I don't think we should fall into the trap of thinking that all problems need to be solved by digital computers. Way back in the 1960's and 70's, engineers were trained in modeling. If you scale the paramaters properly, then you can get a (reasonably) accurate answer from a small test case. Many aircraft designs were tested on a small scale model in water, for instance. looking at the water flow meant that they had all those aerodynamic calculations done, in real time. The best computers on earth at the time would have taken decades to crunch the numbers to get the same result.
The 'DNA Computers' we've been making such a fuss over lately, are essentially just modeling again. If you can sift well, and your modeling parameters are correct, you can run a lot (10^38 anyone?) in a few minutes. (Of course, it may take you weeks or even years to set it up correctly, and the old GIGO rule still applies.)
This seems to be just modeling a class of hard computing problems, and letting reality show us what the answer is. Sometimes, analog is best.
Katz had some good things to say, but could have used a little more research.
The whold antitrust business started in the late 1900's, with the likes of Standard Oil. When things really got bad for the Rockefellers was when it was revealed that the Standard Oil agreements with the railroads for kickbacks meant that Standard Oil got paid for every barrel of oil that thier competetors tried to ship. there were also secret agreements that guarenteed that competitors products were delivered more slowly, and were regularly reported to be 'inferior'.
Now jump forward to today. Is Microsoft a monopoly in the same sense as Standard Oil or Carnagie Steel were in the 1890's? I think that the answer would have to be 'YES'. That means that this one company controls over 90% of the market for it's product group. These groups would be 1. Operating Systems for desktop computers. also, 2. Office Productivity Software.
I believe that in both catagories Microsoft is dominant (More than 80% market share, possibly more than 90%.)
The next question should be 'Are they using their market dominance to stifle competition, or to harm or force potential harm on the public'. That is the question at the heart of the matter.
To find out if the answer to the second question is yes or no, try a little experiment.
Go to a standard computer outlet and try to buy a computer with an alternate operating system (I am partial to Debian). Then, try to find out if there are legal agreements for 'kickbacks' so that even if I try to buy a computer without a microsoft operating system, I pay for it anyway. Again, the answer is 'yes'. Here is where Microsoft is harming the public. That is cause enough to justify breaking up the company.
Did Microsoft engage in anticompetetive paractices in an effort to destroy Netscape? Yes, in the origional trial, there were many references to that as thier goal. Did they violate the law in thier efforts? Again, Yes.
The 'right' to operate a corporation is granted only as a means to a public good. It can be abused, and if it is, then the public, in the preson of the Government can revoke that. It is not one of the inalienable rights.
Because the Government can do so, does not mean that they should. As an example, I know of no one whose phone bills went down when ATT was broken up. We literally leave it up to the disgression of the judge to determine what is in the public good. In this case, Judge Jackson was severe, because this case was brought in violation of a consent decree where he was the judge for a previous antitrust case.
With all that, I do not believe that the proposed remedy is the best solution. It creates two large monopolies where there was one large monopoly before, still leaving the public at the mercy of a dominant organization with a history of abuse. Perhaps someone out there has an idea for a solution that would work, without destroying the properties that make many people like the company. The best remedy I have seen, is Richard Stallmans solutions from over a year ago.
I/m writing this on a Win 98 machine at Work, I have Python on here. You can try it. Download all you need from python.org. It's a pretty easy language to learn, and fairly powerful too.
C'mon Guys, This article is one man's attempt to excuse his own actions.
My reasons for using free software are simple, I like it. If i didn't, I'd use something else. He should do the same.
RMS may be an extreemist, but that shouldn't destroy his carefully reasoned opinions (which are often right). That seems to be the gist of the argument. This is like reading a Baptist tract writtenagainst the Mormons, If you know anything about the group being attacked, the arguments are obviously falsee and slanderous. (The same is true of tracts written to attack the Baptists, as soon as money is involved, truth goes out the window.) A clear example of this was the assertion by insinuation that ERS supports the murder of women and hcildren in third world countries. IIRC, ESR is a believer in capitol punmishment. You are responsible for your own actions. That is never acknoleged here. It just didn't fit in with the authors prejudices.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we should fall into the trap of thinking that all problems need to be solved by digital computers. Way back in the 1960's and 70's, engineers were trained in modeling. If you scale the paramaters properly, then you can get a (reasonably) accurate answer from a small test case. Many aircraft designs were tested on a small scale model in water, for instance. looking at the water flow meant that they had all those aerodynamic calculations done, in real time. The best computers on earth at the time would have taken decades to crunch the numbers to get the same result.
The 'DNA Computers' we've been making such a fuss over lately, are essentially just modeling again. If you can sift well, and your modeling parameters are correct, you can run a lot (10^38 anyone?) in a few minutes. (Of course, it may take you weeks or even years to set it up correctly, and the old GIGO rule still applies.)
This seems to be just modeling a class of hard computing problems, and letting reality show us what the answer is. Sometimes, analog is best.
Katz had some good things to say, but could have used a little more research.
The whold antitrust business started in the late 1900's, with the likes of Standard Oil. When things really got bad for the Rockefellers was when it was revealed that the Standard Oil agreements with the railroads for kickbacks meant that Standard Oil got paid for every barrel of oil that thier competetors tried to ship. there were also secret agreements that guarenteed that competitors products were delivered more slowly, and were regularly reported to be 'inferior'.
Now jump forward to today. Is Microsoft a monopoly in the same sense as Standard Oil or Carnagie Steel were in the 1890's? I think that the answer would have to be 'YES'. That means that this one company controls over 90% of the market for it's product group. These groups would be 1. Operating Systems for desktop computers. also, 2. Office Productivity Software.
I believe that in both catagories Microsoft is dominant (More than 80% market share, possibly more than 90%.)
The next question should be 'Are they using their market dominance to stifle competition, or to harm or force potential harm on the public'. That is the question at the heart of the matter.
To find out if the answer to the second question is yes or no, try a little experiment.
Go to a standard computer outlet and try to buy a computer with an alternate operating system (I am partial to Debian). Then, try to find out if there are legal agreements for 'kickbacks' so that even if I try to buy a computer without a microsoft operating system, I pay for it anyway. Again, the answer is 'yes'. Here is where Microsoft is harming the public. That is cause enough to justify breaking up the company.
Did Microsoft engage in anticompetetive paractices in an effort to destroy Netscape? Yes, in the origional trial, there were many references to that as thier goal. Did they violate the law in thier efforts? Again, Yes.
The 'right' to operate a corporation is granted only as a means to a public good. It can be abused, and if it is, then the public, in the preson of the Government can revoke that. It is not one of the inalienable rights.
Because the Government can do so, does not mean that they should. As an example, I know of no one whose phone bills went down when ATT was broken up. We literally leave it up to the disgression of the judge to determine what is in the public good. In this case, Judge Jackson was severe, because this case was brought in violation of a consent decree where he was the judge for a previous antitrust case.
With all that, I do not believe that the proposed remedy is the best solution. It creates two large monopolies where there was one large monopoly before, still leaving the public at the mercy of a dominant organization with a history of abuse. Perhaps someone out there has an idea for a solution that would work, without destroying the properties that make many people like the company. The best remedy I have seen, is Richard Stallmans solutions from over a year ago.
I/m writing this on a Win 98 machine at Work, I have Python on here. You can try it. Download all you need from python.org. It's a pretty easy language to learn, and fairly powerful too.
C'mon Guys, This article is one man's attempt to excuse his own actions.
My reasons for using free software are simple, I like it. If i didn't, I'd use something else. He should do the same.
RMS may be an extreemist, but that shouldn't destroy his carefully reasoned opinions (which are often right). That seems to be the gist of the argument. This is like reading a Baptist tract writtenagainst the Mormons, If you know anything about the group being attacked, the arguments are obviously falsee and slanderous. (The same is true of tracts written to attack the Baptists, as soon as money is involved, truth goes out the window.) A clear example of this was the assertion by insinuation that ERS supports the murder of women and hcildren in third world countries. IIRC, ESR is a believer in capitol punmishment. You are responsible for your own actions. That is never acknoleged here. It just didn't fit in with the authors prejudices.