Last time I checked, MS didn't charge a monthly fee for their software which is what leasing is. Licensing issues are a different subject.
The legal issues surrounding CDs and DVDs etc. are really more about the music and movie industries than about MS. Perhaps this means that a few media companies control the market, but it has little to do with whether MS is a monopoly in the AT&T mold.
How many PC programs do you know that used only the PC BIOS and not DOS? Yes, some reverse engineering of the PC BIOS was necessary, but that was sufficient only because DOS was available. DOS was a big part of "100% IBM compatible". Customers demanded that PC applications run on the clone machines and that required DOS.
Much later in the game you had products like DRDOS, but only after the clone market was well established.
No, you're wrong. This is civil case, so it's not possible to get "convicted".
As far as monopolies being so bad is concerned, keep in mind that most of the innovation in computers in the last few decades came from the AT&T, Xerox, and IBM monopolies. I know that Xerox and IBM were not found to be monopolies by the courts, but there was at least as much evidence of them being monopolies as there is for MS.
Actually, comparisons between the old AT&T and MS are a bit absurd. If MS was like the old AT&T, all computer hardware and software would be owned by MS (which you couldn't buy, only lease) as well as the Internet infrastructure.
Actually, the present day AT&T is a closer match to MS than the old AT&T monopoly was.
"Whatever led you to think Judge Jackson was biased? His "injudicial" remarks to the press happened near the end of the trial."
A judge, like a jury member has a legal and ethical responsibility to keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented. It doesn't matter how late in the trial he failed to live up to his responsibilities.
"IANAMF (read I am not a MS fan) but as I remember the other companies with competing OSs did not step up to the plate and court the PC clone companies like MS did in the early game."
The fact is that there wouldn't have been any PC clone companies were it not for MS. The only reason they exist is that MS insisted on the right to license DOS to 3rd parties and IBM foolishly agreed.
I suspect that had IBM decided otherwise, personal computers would be more expensive and Apple would have a significantly larger market share.
Well, the 640K limit was really driven by the fact that IBM chose the 8088 processor that couldn't address more than 1M of memory. Had IBM chosen the 68000 instead, 16X more memory would have been available. So the "visionaries" were at IBM in this case, not MS.
I said "major" OSes, not "minor" OSes or "better" OSes. Neither OS/2 nor BeOS was ever successful in the market place, so I wouldn't draw a lot of conclusions from that.
I don't get your point about Unix. No matter how many Unix knock-offs there are, it still remains true that it wasn't created using an open or free development model.
It is true that as a technology is showing its age, people are less likely to pay good money for it so they might prefer BSD and Linux for that reason.
"In reality MS has corrupted the political process to its own ends"
Actually, had it not been for the political lobbying on the part of MS competitors, there never would have been an antitrust case. It was MS that was corrupted by the polical process rather than the other way around.
"RMS's integrity with respect to this is unquestionable -- he restricts himself solely to using free software, regardless of the flaws in that software."
So he doesn't use a cell phone, a microwave oven, a dishwasher or any other device that uses non-GPLed software? Or is it true that like the rest of us, he decides on a case-by-case basis?
"Yet the Judge had a visceral reaction to the misery (both financial, intellectual and emotional) that Microsoft's shady tactics have caused to the people who work in this industry and in a larger sense to the end-users who are saddled with it's miserable products."
Oh, come on. Jackson's more proabable reason was that he was pissed off that MS managed to get the court of appeals to overturn his previous ruling.
Universities have been promoting Unix for many years and prior to Linux were probably the single most important factor keeping it alive.
Just as Unix and its derivatives have played a prominent role in industry on the server, MS OS's obviously have played a prominent role on the desktop. If a university wants to prepare students for the real world, it needs to include all the most important OS's, languages, etc. Instructors should point out the strengths and weaknesses of each and let the students draw their own conclusions.
Come on. If MSNBC was acting on behalf of MS, they wouldn't even bother to publish the story since this system could undermine Windows. This is an example of hate and distrust of MS overriding common sense.
"Not to mention that it's a real kick in the nuts for MS:)"
Sounds like a larger market for MS. If people want to pay to run Windows 2000 on Linux, why should MS mind? You'd think Linux advocates would be taking the position that running Windows under Linux is unnecessary, rather than bragging that it can be done.
Yes, it's damned inconvenient! Most people (myself included) argue just one side of an issue and neither acknowledge whatever truth the other side has nor the limitations of their own argument. I agree, this is not limited to Slashdotters, but whenever you find yourself in an environment with a dominant point of view that hasn't really been proven (such as: "Everything MS does is evil"), you feel it more acutely.
I'm not personally aware of any 1K games, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I'm not sure if there were 2600 compatible ROMs in a 1K size, so if there were 1K games they might have been programmed into a 2K ROM but that's just speculation on my part.
They are only 1K games if you don't count calls to the OS or ROM BIOS. Back in the old Atari 2600 days 1K really was 1K since there was no code anywhere but in the game cartridge.
"What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me."
Let me help you. The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.
The bottom line is that some people like to swap music and movies without paying for it and some of those same people hate anything that MS comes up with. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we don't pretend there's some great moral high ground involved.
" But given the interference of copyright applied to software, the GPL is a freedom-enhancer."
No. Software that is copyright free(which has always been available) has no restrictions on it. GPL'd software has restrictions on it. So the GPL may enhance freedom in the sense that it requires any changes to be distributed, but it diminishes freedom relative to uncopyrighted software for the orginal work.
In addition, changes made to uncopyrighted software might also be distributed in the public domain thus derivative works could also be more less restrictive than GPL derived works.
To conclude that the GPL is really a freedom-enhancer you have to assume specific behavior on the part of those who receive software distributions. Since, in general, this cannot be determined in advance, you can't prove it.
All that I was suggesting is that both the customer and supplier have responsibilties. The fact that many customers don't live up to those responsibilities is not an excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, MS didn't charge a monthly fee for their software which is what leasing is.
Licensing issues are a different subject.
The legal issues surrounding CDs and DVDs etc. are really more about the music and movie industries than about MS. Perhaps this means that a few media companies control the market, but it has little to do with whether MS is a monopoly in the AT&T mold.
How many PC programs do you know that used only the PC BIOS and not DOS? Yes, some reverse engineering of the PC BIOS was necessary, but that was sufficient only because DOS was available. DOS was a big part of "100% IBM compatible". Customers demanded that PC applications run on the clone machines and that required DOS.
Much later in the game you had products like DRDOS, but only after the clone market was well established.
"MS has been convicted ..."
No, you're wrong. This is civil case, so it's not possible to get "convicted".
As far as monopolies being so bad is concerned, keep in mind that most of the innovation in computers in the last few decades came from the AT&T, Xerox, and IBM monopolies. I know that Xerox and IBM were not found to be monopolies by the courts, but there was at least as much evidence of them being monopolies as there is for MS.
Actually, comparisons between the old AT&T and MS are a bit absurd. If MS was like the old AT&T, all computer hardware and software would be owned by MS (which you couldn't buy, only lease) as well as the Internet infrastructure.
Actually, the present day AT&T is a closer match to MS than the old AT&T monopoly was.
"Whatever led you to think Judge Jackson was biased? His "injudicial" remarks to the press happened near the end of the trial."
A judge, like a jury member has a legal and ethical responsibility to keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented. It doesn't matter how late in the trial he failed to live up to his responsibilities.
"IANAMF (read I am not a MS fan) but as I remember the other companies with competing OSs did not step up to the plate and court the PC clone companies like MS did in the early game."
The fact is that there wouldn't have been any PC clone companies were it not for MS. The only reason they exist is that MS insisted on the right to license DOS to 3rd parties and IBM foolishly agreed.
I suspect that had IBM decided otherwise, personal computers would be more expensive and Apple would have a significantly larger market share.
Well, the 640K limit was really driven by the fact that IBM chose the 8088 processor that couldn't address more than 1M of memory. Had IBM chosen the 68000 instead, 16X more memory would have been available. So the "visionaries" were at IBM in this case, not MS.
I said "major" OSes, not "minor" OSes or "better" OSes. Neither OS/2 nor BeOS was ever successful in the market place, so I wouldn't draw a lot of conclusions from that.
I don't get your point about Unix. No matter how many Unix knock-offs there are, it still remains true that it wasn't created using an open or free development model.
It is true that as a technology is showing its age, people are less likely to pay good money for it so they might prefer BSD and Linux for that reason.
"In reality MS has corrupted the political process to its own ends"
Actually, had it not been for the political lobbying on the part of MS competitors, there never would have been an antitrust case. It was MS that was corrupted by the polical process rather than the other way around.
"No but they are convicted criminals."
No, they are not. As has been noted here on many, many occasions the antitrust case was a civil one.
"RMS's integrity with respect to this is unquestionable -- he restricts himself solely to using free software, regardless of the flaws in that software."
So he doesn't use a cell phone, a microwave oven, a dishwasher or any other device that uses non-GPLed software? Or is it true that like the rest of us, he decides on a case-by-case basis?
"Yet the Judge had a visceral reaction to the misery (both financial, intellectual and emotional) that Microsoft's shady tactics have caused to the people who work in this industry and in a larger sense to the end-users who are saddled with it's miserable products."
Oh, come on. Jackson's more proabable reason was that he was pissed off that MS managed to get the court of appeals to overturn his previous ruling.
"Don't slam Jackson for doing what many people here would love to do."
Yes, like Jackson many slashdotters had made up their mind about the case before the evidence was presented, but as a judge, Jackson should not have.
Universities have been promoting Unix for many years and prior to Linux were probably the single most important factor keeping it alive.
Just as Unix and its derivatives have played a prominent role in industry on the server, MS OS's obviously have played a prominent role on the desktop. If a university wants to prepare students for the real world, it needs to include all the most important OS's, languages, etc. Instructors should point out the strengths and weaknesses of each and let the students draw their own conclusions.
Come on. If MSNBC was acting on behalf of MS, they wouldn't even bother to publish the story since this system could undermine Windows. This is an example of hate and distrust of MS overriding common sense.
"The Open Source Initiative approved two new licenses."
And if you don't use an "approved" license what happens? You don't get to use the OSI logo?
Oops. I missed the XBOX part. Go ahead and slam me. I'm going back to work now.
"Not to mention that it's a real kick in the nuts for MS :)"
Sounds like a larger market for MS. If people want to pay to run Windows 2000 on Linux, why should MS mind? You'd think Linux advocates would be taking the position that running Windows under Linux is unnecessary, rather than bragging that it can be done.
"Any matter of opinion can fit that definition."
Yes, it's damned inconvenient! Most people (myself included) argue just one side of an issue and neither acknowledge whatever truth the other side has nor the limitations of their own argument. I agree, this is not limited to Slashdotters, but whenever you find yourself in an environment with a dominant point of view that hasn't really been proven (such as: "Everything MS does is evil"), you feel it more acutely.
I'm not personally aware of any 1K games, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I'm not sure if there were 2600 compatible ROMs in a 1K size, so if there were 1K games they might have been programmed into a 2K ROM but that's just speculation on my part.
Well, there were hundreds of Atari games, many of them quite obscure so it's quite possible there were 1K games and you just aren't aware of them.
Of course, Atari games had to do a lot of low-level stuff that the other machines' hardware did for you. Like vertical blanking.
They are only 1K games if you don't count calls to the OS or ROM BIOS. Back in the old Atari 2600 days 1K really was 1K since there was no code anywhere but in the game cartridge.
"What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me."
Let me help you. The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.
The bottom line is that some people like to swap music and movies without paying for it and some of those same people hate anything that MS comes up with. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we don't pretend there's some great moral high ground involved.
" But given the interference of copyright applied to software, the GPL is a freedom-enhancer."
No. Software that is copyright free(which has always been available) has no restrictions on it. GPL'd software has restrictions on it. So the GPL may enhance freedom in the sense that it requires any changes to be distributed, but it diminishes freedom relative to uncopyrighted software for the orginal work.
In addition, changes made to uncopyrighted software might also be distributed in the public domain thus derivative works could also be more less restrictive than GPL derived works.
To conclude that the GPL is really a freedom-enhancer you have to assume specific behavior on the part of those who receive software distributions. Since, in general, this cannot be determined in advance, you can't prove it.
All that I was suggesting is that both the customer and supplier have responsibilties. The fact that many customers don't live up to those responsibilities is not an excuse.