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"
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.
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.
Give microosft a break will you? I mean they did after all do allot of good for the computer industry!
OK, Microsoft Mouthpiece, they sure did! Told DRDOS to bend over and squeal like a pig. Cut off Netscape's air supply. Put a lot of hard working programmers out of jobs when companies like Stac was bought out as part of a settlement and the owners took the money. Have to love Microsoft. If they don't steal it, they buy it, or make you their "partner."
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!
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,
--
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.
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
Given the number of pro-Microsoft trolls frequenting Slashdot recently, I wouldn't be sure that the number of votes resulting from the Slashdot effect is as skewed as you might think.
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.
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.
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.
we have a dozen companies and no choices.
That is not true for all of us. I live out in the boondocks, and I have a choice of using the RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Company) or a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) for local phone service. I have had the choice of several dozen long distance carriers for quite some time.
The breakup of AT&T has been good for most consumers, although it has taken far too long to get competition in the local exchange markets.
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.
Bill Gates' worth goes up no less than 20 fold what it is now!
I really don't care how much money Bill Gates has.
What *can* we do about Microsoft to make it less powerful?
What a breakup would do is to make it so that we could see competition in individual markets. We wouldn't see the product tying, and the use of monopoly power in one market to make entry into other markets. Smaller 'baby Bills' wouldn't have nearly the ability to enter every market under the sun and lose money there until they can achieve a market presence (like MSN, Slate, etc.). All of those money losing ventures that the current Microsoft keeps funding may eventually turn things around and be able to push out their competitors unless they are forced to be answerable to the bottom line of a smaller company.
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?
If I remember right, "cut off Netscape's air supply" was the exact quote for the orders to kill Netscape as a company. How anticompetetive can you get?
When you control the dominant operating system, its hooks, and installed components, you can control opponents. Especially when you dump competing products like IE free of charge. If a foreign country dumps RAM chips on the American market, you can bet there will be an outcry and there will be US government action in the form of high tarrifs. But if MS offers a free browser, we get to see a flood of these "independent surveys" and press releases from Microsoft stating how consumers prefer an "integrated" browser that is part of the operating system.
You seem to hate Netscape as a company. They have done good for the computer industry, perhaps more than Emperor Gates III has. Who was it that innovated the browser and the internet, made it popular, while Microsoft wholely dismissed the internet and attempted to market its own propritary online service?
When Microsoft realized it couldn't compete on its own path, it turned on a dime and bought out Spyglass with the Mosiac code and was determined to steamroll Netscape into the ground. Ethical? Should Microsoft be rewarded for this behavior? Well, with billions in revenue and after they have bought up full page ads and advertised in media that plays them in a 100% favorable light, they seem to be immune to criminal acts in the public light. Unless the DOJ takes action.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
--
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
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
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
> How do they check that neither Micro$oft-haters nor Microsfoft-lovers try to stuff the poll?
/. shouldn't post "vote here" calls to arms, and that we should laugh at anyone who invokes an internet poll as evidence of anything. Or perhaps introduce a new moderation tag, naive, to slap on posts that use polls as evidence of anything other than proficiency of ballot-stuffing.
We're to blame too. Why post it here, except to stir up "our" side? One if by land, two if by sea, and all that.
We brag about polls that say what we want to hear, but dis them as ballot-stuffed if they say what we don't want to hear.
Intellectual honesty demands that we either hail them all or reject them all. I suggest that we reject them all, that
Alternatively, we could continue as we've been doing, but get in the habit of thinking of them as rugby matches, rather than bellwethers of public opinion.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You may have had problems with MSNBC's poll in Netscape, but you ought to try it in Lynx! Its ends up in a near infinite loop of refreshes with cookies from hell. Their poll must be rigged only to allow IEXPLORER users to vote. Imagine that. Its like Linux users are told to sit at the back of the bus or denied any involvement whatsoever. They seem to be getting the most out of the media (NBC) they bought for their own propaganda purposes.
> > 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.
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.
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?
>Umm... are the Slashdot readers the only ones that realize that this is not a ruling?
The Findings of Fact are indeed a ruling. They are a ruling on the facts of the case as seen by the judge. They are not a ruling on the conclusions one draws from those facts, on Microsoft's liability. They are not a ruling on Conclusions of Law or on corrective measures, but they are a ruling on Findings of Fact.
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.