEFINATLY want to have control over the source code so that I could be sure that Redmond isn't reading my sensitive government email. Again... think about it folks. I'm sure the US is RIGHT BEHIND microsoft in pusing their software to other countries - why? cause Bunny Pants Bush would have his ear to classified communications planet wide. I wonder who is REALLY behind the microsoft push into other countires (I can hear the meeting right now... BILLYGOATS: Say Bushie Boy... we can let you eavesdrop on russia, brittan, afganistan, but ONLY if you look the other way, forgive us our wrongs, and help us push our standards on the rest of the world. BUNNYPANTS: Sounds good... say, watch me drive this golf ball).
It's unfortunate, but the giants such as Microsoft have virtually ruined our industry. From their crap software to their crap policies and lies and their holy-bug-ridden-virus-prone *secure* software - it is all crap and they need to be slapped down seriously for trying to fuck with every industry and government out there.
that releasing government software under GPL doesn't prevent the authors to also release it under a different license. In much the same way that Trolltech released their software. In this way you can guaranty that the taxpayer can profit without having to pay for it twice and if a software company
would like a different license they can pay for it.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
by Michael Jennings, Futurepower ® Computer Systems
Updated August 8, 2002
This article follows the settings of your browser.
Adjust the browser to a comfortable width for reading.
This article is frequently updated.
If you have visited it before,
select View/Reload in your browser (or type Control-R),
so you read the version on the web site,
and not the one stored in your computer.
The author wrote this article because of the need to give his customers fundamental information about the direction Microsoft wants to take them. Few people have the technical background to understand fully the advantages and disadvantages of software as complex as an operating system or office software. Without fundamental information, it is difficult for non-professionals to understand the advice of professionals.
The author is not anti-Microsoft in any way. There appear to be management problems at Microsoft, but the author would like any problems to be fixed, rather than have the entire world suffer through Microsoft doing poorly. Because he has spent considerable time trying to understand the problems, and because he cares deeply about fixing the problems, the author is, in that sense, "more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates".
Hidden Connections Users of Microsoft Windows XP become connected with Microsoft's computers in hidden ways. It is very expensive or impossible to evaluate the present and future privacy and security issues of these connections. Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects each user's computer to Microsoft's computers:
Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
Fax Service
File Signature Verification
Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
Microsoft Application Error Reporting
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
Microsoft Help and Support Center
Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
Microsoft Management Console
Microsoft Media Player (Tells Microsoft the music you like.)
Microsoft Network Availability Test
Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
Microsoft Windows Media Configuration Utility (Setup_wm.exe, sometimes runs when you use Windows Media Player.)
MS DTC Console program
Run DLL as an app (There is no indication about which DLL or which function in the DLL.)
Services and Controller app
Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer. (This can be changed to get the time from another time server.)
Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.
This is not necessarily a complete list. There may be other connections. To generate this list yourself, disable Microsoft's firewall, and use the ZoneAlarm [zonelabs.com] firewall, which is free for personal use. When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will bring up a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (such as networking).
Why so buggy? The fact that Windows XP makes your computer dependent on Microsoft computers is bad not only because you lose control over your computer, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of August 8, 2002, there are 22 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer [pivx.com]. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now. Internet Explorer is only one example. All of Microsoft's software seems to be of comparable quality.
There are a variety of plausible reasons why Microsoft would allow so many bugs in its software. Since Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, it is enormously profitable to sell users sloppily written software, and then later sell them upgrades to that software.
It also seems possible that there is a connection between the huge number of bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking [usdoj.gov]. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
Another theory is that the quality of management at Microsoft is so poor that the company simply cannot motivate its programmers to do better.
You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held in the future. Microsoft has changed the terms of the contract to which users are bound by including the new contract with some security and other bug fixes.
Recent security patches require that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer [theregus.com]. (Administrator privileges give complete control over the computer and all data stored on it.) See also, Microsoft EULA requests root rights - again [theregus.com]. The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug that would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer.
This article explains the issue in more depth: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper [bsdvault.net]. It helps to think like a lawyer when you take apart the crucial sentence. The sentence, "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless since the some of the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants.
Since Microsoft can change the contract at any time and without control by the user, Microsoft can bind users to contracts that it invents in the future. This is a new development in contract law. A user is bound to a new contract if he or she wants bug fixes and security fixes. But this gives the user no control, since once security flaws are widely known, every computer must have the fixes or remain vulnerable. Users invest considerable money and time into their computers, and cannot avoid agreeing to the new contract without giving up their entire investment and disrupting their business and personal activities.
A government that uses Microsoft software is not an independent government. These Microsoft policies of keeping control mean that any government that wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government that represents itself as controlled by its own people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems or other Microsoft proprietary systems. Governments cannot bind themselves to unknown future limitations and invasion of privacy and remain free. It is very expensive to begin using an operating system, and once an operating system is in use, it is difficult to stop using it. Changes cannot be made quickly if some new undesirable aspect is discovered.
The Registry There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. There are several files which, all taken together, Microsoft calls the registry, but the one that causes most of the problems is, in Windows XP, called SOFTWARE. (The name is in all caps and has no file name extension.) On one machine, for example, this file is 25.69 megabytes; it is a huge file considering that it contains configuration information.
If this one large, often fragmented, file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user. There are many areas like this where what Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.
More Details about Registry Problems The problem with the registry is this. Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the corruption affects is not used for a considerable time. After the corruption occurs, the computer is upgraded, perhaps with new application software, perhaps with new drivers. Then maybe new system preferences are applied. Suppose the company has saved backups of all previous versions of the registry on CD (an unlikely event).
See the problem? Since all the software is connected to all the other software by the registry, corruption that goes unnoticed for a while can create an impossible situation. If the company goes back to the original, known good registry, they must give up all the time they spent upgrading the computer. This may be substantial, especially since they may not have complete records about what upgrading was done.
In actuality the situations caused by the registry are far, far more complicated than this. For example, you may think that some failure you are having is caused by registry corruption. However, it may take far too much time to prove whether that is the case. If you think of all the combinations of difficult circumstances, you will see that having most configuration settings in one file is sometimes devastating for the user.
Consider that the person who is using the computer probably has an important job in the company, and wants to use the computer, since only some functions don't work, but others do. Consider that a repair person must be supervised 100% of the time at some companies, because of security needs.
There seems to be nothing like this in the Linux or BSD operating systems. First, there is no single file in which corruption can make an entire installation worthless, even if the user has backups. Second, there is far better error checking, so corruption of any kind is less likely to occur. With Windows XP, sometimes a faulty program can cause the entire OS to become unstable. (I have personally seen this at least 50 times.) My experience with Linux is that the OS just throws the faulty application out of memory and comes back and says, okay, what else do you want to do?
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over with a re-formatted hard drive. This usually takes many hours, especially in situations in which a company employee uses a system with special adjustments or programs, which is often the case.
Users have always had the option of making backups of the registry, but making useful backups is often difficult or impossible. Backing up the registry in Windows XP is even more difficult, because the registry in now not all in one file, but is partly spread to several files, and the OS prevents you from making copies with the xcopy.exe program or the copy command. So, you cannot create your own backup tools, as you could in Windows 98.
Backup Problems Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [microsoft.com]. Only those who work with Microsoft software extensively will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but the fixes don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the applications are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Obviously you are unaware of the rescue operation which comes on your windows CDROM.
There is absolutely no need for Microsoft's Passport. There is a free Internet browser called Mozilla [mozilla.org] that provides the same benefit to the user as Passport, but doesn't involve the extreme privacy invasion of the Microsoft method. Mozilla's Password Manager (under the Tools menu choice) remembers what you type when you supply any personal information, not just passwords.
I don't have a passport and I have the same functionality in Internet Explorer. I believe its called auto-complete.
Palladium gives Microsoft the ability to prevent users from seeing their own documents and data.
Bzzt Wrong! The data they are preventing you from "seeing" is not your data. Its someone elses who has given you a license to use that data only in a certain way.
Reduced Functionality in Windows XP In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition).
This is obviously FUD. Windows XP comes with more CLI utilities than Windows 98.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did.
???
C:\> START calc
C:\> (calculator is till running)
If thats not "returning" control then you are using ambiguous terms.
Microsoft is for the ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Microsoft says, "Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP."
Would Microsoft say that if it were not true?
The problem is not with the SID. The problem occurs because Microsoft puts all the configuration parameters in one file (called SOFTWARE) in the registry. This is a fundamental design flaw in Windows.
The problem occurs when using backups, not with cloning onto identical machines. The problem occurs when using backups, not when making them. The backup you make may not actually be useful for restoring a working copy. That's what Microsoft "does not support". Microsoft apparently doesn't support this because they don't want people making copies and installing them on dissimilar machines.
Several people have had trouble with this, so I suppose I have not written it well enough. I will try again, but probably not until Monday night.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prior Art...
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/
--NBVB
OS/2 Forever! (Or until 1996, whichever comes first.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Billy the Head Borg has finally shown his true face.
The Borg gives you a choice
Choose Billy and you will live, as a Borg.
Chose others and you will die, and reborn as a Borg.
Billy has already done his tricks with his Microserfs, now he is planning to do it to the rest of the world.
Where's the Star Trek crews when we need them ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot's editing? The description of this story gives absolutely no indication of what it is about...and when you click on the link, you find that the person just ripped off a line from the Register's story anyway. In these cases, can the editors please write their own summary, or look for a better submission?
Excellent explanation. Mod parent up!!!!
thank you very much for providing us that link. it seems to be the exact same link provided by slashdot in the post on the front page. thank you very much. your "Operation Extreme Redundancy" shall be declared a success.
Shoving is the answer. People must go down the stairs.
Can you say quid pro quo?
Just a few commnets on "Why so buggy?"
1) Microsoft lets the world know about their problems. Other companies like Sun force customers to sign NDAs before agreeing to fix known critical problems. Of course, the Sun issue was with hardware, but Sun HID the problem.
2) Security *WAS* a low priority compared to features, but that is changing. MS is not a heavy handed beurocracy and many decisions are made by individuals at the bottom of the organizational chart. It takes time for 40,000 programmers to change the way they work, but it is the new high priority. BTW, most of the design for XP was made a year or more before releasing the product.
3) "Trustworthy computing" means that MS will be focusing on both improved quality and improved security, but this could be a 10 year process.
4) W2k and XP are substantially higher quality than Win95...that is a trend that was ignored.
5) Over time, with the Online Crash Analysis, the end user problems that MS hasn't seen in the past will now be seen and fixed.
6) The assumption that money fixes bugs is incorrect. If one programmer works on a piece of code for 5 years and the code is very complex, you can't just hire an additional programmer to jump in and help fix bugs in this complex codebase. There is a time factor involved. Infinite money will not fix even one complex bug instantly.
Ok guy, I agree with you that Microsoft is an ungainly behemoth that needs a little reigning in. But some of your article was just down right wacky. I am not Microsoft pundit, I use it, I use Linux, and the *nixes. And I do prefer them for many things, and then windows for others.
Windows XP does have some heavy problems, but it is a fairly decent OS. I still use 2000 on some of my boxes and no real big issues. I run my nixes and windows fairly tight.
First rule of a sysadmin? Don't USE THE OS until it has been through at least 1-2 year period on the market so things can be ferreted out and fixed. This goes for service packs in windows and Linux Kernel updates(service pack). Ok, kernel updates to add funcionality but do fix and break things yeah. Anyone remember IBCS(or is it ICBS) dropped support from 6.2 to 7.
So unless you follow that rule do not bitch.
Your article is mainly rehashed summaries from other sources, which you reference. It is nice you put it all in one place, but adding spin is a whole nother animal.
As for the techinical issues you mentioned. XP does have them but they are easily resolved. All your 'problems' can be resolved on technet.
1. Sysprep, Riprep, Norton Ghost. Ghost been around for years. Easy system backups. And most OS's will freak if you move a hardrive to another system with different components.
2. Reg backups. Free software to do this. Hey it's free, what we all want right?
And yeah MS wants in your PC, but Apple owns your pc everytime you update. Good for the goose is good for the gander. But apple is *SPECIAL*
And the DOS issue. Yeah XP is not too great with DOS. But you know if you have ap that recquires it. Put 2000, put 98, forget about XP(see sysadmin rule #1). MS has been real clear about XP and DOS.
You have a lot lof legitame bitches that were garnered from others research no problem. But a lot of your article is skewed.
I want to see Linux get more recognition. But we fight the good fight, not THEIR fight of skewed facts and figures. We do it clean or we are no better.
And you might want to pick up some books from Amazon on OS's to learn a little more. Take a class or two.
For the record I am linux certified, a+, net+, and a MCSA. Who gives a shit. I am a tech, certs are part of the job. Did I mention my degree in IS? So while I am not a complete technical diety or claim to be I do feel comfortable enough to talk on the subject.
Fight it clean or do not fight at all.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Do I get to charge you for the stronger glasses prescription I'll need after reading the tiny tiny font on your web page?
What I like best about this MS-bash thread. Is the MS ad
Bruce: Your web site for Sincere Choice is excellent.
There seems to be a page missing, however. The page The Initiative for Software Choice Decomposed is, as I write this, empty.
I hope you continue to work on the Sincere Choice material. We really need a comprehensive source of information about this. It's great when I can simply give someone a URL.
Sounds nice. But what will California govt do when they will read the following kind of news?
"The Samba Team has a number of significant expenses so we have decided to setup a donation system to allow users of Samba to make contributions to help cover the cost of running samba.org and developing Samba"
If a govt wants to save money on open source, than it should act more. My proposal is very simple: the govt must create a budget for all open source packages it uses, and the budget must cover at least all dot-org operational cost. In exchange the govt may get a vote when a team would decide about what features should be in the next release.
The only question is not clear for me yet: in the open source world there are lots of alternatives. What packages will the govt use? For example, GNOME or KDE? I guess GPL is good for govts, but even within GNU there are equal alternatives. For example Emacs and Xemacs.
Less is more !
Where does Microsoft go if Open Source software ultimately wins out and makes the operating system a no-cost commodity just like the web browser? Long ago, the web browser could only be had for a fee, and MS commoditized it by making it free, because they still had other products to sell. These other products were ultimately more important and more expensive, so for them it was a good choice. Linux and its open source brethren could do the exact same thing to the operating system, and Microsoft really doesn't have anything else that is more expensive or more important than their OS. Office uses Windows function calls that aren't available to anyone else, and if they wanted to port it to Linux, they would be forced to reveal a considerable amount of their precious intellectual property that they seem so convinced should be secret.
Because of this, Microsoft would be rather reluctant to port their Office software to a platform like Linux. But this hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. Programs like OpenOffice and StarOffice are maturing, and are approaching the professional quality of the incumbent MS Office. And, in the case of OpenOffice, it is free to use and the source is available to modify. OpenOffice will make the office suite a free commodity, just as Linux will make the operating system a free commodity, just as Internet Explorer made the web browser a free commodity (for the masses).
Once Microsoft's main products have been made free commodities, what has been left for Microsoft? Do they continue trying to sell expensive bloatware that has been commoditized by superior products? Do they seek legislation to protect their monopoly from the same government that is failing to punish them for said monopoly? Or do they go the way of IBM, go quiet for a few years, and then come back as a support company? In the recent past they have been doing the first option, but it appears that time is running out on that. They are now, evidently, attempting to do the second option. This is foolish, however, because this is America, land of free markets, and the people really won't take well to being forced to purchase anything. Ultimately, and probably in the relatively near future, Microsoft will be forced to move over to the support side of the business. They will not go out of business, but they will never again see the infinite billions they currently enjoy.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Although free (speech) software developers compete based on merits, as they don't sell their software, commercial software developers will do anything they can to make sure that people buy more of their software. I think commercial software should not even be considered, as we have seen before, Microsoft can be very sneaky. Look at DRM sneaking into Media Player.. If they truly followed the open format idea, this wouldn't be a problem. But, you know who we're talking about here.
I also want to shoot GW Bush, rip your arms off, and rape your sister. We can't all have what we'd like, though.
First, I would think that forcing companies to dump their source into the public domain would play hell with the security of state-owned computer systems using such software. Every hacker from here to Timbuktu would then have all of the information he needed to successfully hack the systems.
Second--it's difficult to understand the problem. OS's like M$ sells cost money. OS's like Linux cost very little $ to no money at all. Isn't the fact that Open Source is almost "free" incentive enough for companies to adopt it? Why do we need to legislate to try and turn commercial software companies into Open Source companies? What's the point, as you presently don't have to buy the commercial software if you don't want it?
Is this some sort of disguised initiative to try and make all software "free" ultimately? If so, it's definitely doomed to failure because programmers who don't eat aren't much motivated to write code for free.
Microsoft doesn't like to make bad investments and the California government is already, apparently, owned by Oracle.
Need I say more?
If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
So, MSFT isn't a California company, but what about Oracle? Siebel? Or does this affect only desktop computers, and not servers?
A Google search shows this quotation as being attributed to various unnamed IBM executives, but I am almost sure it really did appear in some IBM ad copy in the early nineties. I recall it as long, white paper-ish discussion; the point was that UNIX systems didn't interoperate with IBM gear, so once you started using UNIX systems you'd never be able to use anything but UNIX systems. Wish I had kept a copy...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It would be better to let government to choose any software based on total cost (purchase+support) and the quality of service to the public. We can still require the vendor to write a full-featured, open-source client that citizens can use to interface with government's server. For example, one can either generate web pages to support Mozilla or write their own open source browser to support in addition to IE. It's pretty clear what most companies would rather do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't waste your breath arguing with this FUCKtard. He doesn't understand what that knowledgebase article is actually saying.
Yes, the Q article talks about using Ghost to deploy WinXP, and how you should use the sysprep utility instead of the SID changer from Symantec. But this FUCKtard seems to think this refers to backing up your system to tape and restoring it.
Futurepower unfortunately is not technically competent to understand what that means.
If it doesn't already, the Open Source community should actively support/sponsor a formidable patent organization with two objectives. One, to aggressively prosecute patents, and two, to write opinions against patents that charge royalties. Note that patents *are* public disclosures and charging for their use is at the option of the patent owner. On a more grassroots level, open-sourcers should keep printed copies of all code they write and have them signed, dated and witnessed. Publish in magazines and in mail-lists. If something gets patented, this documentation can be used to expose obviousness. In my experience patent-holders are rarely first to invent. They just beat everyone else to the patent office. University and other government-funded program participants should regularly publically disclose their work and undermine patentability from within. M$ and others are beating Open Source at their own game by publishing via patent offices. Fight back using their own weapons. This way they can't fight Free Software without fighting themselves.
I think you need to take a look at Novell's software before stating that Microsoft is the only way to get these features. Especially because eDirectory will run on Solaris and Linux. Novell is one of the best software companies I've had the pleasure of working with. Their licenses are not so much of a hassle as Microsoft's (in the educational world at least). And they are commited to Linux to the point of building a complete application around it. Oh, and that application happens to be BY FAR the best imaging / hardware inventory solution I have ever seen. So, do a little research Mr. FUD "can't get in the unix world".
Bruce, have you considered hanging out with the creme de la creme of Slashtrolls on the IRC server ftso.org, in #trolls, of course! Before you consider us to be some run-of-the-mill crapflooder, check out some of my work.
Hope to see you there, Bruce!
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Why aren't their books clean? Because Enron's weren't?
You can bitch and moan about structural problems in our economy (patents, etc.), but I doubt you'll find a large company with cleaner books than Microsoft. Why would they bother to goof with the books? They've never had to shift money around to inflate profits - in fact, if anything, they've shifted money into the future in order to not beat the street too much in a particular quarter, and to try to spread the good news out into the future.
As for that pile of cash - I agree that they'll probably do something with that one of these days. There aren't any sw companies to buy (heck, sw for money may be a dying business model), so they'll either have to move even more aggressively into devices or some other business, or just admit defeat and pay out some nice dividends for the next 20 years. I'm no expert, but I bet we'll some 3 events essentially happen at the same time:
1. Bill retires (really).
2. Microsoft has a down year.
3. Microsoft pays a dividend, and shifts from a growth stock to a value stock.
All 3 are an admission of defeat. All 3 are inevitable. I bet they all happen in the 2nd half of this decade.
I hope that Peru doesn't reverse course after encountering the mobs of vicious, immature linux acolytes who give other friends of linux a bad name. I hope the benevolent, helpful side of linux overwhelms the side comprised of people who talk of 'lusers', demean anyone who uses msft products, and think that compiling a kernel makes them intelligent. We'll see.
didn't you say they played music?
This M$ campaign sounds like some of the local pro-choice (abortion) ads that are running here attempting to turn the governor's race into a single-issue race.
All very fascinating, socially.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Do I get to charge you for the stronger glasses prescription I'll need after reading the tiny tiny font on your web page?
That's one of the reasons why you should be using the Opera web browser. It has a little bar in the top right corner to turn up and down the magnification of the web page that you're viewing, from 20% to 1000%.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Really all you are insuring thorugh your use of the GPL is that Microsoft(or whoever) will have to recreate the software code for the new concept. That's it, and if it is a trivial code, it'll cost them maybe a few extra million to re-develop.
Now in the case of Microsoft if they spent $20 million writing some software, that really is pretty much a drop in the bucket considered their vast sums of cash and the potential market they have access to.
But software isn't solely developed by Microsoft. There are thousands of other companies out there, some large but many small. In the case of Smith's Software Co over in Hoboken, they don't have $20 million to redevelop the software for the base idea. But they happen to have some very bright ideas as to how to extend this concept in a new way that would be very beneficial to the country.
Now they could extend your GPLed software, incorporate these new ideas and then re-release everything to the world as required. What does this net? Well absolutely nothing for Smith Software Co. Now their competitors and everybody else has exactly the same code that they just invested millions in creating. They have no way to recoup their investment because it's impossible to charge for free beer. So Smith Software Co goes bankrupt, lays off 40 people who now have no way to feed their families.
On the other side, if the software had been released under the BSD. You, and everybody else would have access to the basic software. But Smith Software Co would be allowed to invest their time and effort into extending it with their new cool idea, and then sell this on the market and recoup their R&D. The end result, Smith Software Co goes public, hires an additional 2,000 persons, and everybody in the world has access to both the original concept and this extended idea. Furthermore Smith Software Co has more cash that they can reinvest back into more R&D and improve the software even further.
The GPL really just acts as an anti-corporate license, that's it. Exactly how this is better for the economy at large is questionable.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is your belief that somehow tax dollars just magically exist. They don't. Tax dollars exist solely because of there are companies in this country who are paying employees to do work for them. Without the companies, no tax dollars.
So by trying to discourage corporate investment, you are only hurting university research. Now that doesn't mean you have to go entirely the other way either and have all Univ research entirely corporate driven. I think there is a balance that can and should be maintained.
...thank Linux companies talking up their shareholders about what a great value they're going to get and then tanking miserably when they realize (horrors!) they can't make money from something that's freely available? Of course, all you Smeardot trolls would never agree.
.NET for me, d00dz! Hardy-har-har!
There should be a moratorium on MS stories on Shitdot, if only to keep the blatant hypocrisy down.
But it's Oracle that made this an issue in California, not Microsoft.
And yeah, Win2k is definitely deep secure. Sure... if you ever get the knowledge to really rip it apart. 98 isn't worth talking about.
Flaimbait? Hell yeah. But hey... So while I am not a complete technical diety or claim to be I do feel comfortable enough to talk on the subject.... you said it.
Don't bother responding to this message, I don't care. I'm just in asshole mode today. :D
SIG: HUP
all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.
How is a law forcing government to "choose" open software better than Microsofts initiative forcing people to "choose" Microsoft?
I like what Bruce Perens says in the article, and I do have a few thoughts (i.e. rants) in general (not with the article; the article merely touches on some huge problems I have with this whole situation):
Choice Through Interoperability No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
That's a really good idea, however as was said in the article, "embrace and extend" makes Microsoft go beyond open standards. There is no way to prevent this. I would love it if this were the case, but Microsoft has too much leverage here. There's no way to stop Microsoft's policy too, because they would only claim that their zillion dollar investments in research and innovation are stifled. And what happens when some patented, closed down embedded bit becomes a feature users rely on? Say extended proprietary controls embedded in MS HTML that allows users to IM their senators via Windows Messenger (in a way that becomes very common to them but cannot be made via FrontPage because the tags simply download an encrypted applet from MS). This same priciple would be reversely applied: MS says "Nobody (i.e. the people browsing webpages) should be excluded from (in this case) a superior product because everyone else (using the open standards) is using something differrent. Again, I like what Bruce Perens is saying, but I'm a bit fearful of what MS could do to get around this (if my fears are unnecessary, please respond with reasons not to be).
How was Intel taken in? They didn't have any choice. Intel can't afford to lose Micrsoft's support for its new bet-the-company Itanium 64-bit processor family. Without Microsoft, the Itanium will become another DEC ALPHA - a 64-bit architecture that lost much of its market after Microsoft announced that Windows wouldn't support it. Intel needs more than a just a Windows port - it needs an excellent windows port, with Microsoft's enthusiastic support egging customers on to make the transition to the new architecture. Microsoft's price for this is for Intel to downplay its Linux involvement and support Microsoft's monopolistic initiatives.
It's amazing how much we are in a stranglehold by Microsoft here. At first I thought actually that Intel could do fine, since people would immediately know that MS pulled Itanium support because Intel refused to go along with them. Then I realized a few crafty MSNBC/MSN/ZDNET articles could really start turning the tide. And not to mention MS sponsored bench-marks, which they've done before. They could ruin it for Intel.
Don't cross him; don't boss him; he's ridin' and hidin' his pain. Don't fight him; don't spite him; just wait till tomo
But there is something that Microsoft says that always bothers me.
Many, including Microsoft, state that "choice" for the producers of software should include a choice between licenses like Free Software and "Microsoft EULA Software". But I find this hard to swallow especially in this context. Free Software and MS-type software are not equivalent choices the way a blue car and a red car are equivalent choices. The MS-type software can potentially give the copyright holder great powers over your computer, your software, your information, and you personally (I almost downloaded MoneyDance the other day, until I noticed the "Arbitrarion clause" where I'd theoretically waive my right to a jury trial. No thanks!). GPL-type software does no such things.
And of course corporate copyright holders will choose the most restrictive licenses, most beneficial to them. Normally this isn't a big problem, because you can avoid the software completely like I did with MoneyDance. For a government "of the people, for the people", however, the government should NOT support any software that limits user's rights beyond copyright law, and should definitely consider granting additional rights. The government should also not implicitly support the "unsigned contract" fallacy of licenses.
Going back to the MoneyDance/arbitration example, let's pretend that you have to buy MoneyDance in order to file your taxes with the government because they won the bid. Now we have the strange situation where the government is basically forcing people to waive some of their constitutionally-granted rights in order to fulfill a constitutionally-authorized responsibility. Not good!
A quote:
Microsoft is trying to force the idea that all licenses are equivalant. In fact they call Free Software a "development model". Something that's only important before the software is handed over to the user. But we know better. Licenses like Microsoft's that attempt to limit use of the software is definitely more than a development model. They affect you every time you start the software (if you assume the license is binding, which you pretty much have to do unless you have a lot of money and lawyers).
The government should choose a license category, just as they can specify any other aspects of the software. And Microsoft could deliver GPL software just as easily as they could deliver MS-EULA software.
Another quote:
Since the copyright, etc., laws are the same for everybody, what Microsoft is saying by "choice of protections" is "choice of licenses".
Bruce didn't disagree with the principle, but I think we have to be careful. By definition, "intellectual property protection" (I assume they mean copyrights and patents specifically) takes away certain freedoms from society. If you want "strong" protection you are saying "give the copyright/patent holders more power to take away more freedom". That shouldn't be in a free society's interests.
In conclusion, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to mandate "limits on the limits" of licenses as part of the requirements. In fact it's necessary for them to fulfill their responsibilities to the public. Microsoft's rhetoric makes it seem as if all licenses are completely equivalent. But they're not of course, otherwise why would we be even having this discussion?
Puleeze, IE has that too. Does it make you feel elite that you're using opera?
Come on in, Bruce. I type at 90+ WPM as certified by the State of California.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Once upon a time, there was something called "Windows Update." You can think of Software update running in the same way as the old Windows Update. No one worried about Windows Update because it worked for the computer owner/admin--who ultimately controlled their system. With Windows Update, if you wanted to install an update, you could, if not, you didn't. But Microsoft never had a say in what was going to be installed--they only suggested what they thought should be installed.
Or to put it another way, Apple's software update doesn't let Apple own anything anymore than doing a 'make install,' or installing an RPM does.
Software update is simply an easy interface to allow you to install software that Apple has compiled. (If it sounds familiar, it should; it's the same thing you do every time you install a program in Windows.)
You know you've been working with MS products too long when you think you've got to wait two years to put an OS on a production system. Two years? I'd be working with FreeBSD 3.4, OpenBSD 2.5, Mac OS 9.0, and Mandrake 7.0. (I'm using the latest versions of all of these on systems I administer at work.)
Two years is good advice for Microsoft products; we've still got those Win2K machines around. They'll get upgraded when Wine has worked out all the kinks. (The company has too much invested in other software to do anything but.)
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Ok, I've read your diatribe on all things Microsoft. I take it that you love Linux (*nix) and therefore all things Open Source. Fine, no problem. You have your opinion, others have theirs.
In your rant, you seem to be missing some technical information about how Microsoft Windows functions. To this day I find it hard to believe that Linux people who are supposed to be more technical than the rest of the computer population (that use Microsoft, or Apple) don't understand the functioning of the registry.
The Windows Registry 101
The Registry was created for the purpose of storing and retrieving local OS and application configuration data in a convienient and highly organized way. In this manner the registry is simply seen as a local database that the OS has direct access to. An operating system process database so to speak.
Registry Requirements
On the list of registry requirements is speed. The registry is optimized for extremely high speed reads as well as writes. It was discovered early on that storing small amounts of information such as Bytes, Words, Strings, and such directly on the file system in separate files was a problem. Opening, reading, and closing files requires many I/O operations which eats up CPU, and can be taxing on the hardware subsystems. Hard drive caching and file caching can prevent some of the problems caused but do not really provide an adequate solution.
Another issue is that small data elements don't make effective use of the allocated disk space. Especially in the early days with small hard drives this was a BIG issue. You certainly don't want to open a file, save a byte, and close the file. You might end up using a whole sector. Depending on which filesystem type you used, you could lose almost half your disk just by storing small files. With text files the problem is even worse. You end up opening the file, parsing out the data with routines, then converting it to the data type you need.
As we have seen with network database access, a database access protocol optimized for high speed reads is important. The LDAP specification addresses some of these concerns. As well with the registry, we need the ability to store and retrieve data fast with minimal space cost. Microsoft decided to create a set of files called HIVEs that are essentially open from the moment the OS boots. The OS caches these HIVEs in memory. The OS as well as applications have access to the HIVEs through a special set of high speed access APIs. All the APIs need for access to a HIVE is its global handle value.
The HIVEs are organized hierarchically similar to a file system. Key names in the HIVEs are folders. The keys contain registry values which contain the actual data. The values are typed so as to also maximize speed. There are user, software, and system data HIVEs. HIVEs can be mounted or unmounted, and symlinks can be created from one key to another. Registry keys can be protected with the same ACL protection mechanism that NTFS uses.
If you want to see how fast the registry is in action just download the regmon.exe probe from www.sysinternals.com and watch what happens when you do anything in Windows. The amazing dependencies that make themselves apparent by watching regmon can easily show you that doing I/O out to disk would cause everything to slow to a crawl, as well as put more pressure on your already loaded disk I/O system.
The registry was NOT made to store large amounts of data. Indeed, that would make what the registry was made for pointless. One of the problems is that many application programmers either don't understand how to use the registry correctly, or just use it for the wrong purpose. The current registry is BIG. The information stored in the registry has gotten out of hand. Even Microsoft can't stop storing useless information in there. It is easy to say that the registry might become corrupted, but this also happens with file systems themselves. You do occasionally have to run a file system check. Ever lost a binary database file before?
Data in the registy can be easily back'ed up using the regedit tool that comes with the OS. You simply export what you need to a text file. The text file can then be re-imported later when needed. If you want to backup a whole HIVE file such as SOFTWARE you can do that too. Many backup utilities will do exactly that. It is even possible to backup the HIVEs without being in the OS. Just boot to another OS and copy the files off the disk (assuming you can read and write to NTFS). I really don't see the problem with registry backups. And hey, in the end, the registy is just a simple set of files stored on the filesystem just like any other files in *nix.
Since the registry API is in effect an abstraction layer, Microsoft could re-write the back-end completely. What about a network registry? We could relocate the files out onto a network server and the applications wouldn't know. Microsoft could encrypt the data, compress it, whatever. I don't know what Microsoft's future plans are for the registry interface. Any of these things would make access slower so I expect that the design will stay the way it is for now.
We all have fast and big hard drives these days so the registry does seem kind of pointless. But if we were all using slow small drives we would really appreciate the technical merits of the registry. Even more so, users of a registry can now enjoy that their data is being store both effectively and efficiently. Linux would do well to adapt to some kind of OS database for its configuration settings and local accounts even if it isn't regsitry like. But if you want to continue to store a 64 BIT value in a text file as "0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF" be my guest. (BTW, this is the same problem I have with HTTP, inefficient as hell!)
It is the year 2002. Many of the Windows problems of the past have been made moot. The OS is now much more stable because of the NT/2000 kernel. The Win9x series OSs have been eliminated. Few people have registry problems. Don't dig up old war wounds and use them for your arguments.
I think the SincereChoice link from parent, should be appended to the mainpage article summery.
1) for those who dont read any or all the linked article.
2) incase ppl miss it in comment
because its important, if no-one contradicts an opinion then it essentaily becomes a fact.
We have a Micro$oft Rep. in our midst! Kill him!
Wherever you go, there you are!
A few points.
"Now they could extend your GPLed software, incorporate these new ideas and then re-release everything to the world as required"
Nope, step away from polishing the beamer, and put down the ASP.NET book for a second and actually read the GPL. They are only required to release it if they distribute it. Granted that could be construed, as splitting hairs in this case, but you really need to understand that point. If I use GPL'd code to create internal code for one of my clients, I am under NO obligation to release it unless I distribute it.
"On the other side, if the software had been released under the BSD. You, and everybody else would have access to the basic software [...]"
Yup, but unfortunately, the second M$ or Smith or anyone else decides they want to make a version that is incompatible with the rest of the world and distribute it they can and, if they have the push of a monopoly (like M$), they can (and will) in fact co-opt the de-facto standard set by the orig BSD licensed software. Suddenly the BSD version of the product loses much of it's value because in order to continue to work with the rest of the software world, other companies (who were until now on a level playing field, with everyone having access to the code) have to invest in R&D to enable their versions of the software to work with the new "extended" version This duplication of R&D hardly makes economic sense. In case you miss the math here, that means that everyone has to invest in R&D not to make the software/product better, but just to keep up with the monopolist. This is in fact what happened with Krb. In that case, the OSS community (and a few others I might add) did the R&D necessary to enable interoperation with the "extended" version of Krb. The same is happening (somewhat) with WINE. The WINE license has changed because of this.
With the GPL or LGPL, or PAL (or a host of other Free as in Speech licenses) if the monopolist wants to extend the orig software they are *free* to do so, but they cannot use the extension to create an artificial barrier to the rest of the software community.
"[...][With the GPL you can't extend] it with their new cool idea, and then sell this on the market and recoup their R&D"
I really like this comment Sheldon. The problem is you fail to understand (despite the fact you seem to write M$ software for a living) that you can still sell and distribute the software under the GPL, you just can't use the extensions to block your competition. Under the GPL you must make the extensions or additions available for the rest of the world to see, and if they wish, use. The average lifespan (on the shelf) for shrink-wrap software is less than 18 months. (source: an ACM article from two years ago, I'll be happy to try and dig it up if you don't have a subscription to find it). Even given the raw patches to the source, you are *not* going to move from source to market before the first company recoups thier cost, unless they have a very slow turnaround.
With the GPL you can still recoup your R&D costs and make your profit, since you don't have to release your changes UNTIL you distribute (open beta, or actually ship).
"The GPL really just acts as an anti-corporate license, that's it. Exactly how this is better for the economy at large is questionable."
How is the GPL an anti-corporate license? Quickie question, where is 80% of the software in the U.S written and why... time up. Internal corporate apps. That's right, it's not large shrink wrap companies that write most of the software in use in your Fortune 500, it's the grunts in-house writing reporting software, or POS code, or a million other apps that write most of the code that the corporate world uses. The only corporations that the GPL could hurt would be the patent lawyers and certain monoplistic companies that think that proprietary file formats and hidden API's are somehow "fair" to the rest of the world.
"The fundamental flaw in your argument is your belief that somehow tax dollars just magically exist. They don't. Tax dollars exist solely because of there are companies in this country who are paying employees to do work for them. Without the companies, no tax dollars."
Your mistake is assuming that the majority of those are software companies making money from selling proprietary software.
"So by trying to discourage corporate investment, you are only hurting university research"
You miss the boat here. University research is not (in most cases) and should not be driven by corporations. Universities are not a extension to Microsoft Research or Oracle R&D. University research is academic, not corporate. With the exception of the ITT's of the world, Universities are not job training schools. Neither should my tax dollars (nor any of my clients) be used to develop software they will have to buy down the road.
I found your proprietary shrink-wrap software point of view interesting to say the least.
Bugs Bunny was right.
You obviously didn't read the article carefully. The article talks about backups, not cloning systems during system preparation.
This is a funny objection. There are no controls over the font size in the body text of the article. The HTML assumes that you want control. It is your browser settings that are too small. Select "View Page Source" and have a look.
Thanks for your well-considered reply.
I think the registry could be a series of files that are merged into a database at application load time. That would prevent the present problems. But, this technically superior method would not allow Microsoft to use the registry as copy protection. The present design of the registry assumes that we are all pirates, so that some pirates can be stopped.
Note that, even if you back up the registry, you will still have the problems mentioned in the article, which explains this carefully (but maybe I could improve the explanation).
I've used Regmon.exe. Regmon clearly shows that Windows XP uses the registry constantly for its data. To me, it does not seem like a good idea to mix OS-dependent information with application information. Applications can have any number of errors, and Windows XP makes the entire OS subject to those errors.
You say, "The registry was NOT made to store large amounts of data." The registry on one machine I checked was more than 20 megabytes. That's scary for a file on which the entire OS is dependent.
When you have a monopoly, you can do whatever you want. Believe me, if RedHat Linux was installed on the vast majority of desktops I'm sure RH'd do precisely the same thing.
Microsoft isn't deceitful. They're very upfront about throwing money at people.
Corporate America isn't about compassion. It's about money. Ever heard the quote "Money makes the world go 'round"?
Did you think that if the Nix workstations had been able to talk to each other about 10-12 years ago, Microsoft would not exist as it does today?
See, this Open -$ource bashing of MS evokes this PA strip.
No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.
Digital Citizen
"You can have any color you want as long as it's black."
Has a familiar ring to it, no?
Step 1. Announce considering new law mandating open source software for all goverment contracts.
Step 2. Try not to laugh when the MS reps show up with wheelbarrows full of cash.
Step 3. Announce the law will be tabled for further discussion, and brought up for vote again next year.
Step 4. Repeat
I think it's a great idea to force the nation to be open about everything. Infact I think the CIA should post everything they know on their website. That would be great for national security. Anyways, the day that the NSA approves linux for use in the government is the day that open source gets credibility for security in my opinion. I'd rather not rely on a volunteer to find a bad bug before someone else finds it to keep it to themselves. Or you can pay someone to find them for you.. perhaps buy windows and you get all of that in one! ::light bulb screws all the way in::
I'm pretty sure every modern browser offers that feature. I know that Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror do, and apparently (according to the AC reply to your post) even IE does. Very nice feature though. Hopefully your suggestion to use the zoom will help the poster you replied to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am sorry but aside from choosing one of slashdot's light-hearted fact-of-the-day posts to vent your scattered, inconcrete, and unintelligent rants, you didn't provide a solution, so I am left with no choice but to consider your post both flamebait and trolling material.
You're a little slow, aren't you? There is no such thing as 'Linux Kernel 6.2' or '7.0'. iBCS still exists and is doing fine. It stopped coming with the distro because no almost no one uses it, and it has a completely seperate update schedule.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I wouldn't be surprised if California's free-software -in-government bill actually passes. It was probably spawned because of that $95 million dollar mess they had with Oracle.
Ok, that's reasonable for a registry corruption, but there's still the fact that, as the author states in his article, "The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure." This is a design flaw, and while you can backup the registry, it's still generally acknowledged as a design flaw that hasn't been corrected. Single points of failure at this level simply shouldn't exist, because they don't need to. The proof is in *NIX, which has it's various config files. Granted, this has its problems too, but those are also design flaws. It's a benefits tradeoff, and your free programs to backup the registry are just workarounds.
Oh, and the "free" that "we all want" is probably free as in Freedom, not as in beer.
You also neglect this technical problem in XP: "If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (such as networking)." If you deny internet access to many components, XP will cease to function properly. Did you notice the long list he had of components that needed 'net access? Windows Media Player!?! That's a technical flaw that's borderline malicious. There is also no technical solution things like "Run DLL as an app" not telling you which DLL needs to be run. These programs should not be calling home unless they need to in order to function properly for the user's benefit. They way they work now is simply frivolous.
There's also that technical problem of the large number of Internet Explorer bugs that remain open. Granted, you can solve these by working around it using Mozilla, but given the massive market share of IE, the requirement that IE be bundled in with every copy of windows, and the general mindshare of IE, I'd say this is a pretty big flaw.
Funny, I don't see Apple mentioned anywhere in the article. Let's talk about Redhat or Debian instead. They don't own much of anything when you update. Neither does FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Hey, for that matter, neither does Apple really. They own nothing. They've given you the source to their entire OS subsystem. There's no clauses in iTunes that give Apple permission to modify the contents of your hard drive without your consent. There's no automatic mac.com registration upon install. Apple's entire marketing message is that the computer empowers the user, and that the user can actually use their computer to be productive. Apple doesn't want control over their users, they honestly want to empower them, which is why they've made OSX the great system that it is. Microsoft, on the other hand, has never shown any leanings in this direction. Honestly, when you look at it, Windows is the only OS in the world that really tries this hard to be owned by someone other than the user.
You acknowledge that the article contains valid points, which is true, but you seem to forget just how valid those points are. I agree with you about the backups, but the registry is still a big issue (especially because most XP users don't even know it exists) and the privacy issues are a major concern. By turning its users in to slaves, Microsoft is hurting everyone, themselves included.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"Anyone remember IBCS(or is it ICBS) dropped
support from 6.2 to 7."
I thought that the latest kernel was 2.5, not 7.
Where to download linux 7?
"And yeah MS wants in your PC, but Apple owns your pc everytime you update. Good for the goose is good for the gander. But apple is *SPECIAL*"
Ah yes the old redirection trick.
"when somebody points out that you are doing something evil point out that it's ok to as many evil things as you want because somebody else does something evil sometimes too."
I am sure that one is posted on every MS bulleting board. I see this tactic all the time.
War is necrophilia.
Considering his views on that other issue (http://www.all.org/gates/index.htm), somehow after all the BSoDs, and the other general quality, and all the anti-competitive activity like the logic bomb against DrDOS, it should not be called Choice. Abortion is more appropriate.
The problem with the author's argument is that he ignored compatibility issues. If 90% of the people use a particular type of softtware, and the govt switches to a new type of incompatible software, it alienates citizens. That brings up the question of why people use a particular type of software. Typically it's because they had one of the 1st products. MS controls the market not because they have the best software, but instead because they were there 1st, long before open source and Linux. That's why their sw is most often used by consumers. Once you start using software, you can't switch without making all your current files obsolete. So how much will that cost taxpayers to manually convert all the files over to the new software? Also, given the the learning curve for linux is steeper than windows, you have to pay sys admins more money. This killins the cost effectiveness arguement of open source somewhat.
Vote for Pedro
I want to know if all the copies of Microsoft software used internally by Microsoft are properly registered.
Fucking moron.
You can't currently get 40mpg out of these huge SUV's.
Forcing low CO2 emissions requires high fuel efficiency, which means no large vehicles.
It is contraversial, it would limit the sale of most vehicles being sold today.
Then wait for the "how much do you need to kill your plan" call from Redmond, and laugh all the way to the bank.
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
.NET and it's a generic network transfer layer, letting idle network bandwidth be used, to tranfer files)
.rc file approach. Who knows were what is stored in unix? its in obscure places, old naming traditions. the registry hides all this from the user, while, it still allows powers user FULL control. you can monitor the registry, in real time. all calls there, can be monitored, many apps make a billion calls there, but (crackers in particular) it's quite possible to "hack" it (I've done so myself).
:(
:(
/looks at copy of "the cathedral and the bazaar" on the desk, and over on "Open Sources:voices from an open source revolution" on the shelf, and further over on Hackers a little next to it. I'm even involved in an Open Source project
- 99 .epl
:p
rarely have I read such FUD.
I do not run XP on my main rig, but on my laptop. I'm sitting at Windows 2000 machine right now.
Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects each user's computer to Microsoft's computers:
My laptop is not connecting to anything, other then what I want it to (symantec is allowed). Alot of the services he mentions are BASIC server stuff (not http basic, but "Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service" is a generic service, which isn't even in XP, it's in
"Microsoft Network Availability Test"... please... and I suppose Internet Explorer is "trying to contact microsoft computers" (a broad term in itself) when it's default startup page is msn?
of the list, he has one point. the once talked about MAC adresses that gets stuffed in office docs... does this still happen?
anyway, I run TCPView, a TCP driver, that replaces the windows one, and is then able to read ALL network traffic, and there is no "phoning home".... there are things listening, which is what you can expect in any modern networking OS (this can be disabled if you want to anyway, just uninstall TCP and hey, no hacking!)
to say, that microsoft is leaving holes in ms stuff, so that NSA can get easier access.... damn, please. NSA relying on holes to perform national security? I dont buy this by a long shot.
and then there is the whole debacle about the automatic updates, and the new EULA from microsoft... see guys, it's for use by the Widows Automatic update, it needs these rights (legally also), in order to automatically install updates. and while I have turned this off, is it really such a bad thing? joe schmoe gets home, and sees windows wants to restart, becaused it has installed new security updates... this is only good. the ms hating crowd will watch over microsoft practises, and I'm pretty sure billg wont root us all. and please note, download does not mean install. but yeah, they could have made the purpose of the EULA clear... it's a bit scary sounding.
The registry effectively prevents control by the user
and his whole stint about the registry is incredible. To be honest, I prefer the registry approach, over the unix
If this one large, often fragmented, file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications.
Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the corruption affects is not used for a considerable time.
Well, in the five years I've used microsoft, I haven't had this happen yet. and to say, that a single registry entry that gets corrupted, means that the whole ting is gone, is just outright lying
but the most insane thing in the text must be the following:
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over with a re-formatted hard drive.
wtf?? so if I find I dont like winamp 3.0, I need to reformat? even if winamp 3.0 goes bonker? lies. lies. lies.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP.
more lies. following the link he even gives himself, you find a discussion on the SID (a kinda ID for a computer), and how disk duplication (ghosting) could cause errors, since two computers, would be identified as the same. This has NOTHING to do with creating a ghost image for later restoration. again, he is outrigh wrong.
the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard.
and I suppose drivers has nothing to do with this? and what kinda vague wording is "tends"? I've had windows installed on a computer, changed CPU/motherboard/ram. from athlon, abit, sdram, to athlon xp, asus, ddr. and it was all fine. the registry contains machine specific infomation, since... well the OS needs to know this. if you're really screwed, there is always a repair install, which will NOT touch ANY of your settings or programs or anything, just system settings.
anyway, doesn't the Linux kernel allow for compiling, with specific driver support? I'm asking, since I'm not sure about the loading of driver modules, and how it works.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP.
I find this slightly amusing, if it wasn't so damn wrong, it's not even funny. is clicking "no/cancel" hard??? this is like saying people are intimidated to send in registration cards.
The Mozilla browser is very highly regarded among computer professionals
so all linux users are "computer professionals" ? there are no users of windows, who qualify as that? wait, I know what you're gonna say, but hey, admit it. people who KNOW it ALSO uses windows. anyway, ask the mac users. is IE hated? no it's not. it very much loved, along with other browsers, also including Moz
Since it is the educated people who have computers, Passport accounts help Microsoft build a database of the personal lives of educated people.
please. joe schmoe? didn't you just above say, that people are "scared" dont know anything and are "bullied" into the passport thing? sound like "educated" people? no.
Palladium gives Microsoft the ability to prevent users from seeing their own documents and data.
what a load of shit. I cannot believe this!! palladium is about hardware built in security checking. it's essentially a security model, built into hardware, unchangable. for more: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html
The CLI is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities
while the shell is NOT as capable as say BASH, this just show the operatings focus. lets really not get into a discussion about GUI's. KDE/GNOME/InsertwhateverWMhere looses hands down against explorer. (but I will admit, that this is a question of taste/habit)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names.
this is the command.com, provided for backwards compatability. this is not and issue with the nt cmd prompt.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line.
show me the kb article. I dont believe this one bit.
trying to edit from a DOS box.
lets go over this again... DOS is gone in XP ok?
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
there is NO DOS!!
and maybe you haven't considered, that the start tool is a NT version, and as such, it's doing what it always has? and how is a certain behaviour a shortcoming? hey, code you own start.exe!!
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface "DOS", and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
more FUD. there is NO DOS left in NT. didn't you read anything about nt? any programs, that require you reboot, (like partion magic STILL run under NT, just at a low level)
Microsoft makes it quite difficult to upgrade a computer to fix bugs if it isn't connected to the Internet. well gee, isn't that linux computer kinda hard to update, if it's not connected to anything?? downloading updates are a simple manner of going to the page, for each update, and going to download. FUD FUD FUD!
The downloadable updates are not in an order that makes it easy to decide what you need.
buuhuu...
poor you, couldn't you work it out?
Windows Media Player reports your music choices to Microsoft
so switch it off... click>click>click
Another indication of the direction Microsoft is going is that, in Windows XP, menus are sometimes 7 levels deep. I just checked. not a SINGLE point in my menu is deeper then 4 menus in. and are we really going into a discussion about how windows cant manege it's applications? *cough*distros*cough*.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness...
apparently made them the biggest software vendor.
all in all, I have never read such nonsense. I love Windows. I like Linux. I dont use Linux, but that's becaus I have no need for it. Windows for me is perfect, it allows me the control I need, with the stability. This articles contains so many wrong statements, that it makes you wonder, if the author has ever used windows, or just read regus.com articles....
that is not to say that, I'm not in favor of open source.
http://www.arsware.org/coolmon/
while it's for win32, and in the "bad" delphi (I'm not the programmer), it's open source, me, along with some other guys, have set ourselves as the steering commitee, and I'm very anxious, to try and run this project as a bazaar project. I believe in open source, but I use windows, because it's best for ME.
that is not to say, that I like where windows is headed. its just that windows is not in a bad place yet. the debacle about hailstorm is one tendency, palladium, services, all are things, that, if not done correctly, could take control from us.
I feel I have control over my windows os. it never crashes, and I can do what I want with it (even edit the registry!!!). if I feel I have no longer control, I will switch, but not a day before.
I feel sad, to see this kinda stuff out there. this is the game that microsoft plays. real computer users are better then this.
and in further notes, I want to say that I have tried Linux. I couldn't even get it to work. the OS should enable me, not crash on startup, not allowing me anything. for the thing, that caused me to forget linux, follow this url:
http://www.linuxcare.com/viewpoints/tales/12-15
and how I had to edit the X86Free config file, but I never got it to work with my laptop. alas. it seemed my linux kernel had problems with hibernation also (this was with mandrake and a laptop install). it would not turn the screen back on, after hibernation. of course, this makes it useless. funny how windows worked. maybe Targe hid some API's for linux?
The problem isn't stupid automobile engineers... it's stupid management types who relegate their engineers to the status of secretaries. I've got a friend who spent 5 years at Carnegie Mellon to get a degree in mechanical engineering because he wanted to design cars. He got a job at Ford, and is quitting, going back to school for his MBA and going to start a restaurant. Why? Because since he's been at Ford, he hasn't been anywhere near designing a car.. he just looks at specs from vendors and approves them or disapproves them.
I call bullshit. Individual Microsoft programmers don't decide to create new features. They don't even decide the text on menus and window titles. They do what they're told. If they're told to test their work exhaustively and focus their code reviews on security and robustness (instead of, say, style) you may start seeing better software coming out of Microsoft. I'm sure most MS developers would like to see their work turn into better more secure software, they just need to be given the opportunity and encouragment.
The problem isn't stupid automobile engineers... it's stupid management types who relegate their engineers to the status of secretaries. I've got a friend who spent 5 years at Carnegie Mellon to get a degree in mechanical engineering because he wanted to design cars. He got a job at Ford, and is quitting, going back to school for his MBA and going to start a restaurant. Why? Because since he's been at Ford, he hasn't been anywhere near designing a car.. he just looks at specs from vendors and approves them or disapproves them.
Your friend just got job in a wrong department at Ford... And maybe he never wanted to design cars, that's why he's getting MBA, not MME.
If they truly support the values that their schill organization espouses, then they obviously will develop software from this day forth in a manner that supports these values.
They can start by making Exchange server support the following statement:
"Voluntary, industry-led standard setting is the most effective way to develop platform-neutral and market-based standards. When these standards are open and available to all through reasonable and non- discriminatory licensing they help developers to create products that can interoperate with each other."
The API for interfacing with Exchange server is CLOSED. No one but Microsoft can write a client (Outlook) that can directly interface with Exchange server.
If we would start listing all of Microsoft's violations of their own "Software Choice" values, then it would become obvious that they are the 2-faced marketing hypocrites that they are.
This is software which will be used by my government. I want to be able to audit its inner workings myself, especially if it is being used to count my vote, or store my personal data including my SS account information. Since I expect my government to outlast any given software manufacturer, I consider it important that my government should be able to maintain its own software should the manufacturer fail to do so. I do not think it appropriate that my government should be beholden to any private concern to maintain its tools; necessary revisions of existing software should be available for bid , not locked into a particular company's proprietary code base.
If the tools of government are not controlled by or even available to the people, but are controlled by private and unelected parties, then the power of the people's government has been taken from the people and handed over to private parties. Therefore, no matter what other benefits a proprietary package may bring to the table, it is not the 'best' for this purpose.
3) "Trustworthy computing" means that MS will be focusing on both improved quality and improved security, but this could be a 10 year process.
Why wait 10 years - just go for Linux today!
(It also costs less)
Just saying it like it are.
There are many issues involving fuel efficiency.
Consumers want these ridiculous vehicles, most familys don't need a 7000lb truck with a 7+L V8/10
Yes the Engineers may be smart, but you can't change physics. To get a big vehicle going fast takes a LOT of energy. To accelerate quickly wastes even more energy.
Most people don't consider fuel efficiency when buyng vehicles, it isn't a priority for the automaker. If you legislate away large vehicles, you will have unhappy customers, and they'll just keep using their existing even more fuel inefficient vehicles. There is currently a commercial truck regulation change, people are preordering replacement engines before the new standards kick in and they get "less powerful" engines.
Myself I drive a new small car, manual transmission. Fuel efficiency was a consideration for me when I bought it. Then people harrassed me for buying a "wimpy little car".
The psychology of the consumer has to change
On Engineering direction, all the automakers are working on improving fuel efficiency, and quite honestly they have a broad scope, from total revamping, to incremental improvements on existing designs.
You're kind of pissed, so you try to look up what idiot is representing you that allowed such a thing to happen, using the computer at the local library. Unfortunately, it won't allow you to access the Website of your local Representative or either of your Senators, because your library has been legally obliged to install NetNanny and their Web presences are marked with the words "tit", "prick", "winkle" and "vibraphone". Suddenly filled with political fervour, you go to vote.
Warily, you study up on the issues beforehand, by reading not only the local rag, the Podunk Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) but also the large-circulation state paper, the State Papink (which recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values) and a respected national paper, the Papink USA (which, eerily, recommends Sen. Holdings because he stands for some kind of values). Now you're fully prepared when it comes time to decide on your country's future.
Proudly, you step into the brand-spankin'-new booth, which looks like an ATM, but that doesn't intimidate you because you're a digerati, you can configure Outlook and everything, so you select your candidates, rapid-fire, cha-ching cha-ching, until you've had your say. The ATM tells you in comforting green phosphor that your vote has been duly recorded.On the way out, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Representative.
Over the next few months you are promoted several times, despite the downturn in headcount. It would appear that your company, whose primary customer is the Government, is forced to use Outlook because that's what the Governmwent in using. Because you use Outlook yourself at home, you are far more knowledgeable about viruses (or virii as you like to call them) than any of your co-workers. As a result, you know much more about re-installing Windows XXXP.
All things considered, it's a darn shame that you have to pay 72% tax on your new earnings. Those DARN terrorists! Darn them all to heck, you mutter (sronger language wouldn't be advisable, Jeffy the mail boy listens to everything you say). All is not bad news, though! Thanks to Q____'s nifty and innovative new software, you've just slipped in under the wire on April 15th, and the IRS got your filing in on time due to that terrific new Web software. Ain't technology grand?
Pity that your tax bill was pretty much doubled by the cost of the software you had to buy in order to file, but that's just the cost of doing business, you tell yourself. After all, the government's got expenses too, they have to pay for the software that collects those taxes! As you exit, by a complete and utter coincidence, you see CNN filming the primary software architect of the software you just used. He's got a HUGE, shit-eating grin on his face, and so does your Senator.
Furthermore, someone creates "an" application, not "and" application.
Learn to write in a language before you cast aspersions on another person's usage.
You may be right.
But the point I was trying to make is that the problem isn't necessarily the engineers. It's the huge monolithic bureaucracies that the auto companies, especially the Big Three, have become. Their organizations have become so top-heavy that change is nearly impossible. Sure, innovations do come out of Detroit, but very slowly.
Although a number of posts about this topic (and other similar topics, especially involving Microsoft and the seeming un-willingness of most the major governments in the world) about how unfair current practices are, I think that most people agree that the situation is not going to change signifigantly in the next few years at least.
Having said that, I started thinking about a book I reak a couple of months ago (Birds of Prey by Wilbur Smith, great book) which took place in the 17th century and which cited certain practices of "law" by governing bodies at that time period. And you know what? Comparativly we're not that bad off. At least now (in most parts of the world) people are actually allowed to do stuff like present a defence at trial rather than the judge having you flogged for opening your mouth while the trial is proceeding.
Maybe in another couple hundred years everyone will enjoy equal treatment under the law, but right now money talks, and there's nothing to be done about. I'm not saying stop trying and fighting for fairness, but don't expect too much.
Just a disclaimer -- I'm not usually this cynical. I need beer.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush
This isn't a reliable indicator. A lot of politicians discover the idea that they can take the mony and then stiff the contributors if it will get them more votes. They realise that voters love that crap, as it makes them look more independant.
Campaign contributions are only one part of the equation. You can use it to purchase voter sympathy with ads, but looking like a maverick trumps heavy ad saturation.
Microsoft may lobby like the dickens to kill this bill, but California-based companies will be more important, and it's the taxpayers in places like Cupertino and Mountain View that matter.