Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict
DocHart wrote to mention a BBC article covering Microsoft's appeal against their recent Korean ruling. From the article: "The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite the firm paying Daum $30m in November to end their dispute. The ruling of the KFTC echoes a similar 2004 judgement by the European Commission, which also found that Microsoft was abusing its market domination. Microsoft's rivals have since accused the firm of dragging its feet over unbundling its software in Europe, something Microsoft denies. "
Nothing beats KFC.
Oh wait, KFTC? Carry on, then.
because they arent the underdogs?
At what point does extracting money from Microsoft become state sponsored extortion? Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?
There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for". I suspect all these countries that go after MS still have MASSIVE installed bases of MS software. Are all these fines just a round about way of getting lower license costs?
Just a thought.
- Jasen.
I am by no means a M$ fan, but this ruling seems to have no basis EXCEPT to steal $30 million from M$. That's just like saying that McDonalds should be sued because they bundle salt with their fries.
46487 466780 252994 376409 96920 39622 205366 244315 622115 512361 668040 63608 259203 955314 811176 652718 166330 23922
Because the unbundling can't be done. Believe it or not, some people actually exclude some of their users, relying on the point that microsoft bundled products are on 90% of all systems world wide. same with wmp. This lets microsoft leverage its monopoly to gain market share in other fields like media. Simply anti-competetive.
>
>because they arent the underdogs?
And because in Korea, only old underdogs can bundle an episode of chair-throwing with their opera*WOOF*fling*THUNK*
NO CARRIER
(Have no fear, the guy who'll fucking bury Google is here!)
In Korea, bundled software is only used by old people!
what is so bad about bundling?
Maybe this can refresh your memory.
If Microsoft didn't bundle internet explorer, both IE and Netscape would keep fighting to deliver better, more secure products. It's been 10 years since Windows 95 came out, and viruses have multiplied via internet explorer security flaws.
Daum, that's a lot of cash! ...Sorry. :(
Bundling in and of itself is not a bad thing. Having a monopoly in and of itself is legal. However, when you use your monopoly to gain leverage from bundled products in order to eliminate competition, that is a bad thing; and that is what Microsoft has been found guilty of doing.
what's bad is microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and they have abused their power by bundling their apps that support only their protocols in order to give their protocols extra support they wouldn't have had on their own without microsoft's illegal monopoly practises.
Letting Microsoft keep on bundling apps that they don't allow to be removed is like giving a sniper rifle and some rope to a convicted serial killer who shot all his victims with a sniper rifle and then hung them from trees with rope. Normal people can be trusted with rifles and rope, but not our friendly neighbourhood serial killer.
Microsoft's bundling is all about promoting the one protocol or format that the bundled app supports. Linux's bundling is all about choice (you have twenty or more IM apps for one linux distro, for example. That, and they're still not convicted illegal monopolists). There's bundling, and then there's bundling.
RST
seem too MS friendly to be genuine /. posts
perhaps you are here by mistake?
i don't care
Judging by the revolving release date of Vista, I wouldn't say they're capable of doing the unbundling any faster. Let's face it. That's how long it's taking them to do something that they really really want to get finished...
First, a market controlling position. Second, the unability to unbundle.
.rpms, for which the specs are open and every distributor can implement a routine to make use of them).
No BSD or Linux distro has a similar market domination as Windows. Even RedHat, being one of the key players in the Linux market, has no position to dictate which software is to be "in" the fold and which one is "out". RedHat (and other distributors) also neither offer key software themselves, nor do they set a standard (besides
Also, Linux distris usually come bundled with a variety of options for every kind of application (where available). There are multiple browsers, multiple compilers, multiple word processors, every distribution (at least every distri I know) even offers most if not all competing XWindow systems (Gnome and KDE being the best known amongst them).
MS usually only bundles their own software with its product. I bet they could get a lot of relief by bundling competing media players and browsers.
But even that would not suffice, for the second reason: Their inability to unbundle.
The disputed modules are so tightly weaved into the system that it is not possible to remove them anymore. You simply cannot uninstall the MS Internet Explorer. It is part of the operating system (as odd as it may seem to someone familiar with the theories behind good system design). So part of their dominant position stems from the question "Why should I install another browser if I can't get rid of the other one anyway?"
That's the whole deal behind the complaints of South Korea and the EU. I'm in the EU, and honestly, I couldn't care less if MS is a company from the US.
I use RedHat, despite other (European) distris being available.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And, most importantly, you can choose which pieces you want to install, and only have the ones you want. They're just on the distribution as a courtesy.
There is a difference between saying "here is your OS, and by the way, we've included scads of optional stuff you can install or not as you wish" and the Microsoft position of "here is your OS, we've also given your our media player, conveniently given you links to drive you to MSN and Passport, and given you no way to choose not to install them".
Those components come with the base OS and need to be separately uninstalled, if it can be uninstalled at all.
In the article, they say "Korean customers can easily download rival systems", well, why not put the competitors on equal footing and allow you do download the MS offerings if you want? They defend it as saying that people wouldn't know how, or it's too much hassle; but tout it as a perfectly good way to get the competitors products -- the difference is the competitors don't have the same luxury of shoving the apps down the user's throats when they install the OS.
Meaning they get to ensure that since everyone is going to have their OS, that the user should be presented with their (often crappy) apps first. Want to include 'em in your distribution and make them truly optional components go ahead. Want to make them installed and entrenched from the get go, not a good plan.
If users had to always find and install the apps they needed ( or at least choose them ), they would understand that the defaults provided are neither required, nor always 'best of breed'. When people get the MS stuff by default, they just assume they have to do it.
I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Nothing is wrong with bundling per se. Here is what I see as BIG differences:
Windows
1.) Make all the bundled software themselves.
2.) Closed source (proprietary) bundled software.
3.) Real hard to unbundle the software.
Linux
1.) Chooses "the best" (or just darn good) pick of someone elses software
2.) Bundled software is open source
3.) Real easy to unbundle the software.
...getting away with their anti-competitive practices for a very long time. The World is just now saying "enough!"
But Microsoft being the bully it is won't stop without first taking a beating.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It's not so much that the EU said "MS abuses its monopoly, so they pay XXX $". The EU court decided that MS abuses its monopoly to curb competition and development, and ruled that MS has to stop abusing its position. In case they do not comply with the court's ruling, they have to pay a penalty.
Im my books, companies are corporate bodies, and as such, they have to respect the law. Just like I have to. If I break the law, and am considered guilty, I have to pay a fine.
Why should it be different for corporations?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could you explain exactly how any of this affects the American tax payer?
Fact is this has been going on for a lot longer than the US has been around. Why do you think the Dutch built ships and a shipping empire? To avoid German taxation on lumber. That's right, they built ships and settlements all over the world because the Germans, who produced precious little in terms of European culture or trade, just stood athwart the trade routes.
And while part of it is xenophobia, a good deal of it is taking care of one's own. Face it, if Microsoft is slowed who knows which Korean firms might benefit. And if nothing else, they can extort a little money from a big company. The US Government does it to companies like Philip Morris and Microsoft, why can't Korea?
FWIW, I think Korea has a lot to add culturally on the global scene, as do most countries, especially when compared to the US which is just a mashup of various cultures. Militarily? South Korea is a fine US ally.
But to chalk everything up to anti-US sentiment is just absurd.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
How exactly are the fines that Microsoft pays being passed onto the taxpayer?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You might be able to say that BSD and Linux distros also come bundled with media and communications applications, but the point is that this is free software and many distros usually come pre-installed with many 'competing' applications (multiple browsers, multiple mail clients).
With Windows, Microsoft always bundles one browser and one mail client, and both are made by Microsoft. They never include browsers or mail clients made by their competitors; if they did, other companies wouldn't be dragging them into court so often.
The result is that in the vast majority of all cases, the users will not go looking for any alternatives. They just use the applications that come with Windows, even though these applications are many years old and full of flaws. Therefore, the competition suffers and innovation is stifled.
From a memetic/cultural perspective. South Korean culture is flourishing (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5300970), and many people view Microsoft as floundering and reactionary (they change the name of outlook to match Apple Mail, redo large portins of Vista, and are often percieved as not having the consumers best interest in mind, opposed to Google who says 'lets not be evil' [whatever that means]). The hearts and minds of the people and therefore jurors and judges and beurocrats (unless, of course, it is a conspiracy) are not on Microsofts sides. Perception is everything.
Microsoft will lose this.
MS do not give you a choice whether you want the bundled apps to be installed or not, and in some cases (IE4+, WMP) it's ridiculously hard to remove them due to their tight integration with the OS.
This same tight integration is part of problem security-wise - a small whole in, say, IE can allow someone to gain control of the entire system. Furthermore there are a whole bunch of completely undocumented APIs that MS's apps use and no-one else's can.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
what is so bad about bundling?
Nothing.
every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.
Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain control in another market.... via bundling.
My pics.
The answer is: Expanding monopoly to other markets is illegal. That is what is so bad about bundling. That is why windows can't do the same. Can you name one application that you suspect linux distros are trying to monopolize by bundling? I can name several from Microsoft. When Vista comes out, I can name a few more.
In the general case, it is not true that bundling is always bad. It may be bad in specific cases though. I won't presume to judge here, but I'll draw what I think are the critical distinctions. The examples you cite (linux and bsd) are different, because bundling, say OpenOffice doesn't preclude your getting OpenOffice from someplace else. If Microsoft bundled OpenOffice with Windows, I don't think anyone would complain ;-)
Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Player is not available for other platforms. (2) Microsoft is bundling two of its OWN products together and (3) Microsoft has a desktop monopoly.
I won't work this out in excruciating detail, but the net effect of these distinctions, through a combination of direct and indirect mechanisms, is that consumer choices are limited. Certainly companies attempting to enter the market are deterred. In the linux/bsde cases, it might also be that companies who wish to enter the market are deterred; but it is not the case that consumer choice is reduced. It's an alternative business model.
Right or wrong: it's up to you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My God, when will people get it? Okay one more time...
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC operating area. If you have a product that you want to sell but Microsoft bundles a similar product into its monopoly product it will kill your product. People will use the bundled product just because it's there.
Microsoft typically uses their monopoly position to expand into other, non-related areas. If for example they want to control web browsers they simply bundle (and in this case integrate) their browser into their operating system. Netscape had a big lead in browser development until Microsoft used its monopoly positioned operating system to kill the competition. This violates antitrust laws.
Now they want to control streamed content so guess what? Yep, they're bundling their video viewer. The list goes on and on...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Microsoft bundling, say, Media Player is different for two reasons: (1) Media Player is not available for other platforms. (2) Microsoft is bundling two of its OWN products together and (3) Microsoft has a desktop monopoly.
I forgot (4) A fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Microsoft's bundling is all about promoting the one protocol or format that the bundled app supports.
Interesting that Office is not bundled with Windows.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
"While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally"
Militarily I can understand.
But culturally? Surely, you jest?
I'm not one of those who says the US has no culture, but saying that neither Europe nor Asia can take on the US culturally is quite a statement.
You don't even know what a write-off is, do you?
</Jerry>
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Is MS really that evil that they are breaking laws all over the world illegally using their defacto monopoly?
They were convicted of breaking the law in America.
The court trial in which they were convicted of breaking the law in America never reached the remedy/punishment phase. A new political administration simply quietly terminated the antitrust case with some handwaving before it could complete, with no real-world steps taken to stop Microsoft's existing antitrust violations or prevent them in future.
So Microsoft broke the law in America, was convicted in a court of law, and no one ever did anything to make them stop breaking the law. So is it that surprising that they're breaking the law in the rest of the world as well?
I don't see why Microsoft apologists keep falling back on this talking point of claiming that these fines and such are all about the money. If Microsoft would obey the law, they wouldn't have to pay these fines and settlements and whatnot. The power to end these fines is in Microsoft's hands. Microsoft prefers to pay fines and settlements rather than obey the law. What terrible extortionists these horrible statist states are, making Microsoft pay money until they stop doing illegal things. Who do they think they are? They're almost acting like they think they're autonomous countries with the power to pass and enforce laws within their own borders.
Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Is windows "N" the dominant windows version? Providing the option at the same price does not alter the way MS is anticompetitive. People who will buy windows "N" are the same people that use alternative media players anyway (providing you can find windows N on the shelves, where I live it wasn't). So the damage to microsoft's plan to leverage its monopoly: Zero. The EU was 'outsmarted' on this one. I hope it has people with a clue on board this time. A better plan would be to somehow make MS sell windows N exclusively, or to order MS to make wmp uninstallable. On the current case against MS in the EU: 'Opening up' MS a bit will not only benefit Europe, but the whole world.
Well, I don't know exactly how the GP meant his comment, but assuming he meant it the way I took it, he is somewhat correct :) Not that Europe or Asia don't have equally valid (or more so) cultures, but they have not been nearly as succesful in exporting their cultures to the global market. In the sense of gaining cultural* adoption by others, America is clearly unrivaled. Who doesn't drink Coke, watch Hollywood films, and listen to rock'n'roll?
* for certain debatable definitions of "culture"
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Thanks :)
"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
They were sued for saying that they use ONLY vegtable oil, when in fact, they were adding animal fat. Big difference.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Additionally when you look at the linux/*bsd distros they usually have multiple choices for software, ie you want a video player, you can choice xanim, mplayer, xine you want an IDE eclipse, kdevelop, emacs (which is really everything), glade.
You get choices on what you install and no particular product is promoted over another by the distro, excluding desktops which usually has a default but even there you have the choice on other desktops that you can install.
Microsoft does no such thing they say here you have a media player it is shiny and pretty, when you are installing they keep telling you how great the bundled features are so when you actually finish the install most users are brainwashed and never even consider alternative software.
So to summarise, Linux (as my example) says you want a media player, cool which one here is a list of bundled choices choose whichever one you like.
Windows says ohhh look at the pretty media player we have given you, you shall use it with its new widgets and you will like it, if you try and remove it we will break everything so you have to reinstall so we can try and brain wash you again.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Thanks. That is exactly how I meant it. Take a look at France, and their not allowing government officials to use certain words (e-mail is one funny example). Certain countries think they can "protect" their culture by decree. France is one of the most extreme examples.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
This isn't really news. It's long been clear that Microsoft will fight every ruling against them in Korea or anywhere else using any methods to hand. And if you were sitting on a vast monopoly with gross margins of up to 85 per cent to protect, with captains of industry and heads of government queuing up to kiss your ass, you probably would too.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
I see what you are saying, but this type of stuff is a silly line to draw. And people only do it with microsoft.
Microsoft was trying to improve their operating system by including functionality into the OPERATING system by default. What people call bundling I call integration. This is a distinction made only be software people, and it is really only made by disgruntled software people (IE Netscape, AOL) and states looking for money.
So, in essence, its crap, but because MS was considered a monopoly (also crap) they have a special rulebook to play from.
Oh well, Perhaps I think this way becuase I own a company.
B
I'm sorry I really don't have any real insight to add to the discussion but had to share the mental image I got when I read the headlines: Microsoft To Fight Korean Verdict of Bill in a baggy karate gi fighting a TKD master. It wasn't pretty.
Switch to Linux and never again pay for a service that would be dirt cheap if it weren't run by a bunch of profiteering gluttons.
Microsoft does the same exact thing except more subtly. They say if you are a good water customer we will give you free tires. Subtle yes but just as effective if the goal is to drive the other tire resellers out of bussines. Microsoft clearly has the goal of driving browser makers and media player makers out of bussines. To prevent the more subtle types of abuse many places have laws to prevent "product linking" by a monopoly to prevent them effectly forcing you to buy something you don't want.
I would completely switch to Linux, if Cedega had 100% native support for DirectX.
Blame the user, not the software.
...The KFTC continued to investigate Microsoft's practices, despite th...
For some reason I really want fried chicken.
A piece of software bundled with the defacto monopoly operating system can (and has) destroy the potential market for that type of software.
If you want to learn more about the legal basis for various countries' actions agaist Microsoft, do some Google searches related to anti-trust laws.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
What is illegal about having a monopoly? There is no law (in the US) against having a monopoly. The illegality begins with what you do with the monopoly, not having it.
MS may have killed Netscape, but only by pulling the trigger. Netscape had already shoved the gun barrel down it's own throat.
Yes, but I'm not talking about Netscape's death. I'm talking about MSIE's artificial domination of the market and their most stupid idea (created to "compete" with Netscape's plugins) in the world: ActiveX. The thing was a hacker's dream come true. I still remember the days where you could open an infected webpage, and a vbscript would be created on your harddrive, filling your computer with trash. I tested some of those vulnerabilities myself on a hacker webpage.
Netscape plugins worked JUST FINE, and they didn't give viruses to your computer. Microsoft's rendering engine was a great achievement, but they had to screw up with their proprietary ActiveX controls. And since they were a monopoly, they didn't have to worry about Netscape getting in the way.
But don't talk about Netscape's death so lightly. Netscape mail was the best mail program that was free at the moment (Eudora mail was shareware, it had an expiration date - i only decided to stop using NS Mail when the html mails screwed around with the html engine, and i moved to Yahoo).
And this leads us to another of Microsoft's mistakes: Outlook express, which was *BUNDLED* with Windows, too.
It seemed as if every bundled package in windows (Outlook express, MSIE, WMP, IIS) had a backdoor to be used by blackhats to mess around with our PC's.
ehhm, that's what the GP wrote.
Design a computer with tcp/ip, http, ftp, etc native onboard with a basic interface. It connects and downloads whatever OS you want and installs it without an OS already being onboard beyond the "super bios" skeleton OS there for doing the aforementioned primary OS download. That ends the chicken and egg argument as to having to have one OS already on there to download the OS you really want. No more "Windows tax", no more preloaded PCs unless you order them that way. Everything is bare.
DRM? Fine, put it on there so that OSes that require authenticity of initial downloaded files have it to check themselves on install. Those OSes that don't, can ignore it. No other shenanigans linking the thing to only those OSes (cough, Windows, cough) that rigidly adhere to the dogma that the PC user should be the b*tch of an **AA organization.
We could have done this years ago with a simple thing like QNX onboard and finished all this crap. No muss, no fuss, no tears. Simple, easy, even a Geico caveman could do it.
Need an architecture to allow the formatting? Fine, default to FAT16 and put the primary files needed there, boot to them, they extract and build and reboot and then connect out to whatever secure servers are needed to get the rest, and finish the customer partitions and formats. This is not hard to do people.
Why does this sort of obviousness keep missing people? MS can do f-all about bundling. I don't care. I actually like them to bundle. F knows I DON'T want to have to deal with a mini-VS to compile every frigging Windows app I want to add. I like it being done already. I like having things already bundled compiled on Linux and being able to add whatever later.
Want to open a can of worms? Which serious Linux user ain't been farked by the distro coming by default with code bases that are completely wrong for something we want to use? Like the wrong net-snmp version to use with yapsnmp? Okay, uninstall, remove, reinstall, rebuild, fail that thirteen times, write off certain other things, make do. I never have to deal with this on Windows. No such thing. I'm reasonably certain writing a wrapper to put SNMP functions in Python or any other language would be a lot easier on Windows than on Linux where the slightest change in files totally fouls everything up.
Okay, I've ranted enough. The quick and dirty and ultimately best solution is right in front of us. Make the average personal computer "smart" enough to be able to go get an OS of the user's choice whenever they need. The standards and frameworks are already on the shelf. We would rather not do it in favor of bashing Microsoft and wrapping our Linux using selves in victimhood. Whatever. Not my bag. I have a night of recompiling to get to.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Except this lawsuit is in South Korea and doesn't have anything to do with the Netscape vs. IE bundling case. The complaint South Korea has filed relates to including Windows Messenger as part of Windows, which a South Korean firm named "Daum Communications" claims is impeding their ability to compete in the IM market.
The point is, every country on the planet has some little company which makes a product that competes with something inside Windows. So where do these lawsuits end? These types of verdicts are thinly disguised extortion of a hated American company.
Your argument seems to be, "Well, they were convicted of competing illegally against Netscape in the U.S., therefore all of their other business practices are probably illegal too." In other words, now they are guilty until proven innocent. It's faulty reasoning. Every situation is different.
You keep using the expressions "break the law" and "obey the law" as though the law is clear-cut in these circumstances. Your view of "the law" is incredibly naive: the law is anything but clear here. What exactly do you want Microsoft to do in the Korean case to "Obey the law"? Please explain what *specifically* they must do to be a "law-abiding" company in your eyes, or rather what they are currently doing that is specifically illegal in your view?
The specifics of this case are *very* weak for the Korean government. It's not even clear that Microsoft knew anything about this little company named Daum Communications when Windows Messenger was added. It is a completely different situation to the IE vs. Netscape situation, where Microsoft clearly aimed its strategy at taking out Netscape as a competitive entity. If you don't even know about a competitor or don't even consider them a competitor, how can you be guilty of conspiring against them?
I think you'll find Europe and Asia are becoming a hell of a lot more like the US, than the US is becoming like Europe and Asia (and neither of them like it one bit, from what I can tell - understandably so, too).
It has been a lot of years, but when I worked in a McDonalds in the late 80s, you definitly could get fries without salt. It was a relatively simple process to clear a section of the warmer, wipe it down to remove any salt, and dump a fresh batch of fries into the clean section. We did this several times a day for those that didn't want salt. Mind you, at this time we cooked pancakes to order, as opposed to microwaving pre-cooked pancakes, so things might have changed. Heck back then people would call us liars because they would ask us to put something in the microwave, and couldn't believe that there wasn't one.
Did anybody else misread "KFTC" as "KFC" on first glance? I did, and I wondered why a petty peddler of putrid poultry possessed people to pass prejudice on a purveyor of piss-poor programs...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
i must comment that a 60day trial of office is being bundled with most modern Compaqs
You do, however, remain free not to use them - which is the important part.
You are free to not use them, but you are not free to:
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance. But this is anti-competetive. And this is how microsoft leverages its monopoly. DivX was a great format alot before wmv caught up and arguably it is still better than wmv, yet most DVD players support windows media, because it can surely be played on 90% of the computers on earth. This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me. If something, this is the good thing about an OS you pay for, that you can integrate the cost of licensing technologies in the cost of the system.) In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.
software in a gnu/linux/bsd distribution:
- comes from many different companies and individuals.
- is designed to work using commonly defined system calls.
- is available in its entirety in source code
- tends to change with each new distribution, of which there are hundreds which can be freely downloaded
software installed per default on the microsoft windows operating system however:- is made by one criminal company
- can work using secret, optimised system calls so giving it an innate advantage over software from other companies/individuals
- is not available as source code, so you have no idea what the software actually does
- is part of only one distribution, for which microsoft can stop the support whenever it sees fit
- cannot be freely copied, modified, installed
- is covered by patents
- tends to save per default in file formats which are proprietary and therefore cannot be supported by another software
- tends to only support proprietary file formats
i think the differences are clear.please feel free to continue the list yourself.
howie
Check your facts, a monopoly can very well be legal.
Monopolies
Specificly:
Natural monopoly
Windows:
4.) Tries to promote their protocol over (even better suited) alternatives.
a) Uninstall them.
b) Not be counted as having them as a windows user.
Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.
This lets web developers or media companies assume that 90% of the world have the capability of rendering an IE only page, or playing a wmv file legally, so they can default to microsoft products and not be losing over 10% of their audiance.
Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.
But this is anti-competetive.
No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.
This is a format war, if it was about customer experience, they would ship all the codecs with wmp (like divX) instead of making you search to download it. (And obviously they have the money to pay any license fee, or pass the cost on to me.
No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.
In conclusion, let microsoft bundle anything they want (I would expect a web browser with my OS for example), just give people the choice to _not_ have it on their system if they are not using them.
At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.
Which is of roughly zero relevance to 99% of users. Having app A installed does not stop me using app B that happens to do mostly the same thing.
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox). This just throws the responsibility for compatibility to the web developers, rather than it being microsoft's responsibility to make IE standards compliant. So even if you don't want to realize that alot of businesses just default to IE and forget about standards alltogether, you still have to recognize the amount of work people are doing just to preserve IE compatibility. If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.
Yes, just like they can only write software for Windows and be assured it will work on most computers.
The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about. It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.
No, it's a business decision. Criticise the people writing the web pages/software/media/whatever, if they're not writing it the way you'd prefer.
And I'm judging it as just that, a business decision: In the case of IE, as I pointed out above, you _have_ to code for IE, or else you are surely missing a big audiance. I often send out emails criticizing web developers, but the sad fact is that by having IE in the system by default, microsoft is making their life hard because they _have_ to implement workarounds for IE's shortcomings. Why should they have to be the ones coding out of standards and doing microsoft's job for them? Because some company for some untold reason, will not let IE be uninstalled. Some just irresponsibly decide to code only for IE. Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...
No, they'd ship commonly used codecs (which they do). Divx - outside of DVD ripping - is *not* a commonly used codec.
I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos. I recieve divX files by email with funny videos as much as I recieve wmv files, if not more. DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it. Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft. Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?. Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.
At which point you destroy most of the reason for having it there in the first place - common code reuse.
I keep seeing you post this. I don't think it means what you think it means, unless you have more information than I do. There is no reason you can not uninstall IE without breaking any dependencies. If so, microsoft has really made a monstrosity of code. Keep in m
While neither region is able to take on the US militarily or culturally, then have been very successful about throwing up roardblocks to US business. I know folks in the import/export business... things aren't always very efficient about making it trough customs if it is a US firm.
Apparently you haven't heard of the multitude of protectionist measures the US undertakes.
Ah, but it does matter to businesses that windows users have IE there by default. This way IE defaults to 90% of computers, so you _must_ code for IE (you know they have IE, but you're not sure they have firefox).
No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.
If IE was uninstallable and as non standards compliant as it is today, people could code by standards and the burden would be on MS to fix their archaic browser.
Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.
The difference being the web or the internet in general is not and should not be platform specific as the native code you are talking about.
Why ?
It doesn't make any business sense, let aside ideological reasons. The only business sense about it, is that Microsoft with these anti-competetive moves, makes it a better cost-effective decison to tie stuff with their products.
Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not.
If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.
Same with media. Let wmp be uninstallable, or ship all codecs by default. It would be a better customer experience if I could just play any file they send me as I do in linux, than to have to hunt down codecs...
I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.
Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).
It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.
I don't know what side of the internet you live on, but over here divX is used alot in all sorts of videos.
Nowhere near as many as Quicktime or WMP, in my experience. How many film trailers get distributed in DivX ?
DivX is a fairly popular video format that windows just does not have support for. Just as it doesn't play quicktime movies out of the box. Or is that also not a commonly used codec? It's a political decision and not one based on your satisfaction as a customer, deal with it.
It is a political decision, but it is also a technical one. Developers need a baseline to target. Expecting Microsoft (or any other commercial OS vendor) to provide - and by extension, support - code that isn't theirs and that they have no control over with their OS, is unreasonable.
Quicktime IMHO is and always was a superior format than anything microsoft.
Maybe so, but the atrociousness of the Quicktime player more than makes up for any superiorities it might have.
Remember MS ripping off Apple and reaching a settlement over it?.
I vaguely recall that had something to do with Microoft buying some "video accelleration code" from the same company Apple had acquired it from.
Just as in IE, it doesn't make sense for a business to distribute a divX or a quicktime file, because then 90% of their users need to install the appropriate codec. So it's easier to just distribute a wmv file (or mpeg, but they are lower quality and have bigger file sizes). This is how Windows media, through sane business decisions, gets unfairly popular. Once you let wmp be there by default, the rest are just logical steps businesses will take.
You seem to be arguing that busi
No, you should be able to code for the common denominator that both IE and Firefox support.
.StupidIEWidthHack on this css file from microsoft. This is a good example of basic things IE doesn't do. Anyhow, the point is not coding for the common denominator, but coding by standards and having the browsers be responsible for rendering the content right. I'm not saying you should not test your pages, but the burden today is on the developer to keep IE compatible with the content they want to display. IE is still relevant because it is tied with windows today.
:)
:)
Sure you can. The common denominator is a subset of features on both browsers. If you have tried to develop for IE you'll see it is quite frustrating, while Firefox And Opera are on par with each other more or less. Check out the
Are you saying there is not a single common level of compatibility that both IE and Firefox can hit ? Because I find that difficult to believe.
Again you are missing my point. What I'm saying is that Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror are striving to stick with standards. You'll see that the common denominator for these browsers are quite a big number of features. When you throw IE in there, the number of common features/common way of writing things drops dramatically. The point was that the only reason you are bothering with IE to begin with is because 90% of people _surely_ have it.
Why?
Well, first of all the ideological reasons. What if microsoft drops support for windows or IE tomorrow, yada, yada, yada... But, aside from this, the argument is basically as above. IE is a major player because it is surely on 90% of systems, not because it is a good browser. It is quite restricting. When designing a website your goal is for any customer to be able to see it, even if he is on the net using a *nix system or a mobile browser. So in your analogy, web standards are the 'executable standard' of the net, and you are asking me why it is not ok to exclude the use of the heap. You can but you shouldn't _have_ to.
Or that IE provides functionality - or development abilities - that Firefox (and/or "standards") does not. If IE is either a) easier to target or b) more featureful in useful ways, then targeting IE specifically *does* make sense.
Name some features IE offers that cannot be done with, say, Java.
I've tried the "media experience" in Linux several times. "Hunting down codecs" is usually the *least* painful part of it.
Funny, everything just worked(TM) here.
Microsoft - as with every other vendor - have to provide a baseline level of functionality and capabilities with their OS. Both their customers and developers demand it. Shipping "every codec" is an impractical solution to this problem, since "every codec" is a fast-moving target (and that's completely ignoring any legal implications and/or additional costs).
I demand a DivX codec and a quicktime codec. Alot of people I know, know what nemo's codec pack is. Why should that be? I pay them more than enough for this cost to be integrated in my license.
It's also important to point out here, that what you appear to mean by "make it uninstallable" refers *only* to the player, and not the codecs. If you *are* referring to the codecs, then what you want to do will negatively impact the OS for basically everyone who matters.
Yes, I'm talking about the player only, just as I'm talking about the browser only. With out a browser or a player, an engine or a codec is useless. An alternate engine or codec(s) can be shipped with alternate browsers or players. I'm not against wmv or the IE engine themselves. Sure the IE engine is archaic, but wmv today is actually a good format. It's the unfair and illegal pushing microsoft does for these products I am against. If the market ultimately chooses wmv, I won't be
Yup. This is why we run a $700 billion dollar trade deficit.... no one can get their goods sold in the U.S. Heck, go to Wal-Mark... you'll only find "Made in the USA". Same with Home Depot.... Sears.... a million other places.
If we are protectionist, and run other countries run a $700 billion dollar surplus with us, I'd hate to see what would happen if we opened our shores up.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Perhaps you haven't heard of how the US protects its Sugar and Beef, or how it uses zeroing to illegally tarrif imports.
If the U.S. is as bad or worse than its trading partners, please explain the $700 billion dollar trade deficit. Keep in mind that that is close to $2,500 per man, woman and child (illegal or not) in the U.S.
Also keep in mind that it is not all China. I am not aware of any European country that imports more from us than they export to us.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year