Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Adresses World
at0m writes "Microsoft has posted their side of the story on the website. They emphasize that this is not the final ruling and there will be many more trials in the future, etc, etc. It claims that "company will continue to defend the principle of innovation." In addition, Bill Gates has made a statement regarding the whole issue. He says that they "respectfully disagree" with the court's decision. Kinda makes me sick. "
MS's popularity isn't some manifest destiny. Its market stronghold has a lot to do with the ignorace of end-users and its legal + illegal market practices. Both of which are responsible for each other.
Most windows users agree, "OS? Huh? Computers run on Windows."
I've got to say that I agree with you 99%. The other 1% is where Microsoft committed acts of fraud and extortion (in the libertarian sense of those words). I have no problem with a monopoly if it was achieved through the natural workings of the marketplace. The anti-trust laws agree. The next step for Judge Jackson is to determine if the Microsoft monopoly still allows competition in the marketplace, maintained its monopoly through coercion or fraud, or violated any of the anti-trust laws.
People vote with their dollars, and all too often they vote for conformity. Sad but true. I know all too many bright and intelligent people who use Windows for the sole reason that all of their neighbors do.
If the government slaps down Microsoft for merely being big and wealthy, it will be a sad day. If, on the other hand, they are slapped down for genuinel acts of coercion, fraud or extortion, then it will be a happy, but delayed, day for justice.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Assume the Model T ran on a "secret" formula of gasoline. Further assume that Ford had 90% of the car market and witheld the secret formula from any gasoline seller who dared to make regular gasoline to fuel other makes (Olsmobile, Benz, etc.). Also, they changed formulas every three years or so to one that would barely power the old car but worked well in their newest model. Would there be any other car makers today? Would we have had the innovation of Cadillac, Cherolet, or any other domestic make? Is one lucky play (using mass production on a large scale) enough to justify Mr. Ford's dominance of the car business in the US?
Does Mr. Gate's foresight to sell IBM an OS he didn't have entitle him to own your desktop forever? It isn't innovating when you fall into a monopoly and then use every tactic at your disposal to guard it. Had Microsoft faced an intransigent monopolist and beaten them in the market, they would have an appreciation for competition. As is, they have yet to be bloodied, they haven't cut their eye teeth on fair competition.
Don't be too suprised to see their political contributions soar. They have the war chest to support it, and they obviously cannot stoop to fair competition. Their only out is to line the pockets of anyone who has power over DoJ appointments...
(1) Drive letters: not a problem. UNC pathnames.
It doesn't really matter how you get to those drive letters, the fact that new storage must be mounted with a new root, and cannot be added to an existing filesystem, is a serious design flaw.
(If you had symbolic links at the file system level, you could fix it, but NT doesn't have those, either.)
Backslash as a path separator: not a problem. Are you serious? How is this better or worse than a forward slash?
Because POSIX, C, and half of everything else in the world use the backslash as an escape character, and the forward slash as a file name seperator.
Please note that Paul Allen, Microsoft co-founder and original programmer, agrees that he blew it on this one. The reason they used the backslash is that they had already taken the forward slash for a switch character in MS-DOS 1.0, which didn't even have subdirectories.
A single-user mentality: not a problem. I'm a single user (tee hee). Seriously, our company uses
both NT and Solaris servers, and their performance is interchangeable.
I like how you counter the problem I point out with a different answer (i.e, moving from singler-user-mentality to performance). Have you been taking Bill Gates lessons?
The singler-user mentality is a problem because it means NT is designed to be operated by one person at a time, sitting at the local system console. File and print sharing are nice, but true multi-user applications (i.e., more then one user running an application on the same machine at once). Windows Terminal Server tries to do this, but there are many implementation problems traced to the fact that the NT kernel assumes that only person at a time is using the system and they are sitting at the console. (This also leads to security problems.)
Disorganized directory structre: not a problem.
You cannot make a problem go away just by saying it is not a problem. Your main answer seems to be "I don't care", or maybe "It doesn't effect me often enough". Well, I am happy you are willing to settle for crap -- some of us are not.
System crashes: not a problem.
Again, you try to wish the problem away by using an example only tangentally related. The problem is that in the NT mentality, occasional system failures and forced reboots are acceptable.
Now, since you seem to want to get into anecdotal stories: I once had to use NT server to check implementation of some cross-platform Perl scripts. NT crashed with a BSOD twice in as many weeks, under light use. I was not impressed. Meanwhile, NT 4 still requires a reboot to enable your modem!
API: not even an issue - remember, I'm looking for legacy DOS problems.
Huh? This is a problem that comes directly from DOS. A lot of the NT brain damage is still tied to the ancient DOS API. FindFirst, FindNext, anyone? Okay, sure, there is plenty of new brain damage, too. How does that help?
You're not looking for real answers, you're looking for an opportunity to try and defuse known defects in your favored OS with bogus arguments. Are you a Microsoft astroturfer, or are you simply trolling for flames? In any event, if that is all you can do, don't waste my time.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Here's Sun's equally predictable response
As far as I remember, MS's public image has already been heavily damaged already by their bullying, condescending attitude toward the trial and the government--and now they're trying to be good sports? I find it hard to believe the "respectfully" in disagree. MS has a history of bending and outright breaking the laws they agreed to abide to in previous rulings . . .
On the other hand, I don't really like the outright self-righteousness and glee that many Silicon Valley anti-MS proponents are fostering. As much as MS is receiving their comuppence, I'm quite ambivalent about whether the future really holds a more competitive playing field . . . let's face it, Bill Gates is a genius marketer and businessman. It won't be so easy to seperate hhim from his profit incentive; he'll find a way to squeeze as much money out of his enterprise. The time is not quite ripe to declare victory. This is an important step, but not the end of the war. Any further thoughts?------
Michael Huang
darva@geocities.com
"A spirit with a vision
Is a dream with a mission." -Rush
I never quite understood libertarian ideas. Libetarians' grasp of economics leaves a bit to be desired.
You assume that capitalism is good. The problem is that unchecked capitalism leads to monopoly situations. Your company fights until you are killed, your competition is killed, or you reach some sort of an "agreement" with competitors that usually includes price fixing. Look at any industry there is and you will see this. There are a few exceptions, of course.
Microsoft did exactly what they were supposed to do in a pure capitalist economy. Our government intervened because that is it's job, it has never beleived in a pure free market. But that is starting to change. Corporations today have more power than they've ever had. Just look at all the corporate mergers in the past 5 years. It's absolutely incredible.
The average CEO today makes 450 times that of an average factory worker, up from about 70 times 15 years ago. Are these the wonderful market forces you are talking about?
You mention the baby bells and how this hasn't helped competition. This is absolutely true. However, keeping it intact wouldn't have helped either, which you support.
You also mention "voting with your dollars." This is an important concept for capitalism to work as theorist's would say. But when a monopoly exists, you no longer have this option, your dollars can only go to one place! Can't you see this? I could start my own company I suppose, but can I make inroads into ATT, MCI, or any other companies territory? Unlikely. They'll buy me out, spread FUD, and just plain outmarket me. Just look at microsoft, that is almost an exact definition of their business operation!!
Capitalsim is a paradox. Unbounded it NEVER reaches any kind of competitive equilibrium! What evidence makes you think that it does? I'd sure like to see some. The fact that your ecenomics 101 professor said so doesn't make it correct.
Yesterday was NOT a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice. It was just another day of going down this road. I'm so sick of crap like this, and I'm not just saying that because I support linux. This has nothing to do with microsoft. Corporations AND the government have equal responsibility for these erosions. It's been going on for years.
Lets face it. Corporations care about one thing only: money. This is the botom line. They don't care about you, your family, or the planet. Unless you tell them otherwise. I don't like our government much, either. But I'd rather be led by them than a faceless corporation.
Corporations and our government have never done a thing for our country. They only do things symbolically when the people demand it. We have to fight for our rights, we have to stand up for our freedom, because god damn, the corporations only want your money and your soul.
I'm sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but I get really passionate over this subject.
I'd like to remind everyone of the article that Richard Stallman wrote about possible demands that could be made of Microsoft if they would lose.
Some of these innovations may just be my win98 system, as the longer you use windows the more personal and quirky it becomes. Hey lets make that innovation number 1.
2. Auto-rebooter. My win98 system needs to be rebooted at least once a day. If I don't, it does it for me! And always when I'm using it, so I know its done its duty.
3. Application freshness. Windows knows that after you've installed a program on your drive that it'll go stale after a while, like bread. So it makes sure applications won't run after a few months and it needs a re-install. Keepin' it fresh!
4. The talking paperclip. Need I say more?
5. Those new windows keys. Why should we let years and years of typing habit go unchanged? Now those expecting CRTL to be next to ALT can enjoy this innovation.
6. Lack of documentation. Everyone knows only nerds read manuals.
7. ActiveX controls. I'm just too busy to download something and double-click to install it.
Thanks for the innovations, Bill. Keep up the good work.
Microsoft of course will try to do whatever than can in terms of damage control. Including saying that they disagree with the judge's findings. That however does not change the fact that:
1.) These findings of facts are in general not possible to appeal. This means that the document that was released yesterday is firmly implanted in the law as a basis for futher action. Much like an axe right between the eyes. Microsoft can disagree all they want, but that is worth about as much as a can of barbeque starter in Hell.
2.) Judge Jackson is now moving on to examine the facts in view of the law in the US. If he rules against Microsoft in any substantial way I am sure Microsoft will appeal etc. etc. At this point it is almost irrelevant. Microsoft's butt is in the crack, and every attorney general, tort specialist, ambulance chaser and half-assed trial lawyer in North America is staying up nights trying to think of ways he can get his hands on the $500 Billion Dollars that represents Microsoft's market capitalization. It will be just as bad in every country in the world that Microsoft does business.
3. The part I like - The FOF will encourage many many competitors to take on Microsoft's market domination. No longer will people be afraid that they will be crushed when the elephant goes for a walk. Dell has already stated publically that the reason they offer Linux pre-installed is that they are no longer afraid that Microsoft will saw them off at the knees for offering choice and innovation.
A thousand flowers will bloom where there was once only desert.
4.) As a side note, Microsoft is in big doo-doo for ignoring court orders associated with the 1995 browser case. Sun is going after their butt for further Java atrocities. Microsoft in going to trial for the defensetration of DR DOS.
Allow me to explain whay the Fed should stay out of MS's business practices. Basically, it boils down to market forces. When Ma Bell broke up, everyone thought it was going to be low prices and better services for everyone. But now look what's happened: A bunch of little companies have sprung up and become successful. And have then been bought out. The break up took the big fish and made many little fish. Now the biggest of those little fish are eating the small ones, getting bigger. And we're coming back to one big fish again. How much of your voice/data traffic travles over lines owned my MCI/Worldcom/Sprint? Yeah.
The bottom line is that the market has spoken: We like the stuff MS makes. It's sad but true. No matter what, it comes down to MS has used the free market to get their stuff on top and the Gov't has no business second-guessing those market dynamics. People have voted with their dollars, and MS has won. Setting aside possible illegalities like surreptiously licensing software and then squashing the author's company (and cases like that should be handled like any other case where a company breaks the law), MS has used the free market system to get their products at the top. And they might even be inferior products, but it doesn't matter! Nobody says that the best thing has to be the most widely sold thing!
Do I think MS is a monopoly? Three years ago, I would have said yes. But now I use Linux on the desktop more than MS, so I'm not so sure. I'm probably a statistical anomaly, but even stll we have plenty of choice these days. MS is getting to be less and les a monopoly, because people are voting with their dollars, like they should! We don't need the DoJ to tell us what the market should be like. We need to do it ourselves. That's the way things are supposed work in a free market economy! When the Fed steps in like they did, the market becomes less and less free. The Gov't is making choices for you, and that is never a good thing.
Anyway, there's the rant. I'm going to keep influencing the market the way it should be influenced. I'm going to keep writing letters to software companies telling them I would love to buy a Linux port of their products. I'm going to continue to buy Red Hat CDs. I'm going to continue to pay for commercial Linux software, and continue to tell game companies that Loki is going to eat their lunch if they don't get on the bandwagon. I don't trust the Gov't to do the thinking for me, so I'm going to keep on thinking for myself and voting with my dollars and you all should do the same.
Yesterday was a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.