When you have really great game designers, just when you think a game can't possibly get any better, it gets much better. I think that with so many people giving their input and ideas, and with Firaxis doing the work, it will improve substantially.
Maybe that should be something that you can solve through technology. Perhaps a Life-extending genetic or cellular treatment of some sort. That would be cool and still stay within the bounds of the other games.
Even if they use a keyboard with no moving keys, the thing will still be pretty nasty I think. They'd better have a bottle of sanitizer/degreaser and a roll of paper towels next to it at all times. Dunno about the mouse. Disposable plastic covers maybe? Maybe they'll use those new Microsoft optical mice. The kind with no ball. That could solve the problem of the buildup of gunk that will accumulate about every 5 minutes until the mouse becomes practically unuseable. Hmm..... maybe they've planned for this stuff. Then again, maybe people will avoid the computers due to the fact that it could be hazardous to your health to use them.
Telling them to stop, and getting a temporary injunction are two different things. One is ordered by the court and is enforceable. The other is virtually meaningless. The poster was correct, but your point is taken as well. Perhaps they should have tried to get an injunction. Guess it doesn't really matter now. Their claims seem pretty groundless.
At least you gave a reasonable argument, unlike the other person who responded to my post. I think you're probably right about this, but I don't understand why they wouldn't just print out any email that seemed to be worth reading and give it to the rep. Either way, it's still them that need to catch up with the rest of the world. I think it just goes to show that these idiots aren't worth voting for. They don't care squat for my opinion, or anyone else's opinion if it is emailed to them, apparently. Why should I waste my vote on that person? I wish I had better candidates to vote for.
Ahhh....... so by deliberately writing my exact same opinion in a slower and more difficult manner, it somehow becomes more valuable? You must be some kind of genius. Why hasn't everyone else figured this out? Perhaps companies should start doing everything by hand again. Screw the computers. If this spreadsheet is really worth doing, it's worth spending a week or two to do it by hand. That should jack profits up through the roof! Go away... you annoy me.
Why should I have to use up paper and quite a bit more time just to send a snailmail letter rather than email? Either my opinion is valid and valuable or it isn't. Whether I have to kill a tree to get it to my congresscritter or not shouldn't have anything to do with the value of my opinion. If they believe that it does, then they are the ones who need to catch up with the rest of us.
Nah. That wouldn't work well. For the same reason that the last test was biased. Different OSes run better on different hardware. You can't please everyone. They shouldn't have to run their OS on hardware that it wouldn't be run on in the real world (because why would you buy hardware that your OS doesn't run well on?).
I think they should all be given a price limit and sources to buy from. They all build their own machines and purchase their own software from the money they are allotted, say $4000 each. That gives us a fair price/performance aspect to the competition as well. The less expensive OSes will allow you to buy more/better hardware. It would probably be more like an obstacle course than a race though. They would have to configure the hardware and software (they can use whatever software they can afford to buy with the money they were allotted) for the various tests. They must meet the requirements of the test though. You can't just configure for maximum speed at the expense of everything else.
It could be interesting to see something like this. Doubt it will happen though. I don't think many vendors would voluntarily enter their OS in it. Microsoft forbids benchmarking its OS without permission, which tranlates to: "You can't benchmark it unless it's under optimal conditions for NT at the expense of whatever it's being run against."
Maybe wait for a recession...
on
Terabit Routers
·
· Score: 1
Maybe we should wait until the current boom is over and we start sinking into recession. Something like this could create a lot of jobs and involve a lot of government spending, which is what is needed to end a recession. Then we may just start another long boom.
Denial? The results weren't denied. Nobody is saying they lied about the results. What they're saying is that they didn't bother to tune the Linux box at all, while they most definitely did tune the NT box, since they said in their report that Microsoft helped them do it. Alan Cox pointed out some flaws. The Samba team pointed out some flaws. There were lots of things that should have been done differently. Mindcraft didn't even try to make the test fair. Don't bash people for being pissed about the test. They have every reason to be pissed off. Mindcraft did a thoroughly unprofessional job of benchmarking the 2 systems. The hardware and conditions were hand-picked by Microsoft since they were paying for the test. What does this really prove anyway? Not much probably, and since they botched the setup, it's completely worthless as a benchmark. I guess you didn't really read that much about the whole thing. Why don't you think things through a bit before you post anonymous criticisms about the Linux or/. communities? Then again, maybe I'm asking too much...
At least a binary driver would let me run Linux on my new box. I have a Spectra 3200 TNT card but no driver for Linux. I wrote Nvidia twice asking for drivers... hopefully they will get a driver out soon.
I have to agree that most of the arguments in this article were not well formulated. I did have an issue with the one regarding Shakespeare. It isn't that much of a stretch to see someone attempting to patent a plot sometime soon. People have been trying (and succeeding?) to patent business models lately. Why not patent a storyline model? (The obvious argument against that would be based on prior art... someone would have to come up with a new plot... doesn't seem real likely to happen... at least not in Hollywood.;)
All in all, though, I don't think the article said much that was worth reading. The last article on IP that was posted Monday was much better.
Excuse me? Since when is "stun anything that moves" a good police policy?
Gotta agree with this. I would assume they would only use it if someone resisted arrest or during a riot of some sort. If they are resisting arrest, then they are comitting a crime and it would be warranted. Other than that, lawsuits are likely to ensue.
Hmm. Police zap moving vehicle. Moving vehicle, now without power brakes and steering, continues down the road at its previous velocity until it plows into something.
Actually, the car wouldn't be able to maintain its velocity for long... it would slow down pretty quick. As for power steering, well.. yeah.. that would be tough. I've had power steering go out on me before and it's not fun, but it's still driveable if you don't freak out and lose control.
Though, wouldn't it be bad if the anti-car raygun accidentally hit a human being like a random pedestrian?
This was something I wondered about too. Seems like that thing would be way too dangerous to use. Police aren't all that accurate sometimes. I wouldn't want them firing that thing anywhere near me.
I've seen several arguments here for both sides. Some say that source is just a machine. It's there to perform a function. Others say that it's expressive and can be used to communicate ideas. I've tended to see it more from the view of those who think source is not really speech. I guess the arguments from that side have just been better. I did have a question though for those who believe that source is not speech.
Let's say I were to create a computer language and compiler that would use natural language (albeit very refined language) to create a program. Now, the source would essentially be a description of what the program should do. The compiler would translate it into a working program. (nevermind how difficult this would be, it's just for the sake of this argument) Would this still be considered just source code? Even though you can read it just like a technical manual or some other document that describes the inner workings of something? I just want to know how far everyone wants to carry this thing. Should technical papers that describe how to build or create something not be given any protection under the first amendment? What about recipes? Where is the line? What qualification must it meet in order to be considered speech? That's the real question I guess. Even though I've been favoring one side, I want to look at this objectively. Any answers?
It's rather obvious that our legal system is whacked when it can cost the average person their entire life savings and more just to protect their rights. The simple fear of the cost can make people give up their rights. Even if you know you're right and can prove it in court, it can be dragged out until you run out of money and credit and you lose because you can't pay for a lawyer to do the paperwork properly. Most average people don't have much savings. If they lose, they lose big. It's wrong. It should be changed. But it won't be. It benefits the right people just the way it is.
He said we would get beaten. He didn't say that the results of the first test were correct. There were many mistakes made in the first test. Whether NT would still win or not doesn't matter. We want a fair test. Microsoft knew about the test. They let Microsoft experts tune the NT machine. Why didn't they tell anyone in the Linux community about the test? Why weren't Linux experts allowed to tune the Linux machine in either of the first 2 tests? Don't try to pretend it was a fair test. It wasn't. Maybe we'll lose, but at least it will be a fair test so that we can see the real reasons we lost so that something can be done about them.
Either Mindcraft is using hardware to favor NT or it isn't. Either they are allowing NT to be tuned by experts from Microsoft or they aren't. They are obviously using Microsoft's own testing facilities. I don't know that this is necessarily a bias. What equipment are they using? Does the site favor NT in any way? Aside from personnel on-hand, I don't know of any other benefit that could be gained. As long as Linux has its own experts and witnesses present to inspect the hardware, install and tune the software, and witness the testing of both machines, I don't see any problem with the test. The only sticking point for me is their ridiculous choice of hardware.
There are much more realistic and fair ways of conducting such a test. Perhaps each side should be allowed to build its own machine, given the same amount of money to do it with and the same source(s) to buy from. Any money not spent could be considered in the results. (It would have to be given appropriate weight in the results though, which in most cases wouldn't be worth a whole lot.) Then each side could tune its machine to meet basic real world requirements for a web server or whatever else they decide to test it as. This would be a real contest I think.
You'd think that older people would be wise enough to check something out pretty well before investing their money in it. If you don't know what you're doing with your money, then you're likely to lose it. I agree that the criminals who set up online scams should be prosecuted for it. I also think that it is quite preventable if people would just look before they leap.
Is it even worthwhile patching Win95 if 90% of their users will abandon it by y2k anyway?
This line, and the tripe that came before it, is ridiculous. If they released a product with bugs that make it unusable by Y2K, then they damn well better fix it! People bought that product and were not warned that it would cease to function properly in a few years.
Microsoft gets flamed plenty for "pre-announcing" software it doesn't ship for years, now they are getting flamed for not-announcing software they may or may not ship. Sheesh. As far as the charge of running up win98 sales goes, they may indeed be guilty of that, but planned obsolescence in the marketplace is not by any means restricted to Microsoft.
This is one of the lamest arguments I've seen yet. Microsoft gets flamed for pre-announcing products in order to kill off interest in other companies' products. Microsoft gets flamed deceiving people in order to further line its pockets with cash. Whether they deceive by pre-announcing a product, or by not announcing a fix for their existing product, it's still deception. Whether Microsoft is the only one that does this is immaterial to the conversation. The article was about Microsoft. Perhaps other companies do this too. If so, then point it out. Tell us what company, and what they did. If it is true, then I would condemn that company for it as well.
We have RUMINT (rumour intelligence) that MS may or may not be shipping a win95 patch. That's very thin evidence for drawing any conclusions about MS' MOTIVES.
We've had a really good look at how MS thinks. We've seen tons of email that has been generated by the decision-makers at that company. They are completely devoted to marketshare and profit. Those are therefore the most likely motives. When you look at their actions, they make alot of sense given these motives.
What would you prefer MS did? Offer no Win95 patch at all (they are forcing us to 98!) Develop a win95 patch, but don't announce it until nearly done (ditto) ? Develop a win95 patch, announce it months in advance (they are creating FUD by preannouncing, their old trick. Besides, what if development runs late?) ? Everything Microsoft does here could be construed as greed or guilt (not that MS is not greedy or guilty sometimes... )
I'll tell you exactly what I would prefer they did. I would prefer that they announce their patch as soon as they are committed to creating it. Then I would definitely prefer that they follow through on their announcement and deliver the goods as promised. People bought Win95 without any warning from Microsoft that it would be broken by the turn of the century. They deserve to have their product fixed or receive a refund.
Call me naive, but I would take Mr Jones' statement at face value until someone gave me EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Ok, you're naive. Don't take anything Microsoft says at face value. They say what they need to say to keep themselves out of trouble. They've been caught in too many lies and deceptions in the past for us to trust anything they say without THEM providing the evidence to make us believe it.
So you're saying that Windows NT was written to have this issue built into it?
Yep. It was written that way. Somewhere along the way, during the design of NT, someone decided not to use a 4-digit date, at least not consistantly. That makes it a design decision and therefore a design flaw.
I tend to agree with you that breaking up Microsoft and open sourcing the Windows code is not the solution, albeit not for all the same reasons. We even mostly agree on a possible solution as you have outlined. I do have some concerns about your proposed solution though.
Requiring MS APIs to be open and documented is great, but does not IMO go far enough. Even if they have to fully document new APIs when they are released, they still have the advantage of releasing them at their own discretion. They can easily wait until they have compatible applications before releasing the new APIs. This would give them the substantial advantage of being first to market with their new apps. The other software companies could be months behind in development because of this. There needs to be a way to give everyone access to all APIs as they are being developed or modified. Microsoft would have to keep the information about them very current.
You were correct that the consent decree prohibited "per-processor licensing." Unfortunately Microsoft sidestepped the letter of that law by implementing "per-machine licensing." It's really a rather blatant violation of the consent decree, but they got away with it. Another reason they should be punished I would say.
Something would have to be done about them integrating anything and everything into Windows to kill off competition. IMO, this is the toughest issue. I can see both sides of it and how it could be abused by both sides. In the end, it comes down to who you trust to make the right decision. As I just pointed out though, due to their lack of integrity in abiding by the consent decree, I wouldn't trust them at all with making the right decision. I've also considered that if enough other measures are taken, preventing integration might not be necessary.
The last thing I'm concerned about is the whole Halloween problem. Microsoft plans to "de-commoditize" the OS by using the old embrace-and-extend method of corrupting open protocols and formats into proprietary shadows of what they were. This cannot be allowed to happen. I think this is one of the most damning things they've written because it allows us to see that they don't plan to win their battles by making the best products at the best price. They plan to leverage their marketshare in order to force consumers into using their proprietary formats and protocols. This would effectively shut out competition almost entirely. Combine it with legislation prohibiting reverse-engineering and you have a total lock-out. Something should be included in any solution to block this sort of tactic by Microsoft.
I like the idea of a large fine. It is well deserved. I also like the idea of using it to fund the development of competing products. It may help restore some real competition someday. Perhaps setting up some sort of trust. The money could be invested and managed so that it will be around for a while. Then the only question is who could be trusted to manage such a thing.
That's about all I have to say. Now I can sit back and watch it get picked apart:)
Slashdot Mirror
When you have really great game designers, just when you think a game can't possibly get any better, it gets much better. I think that with so many people giving their input and ideas, and with Firaxis doing the work, it will improve substantially.
Maybe that should be something that you can solve through technology. Perhaps a Life-extending genetic or cellular treatment of some sort. That would be cool and still stay within the bounds of the other games.
Even if they use a keyboard with no moving keys, the thing will still be pretty nasty I think. They'd better have a bottle of sanitizer/degreaser and a roll of paper towels next to it at all times. Dunno about the mouse. Disposable plastic covers maybe? Maybe they'll use those new Microsoft optical mice. The kind with no ball. That could solve the problem of the buildup of gunk that will accumulate about every 5 minutes until the mouse becomes practically unuseable. Hmm..... maybe they've planned for this stuff. Then again, maybe people will avoid the computers due to the fact that it could be hazardous to your health to use them.
Telling them to stop, and getting a temporary injunction are two different things. One is ordered by the court and is enforceable. The other is virtually meaningless. The poster was correct, but your point is taken as well. Perhaps they should have tried to get an injunction. Guess it doesn't really matter now. Their claims seem pretty groundless.
At least you gave a reasonable argument, unlike the other person who responded to my post. I think you're probably right about this, but I don't understand why they wouldn't just print out any email that seemed to be worth reading and give it to the rep. Either way, it's still them that need to catch up with the rest of the world. I think it just goes to show that these idiots aren't worth voting for. They don't care squat for my opinion, or anyone else's opinion if it is emailed to them, apparently. Why should I waste my vote on that person? I wish I had better candidates to vote for.
Ahhh....... so by deliberately writing my exact same opinion in a slower and more difficult manner, it somehow becomes more valuable? You must be some kind of genius. Why hasn't everyone else figured this out? Perhaps companies should start doing everything by hand again. Screw the computers. If this spreadsheet is really worth doing, it's worth spending a week or two to do it by hand. That should jack profits up through the roof! Go away... you annoy me.
Why should I have to use up paper and quite a bit more time just to send a snailmail letter rather than email? Either my opinion is valid and valuable or it isn't. Whether I have to kill a tree to get it to my congresscritter or not shouldn't have anything to do with the value of my opinion. If they believe that it does, then they are the ones who need to catch up with the rest of us.
Nah. That wouldn't work well. For the same reason that the last test was biased. Different OSes run better on different hardware. You can't please everyone. They shouldn't have to run their OS on hardware that it wouldn't be run on in the real world (because why would you buy hardware that your OS doesn't run well on?).
I think they should all be given a price limit and sources to buy from. They all build their own machines and purchase their own software from the money they are allotted, say $4000 each. That gives us a fair price/performance aspect to the competition as well. The less expensive OSes will allow you to buy more/better hardware. It would probably be more like an obstacle course than a race though. They would have to configure the hardware and software (they can use whatever software they can afford to buy with the money they were allotted) for the various tests. They must meet the requirements of the test though. You can't just configure for maximum speed at the expense of everything else.
It could be interesting to see something like this. Doubt it will happen though. I don't think many vendors would voluntarily enter their OS in it. Microsoft forbids benchmarking its OS without permission, which tranlates to: "You can't benchmark it unless it's under optimal conditions for NT at the expense of whatever it's being run against."
Maybe we should wait until the current boom is over and we start sinking into recession. Something like this could create a lot of jobs and involve a lot of government spending, which is what is needed to end a recession. Then we may just start another long boom.
Denial? The results weren't denied. Nobody is saying they lied about the results. What they're saying is that they didn't bother to tune the Linux box at all, while they most definitely did tune the NT box, since they said in their report that Microsoft helped them do it. Alan Cox pointed out some flaws. The Samba team pointed out some flaws. There were lots of things that should have been done differently. Mindcraft didn't even try to make the test fair. Don't bash people for being pissed about the test. They have every reason to be pissed off. Mindcraft did a thoroughly unprofessional job of benchmarking the 2 systems. The hardware and conditions were hand-picked by Microsoft since they were paying for the test. What does this really prove anyway? Not much probably, and since they botched the setup, it's completely worthless as a benchmark. I guess you didn't really read that much about the whole thing. Why don't you think things through a bit before you post anonymous criticisms about the Linux or /. communities? Then again, maybe I'm asking too much...
At least a binary driver would let me run Linux on my new box. I have a Spectra 3200 TNT card but no driver for Linux. I wrote Nvidia twice asking for drivers... hopefully they will get a driver out soon.
I have to agree that most of the arguments in this article were not well formulated. I did have an issue with the one regarding Shakespeare. It isn't that much of a stretch to see someone attempting to patent a plot sometime soon. People have been trying (and succeeding?) to patent business models lately. Why not patent a storyline model? (The obvious argument against that would be based on prior art... someone would have to come up with a new plot... doesn't seem real likely to happen... at least not in Hollywood. ;)
All in all, though, I don't think the article said much that was worth reading. The last article on IP that was posted Monday was much better.
If the results come out the same, it will be for different reasons in a fair test so that we know the problems with Linux are valid.
That's what I was looking for. I didn't really consider that portion of the opinion I guess. Thanks for pointing it out.
I was wondering this myself....
Excuse me? Since when is "stun anything that moves" a good police policy?
Gotta agree with this. I would assume they would only use it if someone resisted arrest or during a riot of some sort. If they are resisting arrest, then they are comitting a crime and it would be warranted. Other than that, lawsuits are likely to ensue.
Hmm. Police zap moving vehicle. Moving vehicle, now without power brakes and steering, continues down the road at its previous velocity until it plows into something.
Actually, the car wouldn't be able to maintain its velocity for long... it would slow down pretty quick. As for power steering, well.. yeah.. that would be tough. I've had power steering go out on me before and it's not fun, but it's still driveable if you don't freak out and lose control.
Though, wouldn't it be bad if the anti-car raygun accidentally hit a human being like a random pedestrian?
This was something I wondered about too. Seems like that thing would be way too dangerous to use. Police aren't all that accurate sometimes. I wouldn't want them firing that thing anywhere near me.
I've seen several arguments here for both sides. Some say that source is just a machine. It's there to perform a function. Others say that it's expressive and can be used to communicate ideas. I've tended to see it more from the view of those who think source is not really speech. I guess the arguments from that side have just been better. I did have a question though for those who believe that source is not speech.
Let's say I were to create a computer language and compiler that would use natural language (albeit very refined language) to create a program. Now, the source would essentially be a description of what the program should do. The compiler would translate it into a working program. (nevermind how difficult this would be, it's just for the sake of this argument) Would this still be considered just source code? Even though you can read it just like a technical manual or some other document that describes the inner workings of something? I just want to know how far everyone wants to carry this thing. Should technical papers that describe how to build or create something not be given any protection under the first amendment? What about recipes? Where is the line? What qualification must it meet in order to be considered speech? That's the real question I guess. Even though I've been favoring one side, I want to look at this objectively. Any answers?
It's rather obvious that our legal system is whacked when it can cost the average person their entire life savings and more just to protect their rights. The simple fear of the cost can make people give up their rights. Even if you know you're right and can prove it in court, it can be dragged out until you run out of money and credit and you lose because you can't pay for a lawyer to do the paperwork properly. Most average people don't have much savings. If they lose, they lose big. It's wrong. It should be changed. But it won't be. It benefits the right people just the way it is.
He said we would get beaten. He didn't say that the results of the first test were correct. There were many mistakes made in the first test. Whether NT would still win or not doesn't matter. We want a fair test. Microsoft knew about the test. They let Microsoft experts tune the NT machine. Why didn't they tell anyone in the Linux community about the test? Why weren't Linux experts allowed to tune the Linux machine in either of the first 2 tests? Don't try to pretend it was a fair test. It wasn't. Maybe we'll lose, but at least it will be a fair test so that we can see the real reasons we lost so that something can be done about them.
It comes down to facts in the end.
Either Mindcraft is using hardware to favor NT or it isn't. Either they are allowing NT to be tuned by experts from Microsoft or they aren't. They are obviously using Microsoft's own testing facilities. I don't know that this is necessarily a bias. What equipment are they using? Does the site favor NT in any way? Aside from personnel on-hand, I don't know of any other benefit that could be gained. As long as Linux has its own experts and witnesses present to inspect the hardware, install and tune the software, and witness the testing of both machines, I don't see any problem with the test. The only sticking point for me is their ridiculous choice of hardware.
There are much more realistic and fair ways of conducting such a test. Perhaps each side should be allowed to build its own machine, given the same amount of money to do it with and the same source(s) to buy from. Any money not spent could be considered in the results. (It would have to be given appropriate weight in the results though, which in most cases wouldn't be worth a whole lot.) Then each side could tune its machine to meet basic real world requirements for a web server or whatever else they decide to test it as. This would be a real contest I think.
You'd think that older people would be wise enough to check something out pretty well before investing their money in it. If you don't know what you're doing with your money, then you're likely to lose it. I agree that the criminals who set up online scams should be prosecuted for it. I also think that it is quite preventable if people would just look before they leap.
Wow. Where to start with this one? Here goes...
Is it even worthwhile patching Win95 if 90% of their users will abandon it by y2k anyway?
This line, and the tripe that came before it, is ridiculous. If they released a product with bugs that make it unusable by Y2K, then they damn well better fix it! People bought that product and were not warned that it would cease to function properly in a few years.
Microsoft gets flamed plenty for "pre-announcing" software it doesn't ship for years, now they are getting flamed for not-announcing software they may or may not ship. Sheesh. As far as the charge of running up win98 sales goes, they may indeed be guilty of that, but planned obsolescence in the marketplace is not by any means restricted to Microsoft.
This is one of the lamest arguments I've seen yet. Microsoft gets flamed for pre-announcing products in order to kill off interest in other companies' products. Microsoft gets flamed deceiving people in order to further line its pockets with cash. Whether they deceive by pre-announcing a product, or by not announcing a fix for their existing product, it's still deception. Whether Microsoft is the only one that does this is immaterial to the conversation. The article was about Microsoft. Perhaps other companies do this too. If so, then point it out. Tell us what company, and what they did. If it is true, then I would condemn that company for it as well.
We have RUMINT (rumour intelligence) that MS may or may not be shipping a win95 patch. That's very thin evidence for drawing any conclusions about MS' MOTIVES.
We've had a really good look at how MS thinks. We've seen tons of email that has been generated by the decision-makers at that company. They are completely devoted to marketshare and profit. Those are therefore the most likely motives. When you look at their actions, they make alot of sense given these motives.
What would you prefer MS did? Offer no Win95 patch at all (they are forcing us to 98!) Develop a win95 patch, but don't announce it until nearly done (ditto) ? Develop a win95 patch, announce it months in advance (they are creating FUD by preannouncing, their old trick. Besides, what if development runs late?) ? Everything Microsoft does here could be construed as greed or guilt (not that MS is not greedy or guilty sometimes ... )
I'll tell you exactly what I would prefer they did. I would prefer that they announce their patch as soon as they are committed to creating it. Then I would definitely prefer that they follow through on their announcement and deliver the goods as promised. People bought Win95 without any warning from Microsoft that it would be broken by the turn of the century. They deserve to have their product fixed or receive a refund.
Call me naive, but I would take Mr Jones' statement at face value until someone gave me EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Ok, you're naive. Don't take anything Microsoft says at face value. They say what they need to say to keep themselves out of trouble. They've been caught in too many lies and deceptions in the past for us to trust anything they say without THEM providing the evidence to make us believe it.
Thank you, drive through.
Actually, I think it was IBM that invented it. Or so I've heard anyway. That was before they became a kinder, gentler giant :)
So you're saying that Windows NT was written to have this issue built into it?
Yep. It was written that way. Somewhere along the way, during the design of NT, someone decided not to use a 4-digit date, at least not consistantly. That makes it a design decision and therefore a design flaw.
I tend to agree with you that breaking up Microsoft and open sourcing the Windows code is not the solution, albeit not for all the same reasons. We even mostly agree on a possible solution as you have outlined. I do have some concerns about your proposed solution though.
Requiring MS APIs to be open and documented is great, but does not IMO go far enough. Even if they have to fully document new APIs when they are released, they still have the advantage of releasing them at their own discretion. They can easily wait until they have compatible applications before releasing the new APIs. This would give them the substantial advantage of being first to market with their new apps. The other software companies could be months behind in development because of this. There needs to be a way to give everyone access to all APIs as they are being developed or modified. Microsoft would have to keep the information about them very current.
You were correct that the consent decree prohibited "per-processor licensing." Unfortunately Microsoft sidestepped the letter of that law by implementing "per-machine licensing." It's really a rather blatant violation of the consent decree, but they got away with it. Another reason they should be punished I would say.
Something would have to be done about them integrating anything and everything into Windows to kill off competition. IMO, this is the toughest issue. I can see both sides of it and how it could be abused by both sides. In the end, it comes down to who you trust to make the right decision. As I just pointed out though, due to their lack of integrity in abiding by the consent decree, I wouldn't trust them at all with making the right decision. I've also considered that if enough other measures are taken, preventing integration might not be necessary.
The last thing I'm concerned about is the whole Halloween problem. Microsoft plans to "de-commoditize" the OS by using the old embrace-and-extend method of corrupting open protocols and formats into proprietary shadows of what they were. This cannot be allowed to happen. I think this is one of the most damning things they've written because it allows us to see that they don't plan to win their battles by making the best products at the best price. They plan to leverage their marketshare in order to force consumers into using their proprietary formats and protocols. This would effectively shut out competition almost entirely. Combine it with legislation prohibiting reverse-engineering and you have a total lock-out. Something should be included in any solution to block this sort of tactic by Microsoft.
I like the idea of a large fine. It is well deserved. I also like the idea of using it to fund the development of competing products. It may help restore some real competition someday. Perhaps setting up some sort of trust. The money could be invested and managed so that it will be around for a while. Then the only question is who could be trusted to manage such a thing.
That's about all I have to say. Now I can sit back and watch it get picked apart :)