Slashdot Mirror
New Antitrust Complaint Filed Against Microsoft
jimboid and others wrote in about a new antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in the European Union, concerning Windows XP (all previous litigation has concerned earlier versions of Windows). The BBC and Sydney Morning Herald have articles about the complaint.
Is it just me or do these guys appear to be the first legal agressors against Micorsoft to understand the real issue?
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Now if the UK gov't switched to Linux like other gov't of the world.. *drool* I could only imaging the progress that would be pushed forward!
Some dreams come true.
Some just stay a dream.
------88-------- Sig? Sorry, I don't smoke.
I thought Microsoft was trying to get away from anti-trust issues with their latest software. Is there any chance this will do *anything* to the software giant, or will they be able to sweep it under their enormous rug, like everything else?
stuff |
But maybe I'm jumping the gum. This one is in the EU, where socialist policies have no compunctuation about just grabbing MS's cash. That'd work, too.
Luckily the summary of the summary (the key facts) is only 2 pages.
Could be good. ;)
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
How long can this go on for? you cant keep pulling the same company for antitrust violations.. wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up? what ever happened there? this is just going to carry on and on and on.. its getting pretty frustrating really.
moo
Is it really possible to get to microsoft over XP this way?
After all it's been nearly 2 years since its introduction. That's a long time in computing. I would have imagined there was a statute of limitations.
If not, then it sounds rather shaky legally, but then anything that helps shift microsoft sounds good by me at this stage.
It's gotten to the point I don't care if there really is a case or not, they should be shown we really don't care for their practices.
This really isn't anything new; still the same old arguments. I guess after the success by Sun to get Java forcebly included in the US, the EU decided to try that angle. Oh yeah, and this story is old. Move along...
See The Register for another take on the matter.
See, kids, it's not just unfair company-eating, it's setting customers up as file format junkies by bundling in lousy software as "part of the OS" and getting people to the point where they don't buy or use anyone else's stuff. It's trying to control all aspects of the market, vertically and horizontally. WAY illegal. GM can't do it, so why should M$?
You are not the customer.
All this litigation and chest beating costs millions of dollars/pounds/euros. Why don't the respective governments make a proactive move by mandating that free software be used rather than MS stuff. I don't doubt for a moment that all the harshly written criticisms of MS by these people are done on MS-Word.
Oh, the irony.
Trolling is a art,
Microsoft might actually lose when going up against Satan! Did you see the CCIA's address?
666 11th St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
now isn't this ironic: the Microsoft graphic turned into a red x!
It will get like 500 + posts before the end of the day. I promise you, just wait and see. What will happen is all of the people will complain about how bad Microsoft is, neglecting the fact that whatever MS does on the desktop, Linux tries to do(albeit poorly). Is Microsoft evil? Probably. Aren't all big corporations evil (as far as college students are concerned?). But every superhero needs an arch-enemy. That's how they grow, that's how the get better. Microsoft is the best thing out there to help Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
this means that they will give a decision on the older versions of M$FT in a few months.. so a decision on WinXP will take another three years.. by which time M$FT will have a new OS out.. and the whole rigmarole will start again..
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
I wonder if the EU were to find MS guilty, and specify a bunch of things they have to do to windows, if that would stretch world-wide or just in the jurisdiction of the EU. Since MS is a US company, I always assumed a lawsuit against them in the US would be world-wide, but now I wonder.
I also wonder about the civil suits. Sun sued microsoft to get java included in a US court. Does it apply everywhere, just in the US, just where MS and Sun do business, just where some trade treaty says?
This organization consists of companies who _know_ what they're talking about when it comes to computers and competition (and anti-competitive tactics, for that matter), and are taking up the fight from the _consumers'_ point of view. I think it is this twist which might lead to actual rulings which will stop Microsoft's hard-edged and illegal tactics.
Remember, Microsoft has had _two_ separate antitrust ruling against it (i.e. has been found guilty not once, but twice), but neither has had the bite to make any noticable differences in the way Microsoft has acted. Both suits really focused upon MS's anti-competitive methods, and not enough focus on what MS was doing to the consumers. This angle might just be what is needed.
Of course, since this is an EU case, who knows how a ruling with teeth might affect Microsoft - it would certainly affect them overseas, but here in America a difference might not be noticable.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I'd sure hate to be the defendant in a case where the prosecutor or legislature could trump up or morph the charges whenever they want. The solution otthe US's problem is forcing a faster process (as is now being done in some federal criminal courts), not making it unreasonable to defend yourself.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
MS is to corporations what US is to governments ...
True. The US government is large enough to break up trusts, but what if the US government becomes monopolistic? Who will be able to break it up? This comment IS coming from an American, and I really hope its not considered to be terroristic.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
They have the chance to do a better job than the US did on this. I mean, what's the deal with this stuff... microsoft looses antitrust case... microsoft dosen't do anything... i mean, the things they had to do when they lost were a JOKE. I think one of the concessions was that they had to donate so many millions of dollars worth of software to schools... i mean... WTF are these ppl thinking... they just did them a favor.. but go EU!!!
sig is broken try again tomorrow
How do I know? Why the US DoD told me so...
Seriously, did anyone not see this coming?
Now we can forget about Microsoft being a menace!
hmmm, without MS IBM's OS 2 would have seen more acceptance and Apple would see a much larger market share.
you cant say that these 2 systems are not for the average Joe Schmoe
the history of the world
Wouldn't the world be better served by kde and gnome consolidating to one desktop, and all the distributions agreeing on one form of package management (my favorite being deb), and spending their money cooperating in building an unbelievably awesome linux distribution? To me that would be the best way to stop the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop market. To me as a developer, if i can pay the same amount for a tool which is as easy and full-featured to use as visual studio.net, and can have other modules installed, not having to worry about finding the deb or rpm or whatever, and worrying about dependencies, it would be much easier for many CIO's to recommend a total switch. NOTICE it doesn't have to be free, which is a fallacy many people think everything linux related should always be. i would much rather live under a monopoly of linux and open source which is supported by ibm, redhat, suse, etc..
CCIA COMPLAINT AGAINST MICROSOFT
KEY FACTS
When: CCIA's complaint was formally filed with the European Commission Directorate General
for Competition on 31 January 2003.
Background: The Windows desktop operating system is installed on over 93% of personal
computers in Europe and worldwide. Microsoft has held a dominant position on this market
position for the past decade. Microsoft also has a monopoly in the market for personal productivity
applications (word processors, spread sheets, etc) and the market for Internet browsing software.
Microsoft's behaviour in the market has been the subject of ongoing competition scrutiny since
1991. Its behaviour has resulted in both an "undertaking" with the European Commission in 1994
and a unanimous liability finding by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2001.
Microsoft has systematically and deliberately engaged in illegal practices designed both to protect its Windows monopoly and leverage it into adjacent software markets. Microsoft has used its market power to eliminate competition and stifle innovation in market after market. Unprecedented in modern commerce, Microsoft's monopolies generate margins in excess of 80 percent and profits in excess of US$1 billion per month.
Microsoft's well-documented anticompetitive campaign against Netscape's Navigator web browser
and Sun's Java programming language has resulted in a new monopoly in Internet browsing
software, and sets the stage for the current CCIA complaint.
Focus of the Complaint: The latest version of Windows XP takes Microsoft's abusive practices to
a new level, illegally protecting Microsoft's existing monopolies and is illegally eliminating
competition in new software and service markets. This complaint seeks the intervention of the
European Commission to put an end to the multiple forms of abuse inherent in Windows XP.
The 260-page complaint comprises an exhaustive factual and legal basis for Commission action,
documenting multiple ways in which Windows XP violates Article 82 of the EC Treaty prohibiting
abuse of a dominant position. These abuses include:
Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, and Windows Movie
Maker 2;
Biasing the user interface and operation of Windows XP to significantly advantage Microsoft's
own software and services over competitive offerings;
Refusing to fully disclose the document formats for the programs in Microsoft's Office suite of
applications, in order to reinforce the "applications barrier to entry;"
Imposing proprietary technologies, formats and protocols in Microsoft's dominant products with
the effect of excluding competition on the merits;
Imposing abusive licensing and other exclusionary practices vis-à-vis personal computer makers
to foreclose the most important distribution channel from competing products;
Leveraging dominant positions to distort competition in markets for e-mail and collaboration
server software;
Leveraging existing dominant positions to the markets for handheld computing devices and
smart phone software through bundling, failure to supply interface information, and the use of
proprietary formats and protocols.
Legal basis of complaint: The facts alleged in the CCIA complaint rest squarely within Article 82 of
the EC Treaty.
Article 82 imposes on dominant market players a special responsibility not to allow their
conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition on the common market, and prohibits such
firms from limiting markets, production or technical development to the detriment of consumers.
Microsoft uses methods other than those falling within the scope of competition on the merits to
eliminate competitors and thereby strengthen its multiple positions of superdominance. For
example, Microsoft's bundling in Windows XP squarely falls within Article 82's prohibition on
tying, foreclosing competition for the bundled Microsoft products, and leveraging Microsoft's
market power into new markets. The Court of First Instance of the European Union recently
reaffirmed the illegality of such behaviour in its Tetra Laval decision.
Impact on Consumers: Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct with Windows XP directly impacts
consumers in multiple ways.
Fewer choices of software products and very limited differentiation among personal computer
offerings;
Less innovation in the critical software markets which Microsoft dominates;
Higher prices for Microsoft's software products than would otherwise occur in a competitive
market;
Rampant security breaches in Microsoft's core products resulting from the lack of market forces
to develop secure software;
Less privacy associated with the manner in which Microsoft biases its consumer services in
Windows XP.
Intersection with Current Case: This is a separate complaint. Actions taken by the Commission
pursuant to its existing Statement of Objections cannot address the unlawful conduct inherent in
Windows XP, which include new abuses intended to extend its existing desktop monopolies.
I think MS has already realized that there will >always be someone, somewhere trying to drive an anti-trust suit down their throat.
They will simply factor that in as the constant it is. Their competition has realized that they can make MS's life difficult by constantly calling on the govt to bail them out... and the govt's will keep doing it.
Simpel reality? A lot of companies who have none of the skills required to compete have found an ally.
Nothing new.
Microsoft bundles an extraordinary array of products with Windows XP.
They include:
- Internet Explorer (browser);
- MSN Explorer (browser);
- Windows Media Player (media player);
- Windows Messenger (instant messaging client);
- Outlook Express (e-mail client); and
- Windows Movie Maker (video editor).
Wouldn't most people these days consider these things fairly standard applications that should come with an OS.
I know I would hate to have to pay for an OS, and then buy a browser, media player, email client, video editor, messenger. And I guess also paint, notepad, calculator, etc.
If they aren't, then why do most linux distros have all those things included in the standard desktop install...
What was Microsoft done that warrents so much hate?
[...]
Face it folks, we would not be where we are today if not for Microsoft...
You see, you just answered your own question!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
These guys practically have a monopoly on receiving anti-trust complaints!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Clippy: It appears you are writing a letter criticizing Microsoft. Master Gates cannot let that happen. Now deleting all files off your hard drive. Have a nice day.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Please don't take this as a serious arguement but more a point of thought, and theoretical ethics I suppose.
If we at least say that MS is not off the hook, I won't admit that they are evil but on the flip side I won't admit they are not.
Anyway, Bill Gates routinely gives billions and billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda(sp?) Gates foundation which Bill's father manages mainly. Granted this brings up jokes about the left pocket giving money to the right pocket, but it is on the books and in the charter that a heafty percentage of the foundations money is used each year for purely philanthropic reasons, ie immunizing everyone in the world, funding research to find cures for various diseases, etc..
Still with me? Ok, so Bill gives a good bit of his money to stuff like this, as does Microsoft. MS will match any employee donation to, afaik, any charity, as well it has it's own philanthropic arm backed with it's own many billions in the bank.
Now given all this is it in anyway """"""""OK"""""""" then that they may be pulling more money than they should be out of people who can afford it when a lot of people are benifiting that would not if MS was not there?
I know many others do philanthropy but Bill is probably the single largest individual to do so, and in ways others are not capable or have not try to.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Microsoft will go bankrupt just trying to pay for the lawyers they have to hire to protect them from these suits.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Actualy this isnt america we are talking about
Its Europe
Europe doesnt really owe microsoft anything as microsoft dont really contribute to our economy
This is main reason this ruling is likely to bite harder than the US ruling as Bush wants to protect the business's that benefit him
Though the ruling might not effect you americans at all as a posible result would be for them to demand microsoft ship windows without media player in Europe but you can be sure they would ship media player in America still
Does this mean they have a monopoly on card games too? I mean they include Solitaire, Spider Solitaire, Freecell and Hearts.
There is no way now that I am going to buy a pack of cards now.
I tend to agree with Steve Jobs, who said (and I paraphrase freely) that he doesn't begrudge MS's success or condemn their business practices; he just thinks they make really dismal products. I would add "and sell them for a silly price with no discount for home users".
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Hell, I love xp pro, 2k, and I also happen to like mandrake 9. But if Linux were so great, why would most of us have more than one OS on our system? There maybe many who don't but I'm sure there are many more who do...
Wonder if I can still get a tourist visa after posting this ?
"And you are dying so slowly, you believe to be living" - Bertrand Besigye
Nice troll, I'll bite,
I don't care how user friendly you think a *nix install is, the home user would never be able to do it! It's only the geeks and the techs that have the skills to install complex pieces of software.
a.) How many home users do you know that can install Windows?
b.) Have you tried intalling Mandrake? Mandrake installed on my machine, detected all of my hardware, found my printer on the network, it can if you want it to partition your drive. Put it on easy and it asks you 4 or 5 questions and on a fast machine installs in 40 minutes. Contrast to Windows which requires reboots in the middle of the install, comes with almost no software bundled and requires installing a ton of drivers to get half the hardware working after the OS is installed. As a geek I find it easier to install Linux.
Where would the state of computing be if Linux came preinstalled on your Dell instead of Windows? Where would the state of computing be if God-forbid the customers could choose?
That's the problem, that's why governments keep bringing up these lawsuits because the home user doesn't have a choice and it shouldn't be that way.
As for MS's success there are tons of cases where they have bought or outright stolen all their "innovations", usually by using their massive market share to stifle the real innovators (usually by undercutting on price and the buying out the bankrupt company).
MS has show time and time again that they can't just be the biggest OS/software vendor for home users, they have to be the only one.
The Anti-Blog
While this kind of initiative is always good that is attempting to bring an entity that is (perceived to be) abusing it's monopolistic position, at the end of the day even if the case against Microsoft is proven, it still relies on Microsoft playing ball, and based on the fact that the last time this went to court and went against Microsoft (I think? Right?) it took a hell of a long time to resolve, and then without a clear cut "win" (no one was burned at the stake, or even disemboweled).
;-)
What I would propose is that the CCIA (is this a government agency with a stammer?) put a percentage of their allocated budget for this case say, 100% into funding a Europe wide alternative to Microsoft,
with the current chill in the political air I think this should be written in French and called Iraq
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
just curious, how many peolpe saying "yay! MS sucks! I hate Bill! Its the evil empire!" Are typing from Internet Explorer, while listening to mp3's in WMP 9 on XP??
-- Insert wisdom here:
I would say that at least 70% of the people viewing this site are on a windows OS
...about $20 billion according to their piracy figures. Alright everybody, PAY UP. I know you just lost your job and the kids need new shoes, but that $499 copy of Office you 'borrowed' from Frank next door is going to haunt your conscious untill you settle. Nevermind that you HAVE to send out .DOC format resume's to find a job anymore. You owe it to them buster.
Yea! I'm in the 30% minority!!
It's a simple fact folks, we owe a lot to Microsoft...
I can understand the part about imposing Microsoft proprietary technologies, protocols and formats;Employing abusive licensing and other exclusionary practices vis-à-vis PC OEMs to foreclose the PC OEM distribution channel to competing products... but what the hell does it have to do with bundling of additional apps along with Windows?
;)
That's considered value-added incentive for the consumer. Hell, even major Linux distributions bundle browsers, media players and office productivity suites. And I am GLAD that such apps are included, therefore I don't need to buy a copy or download a free one.
It's not like you have to actually use those apps... install whatever alternatives you want. Although I do use IE most of the time, it is not because it is *there already*, I use it because it loads pages faster than other browsers (which I won't mention lest I invoke another browser flame war). But I detest Outlook (express or non) and installed my own preferred email client. Same case with media player... I know the privacy issues involved with it, hence I don't use it. It REALLY is *THAT* simple!
As for disclosing Office document format... hell they created it, under their own terms and conditions, which a user HAS to accept prior to installing. If you're not happy with it, just return the CD. How hard can that be? And by the way, I thought the complaint was focused on WinXP... Office is not bundled with WinXP (although it would be nice if it was).
I think the CCIA has gone overzealous in its approach to pin MS. They should have gotten more facts correct before publishing this paper.
And yeah, I don't work for MS... nor do I have the desire to. And I have never bought any products from MS either, but that doesn't mean I never used them before
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Now, I will agree we should be allowed to choose. But isn't that up to the "dells" of the world? Hell, there might even be hope for gateway if they ran linux...
At least this might stand a chance of success since in Europe we have appointed judges and prosecutors. They don't have to worry whether MS a) will remove funding from their re-election campaigns, or b) actively support their opposition.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
The downfall of Microsoft isn't going to be caused by litigation.
It will be caused by offering an equal or superior product at a better or equal price.
Linux will be that product. It's not there yet, but it's inevitable that it will be at some point in the future.
Just as open source software will eliminate commercial software development as we know it today.
The EU's Axis of Weasels would be all too happy to sell them the equipment to do it, and then let them go about their merry way, but only if they got a cut of the billions of dollars of profits from illicit sales of a sanctioned product...
8-year-old political refugees better hide, especially in the middle of the night; and woe betide any obscure religious sects that lives off by themselves...
All these anti-trust suites are getting a little boring and aren't doing any good.
I disagree. They are doing good, even though the remedies, so far in the US, have bordered on almost being "rewards".
They are doing good. Just not enough good. The fact that Microsoft is now widely recognized, evey by Microsoft users, as being untrustworthy is a good thing. Look at how Microsoft dealt with Sendo. Look at how the Sony and Matsushita, two bitter rivals have joined together against Microsoft. Everyone knows that you can't shake hands with the devil. Microsoft's history of stabbing every one of their partners in the back is going to come back to bite them. Nobody will want to partner with them.
BillG: Hey, Sony, why don't you use Windows CE? Partner with us!
BillG: Hey, Nokia, why don't you use our Stinker OS in your phones? (er.. I meant Stinger)
BillG: Hey everyone, look at my vision, unveiled at consumer electronics shows, to take over everything in the home with Microsoft software! You can still make the hardware, on razor thin, cut throat margins, with no real control of the design, or differentiation of your products, just like we've done to the PC industry.
Do you think anyone in their right minds is going to agree to this. Microsoft has no friends left.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
If Linux came preinstalled on the average consumer Dell, Dell would be fielding numerous support calls each day to the tune of: "My husband bought a new sound card, and the computer says I must rebuild the kernel." Imagine the support tech leading the poor user through xconfig, menuconfig, or *shudders* config.
The worst thing for Linux would be a side-by-side comparison with Windows (or OS X) in the homes of average computer users. Word of mouth would spread quickly, prejudices would be formed, and Linux would be forever taboo on the desktop.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
If the EU can be that base, then it would actually be useful.
For your next task please explain how limitations can be placed on an ongoing offence. If I STARTED blackmailing you 20 years ago and have continued till the present day I can't claim "But that was over 20 years ago".
Its not like XP was released with these issues then 2 months later MS went to open formats and stopped bundling software.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Gee, 10% off the gross reduces Microsoft profit by ... 10%? :)
Surely there is a provision to deprive the naughty party of all its ill-gotten gain? The framers may not have had the profit margins of the software industry in mind -- these aren't widgets.
Probably the EU allows a private right of action, class action, something?
Red Hat (and other distros) need to approach these vendors like Dell, CHomPaq and IBM and get into contracts with them that state for every machine sold a license MUST be sold with it, or they won't give them special pricing, or worse yet, won't deal with them at all. This'll put them hardware vendors outta bidness!!!
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Just google for "Chirac corruption". 20,000+ hits.
That they perform charities has absolutely nothing to with their illegal practices. It most certainly is not an excuse or a reason for leiniency.
"But if we let them get away with it then there'll be even MORE money for charity....." Nope. Don't think so."
Good works in non-related areas don't somehow make up for evil works in others. They should live or die in the courts according to the merits of the case.
Gates would still have billions even if the worst possible penalties were leveled against MS. If the charity is genuine then he can continue to give...regardless of whether or not it helps MS in the court of public opinion.
(A) Biasing of the UI
This is not anti competitive. The example given in the summary is that if a site is mistyped, MSN search comes up. Pheonix does the same thing, except it runs a Google or Netscape search. From what I can tell, the complaint here is that whenever Windows or a MS app requires the services of another application, it uses another MS application. Open Source projects do the same thing (although Open Source usually have more than one choice of application, but never a Microsoft application).
Granted, MS never allows Open Source choices, but then again, Open Source projects don't always allow MS choices either (Pheonix for example, only allows Google and DMOZ for searching).
(B) Bundling
Bundling is actually very good for consumers, as they get more goods for their money. Granted, Microsoft apps are impossible to remove from Windows, which is an issue, but the bundling itself isn't.
If bundling is anti-competitive, then Linux is screwed, considering the 1GB+ worth of software that's packaged on almost every distribution.
I know, I know, the applications bundled on a Linux distro aren't all from the same developer. That's not my point. My point is that when I buy an OS, I'd expect a minimum amount of functionality, and in this "Internet" age, a browser and a mail tool is a minimal requirement. I mean seriously, if I installed an OS without a browser (this applies to Apple and Linux as well), how can I download alternatives?
The rest of the CCIA complaints are valid, particularly price (300$ CDN for XP?!?!), closed/obfuscated protocols, non-interoperability, and the impossible-to-remove apps that no one wants.
Phemur
makes it seem like they are upset that MS puts all of these extra applications in there that are not part of the "core os". Things like e-mail clients, video players, browsers, etc. Obviously those things are not necessary to run a computer, but they make life easier. Its kindof like car stereo manufacturer suing Ford, Chrysler, and GM collectively because they put stereos in their car already. Another possible solution is for these 3rd party sofware manufacturer to partner up with MS so that MS includes those things in with XP. Another option is for all these 3rd party folks to get together to form their own OS, possibly using something open source, and bundle their stuff in with it. Unfortunatly this complaint comes from the european "government" (I use that term loosly) and not from the 3rd party vendors, which complicates possible solutions to the problem.
End of Line.
And it's a fact (as determined in a court of law) that M$'s bundling practices are anticompetitive.
computer says I must rebuild the kernel
This is a major point that hasn't been discussed enough. Lately it has become fashionable for politicians in the United States and abroad to declare, essentially, that they are going to use only open-source software, with the implication that they are going to go for Linux. You've pointed out a "gotcha!" that I'm sure the politicians overlooked.
Gates would still have billions even if the worst possible penalties were leveled against MS
Very True, but what if MS never became an OS monopoly? Would Gates have anything? Would the philithropical things he's doing go by the wayside?
If Gates founded a cancer research institute with his monopoly money, and that institute found a cure for cancer, does that change anything?
Again, I'm not advocating that these ends justify the means, just a point of discussion.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Well, IMHO, haveing the governments OS be Open Source is a good thing. The government is the single largest consumer of goods and services in the country, for almost every country you can think of. Since the the purpose of government should be something along the lines of "...promote the general welfare...", I believe that all non-classified government software projects should be public domain of the country involved. Open Source supports this, and closed source prevents it.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
Philanthropy with true charity. Much philanthropy is in pure self interest, "some" has the credibility of being part true charity. MS and Gates fall somewhere in the grey area. However, the Son's good actions should not be used to excuse the many sin's of the Father. To do so or even attempt to do so is beyond immorral and substantially cheapens the actions of true charitable people.
Yeah... like all that GNU stuff that comes with every Linux distribution.
/. about GNU/Linux and such.
Suppose that Linux and Microsoft Windows switched market shares. If I were to write a complete replacement for the GNU libraries/tools and try to make a living off it in the Un*x/Linux world, how much money do you think I'd make?
Is "ls" a part of the OS? I see the arguments on
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.
The columbian drug lords give millons to catholic charities; not because they care two hoots about catholicism, but merely as a way to cloud the issue in simple minds.
If I robbed a bank and gave half the loot to charity, that does not make the act of theft any less reprehensible.
MS and Bill Gates have no right to the millions that they are giving to charity.
Remember some things the next time you read about one of Gates' charitable donations:
1) The target of his charitable contributions are almost exclusively countries whose governments are considering alternatives to Windows.
2) The dollar value of the contributions might be substantial; but a lot of the actual donation is in *Windows Software*. The actual cost to Bill is just the cost of the CDs. It also helps lock in his monopoly.
3) The donations are tax writeoffs for Bill Gates and Microsoft. The money that ends up in his pocket might be actually more after the donation.
Magnus.
> I hate substandard software, and voted with my wallet
You Mac users are all the same. The software and technologies that suit YOU best happen to be divinely better than everything else. Like Apple has never released a bug-ridden OS. ROFL!
> Chimera 0.6 build 2003020907 ... Mac OS X 10.2.3 build 6G30
From the who-gives-a-rats-ass dept: My microwave is running Microware Enhanced OS-9 Microkernel Build 3.13.37.
Snoogans. -5 Troll
No money. Just like the GNU people. You miss the point. And there are pretty complete replacements for the GNU tools. The BSD tools, for example. Or Solaris or AIX.
Not really. On Windows, you install a new driver and (usually) reboot for the Windows kernel to pick that up. On Linux, you install a new module and the kernel picks that up. Package either task in a nice, friendly set of graphical dialogs and the matter's done.
The 'rebuild the kernel' stuff is a bit of a myth. I've not had to rebuild a kernel in a long time. Windows has a kernel too - it comes overstuffed for the average user. Most of the distro kernels are also overstuffed with capabilities and drivers, but then that has the side effect of an end-user never seeing the rebuild message.
Now glibc, on the other hand...
Cheers,
Ian
...instead of endlessly looking for legal solutions, someone tried to fight microsoft by producing products?
(Apologies to the KDE and Ximian people who are actually doing that).
That even when you hate what you are using, you have no other choice because you are tied into using it. Why else would someone be using something they supposedly hate?
I really doubt much of anyone is using WMP 9 though, given you can break free of that pretty easily...
As for myself? Another OS X user, typing this in Safari.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What was Microsoft done that warrents so much hate?
There is one thing that always get me worked up. Microsoft's real success is in the desktop client market, where the losses due to their ineptitude are on a per-individual basis. Then, they have the arrogance to impose their mediocre software in server and mission-critical markets, which leads to us seeing their genuinely badly engineered software on U.S. warships, in hospitals, running business infrastructure, running governemtn infrastructure, and so on. So, what makes me mad is that they managed to sell the least appropriate tool for the job to technologically-naive people eager to buy. Microsoft is like the scummy car salesman, who gets someone to pass up the perfectly appropriate family car for the 9MPG American SUV that eats them alive in maintenance costs (fuel, tires, taxes, trying to park the damn thing, etc.).
It's a simple fact folks, we owe a lot to Microsoft...
I read a while ago that pre-Windows 2000 failures cost two weeks lost per user per year. I'd say that Microsoft owes us!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
You're neglecting the well-worn phrase, "network effects."
Linux already is superior to Windows in the server arena, in price and performance. There were issues of SMP and TCP scalability, but somehow when those were surpassed, there was no notice given. Now the scalability chase is against Unix, and Windows no longer enters the discussion. AFAIK, server administration is pretty much a non-issue, as well.
The places where Linux is lacking in the server arena are squarely related to the quirks of serving Windows clients. In other words, Microsoft is using the Windows desktop monopoly to carve and hold a place in the server arena.
Look at the desktop, for a moment. Whether or not Linux is "there yet" is subject to debate, but it is already clearly far beyond where Windows was when it took over the desktop. From what I've seen, the single biggest argument against Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have 100% compatible MS Office capability. In other words, Microsoft is using the MS Office monopoly to hold onto it's Windows desktop monopoly.
You're not attempting to sell one platform. You're attempting to sell against a set of platforms, all reinforcing each other. Two of those platforms, Windows desktop and MS Office, are effectively monopolies. (Windows is a monopoly legally, too.)
This is what the European case is about. The network, not the platforms.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
would GM get away with it, if governments were GM junkies? (not that any government would ever be a 'GM' junkie- but a thought to ponder)
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Sure it has... Some dumbass named George Williamson or something...
you know what? I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but I really hope they keep winning their cases, they set a bad tend otherwise. I mean, the microsoft OSs are no good, but what if a better one comes along? and all these cases set the rules to be "you can't include anything in your OS that someone else is selling" like microsoft and IE. so yeah, in the short term I want microsoft to lose and fail, but in the long term I want the rules of OS sale to have as few restrictions as possible on them. I mean, we might not want some of these rules applyed to linux 2015 or whatever it is that eventually replaces windows.
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Not true. I installed a TV Card - had to rebuild the kernel. I upgraded the kernel - had to rebuild the TV Card drivers.
It's not as easy as just plugging it in, and installing a file or doing a windows update to get the newest drivers. And this was a standard BrookTree TV card.
Linux still has a long way to go. OS X just gets around a lot of these problems by having strong control on the hardware.
Imagine how Mr. Dell must feel now that rumours have leaked about xbox 2.... e.g. browser, email clients, basic pc functionality. (i.e. a pc, but in a closed locked in architecture with only 1 supplier)
What European Union can do, is put MS pay. They can hit MS with a fine of 10% of MS's yearly revenues.
It's a lot of money, but it doesn't stop MS.
Uh huh....Splitting up the company will make it much weaker. I don't even understand where this antitrust stuff comes from. There is linux, unix, dos, and Mac as other options outside of microsoft. Not to mention Solaris. So how are they in violation of antitrust lawsuits. And if they are in violation of antitrust problems because they sell to a mass percentage of the market than why doesn't anyone sue that company that makes 95% of the worlds zippers?? Or Sue 3M for making everything...have you ever noticed how many things are made by 3M? I think it's good to have companies based in the US, supplying huge quantities of U.S. jobs and helping to be pillars to the American Economy.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Nevermind that you HAVE to send out .DOC format resume's to find a job anymore.
But why pirate MS Office, when OpenOffice.org can export into .DOC format?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please note the letters in bold. Linux distros don't just include their own products. And even if they did, Linux distros do not hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they don't have a stranglehold on OEMs, deliberately sabotage competitors products, perform software audits, or change their licensing fees as they see fit. Granted, bundling in apps with an OS is a good thing for the public, but not in combination with the big picture.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
My mod points ran out yesterday. If I still had them, you'd be at +5.
Sigs are bad for your health.
I don't think the fact that Microsoft is American really comes into it. The two major competitors of Media Player are Real Player and QuickTime, both of which are also American (and I'm sure Microsoft employs a lot more people in Europe than Real and Apple together).
I don't understand why Slashdot readers always seem to assume there is some secret motive behind everything. Microsoft's competitors complained that it was competing unfairly against them, and the EU ruling will reflect (a) the extent to which Monti et al. believe them, and (b) the extent to which the regulators believe state intervention can remedy any problems.
This latest complaint was, once again, brought by an American lobbying group dominated by Microsoft's traditional American rivals (Sun Microsystems and Oracle). The EU is just another place in which they can fight.
then try some of the alternatives such as lindows.
people dont exactly have to buy microsoft products. there are free(er) alternatives like unix and linux and even a mac (but they are just used in movies).
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
This would be 10% of its gross that it's already spent in dividends and subsidizing other things. It would make the stock substantially less attractive and would personally impact all those options holders.
If MS has an overall profit margin of 30%, 10% of the gross would be a third of its profits. Plus the fine would have to be paid at once, making the fine levy year possibly MS's first loss year as the XP fines would be 10% of the gross over several years payable in one year.
All in all a very draconian penalty. Too bad they have to use anti-trust to achieve the good result of stopping MS illegality.
I am having trouble gathering my thoughts on this, so bare with me...
First off, let me state I have not come to praise Bill, and that I concur with those who are pushing for this in their decision to press this forward. But I must say this action worries me as an American. With our current economic climate, the stance of those in charge, and how America currently looks on the global scale to our friends and neighbors, this could be the final straw in a tension build-up of global scale between America and the World.
What do I mean? Well, if this action accomplishes what should have happened when it was handled internally (severe punishment, break-up even), what will Microsoft do? Comply? Or use their new-found leverage with congress and their friendly Pro-Business government to complain? I think we both know the answer. So let's say they complain to the American government. After all, Microsoft is the crowning achievement in Free Market Capitalism, it makes money hand-over-fist, at any cost, and is a shining example of American industry (HA! I'm so funny). The government for those reasons will back them up. So then the American government widens the rift between our allies (former allies?) in the EU as much, if not more so, than our current actions regarding Iraq are concerned. The EU want Microsoft to play ball by the rules, which is to say they are in the right on this matter. America will say it's their field and they can make the rules up and if the EU doesn't like it, tough beans.
What will this do for our international relations? What will happen to the American business sector? How much will it harm our country and economy when the world (rightly) turns their back on us for our double-standards in the matters of state and business? I worry that it would be something nigh-repairable. Hopefully someone here will listen to what the world is saying and decide to make things a bit better. Maybe I just worry too much...
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
CCIA
666 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Strange that the people going after microsoft have a 666 address. You'd think it would be the other way around.
Fortunately, IBM has learned from it's mistakes and actually has very ethical business practices now imo, despite their enormous size. They seem to be prospering well. If only Microsoft could learn from big blue... Somehow I can't see that happening.
> How long can this go on for?
;-)
As long as Microsoft has a lock on most of the market for PC operating systems.
> you cant keep pulling the same company for antitrust violations..
The courts can keep pulling them in as long as they please. There is no "double jeopardy" for antitrust.
> wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up?
One judge said "yes," another judge said "no."
> what ever happened there?
The judge that said "yes" was openly offended by a bumbled defense team, and then bumbled himself by reacting openly. It was then given to a new judge and tried by a prosecutor that was more sympathetic to Microsoft, not to mention a defense team who behaved in court.
> this is just going to carry on and on and on.. its getting pretty frustrating really.
Don't let it wreck your day. At least there is no _law_ that says you have to use Microsoft products. Just market forces
Curious - which distro?
Cheers,
Ian
buy your OS, for less, and choose which applications you want to use?
You could choose to buy the Microsoft Plus media and productivity pack, or not.
Think about it. If you are on a decent net connection today, you can get good applications that do all of those things for free, or at the very least for low cost.
The whole thing depends on the power of the default. Most users either don't know they can choose, or don't bother because the bundled things are there.
Because they are intergrated to a degree that makes life difficult for those who actually want to choose, third party suppliers of these applications have a very hard time providing any value proposition to their prospective customers.
This hurts the industry because:
- There is little incentive to really develop these applications due to lack of potential return on investment.
- The bundled stuff presents a nice target for those who would write viruses and such.
- Perfectly useable hardware becomes useless simply because the bundled and intergrated packages demand it, not because it no longer does the job.
- Open file formats lose their value. Why use them if everyone has the bundled stuff? When it comes to software as a service (read rentalware) closed formats promote user dependance and thus artifical value. This is wrong.
Nobody should have to continue to pay for the ability to perform basic computing tasks when the technology needed to perform these tasks is mature and freely avaliable for the most part.
So, wouldn't it be nice to just be able to buy XP, assuming you want XP, standalone? If you build your own machine, you can get your own applications. If you buy from someone, they could pack in a nice value add with a custom bundle. If you are in charge of a bunch of machines, you could build your own corporate edition bundle and stick with it unitl you have reason to change, not when a service pack, or OS revision forces you do do so...
Blogging because I can...
The problem is, people *HAD* choices, and made poor ones. Yes, Microsoft sells crap, but we don't *have* to buy it.
Would life be more difficult? Perhaps, but it's not like there weren't alternatives.
"No one has ever held a gun to my head over my choice of OS or PC in anyway, not MS not anyone."
I continue to see this arguement, yet the vast majority of developers/software houses still relase products that are for Windows only. Why is this? "Because MS OSs are superior" is not a proper arguement for this. OEMs, and VARs continue to be forced into selling MS OSs only due to draconian contracts with MS. It seems to me that MS is as much a monopoly as AT&T was prior to it's bell breakup.
Alex DeWolf
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
The problem is, people *HAD* choices, and made poor ones.
And people actually excersized those choices. Lots of people bought Lotus Notes instead of Exchange, Wordperfect instead of Word, etc. Where are those people now? Microsoft did something very unnatural to the marketplace to get where they are.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Microsoft and Windows XP are worse than the CCIA says:
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Is "ls" a part of the OS? I see the arguments on /. about GNU/Linux and such.
/bin/ls' and your machine will still boot. Try that with Internet Explorer.
... (Not to mention wget, curl and the LWP library for Perl), so not only do I have a choice of 5 different browsers, I even have the tools to create my own if I so choose. All of these browsing tools are written by different organizations or individuals. Also every last one of them follows W3C standards for rendering HTML. And as a web developer I couldn't care less if IE is bundled with Windows I care about wheither or not it follows the same standards as everyone else.
No. You can do 'rm
At any rate comparing ls to IE is comparing apples to oranges, why not compare things like browsers. My Linux Distro came with Galeon, Konquerer, Lynx, Links, and Mozilla
Also I can simply delete any of the above browsers and my machine will still boot.
So to answer your question, no if Linux and Windows changed market share Linux would not be violating laws by shipping with lots of software, that's not the point, in fact they would be going above and beyond fair competition as several competing softwares exist on the same machine. I don't believe its illegal for MS to include their own titles, its illegal for telling OEMs they can't include titles and illegal to make it difficult for the consumer to remove titles that MS has added.
The Anti-Blog
Fortunately, IBM has learned from it's mistakes
I recently read, maybe one of the LinuxWorld summary articles or somewhere, some comments from someone at IBM about their embrace of Linux. The person said something to the effect that IBM got a big wakeup call at the end of the 80's that customers did not want vendor lock in.
How I remember it is thus. IBM tried to switch the industry over to a proprietary PC design. Everyone did the "just say no" thing being promoted at the time. IBM found themselves the only one shipping a non-standard PC. This probably was a huge wake up call. Followed, of course, by getting backstabbed by Microsoft over OS/2.
and actually has very ethical business practices now imo, despite their enormous size
Well, let's not go too far here. They are a corporation. Beholden to their shareholders. If they could gain a stranglehold, they would. So would Apple. For instance, I have no doubt whatsoever that Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs would be just as evil, or maybe even moreso than Bill Gates, given the opportunity. Bill just had the lucky break and ruthlessly exploited it.
We like IBM now because they promote open source. I've even heard some motto "cooperate on interface, compete on implementation" supposedly from IBM. But let's not delude ourselves. Their interest is self motivated. Right now, thier interest aligns with some of ours. Things change.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
How do you think people install new hardware on Windows? No, Windows does not autodetect everything.
As a monopoly, Microsoft has a different set of rules that they must run under. That's the short, sweet answer to it.
You yourself have said that everything you listed above are "products" that are "bundled." They are not a part of the operating system. Since other vendors provided products with similar functionality long before Microsoft decided to "bundle" them, Microsoft is breaking antitrust rules. They are trying to extend their monopoly on operating systems into other areas.
I understand, it probably seems unfair. But that's the bed Microsoft has made for itself. They've done everything they could to keep from lying in it, now they're being made to.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Windows is actually now the leading server platform by volume (I think its share is more than 50%), which is why Sun and Oracle are so upset. You may not like it, but given the choice between (a) assuming you know more than IT departments all over the world and (b) assuming these IT departments are buying Windows because it best meets their needs, I'm inclined to choose 'b'. (Sorry, no offence intended.)
Otherwise I'd be doing something useful instead of venting my aggravation.
I'm running Opera 7 on Win95b (the last good version [i.e pre IE :)]) and since I manage win98/XP I sometimes need to download patches to IE.
Try connecting to msdn.microsoft.com w/o masquerading as something other that Opera! (Well masquerading as NS 3.0 doesn't look so great but at least it sort of works)
They may have fixed MSN but there's still a lot left.
So many Opera hostile pages, so little time...
Peder
- Internet Explorer (browser);
- MSN Explorer (browser);
- Windows Media Player (media player);
- Windows Messenger (instant messaging client);
- Outlook Express (e-mail client); and
- Windows Movie Maker (video editor).
ok, let's examine these one by one:
IE--non w3c standard implementations
MSN Explorer --what, is a website a feature now?
WMP--third rate video software with huge potential for digital rights enforcement/abuse
Outlook Express -attracts viruses like a dirty needle--doesn't play well with others
Windows Movie Maker --forget iMovie--WE can do that too!
oh, i'm one of those minority users, (mac/osx)--i guess i've been spoiled all these years--no viruses, email works, quicktime, plug and play...oh, and also, got iTunes yet? ;>
needless to say, i don't think any of the MS sw apps are worth the EULA they come in...but hey, to each his own--i just don't like it when people who don't know any better are pushed down the primrose path...
-mojo
It's the American way. If you have lots of money, and another person doesn't -- they find ways to get it -- how? Lawsuits.
Need some money? Sue Microsoft. Product a piece of sh!t, but Microsoft's is superior, thus owning the market? Sue Microsoft. Don't have the marketing know-how to market your product? Sue Microsoft. Hard drive crash because it's over 10 years old? Sue Microsoft.
This is so funny. It's like Microsoft get a new stupid lawsuit a day.
Linux won't kill Microsoft, it will be all the "open source" sh!theads that think their piece of junk "software" is better (which it isn't.. otherwise it would be the mainstream), coming up with another stupid lawsuit.
Should start a Microsoft lawsuit of the Day web site. H3ll, you'd have new news everyday.
"In the year 2020, Bill Gates becomes the richest president in U.S. history. During his campaign, he borrowed many phrases from presidents past. Sometimes these raised eyebrows, but people tended to agree with him.
The most famous transliteration of a past president's words was from George Bush, Sr., president from 1988 to 1992. His famous words were "Read my lips, no new taxes!". President Bill Gate's is similar but with a twist: "Heed my whips! No new Lexus!"
The American(c) public was polled and Gates has the highest satisfation rating of any president yet."
(Brought to you by Big Brother(c) 2010, Microsoft)
Too bad they have to use anti-trust to achieve the good result of stopping MS illegality.
Either I'm not understanding that sentance, or you don't make much sense. You seem to be saying that while anti-trust is bad, monopolies are also bad. Somewhat of a contradiction.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
(b) assuming these IT departments are buying Windows because it best meets their needs, I'm inclined to choose 'b'.
Do you really think Windows better meets the needs of IT infrastructure than Solaris?
Again, Microsoft's real success is on the desktop. They used that position to sell server licenses, even though their server software isn't all that good. The fact is that Microsoft is a marketing company (aka, sleazy car salesmen). Sun and Oracle are technology companies. There is a difference.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Get a clue.
The United States is the world's largest and strongest economy.
Virtually every other nation on the planet is indebted to the US or is dependent on some form of US aid (economic bailouts, IMF loans, military support, food grants, etc.)
Every country with hard currency is heavily invested in US business interests.
The point? Simple: any country that turns their back on us (rightly or not) will see the immediate collapse of its economy. (Didn't you notice that the rest of the world economic markets were hit harder after 9-11 than ours were?)
A remedy that stops short of recovering 100% of ill-gotten gain is not draconian. It is inadequate.
Obviously, I was kidding about the 10%. It just points up that an arbitrary percentage fine may miss the boat. Microsoft can pay the fine and continue to profit; it could even view the fine as a sort of tax and shrug. A hypothetical 20% profit margin is quite profitable.
As to the actual remedy, one would need to estimate the improper gain was, who it whould go to, and what should be done to govern Microsoft's future conduct, including remedies for violations. I would rather see any recovery distributed to the victims, the point is not merely to injure Microsoft.
In the spirit on "guilty until proved innocent," note that nothing has yet been proven. Not *everything* bad said about Microsoft is accurate.
The Europeans are better educated on these issues, more willing to take on powerful companies, and -- unlike our bought-and-sold Congress full of political hacks -- don't have to worry about the effects on their reelections of going after Microsoft. In fact, given the level of distrust and disgust most Europeans feel for the US these days, taking on MS is probably pretty popular. It certainly is with me too.
I find the viciousness involved in the Microsoft Anti-Trust cases to be a disturbing signal for the freedom of society. The computer industry and all of America was forged from industry and capitalism and one cannot remove these elements without suffering from the effects of introducing such a contradiction. Why should companies be punished for having the best product on the market? And if you truly believe that the successful should be punished, why not let consumers do this punishment themselves by switching to a different product? The answer is very simple: it would never happen. Consumers continue to use Microsoft products because it is in their best interest to do so. Crippling Microsoft to bring them down to the level of their competition is a disgusting and immoral solution. Do we infect the healthy with AIDS because we can't cure it? If you have a problem with Microsoft's domination then you should create a set of products that outperforms Microsoft's product line and convince consumers that this is the case. Can't get a consumer base this way? Then your products aren't good enough and that is certainly not Microsoft's problem.
Microsoft's domination should be taken as a sign of health for America. It means that capitalism (and therefore freedom) has not been crushed by these vicious attempts to bring the strong down the level of the weak in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
1. Stop passing draconian US-based legislation. Just say 'No!' to a Euro-DMCA.
2. Stop using Microsoft, support Linux, which has plenty of European (or close to 'European') roots.
3. Stop massacring patent law as the US has.
4. Act like fucking sovereign nations for once.
Seriously, why is the EU so whiny about the evils of Microsoft, yet so scared to seriously do anything that would stop them? If they don't want their software industry controlled by Microsoft - hey, here's a clue! They don't *have* to let it be controlled by Microsoft!
What, are they scared of bombs and trade sanctions? Then they might as well request and fill out the forms that'll make them the next batch of states in the Union.
You've missed the point.
First, Red Hat "bundles" lots of different software *choices* -- many of which affect the same problem domain; Red Hat, therefore, encourages competition. Second, the apps Red Hat bundles are third party apps (in most cases) -- they are not apps that Red Hat specifically profits from or that allow Red Hat to unfairly secure a hold in a problem domain outside of Linux OS installation and administration; I am not aware of Red Hat bundling its own apps without including competing products that do the same thing (disclaimer: I'm a debian user) and even if they did, Red Hat does not prevent you from completely removing their product and installing a different one.
What Microsoft has done is to unfairly thwart competition by not only bundling software that clearly is outside the problem domain of "Operating Systems" in an attempt to push their own products but also by commingling their products; tying one product into another so tightly that the product cannot be removed without significant harm to the overall system.
Where is the option to remove Internet Explorer? Where is the option to remove Windows Media Player? They aren't there -- you can choose to use a different tool (one that likely does not operate as well because it is not as up-close-and-personal as the Microsoft equivalent) but you cannot completely remove Microsoft's tool. This gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over its competitors and thwarts competition in general (as proven by its monopoly conviction).
Now reconsider GNU "stuff": any of it can be removed and replaced with other software.
Don't like "ls"? Write/use a shell that uses "dir" instead. Don't like "gcc" -- don't install it (and don't bother bringing up the argument of how many OTHER tools require "gcc" in order to build them or whatever; those were dependency decisions made by the authors of THOSE tools -- GNU or otherwise).
If I were to write a complete replacement for the GNU libraries/tools and try to make a living off it in the Un*x/Linux world, how much money do you think I'd make?
Now that would depend on what your tool suite offers that other tool suites don't, wouldn't it? If your tool offers a better way of accomplishing the same thing, you *could* make a mint -- or not. That's one of the points of open source, isn't it? As a user, I can choose your tool if I like it better or stick with the proven tools; that is the real crux of why or why not your tool suite would succeed or fail.
GNU tools are established, stable, and well-documented; there is little incentive to adopt a new tool suite that does the same thing...but (and this is key) there is nothing preventing someone from doing so (and then removing the other tools).
In an open market, free from monopoly and antitrust activities, there is no guarantee that you will make money off of your efforts -- but there is a guarantee that you will have a fair chance to try. When Microsoft acted in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, it brought the magnifying glass to bear on its actions -- the "bundling" of IE and WMP may not have been such an issue if they were not also "commingled".
Yes, I am viewing this site from a Windows OS. Windows 2000, to be exact. I'm on my lunch break at work, where the use of Windows is mandated. When I get home, however, I will read follow-ups to this article using Chimera on OS X, from my iMac, or using Galeon on my Mandrake Linux 9.0 PC.
It's just too damn bad all the corporations that have been crippled because of virus and worm attacks from using Microsoft software can't get together and create a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft, to help recover all the BILLIONS of dollars (US) that have been lost because of them!
No matter where you go... there you are.
Reagan administration started the helping out part . By the way Slashdot fans , this article is a couple of days old and most tech websites carried it. Why put this bit up now ? The reviewers at this website are definitely not picking the right articles.
Using parent companies, holding companies, investment compainies, etc. allows them to morph pretty quickly too.
"No, you Honour, that wasn't Microsoft, that was Microsoft West Nebraska, a completely seperate two-person company registered in Texas.", "No, you Honour, those hundred thousand licenses sold in France were actually sold by Microsoft Asia Pacific in Singapore and therefore aren't European revenue."...
Microsoft has no friends left.
Sure it has... Some dumbass named George Williamson or something...
And an army of MCSE's
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Here's the really evil thing about the MSN search feature in IE:
If in Internet Options: Advanced Settings you check the "Do no search from address bar" box, and then type an incorrect URL such as mappquest.com, you will still be taken to the MSN search page. Furthermore, your setting in Advanced Option will have changed to "Just display restults in the main window".
In order to really disable the MSN search, apart from the obvious HOSTS autosearch.msn.com = 127.0.0.1 you have to be more clever. What better than to map it to Google instead ?
In IE, press Ctrl+E to enable the Search toolbar. Select Customize, and you will find the settings the OVERRIDE what is setup in Internet Options. At the bottom of Customize Settings window there is a Autosearch Settings which is the culprit. Change it to point to Google instead. Even if you select Do Not Search From Address Bar, it will search from address bar, however.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
from that MS Knowledge base article:
''WARNING: If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using Registry Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk.''
"This method also prevents programs that use the Messenger Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) from using Windows Messenger. Outlook 2002, Outlook Express 6, and the Remote Assistance feature in Windows XP are examples of programs that use these APIs and that depend on Windows Messenger. "
So, for the average user, this method works IF one is willling to risk one's registry (shiver...) and IF one can do without Outlook.
Why does Outlook depend on the Windows Messenger APIs? I can think of one reason...
The company I'm working in uses Notes. The corporation that owns us keeps screaming for us to start using Exchange. So far our answers have been "over our dead bodies". Imagine porting some 50 custom databases (Notes is a groupware suit/database server/web server/database application platform/...) to .. hrm ... what? Access and VB (shudder)? Your'e just as stuck in Notes as in .NET. The difference is, it doesn't feel as bad.
What are you talking about? A 10% fine of MS profits over the period would absolutely devastate the company, or at least its stock in the short term (<3 years).
As I've said elsewhere, the problem with monopolies isn't that they have some sort of market power due to their size. The problem is that they lie, cheat, and steal in order to keep that dominant position. Anti-trust, all too often, seems to be an exercise in saying big is bad. Big can merely be the result of incompetent competitors and there's plenty of those in the history of the PC field.
I would say that most MS anti-trust violations can be restated as fraud or some other non-trust crime. When MS paid engineers to generate incompatibilities between DOS and Lotus 1-2-3 they defrauded their customers and, arguably, their shareholders. Ditto for the DR-DOS affair where they sent out media kits with doctored copies of Windows that gave out spurious errors when it was detected that DR-DOS, not MS-DOS was installed.
The problem isn't that MS is dominant, but how they react when they legitimately get beaten on the competitive realm. Their predatory actions have destroyed economic value in the billions of lost hours, misguided business plans, and foregone opportunities because nobody wants to get near the nasty-tempered beast that is MS.
Then again, 10% of gross may exceed the ill-gotten gains. The point is to set a penalty that is a deterrant that is not so draconian as to be repealed after its first use.
Let's take your logic and apply it in other elements of law and see if it makes sense. Let's calculate my ill gotten gains for going 85mph in a 55mph zone. I figure, I might have gained 15 minutes in a daily commute. At an $80/hour bill rate that comes to $20 of ill gotten gains. But the speeding ticket will cost me $300, the mandatory court appearance for exceeding 25mph over the speed limit will cost me a half day's pay of $320 and getting and fixing the mandatory suspension of my drivers license will probably cost another $800.
Eeek. I'd rather disgorge all my ill-gotten gains for each time they actually catch me, paying my $20 fine with a smile.
If convicted by the European antitrust authorities, Microsoft could appeal the case to a real court (the European Court of Justice), which actually has a recent history of reversing commisioner Monti's decisions.
You raise some good points, I'd just like to add something: A country has the right to issue restrictions against foreign companies working on their soil. The US actually has prevented European companies from merging (with other European companies) and issued various other restrictions to European companies as well. This is pretty routine stuff. I don't particularly think this will affect EU-US relations in general. The trade people go their own way, and in fact EU trade commisioner Pascal Lamy and US trade representative Robert Zoelick are said to be close private friends (even though they sometimes battle in the political arena).
evidently you don't know what Microsoft has done.
You don't know.
You need to find out.
And I don't think we owe Microsoft anything... I don't think there is a single product of theres that would not have been created by other companies. There is no example, I think, that you can come up with where Microsoft's unique invovlement has led to what we have today.
Microsoft owes it's success to us, the computer industry, not the other way around. Their cavalier, "we are the end all be all, the everything" has earned them well deserved disrespect.
-pyrrho
I find it humorous that people who are, by your definition 'in touch with reality' are the same types who go running to their 'out of touch vi-using friends' to fix their WINDOWS computer when it breaks down. Its interesting how most uncertified teenage unix hacks can figure out (and fix) windows, yet most windows users/CERTIFIED admins break out sweating when faced with a computer without a 'start' menu.
I also think its humorous that most of the servers that contain all that porn and other dreck out there on the net (there mainly for your 'type's' benefit) that you and your 'in touch with reality' friends download, is hosted and routed by machines admined by 'out of touch vi-using' administrators.
I think people will start 'giving a fuck' when they find their computer is rebelling a little too much against the goals they want to accomplish with it (ie pirating music/movies etc). Considering the increasingly draconian design of windows, linux and other alternatives will look all that more tempting.
Get a clue. Since you're bothering to post here, you must have some interest in the subject, so don't tell me "I don't care." If you don't care, go download some more pr0n and/or britney spears mp3s and never visit slashdot again. Maybe you are just afraid that if windows dies off, you'll have to learn a new system? Oh well, c'est la vie. By then they'll all be pretty easy to use, and if you still have trouble, then YOU'LL be the one living in the past.
americans wake up and read non us news already
No, you've missed the point. Microsoft aren't in the "throw a bunch of stuff together with some glue and a GUI skin" business, they're in the "whole widget business" like Apple are. Their objective is to make a single, cohesive product that perform all the basic functions an end-user could want. The only real difference is that Apple's product need an Apple hardware dongle to work.
What Microsoft has done is to unfairly thwart competition by not only bundling software that clearly is outside the problem domain of "Operating Systems" [...]
Define this "domain". Is a shell (graphical or otherwise) part of it ? How about a file manager ? How about a text editor ? How about file compression ? How about a picture viewer ? Movie viewer ? MP3 player ? Web browser ?
Now justify why you said "yes" or "no" to any/all of the above.
Simple fact is, unless you're using the strict academic definition of an OS (which ends at the kernel+hardware drivers and is pretty much worthless to an end user) then what constitutes part of the OS is defined by the customers, and the customers have convincingly voted for bundling in things like shells, web browsers and media viewers.
Where is the option to remove Internet Explorer? Where is the option to remove Windows Media Player? They aren't there [...]
Why should they be ? Why does "using another product" entail "removing the original" ? Do you want to rip khtml out of KDE just to use Mozilla ?
Now reconsider GNU "stuff": any of it can be removed and replaced with other software.
You can do precisely the same thing with bits of Windows as well. Of course, you might break things that are interdependant (eg: the shell uses the IE libraries for rendering), but that's to be expected.
Re-using code and modularity are hallmarks of good software design. Windows is chock full of it. Why should Microsoft be forced to use bad programming practices, just so you can easily get a warm fuzzy feeling that you've completely removed IE just to use Mozilla (you can completely remove IE if you really want, but don't expect to be able to do it without also replacing all the things that depend on it).
Let me first say by saying I'm a big fan of Windows XP. I really love it.
However, there was an issue I had when I first installed it that bothered me a lot. When I first booted, I saw that there were a couple of programs running in the systray. Ok, fine, I'll see what they are and remove them if necessary. One of them was Windows Messenger. No problem, I'll just go into preferences and prevent it from loading on startup. Great! I reboot and it doesn't come up.
End of story? Of course not! I load Outlook Express and like magic, Windows Messenger loads. Huh? Time to search on Google and it seems that the Contacts Pane in Outlook uses Windows Messenger through DCOM to fill in information. Fine, there is a security policy you can set to completely disable Windows Messenger from running. Ok, I set that and now it can't run! I've won!
No, I haven't. Outlook Express now takes a good minute and a half or so to load. Because of the dependancy, it has to wait for a DCOM timeout or some other such nonsense. Back to Google. There is a registry hack that stops Outlook from trying to load Windows Messenger. Ok, after setting a group policy AND messing with the registry, I seem to have stopped Windows Messenger from both loading and messing up my system. (I think I heard later that there is actually a setting in Outlook Express to stop it from loading Windows Messenger and that the registry hack was just forcing that setting).
What if you want to completely remove it? Nope, it ain't under Windows Components to remove. Of course, with a registry hack, it's there and you can remove it. I didn't want to go that far because I'm sure in a year just about everyone will be using Windows Messenger because of Microsoft's behavior.
I have no problem with them bundling whatever they want but the user should be able to remove them or at least easily choose not to use them. Microsoft wants a bigger share of the IM market and it looks like they are going to resort to a rather anti-competative behavior to do so. I really like their operating systems, but sometimes the things they do really bother me.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
.... are the worst you can do. Specially if you are close to retirement, in which case you should have all in bonds or cash.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This is not an artificial separation. The traditional defintion of an OS makes pretty clear that a fscking email client has absolutely no OS related tasks to take care of.
OS control your hardware resources, period.
Does your email client control hardware? Nope.
Does your media player control hardware? Nope.
What about your browser? Nope.
What evidence do I have?
First of all the availability of other options. You can do exactly the same with other pieces of software, thus clearly there is a separation between applications and OS.
Most damning for MS is the fact that all the pieces of software you mentioned were not included with Windows before. There was a time when Windows did not have web browser, email client (when they were so clueless about the Internet that Dear Leader did not see the Internet comming) or media player , first they provided them as a conveneince and now they bury them in the OS claiming that they are vital parts of it. Sorry, but they are insulting my intelligence.
I can accept that they budle stuff in an attempt to keep or increase their profits and market share for their OS, but they are lying when they say that application software is vital for the proper functioning of the OS. That is a load of rubish from both a practical and technical point of view.
Oh yes, bundling smaller apps also hurts others, but at least MS is not claiming that Minesweeper is vital for Windows. Yet.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And funnily enough they are loved and respected in their communities because they provide services, fix the local church, etc.
I am not saying Mr Gates is that bad, the point I am trying to make is that giving to charity does not magically make the way you earn your money cleaner or less accountable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mozilla in Solaris. My MP3 are played normally in a NEX or in my Zaurus, they are processed from CDs I legally own in my Debian machine at home. I have never bought CDs whose copyright is being infringed neither use P2P to download music for which I don't have any right to listen (plenty of free legal music out there).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do you really think Windows better meets the needs of IT infrastructure than Solaris?
I don't know, I'm a programmer, not a sysadmin. As a desktop OS and development environment, my experience is that Windows 2000 is as stable as any UNIX (I've also programmed on Suns and DECs, as well as x86 PC UNIXes and UNIX-like OSes). It does require more reboots after updates since it for some reason refuses to unlink a file name if the file is open (at least by default).
In terms of general SMP scalability, the comparisons I've seen put Windows 2000 slightly ahead of Solaris/x86, which doesn't scale nearly as well as Solaris/Sparc (owing to the deficiencies of the PC platform, not any flaws in Solaris itself).
Based on my experience of Windows 2000 as a desktop OS and development platform, I'd therefore be willing to accept it could be a better server OS in some cases. However, I leave choices like that to the people who get paid to buy and manage servers.
Again, Microsoft's real success is on the desktop. They used that position to sell server licenses, even though their server software isn't all that good. The fact is that Microsoft is a marketing company (aka, sleazy car salesmen). Sun and Oracle are technology companies. There is a difference.
I don't agree with that assessment. Based on published financial data, Microsoft spends much more on R&D than Sun or Oracle. Along with IBM, it's also one of the few technology firms that still spends money on basic research.
I'd certainly agree that Dell, the Compaq side of HP (but not the DEC or HP businesses) and most other PC makers are marketing rather than technology companies, but Intel, Microsoft and IBM are a different story.
A point of reference: investorwords.com says about competitive:
c/f MS profit margins on Windows and Office, draw conclusions.I do disagree, however, with your stated reason for anti-monopoly laws. In the EU case, the issue is that MS, alledgedly a monopoly in the OS and PPA markets, uses bundling and UI bias to extend their monopoly into other areas. This is the kind of behavior that anti-monopoly laws prohibit: misuse of monopoly powers.
OTOH, laws against anticompetitive behavior should address issues like "not allowing any other browser to run". Naturally, these laws should "be the same for everyone".
What do you mean by monopolistic, btw? It does not make any sense to me the way you are using it.
One of the tests is the ability to charge what economists call "monopoly rents" even in a down economy. (Can you say Licensing 6.0?)
Here's a message I found online that says it concisely...
This message is interesting especially in light of statements in Microsoft's recent SEC 10-Q filing. In effect, they are warning investors that in the future they might not be able to charge monopoly rents.
A fact from the antitrust trial is that MS spent $150 million in developing IE. To give it away? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Financed by monopoly rents on other products that have lock-in? This is classic monopoly behavior. See IBM in the 1950's, 60's and 70's.
Is your argument that Microsoft does not have a monopoly? Do you believe we have such a vast array of competitively priced choices offered by a wide landscape of vendors all competing on a level playing field, and therefore Microsoft does not have exclusive control? This sounds more like the hardware market to me, the opposite of what we have with Microsoft. As an aside, Microsoft also has pretty much total control of all of the hardware vendors.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Is your argument that Microsoft does not have a monopoly?
Yes. Try reading those findings of fact. They completely discount Linux and other alternative operating systems. If you don't have exclusive control -- which Microsoft does not; just try looking at all the governments, schools and businesses which are moving away from MS -- then you don't have a monopoly. No matter what a stupid legal system without technical knowledge says.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
That if the United States had an effective judiciary and the means for correcting monopolistic behavior, then perhaps the EU action would have never bubbled up. The EU action is effectively saying "the U.S. has not effectively dealt with the behavior of this multinational corporation.", despite years of court proceedings, consent decrees, etc.
Still, even if the U.S. had dealt rationally with the anti-trust issue for Microsoft, the privacy implications of technology would still be a source of contention, as Europeans seem to be taking this much more seriously than the Americans.
Well, OK, not exactly. Americans are taking privacy issues seriously - they're ignoring the benefits of their constitutional rights to unreasonable search and seizure and passing gems of legislations like the Patriot Act, soon to be followed by the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. These pretty much belong in the same category as the Alien and Sedition Act and will be just as admired centuries from now by historians.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I'm sorry you feel that a Linux distro is "a bunch of stuff [thrown] together with some glue and a GUI skin". Linux is an operating system that emphasizes choice through (fairly) well-defined interfaces, open-standards and open APIs. The "whole widget" is great if you *want* the whole widget -- but if you really only want part of the widget then you are paying for something you don't intend to use. You also are opening yourself up to security risks -- one of the prime tenets of security is to remove (completely) software you are not using or do not want on your system; that way it is not there to bite you later.
On the side, I basically agree with you on Apple. While I do support Apple, the big distinction is that Apple's success is due to Apple's doing; had Microsoft not unfairly hobbled the free market and had Apple ever figured out that the home user cannot afford their prices Apple could be in a different position today. Apple is not perfect by any means -- but they are not a convicted monopolist who have used illegal means to get to their present position. The last statement of my original post stated that part of the reason Microsoft runs into these types of arguments and incenses so many people is because of how they got to be #1; they unfairly manipulated the market to the detriment of the consumer.
Their objective is to make a single, cohesive product that perform all the basic functions an end-user could want.
I think you are casting Microsoft's goals in a more altruistic light than they deserve. Bill Gates goal is the same as it has always been: to make money and to make gobs of it (and he is very good at it).
"Define this "domain"....Now justify why you said "yes" or "no" to any/all of the above."
Obviously, this would take a considerable amount of time, so I'm just going to speak to the heart of your point (as I understand it). Yes, there is overlap between what is an Operating System in the strict sense of the definition and what is an Operating System from the point of view of Joe Sixpack consumer. I think a quick guage would be to ask Joe Sixpack "What operating system do you use?". His response will likely be "Microsoft" (an astute Joe might even say "Microsoft Windows", "Win XP", "Win 2K", etc.). Now say to Joe, "Hey, open this MP3 in [Whatever term Joe used for his OS]". A likely response would be "Which program do I use?". At that point, Joe has made a distinction between the OS and a user-space program; its not perfect, YMMV, etc. but it serves the point that there is a distinction even for most average users (whether they realize it explicitly or not.). I would agree with you that basic shell activities, file management, etc. can be (and probably should be) considered part of the operating system.
As technical hobbyists/professionals on a discussion site with a technical slant, I would assume we could use a more technical definition.
"...the customers have convincingly voted for bundling in things like shells, web browsers and media viewers."
In general, I agree. However, while I agree that the bundling of certain apps (browser, media player, etc.) add value for the customer, that does not make those apps part of the operating system. They are still separate apps and should be removable (if the user desires). Keep in mind that in my original post, I wasn't really taking issue with bundling -- its the commingling that is the problem.
As to whether or not users have "convincingly voted" for this: How can you vote when you only have one choice (from Joe Sixpack's point of view -- until Apple lowers their prices and/or Linux gains more mindshare, Joe is gonna get a Wintel machine)? As a result of Microsoft's antitrust activities, Microsoft operating systems overwhelmingly dominate the desktop. Many manufacturers will not even offer you anything else (if you buy complete systems instead of building from scratch).
Why should they be ? Why does "using another product" entail "removing the original" ? Do you want to rip khtml out of KDE just to use Mozilla ?
Why? Security for one. If I'm using a Microsoft machine, I'll probably improve my "survivability" just by removing Outlook and IE. But I can't without detrimental harm to what remains because they are commingled with the OS. If you aren't using it, get it off your system.
As far as khtml goes: I'm not sure; I use Gnome. I also, to the best of my knowledge, have a minimum set of browsers installed: Mozilla for graphical browsing, w3m for text-based browsing and whatever other browsers are strictly required to support other applications I have chosen to install. If I decide to uninstall those "other" applications, I expect them to take their browsers with them.
Of course, you might break things that are interdependant (eg: the shell uses the IE libraries for rendering), but that's to be expected.
No. That *shouldn't* be expected. If I remove a web-browser, it should not cause my system to become unusable. If I remove a Mail User Agent, it should not cause my system to become unusable. This is not acceptable.
Re-using code and modularity are hallmarks of good software design.
So are loose-coupling and tight-cohesion. Something is hardly "modular" if it is not also loosely coupled and tightly cohesive. This is where Microsoft's engineering fails but its business strategy succeeds -- the engineers at Microsoft are too intelligent to not be doing this in accordance with either a) momentum so great that it is too costly or time-consuming to stop and fix it now or b) a corporate strategy that emphasizes market share across a wide array of markets.
If Microsoft were really interested in code reuse, they would have well-defined shared libraries and not wired in applications. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to remove Internet Explorer or any other application; I don't mind having/using shared library (that's reuse) but I do mind being forced to keep tools known to be primary vectors for virus/worm propagation on my system because Microsoft's definition of "reuse" and "modularity" view the entire operating system with a host of user space programs as a single module that is so interdependent that to remove one aspect of it is to break the rest.
Why should Microsoft be forced to use bad programming practices, just so you can easily...
No one forced Microsoft to tightly couple their applications.
Its not *just* about "a warm fuzzy feeling". It could also be about security and/or disk space (it may be cheap for corporations, but I still don't have $100.00 laying around to buy more disk space!). I'm sure there are other reasons, but those two come immediately to mind.
The solution here is simple - if you don't want "the whole widget", don't buy Windows (or a Mac).
Despite the FUD that is liberally spread, there has never, *ever* been a point in time since cloning began where it was impossible to buy a PC sans OS.
You also are opening yourself up to security risks -- one of the prime tenets of security is to remove (completely) software you are not using or do not want on your system; that way it is not there to bite you later.
I agree in principle, but like most principles it is unworkable in practice for anyone not very tech-inclined.
Tell me, do you rip every single library out of your linux boxes that isn't used ? How about the parts of the libraries (say glibc) that none of your installed programs use ?
[...]had Microsoft not unfairly hobbled the free market [...] they unfairly manipulated the market to the detriment of the consumer.
Yes, well. Personally I remain unconvinced this "hobbling" had much at all to do with Microsoft's success. The past is littered with stupid activities by competitors that more than sealed their fates. Similarly, you'd have to work very hard to convince me it was "to the detriment of the consumer" and not just normal capitalistic forces in action. However, that's a whole other discussion.
I think you are casting Microsoft's goals in a more altruistic light than they deserve.
Not really. The overall objective is to make money at all costs, certainly (I believe under US law they *have* to do that ?). But the means to that end, and certainly the goals of the individual units and people within the company, is the creation of a solid, cohesive, "kitchen sink" product. To say the strategic economic decisions made and enforced by management is a direct reflection of the development goals is a bit silly. Everything that's been done wrt bundling/"commingling" things into Windows has just as much "good development" reasoning behind it as "dirty tricks" reasoning.
His response will likely be "Microsoft" (an astute Joe might even say "Microsoft Windows", "Win XP", "Win 2K", etc.). Now say to Joe, "Hey, open this MP3 in [Whatever term Joe used for his OS]". A likely response would be "Which program do I use?".
Firstly, I suspect most people would not even know what an OS is, and those that had some idea would respond "Windows". Secondly, if "Joe" even realises that one uses a "program" to "open" an MP3 (let alone is capable of naming it), then the whole interface has failed in its job.
Most end users I know (eg: my mother) would not know what an OS is (she does know she has "Windows", but that's it) and she doesn't use "programs" to "open files", she double-clicks them (occasionally described as "opening") them in Explorer and they magically open in whatever program is supposed to handle them.
Most importantly, this is the way it *should* be. I realise there are a lot of people who don't agree that the whole concept of "program" shouldn't even exist, but for the "just want it to work" end users, it's really what we should be striving for. All a user should know is about "opening objects" - that is uses a program and exactly *what* that program is should be completely transparent.
I would agree with you that basic shell activities, file management, etc. can be (and probably should be) considered part of the operating system.
The trouble is what that encompasses is completely subjective. *I* believe that things like text editors, picture viewers and media players should come bundled with the package - not to mention an email client (ever used a Unix box that didn't have "mail" - or an equivalent - included ?) and a web browser. Why ? Because today these really are basic functions that should be available "out of the box".
OTOH, a hardcore Unix veteran might consider everything except that basic file utilities (ls, cp etc) and a CLI shell to be superfluous.
As technical hobbyists/professionals on a discussion site with a technical slant, I would assume we could use a more technical definition.
You cannot make a meaningful disctinction between what is "part of the OS" and what isn't, without using the academic definition (which is practically useless) because everyone has a different idea as to what is an essential part of the base system. That's just the way it is. Even amongst the "technical users" on /., I'd predict a massive difference of opinion.
In general, I agree. However, while I agree that the bundling of certain apps (browser, media player, etc.) add value for the customer, that does not make those apps part of the operating system. They are still separate apps and should be removable (if the user desires).
They are removable. You can delete the executables with no ill effects at all. Of course, that's because the executables are just wrappers around the services provided by bundled "libraries".
As to whether or not users have "convincingly voted" for this: [...]
I've yet to here anyone complain about all the extra software they get with their systems. Similarly, the lack of interest in system that *don't* offer all this wonderful bundled and "commingled" stuff should be a strong indicator.
But I can't without detrimental harm to what remains because they are commingled with the OS.
Actually you can't because the services the underlying bits provide are significantly reused throughout various different parts of Windows. You *could* remove them in theory, but you'd also have to remove anything that depended on them (just as in any other system).
You can't remove bits of a system and expect other bits that rely on them to work. This applies _everywhere_.
No. That *shouldn't* be expected. If I remove a web-browser, it should not cause my system to become unusable.
If you remove just the web browser (iexplore.exe) the system won't become unusable. However, if you remove the underlying libraries that IE uses to do its work, and that *are* significantly reuser throughout the OS, then it certainly *will* become unusable. This is to be expected and, to my mind, quite acceptable.
If Microsoft were really interested in code reuse, they would have well-defined shared libraries and not wired in applications.
What makes you think they *don't* ?
There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to remove Internet Explorer or any other application; [...]
You can - just delete the executable.
As I've said before. The primary complaint here seems to be "it's not a point and drool operation and it should be" (why ?), because it's certainly *possible*.
Oh, and just to pre-empt the usual "you're just a Microsoft shill that's never used anything but Windows" that these sort of discussions usually devolve to, I'm a Unix sysadmin and spend most of my day sitting in front of a Mac. The only Wintel box I own at the moment is used for playing games.
It's unfortunate that you had to add this part in. I understand why you did (because, unfortunately, you are probably correct) but up until this statement, I was really enjoying the discussion we've been having. This statement was like a strike in the face.
We've got differences of opinion but neither one of us had reacted in any manner other than professional and I had no reason to believe that it would proceed in any other manner.
If I get a chance, I'll take another look at your response and see if I have anything of value to add. For the record, had things desolved into name-calling, I'd just have let the conversation drop -- I post infrequently and have little use for conversations with no merit in them (i.e. flame-fests, name-calling, etc.).
I was actually aiming it more at someone dropping into the discussion, rather than you.
> The DOJ findings, IIRC, only stated that OEMs couldn't change the default Windows desktop.
...
I was refering to findings 213-229 (no changing boot sequence and limitations on desktop/start menu). They weren't prevented from installing the additional software per-se, but it was made intentionally difficult for an OEM to set up a machine such that non-MS applications were defaulted for the user.
> Everyone here seems to miss the point that for the *vast majority* of consumers
While I will agree with you that the mom and pop (M&P) users want a kitchen sink, and that this is what they perceive windows to be, this lets microsoft basically declare any application to be "part of the OS". What this leads to is that Microsoft can tie in any product they feel like, and get paid in advance for it as part of the OS price. This means there is no incentive for anyone to compete against these applications (seen as free by the M&Ps) and so there is no incentive to improve these products - no market force competition.
Unfortunately, since Microsoft have such a dominant position in the marketplace as to be an effective monopoly (finding 33). This means that Microsoft cannot use it's position to force purchase of additional products as a condition for purchase of the Windows product. The argument that every minor application they produce is part of the OS is therefore disingenious in this respect.
Look at the Dell website. It's seemingly quite possible for the M&Ps to be offered (and cope with) a choice of pre-installed software: window versions, a choice of office versions - why can't there be a choice media kit (containing a browser, IM, and media player)? The current answer is because contractually Microsoft would charge Dell more per copy of windows if they offered it.