Slashdot Mirror
US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn
skrysakj writes "CNN/Money has a new article describing the close eye the Feds have on Longhorn and its compliance with the anti-trust settlement. I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement. Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?" The longer Washington Post piece has more information.
From the article:
[The feds are monitoring Longhorn] to make sure it is not presented with a "fait accompli" version of the software that would be difficult to change.
The feds don't want Longhorn to be difficult to change. They are making sure they catch any violations before it is unreasonably difficult for Microsoft to change the software to fix those violations.
"Preceded by itself yields falsehood" preceded by itself yields falsehood.
I keep an eye on the court/DOJ/MS interaction for my web site (yes, shameless plug). The federal court requests a periodic (usually quarterly) update on Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. It covers a variety of ground, but usually no specific products. For example, it explains how many more customers (yeah! one!) have signed up for licensing their newly "open" protocols. Basically, the court checks on stuff covered directly (explicitly) in the settlement.
So it's not unusual to see them checking in and meeting with Microsoft. The real problem is the leniency and broad interpretation of the settlement itself. I'm not too surprised to see Longhorn getting a better look, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft's plans are forced to change much.
Developers: We can use your help.
'1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"'
Where did you get that? The only thing that I read about 'difficult to change' was this:
'...the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change.'
In other words, the government wants to watch Microsoft's development, so that, in 2 years, MS can't show up with a 'final' version of the OS which is in gross violation, and then say, "Oh, but it's so hard to change now that we're done." That's basically what MS did with the Internet Explorer integration- they got it nice and stuck in the OS, and then said, "Oh, but we can't take it out! That would be impossible! If only we had known ahead of time that you wouldn't like it, we wouldn't have put it in, but now, what's done is done! We can't undo it!"
...which, of course, is BS, but it's what Microsoft claims, and the government doesn't want a repeat.
1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"
Well actually:
" Renata Hesse, the Justice Department lawyer in charge of monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, told a federal judge yesterday that the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change."
That is to say, they don't want to be told that its already done, and this is it, and it is too late to make the changes that would allow us to be legally in compliance.
That doesn't mean that it can't be configured or customized. Rather, it means that it shouldn't be designed so that it can't be customized.
Remember how this all got started:
Eventually, federal courts determined that several of Microsoft's business practices broke antitrust laws and were designed to protect its operating-system monopoly. Although the courts found that commingling of the browser code with the operating system was anti-competitive, the deal with the Justice Department stopped short of forcing the company to decouple the programs. Instead, the settlement gives computer makers and users the ability to mask the presence of certain Microsoft applications if they want to use or showcase competing programs. The Justice Department is particularly concerned that this mandate be followed in Longhorn."
Maybe I'm too old and cynical...'
Not 'too cynical', you're not cynical enough. Politicians are in the business of obtaining power, staying in power, and always pulling more power into themselves. If you think it's just Republicans who aren't interested in the 'little guy', then you're being naive.
In fact, I'll let you in on a secret, in case you really don't know. Behind closed doors, Republican and Democrat Politicians are the SAME. Yes, they argue and name-call in public, they back-bite and back-stab in their grab for power, but they also sit around patting each other on the back on how well they've screwed-over the 'little guy'.
It's like professional wrestling. They have little pretend-fights as a show, and then they're friends behind-the-scenes. It's all aimed at keeping you so busy worrying about whether the Republicans or Democrats are in office, that they keep you from noticing that neither party is any good, neither should be running the government, and they're both fundimentally the same.
And, FYI, all of those environmental issues Democrats use to scare you (like "If you elect Republicans, they'll burn down all the plants in the world!") are just scare tactics. They like to introduce a bill to save the rainforest, get a bunch of support, and then sacrifice it to the Republican side in order to pass their own pork. And, oh, yeah... The whole "Consititutional ammendments" to ban abortion and gay marraiges, same thing.