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? "
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.
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.
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.)
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.:)
Slashdot Mirror
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 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.
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.
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