The outcome of this case puts developers and users of Microsoft
SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being
sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers a safe
haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of
intellectual property.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the
GPL licensed Linux kernel and components, it must by the terms of
the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them
an implicit license to any intellectual property, patents, trade
secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That
implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also
granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
You are actually in a better legal
position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
This twist to the SCO/UnixWare tail raises some interesting questions...
Did Novell, who at that time owned the Unixware source, put some of the
code into GPL'ed Linux to remain compatable with UNIX binaries?
How many of the developers who worked on the Expose project also had
access to the Unixware sources?
Did the developers who worked on the Expose project contribute changes
to source code back to the community?
"In 1994, a group of Novell alumni formed Caldera Systems International
with the backing of Novell's founder, Ray Noorda. Caldera was intended
to be a Linux distributor, aiming at the business and enterprise
market."
How many of the core Caldera Systems International developers also
worked on the Novell Expose project? Did any of the Caldera Systems
International developers also have access to Unixware sourcecode ?
Any Unixware source or methords which made it's way into Linux though
these routes was therefore done with the implicit consent of Caldera
Systems International, Ray Noorda and Novell. Also this would
effectively kill any Unix trade secret based on the Unixware sources.
In 1993, Novell bought USL. USL and Univel became the Novell UNIX Systems Group. Novell transferred the UNIX trademark to X/Open (later to become The Open Group). In 1993, Novell bought AT&T's stake in USL. In 1995, Novell sold the UnixWare business to old SCO
Novell Brewing a New 32-Bit GUI Environment (PC Week)
From PC Week for April 25, 1994 by PC Week Staff
Novell Inc. is developing a low-cost, 32-bit multitasking operating
environment based on a "freeware" version of Unix that sources said will
run Windows, DOS, NetWare, and Unix applications.
Novell is expected to demonstrate the software -- which it is developing
under tight security at an off-site warehouse -- to a few select users
at next week's NetWorld+Interop trade show, said sources close to the
Provo, Utah, company.
The new system, code-named Expose, is not a derivative of Novell's own
UnixWare; it is based on Linux, a full-featured Unix clone for PCs that
is distributed under a free GNU Public License, sources said. Linux 1.0,
which shipped in March, runs on 386- and 486-based ISA and EISA
computers.
Expose will be based on a graphical X Window System environment called
Looking Glass, which Novell licensed from Visix Software Inc., of
Reston, Va. It is expected to use an advanced 3-D desktop metaphor to
allow users to easily navigate through it, sources said.
Expose "is not as much an applications environment as it is a front end
to many environments, [including] NetWare, Unix, and Windows
applications," said a source who has been briefed on the project. Users
also will be able to run Expose as a front end to the Internet, possibly
through the Mosaic GUI, sources said.
However, one source said development is in the early stages, and given
Novell's track record, the project could be abandoned if it does not
show strong promise.
Another source said Novell has already demonstrated Microsoft Corp.'s
Office suite of Windows applications running on Expose. The source
claimed the applications were running without a Windows emulator, even
though Linux does not fully support Windows applications.
Novell's goal, sources said, is to quickly bring to market a graphical
operating environment that would give PC users a lower-cost alternative
to Windows. The environment would likely be priced below UnixWare's $249
price and possibly even lower than the $149.95 retail price asked for
Windows.
"Ray [Noorda] would give it away if he could," said a source
knowledgeable about the project.
The GNU license allows developers to use and modify the Linux code and
sell it for any price the market will bear -- with the caveat that they
must also distribute the Linux source code with their derivative
products.
Some corporate NetWare users questioned the sagacity of Novell
developing yet another graphical 32-bit operating system. "I'd hate to
see them spend a whole lot of research resources on one more operating
system," said Jim Queen, director of enterprise networking for Enron
Corp., a Houston-based energy company with a large NetWare network. "If
they have a vision for this thing, they'd better share it."
Another IS manager said he is still trying to get his company's current
set of desktop operating systems to work together on a LAN. But although
he doesn't want to deal with yet another contender, "I'll keep an open
mind," said Lee Roth, LAN manager for Dallas-based Southwest Airlines
Co. "If [Expose] gives me some new functionality, I'll consider it."
Did Novell, who at that time owned the Unixware source, put some of the code into GPL'ed Linux to remain compatable with UNIX binaries?
Time to dig up those old copies of Byte and PC Weekly.
In the face of this competition, the Microsoft documents show the significant resources the company devotes to combat Linux, and the unconventional tactics it sometimes uses.
Chris O'Rourke, a Microsoft employee, has described attending Linux World, a trade fair in California, where he "purported to be an independent computer consultant working with several K12 school districts," according to his e-mail, which was sent on Aug. 20 last year. K-12 schools include students from ages to 5 to 18.
"Ha!" O'Rourke wrote in the e-mail to his colleagues, referring to his assumed identity. "In general, people bought this without question... hook, line and sinker."
O'Rourke said his goal was to glean intelligence about the competition. His guise, he said, "got folks to open up and talk." O'Rourke did not respond to a fax and voice-mail message seeking comment.
Another employee, Todd Brix, said he attended a Linux conference in June 2001 in San Jose, California, pretending to be an "ambivalent OEM." Original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, are companies such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Computer Corp. that buy Windows software licenses.
Reached at his office Tuesday, Brix said that when attending such a show, "you don't broadcast that you're a Microsoft person."
"You don't disguise that fact," he said. "You just don't lead with your chin."
What O'Rourke and Brix describe is not just "disguising" their association with Microsoft, but is in reality an outright unethical fraud.
What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software....
... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.
NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.
Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair Use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.
It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.
What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software....
... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.
NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing to great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.
Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.
It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.
The endemic failure of Microsoft toward the security of it's own products, services and customers is reason enough to bring the use of Windows2003 server in mission-critical tasks into question.
For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.
Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days
Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE had not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) and Microsoft's version of HFNetChk both failed to detect the presence of the well-known vulnerability in SQL Server exploited by Sapphire, which is one of the reasons so many admins (both inside and outside MS) had failed to install the necessary hotfix. MBSA and HFNetChk are Microsoft's official patch status verification tools meant to be used by all owners of Windows server boxes...
...In addition to designing MBSA to avoid scanning for SQL Server vulnerabilities, failing to update mssecure.xml reliably and in a timely manner, deprecating HFNetChk by pushing the MBSA GUI as its preferred replacement, and hiding the details of the technical limitation
Last May, under oath at the antitrust hearing Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft, stated that because the Windows operating system was so flawed, disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort.
However, in February, Microsoft signed a pact with Chinese officials to reveal the Windows operating system source code. Bill Gates even hinted that China will be privy to all, not just part, of the source code its government wished to inspect.
Given the evidence suppporting Jim Allchin's testimony, the Microsoft corporation is behaving traitorously, by exposing national security issues to untrusted foreign governments.
The endemic failure of Microsoft toward the security of it's own products, services and customers is reason enough to bring Howard Schmidt's leadership in the area of cyber-security into question.
For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.
Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days
Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE have not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) and Microsoft's version of HFNetChk both failed to detect the presence of the well-known vulnerability in SQL Server exploited by Sapphire, which is one of the reasons so many admins (both inside and outside MS) had failed to install the necessary hotfix. MBSA and HFNetChk are Microsoft's official patch status verification tools meant to be used by all owners of Windows server boxes...
......In addition to designing MBSA to avoid scanning for SQL Server vulnerabilities, failing to update mssecure.xml reliably and in a timely manner, deprecating HFNetChk by pushing the MBSA GUI as its preferred replacement, and hiding the details of the technical limitations
The ECGS fork of the Gnu Compiler Collection ( GCC ) was formed in 1997, because many felt that developement of GCC was not going fast enough and that the then GCC developer were not accepting or adopting mnay freely contributed patches that radically changed the then stable GCC toolset.
From the GCC FAQ In April 1999 the Free Software Foundation officially halted development on the gcc2 compiler and appointed the EGCS project as the official GCC maintainers. The net result was a single project which carries forward GCC development under the ultimate control of the GCC Steering Committee
"Migrating to Linux not easy for Windows users" article in Linuxworld, while somewhat informative, is unfair and one sided, because it is based upon expectations that not even Microsoft's Win2k and XP can live up to. Tsu admits as much
Note: Requirements 2 and 3 eliminate WindowsXP as an upgrade route
I would need to buy a new computer, probably new peripherals, and
replace some eXPensive software to get the dubious benefits of
product-activation codes and embedded functions I don't want and
can't delete.
The expectation that Linux will fulfill the hardware driver installation off the distribution CD, when you admit that you may have to replace the entire hardware for XP, is inherently unfair and beyond what can be reasonably expected in any operating system. XP is not without it's major problems when it comes to older hardware ( especially scanners ) support and driver conflict problems.
The lack of any relative comparison in your article to the Microsoft alternative, paints Linux in a far worse light than is the reality. Compare your article to the recent articles by Joe Barr, comparing Linux installation with XP and Windows 2000.
Also, given the rapid improvement of Linux distributions, 18 months is in my opinion, too long ago to represent the current state of Linux on the desktop. See Michael C. Barnes updates look at leading desktop operating system options on the market.As with Joe Barr's article, it benchmarks Linux against Microsoft's offerings.
There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out faults, in fact any *constructive* criticism over current releases of Linux is both welcome and necessary to the Kazan like rapid improvement of Linux. However, just repeating war-stories without acknowledging either that the issue has been fixed in the lastest release of that distribution, or similar problem also exists with Win2k and XP, does nothing but provide fodder for Microsoft's trolls. I am surprised that this article in it's current form, made it past the editors at Linuxworld.
Not all linux distributions are targeted for the non-technical deployer. For example: Lycoris, Xandros and ELX are more likely to have SMB functionality preconfigured on install.
However, does not someone also re-configure windows for your colleagues? When they log in, is the SMB shares,printers and defaults always pre-installed for them? If not, who ever provides techsuppport for you is not doing their job properly.
Deployment, day to day management and just using a computer, require a different level of technical knowledge, no matter what operating system you are using.
Although many non-technical people to install and with windows often reinstall the operating system, that does not mean that they do a good job of it. I have been too often called in to repair a screwed up home based 98 to XP systems to personally attest to that.
That some Linux distributions, for example RedHat 8, do require a lot more knowleadge to deploy, once properly deployed and configured, they are a hell of a lot easier to remotely manage on a day to day basis, even using GUIs.
( hint - ssh -X root@TARGET-IP ). The quality of the technical knowledge from Linux user groups and distributions forums, especially in comparison to phone support from Microsoft, can more than make up for the difference in relative difficulty. That Tsu Dho Nimh set up a a pre-requisite that no external support was aceptable, is unrealistic even for windows XP.
Dispite the absolute terror of the Microsoft advocates, Linux is NOW a more than adequate as a desktop for the enterprise, a replacement for XP and an upgrade from window98 and NT4.
At work , we have upgraded 80% of our ghosted win98se desktop from Microsoft Office 98 to StarOffice6 and Mozilla
Microsoft and the GNU Project
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Many Microsoft users run a modified version of the GNU system every
day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the
version of GNU which is widely used today is more often known as 'Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX 3.0' or SFU, and many users are not aware of the extent of its connection with the GNU Project.
There really is a SFU; it is a subsystem, and these people are
using it. But you can't use a subsystem by itself; a subsystem is
useful only as part of a whole operating system. SFU now inludes
Interix which is normally used in a combination with the GNU
development toolchain and libraries : the system is basically GNU,
with SFU functioning as the compatibility DDL Library layer.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the
compiler toolset, which is SFU, and the whole system, which they also
call `SFU''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote
understanding.
Programmers generally know that is a Subsystem. But since they
have generally heard the whole system called `Interix' as well,
they often envisage a history which fits that name. For example,
many believe that once Softway Systems finished writing the posix
compatibility DDL Libraries, they looked around for other free software, and for no particular
reason most everything necessary to port a Unix-like system was
already available.
What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The
available free software added up to a complete system because the
GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU
Manifesto had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system,
called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also
outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the
time Interix was written, the system was almost finished.
Most software projects have the goal of developing a particular
program for a particular job. For example, Softway Systems set out
to build an environment to allow UNIX apps to be ported directly
to NT. Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob
Scheifler set out to develop a window system (X Windows). It's
natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by
specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way,
what would we conclude? If you had access to the full source code
of SFU with Interix, you might find found that, GNU software was
the largest single contingent, around 60% of the total source
code, and this included some of the essential major components
without which there could be no compatable subsystem. SFU by
without Interix itself could be about 20%. So if you were going to
pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the
system, the most appropriate single choice would be `GNU''.
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question.
The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific
software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler,
although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor,
although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a
complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in
the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a
system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because
the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the
programs needed to make a complete free system, and we
systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything
on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting major components,
such as the assembler and linker, because you can't have a system
without them. A complete system needs more than
"To use threedegrees, prospective testers must be running Windows XP with Service Pack 1, the new peer-to-peer update and MSN Messenger 5 installed on their computer."
[ With deepest apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits ]
"Money for Microsoft" by Dire Warnings
Sung by Steve Ballmer, backing by Bill Gates
You must buy...
You must buy Win-XP
You must buy...
You must buy Win-XP
You must buy...
You must buy Win-XP
You must buy...
You must buy Win-XP
Now look at them bozo's that's the way you do it
You lock them always on the Win-XP
That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
Money for Microsoft from Dot Net usage fees
Now that ain't workin' thats the way we do it
Lemme tell ya them guys are dumb
Maybe get a licence on your little desktop
Maybe get a licence on everyone
They gotta install Media Player
Passport Dot-Net deliveries
They gotta take these applications
They gotta take these subscription fees
Look at that, look at that
See the little Win-Troll spreading spin we makeup
Yeah buddy thats our own fear
That little Win-Troll got them always complain'
That little Win-Troll makes us billionares
They gotta install Media Player
Passport Dot-Net deliveries
They gotta take these applications
They gotta take these subscription fees
They shoulda learned to use the Linux
They shoulda learned to use them Macs
Look at that user, we got it stickin' to the customer
Man we could have some fun
And their down there, whats that? Protesting noises?
Plannin' on me dancing like a chimpanzee
That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
Get the money for Microsoft get our usage fee
They gotta install Media Player
Passport Dot-Net deliveries
They gotta take these applications
They gotta take these subscription fees
That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
You lock them always on the Win-XP
That ain't workin' thats the way we do it
Money for Microsoft from the license fee
Money for Microsoft from subscription fees
If you have not already listened to, or
read Lessig's speech on free culture. I urge you to do so
ASAP. The flash presentation brings home just how much we,
as a society in general, have to lose.
http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/
PATENTS: If people had understood how patents would be granted when most
of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry
would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large
company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation,
algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this
company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take
as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges
with large companies and patenting as much as we can. Amazingly we havn't
done any patent exchanges tha I am aware of. Amazingly we havn't found a
way to use our licensing position to avoid having our own customers cause
patent problems for us.
MONOPOLY AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: The principal theme set forth in The Wealth of Nations is that a country most effectively promotes its own wealth by providing a framework of laws that leaves individuals free to pursue the interest they have in their own economic betterment. This self-interest motivates individuals? propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another and thereby leads them to meet the needs of others through voluntary cooperation in the market place:
...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (p. 14)
Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However...
Smith also argues that the harmony between private goals and larger socially desirable goals promoted by voluntary cooperation between individuals in the market place is interfered with by monopoly and government subsidies. In contrast to competition, monopoly and government subsidies cause individuals to devote either too few or too many resources to particular markets:
....the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.
All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. (pp. 594-5) Every derangement of the natural distribution of stock is necessarily hurtful to the society in which it takes place; whether it be by repelling from a particular trade the stock which would otherwise go to it, or by attracting towards a particular trade that which would not otherwise come to it. (p. 597)
.... sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbalanced. This often happens in tha case of several types of monopoly...
Smith describes the actions of monopolists as follows:
The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. (p. 61)
The natural price is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business. (p. 61) Today we would use the word competitive for natural. The effectual demand is the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity. (p. 56) Monopoly, as well as a governmentally subsidized activity, contrasts with a competitive market where a commodity is...sold precisely for what it is worth, or for what it really costs the person who brings it to market. (p. 55) The Wealth of Nations contains three general kinds of criticism of monopolies. The first is that the higher prices in a monopolized market reduce the welfare of consumers:
If...capital is divided between two different grocers, their competition will tend to make both of them sell cheaper, than if it were in the hands of one only; and if it were divided among twenty, their competition would be just so much the greater, and the chance of their combining together, in order to raise the price, just so much the less. Their competition might perhaps ruin some of themselves; but to take care of this is the business of the parties concerned, and it may safely be trusted to their discretion. It can never hurt either the consumer, or the producer; on the contrary, it must tend to make the retailers both sell cheaper and buy dearer, than if the whole trade was monopolized by one or two persons. (pp. 342-3) In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market. (p. 461)
.... like deals made between vendors to set prices, which RAND "reasonable" licensing systems effectively does.
The second criticism of monopoly is that it engenders inefficient management:
Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self-defence. (p. 147)
For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities , a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.
The third criticism of monopoly is that it is inequitable because it increases arbitrarily the inequality in individuals? incomes:
...The policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them. (pp. 118-19)
And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.
Monopoly has always been a contentious issue in debates on public policy in the United States. It is interesting to examine the way in which the ideas of Smith appear in current debates over monopoly. In general, proponents of government intervention in the market place argue that monopoly is endemic in capitalism and that its elimination requires significant intervention by the government in the market place. An opposing group argues that free markets effectively restrain monopoly power and that it is in fact government intervention in the market place that is chiefly responsible for monopoly. The first group assumes that large size, fewness of firms, and operation over an extensive geographic area automatically imply monopoly power and thus supports its position by citing the existence of industries dominated by a few large firms and the existence of multinational corporations. The opposing group supports its position by trying to show that where monopoly power exists it is made possible by particular governmental actions, e.g., in the United States by marketing orders that fix the price of milk above what it would be otherwise, or FCC regulations restricting the growth of cable TV, thereby preventing competition with the established networks.
The view of the world suggested in The Wealth of Nations is that monopoly power cannot persist without the assistance of government. The specific examples of monopoly that Adam Smith attacked required the police power of the state for their maintenance. These monopolies were of three kinds. One kind of monopoly depended upon the mercantilistic system of laws which England used to monopolize trade with its colonies: Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system. (p. 595) Another kind arose from the monopoly power granted guilds (referred to by Smith as corporations), which allowed them exclusive rights to produce a given commodity:
The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into the trade. The limitation of the number of apprentices restrains it directly. A long term of apprenticeship restrains it more indirectly, but as effectually, by increasing the expence of education. (p. 119) The government of towns corporate was altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them, to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is in reality to keep it always understocked. (p. 124)
A final kind of monopoly depended upon tariffs and quotas that prevented foreign producers from competing with domestic producers:
The superiority which the industry of the towns has every-where in Europe over that of the country, is not altogether owing to corporations and corporation laws. It is supported by many other regulations. The high duties upon foreign manufactures and upon all goods imported by alien merchants, all tend to the same purpose. Corporation laws enable the inhabitants of towns to raise their prices, without fearing to be under-sold by the free competition of their own countrymen. Those other regulations secure them equally against that of foreigners. (p. 127)
Competitive markets restrain monopoly because the above-average profits associated with the exercise of monopoly power attract new producers who increase output and thereby lower prices:
When by an increase in the effectual demand, the market price of some particular commodity happens to rise a good deal above the natural price, those who employ their stocks in supplying that market are generally careful to conceal this change. If it was commonly known, their great profit would tempt so many new rivals to employ their stocks in the same way, that, the effectual demand being fully supplied, the market price would soon be reduced to the natural price.... Secrets of this kind, however, it must be acknowledged, can seldom be long kept; and the extraordinary profit can last very little longer than they are kept. (p. 60)
The next section is very IMPORTANT.
Monopolists can preserve their favorable position only if the government prevents potential competitors from entering the monopolized activity:
The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency...They...may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate.
Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them. (pp. 61-2)
In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused. These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols , effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:
An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)
Smith?s ideas appear in current public debate over monopoly. Advocates of deregulating the transportation and communications industries by eliminating or reducing the power of Federal regulatory agencies argue that these agencies promote monopoly by limiting the entry of new firms and by fixing prices for all producers. Government regulations enforced upon all firms in an industry have the effect of allowing producers to eliminate competition and to raise prices. At the same time, lack of competition reduces incentives for efficient production.
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing.Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" which covers the design and inter-operation of.NET based implementations. Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
JBoss received the green light last week, after Sun told ComputerWire that it would allow all of the APIs contained in J2EE 1.4 to be open sourced. Fleury had expressed concern that certain critical APIs, including Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) 2.1, would be not be made available to open source organizations.
However, Java Community Process director Onno Kluyt said: "Sun's plan with 1.4 is that although it started before JCP 2.5, by the time it ships it will allow the creation of independent implementations. I don't think the APIs are that interesting, because the license that sits on top of J2EE will allow that [independent implementations]".
There those that claim that.NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any.NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
Using the keword search query format
http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?q=LANGU AGE
gets a more acurate number, but still limits the count to a maximum of 5000, for example Java = More than 5000 C++
= More than 5000
You even can count C# by using this link. C# = 446
DRM to Hollywood and the RIAA is not about recovering lost profits from piracy, to them DRM is a means to recovering control over the selection and choices on offer to the consumer. Downloadable movies and music in DRM file formats can be set with a use-by date, and the publishers regain control of what is on offer to the public and for how long. Even CDs and DVDs could be given an effective use-by date.
It's even more effective than establishing control over the radio playlists, something Tom Petty voiced in the lyrics to "The Last DJ".
Well you can't turn him into a company man
You can't turn him into a whore
And the boys upstairs just don't understand anymore
Well the top brass don't like him talking so much
And he won't play what they say to play
And he don't want to change what don't need to change
And there goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
There goes the last DJ
Well some folks say they're gonna hang him so high
Because you just can't do what he did
There's some things you just can't put in the minds of those kids
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free
And there goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
And there goes the last DJ
(Instrumental break)
Well he got him a station down in Mexico
And sometimes it will kinda come in
And I'll bust a move and remember how it was back then
There goes the last DJ
Who plays what he wants to play
And says what he wants to say
Hey, hey, hey
And there goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
And there goes the last DJ
Also, I am not alone in my concerns about Microsoft's patent threat, even Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew Szulik has said that Microsoft's legal efforts to challenge open source by employing patent infringement law represent a big threat.
Microsoft could settle this issue by making a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA.
Schwartz: Congressman Weldon,
thank you very much for being here. Do you have any questions.
Rep. Curt Weldon:
Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of
minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank
Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.
Pardon me if I seem a little bit confused to our panel, but, I am, and have
been, with the change in direction which has occurred. But before I begin, let
me say at the outset one of my biggest projects for the past four years has been
to build what is becoming the first smart region in America, linking up all of
the institutions within a four state region -- Pennsylvania, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Maryland -- _____. In fact, over the weekend, I hosted the Minister
_____, who is the Minister of Information Technology for Malaysia. As we signed
an ____ with them for uplink downlink ties between our hub initiative in the
four states, and the new Malaysian super-computing corridor project that they
are building in Malaysia. So, I am a strong advocate for the use of information
technology.
But my other hat is to chair the Research Committee for National Security.
And when Bob introduced his bill three years ago, my door was pounded
incessantly by the Defense Secretary and his staff, by the Director of the CIA,
and by the head of the NSA, and I would note for the record neither the CIA nor
the NSA is here today.
Who is actually speaking for them today, I might add? OK.
NSA and CIA came in, and in a very intense way, lobbied me personally, and I
am not a computer expert, nor am I a lawyer, and they asked me to give access to
my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee to look at the security
implications of the change in Bob's legislation. I respect Bob. I think that he
is an outstanding member. But I felt that I owed it to my committee, and my
responsibility to Congress to listen to what the administration was going to
tell me.
We arranged a series of classified hearings and briefings. And, as with any
Member of Congress expressing concern about the ability for our forces involved
in a hostile environment to be able to respond quickly, ____ back to 1991 in
Desert Storm where my understanding is that our commanders in the field had
Saddam Hussein's commands before his own command officers had them, because of
our ability to intercept and break the codes of Saddam's military. I want to
make sure that we have that capability in the future. I responded in a very
positive way to the argument that was being made by the CIA, by the NSA, and by
DOD. And we took some very tough positions.
In fact, Ron Dellums and I offered the amendment last year that had only one
dissenting vote in the House, and this year passed by a vote of 48 to 6.
In the past year none of those briefings have changed. And the people who
have come to me as a Member of the National Security Committee, there has been
no lessening of their impression of the threat. Yet all of a sudden I am told,
and John Hamre, I think, he made the courtesy of calling me in advance, that
there was a change.
Now, I agree with the gentleman from the White House, for the administration,
that it was coincidence that this happened the day before Vice President Gore
went to Silicon Valley. I agree that that was just a coincidence.
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key
points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me
that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner
from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated
ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is
part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that
needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I
would like to know what it is.
Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not
written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use
certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy
of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into
China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I
guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together.
In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you
sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I
said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find
the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.
But I am not convinced that what we are doing here is necessarily logical.
And I am not convinced that all of us, in fact, have the same understanding of
what it is that you are coming out with in terms of a new policy position. And I
guess we won't know that until the terms of the December 15th regulations are
spelled out, and then we can debate the fine points, which is part of what Bob's
question alluded to today
I don't want to hurt industry. In fact, I have advocated that we give
significant new tax breaks to the encryption and software industry in this
country to give them more incentive to stay in America and do their work here.
But, I am also, as a senior member of the Security Committee, as a Chairman of
the Research Committee, to seeing 47 billion dollars a year of our tax money
going to Pentagon's IT systems, I want to be absolutely certain that in terms of
our ability to deal with intelligence overseas, to be able to have information
dominance overseas, to be able to use the kinds of tools that the CIA and the
Defense Department needs in adversarial relationships that we are in fact
providing that through this new policy.
So, I guess the devil is in the details, the proof is in the pudding, and I
am going to withhold my support for what you have done until I have seen the
details that you are supposedly going to review for us on December 15.
My question is also why wasn't the head of the NSA and CIA invited to appear?
Was that the panel? Or, was that the decision of the administration?
Jerry Berman: [He
said he invited the administration to send whoever they wanted.]
Weldon: My only question is,
since, the administration used the CIA, and the NSA, to come to me as a Member
of Congress to argue their position for the past two years. I would like to have
had the NSA and the CIA here at the table so I could ask them the same questions
that I am posing you. And I am not going to be happy until I get that
opportunity.
______?: Congressman, we will
make that opportunity available to you.
Weldon: I think it should have
been done though in a public forum.
______?: Thank you.
Swire: Just one small, in the
announcement on the 16th that Deputy Secretary Hamre spoke for Defense and
national security, Attorney General Reno spoke for Justice and law enforcement.
Secretary Daley for Commerce. I was asked to speak on privacy, as a
representation of important goals that we were trying to meld together for this
overall policy.
Weldon: I understand that. And
John Hamre told me that when he called me a of couple of days before the
announcement was going to be made. My point is, that when the administration
wanted people to carry their water up on the Hill, they sent the head of the CIA
and the head of NSA to see us personally. They did not have John Hamre do it.
Although John did part of that. And I think that we should be hearing from the
CIA and NSA directly because they are the people I am concerned, in terms of
being able to break into systems of foreign adversaries, of both real and
potential adversaries. I want to hear from them.
And I think we owe it to the public, as we have had an about face in this
policy, and that is what I think that it is. I want to hear what has changed,
and whether or not they are satisfied. Once again, I am not an information
technology expert. I am not a lawyer. But, I want to hear from them. I want to
get them to look me in the eye to tell me they are satisfied, and they are
satisfied because what we have done here is consistent with their ability to
provide the kind of level of security that we need in the future.
Wells: If I could say
Congressman, one of the piece of the rollout was that the national security
community will need additional tools. And, we look forward to the Congress to
support that with appropriations.
Weldon: And we will do that. We
have given, for the past five years, more money for the issue of information
dominance in our defense bill, than the administration's request in each year.
In fact, both ______ and John Hamre have had full and unequivocal support for
all of their needs, as well as the needs of the CIA and the FBI, I mean the CIA
and the NSA.
Schwartz: Congressman, I didn't
really think we headed off into dull before, but when you said you were going to
liven it up, you sure delivered on your promise.
Slashdot Mirror
While SCO has yet to provide any substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
The outcome of this case puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers a safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to any intellectual property, patents, trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
You are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
Did Novell, who at that time owned the Unixware source, put some of the code into GPL'ed Linux to remain compatable with UNIX binaries?
How many of the developers who worked on the Expose project also had access to the Unixware sources?
Did the developers who worked on the Expose project contribute changes to source code back to the community?
"In 1994, a group of Novell alumni formed Caldera Systems International with the backing of Novell's founder, Ray Noorda. Caldera was intended to be a Linux distributor, aiming at the business and enterprise market."
How many of the core Caldera Systems International developers also worked on the Novell Expose project? Did any of the Caldera Systems International developers also have access to Unixware sourcecode ?
Any Unixware source or methords which made it's way into Linux though these routes was therefore done with the implicit consent of Caldera Systems International, Ray Noorda and Novell. Also this would effectively kill any Unix trade secret based on the Unixware sources.
BUT IN 1994 Novell who then fully owned UnixWare...From the Usenet Archives
Did Novell, who at that time owned the Unixware source, put some of the code into GPL'ed Linux to remain compatable with UNIX binaries?Time to dig up those old copies of Byte and PC Weekly.
Finish your education off by increasing your vocabulary.
There is no real effective Unix IP for SCO to license.
Microsoft's SFU and Interix products are in no way depended upon the IP that SCO holds, quite the opposite in fact - Interix/SFU actually owes more to the GNU-project.
Microsoft is just effectively bankrolling SCO's lawsuit. The EU Commerce Commission,the USA Federal Trade Commission and DOJ Antitrust should also look into this given Microsoft's recently disclosed anticompetitive predatory practices.
Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users
NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
Read all of Curt Weldon's statement.
Attestation Monopoly
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.
Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair Use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.
It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.
First read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users
NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
You might want to read all of Curt Weldon's statement.
Other major issues of concern are...
Attestation Monopoly
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing to great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.
Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.
It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.
For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.
Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days
Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE had not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.
Other inherent vulnerabilities, such as the Shatter attack ( http://security.tombom.co.uk/moreshatter.html ), Microsoft has known about since 1994!
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
From Jason Coombs' A response to Bruce Schneier on MS patch management and Sapphire ( http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158 )
However, in February, Microsoft signed a pact with Chinese officials to reveal the Windows operating system source code. Bill Gates even hinted that China will be privy to all, not just part, of the source code its government wished to inspect.
Given the evidence suppporting Jim Allchin's testimony, the Microsoft corporation is behaving traitorously, by exposing national security issues to untrusted foreign governments.
For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.
Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days
Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE have not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.
Other inherent vulnerabilities, such as the Shatter attack ( http://security.tombom.co.uk/moreshatter.html ), Microsoft has known about since 1994!
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
From Jason Coombs' A response to Bruce Schneier on MS patch management and Sapphire ( http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158 )
From the GCC FAQ
In April 1999 the Free Software Foundation officially halted development on the gcc2 compiler and appointed the EGCS project as the official GCC maintainers. The net result was a single project which carries forward GCC development under the ultimate control of the GCC Steering Committee
The expectation that Linux will fulfill the hardware driver installation off the distribution CD, when you admit that you may have to replace the entire hardware for XP, is inherently unfair and beyond what can be reasonably expected in any operating system. XP is not without it's major problems when it comes to older hardware ( especially scanners ) support and driver conflict problems.
The lack of any relative comparison in your article to the Microsoft alternative, paints Linux in a far worse light than is the reality. Compare your article to the recent articles by Joe Barr, comparing Linux installation with XP and Windows 2000.
Also, given the rapid improvement of Linux distributions, 18 months is in my opinion, too long ago to represent the current state of Linux on the desktop. See Michael C. Barnes updates look at leading desktop operating system options on the market.As with Joe Barr's article, it benchmarks Linux against Microsoft's offerings.
There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out faults, in fact any *constructive* criticism over current releases of Linux is both welcome and necessary to the Kazan like rapid improvement of Linux. However, just repeating war-stories without acknowledging either that the issue has been fixed in the lastest release of that distribution, or similar problem also exists with Win2k and XP, does nothing but provide fodder for Microsoft's trolls. I am surprised that this article in it's current form, made it past the editors at Linuxworld.
Not all linux distributions are targeted for the non-technical deployer. For example: Lycoris, Xandros and ELX are more likely to have SMB functionality preconfigured on install.
However, does not someone also re-configure windows for your colleagues? When they log in, is the SMB shares,printers and defaults always pre-installed for them? If not, who ever provides techsuppport for you is not doing their job properly.
Deployment, day to day management and just using a computer, require a different level of technical knowledge, no matter what operating system you are using.
Although many non-technical people to install and with windows often reinstall the operating system, that does not mean that they do a good job of it. I have been too often called in to repair a screwed up home based 98 to XP systems to personally attest to that.
That some Linux distributions, for example RedHat 8, do require a lot more knowleadge to deploy, once properly deployed and configured, they are a hell of a lot easier to remotely manage on a day to day basis, even using GUIs. ( hint - ssh -X root@TARGET-IP ). The quality of the technical knowledge from Linux user groups and distributions forums, especially in comparison to phone support from Microsoft, can more than make up for the difference in relative difficulty. That Tsu Dho Nimh set up a a pre-requisite that no external support was aceptable, is unrealistic even for windows XP.
Dispite the absolute terror of the Microsoft advocates, Linux is NOW a more than adequate as a desktop for the enterprise, a replacement for XP and an upgrade from window98 and NT4.
At work , we have upgraded 80% of our ghosted win98se desktop from Microsoft Office 98 to StarOffice6 and Mozilla
Coverage at CNET indicates that the W3C may be softening it's Royalty-Free Standard Licensing stance. Please read Adam Warner's W3C Patent policy page on why RAND is not an option for Open Standard Licensing and email your comments to the W3C Patent Policy mailing list!
There really is a SFU; it is a subsystem, and these people are using it. But you can't use a subsystem by itself; a subsystem is useful only as part of a whole operating system. SFU now inludes Interix which is normally used in a combination with the GNU development toolchain and libraries : the system is basically GNU, with SFU functioning as the compatibility DDL Library layer.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the compiler toolset, which is SFU, and the whole system, which they also call `SFU''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding.
Programmers generally know that is a Subsystem. But since they have generally heard the whole system called `Interix' as well, they often envisage a history which fits that name. For example, many believe that once Softway Systems finished writing the posix compatibility DDL Libraries, they looked around for other free software, and for no particular reason most everything necessary to port a Unix-like system was already available.
What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU Manifesto had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Interix was written, the system was almost finished.
Most software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Softway Systems set out to build an environment to allow UNIX apps to be ported directly to NT. Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (X Windows). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? If you had access to the full source code of SFU with Interix, you might find found that, GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 60% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no compatable subsystem. SFU by without Interix itself could be about 20%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be `GNU''.
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is a system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting major components, such as the assembler and linker, because you can't have a system without them. A complete system needs more than
Yes, David Mohring is NZheretic, the one and the same. original author
[ With deepest apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits ]
David Mohring - Original authorNote: dancing like a chimpanzee - see http://www.google.com/search?q=ballmer+monkeyboy+m peg
If you have not already listened to, or read Lessig's speech on free culture. I urge you to do so ASAP. The flash presentation brings home just how much we, as a society in general, have to lose. http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/
From The Relevance of Adam Smith by Robert L. Hetzel.
With added commentary by yours truly...
Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However
For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities , a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.
And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.
The next section is very IMPORTANT.
In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused.
These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols , effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" which covers the design and inter-operation of .NET based implementations.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP) . Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss ...
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
Green envy and spam
Using the keword search query formatU AGE
http://jobsearch.monster.com/jobsearch.asp?q=LANG
gets a more acurate number, but still limits the count to a maximum of 5000, for example
Java = More than 5000
C++ = More than 5000
You even can count C# by using this link.
C# = 446
It's even more effective than establishing control over the radio playlists, something Tom Petty voiced in the lyrics to "The Last DJ".
Also, I am not alone in my concerns about Microsoft's patent threat, even Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew Szulik has said that Microsoft's legal efforts to challenge open source by employing patent infringement law represent a big threat.
Microsoft could settle this issue by making a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA.
Congressman Curt Weldon's comments