Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Longhorn Faces Antitrust Scrutiny
benore writes "The Department of Justice
will be reviewing Microsoft's Longhorn product as part of the company's antitrust settlement. One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler. 'They don't want people to hate them anymore. They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."
So, now, instead of hating them for being the monopolistic, evil, brutish and cruel giant that we all like to think of them, they want us to praise them for their strides forward in the fields of Digital Rights Management, ever-retreating deadlines and anti-crapware stance.
I, for one, welcome our new (helpful) overlords...
--- Egads, I glow in the dark!
"They don't want people to hate them anymore"
Remember, it's down the road, not across the street. Make it count.
That's gonna be a hard thing to do... The name of the settlement says it all, "Antitrust", Trust can be broken in a second, but can take years to build back up... If even that. Besides I don't buy that crap, when did M$ learn anything from their mistakes before?
One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Does this mean that the next version of IE will be built directly into the new OS, as with XP, ME etc? I sincerely hope not, as I am not looking forward to further years of routine tech maintenance on my friend's PCs due to this integration.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Oh great, there is another monopoly called Mircosoft?
One monopoly, we could handle... but this is just ridiculous...
All third-party browsers e.g. Firefox and media players e.g. Quicktime ask whether you wish to make them the default when they are opened for the first time. So what is a control panel supposed to achieve ? The effort for the user is in the downloading and installing of the third-party software.
The DOJ should be instead insisting that Microsoft bundle third-party alternatives with the OS not just providing a control panel.
Funtage Factor: Purple
I have to use linux at work as a developer.
it has its good sides and its bad sides. so has windows. some tools are better on linux, some on windows.
but the main advantage on linux is that at least, there is some adherence to standards. most of the protocols are open, and you are basically free to do with it what you want.
if microsoft wants to be 'not hated', they had better start sharing information and decoupling olexpress, media player and iexplorer from windows.
i think that the OS market is a bit like fine sand in their hands: the more you try to hold onto it by force, the faster it slips away.
Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support, linux is becoming a feasible alternative for businesses, and microsoft is scared as hell of that.
i bet that we will start seeing more huggy type marketing as longhorn nears its release.
'review' a product that hasn't been released yet?
...
And why is the Yahoo article writer so keen to get opinions from that twit of an analyst Laura DiDio? I'm sure someone else here will point out her lovely work defending SCO
Finally, why the hell do I care about this? Oh yeah, that's it: because every single one of my clients continues to use MS. Arrgh.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
I went to Linux, loathed it, went to FreeBSD, liked it, and finally got a Mac.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I admit I 'hate' Microsoft even though their products are useful and enjoyable enough to use now. But their aggressive business style and the (successful) way they lock consumers/industries into using only their products as well as forced upgrades, unfriendly software and malware intrusions has now left such a bad taste in my mouth that I've been wanting to turn my back on *anything* Microsoft related for a couple of years now.
Mac mini arriving will allow me to eagerly switch from MS's world to that of Apple Macs and Unix/Linux OSs and tools. Over the next couple of years I plan to seriously limit my MS use to that of 'as and when needed', and will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen (friends/family/businesses/schools)!
-zahg
strenghtens the fact that Microsoft is the devil!!
One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler. 'They don't want people to hate them anymore. They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."
Yes, renaming the company is a good, first step.
Dunno if that croatian naming touch will get them very far though...
Probably don't want to have to rebuy all their corporate "M$" branded coffee mugs, calendars and Mercedes-Benz's...
I don't think MS should underestimated about learning from their mistakes, they've done it before (both of them). It's also something FOSS circles should be concerned about, because a more humble MS could reduce the amount of interest in the alternatives.
I believe that the arrogant and hostile attitude of MS has been the number one reason corporations and governments have been looking for alternatives, not for example the arquable quality and price of their products. If we for example look at the EU sanctions concerning Media player, I find it hard to believe that anybody was interested in MS hurting the "media player industry" or that there's something wrong with OS including a media player. More likely the EU just wanted to show that they have the political will to confront MS if they don't get the co-operation they want.
Actually most of XP's security problems with RPC, default services in listening state etc. all came from win2k. 98se was a brick wall (remotely) after you dissabled netbios. You could run "netstat -a" and get 0 results, try that on XP, 2K, or even Linux.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
As a Texan I'd like to catch and rope that Longhorn, kill it and roast it slow over a nice camp fire while discussing the latest Linux and BSD news with my friends.
Windows ME needed to exist for the same reason that all other MS products exist. For $$$. But, on an optomistic note, while I only used it because 2k wouldn't run on my defected Asus system, I found ME to be MUCH more stable than 98. Also, installing hardware and software was much easier.
And about the XP UI, am I the only one who immidiatly changes it to the "Classic View"? Supposidly MS spent a ton of time and money looking at user efficiency when they designed the UI for XP, but I just don't see it. Am I the only one?
One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Great. We have government "experts" who think the choice of media player really important and they aren't even looking at the whole Trusted Computing initiative and the monopolistic implications thereof.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler. 'They don't want people to hate them anymore.'
Does that include changing their name to Mircosoft?
A government that uses closed-source, proprietary software is not an independent government. A company that uses closed-source, proprietary software is not an independent company.
Yes, Microsoft is abusive, and will remain abusive until its abusive leaders are gone, but that is not the point. The point is that you should not pay someone to keep secrets from you.
Sigh. And since I use Windows at home and at work, I am not a free man? Even if I chose to use Windows.
The owls are not what they seem
The DOJ has no balls unless they are dealing with individual people and MS isn't people so its business as usual.
If the DOJ had a clue they would have split up MFST into two+ companies that each had an OS and had to compete with each other. And the company with Word would be competing with the company that had Excel and they wouldn't be allowed to talk to each other except via a public blog. And most of the game divisions would all now be working for different companies.
But the current DOJ people never bothered to look at the Standard Oil case or were bought off.
The reason you almost never get 0 results with "netstat -a" in Linux is that it lists Unix Sockets in addition to Network (TCP&UPD) Sockets which are used by X11, your systemlogger and other programs but are strictly local.
Linux is not Windows
At home you have far greater security that comes from the fact that no one cares what you are doing with your computer.
Remember the Vietnam war? The U.S. government killed more than 2,000,000 people, none of whom threatened the U.S. directly. Since then, the U.S. government has killed at least 1,000,000 more who did not threaten the U.S. directly. (Most people in the U.S. find these facts so painful that they refuse to learn about why they occurred.)
Don't think that a government that spends an almost endless amount of money on war-making capability suddenly becomes moral when considering invading the computers of foreign governments or companies.
You could run "netstat -a" and get 0 results, try that on XP, 2K, or even Linux.
Oh well, just another ignorant reference, and amateur trial of useless comparison with Linux. You obviously never heard of xinetd, did you.
There are many thousands of Linux boxes out there which run dozens of services internally or intranet-ally which you couldn't ever access or even know they are available on that remote box.
That said, you're right.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
It's a funny irony that as Linux has grown, simply because of Microsofts attitude, that Billy and Steve have become almost obsessed with Linux. that they have in my eyes ended up looking like silly cartoon villians.
I'll get you next time Linux! just you wait!
Microsoft's early mission statement was "A computer on every desk, running Microsoft software".
Their current mission statement is: "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."
Before October 2002, it was "To empower people through great software -- any time, any place, and on any device."
The early mission satement was far better, and more representative of how they actully do business. If you were an employee, which statement gives you the most clear goals? If you were an investor, which company's stock would you buy? Of course, there's no mention of integrity, quality, ethics, but nevermind that...
Back to the topic, has anyone seen any real changes in behavior (not just some analyst saying they want to be nicer)?
Mac mini arriving will allow me to eagerly switch from MS's world to that of Apple Macs
I've always found it quite interesting that people choose to switch from MS products to Apple products. Apple is quite possibly the most restrictive company of the three. They don't only lock you in with their software, but they lock you in with hardware as well! They force high hardware prices on people because there are no alternatives (although many mac zealots, suprisingly, love to defend the high profit margins Apple pulls in for hardware). Their software practices just as much lock-in and integration as MS. Yes you can run unix apps on OSX, but you can do the same in Windows. Don't kid yourself, if Apple had the market share of MS, they'd be slapped with a massive anti-trust lawsuit too.
If you are leaving MS on principle, move to Linux. A fantastic, full-featured OS, with none of the capitalist 'dirtyness' to marr it.
Not so much the smallness, more the seperateness. They would still be 3 very large companies, but they wouldn't cover the whole market individually.
Office and Windows are cash cows used to subsidise entry into all other markets. If this free cash is withdrawn (due to office and windows being in seperate companies than the rest), then the other microsoft stuff has to compete on something approaching a level playing field.
If Office is not obliged to lock people into Windows it would (possibly) have more interest in being more cross platform. Anyway, the main aim is to break the vertical relationship with the Windows OS. This will allow better competition in both the OS and Office markets, though I have to say I would expect Office to continue to dominate. Windows less surely so as it would run the risk of becoming a comodity without all the other microsoft stuff tied closely to it, and we are approaching a change in the way computers are architected (more parallelism, less Hz), though with 95% of the desktop market it's obviously in a strong starting position.
Here's what I'd have liked to see:
.Net. Then just say, "Look, our stuff runs on OS X and that Linux thing! Mono!" At least they'll still be selling copies of Office.
Windows XP Professional, at the Home price, shipping with SP2 preinstalled. The product also includes MS Antispyware and MS Antivirus with free updates for the life of Windows XP.
The default install comes locked down - firewall on, IE security cranked up to High, Messenger and other unnecessary services turned off, user accounts are by default Users and not Administrators.
There is no nagging about associating your Windows account with your Passport, and IE will cleanly uninstall with no complaints. Explorer does not treat you like an idiot and lets you navigate into any folder you choose without having to opt in.
Then I would say that Windows is OKAY. So, maybe these antitrust guys can keep Microsoft on its toes and get them to produce an OKAY Windows.
Great insurance against future antitrust stuff: port Office to
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Longhorn is scheduled for release in 2006.
Cracks me up every time.
All your Sybase are belong to us.
The only people who thinks it was Microsoft who brought cheap PC to the market is those who have no knowledge of computers whatsoever. The PC became cheap because the open standard that let anyone do a clone without expensive patents and copyrights standing in the way except for the bios. The competition that enabled was what drove the PC price from 8000$ down to todays prices.
Software had absolutely nothing to do with the price. Infact the price of software hasnt fallen much at all. Go figure.
HTTP/1.1 400
Products aside, MS had built a reputation of intimidation. The Dept.of Justice should have broken the OEM contracts. That would have leveled the playing field a whole lot quicker. As long as they have OEM's at their mercy they'll remain a monopoly. Yes, OEM's have a choice in the outset but what are they to do? I dislike MS more for their "business" practices than their OS's.
Yes, but that would be rather a lousy way to run a business, now wouldn't it? Maybe, if there weren't any competition, Microsoft could break compatibility every few months but that's theoretical.
I haven't had any Windows compatibility problems in the past and if I ever do I'm perfectly willing to upgrade. I don't understand why paying for a version upgrade is such an anathema. After all, Microsoft is not billing you for the service packs and patches you can download.
To me dropping Windows completely is not an option even if I wanted to do so. At home I want to be able to play games and at work I work I have to deal with MS Office documents. No, OpenOffice does not import/export documents properly.
Now, don't make a mistake. I am running Linux on my home "media server" and I've been running Linux and BSD variants since 1992. I am just pissed off at the kind of self-righteous false dichotomies offered by some people like the parent poster. The world is not black and white. It is not "you're either for free software or you're against it". His reasons - like those of RMS - for pushing free software are political, not practical, and I will not have any part in such shenanigans.
The owls are not what they seem