Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the strange-ideas dept.
MsWillow writes "Here's an article on something the states are proposing to do to Microsoft: force them to auction off source code and trademark to Windows. Microsoft could still make *a* Windows, but not *the* Windows. I personally doubt this will happen, but hey, a grrl can hope, can't she? "
Multiple versions of Windows would split market
by
J4
·
· Score: 2
It's true that people would still tend to go with a micros~1 version of windows and theoretically micros~1 could make their new version of windows suffer from the same kinds of interoperability issues they have now, but it would take considerable time to do this and they already have their hands full trying to launch W2K. I tend to doubt that resources would be diverted to accomplish repollution of the code. It would also require getting people to upgrade _again_ to get off the ground. I didn't see in the article just exactly which codebase they would be licensing. I could foresee a compromise situation where the W2K codebase is exempt, after all not on the market. It would be interesting to see how quickly the released codebase became abandoned by MS.
You make an assumption which is sadly naive. I am guessing you are an Onjectivist (I've heard almost the exact speech from others before; all of them were Onjectivists too). All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception. Objectivism's is this: it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.
But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it? Such a man (or woman, I suppose), my friend, are you. I don't blame you for it; Microsoft is very devious. It hides its actions quite well. But I ask you: look over the trial; the obscenity behind the mask of Microsoft is coming to light, slowly but surely. You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry. (By the way, if you've never read The Fountainhead I suggest you don't; it's awful). And what's more, people are finally starting to take notice.
What's the benefit to consumers?
by
maynard
·
· Score: 4
So what if more vendors begin modifying and selling Windows? The issue isn't just Microsoft's monopolistic control over Windows and Office suite software, but their control over proprietary API, network and file formats. Two or more companies selling and developing the same product with interlocking NDA's could still leave us in the same position as before. More vendors selling Windows(tm) does not imply open standards or an end to monopolistic control over desktop software. This "solution" is a red herring which fails to resolve the core issues preventing competition in the desktop marketplace.
I suggest the government force Microsoft to document and release their Windows API, network and file formats to a standardization body like IEEE. Let the world know how to program to these standards while forcing Microsoft to either keep to those standards they created, or update the standards documentation with IEEE every time they make a change. The world doesn't need Microsoft's code, only reasonable documentation.
Settle? I would rather see a MS defeat in court.
by
Ken+Broadfoot
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft may even come up with a perfectly good deal to settle out of court, however I would rather see them lose in court and end up with less than let them wiggle out of trouble again. I can see the quotes now:
"We decided to settle out of court even though we 'knew' we were right and justly had the freedom to innovate, we just decided this would be better for OUR customers... blah blah blah blah.....etc."
Microsoft has been posturing the past two weeks about settling the case with the DoJ and the 19 states. They actually put forth a proposal to the states, and will be talking to the DoJ on Tuesday. According to some new sources, the proposal to the states is woefully inadequate.
In the grand scheme of things, what the states are doing is countering MS's offer with one that must be totally repulsive to MS. After all, MS offering was most likely equally repulsive to the states. This is called negotiating a settlement.
MS has been sitting pretty since the trial recess as their stock price has steadily gone up because of the talk of a settlement. The best way to remove the smug smile from someone is to kick him in the nuts.
Businesses don't have the same rights as people. The Constitution doesn't say "We the businesses"
Let me see if I've got this straight. First, we are all born as "people," and given the rights typically given to "people." At some point in our lives we decide to interact with our fellow human beings. As soon as that happens, we cease to become "people" and thus lose all our rights?
logan
This isn't really that great
by
sinator
·
· Score: 2
The econ/CS major's $0.02:
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.
Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)
Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.
Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.
Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )
Now let's listen to your proposed solution:
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.
It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)
Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me.:)
-- Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
This isn't really that great
by
sinator
·
· Score: 2
Yikes! I hit the "preview" button, fixed my problems, and lo and behold they still existed after submission! Sorry -- sinator
The econ/CS major's $0.02:
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.
Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)
Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.
Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.
Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )
Now let's listen to your proposed solution:
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.
It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)
Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me.:)
-- Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
I think this would possibly be the best thing to ever happen to Windows. Different distributions of Windows challenging each other in the market place would no doubt lead to stronger and quicker development within the OS. Then again, they might also splinter apart and end up existing as entirely different operating systems if no standards are held among them. In the end it could end up that you need entirely different applications and such depending on if you use MS Windows 98, MS Windows NT, IBM Windows, Apple Windows, RedHat Windows, NUTTYX Windows, etc. This would no doubt lead to confusion amongst the consumers and make them end up buying Microsoft Windows anyways.
One of the percieved advantages of Windows over the Unix world, from the standpoint of MIS directors, is that there is only two flavors (and they both run the almost the same set of applications).
Corporate buyers would probably stick with authentic Microsoft Windows, and you'd only see the generic versions on cheap clones.
(Case in point - long ago I worked at a place that bought lots of IBM brand PCs. They formatted IBM DOS off the hard drive and installed MS DOS, even thought they're basically the same thing, except the MS EMM386 was broken on IBM hardware. But they did it anyways, because other applications weren't "supported" on non-MS DOS.)
Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on stat holidays, etc., right? There will still be plenty of people who don't mind being exploited, after all!
Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?
When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.
Multiple versions of Windows would split market
by
Ian+Lance+Taylor
·
· Score: 3
Remember what happened to Unix? Each Unix company developed their own Unix variant. They were all slightly different. Moving programs back and forth became so difficult that there is a GNU package specifically designed to handle it (autoconf).
If there were two or more owners of Windows, the same thing would happen. In the case of Windows, as the market split, people would stick with the known vendor: Microsoft.
I don't think this solution is any solution at all.
A better approach along the same lines would be to create a standards body with the ability to brand versions of Windows. Require that all Microsoft versions meet the branding. For anybody else, branding would be optional. Let the organization evolve the brand over time. However, this is quite complex, and it's hard to imagine that the court could create an organization which could adapt quickly enough and fairly enough to the rapidly moving market.
I think the simplest solution would be to require Microsoft to license the entire Windows OS under some open source licence. That would give Microsoft a choice: bundle it in and make it open, or keep it proprietary and don't bundle it.
This isn't really that great
by
Richard+Frost
·
· Score: 3
I think that you are being a little too fanatical about this. By destroying Windows in the way that you suggest, you would, for many people, effectively take away their right to use the OS they want to use. If people choose to use a certain OS, whether it's Linux, *BSD, OS/2, Windows, etc., it is their right. We shouldn't just come along and take that right away, even if they do choose (in many people's opinion) an inferior OS. As to "why exactly is this so great?", if the source is open (or at least, opened to a dozen or so different organizations), then it gives everyone involved with it's development a chance to improve this "brutally complex, single-user operating system". It might turn Windows from a thing to be despised into a thing to merely be made fun of.:)
In my eyes, a (sic) OS monopoly is a *GOOD* thing.
Imagine where software would be today if we weren't trying to recreate the wheel on 100 different platforms.
No, I don't think breaking down monopolies just because they're monopolies is a good thing.
This is a good analogy -- a very good analogy, in fact, but like many analogies, it is misapplied.
First off, just because a wheel exists, don't assume that it is not worth reinventing. You bring your analogy from the "Real World," where we have a nice round wheel which works very well. But imagine if that wheel were in fact square? The wheel as we know it is not worth reinventing, which is the basis for that expression. However, if the wheel were substandard, ie: a square wheel, it would be very much worth reinventing. And that is how I believe the analogy would be more apliccable to our Operating System situation. We have a square wheel (Windows), which we are trying to re-invent, or rather supplement with a better, round version (ie: *nix).
Don't let the mantra of "Don't reinvent the wheel" prevent you from replacing a substandard wheel.
Second of all, A wheel may be worth improving. Not necessarily reinventing, but improving on the original design. Such as (for a real-world wheel) adding shocks, tyres, and so on. In terms of our software analogy, this can mean anything from Microsoft's attemtpts at "embrace and extend" (bad) to Linux's DE's such as KDE and GNOME (good). On their own, each individual strain of improvements may lead to OS clutter and usability setbacks (witenss the KDE/GNOME flame wars on Slashdot), but on the whole, especially once you combine them, and/or relegate each improvement to its specific purpose, they are a definite improvement.
Third, and finally, don't confuse standards with monopolies. This is where the wheel <--> Operating System analogy really shines, and also where you misapplied it. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with a standard -- standards are good. The wheel is a standard; everyone can use a wheel. But the wheel is not a monopoly. No one company or person has control over either the design or the implementation of the wheel.
Rather, the wheel's design is well-known. It is ubiquitous -- a standard. Anyone who wants to can take a wheel apart, find out how it works, and make another one. This is the reason why it is a standard -- also why no-one reinvents it. Simply because no-one has to. Unfortunately, Microsoft does not allow this with their Operating Systems. Not only is no-one allowed to take them apart and see how they work, but it is very difficult to emulate them. And this is exactly the problem that the "solution" propsed by the states is trying to solve!
By opening Windows up, and forcing Microsoft to release/auction off their source code, they would be effiectively freeing up the design for the wheel, and letting anyone build their own, so they don't have to reinvent it!
So don't confuse design and implementation. Ubiquity of design is great. A monopoly on the implementation (which Microsoft has) is not. We don't have to reinvent the wheel because the design is open to us. With the opening up of the "Windows" wheel, we won't have to reinvent that one, either, and maybe, just maybe, we can improve it, changing the wheel from a rolling log into a spoked set of discs on an axle, with tyres and shocks. Pardon the analogy, but I think you can see where I'm going.
Basically, you hit on the problem, but misapplied it, coming up with the wrong solution. Or rather, you had the right solution, but translated it the wrong way.
I agree, we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. That is what we are trying to put out. And A monopoly can be good. But a monopoly on design, belonging to the people, rather than a monopoly on implementation, belonging to a company.
If Dunlop had a monopoly on the wheel, and priced it/did quality control to match, I'm pretty sure there would be alternatives that people would use, leading to fragmentation. Thankfully, they don't. The design of the wheel is open, leading to standardization as people realize what features are and are not useful.
Don't let a fear of fragmentation lead you into accepting a square wheel. -- - Sean
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
MS's offer = no offer
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2
I haven't researched it extensively, but what I've seen of the MS offer basically amounts to agreeing to act in the future the way they should have been acting all along, but without any provisions to enforce it, let alone any substantial punitive damages for bad behavior in the past.
And even the above ignores that all-important caveat reserving the ability to innovate. But since for MS, "innovate" means to copy someone else's idea and use the copy in a monopoly context to run the true innovator out of business, allowing such a loophole would mean MS wasn't really even bound to good behavior in the future.
Personally, I think an acceptable solution should not only coerce good behavior in the future, but should also involve huge cash recompenstions to all the owners of competing products who have been crushed by MS's unethical practices in the past.
Truly, I expect the states + DOJ to apply an ineffective remedy, but I'm hoping that all the dirty laundry that has been aired by the trial will cripple MS more than any legal remedy is likely to anyway.
There are hundreds of things Microsoft can do to make the auctioning off not work.
Here's a scenario:
- Microsoft gives the source to NT 4 to 3 companies. - Microsoft then ships NT 5.0 - Microsoft makes changes to the API that aren't compatible with the source they gave to the 3 companies. - Everyone wants NT 5.0 for the bug fixes that should have been in 4.0, that are now in 5.0. - The third parties licenses are totally worthless.
This is a stupid stupid stupid solution. Without the engineers behind the OS, it's going to take a minimum of 6 months for any licensee to even get started doing anything.
The thought of forcing Microsoft to release its Source Code to Windows is the most horrendous idea I've heard yet. Microsoft built it, it's theirs and if you don't like it, run X (or Be, or MacOS, or Workbench, etc) or write your own!
Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept. If you truly believe in a competitive environment, then you have to accept the fact that Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else reserves the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone they deem fit, for any reason. If Microsoft refuses to sell it's OS to manufacturers because it sells systems with other OS's, it's their decision, it's their product. If you question the viability to survive without Microsoft, ask VA Research how many of their boxes shipped with Windows 95 last year. In fact, it seems that there is an ENTIRE subculture emerging around non-Microsoft operating systems (Linux, Be, and the ever present Amiga).
Just as an aside, for people who hate Microsoft, why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear? This "fence" straddling perplexes me.
And finally, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc. A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.
-- If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that people would still tend to go with a micros~1 version of windows and theoretically micros~1 could make their new version of windows suffer from the same kinds of interoperability issues they have now, but it would take considerable time to do this and they already have their hands full trying to launch W2K. I tend to doubt that resources would be diverted to accomplish repollution of the code. It would also require getting people to upgrade _again_ to get off the ground. I didn't see in the article just exactly which codebase they would be licensing. I could foresee a compromise situation where the W2K codebase is exempt, after all not on the market. It would be interesting to see how quickly the released codebase became abandoned by MS.
You make an assumption which is sadly naive. I am guessing you are an Onjectivist (I've heard almost the exact speech from others before; all of them were Onjectivists too). All philosophies that I've seen have at least one fatal flaw, and Objectivism is no exception. Objectivism's is this: it assumes that all businesses act honorably (by this I mean that they do not lie, cheat, or steal). Those that do, according to Objectivism, must fail because the people will not buy from a business which does these things.
But I pose a question: what if the people do not know what M$ does? What if it is so clever at hiding these things, masking them in the jargon of a technology with whic depressingly few people are familiar, such that it can do whatever it wants and people who only think they know what's going on accept it? Such a man (or woman, I suppose), my friend, are you. I don't blame you for it; Microsoft is very devious. It hides its actions quite well. But I ask you: look over the trial; the obscenity behind the mask of Microsoft is coming to light, slowly but surely. You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry. (By the way, if you've never read The Fountainhead I suggest you don't; it's awful). And what's more, people are finally starting to take notice.
So what if more vendors begin modifying and selling Windows? The issue isn't just Microsoft's monopolistic control over Windows and Office suite software, but their control over proprietary API, network and file formats. Two or more companies selling and developing the same product with interlocking NDA's could still leave us in the same position as before. More vendors selling Windows(tm) does not imply open standards or an end to monopolistic control over desktop software. This "solution" is a red herring which fails to resolve the core issues preventing competition in the desktop marketplace.
I suggest the government force Microsoft to document and release their Windows API, network and file formats to a standardization body like IEEE. Let the world know how to program to these standards while forcing Microsoft to either keep to those standards they created, or update the standards documentation with IEEE every time they make a change. The world doesn't need Microsoft's code, only reasonable documentation.
Microsoft may even come up with a perfectly good deal to settle out of court, however I would rather see them lose in court and end up with less than let them wiggle out of trouble again. I can see the quotes now:
"We decided to settle out of court even though we 'knew' we were right and justly had the freedom to innovate, we just decided this would be better for OUR customers... blah blah blah blah.....etc."
Ken Broadfoot
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Microsoft has been posturing the past two weeks about settling the case with the DoJ and the 19 states. They actually put forth a proposal to the states, and will be talking to the DoJ on Tuesday. According to some new sources, the proposal to the states is woefully inadequate.
In the grand scheme of things, what the states are doing is countering MS's offer with one that must be totally repulsive to MS. After all, MS offering was most likely equally repulsive to the states. This is called negotiating a settlement.
MS has been sitting pretty since the trial recess as their stock price has steadily gone up because of the talk of a settlement. The best way to remove the smug smile from someone is to kick him in the nuts.
Let me see if I've got this straight. First, we are all born as "people," and given the rights typically given to "people." At some point in our lives we decide to interact with our fellow human beings. As soon as that happens, we cease to become "people" and thus lose all our rights?
logan
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.
Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)
Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.
Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.
Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )
Now let's listen to your proposed solution:
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)
Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me. :)
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
The econ/CS major's $0.02:
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.
Such short sightedness. Remember, opening up the source lets people *fix* things. This same imposition was made regarding the magtape distributions of UNIX System III and V from AT&T. Opening up the source helps. If the source to Windows is opened (including Windows NT/9x/CE/etc), people can pluck out the bad parts and keep the (OLE anyone?) good parts of kernel and userland alike. (Let me respond to any free-source zealots who would point me to CORBA/ORB: No, it isn't the real deal... yet.)
Let's also make this clear. A lot of supposed *flaws* in a Microsoft system are actually flaws in the coding practice brought about by the closed source. For instance, you don't *need* to reboot an NT system after making changes and reloading the TCP/IP stack (for you point-and-clickies out there, allowing for a new network service or protocol). I've actually reloaded the stack on the fly and have had no problems. NT *can* handle it (who knows, this might even apply to peripheral configuration as well). But, because the code is NOT open source, programmers assume their peers are idiots and demand a reboot. Open source will help stop that.
Furthermore, selling the source (but forcing this to be done) shows that Open Source need not be Pay-Nothing Source. This is a situation that will make pseudo-libertarians and GNU enthusiasts alike happy, or at least content. I'm a big fan of Open Source, but I much prefer the BSD-style licensing, which imposes less in the way of ideological restrictions. I believe a laissez-faire attitude will pop in and weed out those who would attempt to corrupt the system. And before anyone tells me that the DOJ case reeks of government interventionism, let me respond by saying that someone elected the people who appointed these folks.
Business and Politics are just two of many ways to get the masses to improve their situation. Together these ways make up economics. A lot of people confuse business with economics =P )
Now let's listen to your proposed solution:
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
Neglecting for the minute the difficulty in achieiving this goal, let's look at history. Sure, keeping Microsoft from being an operating system OEM has been done. It's been done to AT&T actually. That's why they opened up the source of UNIX S3 to universities and the like. That's why bored university folk hacked at the system till, by God, it worked. But to destroy all the copies of Windows because of a personal grudge you have against it? Sounds like the Ch'in emperor burning all the books and building the Great Wall of China to keep out foreigners.It didn't work. Neither will your plan. Opening the source will allow peers to see exactly what's going on behind the curtain, and thus more efficient coding practices will come into play (no more assuming that loading X will fuck up Y, if you can see how the loading process works), and who knows? Maybe compiling Windows with a better optimization flag helps! =)
Ok. i know I was begging the question. Sue me. :)
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
I think this would possibly be the best thing to ever happen to Windows. Different distributions of Windows challenging each other in the market place would no doubt lead to stronger and quicker development within the OS. Then again, they might also splinter apart and end up existing as entirely different operating systems if no standards are held among them. In the end it could end up that you need entirely different applications and such depending on if you use MS Windows 98, MS Windows NT, IBM Windows, Apple Windows, RedHat Windows, NUTTYX Windows, etc. This would no doubt lead to confusion amongst the consumers and make them end up buying Microsoft Windows anyways.
One of the percieved advantages of Windows over the Unix world, from the standpoint of MIS directors, is that there is only two flavors (and they both run the almost the same set of applications).
Corporate buyers would probably stick with authentic Microsoft Windows, and you'd only see the generic versions on cheap clones.
(Case in point - long ago I worked at a place that bought lots of IBM brand PCs. They formatted IBM DOS off the hard drive and installed MS DOS, even thought they're basically the same thing, except the MS EMM386 was broken on IBM hardware. But they did it anyways, because other applications weren't "supported" on non-MS DOS.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on stat holidays, etc., right? There will still be plenty of people who don't mind being exploited, after all!
Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?
When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.
Remember what happened to Unix? Each Unix company developed their own Unix variant. They were all slightly different. Moving programs back and forth became so difficult that there is a GNU package specifically designed to handle it (autoconf).
If there were two or more owners of Windows, the same thing would happen. In the case of Windows, as the market split, people would stick with the known vendor: Microsoft.
I don't think this solution is any solution at all.
A better approach along the same lines would be to create a standards body with the ability to brand versions of Windows. Require that all Microsoft versions meet the branding. For anybody else, branding would be optional. Let the organization evolve the brand over time. However, this is quite complex, and it's hard to imagine that the court could create an organization which could adapt quickly enough and fairly enough to the rapidly moving market.
I think the simplest solution would be to require Microsoft to license the entire Windows OS under some open source licence. That would give Microsoft a choice: bundle it in and make it open, or keep it proprietary and don't bundle it.
I think that you are being a little too fanatical about this. By destroying Windows in the way that you suggest, you would, for many people, effectively take away their right to use the OS they want to use. If people choose to use a certain OS, whether it's Linux, *BSD, OS/2, Windows, etc., it is their right. We shouldn't just come along and take that right away, even if they do choose (in many people's opinion) an inferior OS. As to "why exactly is this so great?", if the source is open (or at least, opened to a dozen or so different organizations), then it gives everyone involved with it's development a chance to improve this "brutally complex, single-user operating system". It might turn Windows from a thing to be despised into a thing to merely be made fun of. :)
Richard Frost
In my eyes, a (sic) OS monopoly is a *GOOD* thing.
Imagine where software would be today if we weren't trying to recreate the wheel on 100 different platforms.
No, I don't think breaking down monopolies just because they're monopolies is a good thing.
This is a good analogy -- a very good analogy, in fact, but like many analogies, it is misapplied.
First off, just because a wheel exists, don't assume that it is not worth reinventing. You bring your analogy from the "Real World," where we have a nice round wheel which works very well. But imagine if that wheel were in fact square? The wheel as we know it is not worth reinventing, which is the basis for that expression. However, if the wheel were substandard, ie: a square wheel, it would be very much worth reinventing. And that is how I believe the analogy would be more apliccable to our Operating System situation. We have a square wheel (Windows), which we are trying to re-invent, or rather supplement with a better, round version (ie: *nix).
Don't let the mantra of "Don't reinvent the wheel" prevent you from replacing a substandard wheel.
Second of all, A wheel may be worth improving. Not necessarily reinventing, but improving on the original design. Such as (for a real-world wheel) adding shocks, tyres, and so on. In terms of our software analogy, this can mean anything from Microsoft's attemtpts at "embrace and extend" (bad) to Linux's DE's such as KDE and GNOME (good). On their own, each individual strain of improvements may lead to OS clutter and usability setbacks (witenss the KDE/GNOME flame wars on Slashdot), but on the whole, especially once you combine them, and/or relegate each improvement to its specific purpose, they are a definite improvement.
Third , and finally, don't confuse standards with monopolies. This is where the wheel <--> Operating System analogy really shines, and also where you misapplied it. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with a standard -- standards are good. The wheel is a standard; everyone can use a wheel. But the wheel is not a monopoly. No one company or person has control over either the design or the implementation of the wheel.
Rather, the wheel's design is well-known. It is ubiquitous -- a standard. Anyone who wants to can take a wheel apart, find out how it works, and make another one. This is the reason why it is a standard -- also why no-one reinvents it. Simply because no-one has to. Unfortunately, Microsoft does not allow this with their Operating Systems. Not only is no-one allowed to take them apart and see how they work, but it is very difficult to emulate them. And this is exactly the problem that the "solution" propsed by the states is trying to solve!
By opening Windows up, and forcing Microsoft to release/auction off their source code, they would be effiectively freeing up the design for the wheel, and letting anyone build their own, so they don't have to reinvent it!
So don't confuse design and implementation. Ubiquity of design is great. A monopoly on the implementation (which Microsoft has) is not. We don't have to reinvent the wheel because the design is open to us. With the opening up of the "Windows" wheel, we won't have to reinvent that one, either, and maybe, just maybe, we can improve it, changing the wheel from a rolling log into a spoked set of discs on an axle, with tyres and shocks. Pardon the analogy, but I think you can see where I'm going.
Basically, you hit on the problem, but misapplied it, coming up with the wrong solution. Or rather, you had the right solution, but translated it the wrong way.
I agree, we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. That is what we are trying to put out. And A monopoly can be good. But a monopoly on design, belonging to the people, rather than a monopoly on implementation, belonging to a company.
If Dunlop had a monopoly on the wheel, and priced it/did quality control to match, I'm pretty sure there would be alternatives that people would use, leading to fragmentation. Thankfully, they don't. The design of the wheel is open, leading to standardization as people realize what features are and are not useful.
Don't let a fear of fragmentation lead you into accepting a square wheel.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I haven't researched it extensively, but what I've seen of the MS offer basically amounts to agreeing to act in the future the way they should have been acting all along, but without any provisions to enforce it, let alone any substantial punitive damages for bad behavior in the past.
And even the above ignores that all-important caveat reserving the ability to innovate. But since for MS, "innovate" means to copy someone else's idea and use the copy in a monopoly context to run the true innovator out of business, allowing such a loophole would mean MS wasn't really even bound to good behavior in the future.
Personally, I think an acceptable solution should not only coerce good behavior in the future, but should also involve huge cash recompenstions to all the owners of competing products who have been crushed by MS's unethical practices in the past.
Truly, I expect the states + DOJ to apply an ineffective remedy, but I'm hoping that all the dirty laundry that has been aired by the trial will cripple MS more than any legal remedy is likely to anyway.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There are hundreds of things Microsoft can do to make the auctioning off not work.
Here's a scenario:
- Microsoft gives the source to NT 4 to 3
companies.
- Microsoft then ships NT 5.0
- Microsoft makes changes to the API that
aren't compatible with the source they
gave to the 3 companies.
- Everyone wants NT 5.0 for the bug
fixes that should have been in 4.0,
that are now in 5.0.
- The third parties licenses are totally
worthless.
This is a stupid stupid stupid solution. Without the engineers behind the OS, it's going to take a minimum of 6 months for any licensee to even get started doing anything.
-----
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
Everything y
The thought of forcing Microsoft to release its Source Code to Windows is the most horrendous idea I've heard yet. Microsoft built it, it's theirs and if you don't like it, run X (or Be, or MacOS, or Workbench, etc) or write your own!
Microsoft got to where it is today because it provides a product that people want, or a product that people accept. If you truly believe in a competitive environment, then you have to accept the fact that Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else reserves the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone they deem fit, for any reason. If Microsoft refuses to sell it's OS to manufacturers because it sells systems with other OS's, it's their decision, it's their product. If you question the viability to survive without Microsoft, ask VA Research how many of their boxes shipped with Windows 95 last year. In fact, it seems that there is an ENTIRE subculture emerging around non-Microsoft operating systems (Linux, Be, and the ever present Amiga).
Just as an aside, for people who hate Microsoft, why do most of these same people quiver with glee when rumors of Microsoft porting Office to Linux appear? This "fence" straddling perplexes me.
And finally, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its allied bills, laws, etc, is nothing more than a wordy repeal of the right to own property, ideas, etc. A monopoly (control of 100% of the market) will never be created without a government mule to create and control the market.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai