...so as I was daydreaming at my desk one day in the large, evil, multi-megacorp I work for, I was considering ways that Microsoft, or some other "interested party", might pervert Linux to its own ends. A comment I had heard some little time previously came to mind, likening Windows to a "booster stage" of a rocket that could now safely be discarded that Microsoft had acchieved dominance in applications programming.
I thought to myself, how could Microsoft parasitize the Linux hype in the popular media, and at the same time destroy the organized movement against it? The answer struck me: port IE to Linux, close the source, throw on a few bells, and sell an MS distro. Consumers leery of a new OS would prefer the MS-sanctioned copy, and a port of IE would allow gradual porting of the MS Office APIs and apps.
The only pitfall is the "viral" property of the GPL, under which much (all?) of Linux's code is licensed. Microsoft naturally would not undetake a port of its cash cows, or even IE, if that entailed opening their source. Despite criticisms from men like Tom Christiansen, it seems evident to me that the viral GPL is serving to protect open source "while we sleep" in ways many of us never imagine.
When contacting lawmakers about these issues or attempting to my express distrust of such systems to people who are content with surveillance, I generally use the following analogy.
Would you be comfortable if every citizen in your home town were assigned a personal police patrolman to follow them through their day and report suspicious behavior? Additionally, considering that digital image analysis is far from infallible, stipulate that your personal patrolman is drunk and spoiling for a fight.
Most people instinctively recoil from such a world. They simply need some prodding to realize that high technology (which they are assured is "their friend") can be used as an extension of the police state when in the wrong hands.
-konstant
Re:Revolution-proofing the elites
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 2
What you are missing about Bill Gates and Bill Clinton is that they have fallen from grace due to the action of other "elites". The populace emphatically wanted to ignore BillC's indiscretions and they steadfastly want to ignore BillG's as well. Only through the action of other powerful individuals (congressional republicans/DoJ) was the powerful individual brought lower. What middle-class individuals did act were without exception mobilized by elite propaganda. Think Rush Limbaugh and Larry Ellison.
But, you say, that only proves the powerful middle class chose not to act. It doesn't prove the middle class is powerless.
My contention is that the middle class has power, but that any possible organization is suffocated by the propaganda machines of the elites. The middle-class could overthrow the normal order of society, but it won't. The MC has been trained by the media to believe that it has "too much to lose" in an upheaval.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
-konstant
Re:Revolution-proofing the elites
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 3
disagree with that. The power base, atleast in the US, is dominated by the upper middle class right now - NOT the established social elite
That's what they want you to think...:)
Keep in mind that the middle class is also the consumer class, and thus most susceptible to propaganda. Sound-byte warfare against insurrection is shaping up to be the real safeguard against grassroots movements, not tanks. See how easily the "powerful" upper middle class was turned against the Seattle protests by a simple bandying of the term "violent".
I don't disagree with you that the middle class has power. However, I stipulate that it lacks organization and driving will. Those things are supplied artificially by "elites" through news, entertainment, and commercials.
Anyway, don't expect a revolution from the middle class. The middle class is all about social stabilization, not overthrow. That's what the middle class is all about - giving poor people hope that they can be elevated to the middle class, and giving the middle class hope they can be elevated to the upper class. The middle class is one of the reasons 20th century society has been so stable despite yawning inequities between the richest and the poorest. It is a buffer of people who have a lot (but not too much!) to lose.
One interesting ramification of forcing nations into codependency is the resulting immunity of institutionalized power to popular revolution.
Revolutions are local affairs, instigated by people on the streets and swept along by physical proximity, excitement, and charisma. Revolutions are generally also mob actions. Even the most widely spread revolutions in history, such as those in the 1840's and the 1960's could be regarded as a series of "brush fires" rather than one giant, ongoing conflagration.
Popular revolt is dangerous to elites (that is to say the wealthy and the government) because they may not have sufficiently well organized propaganda to subvert them. Or, failing that, they may lack enough brute might to suppress them physically. Once a hierarchy topples, there is no failsafe for the elites. Their last card has been played and they wind up disgraced or occasionally dead. These local successes can inspire further uprisings in other nations with similar social structures. One excellent example of this is the French revolution as a reflection of the success of the American revolution.
However, with the introduction of a so-called "world economy" and "world government", local elites do have a second tier of defense. Namely, that a region that has become dependent upon interactions with other regions can be starved and ostracized into submission. For example, consider the remarkable conformity among third-world nations to austerity policies established by the IMF. Austerity may or may not work, but it certainly is not a popular economic path for locals, involving as it generally does the elimination of goods subsidies and social programs, and the granting of special privileges to large international businesses. Yet local potentates comply with the IMF because without the goodwill of the world community, upon which they are dependent, their countries would collapse.
Such co-dependent nations face only disgrace and economic disaster if a revolution occurs. Ultimately, the revolutionaries either toe the "international-friendly" line as will probably be the case in Pakistan, or they submit. Would-be revolutionaries in other regions observe this failure, and some of the fire goes out of them for their own uprising.
The elites, who are essentially fluid in the absence of international boundaries, retreat as they have always done to an amenable nation and agitate for harsher punitive measures against the now "rogue" state. This is precisely what has occurred in southern Florida, which is settled by many very wealthy Cubans.
This trend is certainly in the best interests of entrenched power.
As others have mentioned, Stevie Wonder has never had eyesight. No matter what results the experiments bring, he will be unabled to measure them against a remembered standard.
He might see everything upside down, or in 2d or in shades of green, and to him that would seem like complete success. Heck, all he might see is a rotating Head of Rob Malda and he would give the thumbs up "Is that what a sunset looks like? It's beautiful!"
I wish him luck. Can you imagine your world suddenly expanding to include another sense?
-konstant
mainstream credibility of LinuxToday?
on
Stopping the FUD
·
· Score: 3
If I understand them correctly, LinuxToday plans not to add any content to what is flatteringly called the "debate" about Microsoft FUD, but rather to act as a clearinghouse for guerilla and mainstream articles disputing the points made by FUD.
But isn't the founding premise of this website the notion that the mainstream media is monolithically accepting of anti-Linux FUD? LinuxToday is attempting to reach middle-managers and CEO's who are entrenched in the Microsoft lifestyle, and cite to these individuals commentary that suggests Linux is a viable commercial choice. But in order for that commentary to carry weight, it must be from a source recognized by the audience as an authority.
If sources already exists, where is the need for this webpage? If they do not exist, from where will LinuxToday draw its material? My fear is that LinuxToday will be unable to find mainstream articles supportive of Linux, and hence resort to editorials or excerpted opinions from the slashdot crowd. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such a site would devolve upon the credibility of the hoster, LinuxToday. I am no PHB, but I was not aware LinuxToday had a large and devoted following among that crowd.
I also watched and enjoyed Toy Story 2, but the notion that it was original or had anything really meaningful to say is a comically naive viewpoint.
Toy Story 2 is about one simple thing: marketing. Christmas is impending. Can you think of any better merchandising plug than a movie about toys?
And also, what's with Katz justifying every movie as a "geek" film? Does he think we can't be interested in movies about technically ignorant, bland, or socially successful people?
This is not a comment for or against the topic of the petition. I would merely like to point out to slashdotters considering signing the petition that by doing so they may jeopardize their personal privacy. This comment is particularly aimed towards slashdotters who may not thoroughly understand computers. (I'm sure there are still some of those:)
The petition site is not secured by SSL. Hence any personal data you volunteer will be transmitted in the clear to the thinkmars server. Ordinarily this would be a limited risk, but considering the prominence that a slashdot citing must bring, I would guess that thinkmars is by now the target of at least one and probably more than one packet sniffer deployed by some misguided spammer.
Sorry if that sounds alarmist. Just would like to mention that aspect of the petition so that people wishing to sign it can weigh the risk.
Microsoft has been fighting to get it's feet into the market of non-desktop computers. Looks as if they didn't succeed.
I disagree. My impression of Microsoft's efforts in this arena is that they are reserving a slice of market/mindshare in the palmtop market so that they don't have to "get their feet in" when the company really decides to care.
Most of the recent Microsoft promotion has dealt with Windows2000, a system clearly designated for machines well out of the palmtop range. M$ is aware that the market may eventually pay more attention to palmhelds, but their most recent mantra change from "A computer on every desk in every home" to "Great products anywhere anytime" is more oriented towards providing "services" from Win2k servers to PC users. Microsoft apparently thinks palmtops will be used to access those services, but it does not envision the PC obsolescing any time soon. If and when the palmtop becomes a truly large market (on the scale of the personal computer) then M$ won't have to claw its way into a PalmOS-dominated market. It will at least have a name and presence to trade upon.
However, this does not diminish the possibility that a stripped-down Linux version might do something similar in the mean time. Otherwise we'll all be demonizing The Monopolist Palm in 10 years:) -konstant
All right, so quite a few crusaders around here went off half-cocked and blamed the wrong man. Also a number of inappropriate assumptions were made that might cast certain Slashdotters in the role of buffoons.
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
What did the flamers accomplish apart from gratifying their egos ("laid my life on the line" - please!) and offending a number of inoffensinve people? Well, for one thing they riled up Wired, a cool-wannabe but nonetheless mainstream media publication, to run a story about the violation of a man's rights. For another, they provided Wieger with a glimpse of the boiling vehemence of thousands of people who - although they were insulting him - were also expressing their support for his rights in their own emotionally strangled fashion. Do you think Wieger will back down from his rights a second time without an explicit written court order signed and in triplicate? I doubt it - he is now all too aware that he is not alone.
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Suppression tactics work by cultivating a sense of isolation in the victim. The government works to portray artists as exhibitionist misfits. The christian right works its damndest to instill the idea that people who enjoy pornography or drugs are freaks and loners. The liberal left demonizes christians as a tiny and irrational sect working to install pews in every classroom. Eventually the ostracised target accepts the lesson, begins to believe that he or she is really all alone, and capitulates.
Wieger won't do that. He can't. He's been taught the opposite lesson in a most unforgettable manner. I won't say there are no negatives to flame - I've had more than my share of lost hair due to it myself - but I also reject the contention that it is useless and immoral.
If anyone is panicked in the film industry, it is only the shock of entrenched power forced on the move by new technology. If the MPAA plays its cards correctly, the film industry could easily emerge with a dominance in this new field and higher revenues than ever before.
Consider that we already have this fundamental technology (albeit in a cruder form) with VCR, but the majority of film viewers are completely incapacitated by a simple red and white FBI warning pasted at the header of each tape. That flimsy exercise of authority is enough to keep the common consumer in check.
In my observation, the deciding factor in "consumer revolutions" is not the desire for independence, but the allure of convenience. There are many people, yes, who are thrilled by the notion of endlessly copied, personally owned videos. But I suspect that sector is small when viewed relative to the mass of moviegoers, who are happy parting with small sums of movie for the simple convenience of being provided the film as a service rather than as a commodity. And on those rare occasions they desire it as a commodity, $20 and a five minute drive don't seem to great a cost to spare.
If the average buyer of movies has ample and convenient supply of pre-recorded DVDs from their local rental store, on a par with the availability of VCR tapes today, why would they desire to copy their own, and at a large initial expense at that, since I can't imagine these recording machines will be cheap.
The internet does have the potential to alter this status quo, through pirated rebroadcasts, but only in a distant future (let us say one decade) in which the typical internet-enabled household can boast broadband speeds.
This gives the film industry ten years to get their shit together and organize an official pay-per-view internet broadcasting plan. The convenience of visiting a well-known site will make the arcane knowledge of pirate sites seem like sweaty and unnecessary labor. The quick little FBI blurbs will be enough to remind the placid victims that viewing pirated versions is Wrong.
The film industry (and t he recording industry for that matter) provide their media as services, although they present them as commodities. So long as that remains the more convenient schema, I can't see a consumer insurgency as a realistic future.
Authors background: ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- Wesley Parish is a Linux user, and also plays around with Minix. He once tried to install a beta of Windows NT 3.51, but encountered a BSOD. He is still working on his anthropological SF novel, and has decided he would never invite his characters around for a meal, as they would eat the neighbors' dogs. Not such a bad idea, but if his neighbors came over to complain, his characters would eat his neighbors...
Translation: Wesley Parish is a college student studying computer science. He has never run the operating system he is criticising, nor has he even made the effort to obtain a retail copy of that software so that he might validate his journalistic credibility.
Please people, I realize this article is somewhat more rambling and pointless than most, but isn't it a little inappropriate to give a public forum to someone who self-confessedly doesn't know what he's talking about?
Richard Posner is the leading advocate of the Chicago school of Economics, which, to boil it down somewhat simplisticly, believes that the market should not be interfered with at all by government. Antitrust is an area of law which should almost entirely be elminated. They believe that the open market will correct monopolistic problems.
Not to be snide and throw back people's earlier comments in their faces or anything, but I would like to point out that many slashdotters appear to side with the views you are attributing to Posner here. While defenders of Microsoft seem to be rare, the viewpoint that Microsoft's demise is "inevitable" seems fairly prevalent.
I have encountered more than one comment to the effect that "the DoJ should hurry up: Microsoft won't be a monopoly ten years from now".
Please could we consider the possibility that this position is hypocritical? Is the purpose of government intervention to remedy a trust, or is it to punish Bill Gates, a man many people here evidently wish they could strip nude and whip through the muddy streets. If we believe that Microsoft must fall because it (never innovates|makes shit for products|rapes users|introduces security holes) then what is all the fuss?
It appears to me that all the arguments for the notion that Microsoft's time is short imply that users will ultimately choose software freedom over software convenience. I wonder whether that is true.
Punishment as a corrective makes sense, but I for one, am not into punishing people or companies merely for the sake of punishing them.
Most interesting of all is the comment (almost a footnote) made in the CNN reporting that contrasts directly with what today's "Antitrust Experts" appeared to imply.
Namely, that the Findings of Fact have no legal meaning:
A settlement also could have more far-reaching results in Microsoft's favor. If Microsoft and the government reach a settlement, Jackson's finding of monopoly power would never become final, and firms seeking to sue the company would have to go through the difficult task of proving its monopoly position.
I have heard something very similar from a lawyer friend who is sympathetic to Microsoft. Contrary to the prevailing assumptions in the media I consume (slashdot, theregister, etc) apparently a Judge's Findings of Fact set no legal precedent and are not admissable in other court cases. The FoF do not have any legal ramifications until they are incorporated into Jackson's Findings of Law, or final ruling.
This is interesting because, although it seems unlikely that an appellate court would tamper with Jackson's FoF, modifying elements of a legal ruling that contained facts is precisely what an appellate court is supposed to do. If this is the case, then the Findings of Fact cannot be said to be entirely unassailable. An interesting possibility.
Somewhat tangentially, I noted with surprise that some of the Hon. Jackson's Findings essentially pass edicts about various other cases Microsoft is currently litigating. For example, Jackson finds it to be a "Fact" that Microsoft polluted Java. It seems peculiar to me that this Judge could make a sweeping finding such as that, considering that an entire secondary case is currently pending on that matter and presumably entails greater depth of evidence and witness testimony. I wonder what would happen if Jackson were to incorporate the Java-pollution "Fact" in his legal findings, and then Sun were subsequently to lose its battle against Microsoft in that trial. Which "Fact" would legally prevail?
The issue is that MS required you to effectively pay for their product in order to be able to use another product.
In other words, they realized that NT Workstation was much too viable a server platform using 3rd party daemons, and changed the license to make sure you were paying for the MS daemons.
This all boils down to one question: Can you run an httpd on an NT Workstation box using none of the NT Server code implemented by Microsoft that you did not pay to license?
If the answer is Yes, then you are correct and MS behaved badly. If the answer is No, even for a handful of DLL's, drivers, API's, whatever, then MS is completely within the law.
O'Reilly makes a number of contentions that simply don't follow, or that are colored by his obvious resentment of the success of IIS. I respect his books (bought two of them yesterday), but not this.
Judge Jackson's analysis completely avoided the server side of the equation -- and it is the server which has turned out to be the real next-generation platform.[snip]Yet the most interesting new applications of the past few years don't reside on the PC at all, but on remote Web servers. I'm talking about Amazon.com, eBay, E-Trade, Yahoo Maps and so on.
I'm blinking but the words I'm reading don't change. Is O'Reilly expressing regret that Judge Jackson won't prevent Microsoft from growing its share in the server market? Excuse me, but Microsoft only has about a quarter of the world's web servers. They are decidedly an underdog. But because Tim prefers Linux, he wants to see MS legally crippled in every possible market, regardless of whether they enjoy any sort of dominance. This is where anti-trust can get ugly. Once the giant stumbles, the feeding frenzy begins. Everybody wants to have legal protection against competition, regardless of whether they personally have been wronged. Yes, Microsoft did a lot of bad things on the Internet and with OEM's and it will be punished. But web servers?
Microsoft argued, quite rightly, that it had the right to create two different versions of NT, with different price points, and different functionality. [snip] Microsoft's public rationale for the policy -- that it was protecting its customers because NT Workstation was not suitable for use as a server operating system -- was proven false by my colleague, former O'Reilly editor Andrew Schulman (working with Mark Russinovich). Shulman and Russinovich demonstrated that it was possible to convert NT Workstation to NT Server by changing only a few registry entries.
This proves exactly nothing. I'm amazed that Tim O'Reilly, of all people, would think that when you buy commercial software you are actually paying for the bits on the CD. Of course you aren't! Those bits cost next to nothing intrinsically. You are paying for the license, which in turn is the software company's way of recouping the salaries of its developers, testers, and managers.
If you buy a license for NT Workstation instead of NT Server, then you are agreeing to pay for the workstation features, but not for the server features. Thus you get a lower rate because Microsoft agrees to ship you a more restrictive license at a discount. If they also ship you other bits on the disk, it is illegal (although maybe not unethical depending on how you view piracy) to use those bits because you didn't pay the premium for them. I can see why you might not agree with that practice, but I don't see why is this difficult to understand.
The main point is that in each case, Microsoft used its power over the operating system to tilt the playing field in its favor, doing its utmost to crush the competition in a hotly contested Internet application area.[snip]In the server arena, Microsoft used a very similar tactic; it bundled the IIS Web server software with the NT operating system and then created roadblocks and financial disincentives for NT users to use alternate server applications.
I just installed Win2k two days ago, and IIS was indeed an installation option. If I didn't want to use it, of course, I could always turn the bitch off with a single click on the checkbox (for those who haven't installed NT server before, this is just like unchecking the checkbox for "games" or "accessibility" in win98). Simple as that - there is no integration, nothing to get in the way of installing Apache or any other server you please. What O'Reilly really wanted was for Microsoft customers who pay the lesser license fee for Workstation could nonetheless have server capacities by buying a comptetitor's product which would deliberately re-enable NT server functions through the registry, thus subverting Microsoft's licensing paradigm. In this way, users have a dubiously legal fiscal incentive to buy O'Reilly's web server instead of Microsoft's because Microsoft makes them pay for the NT Server functions as well as the IIS. I really have trouble understanding why O'Reilly could think this is irresponsible of Microsoft. On the contrary, it seems an obvious act of aggression on the part of the third party web server companies who are facilitating the theft of a server license from MS. Now, again, whether you think stealing a license is wrong is entirely another matter. But it is illegal.
Microsoft's IIS is today the number two Web server -- with 25 percent market share to Apache's 54 percent, according to an October survey conducted by Netcraft. But for the Justice Department scrutiny, might not Microsoft have mounted an all-out attack next on the open source technologies and open protocols of the Web?
Please tell me how this could have happened. Is O'Reilly saying that Microsoft is going to change HTTP so that it only works on IIS? With 25% of the market share that sounds about as stupid as I can imagine. Or, will they "embrace and extend" server-side extensions so that certain rich webpages will run only on IIS? They've already been doing that for ages. It's called "Front Page Server Extensions" and all it does is allow the web admin to enhance the content of pages on that web server. Now why, oh why, would that be in any way unethical. It doesn't violate a standard because it's server side and the user sees only the end result, regardless of their browser. It is, to put it briefly and sweetly, a feature. If the competition doesn't have that feature, and if customers want it, then whose fault is that? Not Microsofts as far as I can see.
It reminds me a bit of World War II. France (Netscape) has fallen, and the Battle of Britain is being fought for the Web, with the stalwart resistance of the Apache Group holding up the juggernaut till the rest of the free world can get its act together. Whether Linux and the rest of the open source movement, or the Justice Department and the courts, play the role of America, I leave to history to determine.
Godwin's law makes its sooty appearance once again. Microsoft wants to gain market share for its IIS? Hmm... that reminds me a lot of HITLER!:)
If I may interject a fact into the feeding frenzy, GUID's are not "user tracking technology" as jamie states.
A GUID is a "Global Unique IDentifier" produced on demand by Microsoft dev products when the developer needs a name for a new COM service, ActiveX widget, or other application element that is guaranteed to be unique. This GUID is used to index the service/widget/whatever against a "local server" string in the registry, which identifies the path to the local machine's copy of that widget/service/whatever.
If we did not have GUIDs, there would exist a possibility of duplication and systemic failures for no good reason other than lack or originality. You can easily imagine hundreds of widgets shipping with the "unique and clever" names "foo" or "myId" or "37337". Get two of those widgets on the same machine and things break.
The GUID is generated by a satellite app to MS Dev products, but anybody can generate one. The most reliable means is to take the hardware id of the local Ethernet card (supposedly already unique) and add some random cruft on either end. This makes it probabalistically guaranteed that you will never see the same GUID twice, and hence guarantee that your program will encounter no conflicts. Very slick.
Now certainly a GUID could be used to track a person or a machine, just as it can be used to uniquely identify an ActiveX control. However, that is not their primary function. When Microsoft used GUID's, it did so during the Windows registration process so that the client machine itself could save them the trouble of inventing a unique key to reference the registered information. This was the easy way out of a problem, but clearly somebody didn't consider the privacy ramifications. Or, if you choose to be conspiratorial, the evil MS employees knew it all along.
The misuse of GUIDs does not deprecate their extreme usefulness when applied responsibly.
"Walt Disney was a visionary. Bill Gates makes software."
A perspective I can already see echoed in that nebulous 'article and maybe a book' Katz is talking about. But how fair is it really? Was Disney really a starry-eyed big kid who would've used Linux to run his MP3's if only both had been invented at the time? Was Gates really a snide poser whose vision of shoddy upgrade-driven software and world domination crystallized at the age of 3?
If we judge both men by their actions, we see they are remarkably similar. Disney did not invent the cartoon, nor the amusement park, nor the notion of breathless technofairs that cozen corn-hucking families of four in a glittering tin foil vision of the future. But Disney did formulate the concept that these familiar sideshows could be brought together for the common man, in one place by one company. To judge him purely by his actions, Disney believed in the common spark of delight, and he wasn't above turning that ageless need for pleasure into a buck or two for himself.
How does Gates really differ? The Imagineer wasn't entirely wrong: Gates makes software. That, and that alone, is the significant difference between Disney and Gates. Disney recognized the golden possibilities in bringing cartoons and technology into the average home. Gates realized the seas of green to be made bringing computers to Everyman's den, and fabricating software that Everyman would want to use.
We readily accept the statement above from the "Imagineer" because we work in the computer industry, and so we inherit a memory of the time when Gates clawed his way to the top. We remember that there were others who shared Gates vision, and others who could have just as easily assumed that monopolistic throne. So we give Gates no credit at all. He was one face in the crowd, distinguishable only by a pair of goofy glasses, a bad haircut, and a signed IBM contract stuffed in next to his pocket protector.
Disney worked in entertainment, and most of us are unfamiliar with that world. We accept readily, at face value, the claim that he was original and that he was first. The notion that he was a titan with unheard-of ideas seems reasonable to us within our limited sphere of experience. But ideas, great ideas, are always "in the air". From evolution to calculus, from airplanes to money itself, the ideas that transform society have only rarely been the original fruit of one brain. Did Disney pen the first cartoon? No. Did he tighten the screws personally on the first carnival ride? No. Did he hold the first bonanza of Future Tech. No. What he did, and what Gates did, was realize that there was money to be made in the combination of many elements that already existed around him. They were opportunists, both of them. They were also original thinkers. To suggest otherwise, whatever your personal hatred for Gates or Disney, is spiteful.
And don't forget, if it wasn't for Sun, there would be no web version of MS Office. Now that's what real competition does for consumers.
A situation which existed well prior to the DoJ case. Sun has always pushed Microsoft in new directions, primarily because the market is so incredibly fluid that even the basic client/server PC model that Windows relies upon cannot be assured for the next ten years with any certainty. Though the Hon. Judge Jackson feels otherwise, Sun's java model is a product that competes with Windows and has done so for some years
Microsoft does nothing on their own. Whatever they do, it's because someone else tries to do it better. The problem is that they prevent the competition from competing and then go back to doing nothing again.
Sun, the manufacturer of StarOffice, has by no means been "prevented from competing", nor is there any realistic means by which MS could accomplish such a feat. Only if consumers prefer MS Office to Star Office will SO go by the wayside. At which point, further "innovation" by Microsoft (by which you apparently mean dramatic revolutions in underlying software structures) would not only be pointless, but also demonstrably not what consumers want. Why "innovate" when what you have already works and has survived the challenge of a competing system?
For a long time, even after Sun announced their intention to develop an applications portal, Microsoft claimed that consumers *didn't* want to run applications over the web. It wasn't until shortly after Sun's announcement that MS also announced their plans.
Which is perfectly above-board, sensible, honestly capitalist, and also their prerogative. This is the way businesses compete. You may wish personally to ridicule MS for being wishy washy, which is understandable, but I don't feel you can accuse them of anything illegitimate here. Why attribute it to malice when it's explained by simple stupidity? And note that this healthy relationship between competitors exists prior to any "solution" imposed by the DoJ. Not that I am suggesting such a remedy is unnecessary for other aspects of MS's business.
First, would there have even been an IE if Netscape hadn't existed. Microsoft developed IE simply because they were scared of Netscape.
Second, Netscape 1,2 and 3 were undoubtedly better then IE. It wasn't until Microsoft had closed Netscape out of the market that Netscape didn't have the funding to be able to continue to innovate. The only reason that IE is better then Netscape now is that Microsoft cut off Netscapes only way of generating the income to continue to innovate.
This is really a foolish pair of assertions. As I mentioned previously, it is a symptom of a healthy market that Netscape's existence would pressure MS into responding with a competing product. And as for the notion that the "only reason" IE is better is that M$ cut off Netscape's innovation budget, I would have you remember that Netscape's "innovations" frequently took the form of feature bloat (communicator, anyone?) or spec-packing (uh.. blink) - tactics people here on slashdot frequently profess to despise.
There is also the fact that Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 was in development simultaneously with Netscape 4.x and introduces essentially no "innovations" other than speed, reliability, and compliance with XML, CSS, and other IETF specs. That is why the browser wins reviews and market share, not the "radio bar" whatever that was.
I don't want to argue that MS didn't try to supplant Netscape unfairly because they appear to have done so, but there is ample reason to feel that they also produced a better browser while they were at it.
Sun absolutely should not try to compete with MS on its own turf, that being marketing and fast releases, quality be damned. It'll never beat the Redmond hype machine. Sun's strength is in a high-quality product with better value. It should stick with that strategy because it's the single biggest advantage is has over MS.
Your insinuation being that Microsoft Office2000 is a shoddy piece of work, slapped together hastily as grist for the upgrade mill.
I have not found this to be the case. I use Outlook2000 and Word2000 in my regular daily work, and have few complaints. O2k is leaner, faster, and more reliable than O98 while at teh same time added features I've been lacking. Word2k has some excellent XML features that make my job a ton easier, and it still boots in a matter of eyeblinks.
When I downloaded StarOffice at home (nine hours - gak) I discovered that their metaphor appears to be "steal from the superficial appearance of MS Office but don't supply the back end support". I wasn't satisified. While I did observe crashes and bugs, their development would require heavy feature implementation rather than patches if they want to supplant the MS Office titan.
Microsoft Office may enjoy it's dominance partly due to the monopolistic operating system structure MS holds, but I think you would have a difficult chore proving that it is not the most complete, powerful, and intelligent office suite around.
As I interpret the phrase "open source" when applied to writing, all of us would be able to reproduce, modify, and re-release the product of Katz's labor. We could submit or remove chapters, sell individual paragraphs, or scoop Barnes and Noble by copying the text off an FTP site (where it will be freely available) and reselling print copies with no royalties going to Jonathan Katz.
I strongly suspect this is not what Katz means. Rather, his hope seems to be that we supply him with our ideas, as moderated by his target audience to "Interesting" and "Insightful" levels, he farms those ideas and tosses in a few adverbs as relish, and then he becomes wealthy. If his book is not copyrighted, I will eat my shoe.
Open source writing might very well work for a topic that is highly technical and an author who is highly altruistic. I question whether this book (which may nonetheless be very interesting) fits those criteria.
The idea of it making me happy all the time is just as strange as the idea of it making me upset or sad
While your more general worry about emotion-influencing technology and propaganda is a valid one, you do not need to concern yourself with the scenario in which we are permanently "doped up" by happiness chips.
The brain can only produce so much of any given neurotransmitter within a set time period. This is one of the reasons that you gradually become acclimatized to foul smells and loud noises if you remain long enough in their vicinity - you run out of the neurotransmitter that makes them perceptible to you.
Similarly, you could not feel happy all of the time, regardless of the signals sent to yoru brain, without an increase in seratonin production levels among other things. If you or someone you know has tried the street drug Xtacy, you will be familiar with the post-high depression that follows. The brain exhausts its resevoir of "happy painless" chemicals and consequently throws you into the opposite imbalance. Women have a similar period after giving birth.
So though a chip might constantly be sending you thrills, you could only feel them with a limited frequency. The rest of the time you likely would feel depressed. This cycle would be akin to manic/depressive mood swings and seems unlikely as a solution for long-term mind control.
Slashdot Mirror
...so as I was daydreaming at my desk one day in the large, evil, multi-megacorp I work for, I was considering ways that Microsoft, or some other "interested party", might pervert Linux to its own ends. A comment I had heard some little time previously came to mind, likening Windows to a "booster stage" of a rocket that could now safely be discarded that Microsoft had acchieved dominance in applications programming.
I thought to myself, how could Microsoft parasitize the Linux hype in the popular media, and at the same time destroy the organized movement against it? The answer struck me: port IE to Linux, close the source, throw on a few bells, and sell an MS distro. Consumers leery of a new OS would prefer the MS-sanctioned copy, and a port of IE would allow gradual porting of the MS Office APIs and apps.
The only pitfall is the "viral" property of the GPL, under which much (all?) of Linux's code is licensed. Microsoft naturally would not undetake a port of its cash cows, or even IE, if that entailed opening their source. Despite criticisms from men like Tom Christiansen, it seems evident to me that the viral GPL is serving to protect open source "while we sleep" in ways many of us never imagine.
-konstant
When contacting lawmakers about these issues or attempting to my express distrust of such systems to people who are content with surveillance, I generally use the following analogy.
Would you be comfortable if every citizen in your home town were assigned a personal police patrolman to follow them through their day and report suspicious behavior? Additionally, considering that digital image analysis is far from infallible, stipulate that your personal patrolman is drunk and spoiling for a fight.
Most people instinctively recoil from such a world. They simply need some prodding to realize that high technology (which they are assured is "their friend") can be used as an extension of the police state when in the wrong hands.
-konstant
What you are missing about Bill Gates and Bill Clinton is that they have fallen from grace due to the action of other "elites". The populace emphatically wanted to ignore BillC's indiscretions and they steadfastly want to ignore BillG's as well. Only through the action of other powerful individuals (congressional republicans/DoJ) was the powerful individual brought lower. What middle-class individuals did act were without exception mobilized by elite propaganda. Think Rush Limbaugh and Larry Ellison.
But, you say, that only proves the powerful middle class chose not to act. It doesn't prove the middle class is powerless.
My contention is that the middle class has power, but that any possible organization is suffocated by the propaganda machines of the elites. The middle-class could overthrow the normal order of society, but it won't. The MC has been trained by the media to believe that it has "too much to lose" in an upheaval.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
-konstant
disagree with that. The power base, atleast in the US, is dominated by the upper middle class right now - NOT the established social elite
:)
That's what they want you to think...
Keep in mind that the middle class is also the consumer class, and thus most susceptible to propaganda. Sound-byte warfare against insurrection is shaping up to be the real safeguard against grassroots movements, not tanks. See how easily the "powerful" upper middle class was turned against the Seattle protests by a simple bandying of the term "violent".
I don't disagree with you that the middle class has power. However, I stipulate that it lacks organization and driving will. Those things are supplied artificially by "elites" through news, entertainment, and commercials.
Anyway, don't expect a revolution from the middle class. The middle class is all about social stabilization, not overthrow. That's what the middle class is all about - giving poor people hope that they can be elevated to the middle class, and giving the middle class hope they can be elevated to the upper class. The middle class is one of the reasons 20th century society has been so stable despite yawning inequities between the richest and the poorest. It is a buffer of people who have a lot (but not too much!) to lose.
-konstant
One interesting ramification of forcing nations into codependency is the resulting immunity of institutionalized power to popular revolution.
Revolutions are local affairs, instigated by people on the streets and swept along by physical proximity, excitement, and charisma. Revolutions are generally also mob actions. Even the most widely spread revolutions in history, such as those in the 1840's and the 1960's could be regarded as a series of "brush fires" rather than one giant, ongoing conflagration.
Popular revolt is dangerous to elites (that is to say the wealthy and the government) because they may not have sufficiently well organized propaganda to subvert them. Or, failing that, they may lack enough brute might to suppress them physically. Once a hierarchy topples, there is no failsafe for the elites. Their last card has been played and they wind up disgraced or occasionally dead. These local successes can inspire further uprisings in other nations with similar social structures. One excellent example of this is the French revolution as a reflection of the success of the American revolution.
However, with the introduction of a so-called "world economy" and "world government", local elites do have a second tier of defense. Namely, that a region that has become dependent upon interactions with other regions can be starved and ostracized into submission. For example, consider the remarkable conformity among third-world nations to austerity policies established by the IMF. Austerity may or may not work, but it certainly is not a popular economic path for locals, involving as it generally does the elimination of goods subsidies and social programs, and the granting of special privileges to large international businesses. Yet local potentates comply with the IMF because without the goodwill of the world community, upon which they are dependent, their countries would collapse.
Such co-dependent nations face only disgrace and economic disaster if a revolution occurs. Ultimately, the revolutionaries either toe the "international-friendly" line as will probably be the case in Pakistan, or they submit. Would-be revolutionaries in other regions observe this failure, and some of the fire goes out of them for their own uprising.
The elites, who are essentially fluid in the absence of international boundaries, retreat as they have always done to an amenable nation and agitate for harsher punitive measures against the now "rogue" state. This is precisely what has occurred in southern Florida, which is settled by many very wealthy Cubans.
This trend is certainly in the best interests of entrenched power.
-konstant
As others have mentioned, Stevie Wonder has never had eyesight. No matter what results the experiments bring, he will be unabled to measure them against a remembered standard.
He might see everything upside down, or in 2d or in shades of green, and to him that would seem like complete success. Heck, all he might see is a rotating Head of Rob Malda and he would give the thumbs up "Is that what a sunset looks like? It's beautiful!"
I wish him luck. Can you imagine your world suddenly expanding to include another sense?
-konstant
If I understand them correctly, LinuxToday plans not to add any content to what is flatteringly called the "debate" about Microsoft FUD, but rather to act as a clearinghouse for guerilla and mainstream articles disputing the points made by FUD.
But isn't the founding premise of this website the notion that the mainstream media is monolithically accepting of anti-Linux FUD? LinuxToday is attempting to reach middle-managers and CEO's who are entrenched in the Microsoft lifestyle, and cite to these individuals commentary that suggests Linux is a viable commercial choice. But in order for that commentary to carry weight, it must be from a source recognized by the audience as an authority.
If sources already exists, where is the need for this webpage? If they do not exist, from where will LinuxToday draw its material? My fear is that LinuxToday will be unable to find mainstream articles supportive of Linux, and hence resort to editorials or excerpted opinions from the slashdot crowd. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such a site would devolve upon the credibility of the hoster, LinuxToday. I am no PHB, but I was not aware LinuxToday had a large and devoted following among that crowd.
-konstant
I also watched and enjoyed Toy Story 2, but the notion that it was original or had anything really meaningful to say is a comically naive viewpoint.
Toy Story 2 is about one simple thing: marketing. Christmas is impending. Can you think of any better merchandising plug than a movie about toys?
And also, what's with Katz justifying every movie as a "geek" film? Does he think we can't be interested in movies about technically ignorant, bland, or socially successful people?
-konstant
This is not a comment for or against the topic of the petition. I would merely like to point out to slashdotters considering signing the petition that by doing so they may jeopardize their personal privacy. This comment is particularly aimed towards slashdotters who may not thoroughly understand computers. (I'm sure there are still some of those :)
The petition site is not secured by SSL. Hence any personal data you volunteer will be transmitted in the clear to the thinkmars server. Ordinarily this would be a limited risk, but considering the prominence that a slashdot citing must bring, I would guess that thinkmars is by now the target of at least one and probably more than one packet sniffer deployed by some misguided spammer.
Sorry if that sounds alarmist. Just would like to mention that aspect of the petition so that people wishing to sign it can weigh the risk.
-konstant
His new machine no longer has a transparent blue casing! Avert your eyes my Mac brethren, it is a snare set by Satan to tempt you to the beige side!
You call that an iMac? You are a tool of the PC imperialist dogs! Vive la France! No WTO! Anarchy!
-konstant
Microsoft has been fighting to get it's feet into the market of non-desktop computers. Looks as if they didn't succeed.
:)
I disagree. My impression of Microsoft's efforts in this arena is that they are reserving a slice of market/mindshare in the palmtop market so that they don't have to "get their feet in" when the company really decides to care.
Most of the recent Microsoft promotion has dealt with Windows2000, a system clearly designated for machines well out of the palmtop range. M$ is aware that the market may eventually pay more attention to palmhelds, but their most recent mantra change from "A computer on every desk in every home" to "Great products anywhere anytime" is more oriented towards providing "services" from Win2k servers to PC users. Microsoft apparently thinks palmtops will be used to access those services, but it does not envision the PC obsolescing any time soon. If and when the palmtop becomes a truly large market (on the scale of the personal computer) then M$ won't have to claw its way into a PalmOS-dominated market. It will at least have a name and presence to trade upon.
However, this does not diminish the possibility that a stripped-down Linux version might do something similar in the mean time. Otherwise we'll all be demonizing The Monopolist Palm in 10 years
-konstant
All right, so quite a few crusaders around here went off half-cocked and blamed the wrong man. Also a number of inappropriate assumptions were made that might cast certain Slashdotters in the role of buffoons.
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
What did the flamers accomplish apart from gratifying their egos ("laid my life on the line" - please!) and offending a number of inoffensinve people? Well, for one thing they riled up Wired, a cool-wannabe but nonetheless mainstream media publication, to run a story about the violation of a man's rights. For another, they provided Wieger with a glimpse of the boiling vehemence of thousands of people who - although they were insulting him - were also expressing their support for his rights in their own emotionally strangled fashion. Do you think Wieger will back down from his rights a second time without an explicit written court order signed and in triplicate? I doubt it - he is now all too aware that he is not alone.
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Suppression tactics work by cultivating a sense of isolation in the victim. The government works to portray artists as exhibitionist misfits. The christian right works its damndest to instill the idea that people who enjoy pornography or drugs are freaks and loners. The liberal left demonizes christians as a tiny and irrational sect working to install pews in every classroom. Eventually the ostracised target accepts the lesson, begins to believe that he or she is really all alone, and capitulates.
Wieger won't do that. He can't. He's been taught the opposite lesson in a most unforgettable manner. I won't say there are no negatives to flame - I've had more than my share of lost hair due to it myself - but I also reject the contention that it is useless and immoral.
Something to ponder.
-konstant
If anyone is panicked in the film industry, it is only the shock of entrenched power forced on the move by new technology. If the MPAA plays its cards correctly, the film industry could easily emerge with a dominance in this new field and higher revenues than ever before.
Consider that we already have this fundamental technology (albeit in a cruder form) with VCR, but the majority of film viewers are completely incapacitated by a simple red and white FBI warning pasted at the header of each tape. That flimsy exercise of authority is enough to keep the common consumer in check.
In my observation, the deciding factor in "consumer revolutions" is not the desire for independence, but the allure of convenience. There are many people, yes, who are thrilled by the notion of endlessly copied, personally owned videos. But I suspect that sector is small when viewed relative to the mass of moviegoers, who are happy parting with small sums of movie for the simple convenience of being provided the film as a service rather than as a commodity. And on those rare occasions they desire it as a commodity, $20 and a five minute drive don't seem to great a cost to spare.
If the average buyer of movies has ample and convenient supply of pre-recorded DVDs from their local rental store, on a par with the availability of VCR tapes today, why would they desire to copy their own, and at a large initial expense at that, since I can't imagine these recording machines will be cheap.
The internet does have the potential to alter this status quo, through pirated rebroadcasts, but only in a distant future (let us say one decade) in which the typical internet-enabled household can boast broadband speeds.
This gives the film industry ten years to get their shit together and organize an official pay-per-view internet broadcasting plan. The convenience of visiting a well-known site will make the arcane knowledge of pirate sites seem like sweaty and unnecessary labor. The quick little FBI blurbs will be enough to remind the placid victims that viewing pirated versions is Wrong.
The film industry (and t he recording industry for that matter) provide their media as services, although they present them as commodities. So long as that remains the more convenient schema, I can't see a consumer insurgency as a realistic future.
-konstant
Authors background:- --------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Wesley Parish is a Linux user, and also plays around with Minix. He once tried to install a beta of Windows NT 3.51, but encountered a BSOD. He is still working on his anthropological SF novel, and has decided he would never invite his characters around for a meal, as they would eat the neighbors' dogs. Not such a bad idea, but if his neighbors came over to complain, his characters would eat his neighbors...
Translation: Wesley Parish is a college student studying computer science. He has never run the operating system he is criticising, nor has he even made the effort to obtain a retail copy of that software so that he might validate his journalistic credibility.
Please people, I realize this article is somewhat more rambling and pointless than most, but isn't it a little inappropriate to give a public forum to someone who self-confessedly doesn't know what he's talking about?
-konstant
Richard Posner is the leading advocate of the Chicago school of Economics, which, to boil it down somewhat simplisticly, believes that the market should not be interfered with at all by government. Antitrust is an area of law which should almost entirely be elminated. They believe that the open market will correct monopolistic problems.
Not to be snide and throw back people's earlier comments in their faces or anything, but I would like to point out that many slashdotters appear to side with the views you are attributing to Posner here. While defenders of Microsoft seem to be rare, the viewpoint that Microsoft's demise is "inevitable" seems fairly prevalent.
I have encountered more than one comment to the effect that "the DoJ should hurry up: Microsoft won't be a monopoly ten years from now".
Please could we consider the possibility that this position is hypocritical? Is the purpose of government intervention to remedy a trust, or is it to punish Bill Gates, a man many people here evidently wish they could strip nude and whip through the muddy streets. If we believe that Microsoft must fall because it (never innovates|makes shit for products|rapes users|introduces security holes) then what is all the fuss?
It appears to me that all the arguments for the notion that Microsoft's time is short imply that users will ultimately choose software freedom over software convenience. I wonder whether that is true.
Punishment as a corrective makes sense, but I for one, am not into punishing people or companies merely for the sake of punishing them.
-konstant
Most interesting of all is the comment (almost a footnote) made in the CNN reporting that contrasts directly with what today's "Antitrust Experts" appeared to imply.
Namely, that the Findings of Fact have no legal meaning:
A settlement also could have more far-reaching results in Microsoft's favor. If Microsoft and the government reach a settlement, Jackson's finding of monopoly power would never become final, and firms seeking to sue the company would have to go through the difficult task of proving its monopoly position.
I have heard something very similar from a lawyer friend who is sympathetic to Microsoft. Contrary to the prevailing assumptions in the media I consume (slashdot, theregister, etc) apparently a Judge's Findings of Fact set no legal precedent and are not admissable in other court cases. The FoF do not have any legal ramifications until they are incorporated into Jackson's Findings of Law, or final ruling.
This is interesting because, although it seems unlikely that an appellate court would tamper with Jackson's FoF, modifying elements of a legal ruling that contained facts is precisely what an appellate court is supposed to do. If this is the case, then the Findings of Fact cannot be said to be entirely unassailable. An interesting possibility.
Somewhat tangentially, I noted with surprise that some of the Hon. Jackson's Findings essentially pass edicts about various other cases Microsoft is currently litigating. For example, Jackson finds it to be a "Fact" that Microsoft polluted Java. It seems peculiar to me that this Judge could make a sweeping finding such as that, considering that an entire secondary case is currently pending on that matter and presumably entails greater depth of evidence and witness testimony. I wonder what would happen if Jackson were to incorporate the Java-pollution "Fact" in his legal findings, and then Sun were subsequently to lose its battle against Microsoft in that trial. Which "Fact" would legally prevail?
-konstant
The issue is that MS required you to effectively pay for their product in order to be able to use another product.
In other words, they realized that NT Workstation was much too viable a server platform using 3rd party daemons, and changed the license to make sure you were paying for the MS daemons.
This all boils down to one question: Can you run an httpd on an NT Workstation box using none of the NT Server code implemented by Microsoft that you did not pay to license?
If the answer is Yes, then you are correct and MS behaved badly. If the answer is No, even for a handful of DLL's, drivers, API's, whatever, then MS is completely within the law.
-konstant
O'Reilly makes a number of contentions that simply don't follow, or that are colored by his obvious resentment of the success of IIS. I respect his books (bought two of them yesterday), but not this.
:)
Judge Jackson's analysis completely avoided the server side of the equation -- and it is the server which has turned out to be the real next-generation platform.[snip]Yet the most interesting new applications of the past few years don't reside on the PC at all, but on remote Web servers. I'm talking about Amazon.com, eBay, E-Trade, Yahoo Maps and so on.
I'm blinking but the words I'm reading don't change. Is O'Reilly expressing regret that Judge Jackson won't prevent Microsoft from growing its share in the server market? Excuse me, but Microsoft only has about a quarter of the world's web servers. They are decidedly an underdog. But because Tim prefers Linux, he wants to see MS legally crippled in every possible market, regardless of whether they enjoy any sort of dominance. This is where anti-trust can get ugly. Once the giant stumbles, the feeding frenzy begins. Everybody wants to have legal protection against competition, regardless of whether they personally have been wronged. Yes, Microsoft did a lot of bad things on the Internet and with OEM's and it will be punished. But web servers?
Microsoft argued, quite rightly, that it had the right to create two different versions of NT, with different price points, and different functionality. [snip] Microsoft's public rationale for the policy -- that it was protecting its customers because NT Workstation was not suitable for use as a server operating system -- was proven false by my colleague, former O'Reilly editor Andrew Schulman (working with Mark Russinovich). Shulman and Russinovich demonstrated that it was possible to convert NT Workstation to NT Server by changing only a few registry entries.
This proves exactly nothing. I'm amazed that Tim O'Reilly, of all people, would think that when you buy commercial software you are actually paying for the bits on the CD. Of course you aren't! Those bits cost next to nothing intrinsically. You are paying for the license, which in turn is the software company's way of recouping the salaries of its developers, testers, and managers.
If you buy a license for NT Workstation instead of NT Server, then you are agreeing to pay for the workstation features, but not for the server features. Thus you get a lower rate because Microsoft agrees to ship you a more restrictive license at a discount. If they also ship you other bits on the disk, it is illegal (although maybe not unethical depending on how you view piracy) to use those bits because you didn't pay the premium for them. I can see why you might not agree with that practice, but I don't see why is this difficult to understand.
The main point is that in each case, Microsoft used its power over the operating system to tilt the playing field in its favor, doing its utmost to crush the competition in a hotly contested Internet application area.[snip]In the server arena, Microsoft used a very similar tactic; it bundled the IIS Web server software with the NT operating system and then created roadblocks and financial disincentives for NT users to use alternate server applications.
I just installed Win2k two days ago, and IIS was indeed an installation option. If I didn't want to use it, of course, I could always turn the bitch off with a single click on the checkbox (for those who haven't installed NT server before, this is just like unchecking the checkbox for "games" or "accessibility" in win98). Simple as that - there is no integration, nothing to get in the way of installing Apache or any other server you please. What O'Reilly really wanted was for Microsoft customers who pay the lesser license fee for Workstation could nonetheless have server capacities by buying a comptetitor's product which would deliberately re-enable NT server functions through the registry, thus subverting Microsoft's licensing paradigm. In this way, users have a dubiously legal fiscal incentive to buy O'Reilly's web server instead of Microsoft's because Microsoft makes them pay for the NT Server functions as well as the IIS. I really have trouble understanding why O'Reilly could think this is irresponsible of Microsoft. On the contrary, it seems an obvious act of aggression on the part of the third party web server companies who are facilitating the theft of a server license from MS. Now, again, whether you think stealing a license is wrong is entirely another matter. But it is illegal.
Microsoft's IIS is today the number two Web server -- with 25 percent market share to Apache's 54 percent, according to an October survey conducted by Netcraft. But for the Justice Department scrutiny, might not Microsoft have mounted an all-out attack next on the open source technologies and open protocols of the Web?
Please tell me how this could have happened. Is O'Reilly saying that Microsoft is going to change HTTP so that it only works on IIS? With 25% of the market share that sounds about as stupid as I can imagine. Or, will they "embrace and extend" server-side extensions so that certain rich webpages will run only on IIS? They've already been doing that for ages. It's called "Front Page Server Extensions" and all it does is allow the web admin to enhance the content of pages on that web server. Now why, oh why, would that be in any way unethical. It doesn't violate a standard because it's server side and the user sees only the end result, regardless of their browser. It is, to put it briefly and sweetly, a feature. If the competition doesn't have that feature, and if customers want it, then whose fault is that? Not Microsofts as far as I can see.
It reminds me a bit of World War II. France (Netscape) has fallen, and the Battle of Britain is being fought for the Web, with the stalwart resistance of the Apache Group holding up the juggernaut till the rest of the free world can get its act together. Whether Linux and the rest of the open source movement, or the Justice Department and the courts, play the role of America, I leave to history to determine.
Godwin's law makes its sooty appearance once again. Microsoft wants to gain market share for its IIS? Hmm... that reminds me a lot of HITLER!
-konstant
If I may interject a fact into the feeding frenzy, GUID's are not "user tracking technology" as jamie states.
A GUID is a "Global Unique IDentifier" produced on demand by Microsoft dev products when the developer needs a name for a new COM service, ActiveX widget, or other application element that is guaranteed to be unique. This GUID is used to index the service/widget/whatever against a "local server" string in the registry, which identifies the path to the local machine's copy of that widget/service/whatever.
If we did not have GUIDs, there would exist a possibility of duplication and systemic failures for no good reason other than lack or originality. You can easily imagine hundreds of widgets shipping with the "unique and clever" names "foo" or "myId" or "37337". Get two of those widgets on the same machine and things break.
The GUID is generated by a satellite app to MS Dev products, but anybody can generate one. The most reliable means is to take the hardware id of the local Ethernet card (supposedly already unique) and add some random cruft on either end. This makes it probabalistically guaranteed that you will never see the same GUID twice, and hence guarantee that your program will encounter no conflicts. Very slick.
Now certainly a GUID could be used to track a person or a machine, just as it can be used to uniquely identify an ActiveX control. However, that is not their primary function. When Microsoft used GUID's, it did so during the Windows registration process so that the client machine itself could save them the trouble of inventing a unique key to reference the registered information. This was the easy way out of a problem, but clearly somebody didn't consider the privacy ramifications. Or, if you choose to be conspiratorial, the evil MS employees knew it all along.
The misuse of GUIDs does not deprecate their extreme usefulness when applied responsibly.
-konstant
"Walt Disney was a visionary. Bill Gates makes software."
A perspective I can already see echoed in that nebulous 'article and maybe a book' Katz is talking about. But how fair is it really? Was Disney really a starry-eyed big kid who would've used Linux to run his MP3's if only both had been invented at the time? Was Gates really a snide poser whose vision of shoddy upgrade-driven software and world domination crystallized at the age of 3?
If we judge both men by their actions, we see they are remarkably similar. Disney did not invent the cartoon, nor the amusement park, nor the notion of breathless technofairs that cozen corn-hucking families of four in a glittering tin foil vision of the future. But Disney did formulate the concept that these familiar sideshows could be brought together for the common man, in one place by one company. To judge him purely by his actions, Disney believed in the common spark of delight, and he wasn't above turning that ageless need for pleasure into a buck or two for himself.
How does Gates really differ? The Imagineer wasn't entirely wrong: Gates makes software. That, and that alone, is the significant difference between Disney and Gates. Disney recognized the golden possibilities in bringing cartoons and technology into the average home. Gates realized the seas of green to be made bringing computers to Everyman's den, and fabricating software that Everyman would want to use.
We readily accept the statement above from the "Imagineer" because we work in the computer industry, and so we inherit a memory of the time when Gates clawed his way to the top. We remember that there were others who shared Gates vision, and others who could have just as easily assumed that monopolistic throne. So we give Gates no credit at all. He was one face in the crowd, distinguishable only by a pair of goofy glasses, a bad haircut, and a signed IBM contract stuffed in next to his pocket protector.
Disney worked in entertainment, and most of us are unfamiliar with that world. We accept readily, at face value, the claim that he was original and that he was first. The notion that he was a titan with unheard-of ideas seems reasonable to us within our limited sphere of experience. But ideas, great ideas, are always "in the air". From evolution to calculus, from airplanes to money itself, the ideas that transform society have only rarely been the original fruit of one brain. Did Disney pen the first cartoon? No. Did he tighten the screws personally on the first carnival ride? No. Did he hold the first bonanza of Future Tech. No. What he did, and what Gates did, was realize that there was money to be made in the combination of many elements that already existed around him. They were opportunists, both of them. They were also original thinkers. To suggest otherwise, whatever your personal hatred for Gates or Disney, is spiteful.
-konstant
And don't forget, if it wasn't for Sun, there would be no web version of MS Office. Now that's what real competition does for consumers.
A situation which existed well prior to the DoJ case. Sun has always pushed Microsoft in new directions, primarily because the market is so incredibly fluid that even the basic client/server PC model that Windows relies upon cannot be assured for the next ten years with any certainty. Though the Hon. Judge Jackson feels otherwise, Sun's java model is a product that competes with Windows and has done so for some years
Microsoft does nothing on their own. Whatever they do, it's because someone else tries to do it better. The problem is that they prevent the competition from competing and then go back to doing nothing again.
Sun, the manufacturer of StarOffice, has by no means been "prevented from competing", nor is there any realistic means by which MS could accomplish such a feat. Only if consumers prefer MS Office to Star Office will SO go by the wayside. At which point, further "innovation" by Microsoft (by which you apparently mean dramatic revolutions in underlying software structures) would not only be pointless, but also demonstrably not what consumers want. Why "innovate" when what you have already works and has survived the challenge of a competing system?
-konstant
For a long time, even after Sun announced their intention to develop an applications portal, Microsoft claimed that consumers *didn't* want to run applications over the web. It wasn't until shortly after Sun's announcement that MS also announced their plans.
Which is perfectly above-board, sensible, honestly capitalist, and also their prerogative. This is the way businesses compete. You may wish personally to ridicule MS for being wishy washy, which is understandable, but I don't feel you can accuse them of anything illegitimate here. Why attribute it to malice when it's explained by simple stupidity? And note that this healthy relationship between competitors exists prior to any "solution" imposed by the DoJ. Not that I am suggesting such a remedy is unnecessary for other aspects of MS's business.
First, would there have even been an IE if Netscape hadn't existed. Microsoft developed IE simply because they were scared of Netscape.
Second, Netscape 1,2 and 3 were undoubtedly better then IE. It wasn't until Microsoft had closed Netscape out of the market that Netscape didn't have the funding to be able to continue to innovate. The only reason that IE is better then Netscape now is that Microsoft cut off Netscapes only way of generating the income to continue to innovate.
This is really a foolish pair of assertions. As I mentioned previously, it is a symptom of a healthy market that Netscape's existence would pressure MS into responding with a competing product. And as for the notion that the "only reason" IE is better is that M$ cut off Netscape's innovation budget, I would have you remember that Netscape's "innovations" frequently took the form of feature bloat (communicator, anyone?) or spec-packing (uh.. blink) - tactics people here on slashdot frequently profess to despise.
There is also the fact that Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 was in development simultaneously with Netscape 4.x and introduces essentially no "innovations" other than speed, reliability, and compliance with XML, CSS, and other IETF specs. That is why the browser wins reviews and market share, not the "radio bar" whatever that was.
I don't want to argue that MS didn't try to supplant Netscape unfairly because they appear to have done so, but there is ample reason to feel that they also produced a better browser while they were at it.
-konstant
Sun absolutely should not try to compete with MS on its own turf, that being marketing and fast releases, quality be damned. It'll never beat the Redmond hype machine. Sun's strength is in a high-quality product with better value. It should stick with that strategy because it's the single biggest advantage is has over MS.
Your insinuation being that Microsoft Office2000 is a shoddy piece of work, slapped together hastily as grist for the upgrade mill.
I have not found this to be the case. I use Outlook2000 and Word2000 in my regular daily work, and have few complaints. O2k is leaner, faster, and more reliable than O98 while at teh same time added features I've been lacking. Word2k has some excellent XML features that make my job a ton easier, and it still boots in a matter of eyeblinks.
When I downloaded StarOffice at home (nine hours - gak) I discovered that their metaphor appears to be "steal from the superficial appearance of MS Office but don't supply the back end support". I wasn't satisified. While I did observe crashes and bugs, their development would require heavy feature implementation rather than patches if they want to supplant the MS Office titan.
Microsoft Office may enjoy it's dominance partly due to the monopolistic operating system structure MS holds, but I think you would have a difficult chore proving that it is not the most complete, powerful, and intelligent office suite around.
-konstant
As I interpret the phrase "open source" when applied to writing, all of us would be able to reproduce, modify, and re-release the product of Katz's labor. We could submit or remove chapters, sell individual paragraphs, or scoop Barnes and Noble by copying the text off an FTP site (where it will be freely available) and reselling print copies with no royalties going to Jonathan Katz.
I strongly suspect this is not what Katz means. Rather, his hope seems to be that we supply him with our ideas, as moderated by his target audience to "Interesting" and "Insightful" levels, he farms those ideas and tosses in a few adverbs as relish, and then he becomes wealthy. If his book is not copyrighted, I will eat my shoe.
Open source writing might very well work for a topic that is highly technical and an author who is highly altruistic. I question whether this book (which may nonetheless be very interesting) fits those criteria.
-konstant
The idea of it making me happy all the time is just as strange as the idea of it making me upset or sad
While your more general worry about emotion-influencing technology and propaganda is a valid one, you do not need to concern yourself with the scenario in which we are permanently "doped up" by happiness chips.
The brain can only produce so much of any given neurotransmitter within a set time period. This is one of the reasons that you gradually become acclimatized to foul smells and loud noises if you remain long enough in their vicinity - you run out of the neurotransmitter that makes them perceptible to you.
Similarly, you could not feel happy all of the time, regardless of the signals sent to yoru brain, without an increase in seratonin production levels among other things. If you or someone you know has tried the street drug Xtacy, you will be familiar with the post-high depression that follows. The brain exhausts its resevoir of "happy painless" chemicals and consequently throws you into the opposite imbalance. Women have a similar period after giving birth.
So though a chip might constantly be sending you thrills, you could only feel them with a limited frequency. The rest of the time you likely would feel depressed. This cycle would be akin to manic/depressive mood swings and seems unlikely as a solution for long-term mind control.
-konstant