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.
Why this is kinda bad for the operating system:
:-)
1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"
This means it will be difficult for people to mod their Longhorn OS and reap rewards from having a custom system, beyond what the OS offers by default (like the ability to hide certain MS apps in favour of your own fare). Microsoft is being forced to be inflexible to some extent, and that means bad news for customers of the software giant. Bugs will be harder to fix, updates will be slower, response to threats even slower. This will be the repeated excuse while many suffer the wrath of virus programmers abound.
2. Justice Department lawyers would visit Microsoft's headquarters next week to discuss a variety of antitrust compliance issues
Okay, they're going to spend a week at Microsoft. How is that going to solve anything or be effective at all? They'll have a bunch of meetings over Shrimp and Wine coolers, get liquored up and talk about golf.
3. When the government is involved in any project, it's subject to major setbacks, not to mention built in spyware.
These three reasons will force many to the Linux model of computing. Yay!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
They should put the Department of Homeland Security on it too. You know, for securities sake.
I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement.
Well, if the Republicans win the house/senate/whitehouse again, you can bet this won't go anywhere.
However if the Democrats win at least some of those (esp. the Whitehous) you might see at least a bit more attention from the Justice dept.
You'll recall that after the Bush admin took over the settlement between the govmt and M$ was pretty much turned into a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft, which has delayed Longhorn's rollout, has not said when it will be released as the successor to Windows XP, the current version of the personal-computer operating system. Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire. - Washington Post Since Longhorn will be distributed after the terms of the antitrust agreement expire they can do whatever the hell they want. They can show one thing when in reality they mean to implement another. I am not saying thats what they are going to do, its just a possibility.
Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but this just seems like political hijinx, which the "news" organizations will pick up and report, will keep the people happy who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig deeper into the details of this enforcement, but will ultimately hurt us all in the long run. I can't see the government caring beyond it making a nice sound-bite in tonight's news.
I'm just waiting for the revolution.
Longhorn will be expected to deliver phenomenally in terms of 1. Security 2. UI 3. "Seamless" integration of internet/multimedia tool. It is, however, this precise policy of "integration", or rather, forcing users to go with MS software, which is the bee in Microsoft's bonnet. Recent technology previews of mozilla firefox and thunderbird, along with other web content software (shareware as well as open source) are much better in terms of performance than the existing stuff from the MS stable. LongHorn will have to outperform in more ways than one to battle Linux as well as opensource
Probably because it'll come bundled with a complete government, so you won't need the on in Washington DC, state capitol, etc.
Those guys up in Redmond are so thoughtful, but what happens when the first security hole is found?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota. Along with the pointless Shared Source article earlier intended to generate endless OSS vs. Shared Source comparisons, the entire point of this article is to have endless antitrust discussion that has already been had countless times before, mixed in with the occasional vaporware jokes and basless government insults (like yours...they'd get liquored up and discuss golf? Get real).
But hey, this is Slashdot. I've already gotten modded down just for making a joke in the Doom 3 article. Facts, objectivity, and a real sense of humor have no place here.
No wonder it's taking MS so long to release Longhorn.
From the MSNBC article:
"Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire."
Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?
:-D
Not using it?
Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Longhorn is delayed until just about the time the M$ Antitrust settlement encumbrances ( such as they are) go away.
When the fox gaurds the henhouse, there isn't much need to count the chickens. Whatever happened to anti-trust with balls? A paper tiger is meaningless, and there is nothing that microsoft and company could possibly do that would actually result in real action. Once there was at least enough of a threat to have them work hard at keep Apple afloat, but now with Linux they can act with impunity. If my government won't stop Microsoft, who will?
I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't be able to mod an article as flamebait. :\
:(
It's a legit read, no doubt, but...okay, so the govt is going to be keeping an eye on the OS. Cue the arguement of "yay!" and "aw crap, here comes big brother".
Listen. Right now on a daily basis I interact primarily with 3 OS's:
MacOS X 10.3
FreeBSD 5.2.1
Some outdated version of Red Hat Linux (7.2?)
I wouldn't mind just going around loading any one of the above on every workstation I come across, except for the irony that I work for a Micrsoft Certified Solutions Provider. Heck, we just acheived Gold status last week.
I run the ISP, which has very little interaction with the above. Anymore, I get called in only if it's a bonified networking problem (one your MCSE can't solve. Wait, that's all of them, isn't it?) or to clean off viruses/virii (choose your term) and spyware.
I carry a cd around with me at all times. It has Firefox + adblock + flashblock, Thunderbird, Spybot, PuTTY, and Clamwin. With that combination, at times I spend up to 6 hours cleaning up a single workstation, between installing the above apps, cleaning off the yuckies, and running Windows update.
It's enough to make one's nerves crack. Seriously. Pick your most braindead install of Linux. I couldn't tell you which it is these days. Red Hat used to be it. I want sooooooo badly to just wipe each system, install that, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Wine anything that doesn't have an OSS equivalent. But I can't, because Uncle Bill (tm) wouldn't approve.
Someone shoot me.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
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.
So they're keeping a close eye on Longhorn, eh? The problem with any of these "enforcement" deals is that usually they're reactive. The product will come out, people will cry foul, then Microsoft spends a few years dancing with the justice department all the while the product has already done its corporate damage.
The only real way to keep an eye on them is to have someone actually be involved from the groundwork. Will such and such feature be anti-competition? If so, scrap it before anyone works on it. Otherwise it'll just be IE'ed into the OS and a teary-eyed Ballmer will have to explain to us that taking it out will kill Windows.
Things to watch out for: DRM and the integration of Media Player, the bundled firewall, an MS Anti-virus, and the Dancing Ballmer doing the "Welcome To Windows" tour.
Microsoft will just invent more layers of "Set program access and defaults" interfaces to "accomodate" the government.
The end result to sysadmins and programmers will be more landmines in the code, more virus entry points, and more failure points in general.
Between these and the new security provisions that will break some(?) current software, Longhorn will be a very "interesting" software release.
I think Microsoft is really betting the farm on this one, in more ways than one.
Either that or they will finally find OS utopia and we will all be happy (pause bursts of laughter).
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
I read the shorter article (many words = enemy), and I can't help but wonder how the gov't actually intends on enforcing this issue. Are they really hiring programmers of thier own to look at the code? If not, would the average gov't employee know what he/she is looking at? Even if they were given some sort of a design document (hehhe) would they even be able to determine the true intent or implementation?
I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
It's possible, although highly speculative, that Microsoft will not call Longhorn "Windows" after they make the final decision to not natively support the Win32 API. If they don't support the Windows API, it's no longer Windows, in one sense. Developers will be forced to use .NET if they wish to target Longhorn. (Win32 might be supported by an emulation layer, but it won't be completely native if they go this route).
However, none of this has been completely decided yet, so Longhorn is still Windows. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to change as we approach its release.
Developers: We can use your help.
Input:
US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn
Output:
Bush Administration Seeking Campaign Contributions from Microsoft
Someone shoot me.
You expect sympathy? Appears you like the money. Why not go to an all *nix shop. I doubt Uncle Bill cares where you work.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
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 the Federales can uncover what's causing this little bugger...
Here at work (:-P) I happen to have MS Access running on Windows. MS Access has registered the file extension MAF. There's a Moz extension called MAF that archives web pages, kinda-like-mht-but-supposedly-better, and it saves with extension MAF.
So I save the archives. WhaddyIget? A file, whose extension doesn't show along with the name in explorer (despite that I have it set to show file extensions) with the icon of a shortcut.
Go into folder options->file types, set these files to open in Mozilla. Click apply, ok, close, refresh window, reopen window, reboot Windows, nothing changes. Files still open in Access upon double-click.
You might want to check out some of Kerry's Top Donors.
Also, if you're a fan of the DMCA you'll be pleased to see how high up Time Warner is on the list! But then the kowtowing Democrats do to Hollywood is legendary.
Bush is only slightly better in terms of dollars accepted by Microsoft (at least he's mostly free of media companies). Basically you're going to have to vode Nader - or Perot!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
on April 15 2004, Sun's James Gosling, in response to this article and some "slashdot flamage" from the same author, blogged in More on Sun & Microsoft
This ablity to selectively pick and choose and other "flexabilities" was a detail left out of Sun's press release, and more interestingly, the recent joint status report on Microsoft's complicance with the US DOJ final antitrust judgement.Sorry if you missed my joke, but Dogbert states that if you want something to be a certain way, be sure to enforce the opposite. Therefore by the DOJ enforcing Longhorn to be quick for MS to change, they will get, in result, a system that is impossible to change. It's the law.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
But hey, this is Slashdot. Looks like you got your mod points back, surprisingly.
Anyway, I feel that you picked the wrong article to bash Slashdot on. While I agree that Slashdot occasionally posts articles on unimportant, redundant, or just plain stupid material, this time the article referenced actually has some interesting information.
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
whats "goatse" a codename for?
... hi bingo
That a trick question, isn't it? 11SEP2001 falls into that range. I suspect some folks would answer "no" regardless of who was in office.
I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan.
Besides, if Kerry is elected, what will change (as far as Iraq is concerned)? Kerry only has two choices:
(a) continue the war until Iraqi internal forces can handle the country, or
(b) order immediate troop withdrawal (either total or partial, makes no difference in the long run)
If Kerry chooses (a), then he's just doing what Bush will do if re-elected. If Kerry chooses (b), then Iraq really will become the Official Terrorist Homeland. And while the Democrats will point out that it's Bush's fault, that won't comfort many people when the next round of 9/11 style attacks occur.
Kerry is playing both sides. Last week on NPR, there was some clip with an 8-year-old asking Kerry what he would do about the war in Iraq. What struck me about the exchange was that after Kerry insulted Bush, he refused to answer the question. He spent all the time asking the kid what he would do!
Why should I vote for Kerry if he doesn't even have a plan?
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Hilarious. What will those diligent Longhorn watchers do if they find one a violation? Give Microsoft a slap on the other wrist?
The only result of the entire Microsoft antitrust case was to show just how insignificant the antitrust laws really are.
Huh?
The headline for the story was:
"US Government Keeping a Close eye on Longhorn"
At first I read it as:
"US Government keeping a closed eye on Longhorn"
I thought it was funny.
Get a sense of humor moderators! You'd think you were a bunch of M$ employees or something.
I find it hard to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have authorized the military to invade...
We'll just have to disagree on this one, seeing as it would take a crystal ball to definitively answer.
Oh, and it's not a question if Kerry will or won't stay the course in Iraq. Of course he will;
I'm waiting for Mr. Kerry to tell me that's what he'll do. I've seen enough people screaming for immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences for this to not be an "of course he will" answer.
Because a President is a person, not a plan.
You raise a valid point. But I believe that the President needs a plan.
If you had asked Bush in 1999 what his plan was...
Again, maybe. we'll never know. And again, I didn't see the Clinton administration dealing with the terrorists.
I hope you're right about the Bush/Powell/Rumsfield plan being good.
As far as deficit goes, we recovered from the Cold War deficits of the '80s, so I'm not worried so much about that ... yet. We've already crossed a no-return point. Iraq has to be stabilized before the US pulls out.
I still believe that Bush will be the better President to wrap up Iraq. But if Kerry wins it in November, I pray that he'll have the sense and courage to do the right thing.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
January 1st 2006
MS Ships Longhorn with IE and Media Player as part of the OS.
January 2nd 2006
Slashdot posts links to 100 different articles talking about how the "Feds are looking at MS" and may file another Anti-Trust lawsuit.
January 3rd 2006
Feds file lawsuit.
January 4th 2006
MS Laughs and says "Oh no! lets go to court...AGAIN".
January 1st 2011
5 years later the government wins the case, but by this time Longhorn2K and LonghornXP have already been released - MS now has 328397834972392345 Billion in the bank and continues to ignore the antitrust settlement... again.
January 2nd 2011
Slashdot posts about how the Fed are keeping an eye on MS Windows 20011 or rather OSXI, readers post about how Apple should file a lawsuit...
Ave Molech Setting