As is acknowledged towards the end of the quote, The first sentence is only true if almost all non-Microsoft products are ignored.
And when did Intel-compatible become an issue?
Intel compatible was only an issue in the US because the regulators there were wonky. It is not an issue in this case at all.
MS holds a far higher share of the AMD-compatible OS market than the Intel-compatible OS market, because Apple don't make an AMD-compatible OS!
Intel, AMD, ARM, it doesn't matter for the EU. Apple's OS X is considered in the EU, but not significant because Apple doesn't license their OS to the relevant consumers. Since Dell can't license OS X to put on their machines, Apple making it does little to lessen MS's power to force IE upon Dell machines.
No it isn't. Microsoft broke the law. It's that simple.
Yes. Years ago. They are atoning for this
Umm, Microsoft is still breaking the law today. The complaint was filed last year.
If this was a case of simple monopoly, why isn't Apple getting sued for bundling Itunes with OSX? It's just as bad a monopoly as IE is.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of antitrust law. MS is accused of abusing their monopoly on desktop operating systems to hurt the browser market. They are not accused of having a monopoly on browsers.
I might mention the EU has investigated Apple with regard to several antitrust abuses, one where they were proxy for the music industry's cartel and recently for the iPod which they decided did not constitute a monopoly. Apple would be banned from bundling OS X and iTunes only if they had a monopoly on the relevant market for one product. Which were you thinking constituted a monopoly?
Ford and GM did exactly that in the 90s when they attached their climate controls directly to the stereos of some of their cars.
So was it Ford or GM that had a monopoly on cars? Sorry, that falls under weaker consumer protection laws, not antitrust.
Yes. Although Apple has a nack of avoiding judgement it with ITunes for some reason.
Umm, yeah. What was the monopoly you were thinking of there again?
IE is bleeding market share. Even IE8 isn't keeping users from jumping from other browsers. it wouldn't surprise me if they are below 50 percent by the end of next year.
How does any of that matter? If I try to murder a guy with a pistol and they happen to be wearing a bulletproof vest, can I argue that their ability to mitigate most of the damage from my crime means I should not be punished for it? Again, MS is not accused of having a monopoly on Web browsers. If you think that's what this case is about and keep basing your arguments upon that premise, then you have no understanding of what the rest of us are talking about. Please read up on antitrust law before trying to second guess the legal experts working for the EU. Even MS knows they're completely guilty here. They've been convicted of this crime before in other jurisdictions. It is open and shut.
That has nothing to do with Opera suing MS for antitrust.
Opera did not sue. They reported the crime. The EU is prosecuting the crime. There was no civil suit involved and Opera asked for no damages, just remedies.
I'll stop here. There's not much point going on. Until you get a clue as to what antirust law is and what this case in particular is about, discussion is meaningless.
Sorry BadAnalogyGuy but you're a bit confused on this one. You're citing the US DoJ findings, but this is an EU case. They did not include "Intel-compatible" in their rulings of fact and while they did use the term "PC Operating System" they used PC as an adjective to distinguish it from the "Work Group Server Operating System" market. Macs are a brand of PC according to the EU case.
So the relevant market is Intel-compatible PC operating systems, not including valid alternative operating systems.
You're mistaken. That was the US, this is an EU case.
I won't lie to you, Microsoft probably killed the business of making money from browsers irrevocably. But I think that was for the better.
I think you're dead wrong. MS has spent the last decade with dominance in the browser market. During that time they've not implemented anything other than proprietary technologies and partially implemented versions of eight year old standards. Web developers spend all their time trying to find ever more clever ways to use these ancient, broken standards. We've had little to no progress in actual Web technologies during that time. Only in the last year or two with MS losing some of their market share has their been any real advance, but MS is still too big and the limiting factor.
Browser makers don't devote resources to implementing newer technologies because if IE doesn't support them, Web developers can't se them. For a technology industry, especially such a huge and profitable one to stagnate so badly, something is seriously broken. That "something" is MS's monopoly abuse to prevent interoperability and slow innovation that might threaten their other products,
Seriously, do you think I would have significant market share today if it was not bundled with Windows? Do you think if IE did not have significant market share Web developers would hold back on using cool new technologies just for IE? Do you think browser makers would not be competing to implement those technologies better than others? That's the problem we have, lack of competition leading to lack of innovation. We might as well implement extreme socialism if we allow monopolists to undermine the primary advantages of capitalism.
No one ever said Microsoft had a monopoly on all PCs.
In previous court cases MS was ruled to have monopoly influence on the "desktop operating system" market.
In fact, Apple has quite a sizable share of the PC market.
The PC market is not monopolized. There is Dell and HP and Lenovo and Apple and a hundred others. Unlike the US case, the EU market definition potentially includes OS X in the relevant market. This doesn't matter for two reasons. First, Apple doesn't have a big enough chunk for Microsoft to lose monopoly influence (by a very large margin). Second, Apple does not sell OS X into the relevant market, refusing to license it to consumers (consumers in this case being mostly OEMs like Dell and large corporations buying site licenses).
When the user needs a PC, they aren't only looking for the Windows PC with the features they want.
This is true, but not really relevant to this case. This case is about MS having tons of power because OEMs have no viable choices other than Windows when buying an OS to preinstall. It's about them using that power to push other products from separate, preexisting markets thereby undermining free trade in those markets.
So it doesn't matter that you come up with the best OS ever. If you are competing against Microsoft in the Windows PC market space, you are taking on the entrenched monopoly and will lose.
Will, Microsoft doesn't actually make a PC so it is hard to take them on at all. It is nearly impossible to win in the desktop OS space. In numerous other markets like Web browsers, it is very hard to compete because MS illegally uses their Windows monopoly in ways that make it so that even if your browser is far superior to Internet Explorer (and really what browser isn't), you're unlikely to achieve the same level of market share. That's the illegal thing here and what is detrimental to the industry and market.
I've followed both shows, Dollhouse and Terminator...
I tried both shows. They both suffer from the same problem, lead actors who are simply not very good. Summer Glau did fine as a crazy person with non sequitur lines, but can't seem to pull off anything else. Eliza Dushku, like most modern actresses, can only do one character and is cast in a role where she's supposed to be diverse. I'm still watching Dollhouse because some of the other actors manage to partially make up for Eliza Dushku's complete lack of range.
Frankly, I wish a few TV shows and movies would cast actresses who can actually act instead of "some hot girl". There are people who are both beautiful and talented. Actors do a little better because people doing casting still think it's okay to cast men who are ugly but have talent. Joss Whedon had a perfect storm going with Firefly because he managed to have a good story combined with some actual talent in most of the main roles. Now he has a good story but with a lousy actress and one of the less competent actresses who was cast well in Firefly has a role that is too much for her and it shows.
Hiding behind the lack of a standard doesn't make the ODF Alliance correct.
The ODF alliance is in compliance with the law and not hurting anyone. Microsoft is violating antitrust law and undermining the free market to the detriment of consumers. You're trying to make out the former as in the wrong somehow? That's just sad.
Demanding that Microsoft implements the ambiguous / not standard parts of OO.o's ODF in the same way that OO.o does is sort of like demanding that Mozilla implements all the ambiguous / not standard parts of MS's HTML/CSS rendering implementation.
Umm, yeah, if there were four open source programs that already implemented it that way and could be used as references and if every other implementation of that version of the standard in existence including Mozilla's other browser.
Or demanding that Apple modify OS X's kernel so it implements the same syscalls as Linux instead of implementing POSIX, because Linux is the most popular operating system used to run programs that target POSIX.
Wow, I'm not going to touch how wrong that is.
ODF 1.1 is broken, and there is nothing that can be done to make a fully standards-compliant ODF 1.1 implementation without filling in the gaps somehow.
That's what reference implementations are for. All your arguments boil down to MS not being able to complete the same task a half dozen smaller companies already did, while MS has code that works licensed such that they can copy and paste it in. I see no excuse.
], OO.o 1-2 uses a nonstandard forumla implementation...
And yet no other company or even hobbyist project had trouble implementing it, just MS. Do you really think they're that incompetent?
The generally accepted reference is and should be the OASIS ODF standard itself.
You're being obtuse or you don't know enough about software coding to know what a "reference implementation" is. A published standard tells you how to write to the standard. A reference implementation is an open source implementation of that standard that can be used when there is doubt about how the standard is to be implemented.
Digging through the source code of competing products to see which assumptions they made while implementing a standard does not constitute proper standards behavior.
The point of standards is interoperability. MS is legally required, due to their monopoly influence, to make a valid attempt at interoperability. Hiding behind the standard doesn't make their actions any more legal or ethical.
There's no reason to assume OpenOffice is the correct implementation of ODF...
Is it, however, reasonable to assume the way OpenOffice, KOffice, Symphony, Google Docs, and Sun's ODF plug-in implement it is the most interoperable way?
Their implementation passes compliance testing as far as ODF 1.1 is concerned. In fact, it's the only implementation that does for spreadsheets (aside from Kspread, apparently).
I don't believe this is true. They both broke compatibility and screwed up parts of the implementation making it not quite conforming.
If Sun wants ODF...
Who cares what Sun wants? This is about having useful interoperability among office suites so we can have some real competition and choice going forward. No one company should be able to hold up progress. MS needs to be stopped from playing these games and hurting the industry in the process.
OpenOffice is NOT a reference implementation of ODF 1.1.
IBMs presentation online says it is.
1. OpenOffice implements features that are not even specified in ODF 1.1 (for example: formulas).
And there goes your credibility. ODF 1.1 does specify formulas and how they should be formatted, but is vague on the details. But no one else had any problems implementing them, including MS's commissioned plug-in.
It cannot be a reference implementation of something that simply does not exist.
Which of course you were completely wrong about. In any case, reference implementations are for filling in areas where the spec is vague so people know how to implement it for compatibility.
ODF 1.2 should hopefully address this...
ODF 1.2 did clarify things so it will be harder for MS to break compatibility while still coming close to following the spec, which I might mention they did not do in any case.
Specifications are supposed to be specific
Specifications are supposed to make it easy to make compatible implementations. They don't normally have to go out of their way to accommodate companies trying to make something obey the spec (and failing) while still breaking compatibility.
Is it really your position that MS is so incompetent they both broke the spec an accidentally failed to be compatible with everyone else, when even small projects like KOffice did it just fine?
It's in the same place where you can find documentation for files the current version of OpenOffice produces. Nowhere.
OpenOffice is fully compliant with ODF 1.1 and there are numerous opensource implementations if you have difficulty interpreting how it should be coded.
Word is not fully compliant with the OOXML spec and there is no open source reference implementation.
You think that makes no difference. I think your opinion is absurd.
Although in the case of Office, you can at least unzip the files and take a look at the XML, since they're nothing but XML these days.
Yeah, because ODF files sure aren't XML or anything. Do you even know what you're talking about?
Because the format hasn't been finalised as a standard. How are you supposed to conform to a standard that isn't final?
That's a very good question. If you read the whole thread though you should be replying to "melted" who was claiming OpenOffice should have implemented OOXML and the situation with ODF is exactly the same... although I suspect they're trolling.
If there is no definition in the spec, then a "reference implementation" cannot exist. The reference implementation follows on from the spec. Anything you do that isn't in the spec is called guesswork.
Reference implementations exist so that when there is a vague part of the spec, people know what to look at for compatibility. The ODF spec says to use Excel style formulas enclosed in brackets, which pretty much every, especially MS, should know what are by now. MS didn't even get the brackets right and that is violating the spec. If they couldn't figure it out there were plenty of references to look at or they could have tried it then tested for compatibility.
If you had to reverse engineer it from the OpenOffice implementation, myy guess is that Microsoft is rightly worried about code taint from it's developers reading open source code.
When the code is open source it doesn't take a lot of reverse engineering. They don't have to worry about tainted code because there is a working BSD implementation they commissioned. You are 100% wrong.
Standards are created to make sure something, like software, can output a verifiable item that others can use.
Standards are created to HELP people to create interoperable software. Interoperability is the goal, not compliance. If it isn't the goal, MS is breaking the law. They have to be compliant with competitors by law, not follow standards.
If you have a standard that says to do certain things, but makes no mention of others, you don't just copy your competitor.
You don't know what a "reference implementation" is do you?
Microsoft followed a standard and because OpenOffice or anyother program can't actually open it always, you blame the company for following the standard set out?
Yes, I blame them because they went out of their way to play dumb and implement the standard in an incompatible way and they broke the law in so doing.
Please educate yourself before trying to argue. There is a working plug-in for MSOffice licensed under the BSD license so MS can simply copy and paste if they want. They've done it before with BSD code.
Sure they could use that code or inspect the ODF files, but you miss the point everyone here is making: The standard is what Microsoft follows, not the competitor's method of implementation.
First, the BSD code in question was paid for by MS, its not a competitor's Second, MS is not legally obligated to obey the standards, but they are legally obligated to honestly attempt compatibility with competitors. Not even testing against competitors does not seem like an honest attempt to me.
Again, they followed a broken standard, just because OpenOffice and others copied eachother doesn't mean Microsoft or others should.
Yes it does if their goal is compatibility and since the law requires them to attempt to be compatible with competitors lest they be leveraging their monopoly influence, that is exactly what they should have done if they had to choose between the standard and being compatible. That, however, is a false dichotomy. They could have followed the standard and been compatible. They chose not to.
You seem to support Mac/Google/OpenOffice...
This seems to be your main problem. Technology companies are not sports teams. I'm not in support of any company. I point out when any of them does something good or bad because I don't have emotional investment in any of them.
...and reading comments that always blame Microsoft is sickening.
Why? They're a criminal company that routinely breaks the law and in so doing holds back innovation in numerous technology markets. Is there any surprise that a site made up of geeks who love technology would have a lot of negative things to say about them?
Microsoft and Open Source have their problems...
Yeah, sort of the way GM and aluminum casting have problems. Open source is a method of licensing, not really comparable to a corporation.
...quit pretending that OS is perfect and Microsoft is the anti-christ.
What OS are thinking I'm pretending is perfect? I never said MS was the antichrist. That's two strawman attacks in a row. MS are just a corporation that happens to have a lot of influence in certain markets and a tendency to break the law and undermine free trade. They do a lot of damage and it is wholly appropriate to point out when they break the law yet again.
They are no different than any other corporation (Google? Sun? IBM? Don't be evil, yeah, right).
They are different from those listed above in that MS's criminal violations of antitrust law are ongoing and have not been stopped and THEY'RE THE ONES BREAKING THE LAW IN THE ARTICLE WERE DISCUSSING! When Google or IBM or Apple is breaking the law and hurting competition and an article about it is posted here, I'll complain just as loudly.
You seem to have fallen for marketing nonsense. There exists a spec, which no one including MS has implemented. Then there exists the docx files MS office creates which are not compliant with the standards you link to and which are not fully documented anywhere.
From the first link you posted, a quote about when MS will be compliant with the published version of the spec:
On March 13, 2008 Doug Mahugh, a Senior Product Manager at Microsoft specializing in Office client interoperability and the Open XML file formats confirmed that version 1.0 of the Open XML Format SDK
"will definitely be 100% compliant with the final ISO/IEC 29500 spec, including the changes accepted at the BRM"
To date they have not managed to comply fully with their own format specification and no other company has a fully compatible version either, that I know of.
So where is the documentation for the docx format Word creates today? Where is the fully compliant, BSD licensed reference implementation for Linux that OO can copy and paste code from? I think your argument pretty much went down the crapper at this point.
The whole reason they are doing the ODF thing is pressure from the EU with regards to anti-trust. Part of that pressure is that "You have to do it according to the standard."
So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.
All the other ODF stuff I've seen is open source. As with most open source, they borrow heavily form other open source projects. In the case of ODF, the modus operandi seems to be "Do what Open Office does." Ok that's great, but again not an option for MS. They can't take OOs code...
They already own BSD licensed code that works on MS Office. Next argument please!
Basically the ODF spec isn't clear and precise.
But it's clear an precise enough that it worked for everyone else and there are multiple working open source implementations, one of which they can literally copy and paste from and which they helped fund the creation of and probably have full rights to it even if it wasn't BSD licensed. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly either.
Then there are cases where the popular ODF implementations aren't compliant with the spec.
Example please.
More or less it looks like the ODF alliance needs to shut up, and write a better standard.
They already did. MS doesn't want a standard for interoperability. They are simply looking for any way they can be compliant but still be incompatible.
Everything has to be specified precisely.
Not really, that's what reference implementations are for. If you have any doubt about how to handle this, see the reference implementations and do it that way.
The only argument you made that has any legs is the first one regarding compliance with the spec, but only if you assume ignorance of the law (I assume you perhaps aren't that familiar with antitrust law). I assure you, while it may at times appear that all of MS's lawyers have never heard of antitrust law, that is not the case in reality.
By that token, then, OO's poor support of Microsoft formats is also OO's fault. Which was my original point earlier in the thread.
Really, where is the fully documented spec for docx? Where is the open source reference implementation of MSWord? Where is the BSD licensed version of Word formats on Linux that they can just copy and paste?
When your format is not open and documented and you don't implement it in an open source reference it is a hell of a lot harder to be compatible and that is absolutely MSs fault and their legal liability. Your point is excessively flawed.
If the standard is strict like other open standards, and they still fail to be compatiable[sic], I wouldn't "apologize" for them.
Please. The standard is just fine for any honest company trying to make a product that works. It just wasn't written as an ironclad legal contract to keep MS from playing dumb and intentionally breaking compatibility.
Actually, if you read another comment on this article, you'd see that other applications actually didn't handle the standard all that well like you claim.
Other comments? I don't have to because I actually bothered to read about the topic before discussing it. There is one other compatibility problem among the programs tested and it is because one of the programs is using the newer version of the spec. Saving from OO as ODF 1.1 is compatible. Thats completely different from being incompatible with every other program implementing the same version of the spec.
"Free code". You do realize that many of those "free" code samples are licensed that would require Microsoft to open source Office or portions of Office.
Please educate yourself before trying to argue. There is a working plug-in for MSOffice licensed under the BSD license so MS can simply copy and paste if they want. They've done it before with BSD code.
This is about a standard that was weak and failed to state everything clearly.
Bullcrap. This is about a standard that is fine for any honest company and about one company intentionally trying to break things to harm competition.
Asking any company to follow it is insane.
Yeah, except nobody else had any real problems including small hobbyist groups. Believing your crap is insane. In fact, your position is so unbelievable, I strongly suspect you're an astroturfer. You have a history of all of 13 comments, almost all of which are defending Microsoft. You're either a paid shill or you really drank to kool-aid.
ODF 1.1 was a very simple standard to follow. It was only one page. In fact, it's only one sentence: "Do whatever OpenOffice does." Is that your idea of a "reference implementation"?
If that was the case, sure since OO is open source and well documented code. That isn't that case though. It's much better to simply code to the standards and look at one of the several interoperable open source implementations when there is question about what to do. And, or course, when you have a working version you should test it for interoperability with the existing implementations, or at least the working implementation for your program, already in use, which you helped to fund.
So, when MS Office SP2 implements ODF 1.1 with MathML to the letter and OpenOffice cannot read it because of a bug in OpenOffice, who is to blame?
If it is a bug in OpenOffice they are to blame, assuming MS tested and tried to be compliant and interoperable. If, however, OO is compliant and MS is complaint and MS manages to create a compliant solution which does not work with all the other existing implementations, which all work with one another... yeah that's MS's fault.
Oh, right, you think that MS should have followed OpenOffice's bug, not the ODF spec.
Are you trying to imply that MS had to break the standard to work with OO and all the other implementations?
How about all of the implementation bugs between OpenOffice and other non-MS ODF suites?
There is only one of those that I know of, which is a problem with OO writing files using the 1.2 version of ODF by default and the program in question not handling it gracefully enough. MS, on the other hand is incompatible with every other implementation.
Fix your fucking spec or shut the fuck up.
If you're going to be profane at least have some guts worm. Anonymous coward indeed.
For a commercial vendor, GPL licensed code is not "open" or "available" at all.
No, but BSD licensed code is and MS has already incorporated BSD code into several of their important products (TCP/IP stack for Windows for example). There exists a BSD licensed plug-in for MSOffice which MS helped to fund the creation of, but they somehow managed to make their new implementation incompatible with that plug-in and every other implementation.
They have to code it to the spec, and code to the spec they did.
Excepting, of course, that complying with the spec does not mean crap when it comes to antitrust law. Complying with the letter of the spec while still being incompatible with every competitor when such compliance is not difficult, is still leveraging their monopoly influence to harm competition and artificially break competing products... but then when did MS ever have scruples about breaking antitrust law.
How is it their fault that the spec is busted?
They broke the spec. They didn't test to make sure they are compatible. They failed at a task even small hobbyist projects managed. They did so in a way that harms competition because they are so dominant in that market. That is 100% their fault.
To me, this is all whining by the anti-Microsoft folks. When Microsoft supports ODF 1.2, and if they goof up, then complain.
At which point you'll still be apologizing for them and say we should wait till 1.3 to complain?
ODF 1.1 was to[sic] vague and to somehow blame Microsoft because they followed a poorly written spec...
Yeah it was so vague every other company managed to implement it just fine, including Microsoft in the plug-in they hired someone to write and whose code is BSD licensed so they could have just copied and pasted, since it was already working with MSOffice as a plug in. I have this bridge you might be interested in Brooklyn.
The blame still rests on the ODF standards.
Bullshit! There are multiple reference implementations and free code available and even small hobbyist projects had no problem. Even MS is not that incompetent. Their failure to insure their product worked with all the other products out there that work fine is inexcusable and any judge who buys your crap is an idiot. This is clearly an antitrust violation. Hopefully MS won't be able to settle their way out of a conviction this time.
Microsoft followed the ODF specification to the letter
Are you paid to astroturf? Thy did not follow it to the letter and they ignored the reference implementations and if they tested for compatibility like everyone else they did so to make sure things would not work. Given their market share, that's criminal.
Although nobody is really surprised that Microsoft has made their software comply with the letter of the law and not the spirit, is this really a big issue?
First, they didn't comply with the letter of the law. This is clearly a violation of antitrust law. Second, they didn't comply with the letter of the spec, both failing to implement it properly and going out of their way to not implement features they already had working code for and ignoring both reference implementations.
If, as the summary says, the marketplace is demanding a grand interoperability between software products, then we might see the rapid uptake of OOO in the near future.
We might or we might not because monopoly influence on several markets allows Microsoft to undermine and break the normal operation of the free market system by violating antitrust law. In doing so they hurt competitors, consumers, and slow innovation.
Failing that, if nobody switches, then the market has spoken loud and clear, Nobody cares.
Yeah and the market spoke and nobody wanted answering machines, speed dial, or to own instead of rent a telephone while AT&T had a monopoly on phone service. The free market cannot operate and determine the best products at the best price when undermined by abuse. That's why it is illegal.
Honestly, the single most productive thing you could do to ensure the rapid uptake of open standards would be to make openoffice.org an amazing product. Put all of your time and effort into making it clearly superior, and at that point everyone will use an ODF by default.
When faced with a monopoly, having the better product does not mean you win in the market. Clearly superior products can and do lose because of artificial problems introduced to them; artificial problems like being unable to open most ODF files which were made intentionally incompatible by a company with monopoly influence on the market.
Users will not learn because users don't care. No matter how much information you give people, no matter how much code signing you do - users will do whatever they have to do to get something they believe they want to work.
With signing and a well crafted system of sandboxing we end up with users basically no longer ever supplying their passwords except in very unusual situations. If something asks for a password it will be to expand an ACL, not to have general admin permission. This means messages will be specific, like "this program is from an untrusted source would like to read your personal files" or "this program is from an untrusted source and would like to have complete, irrevocable control of your computer". Because in most cases trojans will not be able to tell if they are sandboxed or to what extent, they can be given dummy data so they will run or not, regardless if given permission. How many times will the average user try to run software have it fail and ask for complete control of the computer, then fail to work again before users stop bothering to try the second step accompanied by a strong warning?
Add onto this system a anti-virus style feed greylist, and it will be an incredibly rare instance where a user is asked when malware is not identified immediately as such.
We'll always have to allow unsigned, untrusted apps to run in some circumstances
Some users will, but many will not. Ever larger numbers of applications on OS X are coming signed nowadays and Apple has only begun implementing features that place untrusted applications at a usability disadvantage. It is quite likely within a few years the average user will never run unsigned software except in the case where someone is trying to exploit them.
And the user will happily click and enter their password or do a jig or whatever to allow those trojans to run.
Again, I disagree. Right now users are conditioned to go through steps to make trojans run because they have to do the same thing to get real software to run. Further, they are only given two choices, trust it or don't and they are given no feedback on what the software is actually doing. OS's can do a much better job of providing granular security options, good security options, and providing information and control. Very few users presented with a pop-up from the OS that says "warning application FooBar is reading your address book and sending hundreds of e-mail messages (stop it)(don't stop it)(advanced options)" are going to allow random programs that are not e-mail programs to do that.
The biggest problem we have right now are users only have the two options:
make this program work and trust it forever to do anything on my system
don't run this program at all
Security experts who want to run software they don't trust install VMs and run software in them in order to get a third choice, but doing so is difficult and expensive and time consuming and far beyond the capabilities of the average user. Making it easy to add the choice to run software but to not trust it will put a huge dent in the effectiveness of trojans.
It is not a panacea, but I don't think it is reasonable to give users a choice of two cryptic and poor options and then blame them for their choices. Give them good options, then blame the few who still make poor choices. Fix the systems first, then work on educating people when it is a reasonable task.
Slashdot Mirror
As is acknowledged towards the end of the quote, The first sentence is only true if almost all non-Microsoft products are ignored. And when did Intel-compatible become an issue?
Intel compatible was only an issue in the US because the regulators there were wonky. It is not an issue in this case at all.
MS holds a far higher share of the AMD-compatible OS market than the Intel-compatible OS market, because Apple don't make an AMD-compatible OS!
Intel, AMD, ARM, it doesn't matter for the EU. Apple's OS X is considered in the EU, but not significant because Apple doesn't license their OS to the relevant consumers. Since Dell can't license OS X to put on their machines, Apple making it does little to lessen MS's power to force IE upon Dell machines.
No it isn't. Microsoft broke the law. It's that simple.
Yes. Years ago. They are atoning for this
Umm, Microsoft is still breaking the law today. The complaint was filed last year.
If this was a case of simple monopoly, why isn't Apple getting sued for bundling Itunes with OSX? It's just as bad a monopoly as IE is.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of antitrust law. MS is accused of abusing their monopoly on desktop operating systems to hurt the browser market. They are not accused of having a monopoly on browsers.
I might mention the EU has investigated Apple with regard to several antitrust abuses, one where they were proxy for the music industry's cartel and recently for the iPod which they decided did not constitute a monopoly. Apple would be banned from bundling OS X and iTunes only if they had a monopoly on the relevant market for one product. Which were you thinking constituted a monopoly?
Ford and GM did exactly that in the 90s when they attached their climate controls directly to the stereos of some of their cars.
So was it Ford or GM that had a monopoly on cars? Sorry, that falls under weaker consumer protection laws, not antitrust.
Yes. Although Apple has a nack of avoiding judgement it with ITunes for some reason.
Umm, yeah. What was the monopoly you were thinking of there again?
IE is bleeding market share. Even IE8 isn't keeping users from jumping from other browsers. it wouldn't surprise me if they are below 50 percent by the end of next year.
How does any of that matter? If I try to murder a guy with a pistol and they happen to be wearing a bulletproof vest, can I argue that their ability to mitigate most of the damage from my crime means I should not be punished for it? Again, MS is not accused of having a monopoly on Web browsers. If you think that's what this case is about and keep basing your arguments upon that premise, then you have no understanding of what the rest of us are talking about. Please read up on antitrust law before trying to second guess the legal experts working for the EU. Even MS knows they're completely guilty here. They've been convicted of this crime before in other jurisdictions. It is open and shut.
That has nothing to do with Opera suing MS for antitrust.
Opera did not sue. They reported the crime. The EU is prosecuting the crime. There was no civil suit involved and Opera asked for no damages, just remedies.
I'll stop here. There's not much point going on. Until you get a clue as to what antirust law is and what this case in particular is about, discussion is meaningless.
Sorry BadAnalogyGuy but you're a bit confused on this one. You're citing the US DoJ findings, but this is an EU case. They did not include "Intel-compatible" in their rulings of fact and while they did use the term "PC Operating System" they used PC as an adjective to distinguish it from the "Work Group Server Operating System" market. Macs are a brand of PC according to the EU case.
So the relevant market is Intel-compatible PC operating systems, not including valid alternative operating systems.
You're mistaken. That was the US, this is an EU case.
I won't lie to you, Microsoft probably killed the business of making money from browsers irrevocably. But I think that was for the better.
I think you're dead wrong. MS has spent the last decade with dominance in the browser market. During that time they've not implemented anything other than proprietary technologies and partially implemented versions of eight year old standards. Web developers spend all their time trying to find ever more clever ways to use these ancient, broken standards. We've had little to no progress in actual Web technologies during that time. Only in the last year or two with MS losing some of their market share has their been any real advance, but MS is still too big and the limiting factor.
Browser makers don't devote resources to implementing newer technologies because if IE doesn't support them, Web developers can't se them. For a technology industry, especially such a huge and profitable one to stagnate so badly, something is seriously broken. That "something" is MS's monopoly abuse to prevent interoperability and slow innovation that might threaten their other products,
Seriously, do you think I would have significant market share today if it was not bundled with Windows? Do you think if IE did not have significant market share Web developers would hold back on using cool new technologies just for IE? Do you think browser makers would not be competing to implement those technologies better than others? That's the problem we have, lack of competition leading to lack of innovation. We might as well implement extreme socialism if we allow monopolists to undermine the primary advantages of capitalism.
No one ever said Microsoft had a monopoly on all PCs.
In previous court cases MS was ruled to have monopoly influence on the "desktop operating system" market.
In fact, Apple has quite a sizable share of the PC market.
The PC market is not monopolized. There is Dell and HP and Lenovo and Apple and a hundred others. Unlike the US case, the EU market definition potentially includes OS X in the relevant market. This doesn't matter for two reasons. First, Apple doesn't have a big enough chunk for Microsoft to lose monopoly influence (by a very large margin). Second, Apple does not sell OS X into the relevant market, refusing to license it to consumers (consumers in this case being mostly OEMs like Dell and large corporations buying site licenses).
When the user needs a PC, they aren't only looking for the Windows PC with the features they want.
This is true, but not really relevant to this case. This case is about MS having tons of power because OEMs have no viable choices other than Windows when buying an OS to preinstall. It's about them using that power to push other products from separate, preexisting markets thereby undermining free trade in those markets.
So it doesn't matter that you come up with the best OS ever. If you are competing against Microsoft in the Windows PC market space, you are taking on the entrenched monopoly and will lose.
Will, Microsoft doesn't actually make a PC so it is hard to take them on at all. It is nearly impossible to win in the desktop OS space. In numerous other markets like Web browsers, it is very hard to compete because MS illegally uses their Windows monopoly in ways that make it so that even if your browser is far superior to Internet Explorer (and really what browser isn't), you're unlikely to achieve the same level of market share. That's the illegal thing here and what is detrimental to the industry and market.
I've followed both shows, Dollhouse and Terminator...
I tried both shows. They both suffer from the same problem, lead actors who are simply not very good. Summer Glau did fine as a crazy person with non sequitur lines, but can't seem to pull off anything else. Eliza Dushku, like most modern actresses, can only do one character and is cast in a role where she's supposed to be diverse. I'm still watching Dollhouse because some of the other actors manage to partially make up for Eliza Dushku's complete lack of range.
Frankly, I wish a few TV shows and movies would cast actresses who can actually act instead of "some hot girl". There are people who are both beautiful and talented. Actors do a little better because people doing casting still think it's okay to cast men who are ugly but have talent. Joss Whedon had a perfect storm going with Firefly because he managed to have a good story combined with some actual talent in most of the main roles. Now he has a good story but with a lousy actress and one of the less competent actresses who was cast well in Firefly has a role that is too much for her and it shows.
Hiding behind the lack of a standard doesn't make the ODF Alliance correct.
The ODF alliance is in compliance with the law and not hurting anyone. Microsoft is violating antitrust law and undermining the free market to the detriment of consumers. You're trying to make out the former as in the wrong somehow? That's just sad.
Demanding that Microsoft implements the ambiguous / not standard parts of OO.o's ODF in the same way that OO.o does is sort of like demanding that Mozilla implements all the ambiguous / not standard parts of MS's HTML/CSS rendering implementation.
Umm, yeah, if there were four open source programs that already implemented it that way and could be used as references and if every other implementation of that version of the standard in existence including Mozilla's other browser.
Or demanding that Apple modify OS X's kernel so it implements the same syscalls as Linux instead of implementing POSIX, because Linux is the most popular operating system used to run programs that target POSIX.
Wow, I'm not going to touch how wrong that is.
ODF 1.1 is broken, and there is nothing that can be done to make a fully standards-compliant ODF 1.1 implementation without filling in the gaps somehow.
That's what reference implementations are for. All your arguments boil down to MS not being able to complete the same task a half dozen smaller companies already did, while MS has code that works licensed such that they can copy and paste it in. I see no excuse.
], OO.o 1-2 uses a nonstandard forumla implementation...
And yet no other company or even hobbyist project had trouble implementing it, just MS. Do you really think they're that incompetent?
The generally accepted reference is and should be the OASIS ODF standard itself.
You're being obtuse or you don't know enough about software coding to know what a "reference implementation" is. A published standard tells you how to write to the standard. A reference implementation is an open source implementation of that standard that can be used when there is doubt about how the standard is to be implemented.
Digging through the source code of competing products to see which assumptions they made while implementing a standard does not constitute proper standards behavior.
The point of standards is interoperability. MS is legally required, due to their monopoly influence, to make a valid attempt at interoperability. Hiding behind the standard doesn't make their actions any more legal or ethical.
There's no reason to assume OpenOffice is the correct implementation of ODF...
Is it, however, reasonable to assume the way OpenOffice, KOffice, Symphony, Google Docs, and Sun's ODF plug-in implement it is the most interoperable way?
Their implementation passes compliance testing as far as ODF 1.1 is concerned. In fact, it's the only implementation that does for spreadsheets (aside from Kspread, apparently).
I don't believe this is true. They both broke compatibility and screwed up parts of the implementation making it not quite conforming.
If Sun wants ODF...
Who cares what Sun wants? This is about having useful interoperability among office suites so we can have some real competition and choice going forward. No one company should be able to hold up progress. MS needs to be stopped from playing these games and hurting the industry in the process.
OpenOffice is NOT a reference implementation of ODF 1.1.
IBMs presentation online says it is.
1. OpenOffice implements features that are not even specified in ODF 1.1 (for example: formulas).
And there goes your credibility. ODF 1.1 does specify formulas and how they should be formatted, but is vague on the details. But no one else had any problems implementing them, including MS's commissioned plug-in.
It cannot be a reference implementation of something that simply does not exist.
Which of course you were completely wrong about. In any case, reference implementations are for filling in areas where the spec is vague so people know how to implement it for compatibility.
ODF 1.2 should hopefully address this...
ODF 1.2 did clarify things so it will be harder for MS to break compatibility while still coming close to following the spec, which I might mention they did not do in any case.
Specifications are supposed to be specific
Specifications are supposed to make it easy to make compatible implementations. They don't normally have to go out of their way to accommodate companies trying to make something obey the spec (and failing) while still breaking compatibility.
Is it really your position that MS is so incompetent they both broke the spec an accidentally failed to be compatible with everyone else, when even small projects like KOffice did it just fine?
It's in the same place where you can find documentation for files the current version of OpenOffice produces. Nowhere.
OpenOffice is fully compliant with ODF 1.1 and there are numerous opensource implementations if you have difficulty interpreting how it should be coded.
Word is not fully compliant with the OOXML spec and there is no open source reference implementation.
You think that makes no difference. I think your opinion is absurd.
Although in the case of Office, you can at least unzip the files and take a look at the XML, since they're nothing but XML these days.
Yeah, because ODF files sure aren't XML or anything. Do you even know what you're talking about?
Because the format hasn't been finalised as a standard. How are you supposed to conform to a standard that isn't final?
That's a very good question. If you read the whole thread though you should be replying to "melted" who was claiming OpenOffice should have implemented OOXML and the situation with ODF is exactly the same... although I suspect they're trolling.
If there is no definition in the spec, then a "reference implementation" cannot exist. The reference implementation follows on from the spec. Anything you do that isn't in the spec is called guesswork.
Reference implementations exist so that when there is a vague part of the spec, people know what to look at for compatibility. The ODF spec says to use Excel style formulas enclosed in brackets, which pretty much every, especially MS, should know what are by now. MS didn't even get the brackets right and that is violating the spec. If they couldn't figure it out there were plenty of references to look at or they could have tried it then tested for compatibility.
If you had to reverse engineer it from the OpenOffice implementation, myy guess is that Microsoft is rightly worried about code taint from it's developers reading open source code.
When the code is open source it doesn't take a lot of reverse engineering. They don't have to worry about tainted code because there is a working BSD implementation they commissioned. You are 100% wrong.
Standards are created to make sure something, like software, can output a verifiable item that others can use.
Standards are created to HELP people to create interoperable software. Interoperability is the goal, not compliance. If it isn't the goal, MS is breaking the law. They have to be compliant with competitors by law, not follow standards.
If you have a standard that says to do certain things, but makes no mention of others, you don't just copy your competitor.
You don't know what a "reference implementation" is do you?
Microsoft followed a standard and because OpenOffice or anyother program can't actually open it always, you blame the company for following the standard set out?
Yes, I blame them because they went out of their way to play dumb and implement the standard in an incompatible way and they broke the law in so doing.
Please educate yourself before trying to argue. There is a working plug-in for MSOffice licensed under the BSD license so MS can simply copy and paste if they want. They've done it before with BSD code.
Sure they could use that code or inspect the ODF files, but you miss the point everyone here is making: The standard is what Microsoft follows, not the competitor's method of implementation.
First, the BSD code in question was paid for by MS, its not a competitor's Second, MS is not legally obligated to obey the standards, but they are legally obligated to honestly attempt compatibility with competitors. Not even testing against competitors does not seem like an honest attempt to me.
Again, they followed a broken standard, just because OpenOffice and others copied eachother doesn't mean Microsoft or others should.
Yes it does if their goal is compatibility and since the law requires them to attempt to be compatible with competitors lest they be leveraging their monopoly influence, that is exactly what they should have done if they had to choose between the standard and being compatible. That, however, is a false dichotomy. They could have followed the standard and been compatible. They chose not to.
You seem to support Mac/Google/OpenOffice ...
This seems to be your main problem. Technology companies are not sports teams. I'm not in support of any company. I point out when any of them does something good or bad because I don't have emotional investment in any of them.
...and reading comments that always blame Microsoft is sickening.
Why? They're a criminal company that routinely breaks the law and in so doing holds back innovation in numerous technology markets. Is there any surprise that a site made up of geeks who love technology would have a lot of negative things to say about them?
Microsoft and Open Source have their problems...
Yeah, sort of the way GM and aluminum casting have problems. Open source is a method of licensing, not really comparable to a corporation.
...quit pretending that OS is perfect and Microsoft is the anti-christ.
What OS are thinking I'm pretending is perfect? I never said MS was the antichrist. That's two strawman attacks in a row. MS are just a corporation that happens to have a lot of influence in certain markets and a tendency to break the law and undermine free trade. They do a lot of damage and it is wholly appropriate to point out when they break the law yet again.
They are no different than any other corporation (Google? Sun? IBM? Don't be evil, yeah, right).
They are different from those listed above in that MS's criminal violations of antitrust law are ongoing and have not been stopped and THEY'RE THE ONES BREAKING THE LAW IN THE ARTICLE WERE DISCUSSING! When Google or IBM or Apple is breaking the law and hurting competition and an article about it is posted here, I'll complain just as loudly.
Plenty of info here:
You seem to have fallen for marketing nonsense. There exists a spec, which no one including MS has implemented. Then there exists the docx files MS office creates which are not compliant with the standards you link to and which are not fully documented anywhere.
From the first link you posted, a quote about when MS will be compliant with the published version of the spec:
On March 13, 2008 Doug Mahugh, a Senior Product Manager at Microsoft specializing in Office client interoperability and the Open XML file formats confirmed that version 1.0 of the Open XML Format SDK "will definitely be 100% compliant with the final ISO/IEC 29500 spec, including the changes accepted at the BRM"
To date they have not managed to comply fully with their own format specification and no other company has a fully compatible version either, that I know of.
So where is the documentation for the docx format Word creates today? Where is the fully compliant, BSD licensed reference implementation for Linux that OO can copy and paste code from? I think your argument pretty much went down the crapper at this point.
The whole reason they are doing the ODF thing is pressure from the EU with regards to anti-trust. Part of that pressure is that "You have to do it according to the standard."
So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.
All the other ODF stuff I've seen is open source. As with most open source, they borrow heavily form other open source projects. In the case of ODF, the modus operandi seems to be "Do what Open Office does." Ok that's great, but again not an option for MS. They can't take OOs code...
They already own BSD licensed code that works on MS Office. Next argument please!
Basically the ODF spec isn't clear and precise.
But it's clear an precise enough that it worked for everyone else and there are multiple working open source implementations, one of which they can literally copy and paste from and which they helped fund the creation of and probably have full rights to it even if it wasn't BSD licensed. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly either.
Then there are cases where the popular ODF implementations aren't compliant with the spec.
Example please.
More or less it looks like the ODF alliance needs to shut up, and write a better standard.
They already did. MS doesn't want a standard for interoperability. They are simply looking for any way they can be compliant but still be incompatible.
Everything has to be specified precisely.
Not really, that's what reference implementations are for. If you have any doubt about how to handle this, see the reference implementations and do it that way.
The only argument you made that has any legs is the first one regarding compliance with the spec, but only if you assume ignorance of the law (I assume you perhaps aren't that familiar with antitrust law). I assure you, while it may at times appear that all of MS's lawyers have never heard of antitrust law, that is not the case in reality.
By that token, then, OO's poor support of Microsoft formats is also OO's fault. Which was my original point earlier in the thread.
Really, where is the fully documented spec for docx? Where is the open source reference implementation of MSWord? Where is the BSD licensed version of Word formats on Linux that they can just copy and paste?
When your format is not open and documented and you don't implement it in an open source reference it is a hell of a lot harder to be compatible and that is absolutely MSs fault and their legal liability. Your point is excessively flawed.
If the standard is strict like other open standards, and they still fail to be compatiable[sic], I wouldn't "apologize" for them.
Please. The standard is just fine for any honest company trying to make a product that works. It just wasn't written as an ironclad legal contract to keep MS from playing dumb and intentionally breaking compatibility.
Actually, if you read another comment on this article, you'd see that other applications actually didn't handle the standard all that well like you claim.
Other comments? I don't have to because I actually bothered to read about the topic before discussing it. There is one other compatibility problem among the programs tested and it is because one of the programs is using the newer version of the spec. Saving from OO as ODF 1.1 is compatible. Thats completely different from being incompatible with every other program implementing the same version of the spec.
"Free code". You do realize that many of those "free" code samples are licensed that would require Microsoft to open source Office or portions of Office.
Please educate yourself before trying to argue. There is a working plug-in for MSOffice licensed under the BSD license so MS can simply copy and paste if they want. They've done it before with BSD code.
This is about a standard that was weak and failed to state everything clearly.
Bullcrap. This is about a standard that is fine for any honest company and about one company intentionally trying to break things to harm competition.
Asking any company to follow it is insane.
Yeah, except nobody else had any real problems including small hobbyist groups. Believing your crap is insane. In fact, your position is so unbelievable, I strongly suspect you're an astroturfer. You have a history of all of 13 comments, almost all of which are defending Microsoft. You're either a paid shill or you really drank to kool-aid.
ODF 1.1 was a very simple standard to follow. It was only one page. In fact, it's only one sentence: "Do whatever OpenOffice does." Is that your idea of a "reference implementation"?
If that was the case, sure since OO is open source and well documented code. That isn't that case though. It's much better to simply code to the standards and look at one of the several interoperable open source implementations when there is question about what to do. And, or course, when you have a working version you should test it for interoperability with the existing implementations, or at least the working implementation for your program, already in use, which you helped to fund.
So, when MS Office SP2 implements ODF 1.1 with MathML to the letter and OpenOffice cannot read it because of a bug in OpenOffice, who is to blame?
If it is a bug in OpenOffice they are to blame, assuming MS tested and tried to be compliant and interoperable. If, however, OO is compliant and MS is complaint and MS manages to create a compliant solution which does not work with all the other existing implementations, which all work with one another... yeah that's MS's fault.
Oh, right, you think that MS should have followed OpenOffice's bug, not the ODF spec.
Are you trying to imply that MS had to break the standard to work with OO and all the other implementations?
How about all of the implementation bugs between OpenOffice and other non-MS ODF suites?
There is only one of those that I know of, which is a problem with OO writing files using the 1.2 version of ODF by default and the program in question not handling it gracefully enough. MS, on the other hand is incompatible with every other implementation.
Fix your fucking spec or shut the fuck up.
If you're going to be profane at least have some guts worm. Anonymous coward indeed.
For a commercial vendor, GPL licensed code is not "open" or "available" at all.
No, but BSD licensed code is and MS has already incorporated BSD code into several of their important products (TCP/IP stack for Windows for example). There exists a BSD licensed plug-in for MSOffice which MS helped to fund the creation of, but they somehow managed to make their new implementation incompatible with that plug-in and every other implementation.
They have to code it to the spec, and code to the spec they did.
Excepting, of course, that complying with the spec does not mean crap when it comes to antitrust law. Complying with the letter of the spec while still being incompatible with every competitor when such compliance is not difficult, is still leveraging their monopoly influence to harm competition and artificially break competing products... but then when did MS ever have scruples about breaking antitrust law.
How is it their fault that the spec is busted?
They broke the spec. They didn't test to make sure they are compatible. They failed at a task even small hobbyist projects managed. They did so in a way that harms competition because they are so dominant in that market. That is 100% their fault.
To me, this is all whining by the anti-Microsoft folks. When Microsoft supports ODF 1.2, and if they goof up, then complain.
At which point you'll still be apologizing for them and say we should wait till 1.3 to complain?
ODF 1.1 was to[sic] vague and to somehow blame Microsoft because they followed a poorly written spec...
Yeah it was so vague every other company managed to implement it just fine, including Microsoft in the plug-in they hired someone to write and whose code is BSD licensed so they could have just copied and pasted, since it was already working with MSOffice as a plug in. I have this bridge you might be interested in Brooklyn.
The blame still rests on the ODF standards.
Bullshit! There are multiple reference implementations and free code available and even small hobbyist projects had no problem. Even MS is not that incompetent. Their failure to insure their product worked with all the other products out there that work fine is inexcusable and any judge who buys your crap is an idiot. This is clearly an antitrust violation. Hopefully MS won't be able to settle their way out of a conviction this time.
So, it's lazier to load up & store something you don't recognize, than to ignore it?
They don't ignore it, they reference the last value then strip out the formula information from files on import.
Microsoft followed the ODF specification to the letter
Are you paid to astroturf? Thy did not follow it to the letter and they ignored the reference implementations and if they tested for compatibility like everyone else they did so to make sure things would not work. Given their market share, that's criminal.
Although nobody is really surprised that Microsoft has made their software comply with the letter of the law and not the spirit, is this really a big issue?
First, they didn't comply with the letter of the law. This is clearly a violation of antitrust law. Second, they didn't comply with the letter of the spec, both failing to implement it properly and going out of their way to not implement features they already had working code for and ignoring both reference implementations.
If, as the summary says, the marketplace is demanding a grand interoperability between software products, then we might see the rapid uptake of OOO in the near future.
We might or we might not because monopoly influence on several markets allows Microsoft to undermine and break the normal operation of the free market system by violating antitrust law. In doing so they hurt competitors, consumers, and slow innovation.
Failing that, if nobody switches, then the market has spoken loud and clear, Nobody cares.
Yeah and the market spoke and nobody wanted answering machines, speed dial, or to own instead of rent a telephone while AT&T had a monopoly on phone service. The free market cannot operate and determine the best products at the best price when undermined by abuse. That's why it is illegal.
Honestly, the single most productive thing you could do to ensure the rapid uptake of open standards would be to make openoffice.org an amazing product. Put all of your time and effort into making it clearly superior, and at that point everyone will use an ODF by default.
When faced with a monopoly, having the better product does not mean you win in the market. Clearly superior products can and do lose because of artificial problems introduced to them; artificial problems like being unable to open most ODF files which were made intentionally incompatible by a company with monopoly influence on the market.
Users will not learn because users don't care. No matter how much information you give people, no matter how much code signing you do - users will do whatever they have to do to get something they believe they want to work.
With signing and a well crafted system of sandboxing we end up with users basically no longer ever supplying their passwords except in very unusual situations. If something asks for a password it will be to expand an ACL, not to have general admin permission. This means messages will be specific, like "this program is from an untrusted source would like to read your personal files" or "this program is from an untrusted source and would like to have complete, irrevocable control of your computer". Because in most cases trojans will not be able to tell if they are sandboxed or to what extent, they can be given dummy data so they will run or not, regardless if given permission. How many times will the average user try to run software have it fail and ask for complete control of the computer, then fail to work again before users stop bothering to try the second step accompanied by a strong warning?
Add onto this system a anti-virus style feed greylist, and it will be an incredibly rare instance where a user is asked when malware is not identified immediately as such.
We'll always have to allow unsigned, untrusted apps to run in some circumstances
Some users will, but many will not. Ever larger numbers of applications on OS X are coming signed nowadays and Apple has only begun implementing features that place untrusted applications at a usability disadvantage. It is quite likely within a few years the average user will never run unsigned software except in the case where someone is trying to exploit them.
And the user will happily click and enter their password or do a jig or whatever to allow those trojans to run.
Again, I disagree. Right now users are conditioned to go through steps to make trojans run because they have to do the same thing to get real software to run. Further, they are only given two choices, trust it or don't and they are given no feedback on what the software is actually doing. OS's can do a much better job of providing granular security options, good security options, and providing information and control. Very few users presented with a pop-up from the OS that says "warning application FooBar is reading your address book and sending hundreds of e-mail messages (stop it)(don't stop it)(advanced options)" are going to allow random programs that are not e-mail programs to do that.
The biggest problem we have right now are users only have the two options:
Security experts who want to run software they don't trust install VMs and run software in them in order to get a third choice, but doing so is difficult and expensive and time consuming and far beyond the capabilities of the average user. Making it easy to add the choice to run software but to not trust it will put a huge dent in the effectiveness of trojans.
It is not a panacea, but I don't think it is reasonable to give users a choice of two cryptic and poor options and then blame them for their choices. Give them good options, then blame the few who still make poor choices. Fix the systems first, then work on educating people when it is a reasonable task.