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.

Comments

Bruce wrote this?!

[dsb3]

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??

Re:Bruce wrote this?!

[tiwason]

But Villanueva makes an important point

I think its part of some sort of quote, not bruces words...

Re:Bruce wrote this?!

[Bruce Perens]

When you are the dad of a two-year-old, a lot of writing gets done at 4 A.M. when kid and mom don't need your attention. So, it's not polished prose. This one was also bit awkward because the Peruvian bill calls for Free Software, not Open Source.

Bruce

Re:Bruce wrote this?!

[gimpboy]

i understand, i had young sisters. really though, other than the above quoted portion, i really thought it was well written.

have you considered trying to start a grass roots campaign for this? i'd be willing to help work on it here in pittsburgh.

alternately

[kingOFgEEEks]

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

Re:alternately

[kingOFgEEEks]

i agree: the need to pass laws and mandates for using open source software is not the most desirable option.

my main point is that maybe, possibly, hopefully, the rest of the world is giving up on their dependence on M$ products, and searching for a better way.

hey, we can all hope

Re:alternately

[AvitarX]

Well, in Peru the "law" is really just a policy put down formally for all of the gavernment. And I could imagine how you would nead to very much formalize a major change like this.

It is a matter of telling people, hey we diecided this is better. Or based on the merits of free saftware, we want it used wherever possible. Only use nonfree software where you MUST do so.

If to make that a policy in your country it must be passed as a law, so what.

Re:alternately

[kingOFgEEEks]

good point

Re:alternately

[Verizon Guy]

Someone remind me now... if this so-called "law" takes effect in California, does that mean that they wouldn't be able to use Oracle RDBMS software? Seriously, I think that's really a load of BS. Open source database servers can't match up to Oracle, esp for government work. This isn't about 'thwarting the great satan,' this is about mandating ridiculous laws, both in proof and concept.

Instead, advocates point out that "closed" software adds costs and creates security risks, two problems the state needs to reduce.

That sentence from the article is such uninformed, ignorant bullshit. Let's see some hard core numbers on that.

The day the government moves to MySQL from Oracle or an IBM database is the day I move to Canada...

There are always choices...

[Nethergoat]

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

Re:There are always choices...

[cioxx]

How about working on a prototype of DMV EXPRESS?

I cannot stress the importance of it, since I have the first hand account of Evil that lurks there.

Re:There are always choices...

[rmohr02]

My parents computer connects to the internet via M$N (I'm trying to get them to change), and if they want to use any POP3 email account they have to use Outlook Express to access it. Outlook (98 at least) will not work. You cannot access email from another program, which everybody else allows, and you must send all your email through them, rather than through a university account or other. They said their changes were "industry standards", so I (in separate emails) asked them which other ISPs required you to send all email through their SMTP program, which other email programs required the use of "Secure Password Authentication" (probably trademarked by M$ so that nobody else can), which other ISPs required you to use Outlook Express, and why M$ was specifically forbidding the use of a program I bought from them for email access (Outlook). I did not get a response to any of these, despite the fact that I submitted them in various different ways multiple times.

Re:There are always choices...

[Drogo Knotwise]

Besides coming with all sorts of added goodies, Incredimail accesses MSN accounts.

Re:There are always choices...

[rmohr02]

Cool. I may even try that program for myself.

Follow the money...

[mellonhead]

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.

Re:Follow the money...

[donutello]

Don't forget all the money given by Sun, Oracle and AOL. Microsoft has historically always been a very poor campaign financer and lobbier. It was the campaign contributions from those companies that caused the DOJ to bring the original case.

Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

It is about choice.

Locking government research into GPL is just as bad as locking it out of open standards.

GPL fanatics act as if Microsoft is the only closed source software company in the world.

If a government researcher creates a better code library, wouldn't you like everyone to be able to benefit? Locking this code into GPL keeps it out of most Adobe, Oracle, Intuit, Sun, Microsoft, and even Idaho Computer Services software.

If my tax dollars pay for something, I want is shared with EVERYONE, I want all tax funded software development to be under the BSD license.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[david duncan scott]

Nope. You want to use patented technology, or any other special feature, then add it, or hire someone else to add it for you, and use it all you want. Nobody is stopping you (with the possible exception of the patent holder, of course, but that's a different issue.)

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Oh you're free to choose the proprietary route. But when the patent holder decides to increase his royalties or cease licensing altogether, don't come crying to us when your software no longer functions.

In my workplace all of our data is transmitted and stored using open standards. Why? Well lets say we had 10 gigs of data in a proprietary database. If our software goes tits up and we have to recover that data, we're at the mercy of the software company. What if they're no longer in business? How can we migrate?

I want to know that the data my government relies on to function is accessible. You cannot guarantee that with proprietary technologies. It's not about what's best--the consumer will always be free to choose proprietary software over open software if he or she desires. What this is about is accessibility and fairness. It galls me to no end that the United States has the nerve to send an ambassador to Peru for nothing more than the commercial interests of a criminal organization.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[WetCat]

For libraries, in that case, you can choose LGPL...
That's it. And that ...,...,...,..., ...
will be slight happy and the library still be free.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[ctid]

I think you need to consider this more carefully, if you're keen to get the best benefits out of your tax dollars. Here's a simple example: Suppose a government funded researcher creates a new approach to collaborating over the internet (call it Collaborate). This is a good thing; you paid your taxes, the govt gave some of it to this researcher, he created a new system and everyone benefits. However, if he didn't use the GPL, you could quite simply lose your benefit. Immediately after he publishes, you and Microsoft and all others who contributed taxes get the same access to the new technology. However, suppose MS decide that they really like this technology. They want to distribute it with MS Windows, but they decide to change it slightly. So they distribute CollaboratePlus! with Windows. However, the changes they made to Collaborate are closed source. So, you can continue to use Collaborate, but everyone using Windows is going to be using the non backward-compatible CollaboratePlus! Obviously, you can buy Windows if you like, but then you've paid twice for access to the technology (you paid through your taxes, remember).

Now contrast this with the situation if our researcher had GPLed Collaborate. Everyone who paid taxes (and everyone else as well, of course) benefits from the technology. MS can still distribute it with Windows, but if they want to "improve" it, they have to give the new version back to the people who paid for it.

Surely the GPL is better in this situation? I don't mean this as a rhetorical quetion, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think there's a flaw in my argument.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Dark Paladin]

Actually, if you read the article, that's not true.

You'll notice that the idea behind Open Source is, as Bruce states, to "create its own standard". If I want to figure out how to make SMB connections, I've got to reverse engineer the packets, and come up with a way of talking to it.

If I'm making something to interface with a GPL license, I can look at the source code to build my interfaces. I'm not forced to use that source code - if I do, there are consequences for using someone else's intellectual property (which is what the GPL is protecting, really - my right to do with my intellectual property as I desire - in this case, keep it free).

My problem behind MS and other companies "preferring" the BSD license (and those like it) is what Bruce brings up in the article:

I give money to the government.
Government gives money to researchers.
Researchers develop code.
Proprietary company takes code, makes new product, makes money off of my tax dollars, and sometimes even tries to patent their own way of doing it that breaks the standard (Kerebros, anyone?).
I pay company for their product - thus paying twice.

With GPL, you can have this:

I give moneyh to the government.
Government gives money to researchers.
Proprietary company sees code, uses this as a standard, builds interfaces, maybe even better code.
I choose - GPL software, or proprietary? Either way, I know that *my* tax dollars aren't going to make someone else money unless *I choose to give it to them*.

But that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Soft]

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.

You, as an individual, can always choose to use whatever product you want to, with a patented technology (provided you pay the royalties one way or another, of course). You can still interoperate with a free-software government since they use open standards. You can even try to convince your friends to use the same product as you.

But a non-free-software government, using patented technologies for data exchange, does force everybody to use non-free software, and pay for the "better" tech, locking out free software and therefore restricting choices for everybody. Unless they buy the rights and license them for free to the whole public (not just the taxpayers of a given country), which makes that technology free for all intents and purposes anyway.

A contrario, a free-software policy could send a message to companies: if you patent this, you can still sell it, but the government won't use it and nobody will have to. This would effectively block consumer-locking tactics. Of course it does not benefit the big companies...

In an ideal world, one could let the government use any patented technology for internal use, but not for data exchange with the public, unless they at least provide an alternate method of access for free products. Making the distinction would require IP lawyers in every public service, which had better not happen, I guess.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[1010011010]

trying to determine my rights for me

This legislation, like the Peruvian legislation, does not affect your personal choice of software one whit. It's about a customer -- the government -- deciding what it wants to spend money on.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

Why does everyone keep saying that I am paying twice? I think that everyone is ignoring the fact that more than just MS can benefit from this.

Okay, I pay for the research the first time, granted. Now Collaborate exists.

Then, say Collaborate is useful to general ledger programs so MS uses it in MS Money and Intuit uses it in Quicken and Quickbooks. This decreases the costs to both companies and market forces bring down the cost of the packages relative to the benefit gained by the tax funded library.

So now MS extends Collaborate, they have a slight advantage over Intuit and market forces let them charge a little more. Seems entirely fair to me.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the legal issues of GPL require the larger work to be open sourced...MS couldn't use a GPL library inside windows even if they wanted to because they place too much value on maintaining control over the codebase that they paid billions to write and maintain.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[jonabbey]

So now MS extends Collaborate, they have a slight advantage over Intuit and market forces let them charge a little more. Seems entirely fair to me.

Except that computing technology is heavily influenced by network effects. Assuming that Collaborate involves any kind of communication or data file format, every user of MS Collaborate is a tool driving positive network effects to induce more users to purchase and use MS Collaborate in order to interoperate with everyone who received a copy their purchase of MS Windows, thus driving out the original product. Microsoft did precisely this with Kerberos in Windows 2000, then tried to prevent others from knowing what was in those secret n (where n is reasonably low.. 32?) bytes of their ticket datagrams, or from writing any code capable of interoperating.

Now, how does anyone but Microsoft benefit from the secrecy of those 32 bytes? Does anyone imagine that more effort was required to formulate those 32 bytes than was necessary to develop the original Kerberos concept and evolve the code through five major releases? Does anyone not see that Microsoft was laying a cuckoo's egg, to hatch and shove all of the Kerberos servers written and implemented by the original development team (or other commercial licensors) out of the nest?

Microsoft's overwhelmingly dominant position in the industry means that it has the monopoly power to drive network effects to its benefit every time. Without licenses like the GPL, does anyone imagine there would be any substantial competition to Microsoft in the commodity platform arena? Why should anyone besides Microsoft disparage Open Source licensing that helps mitigate Microsoft's monopolizing tendencies?

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the legal issues of GPL require the larger work to be open sourced...MS couldn't use a GPL library inside windows even if they wanted to because they place too much value on maintaining control over the codebase that they paid billions to write and maintain.

Two points. First, GPL'ed software runs on Windows all the time.. see Cygwin, Xemacs, etc. That doesn't lead to a requirement that Windows be licensed under the GPL, anymore than the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL means that my copy of DB2 for Linux has to be licensed under the GPL.

Second, remember that people who want to create a standard library will often use the LGPL rather than the GPL. Again and again you'll see that people who are trying to create standard code for interoperability will choose to do it through LGPL or other non-GPL Open Source licenses, or will make provisions for dual licensing.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

"I pay company for their product - thus paying twice."

Are you buying the entire windows product only for Kerberos? If not, then shouldn't MS get some compensation for the rest of the product?

My argument is that by placing code in BSD license so that it can be dropped into place and used instead of re-written from scratch using cleanroom techniques, you reduce the cost to develop the commercial package.

Since the means to reduce the cost is available to all, even closed source software houses, everyone can use it, it brings down everyone's costs, and everyone can afford to sell at a lower price. With market forces in effect on all products, even an operating system (you can always go to unix or OS/2) and linux is a huge market force, prices will be driven down.

You give no proof that the company will not decrease the price of their product as their costs decrease.

Even assuming that the price will not decrease, it results in lower overhead, and more profits for the company which are invested and result in lower bank interest rates for me. :) Enabling profit is NOT a bad thing.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[ctid]

Then, say Collaborate is useful to general ledger programs so MS uses it in MS Money and Intuit uses it in Quicken and Quickbooks. This decreases the costs to both companies and market forces bring down the cost of the packages relative to the benefit gained by the tax funded library.

This doesn't work if the software isn't stand-alone. The original article was talking about standards for things, which implies that programs are going to interoperate in some way. So if a monopolist changes the SW and can make the market accept the change, they gain an advantage by virtue of being a monopolist.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the legal issues of GPL require the larger work to be open sourced...

Well, that doesn't apply to aggregate works. So if you just distribute some piece of GPLed SW with Windows (ie you put it on one of the CDs), you're not obliged to open-source Windows itself (see the very last paragraph in Section 2 of the GPL. But you're right, I could have said "(L)GPLed", and that would have been clearer.

I still think my point stands: with (L)GPLed SW, the taxpayers get to use the software they paid for for ever. Companies don't have to suffer, however; if they want to charge for supporting the software, or for sticking it on a CD with their other software, they're able to do that. What they can't do is to take a piece of work that is free for anybody to use and then change it so that the people who originally had the right to use it need to pay again or have to become dependent on the company making the changes. I think the (L)GPL helps the taxpayer in this sense.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

"Two points. First, GPL'ed software runs on Windows all the time.. see Cygwin, Xemacs, etc. That doesn't lead to a requirement that Windows be licensed under the GPL, anymore than the fact that the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL means that my copy of DB2 for Linux has to be licensed under the GPL."

Runs on...not can run *IN*. If I am doing government research and write an application for analyzing data and invent a new algorithm for doing a mathematical transform that is a few orders of magnitude more efficient, but I just GPL the app, I have just locked 3/4 of the software development world out of this code.

If they want to use the algorithm in closed source code, to protect themselves they need to cleanroom reverse engineer the code.

Assume that someone makes a standalone GPL app for transforming images. MS couldn't take that and integrate it into the display processing because it needs to be a standalone app.

So either:
They can use the software in an inefficient kludgefest of a hack.
or:
They can cleanroom reverse engineer the code.

By selecting GPL over BSD for public research, you force the closed source companies to either reinvent the wheel, or to reverse engineer and rewrite the wheel from scratch.

If the closed source company is reverse engineering the wheel in the first place, there is a fair amount of individual programmer temptation to improve on the wheel when they re-write it.

If they weren't re-writing it, but just dropping it in place, would they have nearly as much temptation to "fix" open standards.

Besides, I believe that the kerberos standard listed the field that was change as "UNDEFINED". The standard didn't say "You can't put anything here." If you want people to stick to a standard, make it more explicit.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[jonabbey]

Runs on...not can run *IN*. If I am doing government research and write an application for analyzing data and invent a new algorithm for doing a mathematical transform that is a few orders of magnitude more efficient, but I just GPL the app, I have just locked 3/4 of the software development world out of this code.

You're confusing the GPL, which is an affirmative grant of use and copy rights, with patent law, which would apply to a bare algorithm. Microsoft would, of course, be perfectly free to re-implement an algorithm that was embodied in a GPL'ed application or library, assuming that it wasn't patented by a free source advocate unclear on the concept. ;-)

Assume that someone makes a standalone GPL app for transforming images. MS couldn't take that and integrate it into the display processing because it needs to be a standalone app.
So either:
They can use the software in an inefficient kludgefest of a hack.
or:
They can cleanroom reverse engineer the code.

Hm, I guess $40 billion dollars in the bank doesn't buy as much programmer time as I would have thought, huh?

If they weren't re-writing it, but just dropping it in place, would they have nearly as much temptation to "fix" open standards.

This is naive at best. Programmer time and effort is the smallest of Microsoft's major expenses. The Microsoft R&D budget is structured to cover the sort of marketing expenses required to 'develop' a commanding hold on the market. Microsoft is not going to fail to take an opportunity to lock out competitors because they'll save a few days of some programmer's time.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Sj0]

In Practice, it seems you are mistaken. BeOS used several GNU utilities (such as BASH), but they were not forced to GPL BeOS.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

You're confusing the GPL, which is an affirmative grant of use and copy rights, with patent law, which would apply to a bare algorithm. Microsoft would, of course, be perfectly free to re-implement an algorithm that was embodied in a GPL'ed application or library, assuming that it wasn't patented by a free source advocate unclear on the concept. ;-)

No, I realize that the algorithm can be re-implemented, but Joe's software house may not have the money to re-implement it.

Money is saved, for Microsoft, Intuit, Adobe, Joe's software house, and fubar computing if they can use code developed from government funded code.

Corporations are not by definition evil. As another poster pointed out, corporate profit helps people too and Microsoft isn't the only company with an interest in government funded research.

Additionally, every time someone re-implements an algorithm, there is a chance that they will implement it incorrectly. This is especially true in with encryption algorithms. Everyone would be better off if base algorithms weren't re-written by every single company that needs to use them. This is where government funded BSD licensed code (sorry, I haven't researched LGPL enough to know if it solves GPL's problems with sharing code with closed source groups or not) could improve software quality for everyone.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Zorquan]

Obviously, you can buy Windows if you like, but then you've paid twice for access to the technology (you paid through your taxes, remember).

You forget, some of the taxes that Microsoft paid went into funding that research as well. Also, what happens if the software is a huge hit and makes MS another ton of cash? More taxes to fund more research. And they'll pay a heck of a lot more in taxes than you will. A possible alternative is that MS decides not to include the product and the majority of the world doesn't use it. (Why download something you don't really need? Most people are content with email and surfing now.) How effective were those tax dollars spent on research to provide a benefit to only a small number of people? The network effects on the economy and society of releasing it in a proprietary-friendly format far outweigh any GPL-only distribution. They could release it in multiple formats and please more people though.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[rseuhs]

This decreases the costs to both companies and market forces bring down the cost of the packages relative to the benefit gained by the tax funded library.

In what naive world do you live?

Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[jonabbey]

Additionally, every time someone re-implements an algorithm, there is a chance that they will implement it incorrectly. This is especially true in with encryption algorithms. Everyone would be better off if base algorithms weren't re-written by every single company that needs to use them. This is where government funded BSD licensed code (sorry, I haven't researched LGPL enough to know if it solves GPL's problems with sharing code with closed source groups or not) could improve software quality for everyone.

Sure, and that's why software like the OpenSSL libraries are licensed in a way that they can be used by commercial concerns. The BSD license and its ilk are just as Open Source as GPL, and are completely appropriate for many circumstances for many people. If one is trying to establish a free platform alternative to Microsoft, however, the anti-monopolizing protections of something like the GPL plays a very important role.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

This is naive at best. Programmer time and effort is the smallest of Microsoft's major expenses. The Microsoft R&D budget is structured to cover the sort of marketing expenses required to 'develop' a commanding hold on the market. Microsoft is not going to fail to take an opportunity to lock out competitors because they'll save a few days of some programmer's time.

I would like to see the breakdown of Microsoft's budget that shows this because I pretty sure it isn't true.

BTW - R&D are two completely seperate sets of groups within MS. There is a Research division, and then there are product groups. Within the product groups there are Program Managers that specify features and talk with customers, developers that write the code, and testers. Marketing is a completely different group and they are so disconnected that the best they can do is come up with the "99.999% uptime" campaign instead of advertizing things like Active Directory.

I think that Linux users (and I still use linux on a few boxes at home) give Microsoft way too much credit in the marketing department.

Read "I sing the body electronic" by Fred Moody if you want to see how Microsoft really works.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

Why do we want the government to fund an alternative to Microsoft Operating Systems?

We turn over our prisons to corporations.

We have turned our universities into corporation-like profit focused enterprises.

We are talking about turning education over to corporations.

We frequenly turn sewage, water, and waste over to corporations.

We even let corporations like oil companies control critical infrastructure.

When government helps corporate profits, more people are employed, more taxes are paid, and more investments are made.

Despite the fact that many people think Microsoft is evil, they haven't taken thousands of steps that could have taken to put a stranglehold on users.

Microsoft has intentially left the accessibility tool (screen readers, speach tools, etc) market open, just providing APIs and allowing other companies to create products for this market.

Microsoft has also left the graphics software market open as opposed to creating a pagemaker or photoshop look-alike. Similar in the CAD market prior to Visio (and visio was more for the scriptability side than the CAD type tools). If you look around, Microsoft assists quite a few niche markets by providing APIs to help these markets while intentionally staying out of the market.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[jonabbey]

You're arguing that because Microsoft hasn't monopolized every possible software niche, no matter how small or non-lucrative, they must not be all that bad?

That's a very weak argument, isn't it?

Shouldn't the standard be that they are culpable for the acts of illegal monopoly maintenance that they have committed, rather than giving them a pass because they have decided it is not strategically worthwhile to eliminate all other providers of graphics software?

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

In what naive world do you live?

Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.

In a world where more than one software package is competing for a single market. This isn't Microsoft vs the rest of the world, this is "Streets and Trips vs other map sofware", "MS Money vs Quicken", "MSN vs AOL", even "MS office vs star office, KDE office, wordperfect/quatro, etc" and "Active Directory vs iPlanet and NDS"

Every technology produced by MS has one or more competitors...if research finds a better way to work and all competitors can use it, they will each implement it and reduce their costs. Maybe this means they have more money for other new features, that they will charge for, but it makes them more productive.

Any publicly traded company has an obligation to attempt to increase market share. This is done by adjusting price, features, support, and marketing to compete.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

No, I'm actually arguing that Microsoft is creating and encouring the creation 3rd party vendors for accessibility tools, software testing tools, games, and a lot of other markets by creating APIs explicitly to help them.

Microsoft *is* aggressive, and maybe even a 1000lb gorilla, but it isn't out to take over the universe, just to solve the needs of customers. *really* It suprised me when I started talking to people working at Microsoft, but they do want to solve the needs of the customers.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[rseuhs]

OK, maybe you will understand now:

Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.

Reread that statement. I did not say that prices are irrelevant, I said that costs are irrelevant in setting the price.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Amiga Trombone]

Now contrast this with the situation if our researcher had GPLed Collaborate. Everyone who paid taxes (and everyone else as well, of course) benefits from the technology. MS can still distribute it with Windows, but if they want to "improve" it, they have to give the new version back to the people who paid for it.

Surely the GPL is better in this situation? I don't mean this as a rhetorical quetion, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think there's a flaw in my argument.

Okay, you asked, here's the flaw. You're assuming MS would be forced to use the GPL code and contribute their improvements back to the community. Actually, the more likely outcome is that they would eschew the GPL code altogether, and simply develop their own product which re-implemented the features of Collaborate. They gain nothing by being forced to make their improvements public. Anyone else could take the code and simply repackage it. Thus, they lose any competitive advantage, and hence their investment, they put into development, and have no incentive to make any improvements to the software whatsoever. Whereas if they create their own closed source implementation of Collaborate, they maintain control over their own IP. So instead of maximizing the commercial benefit of taxpayer sponsored software, you wipe it out entirely. I suspect this was a consideration when Apple chose BSD as the basis of OS X, rather than a GPLed OS such as Linux.

Actually, a BSD or public domain license would be preferable for taxpayer funded software, because private corporations then have an incentive to take the code base and improve it for their proprietary products. While it is true this does not necessarily lead to the improvements being returned to the public domain, the public does get a return on their investment in the form of taxes paid on the profits of the sales of the products. Even if Bruce's contention that MS has managed to avoid corporate income taxes is true, that still doesn't tell the whole story. They are still subject to sales taxes, inventory taxes, head taxes, etc, plus the income taxes paid by their employees on their earnings. I can pretty well guarentee that when the cumulative taxes Microsoft pays are considered, the return on investment to the taxpayer will be very impressive.

This is the part that doesn't get considered in these discussions. Rather than create an incentive for private corps to improve open source software and release their improvements, GPL creates an incentive for them to avoid it like the plauge. Consider how few software companies base their products on GPL code, and of the few who do, how few are actually turning a profit. While companies such as IBM and HP are prepared to make friendly with the GPL, you have to consider that these are primarily hardware vendors. They gain more from additional hardware sales than they lose by making (some) of their IP public. But for a pure software house like MS, the GPL is poison. I guarentee they'll never touch a GPLed product of any consequence with a ten foot pole. I love Linux and other GPLed software, but unfortunately the GPL virtually destroys any profit incentive a private corp might have to make use of the code base. And thus you lose a large part of the benefit of your taxpayer funded software.

Further, the contention that you are paying for the software twice is disingenuous. This is just as true for Linux as it is for Windows. There is plenty of software in your boxed set of Red Hat based on technology developed on government funding. Even if the implementation of TCP/IP is original, the original development of the technology was done at government expense. If you're going to be honest, you have to factor in the cost of the original development of the technology, not just the cost of the specific implementation.

Bruce may know how to code, but I think he's in need of a course in economics.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

OK, maybe you will understand now:
Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.

Reread that statement. I did not say that prices are irrelevant, I said that costs are irrelevant in setting the price.

It is a fine statement, I just don't think that it is that simple.

A company won't sell software for less than the cost unless they are stupid.

Price is always a factor in purchasing. In the multiple product marketplace, features is another, only a stupid company would raise their prices higher than their competitors to provide the same level of service and features.

What the market is willing to pay will change. It can change due to market saturuation, marketing, competition, etc. If the cost to enter the market drops enough and the profit margin is high enough, another competitor will enter with a much lower priced product and the price that the market is willing to pay will drop.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[ctid]

Okay, you asked, here's the flaw. You're assuming MS would be forced to use the GPL code and contribute their improvements back to the community. Actually, the more likely outcome is that they would eschew the GPL code altogether, and simply develop their own product which re-implemented the features of Collaborate. [...] Whereas if they create their own closed source implementation of Collaborate, they maintain control over their own IP.

I don't understand the point you're making, as a BSD-style license allows exactly this sort of thing. Once someone (MS in this example) has changed the code they are under no obligation to redistribute the source code. And the point about them creating their own software, without using Collaborate is irrelevant, since they can do that anyway, irrespective of its license (assuming the software in question doesn't include patented technology, but that's another argument altogether).

Further, the contention that you are paying for the software twice is disingenuous. This is just as true for Linux as it is for Windows. There is plenty of software in your boxed set of Red Hat based on technology developed on government funding. Even if the implementation of TCP/IP is original, the original development of the technology was done at government expense. If you're going to be honest, you have to factor in the cost of the original development of the technology, not just the cost of the specific implementation.

This I don't understand. The cost issue is not relevant, because I can download all the software you mention for nothing if I want, from any number of different sources.

The question is, after I have contributed to the cost of developming the software, can someone else use this software (for which I've paid as well as they've paid) and then render it useless for me unless I pay them again? That's what my Collaborate example was supposed to illustrate.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[sjames]

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.

O.K., let's see which offers more choices for developers and users:

Free only standards. Anyone is free to comply with the standard and distribute the compliant software any way they see fit. They are free to 'extend' the standard as long as they are careful that they interoperate successfully with the non-extended software. The extension may or may not involve patented technology that limits their choice of distribution model.

Patent OK: Anyone may implement the standard, but will have to choose a distribution model that at least pays the royalties. They may or may not be permitted to distribute full source. They may or may not have to meet a minimum number of licenses to be able to distribute at all. They may or may not be able to afford the up front fees. They will need a lawyer to negotiate a deal.

So, looks like the first choice would still leave you free to use proprietary and patented technology if you like, but won't require it. The second would lock you in, like it or not.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[rseuhs]

A company won't sell software for less than the cost unless they are stupid.

Wrong. Again.

When you got the software-product, you have already spent the money. Not selling the product won't bring it back.

The goal is to extract the most money out of the market. If it turns out that the market does not cover the expenses, that's too bad, but doesn't change the goal to extract the most out of the market.

Why do you think companies always set the price at the last minute?

Again:

Costs are irrelevant when setting the price for a software product

Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics, get that through your head.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[sjames]

So now MS extends Collaborate, they have a slight advantage over Intuit and market forces let them charge a little more. Seems entirely fair to me.

Except that that extension may be nothing more than adding a signature who's only purpose is to break interoperability.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the legal issues of GPL require the larger work to be open sourced...MS couldn't use a GPL library inside windows even if they wanted to because they place too much value on maintaining control over the codebase that they paid billions to write and maintain.

Not really. They can include the GPL app as a whole with windows. They are free to distribute whatever version of the code they like, with whatever changes they like. The only thing they can't do is make it yet another 'inseperable' piece of the operating system.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Chris Johnson]

Buddy, you're missing something here.

Let's drop your 'collaborate' example for a bit and go with a real-world one.

Main Dithers (spectrograms at 16 bit)

I have the most high performance digital audio noise shaping algorithm in the world GPLed. (I refer to 'Ten Nines', which hits -160db noise floor from a simple 44/16 encoding)

I wrote it- all of it. I 'pay for the research' the first time, it's my IP, it's my right to do that with it.

I also have the right to dual-license it.

If anyone proprietary, like Microsoft (I'd rather see Apple with it, though) wants to have this tech and have the GPL NOT apply to them- they can damned well pay me for it. Nobody else is doing IIR noise shaping, period. The distribution of the spectrogram is unmistakable and can't be faked.

Nothing is stopping these proprietary people from going directly to me for this stuff- and nothing stops me from also putting my stuff out GPL. I just cannot put out the additional code that such a proprietary company might write. That would be implicit in an agreement to dual-license a proprietary version.

Funny how your touting of market forces doesn't seem to include them paying YOU anything. If you want to make something open to many people, and you want to be able to let Microsoft close it off, why on earth wouldn't you want to charge them for the privilege? Isn't that perfectly in spirit with what they'll be wanting to do? Sauce for the goose, man.

And if we're talking about large group projects, I see no reason why a Microsoft should ever be allowed to take those proprietary- and still, if the whole group agrees to, they can dual-license it.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[God! Awful]

Surely the GPL is better in this situation? I don't mean this as a rhetorical quetion, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think there's a flaw in my argument.

Surely the GPL is better in this situation?!? What you've just described is the standard retread argument for the GPL, i.e. the fear that a corporation is going to "leech off the community" and possibly even make money doing so. Except in this case, there is no community. What is wrong with using the BSD license here? Of course everyone likes to pick on Microsoft, but what about all the other companies that might want to incorporate this research into their non-GPL'ed software; don't they have rights?

MS decide that they really like this technology. They want to distribute it with MS Windows, but they decide to change it slightly.

Your arguments hinge on the presumption that Microsoft is a monopoly. Well fine, but they are being sued for that right now. You want to prevent them from engaging in monopolistic practices by punishing a lot of other companies as well. Why don't you let the US courts handle the issue of what sanctions to impose against Microsoft. You can't base every policy decision on the actins of one company.

-a
Do you suffer from the irrational fear that somewhere out there, at this very moment, someone is making money?

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

Costs are irrelevant when setting the price for a software product

Okay, maybe I slept through economics, but it seems to me that the customers would be smart enough to change their willingness to pay.

X people will buy a product with Y features at price Z
(X-Delta) people will by the same product at price (Z+Markup).

If the cost to develop the software + safety margin is > X' * Z' (where Delta and Markup maximize profit), then they shouldn't develop it in the first place.

For some products, lower the price, the sales increase at a higher rate than the price was lowered, and you get more profit than you would at a higher price.

So, if I have a lemondade stand, I can choose to sell each glass for $20. In some situations, I might be able to sell a glass.

If I have a competitor across the street selling lemonade for $1 per glass, then I will never be able to sell a glass unless I lower my price.

If there is a lemon tree next door with a sign saying "Free Lemons", a percentage of the potential customers will make their own lemonade unless I drop my price to something more reasonable like $.10 or $.25

Corporate consumers of software are very good about doing this sort of analysis. For any organization large enough to develop the software on their own (and potentially even market it and compete against you), this type of analysis will be done. For any software that large organizations buy, the normal laws of economics do apply.

Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics, get that through your head.

Please clarify - Are you saying that end-user software is different? Or in-house software?

Where is it proven (or even documented) that software economics are different than normal economics?

Sure, the per-unit costs are lower, but there are other industries where this is true - like music and book publishing.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[deranged unix nut]

The posts that started this whole thread were along the lines of:

a) My tax dollars go to the government
b) Government funds research
c) Research produces software

The assertations of one group have been:

d) if BSD license, MS uses software, charges, and taxpayers pay twice.

The assertations of others (maybe just me) are:

d) if GPL license, MS pays twice (they pay taxes too). if BSD license, initial costs are lowered in everyone's software development.

I am glad that you developed software and are willing to share it and I can understand why you might still want control and the ability to make a buck, but when it is the communal tax dollars of individuals *AND* corporations that provide individuals with jobs, I think that the results of that research should be released in the MOST FREE form that is usable by ALL, individual and closed source corporate alike which currently is BSD.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[jkramar]

With GPL, you can have this:

I give moneyh to the government.
Government gives money to researchers.
Proprietary company sees code, uses this as a standard, builds interfaces, maybe even better code.
I choose - GPL software, or proprietary? Either way, I know that *my* tax dollars aren't going to make someone else money unless *I choose to give it to them*.

I believe this portion is flawed; whether your work is copylefted or not, is the source code is available, any company can grab it, figure out how it works, reimplement it, and extend it, unless I am mistaken. If I am, I would like someone to explain why this would be illegal.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Amiga Trombone]

I don't understand the point you're making, as a BSD-style license allows exactly this sort of thing. Once someone (MS in this example) has changed the code they are under no obligation to redistribute the source code.

That is the point I'm trying to make! If they can't retain control over their IP, why would they want to invest in improving the product?

You are making an erroneous assumption here. The assumption you are making is that the only possible benefit to the taxpayers who paid for the development is release of additional code. That isn't true. As I took great pains to amplify in my second paragraph, the public benefits from taxes paid by MS on their profits. And not only MS. Say Garage Logic Software, a small start-up, has a great idea for an enhancement to Collaborate. Now, if Collaborate is GPL, they will have to release their changes to the public, exposing them to the risk of losing their investment in the product when somebody else repackages it and undersells them, thereby driving them out of business. This is exactly what has happened to plenty of Linux companies. Even Red Hat is now earning most of their revenue through their proprietary products. Of course, Garage Logic Software could develop their own proprietary version of Collaborate and add their enhancement, but as we said, they are a small start-up, and developing a clean-room implementation would be cost-prohibitive. Result? Garage Logic Software never gets off the ground, because they have no way to earn a profit, and the public never gets the benefit of their great enhancement to Collaborate.

There are many ways the public can benefit from public domain software, other than simply acruing additional code.

And the point about them creating their own software, without using Collaborate is irrelevant, since they can do that anyway, irrespective of its license (assuming the software in question doesn't include patented technology, but that's another argument altogether).

No, it isn't irrelevent, because the point of publicly funding software, like publicly funding anything else, is that the public at large benefits from it. True, MS may well be able to fund development of a clean-room version of Collaborate. But Garage Logic Software cannot, so you have effectively locked them out of the market. Your hypothetical researcher may well be able to develop the original product, but is he really in a position to package it, distrubute it, support it, and maintain it? Most likely not. That responsibility will most likely fall to commercial entities. And if they can't earn a profit from it, what is their interest in doing so? Linus does not maintain his own Linux distibution, private corporations do. And even at that, I know of none of them that are profitable simply on the strength of being Linux distributers.Most of them hope to become profitable eventually by selling ancillary (and usually proprietary) products and services. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed.

This I don't understand. The cost issue is not relevant, because I can download all the software you mention for nothing if I want, from any number of different sources.

That is correct. But some people choose to purchase the Red Hat boxed set, or purchase it with Windows, or Mac OS, or Solaris. But you are perfectly at liberty to use the free implementation should you so choose. As you would still be perfectly free to use the public domain version of Collaborate if you like.But if you want the enhancements an MS or someone else develops at their own cost, then you have to pay for them.

The question is, after I have contributed to the cost of developming the software, can someone else use this software (for which I've paid as well as they've paid) and then render it useless for me unless I pay them again? That's what my Collaborate example was supposed to illustrate.

The flaw in your argument is this: MS can't render it useless, only public preferences can render it useless. If the public at large (who also paid for the basic development) chooses to use the enhanced MS implementation over the public domain implementation, then I'm afraid you are just SOL. Unfortunately, the public is not obliged to use the public domain version simply because it is convenient for you. For example, I like Macs, but most of the world seems to like Windows. Which means the Windows world gets the benefit of higher priority from software and hardware developers, and the Mac they support when they get around to it, if ever. But that is my choice of computer, and either I have make do with what's available, or switch to Windows. But it would be absurd to expect the rest of the world to switch to a Mac simply to accomodate me. It ain't gonna happen, and that's the price I pay for my choice. But remember, it is still my own choice.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[ctid]

That isn't true. As I took great pains to amplify in my second paragraph, the public benefits from taxes paid by MS on their profits. And not only MS. Say Garage Logic Software, a small start-up, has a great idea for an enhancement to Collaborate.

I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. You're saying that the public benefits from the taxes MS pays when they improve Collaborate and then charge the public again for? If MS pays taxes on the money they make from distributing CollaboratePlus! surely it's only a small proportion of the money they've received? My "paying twice" argument holds and is strengthened by your example. Your Garage Logic argument is bogus, as with non-GPLed software, there's no guarantee that the best enhancement wins in the market-place. Garage Logic could make a fantastic update to the original technology and then have it die in the market against MS's mediocre update, because MS bundles their update with the latest Windows or Service Pack. This is an effect of having a monopolist in the OS market.

The flaw in your argument is this: MS can't render it useless, only public preferences can render it useless. If the public at large (who also paid for the basic development) chooses to use the enhanced MS implementation over the public domain implementation, then I'm afraid you are just SOL.

This really makes no sense at all. MS has an effective monopoly on the OS market. They are not averse to leveraging that monopoly for their own benefit. If they bundle CollaboratePlus! with Windows, that is what the public will use. It has nothing to do with competition in the market. Where have you been for the last three years? Do you really believe that MS software dominates the market because it is superior? Or does their SW dominate because of their (illegal) willingness to use their monopoly to drive competitors out of the market?

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[rseuhs]

If the cost to develop the software + safety margin is > X' * Z' (where Delta and Markup maximize profit), then they shouldn't develop it in the first place.

Since you don't know how many copies you will sell, you don't know how big the cost is per copy sold.

Q.E.D.

And somebody selling lemons or lemonade is not selling software. Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics.

The proof?

Open source works in software, but not in not a single non-software market.

Software means high fixed costs and neglectible variable costs which causes a tendendency to monopolies/dominations (like Windows, Quicken, Photoshop). Actually, the market breaks down when it comes to software (commercial competition ceases sooner or later) and the non-commercial open-source model works much more efficient than closed-source.

And you are right, music, movies and books (in general everything that sells information) is indeed similar to software. However you can't take "Alien 1" and modify it to get "Alien 2" so I doubt that we see open movies anytime soon.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[DoctorFrog]

Blockquoth the parent:

You're assuming MS would be forced to use the GPL code and contribute their improvements back to the community. Actually, the more likely outcome is that they would eschew the GPL code altogether, and simply develop their own product which re-implemented the features of Collaborate. They gain nothing by being forced to make their improvements public. Anyone else could take the code and simply repackage it. Thus, they lose any competitive advantage, and hence their investment, they put into development, and have no incentive to make any improvements to the software whatsoever. Whereas if they create their own closed source implementation of Collaborate, they maintain control over their own IP.

So MicroSoft's plan would be this:

1. Re-implement clean-room equivalent of software that's already freely available.

2. ???

3. Profit!!!

The grandparent suggested a way in which MicroSoft could fill in step 2, provided a)the license is BSD, PD or some similar more-or-less 'unconditional' type, and b)MicroSoft still has an effective monopoly.

If the license is GPL or LGPL, then MicroSoft may be able to use the code by not integrating it into their main product, which would likely be klugey, or they could follow your plan. Since they're not market-stupid, any proprietary equivalent they come up with will have to have genuine innovation or they won't be able to sell it to private concerns. The taxpayer dollars are thus indeed maximised ; the government has an entirely usable product which is also freely available to the public under the GPL's terms. The public also has a proprietary version available which necessarily must be better or MicroSoft wouldn't have bothered making it, by your own argument.

The other situation in which the poster's scenario won't work is if MicroSoft can no longer effectively wield monopoly power. Good enough for me, I like a level playing field; if MicroSoft doesn't want government contracts wherein they don't get the license they want, I'm sure we can find someone else to do so. If MicroSoft or some other pure software company develops a terrific new proprietary application that the government simply has to have, then the government can get one of MicroSoft's competitors (remember, in this scenario they have some) to develop a workalike - which will then be available to the public, again maximizing taxpayer return.

One final point: You are entirely correct that a pure software house like MicroSoft is unlikely to invest research time and money into developing innovative products for licensing under the GPL; however, the flaw in your argument is that they would have no motive for developing BSD software either! They have every motive for using it, and if they remain a monopoly they have every motive to break its utility for others, but they have no more motive to produce innovative work for BSD licensing than they do for GPL licensing.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Amiga Trombone]

You're saying that the public benefits from the taxes MS pays when they improve Collaborate and then charge the public again for? If MS pays taxes on the money they make from distributing CollaboratePlus! surely it's only a small proportion of the money they've received?

Yes. The public benefits from the taxes paid by Microsoft. Also by the jobs they create, the stockholders benefit from the stock price, and the users benefit from the enhancements made to Collaborate. And while the taxes MS pays may well be only a "small portion" of the money they receive, that small portion still amounts to several billion dollars. I think that is a more than adequate ROI to the government for any money they gave your researcher for the original development of Collaborate.

My "paying twice" argument holds and is strengthened by your example.

No, it is not. Your tax dollars paid for the researcher's original development of Collaborate. What you are paying Microsoft for is the enhancements they develop at their own cost, plus packaging, distribution and support. You are still free to use the public domain implementation and not pay MS a damn thing.

Your Garage Logic argument is bogus, as with non-GPLed software, there's no guarantee that the best enhancement wins in the market-place. Garage Logic could make a fantastic update to the original technology and then have it die in the market against MS's mediocre update, because MS bundles their update with the latest Windows or Service Pack. This is an effect of having a monopolist in the OS market.

Not necessarily true. More people still use Quicken than Microsoft Money, more people use AOL than MSN. More people use Oracle and DB2 than SQL server. Until IE evolved to the point where it was an equal or superior product to Netscape, people would still download Netscape.

And if GLS never gets their product to market, then you never know whether it will succeed or not.

This really makes no sense at all. MS has an effective monopoly on the OS market. They are not averse to leveraging that monopoly for their own benefit. If they bundle CollaboratePlus! with Windows, that is what the public will use.

Again, I refer you to my examples of Quicken, AOL, etc.

It has nothing to do with competition in the market. Where have you been for the last three years? Do you really believe that MS software dominates the market because it is superior? Or does their SW dominate because of their (illegal) willingness to use their monopoly to drive competitors out of the market?

Microsoft didn't start out with a monopoly, they built it. They had plenty of competition in the 80's. Let's start by defining what you mean by "superior". Is MS superior technology? No. BeOS, and Mac OS, and Linux are probably superior technologies than MS. But let's look at their disadvantages: BeOS - friendly, but too few apps too be useful. Linux - cheap, but a steep learning curve, too difficult for your typical casual user. Mac OS - very easy to use, but a higher cost of entry, also a lesser selection of apps. So no, I don't think they dominate due to superior technology, but due to a superior value proposition. Note the difference. A value proposition is not defined by technology alone. The same was true in the 80's. MS was able to build their franchise into a monopoly largely because Apple, Commodore and IBM all fell on their own swords, MS wasn't responsible for their competitors commiting suicide. DOS may well have been the most primitive OS out there, but again, it offered a greater value proposition than it's more technically sophisticated competitors. Having a monopoly these days obviously isn't hurting them, either, but let's remember how they got it.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[Amiga Trombone]

If the license is GPL or LGPL, then MicroSoft may be able to use the code by not integrating it into their main product, which would likely be klugey, or they could follow your plan. Since they're not market-stupid, any proprietary equivalent they come up with will have to have genuine innovation or they won't be able to sell it to private concerns. The taxpayer dollars are thus indeed maximised ; the government has an entirely usable product which is also freely available to the public under the GPL's terms. The public also has a proprietary version available which necessarily must be better or MicroSoft wouldn't have bothered making it, by your own argument.

And what does the public gain by having both the open-source version and the proprietary clone? You wind up with exactly the same result as if you have the open-source version in the public domain, and a MS enhanced closed-source version. The only difference is that MS has been forced to spend additional money on developing the clone from scratch. Also consider, MS pays taxes on profits, not revenues. If they have to spend the money to develop a clean room version, that is money that comes out of their profits, ergo, they do not pay taxes on money spent to develop their clone of Collaborate.

Further, you ignored my other example of a small software house that can neither afford to develop a Collaborate clone, nor open-source their proprietary enhancements. What about them?

The other situation in which the poster's scenario won't work is if MicroSoft can no longer effectively wield monopoly power. Good enough for me, I like a level playing field; if MicroSoft doesn't want government contracts wherein they don't get the license they want, I'm sure we can find someone else to do so. If MicroSoft or some other pure software company develops a terrific new proprietary application that the government simply has to have, then the government can get one of MicroSoft's competitors (remember, in this scenario they have some) to develop a workalike - which will then be available to the public, again maximizing taxpayer return.

How many Windows workalikes do you see? Or Office? Sure, the government could use OpenOffice, and require businesses they contract with to provide them with documents in a compatible format. But while OpenOffice may be free, the costs of implementation, training and support for it are not. Particularly when they have to support both OpenOffice to do business with the government, and MS Office to do business with everyone else. And any business that is required to incur those costs is going to pass those costs right back to the government, which means, you guessed it, to the taxpayer. How does that maximize the taxpayer return?

One final point: You are entirely correct that a pure software house like MicroSoft is unlikely to invest research time and money into developing innovative products for licensing under the GPL; however, the flaw in your argument is that they would have no motive for developing BSD software either! They have every motive for using it, and if they remain a monopoly they have every motive to break its utility for others, but they have no more motive to produce innovative work for BSD licensing than they do for GPL licensing.

Tell that to Apple, IIRC BSD is what OS X is based on. And it's a good bet that one of the reasons they chose a BSD licensed product over a GPL licensed product such as Linux is that they are able to withhold enhancements that give them a competitive advantage.

Consider this scenario: Microsoft decides that, in order to remain competitive, they need to market a unix-based OS in addition to Windows. But they want to include the Windows API's in it, in order to make porting Windows apps to it easy. What OS do you think they would use as the basis for such a product? Linux, which would require them to put their proprietary API's in the public domain, or BSD, which would not?

If your objective is simply to deprive MS (and most other commercial software houses) of the use of publicly-funded code, then, by all means, GPL is the way to go. But the last time I checked, the public is "everybody", including commercial software houses. And that means MS, too. GPLing publicly-funded software just to prevent MS from using it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[DoctorFrog]

If they have to spend the money to develop a clean room version, that is money that comes out of their profits, ergo, they do not pay taxes on money spent to develop their clone of Collaborate.

Where has MS spent extra money on developing a clone of Collaborate? That's right, it's gone into the pay packets of programmers instead of adding to the mountain of cash. Those programmers are going to pay income tax, and that money is going to be travelling into the economy.

How many Windows workalikes do you see?

That's kind of the point, isn't it? Why should I allow my government to use a proprietary system and thereby lock me into using it too?

while OpenOffice may be free, the costs of implementation, training and support for it are not. Particularly when they have to support both OpenOffice to do business with the government, and MS Office to do business with everyone else.

Whereas there are no costs involved in implementing, training for, or supporting using MS Office? As for having to maintain both, that's a ridiculous argument. If the government is using open formats supported by OpenOffice, MS is going to support those formats too. If they don't, then their product will quite rightly fail in the marketplace.

IIRC BSD is what OS X is based on. And it's a good bet that one of the reasons they chose a BSD licensed product over a GPL licensed product such as Linux is that they are able to withhold enhancements that give them a competitive advantage.

And this benefits me as a taxpayer how, exactly? By ensuring that Apple gets the extra money that I might otherwise have frittered away on another product?

Consider this scenario: Microsoft decides that, in order to remain competitive, they need to market a unix-based OS in addition to Windows. But they want to include the Windows API's in it, in order to make porting Windows apps to it easy. What OS do you think they would use as the basis for such a product? Linux, which would require them to put their proprietary API's in the public domain, or BSD, which would not?

And I should care why? If MicroSoft wants to develop a unix-like OS with Windows APIs, let them. I don't feel at all sorrowful that they'll have to pay programmers in order to keep the code base proprietary; why should they get a free ride on my tax dollars? If MicroSoft needs to do something to stay competitive they will; it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to make it easy for them.

Laws vs laws

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Laws vs laws

[InsaneGeek]

And what happens when the proprietary is X times better than any opensource product, because they had a dedicated team spend years developing it should we be *forced* not to use it, replacing it with a clearly inferior product?

The world does not revolve around MS & Linux maybe you should evolve your simplistic, child-like views

Oracle is proprietary
Veritas is proprietary
Maya is proprietary
VMWare is proprietary
Quake is proprietary

All proprietary, all used on unix (and there are hundreds more), and all their opensource counterparts tend to suck in comparison; when they don't suck anymore I'll be more than happy to have the *freedom* to choose that product.

Re:Laws vs laws

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Oracle is proprietary

Oracle does not make document interchange software. The data in an Oracle database is accessible in a standard format.

Veritas is proprietary

Veritas makes backup software. The only data interop consideration is whether you can get your data back in the event of a crash, and I believe that Veritas allows you to restore without a license for 30 days.

VMWare is proprietary
Quake is proprietary

Neither Quake nor VMWare have any data interop issues.

Re:Laws vs laws

[InsaneGeek]

You are wrong.

Oracle partitions are not readable by DB2, Postgress, etc products; it is proprietary to Oracle.

One part of Veritas is to do backups, and actually that uses Gnu Tar, was talking about the filesystem (my bad for not mentioning it). You can't get to the data on a veritas filesystem or volume without the proprietary veritas software. If this law passed I couldn't use Veritas for even for backups anymore, got a good solution to backup >100 terabytes of SAN/NAS/local storage that fits this law that will work half as good?

I also disagree with the Quake & VMWare (in a more light-hearted way). I can't use a Quake map file without Quake, can't import it into anything else and run a "quake like" game. I can't use a VMWare virtual disk without VMWare, I can't point Wine at it.

If you look at what they are wanting to pass (2nd paragraph):

If enacted as written, state agencies would be able to buy software only from companies that do not place restrictions on use or access to source code. The agencies would also be given the freedom to "make and distribute copies of the software."

Just about any third party software seems to fail the requirements. How often have you been able to legally redistribute copies of Oracle, HP Openview, Firewall 1, RSA SecureID ACE server, even Veritas Netbackup; let alone get the source along with it.

This law only stifles my choices and panders to a few idealists, who obviously don't have to make real, true, business decisions about what works best.

Re:Laws vs laws

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Oracle partitions are not readable by DB2, Postgress, etc products; it is proprietary to Oracle.

You can dump an oracle database and load it into DB2. You may need a perl script to munge the specifics, but the data is available.

You can't import a quake map into a Quake-like game because there is only Quake. Half-life is different, and there's little in the way of straightforward translation where the differences occurs. It's a non-trivial problem with no interested parties. Oh, and you can the the source to Quake and possible Quake 2 if you want it.

On a more general note, I was addressing the worst part of the Office monopoly - network effects. It is because of the requirement for full compatibility that an Office competitor is very nearly impossible.

This law only stifles my choices and panders to a few idealists, who obviously don't have to make real, true, business decisions about what works best.

So, what we really need is to limit its scope to areas where it's a matter of data interchange without leaving a gaping hole for MS to abuse. Perhaps something like requiring these restrictions for anything that has as its main purpose document generation, with specific exemptions for unencoded stuff like logfiles.

Re:Laws vs laws

[InsaneGeek]

I'd then make the statment that the using Oracle to export the data is the same as taking a Word document, opening it ande then saving it as a text only document.

I think we are close to the same page in regards to what is reasonable with the law, but the way it currently is proposed paints with way too broad of a stroke, easily abused... just like a few other recent laws (DMCA, etc)

A CNET article about the proposed California law.

[manyoso]

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949241.html

... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk...

[Futurepower(R)]

... "closed" software adds costs and creates security risks...

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.

Re:Free Software is anti-capitalist/anti-american

[kingOFgEEEks]

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

Money

[nuggz]

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.

Re:Money

[RickHunter]

More like "discuss making controversial laws, pull millions in bribes into their own pockets."

Re:Money

[Malcontent]

Oh yea clean air there is a contraversial law.

What you meant to say was. "Make laws protecting people which might cause huge corporations to spend a bit more money" right?

Your article is full of errors

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And isn't that what slashbots are against?

[kingOFgEEEks]

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

I like this quote...

[Tranvisor]

"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...

Re:I like this quote...

[rseuhs]

Well, Microsoft's problem is that they can't do that with all their customers.

Peru got big bucks because the threatened to go open-source.

I guess next year the other Latin-American states will do the same, the year after that all 3rd world countries.

Winlots, face it: Microsoft has to pay people to mak them run Windows.

We'll see if that's a viable business model...

Re:I like this quote...

[Tranvisor]

Normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'll make an exception in this case.

I spell MS or Microsoft as M$ or Micro$oft because they use money to solve all their problems. They have a monopoly and are not afraid to use it to further their own ends. The spelling is simply symbolic of my opinion of them. To them money and the power that it has on other people is the only thing important. As soon as they start operating their company with more compassion and less arrogance and deceit I'll spell their damn company they way I feel like spelling it.

royalties and open source

[tijsvd]

The article mentions twice that paying royalties on patents would rule out Open Source, as Open Source developers couldn't afford them.

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):

• everybody can see what happens within the software, no back doors etc.
• when the government pays developers to create code, everybody can learn from it and reuse it (just pay royalties upon using certain parts), so everybody can profit and development will be cheaper in the end

In the end, everything's better than all the money going to a single company.

Re:royalties and open source

[innocent_white_lamb]

when the government pays developers to create code

That code should then be the property of the government, just like when I hire someone to build a fence for me that fence is my property on completion.

everybody can learn from it and reuse it
Indeed. We have paid for it through our taxes

(just pay royalties upon using certain parts)

No, it's already paid for and is public property

so everybody can profit and development will be cheaper in the end

That's the idea.

Re:royalties and open source

[tijsvd]

That code should then be the property of the government, just like when I hire someone to build a fence for me that fence is my property on completion.

Of course it is. But the source can still be open, just like anybody is allowed to know how exactly how your fence has been constructed. If you happen to want some fancy patented lock on your fence, you'll somehow pay royalties, even though it's still your fence.

Karma Jepordy!

[teamhasnoi]

I use win 98, and XP and like both of them on their own merits. I 'trust' windows 98 ( It's been out long enough for most evil things to have been found.) Win XP is stable as hell and can do some cool stuff (though full of spyware, and tattleware). I don't use open source because of the software I need to run, and the configuration and use taking too long. (recompile my kernal? I'm clueless about the 1000's of fsck -sbin -y like commands etc. I do know ls, telnet, and fsck though).

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. :)

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[dillon_rinker]

I don't use open source because of the software I need to run, and the configuration and use taking too long.

So, you use Windows. Tell me about...
cacls
find
change mode /user
rmtshare
shutgui

Don't know them? Don't understand them? Don't even have them? That's right...because Windows out of the box has nowhere near the functionality of Linux. How many programming languages come with Windows? (shell, vbscript, maybe jscript -no compiled languages). How many development environments come with Windows? (one - notepad. Unless you count copy con). All the nifty management tools that let you see what's going on...separate purchase. How many DBMS's come with Windows? None.

It is STUPID to compare the features of Windows to any major LInux distro - the feature set of Windows is a slim subset of Linux. Windows offers EXACTLY two things:

1. Automated installations
2. A GUI that we've taken 12 years to learn

Apart from that, Linux offers FAR more than Windows.

What matters to the typical "I don't care how it works I just want it to work" consumer? Easy. They want it to work. They want it to work the way they know (ie like MS Windows). They don't about much else. If you want to do some serious Linux advocacy, pick a package and FIX the user interface so that it works the way people expect it to after a decade of working with Windows.

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[billbaggins]

Behold the reason that Linux needs better PR...

recompile my kernal? I'm clueless about the 1000's of fsck -sbin -y like commands etc.

Believe it or not, there are user-friendly Linuces out there! There are dark rumours floating about that some distros don't need you to do anything with the command line at all. Just pick the appropriate sysadmin function off the menu... I'm afraid I can't comment on them, since I'm a cmdline freak, but they're out there...

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[deranged unix nut]

Windows Server has:

Active Directory
Multiple Domain controllers per domain
Multiple Domains per tree
Multiple Trees per forest
Single Signon to access resources anywhere inside the forest.
Data Replication between domain controllers.
The ability to manage users, resources, and services like DHCP and DNS from anywhere in the forest making the changes in one place and the configuration changes are replicated.

Microsoft's W2k Server give a *LOT* of features and functionality that I can't get in the unix world unless I want to do a lot of scripting.

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[archen]

It's not like I can't download grep, or wget for windows. Linux distros only have more functionality because that's what they distribute with Linux, Linux itself doesn't add that functionality. There are TONS of open source projects that have windows ports as well. Vim, Apache, MySQL, just to name a few.

I think your dead on about people wanting things to work exactly like windows. Which makes many people hypocrites when they refuse to use things that don't work the way "Microsoft Products" work, whenever MS decides to change something.

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[Trepidity]

What matters to the typical "I don't care how it works I just want it to work" consumer? Easy. They want it to work.

This is what I see as the biggest problem. I use Debian GNU/Linux almost exclusively, but it's often still a bit frustrating. If I get a new piece of hardware and boot into Windows, Win2k will auto-detect it and configure it. The worst-case scenario is having to stick in the CD-ROM that came with the hardware to load the driver, if Win2k doesn't have the driver built-in.

Meanwhile in Linux, I stick in the hardware, boot into Linux, and -- surprise -- Linux never noticed. Getting it to work is usually not too bad these days -- since Debian comes with most modules you'd ever want pre-compiled, just "modprobe [modulename]" and then add it to /etc/modules -- it still requires googling to find out what module you need, since the hardware isn't auto-detected (who would've thought "tulip" is the name of my LinkSys network card driver, and that "emu10k1" is the name of my SoundBlaster Live soundcard driver?). And that's the best-case scenario. Something like an nVidia driver is a bit more annoying, since you have to download the binary module and then compile the kernel interface.

And that's not even starting on things like printing, which are easy as hell in Windows, and nearly impossible to do in a consistent way in UNIX.

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[MsGeek]

The scripting(and devel if you include .Net) functionality that comes with Windows XP today is far more powerful than what you get out of the box with a Linux install.

Three words: I LOVE YOU.

Or, if you prefer: NIMDA CODE RED.

That's powerful, alright.

Re:Karma Jepordy!

[skookum]

That's right...because Windows out of the box has nowhere near the functionality of Linux. How many programming languages come with Windows? (shell, vbscript, maybe jscript -no compiled languages). How many development environments come with Windows? (one - notepad. Unless you count copy con). All the nifty management tools that let you see what's going on...separate purchase. How many DBMS's come with Windows? None.

Oh come on, how is that a valid argument? I can go download Cygwin and install almost all of the major GNU applications that you mention. If having 'gcc' available somehow makes a platform better, then Linux and Windows are equal in that respect.

But that doesn't matter. You're comparing applications, not operating systems. If you want to go down that road, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope, there a truckload of high quality applications available for Windows that are not available for Linux; and vice versa.

The point is, if you're going to bring available apps into the comparison, then its ridiculous to try to compare a typical Linux distribution to a solitary Microsoft Windows Install CD.

Compare the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel; compare Linux and all its available apps to Windows and all its available apps; but do not try to tell me that Linux is somehow better because it comes with a bunch of applications on the same CD as the kernel.

Coding up Laws

[smagruder]

"If we can get the open-source movement as excited about modifying legal code as they are about C++ and Java, I think they lobbying will take off itself," Tiemann said.

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.

Re:Coding up Laws

[Tablizer]

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.

You are giving yourself too much credit.

Intel's Itanium HAS an excellent Windows port

[ajp]

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.

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.

Re:Intel's Itanium HAS an excellent Windows port

[ajp]

Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK the itanium version of windows is 32 bit just like the MIPS version was.

You're wrong. I never used the MIPS version of Windows but the IA64 Windows is 64-bit. Don't forget about the other alternative OS for the IA64: HP-UX. Mine came straight from Bruce's company with a copy of HP-UX in the box.

Viva la revolucion!

[Dolly_Llama]

This is not a flame or a troll, i swear.

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.

Re:Viva la revolucion!

[kindbud]

It's quite all right. Whenever someone resorts to "red-baiting" like you did, it achieves much the same effect for that speaker - loss of credibility/objectivity. So it all equals out.

HAND.

Re:Viva la revolucion!

[SN74S181]

That wasn't red baiting.

There are even active Communists out there who criticize the approach of 'Flashy Red Adventurist' propaganda done the 'Revolutionary Worker' way.

Red Baiting would be if he accused Perens of being communist. He accused Perens of being stupidly flashy and 'wave the red flag' adventurist. Like fighting Microsoft is some kid's 'King on the Hill' game.

Now, where's that fucking stack of leaflets? The rally is in fifteen minutes and you idiots don't have the newspaper stuffed into the Goodwill clothes? Get that effegy done! Jesus!

heh

Microsoft == US Goverment

[MrIcee]

Unlike Intel, the U.S. Government clearly did have a choice.

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:

• Stop handing out patents for software and algorithms. This is simply BAD BAD BAD. I remember when XOR was patented by some sleazy lawyers in the late 80's. The patent was specifically for using XOR to draw anything to any display device, including display memory. The lawyers would then simply go from trade show to trade show and at every booth, they'd ask the developers *Wow, how did you make your cursor do that?*. When the developers proudly stated that they used XOR so that the drawing was nondestructive, BAM, they got slapped with a suit. The lawyers then also said "we will lesson the damages IF you turn in other companies you also know are doing this". The company I was working for at the time (Truevision) had to pony up just to use XOR in their graphic engines. (BTW, that patent is dead now jim).

  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.

• Push the government on two fronts... first... we need to outlaw corporate contributions to campaign parties. Think about it... if a congressman, or president elect, receives large sums from a company, you can BET they're gonna be buddies. That should be illegal because it is NOT government for the people... it is government for itself.

  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.

• Investigate Microsofts books. With Enron / Worldcom / etal... there is no way in HELL that Microsoft is clean. Consider the fact that they have NEVER paid a dividend to ANY shareholder in their entire history (which I believe, is illegal). Consider that they time and time again use illegal practices to stiffle competition and to strongarm the industry. Let's crack those books open and let's haul BILLY GOATS to jail where he belongs. Perhaps he can teach his fellow inmates (such as Martha Stewart) how to program in Visual Basic.
• Do NOT allow a single company (such as Microshit) to dictate government policy. ESPECIALLY on things such as what software to use and security. Who are they to say what is secure and what is not. They have been unable to provide anything secure yet, so why do we expect them to now. Likewise, why should we look to Microsoft for some stupid statement on their new *open source* policy. Again, all lies so they can control the industry and kick the rest of us out. It won't be long folks, before you will have to pony up some serious cash to Microsoft JUST to be able to write your own software and get it published. Governments should be very very afraid of any corporation that wants to control them.

  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.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[MrIcee]

"Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft..." Do you have a citation for this? Considering just how thick DC is with lawyers, I'd be very surprised if this statement were accurate. Microsoft may have many lawyers working for them, but more than the utilities, the military contractors, the pharmaceuticals, the rest of the Fortune 500 combined?

It is hard to find the original article that outlined the specific numbers... but in searching Google I came up with this link which is pretty much what I read before, minus a few numbers. The article is a DOJ (US Department of Justice) article - and it is VERY VERY VERY good at pointing out just how corrupt and just how much control Microsoft asserts on Washington and Washington policies. I think it will at least get my point across that this is a very very corrupt company who stops at nothing to try to control other corporations and even governments.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[deranged unix nut]

USA Today article

"The Microsoft donations, a 20-fold increase over 1996, analysts say, is part of a strategy to curry favor with the GOP in the hope a Republican president would be more eager to settle the antitrust case without the break up ordered by a U.S. judge"

If your company was threatened with distruction, wouldn't you lobby hard?

It is my opinion that the anti-trust trial is mostly the result of lobbying by Sun, AOL, Novell, Kodak, and other competitors combined with a lack of lobbying by Microsoft in the past.

I believe that in 1995, Microsoft's lobbying budget was around $15k. That isn't even enough to hire a 1/4 time contractor to talk to people!

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[jonabbey]

See http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-835267.html.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[Arandir]

Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft

Fact? Do you have any references for this fact?

"Majority" means over 50%. What verifiable documentation do you have that over 50% of the lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft?

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ranting. How do we know you're ranting? I mean apart from the length and lack of citations? By the tunnel vision.

Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft

Clearly, this is false. There are far more lawyers in DC than that. Not to mention other lobbyists. Lots of well-heeled entities want to effect government policy. Computers are not the whole ball game. You are in need of a wider focus for your paranoia.

we need to outlaw corporate contributions to campaign parties.

Again, you are thinking too small here. To accomplish what you want, first eliminate corporations as they presently exist. Then eliminate political parties as they presently exist. The root of your problem is wealth concentration.

Fault this description if you can: There exist two organizations in the United States of America whose primary goals are self-perpetuation and the accumulation of political power. Together, they control well over 95% of nationally elected officials, and nearly as high a percentage of state and local office holders. They have written themselves into the tax code so that the money they receive as income is not taxed. No other competitor has been able to seriously challenge either of these groups in almost a century, let alone both combined. They are, hands down, the most powerful and dangerous organizations in the U.S. today. Their names, as you will have guessed, are the Democratic and Republican parties.

For instance, why should political parties be part of the tax system? Much less appear on the tax return form incarnated as a little check box that allows money to be diverted from the taxes you pay to support the programs of the government to a fund for political campaigns? Only the Reps and Dems are large enough to qualify for those funds. Not even the Reform party, large though it was in its heyday, could manage to keep qualified.

Or, on the subject of corporations, why should any human's compensation for an identical length of time worked be more than about 100 times what any other human is paid? That's a fundamentally non-capitalist notion, but lets answer the question anyway. What justifies that? For instance, if a corporation pays its lowest-paid worker $20,000/year, how can anyone, no matter what he does for the corp, be worth >$2,000,000/year?

And another thing, . . . No, I'm getting off on a rant here. I'd bettered stop. :)

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[Danse]

The fact remains, Microsoft was guilty of the crimes they were accused of. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist now. The only thing remaining is to determine the remedy. Microsoft did MANY things that were illegal. It's all spelled out in the ruling, and most of it was admitted by Microsoft employees under oath. So regardless of what other motivations those companies might have had, they were harmed by monopolistic behavior on Microsoft's part. That is why Microsoft deserved to be prosecuted. If any of those other companies were doing things like that, I would definitely support prosecuting them as well. Nobody should be allowed to get away with this stuff.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[ajs]

This is a deflection, not an answer. The question was about your assertion that the majority of Lawyers in DC work for Microsoft. I am willing to believe that they have more lawyers in DC than any other single software company. That seems reasonable given that MS is the largest software company in the country.

However, to assert that there are more MS lawyers than congressional lawers plus USDoJ lawers, plus environmental lawers, etc, etc, etc... MS would have to spend all of their revenue several times over!

Get some facts.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[donutello]

The article [usdoj.gov] is a DOJ (US Department of Justice) article

No, you moron. It is not an "article". It is an affidavit submitted by one person. It is not a DOJ article. In fact, the affidavit shows no sign of sponsorship by the DOJ.

Re:Microsoft == US Goverment

[DoctorFrog]

Blockquoth the poster:

Fault this description if you can: There exist two organizations in the United States of America whose primary goals are self-perpetuation and the accumulation of political power. Together, they control well over 95% of nationally elected officials, and nearly as high a percentage of state and local office holders. They have written themselves into the tax code so that the money they receive as income is not taxed. No other competitor has been able to seriously challenge either of these groups in almost a century, let alone both combined. They are, hands down, the most powerful and dangerous organizations in the U.S. today. Their names, as you will have guessed, are the Democratic and Republican parties.

AC or not, agree with your general tenor or not, I definitely have to hand it to you for that paragraph. Well done!

Some people seem to overlook

[mocm]

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.

Re:Some people seem to overlook

[SN74S181]

Some people seem to overlook that the government should release software as Public Domain. If other people want to release derivative works under the GPL in order to hold it captive to their political ideology, that is their choice. Of course, first they have to add value beyond what the taxpayers have already paid for.

You disagree with Microsoft.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:You disagree with Microsoft.

[TummyX]

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 registry is NOT made up of one file. The registry is split over SYSTEM and USER databases. What you said is bullshit. It's like saying that ORACLE has a fundamental design flaw because it doesn't store data in 1000000 tiny text files.

The registry may not be made of many files, but it is a properly indexed and synchronized database. It isn't the hacked job that UNIX uses (tiny little text files which can go corrupt if more than one process tries to read/write to them). The registry is very much like a file system, with hives, keys and values. Just cause it is stored in only a few files doesn't mean you have to backup ALL OF IT at once.

The Unix method of storing configuration information iis apalling. You have to manually parse text files (no standard APIs to do so). You have to maintain a complete lock on the file while you're writing new values (so other processes have to WAIT or risk corruption). There is no standard layout for configurtion information. The location of the config files etc is different on different versions of Unix and even on different distributions of Linux.

The registry is one of the best features of windows. It certainly isn't a fundamental design flaw...even if you do try to alarm people into thinking it is.

And BTW, Windows XP has a user profile transfer wizard which makes backups of the HKEY_*_USER hive.

Re:You disagree with Microsoft.

[tres]

The Unix method of storing configuration information iis apalling. You have to manually parse text files (no standard APIs to do so). You have to maintain a complete lock on the file while you're writing new values (so other processes have to WAIT or risk corruption).

Here's the standard Unix API for parsing configuration files:
grep -r [keyword] /path/to/configuration/files
Sorry, but the lock on configuration files is utter bullshit.
On a Unix system I can change configuration information on services, on system information, on anything that would be held by registry values on a Windows machine, and do it without affecting those services. (Hint, if you're worried about it, copy the configuration file, change the copied file, then restart the service using the new file.)

There is no standard layout for configurtion information. The location of the config files etc is different on different versions of Unix and even on different distributions of Linux.

There shouldn't be a standard layout for configuration information. You should be able to configure your computer the way you want. And if you want, you can put all those configuration files in one location.

Finally, self-destructing registries and self-changing registry values have been a problem for years.
That's the problem with having different applications write registry values to the same hives, or to the same registry keys.

Having all system registry values in one location means that a corrupt registry isn't just going to take down a web-server, it can take down the whole system.
Recovering from a corrupt configuration file is quick and easy. Recovering from a corrupt registry is--if you're lucky--just a butt-load of work reinstalling the old registry, and monitoring all the services that might have been affected by the change.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IBM should sue!

[nbvb]

Prior Art...

http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

--NBVB

OS/2 Forever! (Or until 1996, whichever comes first.)

OT: MVA express

[Mr. Slippery]

How about working on a prototype of DMV EXPRESS?

We've had that in Maryland for a while now - "MVA Express" offices that handle the simple stuff. And automated kiosks to handle renewing your vechicle registration. And now you can even renew over the web. While there are still painful operations that can only be done at the full-service, wait-in-line-all-day full services offices, they've done an excellent job of making it less painful overall.

Beware of the Borg !

[Taco Cowboy]

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 ?

Re:Beware of the Borg !

[archen]

Trying to recompile the ships computer kernel so they can get their ship out of port.

Editors?

[truesaer]

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?

Re:Editors?

[jtharpla]

If you look closely, you'll see the story was submitted by Bruce Perens, the author of the Register article. It's not suprising then that he just "ripped" content from his own writing. Why do some Slashdot readers enjoy being so hypercritical of content?

Re:Editors?

[Bruce Perens]

I submitted the link, and I wrote the story on the register. The purpose of the link is to get you to read the story. I didn't feel that a capsule summary would be appropriate for Slashdot, so many people don't click through and read the article when they are given a capsule summary, and the quality of the subsequent discussion suffers.

Bruce

Re:Editors?

[Winterblink]

First off, as a registered slashdot user I can control the quality of discussion presented to me by setting the minimum score property in my preference. I don't need the story posters or the editors to control that for me. That being said, I MUCH prefer getting a very brief capsule to go along with the link, simply because it gives me an idea of whether the story -- which could be pages long -- is actually worth reading, or is trash. Personally, I don't respond to postings without reading the entire submission's links first. Lastly, and maybe this is just odd wording in your comment, but the objective of posting a link on Slashdot shouldn't be to get a lot of hits to the story.

Just my 2c.

Re:Editors?

[tm1rules]

First off, as a registered slashdot user I can control the quality of discussion presented to me by setting the minimum score property in my preference. I don't need the story posters or the editors to control that for me.

Even with slashdot's "quality control" feature, higher quality discussion is higher quality discussion. Bruce wants 20 high quality posts, not 5.

Re:Editors?

[truesaer]

Well, I didn't read your story because I didn't know what the content of the story was going to be. News items generally start with a paragraph summarizing the content of the whole article. After reading this, I can tell whether I am interested in reading it and whether it is worth my time. Since you didn't provide that, I chose not to read it. But I guess you got what you wanted: One more hit, one more banner impression.

Mod parent up!!!!

[Futurepower(R)]

Excellent explanation. Mod parent up!!!!

Re:When will people realize

[msgmonkey]

Yes and 90+% of the population are ignorant too so I guess MS dont mind one bit.

Re:When will people realize

[money_shot]

You mean the ignorant that like a stable platform, like to run AAA applications and games, like hardware compatibility and good overall driver support?

I'm a power user. Linux is a joke for doing real prodcutive work and new Macs runs about 1/2 the speed of my 2 year old Athlon.

Call me ignorant, but I'd rather spend my time working than editing obscure files located in the \etc or \user directories.

As much as slashdotters hat MS, the truth is that with all it's worts and blemishes, it works and works well for 95% of things that people want to do.

Money_shot

California and Open Source

[zthx1138]

California would do well to adopt open source after the deplOracle debacle. Oracle gave California Governer Gray Davis' campaign a $25,000 contribution a week after California state officials awarded Oracle with a $95 million NO-BID contract.

Can you say quid pro quo?

Re:... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk.

[deranged unix nut]

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.

Re:choices

[freeweed]

The ones here play both as well:

Classic Rock AND Roll.

Re:... "closed" Jeez, a little uniformed...

[puto]

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

MS ad

[goodhell]

What I like best about this MS-bash thread. Is the MS ad

BRUCE: Web site error?

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:BRUCE: Web site error?

[Bruce Perens]

That's the article currently running on The Register. A added a link.

Bruce

Will California really support the open source?

[axxackall]

California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.

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.

What if?

[sean23007]

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.

Re:What if?

[Perky_Goth]

no one will use it :) anyway, which 1 and 1/2 would that be? Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, that's 3, i guess that the 1/2 would be IE...

Great idea.. bad news

[EdMcMan]

This is definitely an interesting article. The author is very clever, and I agree with him 100%! However, there is one problem: we live in a capitalist world.

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.

Re:Great idea.. bad news

[EdMcMan]

Obviously you didn't read anything of what I wrote. Commercial software companies are going to promote themselves (duh). I said nothing about saving money. Capitalism only works as well as the companies who compete. Microsoft plays dirty.

Don't understand the initiative

[waltc]

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.

Re:Don't understand the initiative

[krinsh]

I hope this gets modded up. I constantly see "flaming sword wielders" who little understand the economic and security ramifications of some of these decisions. I would NOT want law enforcement systems or critical recordkeeping systems such as state-sponsored health/medical systems very well known; especially if any of this data is transported on open networks. There are malicious people out there.

On the other hand; I don't like more restrictive regulations in place either or being 'forced' to buy something at a certain price either as is what may happen as more and more corporate strategies to stamp out experimentation and open-source types of systems are implemented.

Re:Don't understand the initiative

[kcurrie]

Every hacker from here to Timbuktu would then have all of the information he needed to successfully hack the systems.

...because with the information available now, there's NO WAY anybody could hack a MS system. Oh wait..

Re:Don't understand the initiative

[An Onerous Coward]

I think you misunderstand the nature of the initiative.

First, it doesn't force any software vendor to make their source code "public domain." If I understand the initiative correctly (and I probably don't), then Peru's requirements could be met simply by keeping a copy of the source in escrow. It wouldn't be publicly available, hence it wouldn't cause a security concern. For the same reason, it wouldn't turn commercial companies into open source ones.

Second, you claim that we don't have to buy commercial software if we don't want it. That's fine for private decision-makers when they're. . . er, making private decisions. But when the government (an entity most of its constituents have to deal with on a regular basis) decides to only store its data in proprietary format X, or only support unpublished "standard" Y, then they force their constituents to either buy that software or forfeit valuable services.

You're not the first to imply that open source software can't make money. You are, however, wrong. There's serious money behind Linux, and there will always be so long as there's a critical mass of people who find it useful.

No need

[TheAncientHacker]

Microsoft doesn't like to make bad investments and the California government is already, apparently, owned by Oracle.

HA!

[PastorOfMuppets]

from the article:

How was Intel taken in? They didn't have any choice.

Need I say more?

"You could get locked into Open Systems..."

[dpbsmith]

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...

Open standards != open software

[iamacat]

What if all open source alternatives suck? I don't want to be the one browsing a government website that stores my tax information in MySQL database and let's me view it through PHP frontend that generates PostScript reports. With DB2/J2EE/PDF I can be more sure that my data doesn't get lost, front end doesn't crash and I can find some place to view/print the report.

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:They just couldn't compete

[Jerry]

At one thing is consistant, "WildBeast" --- for 1,183 trolls you have been a consistant supporter of less freedom for consumers and more infringement by Microsoft. I've come to the conclusion that you live in Redmond and work on the MS campus.

Patents can be royalty free

[CaptainFrito]

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.

Sounds Like Novell and NDS (eDirectory)...

[P!Alexander]

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".

Re:Sounds Like Novell and NDS (eDirectory)...

[P!Alexander]

I agree completely. eDirectory costs $210 for a 100-user license ($10 for media and $200 for the license). The license doesn't expire. You can use it where you want, when you want. So, not including hardware, I can have a setup that runs exactly like Active Directory for $210. To get Active Directory I have to shell out $4,000 for Windows 2000 Advanced Server.

Now, both of these are MSRP and I'm sure mass licenses and educational discount make it even cheaper but Novell offers a way to replace everything Microsoft does on the network end. They do it cheaper and they do it better. And ultimately they leave the decision on what to use where up to their customers rather than deciding for them. I just hope enough people realize how good they really are before they die...

Join us in #trolls

[egg troll]

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!

Re:Join us in #trolls

[Bruce Perens]

I must confess that I don't enjoy IRC. Partially because most of the people on it don't type as quickly as I. It feels like trying to force my head through jello.

Bruce

linux viciousness

[sstory]

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.

Pro-Choce ads

[Kymermosst]

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.

Re:... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk.

[innocent_white_lamb]

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%.

Sorry, no...

[sheldon]

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.

Re:They just couldn't compete

[WildBeast]

My karma is maxed out though :) Nah I'm Canadian, haven't worked for MS.

Less freedom? Come on.
One thing I've been consistent with is that I don't like freakin lawsuits. Hey I condemned the MS lawsuit against Lindows.

California and software

[Animats]

California is currently going through a big scandal involving a massive overbuy of Oracle software. (The big problem seems to have been that Oracle wanted a seat license for every California state employee.) The $95 million Oracle contract has been cancelled. It's entirely possible that the state might get behind Linux servers running open source databases.

But it's Oracle that made this an issue in California, not Microsoft.

Re:... "closed" Jeez, a little uniformed...

[autocracy]

A couple of quotes: 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. and 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?... proof that certifications mean shit, even as told by him. When did the Linux kernel ever come to be 6.2? Shit, I thought I was just behind the bleeding edge with my 2.4 series machines.

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

Which right to choose?

[joshsnow]

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?

Re:Which right to choose?

[kaizenfury7]

[I] How is a law forcing government to "choose" open software better than Microsofts initiative forcing people to "choose" Microsoft?[/I]

From the article:
[i]Free Software, also called Open Source, is itself a kind of open standard - its source code is its own reference. Developers of proprietary software can use that reference to create interoperating programs, without infringing on the actual Open Source code. Thus, [b]when a government uses Open Source, it assures its citizens a choice to purchase both proprietary and Open Source software for communicating with their government.[/b] The people's choice will be based on factors like functionality, quality, and convenience, rather than on customer lock-in. [/i]

Re:Which right to choose?

[joshsnow]

But in the first instance, the government is forced to exclude people like microsoft, oracle etc who all sell "closed" software. I'd prefer a law which forced government to consider software on its merits, including use and so called "freedom" issues.

Re:Which right to choose?

[Xtifr]

But in the first instance, the government is forced to exclude people like microsoft, oracle etc

No, all of those companies are free to release their software as open source. The companies will be excluding themselves if they decide not to do so.

Re:Which right to choose?

[joshsnow]

Hmmm...so a law forcing all software used by government to be opensource means that software companies who use a different commercial model (so called "closed source") have to exclude their software because it isn't opensource. So in fact, there's a choice of either releaseing all software as opensource or...er...releasing all software as opensource. This goes back to my original point. Precisely how is this lack of choice any better than a lack of choice enforced by Microsoft? In reality, they're two sides of the same coin. I'm pro-choice (in this context). I want government to be able and FREE to choose the best software to get the work done in the most productive manner. I don't want government to either be forced by law to use software based on ideology or forced by corporatism to use the software of one supplier. I think laws forcing Govmt to use opensource are as dangerous as a similiar law would be forcing govmt to use closed source software.

Re:Which right to choose?

[DoctorFrog]

If my government is using software purchased with my tax money to make or implement decisions concerning my welfare, I should have the right to examine that software, in as much detail as I wish.

How else can I determine whether I can trust that software to do the job? This is the vital question for me, and for my son when he grows up.

good points all around

[Dr. Awktagon]

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:

Public entities should procure the software that best meets their needs and should avoid any categorical preferences for open source software, commercial software, free software, or other software development models.

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:

Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections.

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?

90 WPM!

[egg troll]

Come on in, Bruce. I type at 90+ WPM as certified by the State of California.

Re:90 WPM!

[alienmole]

I type at 90+ WPM as certified by the State of California.

Finally, the mystery of trolls explained - government employees. Your postings on /. a pitiful cry for help, a plea for rescue from your truly hellish existence. Our hearts go out to you. It is a far, far better thing that you do now, than I have ever done...

"a little uniformed..." Kettle, Meet Pot

[tres]

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*

Maybe you should think about getting a cert for Apple products.

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.)

Update/append Article

[Trevelyan]

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.

Re:... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk.

[UnknownQ]

We have a Micro$oft Rep. in our midst! Kill him!

A few points.

[Tadghe]

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.

Re:A few points.

[God! Awful]

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.

Yes, but *they* have the right to distribute it.

How is the GPL an anti-corporate license?

Well, duh.

Quickie question, where is 80% of the software in the U.S written and why... time up. Internal corporate apps.

Hey, why not use the 90% figure that ESR quotes in CatB? I severely doubt you have facts to back that up. My guess is that includes "software" such as web pages, scripts, and spreadsheets. Here's my quiz: where is 80% of the software that takes talent, energy, and education to write written and why?

-a

Re:A few points.

[tigga]

Tadghe,

It is impolite to imply Sheldon read ASP.NET book and write M$ software. If you don't like his arguments, please don't try to insult your opponent ;)

How is the GPL an anti-corporate license?

Do you have an example of succesfull company, selling GPLed or LGPLed software? Or at least profitable company?

Let's imagine Universities release ALL their works under GPL - not only software, but ALL their research. Then results of ALL R&D that implemented in goods and service should be published. Then, Surprise! Surprise! we are buying very cheap goods from China, Russia and elsewhere where different laws or no laws at all...

And then where are the companies that spent money for that R&D? Price for their goods or service include cost of R&D and therefore could not compete. So companies are gone.. And how about taxes for universities? And then who'll do R&D at all?

Re:A few points.

[sheldon]

Ok, you seem to be either really naive or just want to argue based on splitting hairs.

The GPL requires you to release your work if you distribute it, that pretty much means that you use it internally only, or you donate it to the world at large.

"Your mistake is assuming that the majority of those are software companies making money from selling proprietary software. "

Your mistake is confusing proprietary software with commercial software.

"You miss the boat here. University research is not (in most cases) and should not be driven by corporations. "

Apparently you also don't know how to read, as you misquoted me when I said exactly that.

"I found your proprietary shrink-wrap software point of view interesting to say the least."

Again you confuse shrink-wrap software with commercial software. Hint: Most software developed commercially does not come with a shrink-wrap license.

I don't exactly see how you can try to have an intelligent discussion with regards to the software industry if you are unfamiliar with the industry. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that?

Re:A few points.

[Tadghe]

"It is impolite to imply Sheldon read ASP.NET book and write M$ software. If you don't like his arguments, please don't try to insult your opponent ;)"

I did not imply, I read his web page. Do the same sodablue.org IIRC. He's pretty up front about it.

"Do you have an example of succesfull company, selling GPLed or LGPLed software? Or at least profitable company?"

Redhat, NuSphere, IBM, Mandrake (although the've gone both ways, being profitable and unprofitable), shall I go on?

I won't reply to the stawman argument you present last, it's not worth it.

Re:A few points.

[Tadghe]

"don't exactly see how you can try to have an intelligent discussion with regards to the software industry if you are unfamiliar with the industry. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that?"

I find it quite amusing you recycle the same "you don't understand"
Argument anytime some points out the errors in your arguments. How about a cluepon, try and debate on the facts, not "you disagree so you can't understand" cyclical arguments.

"Apparently you also don't know how to read, as you misquoted me when I said exactly that."

Nope, no misquote, you were bitching about the effect of the GPL on university research, my response was to point out that University research should be disconnected from corporate control. You pointedly say that there has to be a balance between corporate sponsorship and university research. I pointed out that there should be no balance; the two should not be connected.

Re:A few points.

[Tadghe]

"Yes, but *they* have the right to distribute it."

Your point being? (sorry, not trying to troll, but I don't see what your point is, granted I write specific apps for specific customers that would be pretty hard to give away without giving away business logic that they would rather not give away)

"Hey, why not use the 90% figure that ESR quotes in CatB? I severely doubt you have facts to back that up. My guess is that includes "software" such as web pages, scripts[...]"

my quote came from "Occupational Outlook Handbook" (1994 edition, your library should have a newer copy). Look under "Computer Programmer". 2nd from last paragraph (soft cover edition of my 1994 copy) where they talk about job break down. I have no clue where ESR got his figures from, but I *do* know where my came from, and while I don't know where the OOLH got them from, I'd be surprised if they just made them up.

Re:A few points.

[sheldon]

"Argument anytime some points out the errors in your arguments. How about a cluepon, try and debate on the facts, not "you disagree so you can't understand" cyclical arguments."

Now I really find it curious that you didn't respond to your misrepresentation of commercial software by using sub-genres of shrink-wrap and proprietary. I take it from this response that you do understand the differences, you have simply chosen to purposefully misrepresent them?

Your entire argument is based on this presentation that Microsoft is evil. Here is a clue for you... The majority of commercial software, if you count number of products, is not created by Microsoft. Most of it is created by small businesses.

In your supposed fight with Microsoft you are only harming small businesses. Collateral damage, or is this also purposeful?

"Nope, no misquote... You pointedly say that there has to be a balance between corporate sponsorship and university research. I pointed out that there should be no balance; the two should not be connected."

Ahh, well at least you admit the misquote. Am I wrong in assuming that this was purposeful on your part as an attempt to distort the discussion?

But the fact remains that the two are not disconnected. University research is intended to better society, and to accomplish this ultimately requires commercial interests to bring the implementation of the research to the consumers. In so doing they generate economic growth which nets tax dollars which flows back into University research. It is a positive feedback loop and breaking the loop will cause the system to fail.

But again, there must be balance between the corporate and societal interests. This was the part you misquoted me on in your attempt to turn a debate of grey scales into one of simply black and white.

Re:A few points.

[sheldon]

"I did not imply, I read his web page. Do the same sodablue.org IIRC. He's pretty up front about it."

This appears to be an ad-hominem argument, although I'm not sure where you think you are going with it.

It is curious, however, that you couldn't find any examples of successful companies that rely solely upon GPL software.

In the case of Nusphere sells commercial/closed-source software and have in the past violated the GPL with regards to mySQL.

Redhat and Mandrake are not profitable, although I suppose you could argue they are successful if measured by publicity.

IBM backs GPLed software in order to sell hardware. This is the one area where the GPL does work to some degree, although you'll note that IBM still invests heavily in commercial software to differentiate themselves, and you have yet to see any of their core products released under the GPL.

Do you want to try to answer the question again, this time providing some good examples?

Re:A few points.

[God! Awful]

my quote came from "Occupational Outlook Handbook" (1994 edition, your library should have a newer copy). Look under "Computer Programmer". 2nd from last paragraph (soft cover edition of my 1994 copy) where they talk about job break down.

I'm not about to go to the library to look this up, but there are several versions available on the web. None of them give any specific figures, such as the 80% one that you cite. They merely state that there are more systems programmers than application programmers. They also say that developing shrink wrapped programs is the fastest growing segment of the industry. They don't clarify exactly what computer languages fall under the realm of "programming"

-a

Thoughts.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Peru calls for free software, not open source.

[jbn-o]

Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.

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.

The New Politician's Get Rich Quick Scheme

[Kaboom13]

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

yea..

[ScubaS]

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::

Re:... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk.

[drewness]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I Dissent

[Tiro]

Sorry, just a bit ridiculous for me. However, I do like the fact bit itself, just not the underlying implications. If no one else sees them, that's cool. Mod me down if you must, I can see how this could be seen as flaimbat. I personally however strongly want to support GNU/Linux, etc, and feel this is the wrong way to go about doing it. I believe we should continue to simply make good free and open software, and work to enlighten others to their advantages. Therefore, you could say I'm not upset with the article itself, but saw a prime example of a particular sentiment that bothers me.

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.

Re:... "closed" Jeez, a little uniformed...

[DavidTC]

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.

Of course it's California

[Burning*Cent]

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.

Re:Clean as a whistle

[sjames]

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.

That practice *IS* cooking the books!!!

In that future time which is spread with the current good news, they will be 'meeting expectations' when in fact profits are down.

Are You For Real?

[krmt]

All right, I'm not a certified engineer, but I know how to read and compare writing (I do have a degree in that one), and I don't think that you managed to address the points that the parent's article was actually making.

2. Reg backups. Free software to do this. Hey it's free, what we all want right?

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.

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*

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.

Re:Are You For Real?

[zero_offset]

Just a couple of points in the interest of basic accuracy:

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.

Untrue. I agree that a stupidly huge number of apps and processes attempt to access the 'net, but it isn't true that XP will cease to function properly if you deny that access. My wife's external firewall is configured to automatically deny access to everything except to a small handful of specific apps/ports/addresses, and XP runs just fine. Yes, including Media Player.

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.

I do agree with you here in principle, although it isn't technically impossible to determine what DLL is making the call, just difficult. Many of the tools from SysInternals will show you all the nitty-gritty details of what DLLs are in use by each process, for example. Interestingly, Tiny Software's Personal Firewall is still able to block multiple apps using RUNDLL or the generic "service" process by maintaining hashes as identifiers. Unfortunately it's still up to the user to track down what specifically is trying to make the connection, though.

Also it should be noted that XP really doesn't "call home" as you said. At least, not in the sense that you wish to imply. If you pay attention to where the calls go, they do perform some useful task in almost all cases. (The value of these tasks is a completely separate question.) The real problem is that the user isn't given any choice in the matter, or even told that it's happening. But none of the connections I've seen or that I'm aware of were ever specifically a "call home" facility. Yes they might be tracked that way, but they aren't raw "call home" connections as you imply.

Re:... "closed" Jeez, a little uniformed...

[Malcontent]

"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.

Call it "SoftwareAbortion"?

[tz]

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.

Something i want to know...

[fred666]

I want to know if all the copies of Microsoft software used internally by Microsoft are properly registered.

Re:Something i want to know...

[adb]

Microsoft owns the copyright on the software. It doesn't need to license it to itself.

Re:Something i want to know...

[adb]

I could believe that. I know some other companies do it that way. If it were true, I would laugh at the monumental stupidity of it.

Clean Air vs My SUV

[nuggz]

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.

Re:Clean Air vs My SUV

[Malcontent]

"You can't currently get 40mpg out of these huge SUV's."

Nobody is asking for this. Just two or three more MPG.

"Forcing low CO2 emissions requires high fuel efficiency, which means no large vehicles."

Only if you believe that humans beings are not smart enough to make big cars that are more energy efficient. I have more faith in the intelligence of automobile engineers because they have proven themselves to be extremely smart in the past. Apparently you think they are a bunch of idiots who are unable to advence the state of the art.

"It is contraversial, it would limit the sale of most vehicles being sold today."

Well that's just a plain old lie. I dare you to prove that statement.

Are you a politician who needs lots of money fast?

[Dr. Spork]

Wow, I have just discovered the secret to getting stinking rich: If you are in a position of power, threaten to convert all computers in your juristiction to free software.

Then wait for the "how much do you need to kill your plan" call from Redmond, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Automobile Engineers Stupid? No. Management, Yes!

[feronti]

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.

Re:Automobile Engineers Stupid? No. Management, Ye

[tigga]

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.

It's not arbitrary

[DoctorFrog]

Blockquoth the poster:

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.

It is indeed about choice, but it's also about freedom and accountability, and it's not an arbitrary complaint. If the software's operations are secret and proprietary, then we are not free to alter it to our best usage; if the software is controlled by a private party, it is not accountable to me or my elected government.

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.

Re:... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk.

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

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)

Automotive Engineers

[nuggz]

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.

Re:Automotive Engineers

[Malcontent]

"If you legislate away large vehicles"

Once again nobody has ever called for legislating away large vehicles. Honestly I don't know where you get this stuff from. Maybe there is a kook someplace that says that (after all there are kooks who say that the UN is invading america) but come on now. I don't think asking for a few more MPGs is all that catastrophic.

Re:Automotive Engineers

[hesiod]

> The psychology of the consumer has to change

This is the only statement I have a big problem with. The Consumer should never be forced to change, the manufacturers should offer what the consumer wants. If the consumer wants a wimpy little car, more power to them. If they want a gas-guzzling SUV, let them waste their money. But don't expect anyone to change, especially a large number of people all at once.

Re:Automotive Engineers

[Ionized]

The Consumer should never be forced to change, the manufacturers should offer what the consumer wants.

i want a 10-megaton nuclear weapon. i'm a consumer. the market should offer me what i want damnit!

whats that you say? i CANT buy a 10-megaton nuclear weapon? whats this hogwash about treaties and bans and whatnot? the consumer should never be forced to change!!!

ok, well, i want a fully automatic submachine gun. what? i can't have one? what the hell, stupid lawmakers are taking away all my freedoms!! wahh wahhh!!

face it, if some idiot yuppie with too much money wants to buy a big gas guzzling SUV that will shit exhaust all over the environment, then he can damn well suck it. i don't pity him. he can donate money to ford to help fund them researching a more fuel-efficient Ford Exhorbitant.

suvs are a blight on the surburban landscape. sometimes, the psychology of the consumer SHOULD change. consumers arent always right.

Re:Automotive Engineers

[exodus2]

I am looking for a new SUV for my family, one that seats 7 because my weife does not want a mini van. In looking around my options i see ford with its 19 mpg and then there is hondas new pilot( and acura MDX same car 20k more) it gets 24 mpg and is a nice car, it starts at 26k with 4wd. Now I dont care about 4wd, I had a Honda CRV 4wd and it never touched dirt. But when I look at different car companies I see that Honda is one of the few trying to make more fuel efficient cars.

Re:Automotive Engineers

[hesiod]

Well, in all reality I suppose you should be able to buy a submachine gun, as long as you don't use it to kill people. A warhead is an over-the-top argument, and obviously not taken seriously. I also thing John Q. Yuppie SHOULD donate money for low-emissions research... As long as he wants lower emissions.

How about since YOU are the one who wants lower emissions, YOU send money to Ford to do it. Or how about telling Ford you want lower-emissions cars. Hell, they have them already, BUY ONE! Just don't tell me what I can or cannot buy, simply because you think I shouldn't spend my money on something stupid (and yes, SUVs are IMO a stupid waste of money).

I totally disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -- Paraphrased from someone smart.

Re:Clean as a whistle

[DoctorFrog]

-1 Redundant, but that's the absolute truth.

Quite apart from the probable inference that MicroSoft's books are not at all likely to be clean, given their edge-skating tactics in general, arteficially inflating or deflating stock prices is not ethical accounting.

Don't understand the government

[DoctorFrog]

Picture this: You're applying for a job as a Postal Inspector. You submit your resume, carefully handcrafted over the last five days using your local library's copy of Microsoft Word 95. After waiting a week or so, you ask your local Employment Bureau bureaucrat what the heck happened.She informs you with a sorrowful, sympathetic smile that all applications must be in WinWord 2006, since their software can't even open Word 95 documents.

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.

Re:Don't understand the government

[Salsaman]

Ain't that the sad truth...

Is english your first language?

[DoctorFrog]

Blockquoth the Anonymous Coward:

Blocking proprietary software and mandating non-proprietary software are the same thing. Suppose someone creates and application. What difference does it make to him whether it's Microsoft or the FSF that takes over an application he wrote? It's still not his any more. P.S. learn how to write. Is english your first language?

The word is English. It begins with a capital E.

Furthermore, someone creates "an" application, not "and" application.

Learn to write in a language before you cast aspersions on another person's usage.

Re:Automobile Engineers Stupid? No. Management, Ye

[feronti]

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.

Think long run

[KeggInKenny]

There is hope for the future!

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.

Re: Follow the money...to a degree

[Saint Fnordius]

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.