Slashdot Mirror
Vote in a CNN Poll on the DOJ MS Ruling
gluck writes "CNN is running a poll on agreement with Judge Jackson on the DOJ v Microsoft prelmimary finding of fact. Results so far are: 61.91% agree with the finding of fact and 79% want action taken. You can vote at CNN DOJ v Microsoft Poll"
I tried loading it in netscape... the poll disappears, but the checkbox buttons are still there. I resorted to lynx instead -- you just have to allow all cookies and everything seems fine, you can vote, all right. Just that the results take forever to load.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
I always wonder when I see comments about how Netscape performs so badly, when it's been an extremely rare thing for me to find a page that won't load.
Plugins, of course, are another story. Netscape blows when it comes to plugins for *nix.
Not really. I'm running Netscape 4.6 under RedHat 6.0, and the page came down fast and smooth. Faster, in fact, than the /. main page.
I always wonder when I see comments about how Netscape performs so badly, when it's been an extremely rare thing for me to find a page that won't load.
Plugins, of course, are another story. Netscape blows when it comes to plugins for *nix.
M$ can then spin the results of the poll (never mind that only loyal users of MSIE are polled to begin with) to read:
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I have been in the software business for roughly 8 years now, having worked as a consultant for companies like Coca Cola, Lockheed-Martin, Lucent and the Federal Aviation Administration. I have SEEN the damage that Micro$oft, and Bill Gates, has inflicted upon the industry. As the 'vision' originally was expressed Windows was a god send. The Windows API was a way for developers to write applications without regaurd to the computer's hardware. From that perspective it has been a success. However, I have also seen where Micro$oft changes the API to better suit their overall goals. Now, in terms of fairness...is it fair that M$ application developers get to request that certain functionality that they have developed be added to the Windows API...just to make their applications appear smaller than the competitions? Is it fair to other developers that these same API calls are NOT documented in the Windows API references? We think M$ Word is bloated now...you have no idea how much functionality is hidden within the Windows API. From my perspective... M$ has been misuing their power by doing just these things...and thereby making it more difficult for outside competition to develope. In order to compete on an even level with Microsoft, one needs to decompile Windows just to find out what has been hidden away from public view.
Microsoft goes even further by publicly stateing that the presence of undocumented API's should not be relied upon. In other words they reserve th right to change the name or ordinal position of any undocumented API call which another company is relying upon to make their product WORK as intended.
Is ISS, ASP, DCOM and COM really "interesting at a minimum." As a professional developer...I dont think so. There are other tools out there that gives far more cross platform support than M$ does.
There isnt a "Linux cry for death to... M$", just a cry for someone to smack Gates and Ballmer up side the head with a healthy dose of reality. M$ needs to learn to play nicely with others in the same business. I feel being BOTH the O/S DEVELOPER and a MAJOR APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER is a BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The role of O/S developer requires not playing favorites with application developers. The role of O/S developer requires knowing the difference between the O/S and applications. Micro$oft has forgotten the distinction. If Micro$soft wants to bundle applications with the O/S...fine by me.. but let me have the CHOICE to install the applications I wish....never force me, the user into a choice I didnt make. That is what this lawsuit is all about... empowering the consumer. Giving the consumer the ability to CHOOSE. I dont like M$ telling me I can install Netscape on my computer, but I STILL have to install IE5 if I want the computer to work correctly. That is taking choices away from me.
The remark concerning having problems with "gas companys" find hilarious. First you are ambiguous in what you meant, I.e. gasoline or natural gas? Either way, you cant parallel the two. If you are talking about the natural gas suppliers, in most areas they are regulated. Every time they turn around they have to get things approved by regulators. I admit some areas you can have natural gass delivered to you home by tank trucks. But even there...you have a CHOICE of who delivers to you. If you are talking about gasoline companies the situation is even farther removed. I can take my pick of about 6 service stations within a mile of my home.
Now, read my lips...the whole thing is about CHOICE.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Thank-you you mindless pro-Linux dumbass
ESR is a libertarian. To a libertarian, the market is always right and the government is always wrong. These are the two axioms of libetarianism.
Uh..Government, Post Office to name two. Just try delivering a First Class letter and see where your ass ends up.
You should be neutered. WOOF WOOF
Very true, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I agree that it needs to be done, but I'm leary about what Bill Gates is capable of at the moment. Fortunately, the Linux community has grown so much over the past few years that we actually stand a chance at taking a chunk of business from Microsoft with this breakup.
- Chris
So the problem isn't that Microsoft has created an incompatible design - it's been fairly oprtable, across 2 CPU architectures, 4 kernels (DOS,CE,win9*,NT are quite different). It's already write once, run almost-anywhere. The problem is that it isn't *quite* anywhere - it's only places where microsoft supports you; if you want a Win32 API implementation, they're the only game in town.
So the soultion to the applications barrier is pretty clear - open the Win32 (and, when the time comes, Win64) API's. Let there be other implementations of Win32/64 (go Wine! THAT is the battle that could WIN us the war). Force Microsoft to release, in full source form, a 'reference' Win32 platform (which could of course be Win9* now, just before it is killed off as a product, but still - it would be there).
To keep Microsoft from then changing the API rapidly to obsolete the reference API, several tack will be needed. First off, even they can't afford to abandon the legacy apps (if they did, they would now be on the wrong side of the application barrier to entry). So the reference would remain a portable subset - but I don't know if that would be enough to stop developers from accept the 'embrace and extend'ed new, different API. If they (MS) moved slowly enough, and strongarmed developers (which they have been known to do) enough , they might manage to re-proprietarize it. So ban them from selling any software product of their own (say, Office) that fails to run correctly in the reference implementation of Win32. This would encourage (force,even) the reference to be complete, solid, and probably taken from a working product, not made up as a new & different Win32 implementation (in which case it would probably be *ahem* strategically incorrect and incomplete).
They are free to innovate new API's but they can't use them - unless they are compatible with the underlying Reference API (ie, a DLL built on top the Win32 API, providing some new functionality to programs - which Office and others could install and use even on OpenWin32). Perhaps something totally new could and should be allowed, once the Win32 as an open standard has entrenched enough that developers won't be pushed into adopting the new and closed API (they would theoretically have a strong incentive to keep OpenWin32 - portability, familiarity, and their pre-existing codebase).
Microsoft would still have one of the most popular OS'es. But it would be just one Win32 implementation among many, so they would no longer have a stranglehold on where the platform was going. I think this is where microsoft needs be in the future - it would open them to real competition while giving them the chance to fight back with a superior OS to underly the same open API.
Thoughts?
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
Yeah... but do you WANT MS-Office for linux?? - Chris
I'm sure they will love KDE as long as you're around to configure everything for them, find and install new apps for them, create desktop shortcuts to the apps since Linux install routines still can't seem to manage that one. Try installing Litestep on their Windows machine and see if they still want to go with KDE or if it's just that the GUI is different.
Hey guy, did M$ pay for Bill Clinton to win his elections ? :-} Any web referances ....
Illegal? Yes, but what isn't nowadays?
This pretty much says it all, if you disagree with the laws concerning monopolistic practices than you disagree with the facts and verdicts of the case. Making you the biased one.
Hey who said that M$ pioneered the GUI. Linux lovers (and Unix users) have it for a while now. And it is the Apple who brrowed the GUI from Xerox Corp. And BBC must have known of this.
Maybe because Microsoft isn't stuffing the poll like Slashdot? Maybe because if they did vote in large numbers it would get reported as "Microsoft skewing online polls"?
are fun.
Around 2/3 believe that either MS doesn't hold a monopoly, or that its monopoly hasn't harmed anyone. Yet, over half believe that it should be punished one way or another.
First, it is poll, not pool (easy mistake for a non-native speaker, no worries). Second, we do not enlighten people that the polls are worse than merely invalid (they actually have negative value) when we encourage them to participate as Roblimo did. Third, you are wrong that complaining is worse than participating. It is abundantly clear that participation only encourages this negatively valued activity more, while complaining certainly does make a difference. Education is the key.
... they shows an Internet poll and the spamming of it (I think they based it on what I did to the MLB All-Star poll in July ... heh heh). Hopefully it did something to show how completely stupid these polls are. They even said on the show that they fixed the poll with a Perl program, so they get extra points.
The ABC show Sports Night was excellent a couple of weeks ago
i'm sorry, but i can't quite understand how a company can be a monopoly, but not be illegal. i thought all monopolys were illegal, at least here in the US. and in my view, M$ certainly qualifies as a monopoly. -dmitri
So why didn't they do it before? Why did they do it while using the threat of raising OEM prices to get companies to not install Netscape?
Having a browser ship with the OS makes sense. It's like a disk defragger. When HDs were rare, it would be a waste. Now that you can't buy a computer without one, they're essential.
But, to use anti-competetive practices to have an inferior product be used...
MS did it just for control. They can't let anyone else have a killer app.
Well, by the time I had rolled out of bed and got to the survey Microsoft was down on the stakes to like 60/40...and now that I go back to check its 70/30 against MS! I guess the 'slasdot effect' might be taking its place :)
:) Okay so the money-less society didnt work out...that doesnt mean you have to go to the otehr extreme!
:) hehe But more importantly, witout Windows, what else would 70% (or whatever it is) of the computers in the world be running?
:)
And to agree with plunge on: 'One banner ad displayed, one email address databased.... ' the corporate types of today make me sick! What is it with todays world? Money, thats all there is that matters to them! I guess in this case, with a respectible company they're probably using the email addresses just to confirm that these no multiple posts from the same person, but I doubt its working
Now for a couple of cents that are actually on topic...
Give microosft a break will you? I mean they did after all do allot of good for the computer industry! They were the pioneers of their time! Just forget your anti-MS bias for a second and think about a world without microosft! There would probably be at least 10 different operating systems to coordinate between -- and we already have enough trouble with compatibility issues these days... I'm not saying that Winows is better than *nix, but it is more suitable for the beginners! Can ytou imagine a world where everyone ran linux? think of the incompetent newbies that wouldnt have a clue!!
The way I see it, Macs are for 5 year olds who have just graduated from their Fisher-Price trucks and ready to move on... and *nix is for the hardcore enthusiasts that want to spend 2 months typing in cryptic conf files, just so after its all done you will know exactly what is going on, exactly how everything works, everything! If its one thing that annoys me most its the Mac way of life, where you dont know that the hell is going on with your system, and youre just siutting there like a vegetabe! For me, Windows seems to be the happy pappy sloshing around in the middle. Its not as hardcore as *nix, though it does let you have a little control over your system, and unlike the mac, does have a character prompt, not just bloody icons!
So stop and think for a second before you let your predetermined anti-microsoft mindset take over! Do you really want a world without windows? If anything, in that world you'll have noone ot pick on! Its like that kid in the second grade...you hated him and annoyed his as hell, but when he finally stopped coming out to play with you it still felt a little lonely -- you had noone to pick on anymore
The other thing to think about, is the competence of the suits that are spinning this scandal! Do you really think that some 50 yearold hi court judge knows shit about computers? They have already demonstrated their incompetence and lack of knowledge in the field! They are just trying to get someone to explain the situation and then apply the laws and guidelines they are used to -- they havent realised that the real world ways they are used to do not apply for the computer world of today! If microsoft wants to improve their operating system and add features whats wrong with that? MS made it clear that the OS relied heavily on explorer, the suits refused to comprehend and continued bleating 'take it off', then microosft removed it and started offering a crippled, completely IE-free version of Windows, and then they shot back and accused MS of being smartasses! What the hell is with that!
The fact stands that the media and the legal types have no place in the computer industry, and just like the media have been tlaking of the world exploding on the night of the millenium -- when the millenium is over a year off -- and telling us to stockpile 6 months food and supplies and go to a bunker to let the millenium pass, just as that has been going on, so the legal types on the case have been taking incomplete and incompetent infrmaion from some 12 year old down the road who 'knows computers'!
I'm not saying that Microosft is the best, just that they deserve a fair go, and not to be put down for something like this!!
...Linux forever...
"And the only question that stands in my mind right now is, will this get moderated down to -3 as soon as i post it because of people's anti-ms bias, or just becasue its a long and mostly off topic rant..."
Sure you can also have Options like, (6) Ask Bill Gates to bellydance on TV during the new millenium party.
but is that neccesary?
I think we can get about 150-200 billion dollars fine out of MS. that will
1. Force MS to release/unlock talents
2. Force MS to sell divisions
3. Stop MS from buying out little companies
4. Raise the price of windows2000 by 100% and hopefully people would realise the pirating isn't worth it.
5. Help public schools and our financial aide/grants.
The "Linux movement" is taking off, and garnering great attention, and from where I sit Linux looks to have a great chance at becoming a commonly used operating system - all of this in the face of the great monopoly of Microsoft..
..US law is ambigous.. Judge Jackson noted that by including Browser functionality into Win98 M$ presented a performance degredation to their user base. Hello! Then I guess every OS should be canned for adding features - Oh no! quick delete calc.exe, it's taking up disk space.. syslog is taking up my CPU cycles.. flexible laws.. based on flexible judgements..
Microsoft hasnt stunted the growth of Linux. If anything it is vice versa.. . and the fact that Linux hasnt monoplized the desktop yet, doesnt mean that it isnt making progress...
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They face serious competition in just about every market from either other large corporations or open source products. Microsoft internet products, office productivity products, and OS software are all facing heated competition from companies like Sun, Oracle, Apple, and the open source movement..
How about some intellectual honesty for a change? Why not just ignore a poll that has absolutely no validity of any sort? By advocating the voting in it, you are just condoning this plague on modern society. You may say, "well, it doesn't matter, everyone knows it is invalid, so who cares?" Well, obsiouyl you guys do, or you wouldn't bother voting in it. Obviously CNN does, or they wouldn't bother conducting this "poll" in the first place. The only proper response to such polls is to ignore them or to complain about them. Once again, it is called intellectual honesty.
I wonder how many of the people that voted "No" or "I disagree" are Microsoft employees or shareholders... After all, if Microsoft stock takes a major hit, there will be a lot more people besides just Bill G. hurting.
I think that hes going to stay up all night voting for microsoft...
I just think that makes a funny mental picture dont you?
icq:=22921393;
1984
I think that's the sort of mentality involved.
They are both successful in their fields.
They have a history of being a bully.
They both go outside the bounds of law to be succussful.
One bit off an ear and the other bit off more then he could chew.
I wonder if various internet polls appreciate being mentioned on slashdot? Suddenly, their votes quadruple, mostly all in one direction. Not that these surveys are remotely representative to begin with, but post slashdot mention, they are bound to be MUCH less so. 5:15.. time to sleep.
Just do this correctly, people.
The reason why so many voted for finds is that they checked the box "at the same time" they checked the box calling for a break up of the company. If they made it a single selection option I bet you thenumbers would have been overwhelmingly for breakup. But I think most people like me reckon a good old fine would also help the situation (if you can do that too, why not?)
No terms of condition under this CNN poll.
Another point:
How do they check that neither Micro$oft-haters
nor Microsfoft-lovers try to stuff the poll?
Can we read ANYTHING in those numbers ? Just
random numbers might be better, IMHO.
Nah, MS won the browser war by making a better product, and then kicking the stilts out from under Netscape. From the version 4 browsers on IE has been a substantially better product. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but NS just screwed themselves with their attitude and shoddy approach to their customers and products.
-sw
Bah, what kind of poll is CNN running? Tsk tsk!
Seriously, though, I think this poll will be (like many, many polls) a representation of the uninformed public's views, rather than any sort of indication of any legal precedent. I'd like to see the CNN poll as a Slashdot poll.
Of course, then, the poll would be totally biased against Microsoft.
You just can't win!
> why is there no central gathering place for windows users?
They all hang around comp.os.linux.advocacy. I think their posts outnumber the Linux advocates'.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One banner ad displayed, one email address databased.... ahhhh. Isn't the meaningless fiction of internet polling fun? I have to shake my head when I see any sort of polling these days-it's jsut so much more important to know WHY do people believe what they believe, not just tally broad opinions. Maybe the poll should ask quiz questions to make sure people have even read the judge's ruling, or know anything about the case. But even that doesn't tell us who's a FUD addict and who has a reasoned opinion on why Microsoft should be left alone. The current obsession with polls like these are the same sort of thing that has people talking more about how well a movie grossed rather than how good the movie was. Bah!
You do realize that the G3 is not the worlds fastest home computer. Not even close. The G3's max out at 450 Mhz which is a good 266 Mhz slower than the P3 and 250 Mhz slower than the Athlon. You can, in fact, buy Athlon systems from Kryotech running at 800-900 Mhz. Systems that are cover by warranty and supported. The efficiency of the G3/G4 series processors is not such that they can overcome that large of a difference in core clock rate. So let's stop getting warm fuzzy from Apple's marketing and go hunting for a clue.
-sw
I was looking at it, and wondering about the people who disagree with the judgement, no not believe MS has a monopoly on PC OSs, believe no action should be taken, and think the judge went too far. I'm sure many /.ers are wondering too. Assuming the votes are not MS employees. ;) /. is not exactly representative of your "average" computer user. Ever try to get your mom to use Linux? :)
But, I had a convo with a friend of mine earlier today, who has just barely gotten the hang of windoze, and he was terrified of the prospect that he'd end up having to learn Linux. In his view, Linux is a scary, techno wilderness where he'd never figure out how to install Netscape again. (At least he uses Netscape)
So I wonder how many people would side with MS simply because they see no alternative to using it, and truly fear losing support for their various programs, or believe without MS they'd be forced to re-learn everything they've learned about computers so far.
Let's face it,
--
A split seems like a bad idea. Look what happened to Ma Bell... now instead of one company and no choices, we have a dozen companies and no choices. With a dozen "standards" for each.
I think a fine and the release of some of their technology to the public domain would be enough. The loss of a little intilectual property would even things up a bit. Or even have MS fund projects for other companies.
Of course they aren't. They are either working (just like the rest of the tech world, they do work on saturdays and sundays) or out having a good time with their families.
-sw
http://www.msnbc.com/news/329416.asp
>> i'm persona non grata here. i don't write code. i just build networks.
Not true, oh bandwidth god. Spread some of that joy around.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Should be a good topic for Slashdot poll. How about:
Internet polls are usefull because:
a)They show that elections can be fixed
b)Script kiddies don't know how to write ballot stuffers.
c)HAnk the angry drunken dwarf.
.
.
.
.
I don't think people understand... if Microsoft is broken into tons of little companies, Bill Gates' worth goes up no less than 20 fold what it is now! Unfortunately not many people are paying attention to this fact. So this brings up a question: What *can* we do about Microsoft to make it less powerful?
This comment came of course from the other Operating System Exporting Country, Finland :)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/329416.asp?cp1=1
;)
The video stream of Janet Reno yipping it up
about the DOJ victory is only playable with
Windows Media Player. I think that says a lot
about the whole situation.
Hell, yes!
I'm no Mac evangelist, but this is utter bullshit.
This is an excerpt from an article about microsoft.
e '. What is does is, it finds internet polls such as the CNN one and many "slashdot" polls and votes pro micrsoft over and over again. It also has a patch to find servers that let users post comments by creating very irritating "first post" comments that are meant to drive people away from anti-microsoft websites. Apparently Microsoft was fearing the worst in the DOJ Anti-Trust case, and needs all the PR support it can get. It also has a feature built in where if the poll records the IP of the voter the program BSOD's the computer forcing a reboot therefore a different IP (for you DHCP users). It runs as an NT service, and you can download the patch to get rid of it here.
Companies that use the Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 operating system may experience an internet connection slow down in the next few months. Without telling anyone Microsoft Corp. added in something new to their latest Service Pack. It's called 'please_god_we_need_public_support_on_this_one.ex
Remember, these people are paid disrupters; you cannot argue rationally with them.
The point is that some people will click a button just because it's there. If there are four buttons, three yes and one no, the extra two yes buttons will 'take' votes from the main yes and no buttons.
:)
The 'right' way to do this is.
Do you think the government needs to intervene?
() Yes
() No
If you answered Yes to the last question, how?
() Breaking up the company
() Fines
etc
That way you get a more accurate sampling of the Yes/No vote, but also get a good idea of what the Yes voters want done.
These polls are written by people without any clue of how to write unbiased polls. It's really sad. You'd think CNN would have a contract with a public-polling firm to help them write unbiased polls. (Or, biased polls that are less obviously biases...
everyone's favorite monopoly is, of course, everyone's most hated OS.
i noticed a different poll on CNN a couple days ago. the question was:
Is Windows a Buggy OS?
hmmmmmmmmmm
i thought long and hard, clicked the yes button, and was taken to the results.
well im sure this is a huge surprise to everyone, but 98% of the people had voted yes. there were something like 30,000 total votes.
bill, 98% of the people say its buggy. you better stop trying to have all the money in the world and maybe put out a decent product one of these days.
tyler
No, this is perfect! Make win95/98 one division, and winNT another division! With win2000 MS tried and failed to move winNT's code into the desktop market, but I'm sure they plan to try it with the next version. What if win95/98 and winNT had to compete directly for market and let the best win?
Also, this breaks the advantages of winNT the server OS being designed to work with the desktop OS, and vice versa. WinNT probably wouldn't have good odds, facing linux on the server side, and win9x if they want to move into the desktop arena. (OTOH, WinNT makes a way more stable desktop than win9x) Win9x would have a pretty tight grip on the desktop initially, but the older technology would have a hard time competing against WinNT and also linux. (as linux becomes viable on the desktop) Imagine how much effort NT corp and win9x corp would have to put into *real* innovation to hold their ground without the MS juggernaut to support them. The consumers would win out because we'd have 2-4 way competition for the desktop market. (win9x, winNT, and possibly linux and MacOS(think iMac))
Well, for one thing, they deserve the trouble for making it so hard to make money selling a web-browser. :) For another, it includes other things like Frontpage, audio streaming tools, etc. Might include MSN in here (could have AOL w/ netscape vs. MSN w/ IE then), hotmail, and also MS's content ownership rights. Since this could be the weakest baby MS, you might throw any random bits that didn't fit anywhere else in here too, just for good measure.
1) It's still pretty removable.
2) Make the interfaces publicly documented, so the user has the choice of Netscape/Mozilla or IE as the browser integrated into the OS. (It's not so far integrated that this is all that hard)
--LeBleu
If you're reading this you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.
It doesn't work for me, I see the poll for about 2secs. then it disappears.
MSNBC has an article on the ruling, and it provides a survey form in a side bar. On my Mac with MSIE, I can see and complete the survey. On my Mac with Navigator, the survey doesn't show up at all. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Win9x should just die, it would be cruel to build a company around it. And what about the server company owning NT? Would they be prevented from selling a workstation product?
And regarding the browser... well, I'm of the unpopular opinion that the browser technology _should_ be build into the OS, and have advocated that (for Emacs) before MS made it their policy. You should be able to type an URL anywhere you can type a filename, and applications should be able to rely on html display being available for e.g. help files or forms.
Documenting the interfaces and allow the network engine and display engine to be replacable would be a good idea, regardless.
If you dont like Microsoft products *dont use them*, its not your job to silence them
I think you missed one of the major points here, and that is M$ took steps to ensure that even if you didn`t want to use M$ products (I.E Internet Explorer), you still had to because attempting to remove them made life difficult, on purpose. The whole point here is that M$ used it's position as a monopoly to deliberatly block attempts by other companies to provide solutions for Windows that may have impacted on the ability of M$ to control the Window API's.
It's fine and all to have this poll posted on slashdot, but by more/less encouraging slashdot readers to vote on it, aren't we unfairly skewing the results?
Sure, internet polls shouldn't be taken seriously anyway due to the nature in which they are conducted, but I think it would be fair to say that the "typical slashdot reader" is more likely to be anti-Microsoft (not because he/she has a better chance of being a Linux user, of course, but merely because he/she is more educated - yeah, that's the ticket!) than "an ordinary person," whatever exactly that is.
Not that I'm not all about using the slashdot effect to meet our needs or anything. That I did not say.
This is like all those pathetic polls about US foreign policy that show exactly how clueless and illinformed the US public truely is.
Bottom line: Either MS violated the laws or they did not. Public opinion is irrelivant.
These polls are written by people without any clue of how to write unbiased polls. It's really sad. You'd think CNN would have a contract with a public-polling firm to help them write unbiased polls
Yeah, thats exactly what I mean when I speak about 'what is this world coming to!?!'
People dont have a clue about anything and just want to go out and make money, money, thats all its ever about!
That recent MTV Hackers thing was a perfect example! They went in knowing jack shit, came out knowing jack shit, misinformed the public, and hopefully (for them) made money from the incompetent rush job...
If I hear another news reporter talk about the end of the world, and the approaching 'new millenium' I'm gonna shoot myself! Its not the new millenium you misinformed and incompetent retards! And if everyone does go absolutely crazy it will only be because you, the media, made it a big deal and got people psyched in the first place!!
Other people have mentioned the poll at http://www.msnbc.com/news/329416.asp#survey. However, I went to take a loot. If you're using both Netscape and MacOS, you can't vote in it (IE on MacOS seems to work fine).
What other combinations of browsers and OS can't see the poll, I wonder?
Now it's working again. Looks like it wasn't intentional after all, and M$ found and fixed the bug before people could scream (except me of course). Sorry about that.
Never mind what everyone thinks should be done with Microsoft, the case is not helped by taking a public sampling of opinion. The way the judicial process works in this country (and some would say it does not), is that both parties present informed arguments in a case, each trying to support his own side. An intelligent person or persons then weighs the evidence and makes a ruling.
Lets hope that the DOJ has their act together, and can convince the judge to rule appropriately against Microsoft. As for myself, keeping my money out of MS's hands is enough of a vote, and will make my voice heard more powerfully than through some dinky poll. Furthermore, my email dosen't get added to CNN's lists!
IIS, ASP, DCOM, COM, general development are all interesting at a minimum
Not interested, no thanks. I'll take Apache, PHP and CORBA thanks.
If you dont like Microsoft products *dont use them*,
The problem is that Microsoft goes out of their way to make contracts with the PC vendors that make it difficult for us to buy a PC without buying their products. If I don't want to use their products, I shouldn't have to pay for them.
Microsoft also goes out of their way to make their products not play nicely with other products, which makes it difficult for those of us that use other products to work with people who use Microsoft's products.
its not your job to silence them.
Microsoft has enough money to get their message out in virtually every forum they want. Linux and open source mainly only have people like us. Even with the recent commercial interest in Linux, the resources they can and have put towards promoting Linux and open source pale in comparison to Microsoft's multibillion dollar advertising budget.
If they suck, they will be gone soon enough.
The problem is that when a very large company like Microsoft uses unethical practices they can stay around an awfully long time even if they suck because they can buy out, or 'cut off the air supply' of any smaller competitor that might come along.
Microsoft is a product of capitalism, built upon a framework designed by our government
Microsoft is a perversion of capitolism. The judge has said that what Microsoft has been up to does NOT fit within the framework designed by our government.
If you have a problem with Microsoft, then you must have one with gas companies too.
Uh, yea, actually I do. I wish I could choose the supplier of electricity and natural gas, but I can't because the company has been granted a legal and regulated monopoly by the city I live in.
What about all of the worlds other capitalistic empires - do you even care about them?
What other capitolistic empires are you talking about, please give some examples. Now show me soem evidence that any of them are engaging in the kind of systematic unethical practices that Microsoft does, and I will be happy to stand against them.
And my dad. And my wife. And my 3 children (my 5 year old sits at the Sparc2 with RH5.2 all the time.... I've got him paying xboard(chess) now =)
My buddy that just got his first computer at the beginning of this year, was started properly with a dual boot Win98/linux setup (done by yours truly.) He's learned more and accelerated faster than most 5 year Windows users could ever hope for. He didn't KNOW to be intimidated, so he wasn't.
IMO, Windows is the one that intimidates.... things breaking for no (apparent) reason, all while the interface tries to protect the user from having to know anything. After a while, knowing anything is considered "confusing" and "dangerous" (as in "I could fsck up the computer real bad... that's dangerous...") by too many Windows users. I believe this is the "innovation" Bill Gates always speaks about. ;)
These guys have spent over $50 million just on their court costs and didn't bat an eye. Ultimately the consumer pays for it. However, a combination of the three possible choices (no action is not a possible choice for a lawsuit that has cost millions) may be more effective by limiting Microsoft's participation in the market and generating development and research funds that would benefit the competitors...
If IIS, ASP, COM and DCOM are all you can come up with as examples of MS's "Great" technology, I got news for you buddy, they all SUCK! The industry has come up with much better NONPROPRIETARY ways to do the same thing. Even the professional Windows programmers in my office agree that Windows programming sucks, so I'm pretty sure it's not just my UNIX bias showing through here.
I don't use Windows and I don't want to use Windows. I am rabidly anti-MS because MS has this tendecy to destroy any competition that threatens it, meaning if I want to CONTINUE to not use windows, I have to fight MS with everything I have, or one day there won't even be the option. I'm not necessarily out to silence them, but if we don't all fight them wholeheartedly they'd continue to engulf the industry to the point where you can't even use a hard drive without their OS.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And guess what? After the media finally realized that there was no real interest in OS/2, it was mostly fake interest from zealots packing ballot boxes.
You can't look at OS/2's failure as an indication of what will happen in the future. Unlike what I saw with OS/2, I've personally seen a lot of real interest in Linux and open source. I know a lot more people actually using Linux than I ever knew of people playing around with OS/2. Heck, I know about as many people who actually use *BSD as I knew people who used OS/2.
What really got the press to stop reporting on OS/2 was when Microsoft switched all of their efforts away from it and towards Windows. IBM just didn't do a very good job of promoting OS/2 after that. Unfortunately, the OS/2 zealots (like TeamOS/2) got a little carried away trying to overcompensate. On the other hand Linux is mostly a grass-roots effort, and has been since day one. There is a lot of commercial interest in it now, but that is both recent and secondary to the grass roots effort.
Not that I'm out to see MS destroyed. Just beaten down to the point where they don't try to rabidly annhilate every potential competitor in every potential market. For one thing, the destruction of MS would cause damage to millions of peoples' pension funds. For another, competition IS good as long as the playing field is level.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Um... folks? Even if the government DID break up MS into baby bills or do something even more drastic, there will still be a windows and an office and everything else at the end of the day. MS just won't be able to shove them down people's throats. (About the only description the judge DIDN'T use. Damn, that document was brutal)
OK, here's a thought or two.
Monster fines are in order, if only because the findings of the antitrust investigation show that MS not only damaged other corporations with it's unethical business practices, but the users of windows suffered technologically.
Splitting the corporation is a good thing, for both MS, the users, and the technology community. Why?
Good for MS users:
Splitting MS will force it into groups which focus on smaller market shares. No dumbass web tv, less OS bloat, substantially reduced influence in internet standards arenas, less ability to stifle innovation both in hardware and software technology. The end result, if done correctly, would force a segment of MS to focus on creating solid operating systems with easy GUIs that continue to reduce the technological barriers to computing for the average user.
Good for MS:
Focus, focus, focus. Rather than trying to do everything, a split of the company could create a company which concentrates on OS development, a company which concentrates on application development for x86, mac and unix platforms, and a company which concentrates on internet technology. By doing so, and removing the overarching goal of supporting windows and its product goals, the talented developers that MS currently employs could have more freedom to innovate without all of the restrictions they currently operate under.
Good for us: Netscape, Sun, and the hundreds of underrepresented software companies who could have made great products for all software platforms are freed from the unnatural restrictions MS imposed on them if they attempted to infringe on "core business", which currently includes everything under the sun. This leads directly to better software offerings, broader OS support for existing apps, and less hoops for developers to jump through.
If done right, I think this could be the best thing to happen to computing since (gasp!) the GUI.
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
Microsoft already is "helping" public school and universities. Recall the article posted on Slashdot about them giving thier software cheap to schools so that the next generation knows nothing but it. Any help from microsoft needs to be looked at for other motives.
Banfield
abo ut.com has another such poll, for those who answer these things recreationally. ;-)
That would at least tell you something-- kind of let you know the kind of crowd that is frequented by different news/portal pages. As is, though, i don't see why i should care that 77% of the random people who happen to be at cnn.com for some reason on a saturday morning happen to think MS has a monopoly.
What does surprise me is that 22% of all the people thought "imposing fines" would somehow have some effect on MS's monopoly. Huh??
--mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
who make decisions, such as "the masses" will make decisions based on what they believe, whether they have read into the situation or not!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
[Ad hominem rant mode ON]
Hey, AC... Get an account. Log in. Stand up and be counted!
Do you know how to read? Do you bother trying? MOST means "more than the rest", and MOST of the recent comments are pro-smash-Microsoft. Get a clue! What, because a small minority either like Microsoft or dislike the government or its actions, you think that they will massively overpower the very large, very vocal majority who love government intrusion into other people's lives and hate anything Microsoft? Wake up, smell the java 1.2 beans, and Get a clue!
[End rant]
By the way, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like most of their software, except some really nice tools they bought from other companies and haven't managed to screw up yet.
I know lots of people (smart developers, not idiots on the street) who dream of inventing something totally cool, being bought by Microsoft, turning into instant zillionaires, and retiring to a beach somewhere at the ripe old age of 25. Yes Microsoft will embrace and extend (swallow and bloat) their innovation. Yes they may worry a little about that. But money talks, and big money talks very persuasively.
And what about the hundreds of thousands of developers who have spent the money, bought the books, took the classes, learned the APIs, and depend on Microsoftware for their collective livelihood. Do you really want those people (don't forget their spouses and children) out of a job, out of a house, out on the street... Or (even worse?) do you want them coding everything they know and love (and you despise) into Linux? Here comes the bloat!
In case you hadn't noticed, people like to side with the underdog. At least lets keep Microsoft in enough of a position of power that public sympathy doesn't take hold.
Finally, what's this about the Gestapo. Had you lived in Eastern Europe during World War II you would have far more respect for those who actually endured what really was the Gestapo. It went much further than other people posting their (dissenting) beliefs or feelings in a free, public forum.
Yes, I know this is flamebait. CO2 tank, check. Asbestos suit, check. Flame away, baby!
The Autonomous Cow. Moo.
Heh.
All polls are biased. You cannot ask a question without some bias.
For instance, consider these:
Do cats make better pets than dogs? Yes() No()
Best pet: Dog () Cat () Fish () Ferret ()
Cats make better pets. Agree() Disagree ()
Cats rule, dogs drool
They all contain some bias, in an increasing pro-cat direction. You could skew pro-dog (why, I don't understand) but the point is you cannot ask a neutral question.
Meow
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
And she tried it on her own. Pretty cool, huh?
If I rob a bank and get caught, but by the time I get to trial I have spent all the money on liquor and donuts, should I be set free since I no longer enjoy the benefits of the money I stole?
Or to be more realistic, if I use strongarm tactics to drive a hundred companies out of business to maintain a dominant position, and then later I find that I might not be able to maintain that position anyway, should I escape prosecution because my plan didn't quite work out the way I hoped?
It's tempting to be bitter about how rich MS is. But guess what, they did make a lot of their money by supplying a product that people wanted. There's no reason they shouldn't be filthy rich. There is a reason why they should not be allowed to do anything they want in the name of "innovation" - it's called the law.
This is wacked. Is anybody running a story on how the MSNBC poll won't let you vote unless you're on Windows/IE/whatever? And considering this- what _is_ the result of the poll? I'm quite curious now.
I hardly think they are so _disorganized_ as to not astroturf these things fulltilt, considering that they've already been caught doing just that. You think they'd stop now?
They're bound to be much more representative because the Slashdot astroturf counters the paid MS employees astroturfing 80-hour a week shifts from Redmond, just as Nixon had people filling out postcards for days on end to astroturf _postal_ mail polls back in the early 70s.
We do help by link from "/.". The more obviously absurd the polls are, the less likely they are to be taken seriously. And even for those who still takes them seriously, the /.'ed results are no more misleading than the un-/.'ed results. So they are no worse off. Also, the polls *do* have a positive value, they are fun. /. would be more boring without its wonderful polls.
The program you mentioned misses the point. It doesn't matter if the poll is spammed or not, self selected surveys are always useless.
MSIE is the better product now, but that is irrelevant. Better products have never won in the PC market. The time the masses switched to MSIE was when the browser became bundled with the OS.
1. Can you produce a quote of ANY modern day Republican complaining about "blacks getting special privalages"?
Uh... yes? Are you nuts? That's not only not a cheap shot, but it's also something many Republicans would proudly sign on to. And it's not an inherently bad position- there's certainly a case to be made there. Affirmitive Action debates are full of variations on that sentance, it's the very basis of the Anti-Affirmative action platform. I can list for sure several: Helms, Lott, Alexander- even D'Souza. You're the Knucklehead, trying to paint me off as a cheap shot.
2. Every consumer product can kill people, the cigarette companies are NOT negligent when everyone on the planet knows that smoking kills people. Since the 1950s cigarettes have had the nick name "Cancer Sticks".
So? This sounds like an argument someone would have made in the 80s, before reading all the new case law, rulings, and revelations. The point is not just the cigarettes kill people, but that the cig companies a) buried this information wherever possible, sometimes illegally, and b) completely obscured the addictiveness of tobbacco for decades, and even deliberately used it to build their customer base.
If you want the Slashdot effect to accomplish something, go here.
I doubt this'll happen for one reason: market value. Government will still be loathe to actually destroy what they see as a product's economic sale value. They'd much rather just keep Microsoft from profiting off their software. I mean, if M$ products were GPL'ed, what would happen to all the computer sotre owners with inventories of the stuff? It all drops in value, hurting them. That'll be a no no...
(1) Impose Fines. A joke, won't even put a dent in billion dollar bill-anyway, fines hurt the investors and the company and don't help the consumer--remember, corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do--the same will be true of any fines. (2) Order changes in company practices. No system of rules has been made throughout history that cannot be circumvented to accomplish the desired goal. The government w/i a democracy should not be imposing "restrictions" on one particular company. Such restrictions may be a permanent handicap for the company and really inhibit growth in certain directions. This one could hurt the consumer because it may hurt the company. Most likely, billion dollar Bill will find a way to circumvent it. (3) No Action. Basically, the entire DOJ trial would be a total waste of tax money. Also, the consumer receives no benefit. They will keep paying higher and higher prices to the M$ monopoly. Also, product quality will be defined by M$, the consumer will have no choice. This is the worst possibility out of the 3 listed. (4) Split the company into multiple companies. Two approaches that I have heard about were to split M$ into 3 smaller companies or to separate the applications and operating system divisions. (a) Split into 3 smaller companies. Again, it may be possible for billion dollar Bill to regroup later on, circumventing the trial outcome. Or, one of the 3 companies may die and 1 will emerge to power. This one has the potential to hurt investors in seriously lowering their share values. The consumer is injured because I believe M$ will return to power and the monopoly will happen all over again. All this one does is weaken M$ for a while. (b) Split the Applications and Operating Systems divisions. This by far I believe is the best alternative. It gives the new companies that are formed unlimited ability to grow and helps eliminate the strangleholding M$ has w/ it's Network/OS/Office/IE/etc. line of products. That is how M$ has been monopolizing each market they enter. They integrate all of the above so that it is nearly impossible for a competitor to provide a competitive product for any single piece. Also, because the OS is designed around applications rather than around concepts central to OSes (reliability, scalability,quality of service, compatability). The best way it seems to have different system components interact is through some IEEE standard or industry standard. This is happening in Linux right now and with excellent results. M$ can also charge competitor companies big $$$ for the information to even make a competitive product. I believe breaking up the company into a (1) Server OS/Server App company (2) Internet Content tools (inet browser, windows media player, video encoders, streaming technology) company (3) Workstation OS company - for consumer and business computers. (4) Consumer/Office Applications company - products like Microsoft Office, MS Publisher, Visual Studio, etc. (5) Hardware Company. Microsoft makes really great peripherals. There mice are by far the best. Their joysticks, steering wheel accessories, etc. are excellent. They are also are releasing a game set-top-box and web-tv like box. (6) Palm OS/Palm Apps company - basically, the Windows CE, the development tools for Windows CE, etc. I am not sure if 6 distinct parts is too many. In any case, the OS and Applications software division definitely need to be separated. I believe 6 companies is best based on what I know about Microsoft. This benefits the consumer in that M$ won't be able to stranglehold competitors any more. M$ won't have tight control over the whole product line. They will have to compete like everyone else. This will improve the quality of their software and operating systems immensely. I believe that every single division will flourish. If you remember, when Standard Oil was broken up, Rockefeller doubled his fortune and owned shares in both companies. I believe breaking the company into 6 divisions will have excellent results for investors in M$. Well, that is my $.02.
If the little radio buttons and click boxes at CNN were no enough, you should check out the microsoft web site. They have launched the Freedom to Innovate Network (apparently Freedom to Strong Arm Others already taken) It is an ultra-patriotic attempt at a grass-roots support for their cause, and it gets you a monthly e-mail news letter joy. Just imagine people who are going the sign up and let microsoft tell them it's side of the news.
Take a look at the policy issues while your there to, notice competition is #2 behind more copyright protection (protect Microsoft?). This subtle switch of the issues really is an amazing example of a typical Microsoft tatic.
Banfield
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
offtopic.... :)
I think that was actually mentioned in the 'slashdot updates' thread anyways. Sowell see what rob thinks of our great ideas
Extending on your suggestion that corporations be given the rights of individuals and be treated as such.
Given the number of other companies that Microsoft has bought and pillaged - would that make them guilty of owning slaves or of being a serial killer?
--- http://foo.ca
you cant. thats the point. only M$ shit will work with M$ extensions, like IE, word email attachments and other crap.
If you don't like MS, just go and use BeOS, Linux, QNX, FreeBSD or go and buy an apple ...
Don't just whine and call MS basterds.
You have the right to choose
'BE the difference that makes the difference' - JEWEL
Thanks for showing us all how ignorant you really are. I have five G3 macs running Linux exclusively. Did you ever stop to think that some of us really like to use the world's fastest computers for their processing power, and not the dorky OS that came with them?
They've done this before, they can do it again.
:)
Really? When have they done somthing like that? I must've missed it
The idea that the market is teleological and always "does the right thing" is what RMS described as the practically Marxist element in ESR's doctrine. It motivates his belief that the economic incentive alone will move software makers to Open Source, which in turn protects him from having to identify communal values as a factor in free software. This faith allows him to both oppose Microsoft's strategies in the market without actually using any legal remedy, because The Mandate of History/A Wrathful God/The Market will be the instrument of justice.
It's a weird fusion of Hegel and A. Smith. (It should be noted that A. Smith believed that the "invisible hand" was a general rule, not a universal one, and that he did in fact hold that the state had a role in shaping it and ameliorating its worst effects.)
Seeing the role of the "teleological market" in the specific stances of those who subscribe to it is left as an exercise to the reader.
Towards the end of paragraph 297 in the Finding of Fact document (on page 148), it mentions, "The average AOL user, being perhaps less technically .."
sophiscated than the average IAP[1] subscriber
Is it me or was Judge Jackson calling AOL users a bunch of thickos? LOL!
Good one, Judge Jackson!
[1] IAP = Internet Access Provider
Cheers - Alex,
(http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk)
1. Do you agree with the judge's findings of fact in the Microsoft case?
() Agree
() Disagree
Well it's Friday, and I've only read the first one-hundred pages; they seem to be straight-foward and limited to the matter of law. So I'll agree. But if he says anything that indicates a judgement in the next hundred pages I'll say no because this document isn't supposed to contain that. Of course I think this part of the legal system is bad, but at least they don't seem to go too wacky like they did with the GE conspiracy case.
2. Does Microsoft, in your opinion, have illegal monopoly power in the software operating systems for personal computers?
() Yes
() No
IANAL. Illegal? Yes, but what isn't nowadays? Is their use of power bad? Yes. Should it be illegal? I have to say no, but I have my doubts about nature of corporations; they are state granted and seem to exist as a 'legal' means for the state to seize power. I'd have no objection to state certification (not granting) of a contract among men that accomplishes similar ends.
3. What action should the judge take to punish Microsoft?
(Please select all that apply.)
() Impose fines.
() Order changes in company practices.
() Split the company into multiple companies.
() No action.
Three options for punishment and one for no action? Seems a bit tilted. I'll give two more in case you said no to question #2:
() The DoJ should apologize for abusive litigation.
() The anti-trust laws should be repealed.
4. Does the judge's decision go too far?
() Yes.
() No.
Decision? He hasn't made one yet. This is the statement of what he will consider as empirical fact when he goes to make his decision. Is the statement skewed against MS? Yes, but that's because the laws are and the judge is acting in accordance with the law. MS will settle or be found guilty of these charges and that will be a great injustice and a double blow to human rights; the violations of Gates's rights and the failure to prevent the actual violations of others' rights at the hands of MS.
So now you are making excuses?
BTW, the topic of the discussion is a poll on CNN, not MSNBC. Your excuse about it being biased doesn't hold water.
I don't want to say you are wrong because that is harsh. But I think you are seeing things from a different perspective.
First of all, in terms of OS/2 usage while there were very few individuals using it, unlike Linux... There were many companies using it, unlike Linux.
Many Fortune 500 companies were using OS/2 for their desktops and some of their servers(although Netware was far more popular). I worked at Lutheran Brotherhood for a time and we had OS/2 running on about 1,200 desktops in our company.
I had colleagues who worked for First Bank(now USBank) who had OS/2 running on many thousands of desktops(I'd guess somwhere around 10,000 or more). Other colleagues at American Express, etc were also using OS/2 in various parts of their companies.
OS/2 did have a huge groundswell of usage between about 1992 and 1996 in corporate America. A much larger groundswell of usage than Linux has ever enjoyed.
Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 back in the late 1980s, this was long before OS/2 truly became popular. That had very little to do with OS/2 decline, except that part of OS/2s features were Windows compatibility and it made it harder for IBM because MS was improving their own products at a very rapid pace and made it difficult to license the code to IBM.
But I think that was partly IBM's fault as well. They did not work to improve the UI to OS/2 and did not provide much to the development environment, so there was generally a lack of decent OS/2 software such that people relied on the Windows compatibility too much.
After the release of Windows 95 there was less motivation to use OS/2 by many people. Windows 95 was a better product than OS/2 from a user/support point of view. It was much easier to configure networking, supported a wider range of hardware and the users liked the UI better.
So in reality there had been a lot of OS/2 support up until 1996 or so. It was in 1996 that the tide turned after Microsoft released their product. But the media still spoke of OS/2 as being a serious competitor because the Team OS/2 zealots were out there making it look like there was a lot of support when there was not.
At infoworld anyway when the zealots were caught red handed stuffing the ballot boxes of the product awards, there seemed to be a huge backlash against further OS/2 coverage.
Yes, Linux has been built up from a grass roots effort, which is exactly similar to Team OS/2 not having commercial support. The resulting zealotry does not lend well because it creates an illusion of false support for a product.
Market share illusions are bad, companies prefer to deal with reality.
Question #2 seems to show that the people who designed the poll don't have a clue about this issue.
If there's one thing I've learned from following this case, it's that there is no such thing as an illegal monopoly.
Microsoft is NOT on trial for _being_ a monopoly.
They are on trial because they are engaging in practices which are illegal for a monopoly.
This trial is not about who/what Microsoft is.
This trial is about the illegal things Microsoft has done.
-- Bret
I think you are seeing things from a different perspective.
Undoubtedly. You make some good points, but on the whole I mostly disagree. That is fine, people are entitled to their own opinions.
First of all, in terms of OS/2 usage while there were very few individuals using it, unlike Linux...
That is very true.
There were many companies using it, unlike Linux.
That I would dispute. That may have been true in the early days of Linux, but Linux has much more of a foothold into the commercial world than even the companies themselves know. While you are right that few companies use it as their 'official' desktop, a lot of people are using it 'under the table', and like the early days of the Mac, many people have snuck it into the workplace. Furthermore the number of large companies that have accepted Linux into official roles is increasing.
Yes, Linux has been built up from a grass roots effort, which is exactly similar to Team OS/2 not having commercial support.
Not that similar at all. While TeamOS/2 may not have been officially supported, they were supporting an OS that did have commercial support from the beginning. Linux started out with absolutely no commercial support.
So in reality there had been a lot of OS/2 support up until 1996 or so.
Around here, OS/2 was effectively dead way before that, and I live in a town that has a tradition of being 'true blue'. OS/2 was a walking corpse around here by 1992 or 1993. OS/2 was doomed by two things, first the fact that most people saw it as somehow tied to the PS/2, which was a complete flop. Secondly, once Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 all of the clone vendors were afraid to support oS/2 because it was perceived as being more in IBM's interest for them to do so than theirs.
users liked the UI better.
Most users had no clue, because they never even looked at OS/2.
The resulting zealotry does not lend well because it creates an illusion of false support for a product.
I don't think that there is any illusion happening with respect to support for Linux. If anything, the support is larger than what is visible on the surface.
Market share illusions are bad, companies prefer to deal with reality.
Well, I don't necessarily buy that. Companies often seem to prefer advertising hype in large trade journals and from salespeople making deals on the golf course and offering free gifts.
At any rate, Linux was firmly rooted in reality before the hype started.
() Yes
() No
() First Post!
--
A poll at the BBC needs you....
//news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/ne wsid_506000/506583.asp
http:
The reason why you don't see a gathering place for Windows users is the same reason why in the U.S. you don't see a National Association for the Advancement of White People, National Organization for Men, Congressional White Caucus, United Whitey College Fund, White Heritage Month, etc.
There are Windows users found in every facet of society. To me, it sounds like you want them to fit some sort of stereotype, as in everyone going to the same web sites. It's kind of hard to stereotype such a diverse group, though. When you take a look at what the stereotype of a Linux-using Slashdot patron is, though, I can only wonder why anyone would want that for him or herself. I know that I definitely don't go out of my way to let people know I visit this site or use Linux because of all the negative connotations associated with it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I don't know- maybe the inventories would drop in price, maybe not. I mean, Red Hat makes a considerable profit selling GPLed software in computer stores... admittedly, slightly different ballpark. But what if the gov't said that a) it has to be phased in gradually over several years and that b) not everything has to be free, just the most important stuff. So the source for Word has to be free, but not the clip art or the dictionaries or the tutorials or any documentation beyond what's necessary for basic functionality, for example. Add to that that Word is a big honkin' program any way you slice it, and a lot of people would be unhappy having to download it, which would take a while, and use it with no warranty, no technical support, no nothing. Those concerns (the former being mostly for home users, the latter being for mostly business users) might make it attractive to purchase a full licensed version anyway.
I don't know, though, you might be right. However, what if we changed it so that instead of GPLing the code, they were forced to sell the code (for some reasonable price) to anyone who wanted to purchase it, including developers who were developing competing products? That would probably do the trick, too, without making MS give its stuff away free to end-users (gasp!).
-jacob
Do you agree that Microsoft has monopoly power and that consumers have been harmed?
* 9473 responses
33% Yes.
33% It has monopoly power, but no one has been hurt.
34% No.
What should happen?
* 9903 responses
16% Microsoft should be broken up.
11% The company should settle.
2% The government should oversee the company.
13% The company should be forced to license its OS source code.
15% It should be fined and agree not to use monopoly power.
44% Nothing should change.
It is quite simple. By participating, you encourage the activity. The activity is harmful. So don't participate or encourage others to. This isn't brain surgery.
the poll is here.
Some details:
The question is, "Should Microsoft now face restrictions to curtail its 'monopoly' position?" and the results are currently (11 am EST) 40% for & 60% against.
Some of the more, um, interesting comments that make me wonder and hope that these people are joking...
Microsoft has "been instrumental in providing us with the lowest unemployment rate in over 20 years."
"Think about the e-mail, Internet and the GUI which was a total Innovation by Microsoft."
Granted, there are a few intelligent responses. A few. The clue factor on internet polls is generally low, isn't it though?
--- this comment is presented in WIDE SCREEN STEREO!!!
I think this quote in the wired article about the FoF says it all:
"We will continue to vigorously contest the issues of this case in court, but at the same time we will continue to look for ways to resolve these issues in a fair and responsible manner," spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.
Translation:
"We will continue to deny we broke the law in court, but at the same time we will continue to look for ways to be more subtle about how we do it in the future, including maybe cutting back a little until this blows over."
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
It depends how big the fine is. . .
I came across some statements by ESR at salon.com stating that if MS didn't deserve this so much, the FoF were rather harsh. The story went on to imply that ESR thinks that the market should decide and not the USgov. I want to know how viable it would be to have left things the way they are considering the level of most computer users. Do you think the market would tend towards Linux after it became more and more secure and viable as a commercial platform?
I am of the mindset that Linux gets little exposure to the general public and even when stories come out, they tend not to care. The only reason my parents know about it is because of me. I'm not even going to begin to try to explain it to my grandmother.
So what I'm getting at is "Was it absolutely necessary for this trial? Was Linux given a fair notice? And [as implied by ESR] would the market fix itself?"
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
This is how the OS/2 zealots screwed themselves. By spreading the word to go and pack the ballot boxes on polls.
Culminating in the Infoworld product of the year award for 1996 fiasco.
And guess what? After the media finally realized that there was no real interest in OS/2, it was mostly fake interest from zealots packing ballot boxes... They stopped reporting on OS/2.
Do yourself a favor, if you happen to come across a poll then vote. Otherwise don't go publicizing it with "Everybody go vote!"
Idiots...
This is one of the more irresponsible things I've seen on slashdot, not surprising it came from Roblimo either.
Microsoft's behavior precludes the option of not using MS products for most commercial and home offices. They have indeed prevented you from having any viable choices simply by their dominance in the marketplace - a dominance born not from superior technology, but from superior marketing, timing, and business acumen. If Apple hadn't had their collective heads up Steve Job's ego, they could have posed a credible alternative; Unix failed a long time ago as a desktop alternative because of the lack of a reasonably intuitive interface, and when one came along, even just a shell over the incrediably lame DOS, users stampeded to Windows. One of the things all you Linux heroes should do is get a little more respect for the average user - they're trying to do a job, and they can do that job easier and faster with a decent GUI - being a techie doesn't make you more attractive, sexier, or even smarter than the average user that most of you look down upon. Unix lost the battle that you're trying to make up for by reason of it's command line interface and obscure and idiosyncratic programs to do the simplest thing. A techno-follower like MS was able to win because YOU lost the war with your arrogance. Now get out there and listen to the people you claim to be fighting for, else none of this will matter a bit. Get on the side of the user.
Several points.
1. Can you produce a quote of ANY modern day Republican complaining about "blacks getting special privalages"?
I didn't think so, please keep your political cheap-shots and ignorance to yourself.
2. Every consumer product can kill people, the cigarette companies are NOT negligent when everyone on the planet knows that smoking kills people. Since the 1950s cigarettes have had the nick name "Cancer Sticks".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Here's an idea that wasn't on the poll, but the more I think about it, the better it seems: the most effective way to break up Microsoft's monopoly might be some variation on forcing them to GPL some core set of their products. Their strongarm position comes from the fact that they have the programmer-hours available to throw together any product that any other company thinks of. Well, if they had to release the source, then they can't screw over other companies with this practice, because the companies they're competing against can just take anything they like from MS's work and use it in their own- the two competing products would both benefit from that competition.
MS still gets the "freedom to innovate" and make money based on the quality of their programmers and products. Other companies get the ability to compete realistically with Microsoft even if they aren't anywhere near Microsoft's size. Computer users everywhere benefit from a huge body of commercial software that now has available source code. Seems to me like everybody would win. (Well, except maybe MS, but hey, that's why it's a punishment, right?)
-jacob
It is impossible for a corporation with monopoly power to _not_ harm consumers. Fun economics tidbit of the day. So if they are a monopoly, they hurt everyone who used/uses an x86 based computer.
itachi
My http-referrer is automatically set to "http://STICK IT UP YER ASS!!!/" by my proxy for every http request. Some servers throw a fit, but if anybody has a problem with it, they can check my http-agent header, which instructs them what to do with themselves.
DAMN I love junkbuster!!!
Okay, having studies economics for far too long, I have to point out that there is no such thing as a good or harmless monopoly. The only cases where a monopoly can be justified is a natural monopoly, and those are either run by the govt or heavily regulated (see your local telco provider, water company, electric provider) Even natural monpolies are starting to fall by the wayside. If you look at an open market, a market where one company has monopoly power, and a one compnay monopoly market, there's only one where the consumer isn't getting screwed. Hint: it's not the last two.
itachi
ps - feel free to email me and ask for much more detailed explanations....
The way I see it, tie their hands and let everyone sue the heck outta them.
Breaking them up just gives the pieces some legal protection...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I tried with IE and Netscape, but could find no poll at that URL. :-(
Now the CNN survey will be totally biased :)
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Life with out M$. Im sure the world will be a better place. We can hand the 30 or 40 million desktop users their 'gdb' and 'cc' READMEs and a few sample core dumps, 30 or 40 books, 8 cases of Mountain Dew, and within 2 years they'll be in great shape to continue from where they are today. Our (American) government has lept with joy at these findings, yet makes slashdot on a daily basis for Echelon and all of it's criminal acts. Hw many of you bash microsoft, then find something they've released to be a great technology? IIS, ASP, DCOM, COM, general development are all interesting at a minimum. And as for security and stability...Oh wow, IIS has an exploit. I think that there are Linux exploits too. Oh wow, a Microsoft has a bug - I should format and install Linux, cause we all know it's bug free. Im a Mac/Win/UNIX user, I support open source and I contribute by releasing my own crappy source code... The great linux cause is great, but hypocrisy and prejudice such as that seen in the Linux community are of little value to all of us. The underlying idea of freedom is greatly obfuscated by the Linux cry for death to another free entity, MS. If you dont like Microsoft products *dont use them*, its not your job to silence them. If they suck, they will be gone soon enough. In any event...Microsoft is a product of capitalism, built upon a framework designed by our government. If you have a problem with Microsoft, then you must have one with gas companies too. What about all of the worlds other capitalistic empires - do you even care about them? I cant quite pull this rant together..oh well...Mob mentality...now go vote anti-M$ - mike name100@hotmail.com
To vote that microsoft is a monopoly obviously ignores a very viable alternative...
You may have heard of it, it's called linux
Apart from the obvious threats to innovation, fair pricing etc that a monopoly like MS represents there is also a threat by monopolies to democracies.
... and by then they would be even more powerful.
Last time I looked MS's market capitalization was a shade under HALF A TRILLION dollars. Yep trillion! That much money means _awesome_ influence not just on markets but on governments. I actually think in this MS has been pretty good that they haven't blatantly bought out the entire US administration. Mind you it would only be a matter of time before they tried it
It seems to me that there will always be companies that grow too big and become a threat to the society that supports them. Breaking them up is the only thing to do. It wont hurt MS either, as I recall when the US steel monopoly was broken up earlier in the century Rockefeller made MORE money as a result but had LESS power. I wonder if that is the real Gates take on this, that for a guy who has always been in control and been the boss this would be a dramatic loss of control and power.
Bitter and proud of it.
I don't want to destroy Microsoft; I just want to destroy their monopoly. Microsoft and their apologists seem to think there's no difference between the two.
But if Microsoft can't survive in a free market without their monopoly advantage, they don't deserve to, do they?
The way I see it, Macs are for 5 year olds who have just graduated from their Fisher-Price trucks and ready to move on... and *nix is for the hardcore enthusiasts...
:)
Excellent.. I never really wanted to grow up..
Seriously though, I know a number of engineers and scientists who are fed up with the outrageous costs of UltraSparcs, have recognized that a G3 300 actually crunches Fortran nearly as fast as a 300MHz UltraSparc II processor, and have turned to Macs to run their simulations. I'm not saying that the G3 is faster at everything (or most things for that matter), nor am I claiming that the PPC chips are better than Intel/AMD.. I'm merely trying to explain that I've been running CFD codes (same code, slightly different initial conditions) on 3 Mac G3/300s, a PowerBook G3/400, and a pair of Sun Ultra30s (300MHz). That Macs rarely have a problem keeping up with the Ultras, and the 400MHz PB tends to beat up on the rest of the machines.
If we didn't already have the Macs, we'd probably be running Linux or *BSD. But, I'm very happy with the elegence of the interface. Note: I did not say the ability to configure, or personalize. I currently use my Mac all day to work on papers or write/debug code, then mount the drives to 3-4 other Macs before I leave, drop the APP the be run that evening in a shared folder, and let an Applescript launch the code at 11pm when everyone is gone for the evening..
There's something to be said about an OS that a 5 year old could use.. (by the way I know a couple 3 year olds using Macs, for things like interactive Dr. Suess)..
Poll results as of Sunday 4:50PM PST
1. Do you agree with the judge's findings of fact in the Microsoft case?
total responses to this question: 25468
Agree 80.21%
Disagree 19.79%
2. Does Microsoft, in your opinion, have illegal monopoly power in the software operating systems for personal computers?
total responses to this question: 25437
Yes 77.26%
No 22.74%
3. What action should the judge take to punish Microsoft?
total responses to this question: 42896
Split the
company
into
multiple
companies.
34.90%
Order
changes in
company
practices.
32.14%
Impose
fines.
23.56%
No action.
9.40%
4. Does the judge's decision go too far?
total responses to this question: 25338
No 78.24%
Yes 21.76%
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
> > Cut off Netscape's air supply.
> And how exactly did they do that? By making a
> better product? What that isnt allowed?
Why don't you read the actual findings, it is all explained there nicely. In plain text. Of course "making a better product" is allowed. But that wasn't how MS won the browser war. They won it by tying their browser to a product where they have a monopoly.
You are a young one, aren't you? I don't know which place you get your revisionist Microsoft history, but a lot of us was there at the time, and we know it for what it is.
a poll is a poll. if i hear about it, i vote. period. that's what polls are for.
when a poll is on msnbc, it's skewed toward their audience already, which is not a clean cross section of the people affected by microsof~01.
so the skew is all over the place, and this makes little difference.
MS has 30,000 employees -- do you really think they're not voting on these polls?
1) Microsoft should be prohibited from buying the distribution channels of the future (e.g. cable and wireless) and from buying rather than inventing technologies. Microsoft's unfettered use of a cash hoard created out of monopoly profits is a competition killer;
2) The government needs to foster competition in the software industry by assuring that the technical interfaces of Microsoft's monopoly products are open;
3) Microsoft must be forbidden from entering into exclusive or preclusive agreements;
4) Microsoft must be required to make their pricing policies non- discriminatory and public.
...I don't see why BillGatus would disagree, after all, "MS is the Mother of all things innovative". Step 0n2 fits right in with their self-proclaimed innovative genius.
Also, some of the emails that came out the other day reregarding DRDOS are incredible -- actual instructions from high-level MS execs telling the tech people to break DRDOS.
Things are really looking up for true innovation in software!
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
They provide no useful information whatsoever, and can thus not be "skewed". /. should link to them whenever it increases their entertainment value. It actually helps their information value, because currently they have a negative information value as some people actually believe they bear some resemblance to the popular opinion. The /. effect can help show these unenlightened people the folly of their belief.
johno
872835240
>>Affirmitive Action debates are full of variations on that sentance, it's the very basis of the Anti-Affirmative action platform.
So I take that as a no. Opposition to Affirmative action is opposition to ANYONE getting unfair advantages.
>>I can list for sure several: Helms, Lott, Alexander- even D'Souza. You're the Knucklehead, trying to paint me off as a cheap shot.
Ok, please do so. If you can. Verifyable quotes???
>>The point is not just the cigarettes kill people, but that the cig companies a) buried this information wherever possible, sometimes illegally, and b) completely obscured the addictiveness of tobbacco for decades, and even deliberately used it to build their customer base.
As a smoker who is in the process of quitting I can say first hand that nicotine is addictive, but I think that the act of smoking is psychologically addictive because over time you become used to making the motions with your hands. Smoking is an activity that becomes compulsive.
But that is all academic. They are producing a product which is currently legal. Cigarettes do exactly what people expect them to do. They damage your health and they cause the desired effect by delivering a stimulant to the body.
If you don't like that, make them illegal.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Asks whether as a result of decision you should buy or sell MS stock, and reasons why. However, the link from ZDNet's trial coverage page reads Did Judge Jackson make the right call?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Some less than cluefull people believe in Internet pools. By /.'ing the pools we either enlighten these people, or make them believe in another falsehood than they would otherwise have done. Thus, /.'ing a Internet pool can never do wrong, only good.
Besides, there is a non-negligible entertainment effect in the pools. Complaining about them would be showing significant amount of stick-in-the-assness. Much better to join the fun.
You make a good case for the six companies, and all of them would remain among the largest players in the field.
I don't think #1 (server-os) and #3 (workstation-os) breakup is reasonable, though. They share too much technology. What would you think about breaking Linux development up into server and workstation? Nah. I'm unsure about #2 (internet content tools). How would it work as a company? They have themselves made it hard to make money selling a web-browser. And the technology _is_ pretty much integrated in the os by now.
Maybe #1, #2, and #3 should form one new company. I agree that your suggestions #4 (office, applications), #5 (hardware), and #6 (wince) ought to run separately. And their ISP (MSN) should also form a separate company, perhaps together with the MS "content" ownership.
That would be 5 new companies, each of them with clear separate markets, and each of them strong players in their respective markets. They ought to be able to thrive.
I tried the vote at 12:20am CST but the link was dead and found this new vote at www.cnn.com
Microsoft's dominance of the PC operating system
industry is due to:
Its monopolistic
business
practices.
The superiority
of its products.
The
combination of
strong
products and
strong-arm
tactics.
I love the compromise #3 is. It both criticizes MS and compliments it, while ignoring that most if not all of MS's 'strong-arm' tactics are strong-arm monopolistic tactics. CNN spreads out the anti-ms votes into 2 categories.
Us monopolies got to stick together, Ted.
It's always been an interesting idea floating around- corporations are granted the rights of individuals. Most people will agree that that's a bit quirky, and let's people shove blame from their own actions onto an abstract "corporation" that doesn't really exist. So, if murderers are killed for felony violations- why not corporations? The government can simply revoke their charter, taking away all special legal protections (Republican's bitch about homosexuals and blacks getting special privalages- but you should see some of the legal protections that corporations get!)- legaly destroying the "corporation" as it is. Of course, this is usually only suggested in cases like cigarrette companies and the like- corporations that have killed thousands through gross negilgence. Not that Microsoft has killed anyone though... have they?
They are on trial because they are engaging in practices which are illegal for a monopoly.
This trial is not about who/what Microsoft is.
This trial is about the illegal things Microsoft has done.
They may not be on trial for being a monopoly, but they had to be found to in fact be a monopoly or some of the other things may not have applied? You indicate this where you say 'practices which are illegal for a monopoly' - would these practices be legal for a non-monopoly?
I have never seen the relevance of the Linux defence for a number of reasons:
I thought that this was a trial accusing them of illegal actions IN THE PAST. Were they for a time a monopoily and did they, as a monopoly, engage in illegal behaviour? Not "Are they now a monopoly, and are they now, as a monopoly, engaging in illegal behaviour?" (Your honour, I know I WAS a crook LAST WEEK when I STOLE some money, but I am innocent NOW. I am no longer a crook and I am not stealing at this time.)
Linux, in order to make even the small dent it has so far has had to be developed "for free" and "given away." (Generalizations, I know!) How is it you can claim not to have a monopoly on cars if the only way the other guy can move any cars is to develop them for free and give them away? (I know I am making an unfair comparison, but that is the nature of using the thoughts behind IP.) Perhaps a better one would be: ... not to have a monopoly on music if the only way the other guy can move any music is to produce it for free and give it away?
A Nony Mouse
I'd like to find out how Bill Gates feels about the $ he gave to Bill Clinton in '92 to help him get elected. ;-)
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
you don't get it. "Capitalism" isn't an excuse for behavior that violates US law. And in any case, "if they suck, they will be gone soon" is exactly the problem with a monopoly: if they suck, they stick around anyway.
Windows2000 will cost around 200 bucks, without tech support. Linux costs 0$, without tech support- If price were everything, it's economically a no brainer. But Linux really is less buggy and more stable than Windows as well. I run both. Ancedotal evidence isn't great, don't trust me- try it yourself. What holds OS's like Linux back? Industry support and FUD. Why can't they get it better and faster than they have? Monopoly. If all of that is true, then Microsoft is hurting everyone, whether you buy their software OR NOT, because they are stunting possible efficiency gains and new ways of putting software together. That's the issue.