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.
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
'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 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.
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.
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
This is gonna sound pedantic, but the name "Antitrust" is derived from monopolistic business cartels at the time that the legislation was written, which were then called "trusts".
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
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!
No offence, but this is offtopic; congratulations on getting modded up to +5 for a post that has almost nothing to do with the article. I don't blame yo, but the sheep-like moderators, modding up anything anti-MS and pro-linux.
Two things I sort of take issue with, though:
as well as forced upgrades
What forced upgrades, how? My company is still using Office 2000, and have not been "forced" to upgrade, despite some clients using Office XP; the documents still open just fine. There are still machines running NT 4; similarly, nothing is forcing us to upgrade them. Sure, support is running out/has run out, but the same is true of older releases of Linux distros. Without a leet C hacker or two on staff, businesses using them are similarly "forced" to upgrade if they wish to have continued support.
will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen
Rather you should be advocating the use of the best tool for the job. If that tool happens to be from MS, then so be it. MS isn't the answer to everything, but then neither is Linux.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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)?
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