The question is perfectly valid, if only in need of little rephrasing.
I for one can only suspect David Farber had political motivation for his testimony against Microsoft, the technical anlysis just don't hold water. Certainly his support of the feds and polliticos in the DOJ haven't hurt his career thus far!
And it should, if you read his testimony it comes down to his making fanciful claims disguised in tecno lingo that would have flew far above Jackson's head, about what should, and should not be included in an 'operating system' versus an 'application'.
Anybody out there proved for themselves that Dataquests 'client' versus 'server' market share statistics are all out of wack, say by running Napster on their 'client'?
Generally technology development in this country is by no measure stagnant, and certainly not in need of the kind of political freeing the DOJ has attempted.
Specifically and especially, software API's move fast, faster than any judge or federal official can make responsible plans for.
I think it an extremely short sighted and irresponsible claim, Farber's attempt to define what should, or should not be in an OS from a technical perspective.
His dangerous words supported the clearly heavily biased political attacks of the DOJ against Microsoft.
Remember Boies basicaly lying to the judge, saying that there was _no valid technical reason for bundling a browser_? Despite the browsers out now that build on IE services, despite the developer and consumer convenience of using a 'browser', built, tested and distributed along with the 'OS'?
A browser doesn't belong in an OS??? Despite the fact that a browser is as to the web as file manager is to your local drives?
Perhaps Mr Farber believes that Apple should be prevented from bundling their own browser in their flavor of computing architecture by Federal decree?
For the sake of US industry I hope not.
We'll see how well Jackson's attempt at designing software API's holds up during the review of DOJ vs Microsoft in the higher courts.
There is no doubt that if the government starts dictating software APIs, and we lose our international lead in technology as a result, it will be partly thanks to David Farber.
Relevent DOJ vs Microsoft Testimony pointer
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
Here's what now Chief Technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, David J. Farber, said about what an OS should or shouldn't be... he took issue with Microsoft's assertion that a browser belongs in an OS:
Joe Lockard kindly replied to my query if an online version of the article was available: --
This piece was first published about five years ago under another title, 'Selling Brooklyn Bridge in Cyberspace'.
It's in [The E-zine -w] Bad Subjects at:
http://eserver.org/bs/18/Lockard.html
The essay was revised and republished as "Progressive Politics, Electronic Individualism, and the Myth of Virtual community, in Internet Culture, David Porter [ed.], Routledge, New York (1997), pp. 219-232.
--
I believe Joe was partly responding to Howard Rheingold's book "The Virtual Community" which is available in full text at http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/
Slashdot Mirror
The question is perfectly valid, if only in need of little rephrasing.
I for one can only suspect David Farber had political motivation for his testimony against Microsoft, the technical anlysis just don't hold water. Certainly his support of the feds and polliticos in the DOJ haven't hurt his career thus far!
And it should, if you read his testimony it comes down to his making fanciful claims disguised in tecno lingo that would have flew far above Jackson's head, about what should, and should not be included in an 'operating system' versus an 'application'.
Anybody out there proved for themselves that Dataquests 'client' versus 'server' market share statistics are all out of wack, say by running Napster on their 'client'?
Generally technology development in this country is by no measure stagnant, and certainly not in need of the kind of political freeing the DOJ has attempted.
Specifically and especially, software API's move fast, faster than any judge or federal official can make responsible plans for.
I think it an extremely short sighted and irresponsible claim, Farber's attempt to define what should, or should not be in an OS from a technical perspective.
His dangerous words supported the clearly heavily biased political attacks of the DOJ against Microsoft.
Remember Boies basicaly lying to the judge, saying that there was _no valid technical reason for bundling a browser_? Despite the browsers out now that build on IE services, despite the developer and consumer convenience of using a 'browser', built, tested and distributed along with the 'OS'?
A browser doesn't belong in an OS??? Despite the fact that a browser is as to the web as file manager is to your local drives?
Perhaps Mr Farber believes that Apple should be prevented from bundling their own browser in their flavor of computing architecture by Federal decree?
For the sake of US industry I hope not.
We'll see how well Jackson's attempt at designing software API's holds up during the review of DOJ vs Microsoft in the higher courts.
There is no doubt that if the government starts dictating software APIs, and we lose our international lead in technology as a result, it will be partly thanks to David Farber.
Found via his web page, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber/
Written Testimony
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2059.htm
Cross and redirect transcript AM
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcrip ts/dec98/12-08-am.asp
and PM
http://www. microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/dec98/12 -08-pm.asp
Joe Lockard kindly replied to my query if an online version of the article was available:
--
This piece was first published about five years ago under another title, 'Selling Brooklyn Bridge in Cyberspace'. It's in [The E-zine -w] Bad Subjects at: http://eserver.org/bs/18/Lockard.html The essay was revised and republished as "Progressive Politics, Electronic Individualism, and the Myth of Virtual community, in Internet Culture, David Porter [ed.], Routledge, New York (1997), pp. 219-232.
--
I believe Joe was partly responding to Howard Rheingold's book "The Virtual Community" which is available in full text at http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/