Okay, so the Judge is against Microsoft. The two remedies that CNN listed were either breaking up Microsoft AT&T-style or barring them from certain deals and actions. Let's consider what would happen given one of these "remedies".
Let's say that Microsoft is simply barred from certain actions. They would still have their Windows monopoly, and would still be able to exploit it. After all, Judge Jackson has said that it is not only anticompetitive practices, but also the monopoly itself that has hurt consumers. Thus, if the monopoly still exists, while restricted, it would still be harmful to consumers.
Assume now that Microsoft was broken up. It seems likely that the browser and the OS groups would be split somehow (judging from the analysis of the ruling: "Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in"). Would this then lead to less browser compatibility? I doubt it. IE would still be able to conform to standards as well as any other browser. In fact, it may lead to increased browser compatibility, since protocols and standards would have to be more open, to allow for communication between the two factions.
If Microsoft were to be broken up, Windows would probably still have a monopoly. It's inevitable; more people are familiar with Windows; there's a large software base. But the point that Judge Jackson makes that stands out is this: "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur." How many programs haven't been written because Microsoft has extended them out of existence? Or how many programs haven't been written because a necessary API was hidden?
If Microsoft is broken up, it can only be good. More room for innovation; more open APIs; more compatible browsers. Judge Jackson's ruling has helped pave the way to Microsoft being broken up; it seems clear from his ruling that this is what he feels needs to be done (some of the better quotes include "Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers by unjustifiably distorting competition" and "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies").
It's all about the consumer. Businesses are supposed to exist in order to provide products and services that consumers want/need, as cheap as possible (while still making some profit). Microsoft hasn't done that, in fact just the opposite, and the surest way we have of making sure Microsoft doesn't hurt consumers any more is by breaking them up.
UNP is also useful for people who already know Unix Network Programming. It's not just an intro book, it's very detailed and I've found it to be incredibly useful.
One of the most useful things that I've found about it is that all of the examples can be downloaded as a tarball. This is especially useful since it comes with a header file which allows both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same program, and in some instances in the same function.
Sorry, I don't remember where the tarball is located, but it is on the web as unpv12e.tar.gz, so you can look for it. And I recommend buying the book.
Slashdot Mirror
Netcraft says:
www.msnbc.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT3 or Windows 95
Hotmail uses Unix, why can't MSNBC?!
Let's say that Microsoft is simply barred from certain actions. They would still have their Windows monopoly, and would still be able to exploit it. After all, Judge Jackson has said that it is not only anticompetitive practices, but also the monopoly itself that has hurt consumers. Thus, if the monopoly still exists, while restricted, it would still be harmful to consumers.
Assume now that Microsoft was broken up. It seems likely that the browser and the OS groups would be split somehow (judging from the analysis of the ruling: "Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in"). Would this then lead to less browser compatibility? I doubt it. IE would still be able to conform to standards as well as any other browser. In fact, it may lead to increased browser compatibility, since protocols and standards would have to be more open, to allow for communication between the two factions.
If Microsoft were to be broken up, Windows would probably still have a monopoly. It's inevitable; more people are familiar with Windows; there's a large software base. But the point that Judge Jackson makes that stands out is this: "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur." How many programs haven't been written because Microsoft has extended them out of existence? Or how many programs haven't been written because a necessary API was hidden?
If Microsoft is broken up, it can only be good. More room for innovation; more open APIs; more compatible browsers. Judge Jackson's ruling has helped pave the way to Microsoft being broken up; it seems clear from his ruling that this is what he feels needs to be done (some of the better quotes include "Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers by unjustifiably distorting competition" and "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies").
It's all about the consumer. Businesses are supposed to exist in order to provide products and services that consumers want/need, as cheap as possible (while still making some profit). Microsoft hasn't done that, in fact just the opposite, and the surest way we have of making sure Microsoft doesn't hurt consumers any more is by breaking them up.
One of the most useful things that I've found about it is that all of the examples can be downloaded as a tarball. This is especially useful since it comes with a header file which allows both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same program, and in some instances in the same function.
Sorry, I don't remember where the tarball is located, but it is on the web as unpv12e.tar.gz, so you can look for it. And I recommend buying the book.