They tuck this little bit in at the end, even though it seems to me that it's the core of the ruling: (excuse the long quote) "Applications Business" means all businesses carried on by Microsoft Corporation on the effective date of this Final Judgment except the Operating Systems Business. Applications Business includes but is not limited to the development, licensing, promotion, and support of client and server applications and Middleware (e.g., Office, BackOffice, Internet Information Server, SQL Server, etc.), Internet Explorer, Mobile Explorer and other web browsers, Streaming Audio and Video client and server software, transaction server software, SNA server software, indexing server software, XML servers and parsers, Microsoft Management Server, Java virtual machines, Frontpage Express (and other web authoring tools), Outlook Express (and other e-mail clients), Media player, voice recognition software, Net Meeting (and other collaboration software), developer tools, hardware, MSN, MSNBC, Slate, Expedia, and all investments owned by Microsoft in partners or joint venturers, or in ISVs, IHVs, OEMs or other distributors, developers, and promoters of Microsoft products, or in other information technology or communications businesses. Most of these are uncontroversial, but quite a few aren't.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
I had expected to see a LARGE fine attached to the breakup order.
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
As usual the bulk of slashdot posters seem to be missing it. Of *course* splitting Microsoft up is going to be good. You are forgetting you are taking the most powerful software company in the world and making it into two... each no where near as powerful as the previous one.
Whats going to happen? Each one is going to want to be the "Microsoft" that wins from the breakup. They will do everything needed to become better than the other part... the same that happened with the baby bills.
Eventually you will see the APP group either supporting every operating system there is in the world... or writing their own. Same with the OS group. These are proud people who have suddenly seen their value and lot changed don't think they won't fight to get it back.
Bwah ha ha! MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses. I have never been able to think of something they thought up themselves. Evolutionary changes yes, but then, that's not innovation.
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
Competition keeps companies (slightly more than otherwise) honest. Monopolies like MS have no competition that actually threatens them. They have no reason to be good capitalists. Their only motivation has to be to protect their monopoly. And that hurts everyone - even MS, b/c the economy is harmed.
Ironically, the weather guys are predicting that this afternoon we might get some sunlight here in Seattle (it's overcast today). I wonder if they were speaking metaphorically;)
Breaking them up isn't the answer. Just because Microsoft is good at what they do(marketing, not programming) doesn't mean that they should be punished. I saw a suggestion on the last Microsoft story to open source them, or any monopoly, so that the playing field would be leveled.
Why is it that all the reviewers seem to heap glowing praise on Diakatana for it's "unique time-travel aspects"? They seem to think that if it wasn't for the crappy execution, the idea would have been original and worthwhile. Doesn't anyone remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game? Turtles in Time? (Also release on SNES as TMNT4) Sure it was back in the early 90's but c'mon...to the best of my knowledge it was the first game not about time travel to incorporate time travel. It was also a damn good game. From 2500000 BC up to 2030 back to (then) present 1992. A fun filled romp through time. Bah. I understand that reviewers may be desperate for SOMETHING good to say but...please...time travel is old hat for movies AND video games...so enough already.
Diablo is gonna be a great game, as all Blizzard's games are, and of course they're gonna make a mint =), BUT it's not really doing much to forward the technology of gaming. I've been watching the evolution on Neverwinter Nights for awhile now, and I have to say that Bioware is doing some revolutionary stuff over and above what everyone else is. The biggest Gee Whiz feature of their new system is the Toolkit/Editor that'll allow all you D & D fans to recreate that perfect dungeon from your childhood. I say Bout time. Gaming shifted awhile back from linear, single shot experiences into long-term Unreal and Quake community type of user supported products with full mods. Much like linux, a creative department consisting of a huge user base is far superior to any single or team of artists. By providing the ability for added user-created content, they're prolonging the life and value of the game considerably. Very cool for those on a budget. Plus, they've announced full support for linux, which is an unusual step for a company making PC games. Hopefully, they mean full support at the same time as the Windows release, and not a year later, but hey, we'll take what we can get right? Check it out here:
Heh. I've been up and down the east coast. Every year the interestates are more crowded. I hear the west coast is the same way. So the commute to work that used to take half an hour now takes an hour, and instead of trees you get to look at new housing developments with one house after another that all look the same. I keep expecting to hear about how a bunch of people on I95 all drove into the ocean one day. Is it any wonder more and more people every year are snapping and shooting up the school/office/church? So what are you going to do? Move out to some shithole area that's really unfriendly to humanity and live in a shack? Burn your credit cards and pay cash for everything? My Romanian friends told me Americans like to have the right to disappear, well, you can still do that, but anywhere you disappear to will be exactly the same. This is the New World Order. Governments will continue to erode until one day there's nothing left but the corporations who run your life for you. Your best bet is to be part of the rich 10% because life's going to suck for the other 90%.
At the very least you can take some comfort in the fact that our own stupidity got us where we are and our own stupidity keeps us there.
I, the real Sig 11, would like to thank you, kind AC, for your help. I will not, repeat, not stop until I have all the karma on slashdot. Rumor has it, the prize for breaking the 1000 mark is full ownership of http://www.goatse.cx.
You make your own life. No matter how bad things may ever get, the choice to live a happy life is yours. I spent the time to find a good tech gob in a small town (less than 4000) but is about an hour and a half away from a large town (aprox. 500,000) Living in the small town allows me to get a house out in the woods and setup my own little kingdom where I can do what ever the hell I want.
Re:Cash next to go. Anonymous wealth? Can't have t
on
The Leased Life?
·
· Score: 1
For those of us who actually/want/ a family life, the attitude in today's workplace is detrimental. Being willing to relocate takes on a whole new meaning with a spouse and kids. In so doing, we trade the intangible communities of the new economy with the old school neighborhoods and classrooms.
There are a number of causes for the effects that cliff is seeing. First, people are just plain lazy. It takes too much effort to figure out the best deal, read the license, comparison shop, etc. Second, as a poster above noted, at least on the consumer side, renting and leasing allows one to get more than one could otherwise afford. Third, people are impatient. Instead of saving in order to buy that nice expensive car, we lease it, so we can have it NOW. Forth, on the coroporate/merchant side, renting/leasing is good business--they get to both keep the merchandise AND "sell" it. Think about cars, for example. A dealer can lease it for a number of years, making quite a bit of money from it, and then sell it as a program car for more than the same used car would go for if sold by an individual who had purchased it new.
This whole trend is scary for another reason: in the software industry, the company gets to keep their product, license it for $$, and then charge for tech support. If the rest of the commercial world follows suit, we might see other companies trying to cut costs in the same way. For example, no longer will the dealer of your leased car take care of maintenance, nor your landlord maintain your apartment, etc. In the future that cost and responsibility will get pushed off onto the consumer as well. In such cases, we will not own our "stuff", will pay someone else for letting us use it, but at the same time hold all of the responsibilities traditionally held to belong to the owner.
During the late 1960s, the 'rental life' was put forward by leftist thinkers such as Buckminster Fuller as a 'solution' to the alleged 'problem' of private property. No one would 'own' anything anymore -- people would simply rent what they needed as they needed it, and the social 'harm' of ownership would thus be eliminated. All property would be transitory, and, without owning property, people would naturally be more generous, sharing, compassionate, communal, etc ad infinitum nauseum.
I think you are seriously confusing two differing trends: the ability to choose how much you want, and a loss of control over what you can have.
Application service providers, or rental apartments, are good in that you don't have to take more than you need. I could buy a house, but I know I do not want to commit to where I am, so I rent. I don't want to buy an app, but I need it for this project, so I'll rent it. Having these options is a good thing.
UCITA, on the other hand, removes options. You cannot do certain things that you used to be able to do. That is a bad thing.
In short, while I agree that the ability to not commit tends to lessen overall committment, that doesn't make it a bad idea, simply an abused one.
I think it is pretty extreme to say that the tech sector is driving the way society is headed. Instead look perhaps what you are seeing is the economy changing in areas to the attitude of the tech sector. What you are really doing is redefining a capitolistic system in the tech sector. In a real economy the goods available will change to suit the consumers. All of your examples are also examples of how the system has changed in order to make more profit from goods that require no real resources (relativly.) To me what you have stated is nothing more then capitolism at work.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to the "Post Anonymously" button? or is that just me?
tit hard on
never thought I'd be saying that.
They tuck this little bit in at the end, even though it seems to me that it's the core of the ruling: (excuse the long quote)
"Applications Business" means all businesses carried on by Microsoft Corporation on the effective date of this Final Judgment except the Operating Systems Business. Applications Business includes but is not limited to the development, licensing, promotion, and support of client and server applications and Middleware (e.g., Office, BackOffice, Internet Information Server, SQL Server, etc.), Internet Explorer, Mobile Explorer and other web browsers, Streaming Audio and Video client and server software, transaction server software, SNA server software, indexing server software, XML servers and parsers, Microsoft Management Server, Java virtual machines, Frontpage Express (and other web authoring tools), Outlook Express (and other e-mail clients), Media player, voice recognition software, Net Meeting (and other collaboration software), developer tools, hardware, MSN, MSNBC, Slate, Expedia, and all investments owned by Microsoft in partners or joint venturers, or in ISVs, IHVs, OEMs or other distributors, developers, and promoters of Microsoft products, or in other information technology or communications businesses.
Most of these are uncontroversial, but quite a few aren't.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
I had expected to see a LARGE fine attached to the breakup order.
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
Kind of disappointing.
As usual the bulk of slashdot posters seem to be missing it. Of *course* splitting Microsoft up is going to be good. You are forgetting you are taking the most powerful software company in the world and making it into two... each no where near as powerful as the previous one.
Whats going to happen? Each one is going to want to be the "Microsoft" that wins from the breakup. They will do everything needed to become better than the other part... the same that happened with the baby bills.
Eventually you will see the APP group either supporting every operating system there is in the world... or writing their own. Same with the OS group. These are proud people who have suddenly seen their value and lot changed don't think they won't fight to get it back.
You don't even have the right sig!
Bwah ha ha! MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses. I have never been able to think of something they thought up themselves. Evolutionary changes yes, but then, that's not innovation.
;)
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
Competition keeps companies (slightly more than otherwise) honest. Monopolies like MS have no competition that actually threatens them. They have no reason to be good capitalists. Their only motivation has to be to protect their monopoly. And that hurts everyone - even MS, b/c the economy is harmed.
Ironically, the weather guys are predicting that this afternoon we might get some sunlight here in Seattle (it's overcast today). I wonder if they were speaking metaphorically
Breaking them up isn't the answer. Just because Microsoft is good at what they do(marketing, not programming) doesn't mean that they should be punished. I saw a suggestion on the last Microsoft story to open source them, or any monopoly, so that the playing field would be leveled.
I prefer "Micr" & "Osoft"
shut up, nick
Yeah, even the idea of a megamonopoly was stolen from standard oil company.
Ouch, 63rd post. That's got to hurt.
Why is it that all the reviewers seem to heap glowing praise on Diakatana for it's "unique time-travel aspects"? They seem to think that if it wasn't for the crappy execution, the idea would have been original and worthwhile. Doesn't anyone remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game? Turtles in Time? (Also release on SNES as TMNT4) Sure it was back in the early 90's but c'mon...to the best of my knowledge it was the first game not about time travel to incorporate time travel. It was also a damn good game. From 2500000 BC up to 2030 back to (then) present 1992. A fun filled romp through time. Bah. I understand that reviewers may be desperate for SOMETHING good to say but...please...time travel is old hat for movies AND video games...so enough already.
Diablo is gonna be a great game, as all Blizzard's games are, and of course they're gonna make a mint =), BUT it's not really doing much to forward the technology of gaming. I've been watching the evolution on Neverwinter Nights for awhile now, and I have to say that Bioware is doing some revolutionary stuff over and above what everyone else is. The biggest Gee Whiz feature of their new system is the Toolkit/Editor that'll allow all you D & D fans to recreate that perfect dungeon from your childhood. I say Bout time. Gaming shifted awhile back from linear, single shot experiences into long-term Unreal and Quake community type of user supported products with full mods. Much like linux, a creative department consisting of a huge user base is far superior to any single or team of artists. By providing the ability for added user-created content, they're prolonging the life and value of the game considerably. Very cool for those on a budget. Plus, they've announced full support for linux, which is an unusual step for a company making PC games. Hopefully, they mean full support at the same time as the Windows release, and not a year later, but hey, we'll take what we can get right? Check it out here:
_ page_856_1.html
http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature
Heh. I've been up and down the east coast. Every year the interestates are more crowded. I hear the west coast is the same way. So the commute to work that used to take half an hour now takes an hour, and instead of trees you get to look at new housing developments with one house after another that all look the same. I keep expecting to hear about how a bunch of people on I95 all drove into the ocean one day. Is it any wonder more and more people every year are snapping and shooting up the school/office/church?
So what are you going to do? Move out to some shithole area that's really unfriendly to humanity and live in a shack? Burn your credit cards and pay cash for everything? My Romanian friends told me Americans like to have the right to disappear, well, you can still do that, but anywhere you disappear to will be exactly the same. This is the New World Order. Governments will continue to erode until one day there's nothing left but the corporations who run your life for you. Your best bet is to be part of the rich 10% because life's going to suck for the other 90%.
At the very least you can take some comfort in the fact that our own stupidity got us where we are and our own stupidity keeps us there.
I, the real Sig 11, would like to thank you, kind AC, for your help. I will not, repeat, not stop until I have all the karma on slashdot. Rumor has it, the prize for breaking the 1000 mark is full ownership of http://www.goatse.cx.
You make your own life. No matter how bad things may ever get, the choice to live a happy life is yours. I spent the time to find a good tech gob in a small town (less than 4000) but is about an hour and a half away from a large town (aprox. 500,000) Living in the small town allows me to get a house out in the woods and setup my own little kingdom where I can do what ever the hell I want.
For those of us who actually /want/ a family life, the attitude in today's workplace is detrimental. Being willing to relocate takes on a whole new meaning with a spouse and kids. In so doing, we trade the intangible communities of the new economy with the old school neighborhoods and classrooms.
There are a number of causes for the effects that cliff is seeing. First, people are just plain lazy. It takes too much effort to figure out the best deal, read the license, comparison shop, etc. Second, as a poster above noted, at least on the consumer side, renting and leasing allows one to get more than one could otherwise afford. Third, people are impatient. Instead of saving in order to buy that nice expensive car, we lease it, so we can have it NOW. Forth, on the coroporate/merchant side, renting/leasing is good business--they get to both keep the merchandise AND "sell" it. Think about cars, for example. A dealer can lease it for a number of years, making quite a bit of money from it, and then sell it as a program car for more than the same used car would go for if sold by an individual who had purchased it new.
This whole trend is scary for another reason: in the software industry, the company gets to keep their product, license it for $$, and then charge for tech support. If the rest of the commercial world follows suit, we might see other companies trying to cut costs in the same way. For example, no longer will the dealer of your leased car take care of maintenance, nor your landlord maintain your apartment, etc. In the future that cost and responsibility will get pushed off onto the consumer as well. In such cases, we will not own our "stuff", will pay someone else for letting us use it, but at the same time hold all of the responsibilities traditionally held to belong to the owner.
During the late 1960s, the 'rental life' was put forward by leftist thinkers such as Buckminster Fuller as a 'solution' to the alleged 'problem' of private property. No one would 'own' anything anymore -- people would simply rent what they needed as they needed it, and the social 'harm' of ownership would thus be eliminated. All property would be transitory, and, without owning property, people would naturally be more generous, sharing, compassionate, communal, etc ad infinitum nauseum.
I think you are seriously confusing two differing trends: the ability to choose how much you want, and a loss of control over what you can have.
Application service providers, or rental apartments, are good in that you don't have to take more than you need. I could buy a house, but I know I do not want to commit to where I am, so I rent. I don't want to buy an app, but I need it for this project, so I'll rent it. Having these options is a good thing.
UCITA, on the other hand, removes options. You cannot do certain things that you used to be able to do. That is a bad thing.
In short, while I agree that the ability to not commit tends to lessen overall committment, that doesn't make it a bad idea, simply an abused one.
What's even more ironic is that that post was stolen.
Can't sleep...Clown will eat me...
I think it is pretty extreme to say that the tech sector is driving the way society is headed. Instead look perhaps what you are seeing is the economy changing in areas to the attitude of the tech sector. What you are really doing is redefining a capitolistic system in the tech sector. In a real economy the goods available will change to suit the consumers. All of your examples are also examples of how the system has changed in order to make more profit from goods that require no real resources (relativly.) To me what you have stated is nothing more then capitolism at work.