Slashdot Mirror
MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud
Bruce Perens writes "Microsoft's new "Software Choice" campaign is all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. It's too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn't see through the rhetoric. Read the full story at The Register." Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government. The gloves are off - on both sides.
I quote:
> Free Software, also called Open Source, is itself a kind of open standard - its source code is its own reference.
Someone tell me a little editorial breakage didn't happen after Bruce dropped off the manuscript??
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Such as Outlook vs. Outlook Express
Perhaps you prefer Frontpage to Frontpage Express?
Hmm...looks like CA is about to serve up some Lawyers via the Lawyer Express
Find out how much money Microsoft has given to California legislators, then look at how much money the Open Source Movement has given and you'll easily figure out how this vote will go.
It'll never reach the floor for a vote.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
yeah, i'm completely anti-m$.... sitting here at my Win2k machine, with my M$ intellimouse....
i'm definitely a clone of the evil robot, you should deride me, to protect me from the evil secret of space... robot
just because i don't like the way the M$ corporation practices business doesn't mean i'm going to shun it, but at the same time, i AM going to use the right tool for the job, which means using multiple os's, and more than one brand of software.
and being a government employee, i do have to work every day with M$ software exclusively... fun fun. when i get home, though, i have a *CHOICE* of which OS i want to use, and i exercise MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE wisely.
thanks for your time
mechanicos ergo cogito
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.
"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...
For libraries, in that case, you can choose LGPL... ...,...,...,..., ...
That's it. And that
will be slight happy and the library still be free.
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. :)
Probably not. Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft - they have a HUGE lobby effect on our government. Combine that with their cash flow - they can pretty much buy whatever vote, or avoid whatever damages in court, they care to. We have seen this over and over again.
In order to effectivly release microsoft's strangle hold on the industry we need to do several things:
It's these kind of sleazy tactics that microsoft likes to use as well... case in point... NOW SUDDENLY they think they have a patent on portions of openGL - why? because SGI sold them certain IP rights (which is probably illegal to begin with to something that is open source).
Patents and IP rights on software and algorithms simply don't make sense, and as we have seen over and over again, only result in someone trying to lock the industry and drain money from everyone and everycompany.
Secondly... outlaw, or EXTREMELY CURTAIL lobbies. While lobbies *might* be important, they are too dangerous. There are much better ways for the government to receive information (e.g., hauling up experts in front of congressional hearings, etc). Lobbies are funded by people who DO NOT represent te rest of us. They have self-interests at heart only, and they swing deals with government that do not help the people. This includes MICROSOFT, which has a HUGE lobby effort in DC.
Additionally, why would ANY government (especially foreign ones) in their right mind go with Microsoft. Microsoft is a US company. If I was a foreign government I would DEFINATLY want to have control over the source code so that I could be sure that Redmond isn't reading my sensitive government email. Again... think about it folks. I'm sure the US is RIGHT BEHIND microsoft in pusing their software to other countries - why? cause Bunny Pants Bush would have his ear to classified communications planet wide. I wonder who is REALLY behind the microsoft push into other countires (I can hear the meeting right now... BILLYGOATS: Say Bushie Boy... we can let you eavesdrop on russia, brittan, afganistan, but ONLY if you look the other way, forgive us our wrongs, and help us push our standards on the rest of the world. BUNNYPANTS: Sounds good... say, watch me drive this golf ball).
It's unfortunate, but the giants such as Microsoft have virtually ruined our industry. From their crap software to their crap policies and lies and their holy-bug-ridden-virus-prone *secure* software - it is all crap and they need to be slapped down seriously for trying to fuck with every industry and government out there.
that releasing government software under GPL doesn't prevent the authors to also release it under a different license. In much the same way that Trolltech released their software. In this way you can guaranty that the taxpayer can profit without having to pay for it twice and if a software company
would like a different license they can pay for it.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
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.
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prior Art...
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/
--NBVB
OS/2 Forever! (Or until 1996, whichever comes first.)
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
Billy the Head Borg has finally shown his true face.
The Borg gives you a choice
Choose Billy and you will live, as a Borg.
Chose others and you will die, and reborn as a Borg.
Billy has already done his tricks with his Microserfs, now he is planning to do it to the rest of the world.
Where's the Star Trek crews when we need them ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Excellent explanation. Mod parent up!!!!
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.
The ones here play both as well:
Classic Rock AND Roll.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Ok guy, I agree with you that Microsoft is an ungainly behemoth that needs a little reigning in. But some of your article was just down right wacky. I am not Microsoft pundit, I use it, I use Linux, and the *nixes. And I do prefer them for many things, and then windows for others.
Windows XP does have some heavy problems, but it is a fairly decent OS. I still use 2000 on some of my boxes and no real big issues. I run my nixes and windows fairly tight.
First rule of a sysadmin? Don't USE THE OS until it has been through at least 1-2 year period on the market so things can be ferreted out and fixed. This goes for service packs in windows and Linux Kernel updates(service pack). Ok, kernel updates to add funcionality but do fix and break things yeah. Anyone remember IBCS(or is it ICBS) dropped support from 6.2 to 7.
So unless you follow that rule do not bitch.
Your article is mainly rehashed summaries from other sources, which you reference. It is nice you put it all in one place, but adding spin is a whole nother animal.
As for the techinical issues you mentioned. XP does have them but they are easily resolved. All your 'problems' can be resolved on technet.
1. Sysprep, Riprep, Norton Ghost. Ghost been around for years. Easy system backups. And most OS's will freak if you move a hardrive to another system with different components.
2. Reg backups. Free software to do this. Hey it's free, what we all want right?
And yeah MS wants in your PC, but Apple owns your pc everytime you update. Good for the goose is good for the gander. But apple is *SPECIAL*
And the DOS issue. Yeah XP is not too great with DOS. But you know if you have ap that recquires it. Put 2000, put 98, forget about XP(see sysadmin rule #1). MS has been real clear about XP and DOS.
You have a lot lof legitame bitches that were garnered from others research no problem. But a lot of your article is skewed.
I want to see Linux get more recognition. But we fight the good fight, not THEIR fight of skewed facts and figures. We do it clean or we are no better.
And you might want to pick up some books from Amazon on OS's to learn a little more. Take a class or two.
For the record I am linux certified, a+, net+, and a MCSA. Who gives a shit. I am a tech, certs are part of the job. Did I mention my degree in IS? So while I am not a complete technical diety or claim to be I do feel comfortable enough to talk on the subject.
Fight it clean or do not fight at all.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
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.
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.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Where does Microsoft go if Open Source software ultimately wins out and makes the operating system a no-cost commodity just like the web browser? Long ago, the web browser could only be had for a fee, and MS commoditized it by making it free, because they still had other products to sell. These other products were ultimately more important and more expensive, so for them it was a good choice. Linux and its open source brethren could do the exact same thing to the operating system, and Microsoft really doesn't have anything else that is more expensive or more important than their OS. Office uses Windows function calls that aren't available to anyone else, and if they wanted to port it to Linux, they would be forced to reveal a considerable amount of their precious intellectual property that they seem so convinced should be secret.
Because of this, Microsoft would be rather reluctant to port their Office software to a platform like Linux. But this hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. Programs like OpenOffice and StarOffice are maturing, and are approaching the professional quality of the incumbent MS Office. And, in the case of OpenOffice, it is free to use and the source is available to modify. OpenOffice will make the office suite a free commodity, just as Linux will make the operating system a free commodity, just as Internet Explorer made the web browser a free commodity (for the masses).
Once Microsoft's main products have been made free commodities, what has been left for Microsoft? Do they continue trying to sell expensive bloatware that has been commoditized by superior products? Do they seek legislation to protect their monopoly from the same government that is failing to punish them for said monopoly? Or do they go the way of IBM, go quiet for a few years, and then come back as a support company? In the recent past they have been doing the first option, but it appears that time is running out on that. They are now, evidently, attempting to do the second option. This is foolish, however, because this is America, land of free markets, and the people really won't take well to being forced to purchase anything. Ultimately, and probably in the relatively near future, Microsoft will be forced to move over to the support side of the business. They will not go out of business, but they will never again see the infinite billions they currently enjoy.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Microsoft doesn't like to make bad investments and the California government is already, apparently, owned by Oracle.
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.
Edith Keeler Must Die
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.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
"I pay company for their product - thus paying twice."
:) Enabling profit is NOT a bad thing.
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.
A Google search shows this quotation as being attributed to various unnamed IBM executives, but I am almost sure it really did appear in some IBM ad copy in the early nineties. I recall it as long, white paper-ish discussion; the point was that UNIX systems didn't interoperate with IBM gear, so once you started using UNIX systems you'd never be able to use anything but UNIX systems. Wish I had kept a copy...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This M$ campaign sounds like some of the local pro-choice (abortion) ads that are running here attempting to turn the governor's race into a single-issue race.
All very fascinating, socially.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
-- I speak only for myself.
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
But it's Oracle that made this an issue in California, not Microsoft.
And yeah, Win2k is definitely deep secure. Sure... if you ever get the knowledge to really rip it apart. 98 isn't worth talking about.
Flaimbait? Hell yeah. But hey... So while I am not a complete technical diety or claim to be I do feel comfortable enough to talk on the subject.... you said it.
Don't bother responding to this message, I don't care. I'm just in asshole mode today. :D
SIG: HUP
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.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
In Practice, it seems you are mistaken. BeOS used several GNU utilities (such as BASH), but they were not forced to GPL BeOS.
It's been a long time.
But there is something that Microsoft says that always bothers me.
Many, including Microsoft, state that "choice" for the producers of software should include a choice between licenses like Free Software and "Microsoft EULA Software". But I find this hard to swallow especially in this context. Free Software and MS-type software are not equivalent choices the way a blue car and a red car are equivalent choices. The MS-type software can potentially give the copyright holder great powers over your computer, your software, your information, and you personally (I almost downloaded MoneyDance the other day, until I noticed the "Arbitrarion clause" where I'd theoretically waive my right to a jury trial. No thanks!). GPL-type software does no such things.
And of course corporate copyright holders will choose the most restrictive licenses, most beneficial to them. Normally this isn't a big problem, because you can avoid the software completely like I did with MoneyDance. For a government "of the people, for the people", however, the government should NOT support any software that limits user's rights beyond copyright law, and should definitely consider granting additional rights. The government should also not implicitly support the "unsigned contract" fallacy of licenses.
Going back to the MoneyDance/arbitration example, let's pretend that you have to buy MoneyDance in order to file your taxes with the government because they won the bid. Now we have the strange situation where the government is basically forcing people to waive some of their constitutionally-granted rights in order to fulfill a constitutionally-authorized responsibility. Not good!
A quote:
Microsoft is trying to force the idea that all licenses are equivalant. In fact they call Free Software a "development model". Something that's only important before the software is handed over to the user. But we know better. Licenses like Microsoft's that attempt to limit use of the software is definitely more than a development model. They affect you every time you start the software (if you assume the license is binding, which you pretty much have to do unless you have a lot of money and lawyers).
The government should choose a license category, just as they can specify any other aspects of the software. And Microsoft could deliver GPL software just as easily as they could deliver MS-EULA software.
Another quote:
Since the copyright, etc., laws are the same for everybody, what Microsoft is saying by "choice of protections" is "choice of licenses".
Bruce didn't disagree with the principle, but I think we have to be careful. By definition, "intellectual property protection" (I assume they mean copyrights and patents specifically) takes away certain freedoms from society. If you want "strong" protection you are saying "give the copyright/patent holders more power to take away more freedom". That shouldn't be in a free society's interests.
In conclusion, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to mandate "limits on the limits" of licenses as part of the requirements. In fact it's necessary for them to fulfill their responsibilities to the public. Microsoft's rhetoric makes it seem as if all licenses are completely equivalent. But they're not of course, otherwise why would we be even having this discussion?
In what naive world do you live?
Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.
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.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
A few points.
"Now they could extend your GPLed software, incorporate these new ideas and then re-release everything to the world as required"
Nope, step away from polishing the beamer, and put down the ASP.NET book for a second and actually read the GPL. They are only required to release it if they distribute it. Granted that could be construed, as splitting hairs in this case, but you really need to understand that point. If I use GPL'd code to create internal code for one of my clients, I am under NO obligation to release it unless I distribute it.
"On the other side, if the software had been released under the BSD. You, and everybody else would have access to the basic software [...]"
Yup, but unfortunately, the second M$ or Smith or anyone else decides they want to make a version that is incompatible with the rest of the world and distribute it they can and, if they have the push of a monopoly (like M$), they can (and will) in fact co-opt the de-facto standard set by the orig BSD licensed software. Suddenly the BSD version of the product loses much of it's value because in order to continue to work with the rest of the software world, other companies (who were until now on a level playing field, with everyone having access to the code) have to invest in R&D to enable their versions of the software to work with the new "extended" version This duplication of R&D hardly makes economic sense. In case you miss the math here, that means that everyone has to invest in R&D not to make the software/product better, but just to keep up with the monopolist. This is in fact what happened with Krb. In that case, the OSS community (and a few others I might add) did the R&D necessary to enable interoperation with the "extended" version of Krb. The same is happening (somewhat) with WINE. The WINE license has changed because of this.
With the GPL or LGPL, or PAL (or a host of other Free as in Speech licenses) if the monopolist wants to extend the orig software they are *free* to do so, but they cannot use the extension to create an artificial barrier to the rest of the software community.
"[...][With the GPL you can't extend] it with their new cool idea, and then sell this on the market and recoup their R&D"
I really like this comment Sheldon. The problem is you fail to understand (despite the fact you seem to write M$ software for a living) that you can still sell and distribute the software under the GPL, you just can't use the extensions to block your competition. Under the GPL you must make the extensions or additions available for the rest of the world to see, and if they wish, use. The average lifespan (on the shelf) for shrink-wrap software is less than 18 months. (source: an ACM article from two years ago, I'll be happy to try and dig it up if you don't have a subscription to find it). Even given the raw patches to the source, you are *not* going to move from source to market before the first company recoups thier cost, unless they have a very slow turnaround.
With the GPL you can still recoup your R&D costs and make your profit, since you don't have to release your changes UNTIL you distribute (open beta, or actually ship).
"The GPL really just acts as an anti-corporate license, that's it. Exactly how this is better for the economy at large is questionable."
How is the GPL an anti-corporate license? Quickie question, where is 80% of the software in the U.S written and why... time up. Internal corporate apps. That's right, it's not large shrink wrap companies that write most of the software in use in your Fortune 500, it's the grunts in-house writing reporting software, or POS code, or a million other apps that write most of the code that the corporate world uses. The only corporations that the GPL could hurt would be the patent lawyers and certain monoplistic companies that think that proprietary file formats and hidden API's are somehow "fair" to the rest of the world.
"The fundamental flaw in your argument is your belief that somehow tax dollars just magically exist. They don't. Tax dollars exist solely because of there are companies in this country who are paying employees to do work for them. Without the companies, no tax dollars."
Your mistake is assuming that the majority of those are software companies making money from selling proprietary software.
"So by trying to discourage corporate investment, you are only hurting university research"
You miss the boat here. University research is not (in most cases) and should not be driven by corporations. Universities are not a extension to Microsoft Research or Oracle R&D. University research is academic, not corporate. With the exception of the ITT's of the world, Universities are not job training schools. Neither should my tax dollars (nor any of my clients) be used to develop software they will have to buy down the road.
I found your proprietary shrink-wrap software point of view interesting to say the least.
Bugs Bunny was right.
You'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?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
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.
No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.
Digital Citizen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
Ok, that's reasonable for a registry corruption, but there's still the fact that, as the author states in his article, "The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure." This is a design flaw, and while you can backup the registry, it's still generally acknowledged as a design flaw that hasn't been corrected. Single points of failure at this level simply shouldn't exist, because they don't need to. The proof is in *NIX, which has it's various config files. Granted, this has its problems too, but those are also design flaws. It's a benefits tradeoff, and your free programs to backup the registry are just workarounds.
Oh, and the "free" that "we all want" is probably free as in Freedom, not as in beer.
You also neglect this technical problem in XP: "If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (such as networking)." If you deny internet access to many components, XP will cease to function properly. Did you notice the long list he had of components that needed 'net access? Windows Media Player!?! That's a technical flaw that's borderline malicious. There is also no technical solution things like "Run DLL as an app" not telling you which DLL needs to be run. These programs should not be calling home unless they need to in order to function properly for the user's benefit. They way they work now is simply frivolous.
There's also that technical problem of the large number of Internet Explorer bugs that remain open. Granted, you can solve these by working around it using Mozilla, but given the massive market share of IE, the requirement that IE be bundled in with every copy of windows, and the general mindshare of IE, I'd say this is a pretty big flaw.
Funny, I don't see Apple mentioned anywhere in the article. Let's talk about Redhat or Debian instead. They don't own much of anything when you update. Neither does FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Hey, for that matter, neither does Apple really. They own nothing. They've given you the source to their entire OS subsystem. There's no clauses in iTunes that give Apple permission to modify the contents of your hard drive without your consent. There's no automatic mac.com registration upon install. Apple's entire marketing message is that the computer empowers the user, and that the user can actually use their computer to be productive. Apple doesn't want control over their users, they honestly want to empower them, which is why they've made OSX the great system that it is. Microsoft, on the other hand, has never shown any leanings in this direction. Honestly, when you look at it, Windows is the only OS in the world that really tries this hard to be owned by someone other than the user.
You acknowledge that the article contains valid points, which is true, but you seem to forget just how valid those points are. I agree with you about the backups, but the registry is still a big issue (especially because most XP users don't even know it exists) and the privacy issues are a major concern. By turning its users in to slaves, Microsoft is hurting everyone, themselves included.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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.
"And yeah MS wants in your PC, but Apple owns your pc everytime you update. Good for the goose is good for the gander. But apple is *SPECIAL*"
Ah yes the old redirection trick.
"when somebody points out that you are doing something evil point out that it's ok to as many evil things as you want because somebody else does something evil sometimes too."
I am sure that one is posted on every MS bulleting board. I see this tactic all the time.
War is necrophilia.
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.
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.
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.
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?
How to rationalize theft.
You can't currently get 40mpg out of these huge SUV's.
Forcing low CO2 emissions requires high fuel efficiency, which means no large vehicles.
It is contraversial, it would limit the sale of most vehicles being sold today.
Then wait for the "how much do you need to kill your plan" call from Redmond, and laugh all the way to the bank.
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.
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?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
3) "Trustworthy computing" means that MS will be focusing on both improved quality and improved security, but this could be a 10 year process.
Why wait 10 years - just go for Linux today!
(It also costs less)
Just saying it like it are.
There are many issues involving fuel efficiency.
Consumers want these ridiculous vehicles, most familys don't need a 7000lb truck with a 7+L V8/10
Yes the Engineers may be smart, but you can't change physics. To get a big vehicle going fast takes a LOT of energy. To accelerate quickly wastes even more energy.
Most people don't consider fuel efficiency when buyng vehicles, it isn't a priority for the automaker. If you legislate away large vehicles, you will have unhappy customers, and they'll just keep using their existing even more fuel inefficient vehicles. There is currently a commercial truck regulation change, people are preordering replacement engines before the new standards kick in and they get "less powerful" engines.
Myself I drive a new small car, manual transmission. Fuel efficiency was a consideration for me when I bought it. Then people harrassed me for buying a "wimpy little car".
The psychology of the consumer has to change
On Engineering direction, all the automakers are working on improving fuel efficiency, and quite honestly they have a broad scope, from total revamping, to incremental improvements on existing designs.
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.