Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?
A lot of people don't agree with the EU anti-trust, personally I think the EU is succeeding where the US anti-trust cases failed, they are actually punishing M$, hopefully, Microsoft will learn a lesson this time around.....I doubt they will though.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
"Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision"
Well duh.
I'm sorry but MS calls what the do interoperability? It's more like "make the other guy make it work and then break it occasonaly" honestly.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Sure, they were designed to interoperate. They just weren't documented. Or not documented well.
Anything can interoperate with any other as long as the protocols are documented and those documents are made available.
Developers: We can use your help.
I can't imagine Microsoft appealing to anyone... ;)
We need open standards. We need interoperability. However, closed standards, proprietary formats, and DRM all serve to preserve marketshare by those owning the technology and serve to lock out any competition. Bid on a project and you can propose vendor A version 2000 or vendor A version 2003 or vendora A version XP.... Now that is competition, right?
Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace
:-)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society. If they don't want to be treated as criminals then they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
They may be attempting to appeal that decision, however for the fact remains that it's not their success that has them up in the dock, it's their illegal behaviour.
Specifically for abusing their monopoly position to the detriment of the market - adminttedly the monoply does show they were successful but that entire argument is a fallacy.
the Commission's demands threaten Microsoft's intellectual-property rights.
What intellectual property rights ? The EU Commision didn't ask for the source code (copyright), and software patents have no legal value in Europe...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
When will Microsoft be defeated by the EU?
* From 1 to 6 months
* From 6 months to a year
* From 1 to 2 years
* From 2 and 5 years
* More than 5 years
* When CowboyNeal says it will
Place your bets, gentlemen. Place your bets.
MS' idea of 'interoperate' is 'works when such functionality suits us, and not a moment before or after'. Personally, I hope the EU does what the U.S. Gummit should have done in the first place...
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
EXACTLY. They are "successful" at the expense of the public which makes them harmful.
Cockroaches are "successful." Rats are "successful." Microsoft is "successful."
(wasn't that clever of me to associate cockroaches and rats with microsoft?)
If Microsoft is appealing on flagarantly fraudulant grounds that lie somewhere between making false statements to a court of law, deceptive advertising, and wilful abuse of the appeals system, then the EU should seriously examine if the law would allow them to increase the fine. Doubling it would seem suitable.
This needs to be settled, once and for all, in a way that is fair but decisive.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What objective standard do you intend to use? How much is 'too much'? Who gets to decide?
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players? I think they're hitting way more home runs than they need to.
If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line for government or anyone to step in because 'success' has been too great.
At least with the oil companies example, people can (falsely) argue that gas is 'owned by everyone' and therefore has a 'public responsibility'. With your arguement, the ideas of Microsoft and their labor is 'owned by everybody' and therefore subject to limiting restrictions as someone sees fit.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Not just Microsoft. Change the subject and pretend it was the subject all along. I've had a lot of conversations where I've had this done to me. Then there's the whole "Wondering why you're so upset for" bit, done here as "We shouldn't be penalized for being successful".
Just who decides when a company is successful enough? You? People just like you? And, where is the incentive for starting a company if some group can say "You're too successful, we're bringing you down!" ? I'm all for ethical business practices, but placing artificial constraints on the success of a business strikes me as extreme-left punishment for simply being the alpha-business in a particular industry.
Microsoft uses Ireland as a base to filter billions of dollars every year (Through a wholly owned obscure subsidiary), through a solicitors office in Dublin. That office controls all license revenue from Asia, Europe and Africa. On average they contribute $50 per person per year to Irish economy, with our low corporation tax rates. The EU has FULL legislative power over this, what represents a huge chunk, if not more than 50% of MSFT's business, so unlike South Korea, Microsoft could not just leave (like they threatened to move to Canada), as most of their Intellectual Property rights are based here in Ireland. The E.U. probably holds the most power over Microsoft then any legislator in the world, its all whether they are bman enough to make Microsoft pay for their crimes.....
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
The best thing is both blaster and slammer had fixes released well before the worms hit.
It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.
And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.
If I owned a farm and had a bumper crop of corn one year, should I be penalized for being successful? What if I have ten farmers, all working cooperatively? What is the demarcation line for government or anyone to step in because 'success' has been too great.
The government might well decide to have a look at your business practices... If you owned a farm and attempted to buy out, intimidate, and crush your rival farmers, if you then locked down the distribution market with illegal contracts to make it very difficult for competitors to gain a foothold. Just as Microsoft has done in the software market.
A perfectly free market would be a perfectly amoral market.
See here where you tried to claim ownership of TCP/IP hrough the tried and
tested method of co-mingling functionality er
But that's just the EU's way of showing it's displeasure that it's not an European company in that position, they have no other way of flexing anything other than trying to make a big stink about the evil American Microsoft...
But Microsoft are NOT in trouble for being successful - they're in trouble for HOW they achieved their success. Remember, they're a convicted illegal monopolist. They have used market domination in one field to unfairly leverage dominance in others, at the total expense of innovation and consumer benefit.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
That really is fantastic (in both senses). Microsoft have seriously outdone themselves with that one. An upside-down toilet would be technologically innovative and about as much use as one of their communication protocols. At least it made me smile.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
There's an objective standard of market concentration. It was used by the U. S. Department of Justice to enforce antitrust laws until Bush came in.
Computer viruses are like AIDS, not colds - you have to do something stupid/irresponsible/etc to get them, just being exposed generally isn't a problem. I mean, it doesn't apply to 100% of viruses, but not opening that freeporn.html.exe attachment would prevent 99% of what's out there.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I think they're making way more money than they need to. Just like gas companies. Being successful
doesn't make it right.
Comments like yours are the ones that the 'other side' love. Someone who doesn't have the slightest
grasp as to what is going on and makes comments that lead everyone else to believe that you don't have
a grasp on capitalism. The simple fact that a company makes a lot of money doesn't make them bad or
mean that restrictions should be placed on them. The company makes what the market permits, supply
and demand. It's not up to you to say 'they are making too much money', there's no such thing as too
much money (legally).
You're probably one of those people that think the rich should be taxed to death for the simple fact
that they have more money. "You make 1 million dollars a year.. I think we should tax you to death so
you only take on 50k a year!... that is fair in my warped concept of fair".
* Now, to be fair... you may very well have grasp on the facts, in fact I hope you do. Your comment
alone is what I find rediculous, however you'll prolly get mod'd up as 'insightful' based on this
crowd.
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft's sure not appealing to me!
get whipped (you know you like it)
You are another that is side stepping the issue with Microsoft. You can spout your version of capatalist/free-market retoric that grounds itself in the theories of capatalist/free-market economics and ignores the need for certain restraints to make those theories work. Your brand of economics endorses bullying and lawlessness as admirable qualities. Microsoft's success is rooted in immoral, unethical, and even illegal practices. Just because they are "successful" does not justify them being allowed to do what they please. Following your line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, organized crime should be lauded for their "success".
1. They have integrated IE so tight into Windows that removing it will cause Windows to break down.
Who gives a duck? Netscape is dead anyway.
2. They charge more than necessary for their products.
No problem, a coupon day or a few vouchers will be enough to clean this.
3. They abuse their market position and control the info on how to use the APIs to fight competition off.
Well, just document the APIs.
MS: Nah, that's a lot of work. Here is the source code, we hope it will give competitors a better idea than thousands of manual pages on how to improve interoperability with our applications. However, they will not be able to use this information without licensing it from us first.
Is there a way to get something from MS without having to pay twice for it?
crewing with those who wish to communicate with your operating system via your protocols is all part of INNOVATION! Abusing your monopoly position is all part of INNOVATION! Poor long suffering Microsoft, the Jesus of Software, so maligned by so many.
I don't think your, Jesus analogy will hold because Jesus' disciples were men of peace and unlike some of the people at Microsoft they would never have thrown chairs at the faithful.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
the eu just loves to take forever, that's part of what makes its gravytrain so appealing to so many that work within it.
The gist of the original comment is that too much success is bad, and behind every great fortune there is a great crime, therefore too much success=criminal activity and 'the people' should punish the successful company. Sorry, I don't buy into that theory. Businesses are free, within the confines of the law, to be as brutal as they need to be in order to out-compete their competition.
I agree. Success and ethics are not one and the same. Also keep in mind America is NOT a free market economy in any sense of the word. Government regulations protect businesses to an incredible degree these days, in order to counter balance that they MUST step in when a company over steps their bounds.
Others have said it I will re-iterate, Microsoft knew the rules, they are not secret, and they willingly and blatantly broke them. They bought politicians (I witnessed this first hand working on a campaign so don't tell me it did not happen) in order to reduce/eliminate their US anti-trust lawsuit penalties and it worked. That is UNETHICAL and NOT free-market behavior. That is ILLIGAL and IMMORAL. They SHOULD be punished and I for one am glad the EU seems to have the balls to do what the US could not.
And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.
Uh, Linux and OS X didn't need to be patched to fix RPC exploit worms that rebooted two-thirds of the world's computers, or database server worms that gave SQL Server the dubious distinction of being the platform for the fastest spreading worm in history. It's not foolish to say OS X and Linux have not needed such patches; it's truthful.
There are plenty more holes in Windows that aren't patched yet, most of them in IE, and most of them critical.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good.
They're not punishing them for being good. They're punishing them for not allowing interoperability with their monopoly platform, thereby preventing competing alternatives. When the world's computers are over 90% Microsoft-controlled, that changes things.
"Sufferin' succotash."
You won't hear any arguement from me that the average linux user is more computer savy than the typical Windows user. I will argue tht the average Mac user isn't any more computer savy than the average Windows user though.
I 100% agree that if Joe Consumer wasn't an idiot wanting his pr0n fix, the world would be a lot better place.
My primary home system is a Windows XP Sp2 box dual booting with Vista. Neither has AV on it, neither has any anti-spyware software on it, because I'm not a computer idiot and know safe and unsafe things to do, and I also keep my computer up to date.
I guess my main issue is with the Linux or Mac folks love to toss stones at Microsoft when a patch is relased or what not, but those Linux people are running the latest kernels with all the goodies, and the OS X folks paid 129 bucks time and time again to make sure they have the latest and greatest, not to mention downloading 30-40 MB security rollups without batting an eye claiming Apple was first to market with an Autoupdate feature without realizing Microsoft has been there for a long long time...
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - how would I get new programs? What if I didn't know how to get other programs? What If I just wanted to use WMA and IE?
Now, Microsoft has used terrible methods of making themselves the best. They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor. But there are two things to remember here: Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing, Microsoft's just better at it; and Microsoft is rarely on trial for being unscrupulous (most of it is illegal, but not all).
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
How many Microsoft fanbois are going to use the strawman argument that Microsoft is being "punished for being successful?"
They're not being punished for being successful. The EU didn't say, "Hmm, Microsoft is being successful, let's fine them for that."
The issue is the lack of interoperability documentation with their monopoly platform, which prevents competition from Microsoft's own server products, furthering Microsoft's monopoly. There are laws against that because it's the antithesis of a free market.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
It is very disturbing that you think that the need to browse the web and play media files by definition means a computer must have IE and WMP.
It's not about a company shipping Windows without IE or WMP. It's about a computer company being able to ship Windows with Firefox and iTunes.
Your message has shown just how badly needed the EU case really is, because Microsoft has managed to befuddle people just like you into thinking a choice that is not Microsoft is no choice at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is, at least partially. Microsoft had (have?) a habit of releasing 'new features' with security patches. This meant that the security patches needed careful testing before deployment, since the new features often came free with new bugs that could break existing software. For most other operating systems, the security updates are just that; security updates. If you install a security update for OS X/FreeBSD/whatever, the only things that it should break are programs that made use of the insecurity that is fixed (and you probably want these to break, rather than being exploited, anyway). On Windows, it can be a game of Russian Roulette to patch a running server.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
No, but Linux and MacOS X have had to be patched for other reasons, some serious, some not. Just like Windows.
The damn SQL worm had a fix for I believe six full months before the worm hit. Not to mention, if the administrators of said SQL boxes followed STANDARD SECURITY PRACTICES, the worm would have had no impact at all.
There are plenty of holes in Linux and MacOS X too, some of them in browsers, some of them in other places, some of them critical, some of them not so critical. Just what point was it you were trying to make...
everybody becomes richer under capitalism. The rich just slightly faster. If you doubt that, look at the kind of shit happening where the state rules supreme.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
please define what monopoly means to you. Everybody seems to be entitled to make up what words mean these days, I just want to be certain.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Rant
Your argument is absolutely flawed. You're saying capitalism isn't flawed because totalierians make a lot of money. Lets stick up this man. He's made of straw. He's get a big t-shirt called totaliterian. He's baddddddd. He's got horns on his head. Lets burn him and be glad we're not him.
Analysis
Now on to the real analysis, you are saying the rich are just getting richer over the poor. In relative terms, lets say the rich (those that have $ to invest) are investing with returns of 10%. Cut off inflation, lets say 4% for arguments sake. That leaves the rich guy making 6% wealth increase over time. The poor guy who is 'just subsisting' makes 4% off inflation over the same period so they're wealth improvement at 0% increase over the period.
(Note: Yes, no taxation numbers were calculated in this. If you really want to prove the disparity increase is less, then use real-world numbers on inflation/investment returns as well. Just assume taxes were calculated before the investment numbers)
So, the average rate of return for rich/poor over a year is 6%:0% If in 17 years of that average (10% investment, 4% inflation) growth, the rich guy index has grown 2:1, while the poor-guy index has grown 1:1 making the disparity between the two twice as dramatic as it was 17 years ago.
Proportionately, the rich get richer and the poor stay the same. Inflation may provide some added benefit to the poor, but it doesn't 'balance' the rich equation.
Don't get me started on the whole 'ownership society' concept.
Bye!
The idea is you don't punish the good for being the good. That's like saying, why don't we ban the New York Yankees from baseball because they have the most talented players?
Absolutely right.
The crime here is the means by which success is achieved. In other words: We would ban the New York Yankees if it turned out they only win because they're all doping as hell.
Antitrust law is like doping rules: There are things you can do that make you stronger and faster, but they're not allowed because both sports and free markets only work if the competition is fair.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is exactly the problem. They said:
MS Windows server ===== works with ======> non-MS server OS
They did not say
non-MS OS ====== works with ========> MS Windows server
...and that is exactly the problem that they are being sued for
Don't be fooled by the doublespeak.- Paul
Except that many vendors SHIP the computer with alternate players, configurations, browsers, and such.
Great, but the original point was that the user needs a computer with a browser and a media player. Why are you blinded into thinking windows MUST ship with IE and WMP - even if other choices are also shipped? Why is the choice NOT to ship with that pair just as valid as shipping with Firefox and iTunes?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Browsing to 0wned websites with IE on anything other than XP SP2 will allow that 0wned website to put whatever it likes on your PC unless you're tech-savvy enough to know to change the default behaviour. That is most assuredly Microsoft's fault since they have given any scumbag a wide open door to any PC that doesn't have a well-read admin (that would be most of them). Now if you nerds would go wash and actually meet ordinary people occasionally you'd know that not being computer-savvy in no way makes you stupid, and since Microsoft has done its level best to hide any scary complexity from its users without actually making anything secure until it got too ludicrous to ignore the problems any longer, and given that this is the largest software company in the world who can and do give their users whatever they feel like releasing, it's an absolute scandal that it took until 2003 to fix some very obvious flaws.
God I hate holier than thou IT assholes, I know so many bright people who freeze in front of a computer, and I've met some utter dumbasses who think that because they know the bash shell that they're some kind of god. Lose weight, get some dress sense, wash every day and take some lessons in social skills for god sake.
Um, this only stopped (other than SP2 for XP and SP1 for 2003, which was clearly announced well ahead of time) way back in SP1 for Windows 2000 Server (July 31, 2000)...
My only problem with your comment is that rats (domesticated ones at least) are very intelligent, resourceful, and cute. Not the revolting scum that Microsoft has let itself become. They're more on the order of Tapeworms, parasitic, souless beings with only the purpose to feed off you for its own survival.
I happen to know of a certain lab at Microsoft. In this lab they try to find ways to:
a) Configure Windows boxes in ways which BREAK Linux and other Open Source os's interoperability.
b) Create subtle changes to Windows protocols which keep Windows boxes moving fast, but slow down things like Samba.
They are not friends of Open Source.
Google is being very successful, but they haven't been assholes about it, so people in general don't have their underwear all wadded up trying to knock Google down a couple of notches.
But Microsoft has acted like one major bully. On one hand, they use the law (or whatever other means they can that are "legal" to beat their competitors/perceived enemies down. When the tables are finally turned on them, they cry foul.
Imagine your school days, when the biggest prick in the school was the star player of one of the Big Sports (in the US, that would be football, basketball or baseball). He did what he wanted, essentially, and no one would/could stand up to him. Teachers realized how well-connected his parents were to the rest of the school administration, the teams were pretty successful and high-profile for the community, and his friends tended to be taken care of outside of school.
Finally, a student or teacher has enough of this dickhead, and he's failed in a class for cheating, the week before a major game. The coach (who is no fine specimen of civil humanity himself) appeals to the teacher to "change his mind", first casually, but as the teacher holds his ground, the pressure starts to get nasty. Initially, the school administrators support the teacher, until somewhere along the way a rumor is created that the teacher enjoys a few kinky activities in his spare time, or the kid starts dating the daughter of the head of the school board, or the principal is remined of the benefits he enjoys at the school could easily be taken away, anyways, you get the idea.
So a couple of days before the Big Game, the teacher finally relents and the dickhead's grade is reevaluated, and he barely passes and gets to play in the Big Game.
Or, for those who can remember that long ago, remember when BillG was busted in Bellevue one night for speeding, and the cop had the balls to write him up a ticket for not having proof of insurance? Guess what happened after that? The cop was fired a couple of months after for having a "poor work record". Funny thing was, he had been a cop for quite a few years, and up to then he'd had good job evaluations...
But at least BillG and SteveB aren't in the same league as Andrew Carnegie, Pullman, and others from that era. As far as we know, no one has directly died as the result of trying to throw the shit back onto Microsoft (well, except for that one guy who tried to fight Microsoft when they were arguing that NT4.0 had met some difficult NSA/NIST security classification that he'd worked successfully on for NT 3.51, when the wording of the specifications was clear that NT 4.0 should probably have been reevaluated...).
As much as I don't like Paul Allen right now as a vulture...venture... capitalist (selling off TechTV, running Portland Trailblazers into the ground far worse than George Argyros or Jeff Smulyan tried to do with the Mariners, or even the owner of teh LA Clippers had been doing to that team up until this season), if the stories about him around when he left Microsoft are true, then at least he still has *some* character in him. Can't say the same for BillG or SteveB.
As much as Microsoft as a corporation is just an amoral entity, its soul and basic character come from the people who run it, just like any other corporation.
The bigger question is why do they need to protect the protocols and APIs? _IF_ their product is superior, who would use anything else? If someone made software that could communicate with Windows clients/servers (Samba makes a good example), and Windows is still better, few if any people would use Samba, and hence it would cease to exist.
So the question becomes- are they artificially making themselves the only player when something better is likely to arrise. The answer is probably a yes.
Releasing protocols shouldn't hurt their market share if they're the top player and have the best product and keep their product good. Now if they don't have the best product, but are keeping players out of the market by hording information, then an anti-trust suit is in order... oh wait...
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
between Microsoft's repeated appeals of the EU's case and flouting the law as it wishes? In practical terms anyway. Pay $2M /day fine until you fix this. No. Pay $2M / day until you fix this. I'll see your refusal of our appeal andraise you a new one.
No, but when they can skew the market through governmental interference to maintain that cashflow into their coffers, *THAT* is where things start to be fucked up and the market is no longer free.
.0001% of what you made last year, Bill..."
As far as the tax thing goes, what cheeses most people is the perception that even though BillG may have a tax bill of $100,000, that there are ways he can offset or even negate a lot of that tax burden or create other ways so that that $100K is about 1% or 0% of his net income for the year.
BillG: "But I paid $100,000 to the US Treasury!"
TheRestOfUs: "But it was about
Or, like when I lived in Lake County, IL. My property tax bill on a $200,000 house was around $11,000/yr (Grayslake, IL). But a $1.5 million house in Lake Forest had property taxes of $15,000, and people in Lake Forest were bitching about how their schools didn't have enough $$$...
If I have to pay about 35-45%/yr in taxes, so should BillG.
Look to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604110 33758760 for what microsoft said in recent filings.
Reading those filings, Microsoft is saying "... but the users will have educated themselves on what our routines are doing, we shouldn't have to explain in OUR documentation."
The best thing is both blaster and slammer had fixes released well before the worms hit.
...for some versions of Windows that allowed most software to work on those versions.
RPC should never have been running and exposed on a desktop OS in the first place. Basically no services should be running and exposed on a default install of a desktop OS.
It's most assuredly not Microsoft's fault that people don't patch.
For the most part I agree, but MS has a pretty awful track record of issuing patches that break things and change other parts of the system, unrelated to the security hole. They also have a pretty unmanageable system of patches, which often leaves even seasoned admins wondering what patches in what order need to be installed for a given set of functionality to work.
And any fool who says Linux or MacOS X don't need to be patched, are just that, fools.
Of course every OS will have bugs that should be patched. That does not mean every OS is likely to have trivial remote exploits granting full access as often as it does not. It also does not imply that they make the same, basic architectural mistakes that lead to such a preponderance of vulnerabilities. No one with a clue would argue that Windows takes security seriously or even that it manages to do it as well as the average OS. Sorry, it's just the facts of life.
So is the computer you bought 10 years ago just as powerful as the one you could buy today for the same money?
Is the Model T an equal car to what you get today for the same work*hours?
Products are, generally speaking, improving at the same price or staying the same but decreasing in price. That's the part where everybody gets richer. Or if you prefer, the part where you don't need to worry about mass-starvation and can actually employ people to make up fancy wealth-distribution statistics.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
I don't know that GNU/Linux distributions are immune from that problem. I'm using Debian; as far as I know, I can either use incredibly out-of-date packages in Debian Stable, or use Unstable or Testing and get a huge number of (potentially breaking but usually at least interface-changing) package updates along with any security fix. This annoys me and makes me less likely to upgrade.
And just as much as server maintainers don't patch, it's people on their desktops.
(I could be wrong with my characterisation of GNU/Linux as being either out-of-date+stable or reasonably-recent+changing. If I am, I'd like not to be.)
Look out!
Oh yes, I'm sure the EU officials will be very pleased to hear yet another attempt of the "The name's Microsoft, we are just a bunch of idiots who don't remember what they have been told last week, let alone last year" variety...
Go, Microsoft, go (har, har).
Walter.
And of course, I have no problems being given life lessons by someone with a /. number that's eight hundred thousand below mine. I'll be sure to lose some weight, as clearly my near-anorexic appearance is holding back my social life.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Yeah, what you're explaining is inflation. If something costs more, prices inflate. If something costs less, it deflates. In general, when the average citizen pays more for basic living essentials, the economy infates hence the inflation number which deducts from the rich and subsists the poor. As explained in the last paragraph, the quality of living will go up for the poor, but they aren't proportionately in a better position as the rich are.
Bye!
The WWW is not the internet, and would not exist without the internet.. at least not in it's present form.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
The problem with the car anology isn't that it's about taking parts from one car and putting them into another, it's about two different cars using the same road. Just because Dodge makes the Ram truck doesn't mean that it's impossible to drive it on the same roads as a Honda Accord would. The actual inner workings of the vehicles may be different enough where you can't swap parts between them, but that doesn't mean you must drive down a special lane specific to your manufacturer while heading to work, or suffer dire consequences. The standards aren't in how the parts interact, but in how they work as a whole along side other systems.
Mainly because Linux and OS X - combined - still only represent around 1 in every 20-odd computers.
Even a "perfect storm" of Linux or OS X worms wouldn't have anything close to the impact of a relatively low-key Windows worm. There's simply not enough machines running either of them out there for it to spread especially fast or hit especially hard.
There have been *serious* flaws in OS X and Linux that have been patched since their release (more for Linux, obviously, since it's been around longer). Don't kid yourself otherwise. The reason these flaws have little noticable impact is because, relatively speaking, OS X and Linux have next to zero internet presence.
Try dropping a completely unpatched, default install of Redhat 7.x, 8.x or 9.x on a fast internet connection and see how long it lasts.
Sure it is. That's what we Europians do: wait for a company to become successfull and then we drag it through courts so we can get a cut of the money.
[/sarcasm]
And the US DOJ does the exact same thing! They wait for successful business men to emerge and then ambush their success!
[/sarcasm]
Does Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ring any bells?
Listen, liking microsoft or their products is not a bad thing, but there is a whole world out there wanting to make a living on software and microsoft is using their position to make sure that, when they are playing, only they have a chance. This is what the courts in the US, the EU and apparently South Korea have ruled against microsoft. You can paint it anyway you want so it will fit in to your point of view, but the fact that MS violates anti-trust laws has been decided in a court of law more than one time already throughout the world. The fine they are asked to pay can in no way be called extortion. Unless I can call the fine I am asked to pay for speeding extortion, because I disagree with the court's ruling.
Grandparent post knows nothing about how the law works. Details of why microsoft is treated like this can be found searching for "microsoft monopoly" on google. First result:
The landmark ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. This document describes accurately why microsoft is ruled a monopoly, addresses all the straw man arguements often posted of "microsoft not holding 100% market share, therefor is not a monopoly" and so on and so forth... If you have the time, read about it. It beats posting emotion driving posts that leads to flamewars, without posting any facts to back it up...
Now if you nerds would go wash and actually meet ordinary people occasionally you'd know that not being computer-savvy in no way makes you stupid. [...] Lose weight, get some dress sense, wash every day and take some lessons in social skills for god sake.
And maybe if you followed your own preaching, you'd take some lessons in social skills and avoid labelling computer-savvy people as fat, dirty, badly-dressed single men. Grand mastery of social skills indeed, talk about holier-than-thou attitude...
This post is awesome.
Followup: when I said GranParent post, I was thinking Original Post. Sorry about that. While I agree with the system the original post has in mind, this is simply not the case. What he is talking about is a political/economical change of how things work today. This is another discussion and not one microsoft should be judged by. Microsoft can and is judged by current laws and is found guilty...
Hopefully the net effect of the EU action is that, indeed, the Microsoft-only protocols and interop information will become freely available, something that will have a positive effect on the US market as well.
So quit complaining that he big bad EU is taking away the MS toys and get yourselves an administration that actively helps in creating a free market instead of working towards a new aristocracy of untouchables.
If you are running a production server, you will track the -RELEASE branch, and get any security updates you need, but nothing that will break the system. You should track the -STABLE branch on a non-production system, to ensure that your applications are tested fully on what will become the next release, and only run -CURRENT if you are a developer (or someone interested in filing a lot of bug reports).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
> And, where is the incentive for starting a company if some group can say "You're too successful, we're bringing you down!"
Boy, did you make this comment in the full intention of publishing the Dumbest Comment Of The Year?
Listen, there are about 0.00005% of all companies which earn more than $100000000/year (a possible very coarse definition of "too successful"). Yet most other companies that are not as wildly fortunate as those are doing just fine despite not earning such obscene amounts of money, thank you very much (you *can* persist as a company doing only $100k/year, after all).
Talking about a non-incentive to *even start* a company based on such a thing as "termination if too successful" is just very stupid.
How do you find The US's own Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling not fair, or not objective? Anti-trust laws exist, and microsoft's legal team knows about them. They are the ones that should have steared microsoft in another direction as they were gaining a monopoly position. If you don't want to believe it was microsoft's intention to break the law, then point at their lawyers for not protecting them from doing so. But microsoft's actions in repeatedly crossing the border of legality, dictates otherwise.
Anti-trust laws exist in Europe also and any EU bias can not interfere with justice. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if you have any, that this is the case. Such evidence would help microsoft's case alot also. It is not a question of unfair laws, as it is a question of over-sized corporations having the money and thus the power to ruin the market in their favor. The EU has the obligation to protect its market, as did the US a couple of years ago. I would be interested if you pointed out how exactly Judge Jackson was wrong in his rulings after you actually read them. I don't think you believe that He was also biased against microsoft, in any way, do you?
Until then, I can only reject your post as unfair and and misinformed.
One of the three companies you mentioned is a monoply, the others are not.
Things are different for a monopoly, that's just the way it is. It's to protect other software makers and allow resellers of the product to make choices of thier own.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Don't abuse my family, friends and work colleagues if you don't want me to get abusive in return. The problems with Windows are Microsoft's fault, not theirs, and I notice you've completely avoided addressing my point about their poor design decisions and skipped to the blame the user position again. My Slashdot user number is irrelevant, I was in IT for a very long time and obviously I've been reading tech web sites for information and hints. Doesn't mean I haven't lived a very full life. Plus giving shit to dorks like you is entertaining.