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.
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.
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
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.
You're delusional if you think it's just the Republicans. The Dems are just as if not more guilty of it. Al Gore is on Apple's board of directors for christs sake. I'm so sick of the partisanship these days, you honestly think power hungry people i.e. politicians are ever innocent of pandering and profiteering? They ALL do it equally. John Kerry is the richest man to ever grace the senate, he's married to Teresa HEINZ Kerry, you know, the ketchup chick. They have billions, none of it he EARNED. He married the widow of a rich ketchup producer. I mean come on dude, do you not see the total BS you're dishing out?
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.
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.
More specifically, the Bush administration removed the lawyers most experienced with monopolies at the DoJ from the case before the official settlements were signed. Junior lawyers were assigned to work the trial. Right about that time Lawrence Lessig was removed as independant council from the case by the judge without any explanation. It didn't get enough press, but there's no doubt that the Bush administration had a huge impact on the end of the trial and settlement.
Developers: We can use your help.
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
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
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.
Travelling off-topic, but this year's election IS nothing more than Bush/Not Bush. I propose a nationwide electoral change that puts "None of the Above" on EVERY ballot. If that is the majority, all original offerings are scrapped, and each 'party' on the ballot can offer a new person for that position (within 30 days). All losers would be eliminated from consideration. Days 31-60 would be nation-wide debates, and the vote would be on day 61. Continue until "NOTA" is not the winner. Since the term-limit for a sitting prez is 10 total years, they can be lame-duck until the election is over.
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."
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)
It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota.
If there were such an actual quota, why would this be bad? Maybe people have actual reasons to dislike Microsoft. Are all anti-Microsoft articles, or discussion forums to be banned? The anti-Open Source people seem to have their own forums for "open and honest discussion", where there is no room for rebuttal. Or is any valid article about Microsoft that is not glowingly positive a "Microsoft bashing" article?
Along with the pointless Shared Source article earlier intended to generate endless OSS vs. Shared Source comparisons
What is wrong with such comparisons? What is wrong with endless discussion about the relative merits? The discussion does not take away anyone's freedom to choose.
Some people believe that Shared Source is a viral license that represents a real danger to Open Source, and to any commercial developer who might become vastly successful.
Why should such discussion not take place?
mixed in with the occasional vaporware jokes and basless government insults
Very few jokes are not at someone's expense. Go check out any source of commedy. Lots of people, organizations and yes, the government are routinely insulted. Why should Slashdot be any different? Is it somehow deeply offensive that jokes are made at Microsoft's expense? I'm sure if you look around, you might find a more suitable forum where jokes are routinely made about Open Source or its related people.
Jokes about the government may be political or not. Even when non-political, we enjoy the freedom to make endless jokes about the government. (There isn't even a quota or upper limit!)
Facts, objectivity, and a real sense of humor have no place here.
Objectivity is often very subjective. So is a sense of humor.
Slashdot has many differing points of view. Also differing senses of humor. There are rational reasonable people who bash Microsoft. And the government. Both with well reasoned and thought out points of view.
And there isn't a quota. Plenty of slashdot days go buy with serious Microsoft/government bashing withdrawal.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
When faced with these sorts of forced splits, it is always useful to consider Fisher's Deduction:
"The more issues a person tries crudely shoehorn down into an artificial liberal/conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that ther person is an American."
It's not 100%, but it is surprisingly accurate surprisingly often.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts