They are setting up Golden Parachutes
on
SCO Layoffs Begin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You have to be familiar with "Utah County Ethics": money made by any means is ethical.
They are not just hiding the names, they want the compensation packages kept secret. Now Daryl and his cronies can place whatever cash the company has remaining into their parachutes before bailing, and the creditors (and public) will never hear a word about it, and that cash will be "off the table" for creditors to grab.
Nobody goes after laid-off employees. How stupid do they think the judge is? Lots of people lost lots of money at Enron, but nobody attacked laid-off employees.
It's just a smoke screen so they can "take the money and run". I hope the Judge can see through this, and tells SCO that he'll look into such anonymity on a case-by-case basis for each employee laid off: low level employees w/ reasonable compensation can be kept private... lavish parachutes for the execs will be hung in public.
Re:Now SCO can focus on it's other lawsuit
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
So what did the judge say SCO bought from Novell?
I saw there were summary judgments for and against SCO, but not the judgements. Does SCO have ANY wiggle room left?
Interesting that they don't include VoIP in there "disallowed uses". I run Skype atop EVDO on my Verizon/Audiovox XV6700 ("Apache" version). Given the $20 per year for unlimited SkypeIn (which is also limited) across the US, plus $20/yr for a Skype phone number, and everybody in Eurpope has Skype, I always assure that any call I send/recieve is free (and doesn't eat into my cell-phone minutes). I also forward my Verizon phone to my Skype phone, as voicemail in Skype is so much easier to use.
I've been w/ Verizon for a few years... my original agreement had no data clauses whatsoever (they didn't have a data service back then), and they've not provided me any new agreements.
I bought my XV8600 new off Ebay for $180 (Verizon would have sold it for $300+2yr contract). Initially, I didn't even turn the data on... just changed the SIM ID of my existing account. Once I convinced my boss to pay for it, I had them (via phone call) turn on the data, and all they said was "unlimited"... they didn't have me even browse through any additional agreements. They just switched it on and started billing. There is, of course, the standard agreement that the agreement can be changed by Verizon at any time and w/o notice.
Given that Sprint is $15 a month for unlimited EVDO, I wonder if they have similar clauses?
I also worry about Verizon not switching to GSM... their phone system is going to get more antiquated over time.
I've been recieving weekly urges to comment from MS's FIN lobby...
Update: Settlement News; Public can Comment in Antitrust Matter; Class-Actions
Suit Returns to Litigation; Deadline Nears for Public Comment on
Antitrust Settlement
The Tunney Act review period, during which the Department of Justice seeks
public comment on its proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft,
closes Monday, January 28. The settlement is not guaranteed until after the
review ends and the District Court determines whether the settlement is indeed
in the public interest.
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties
involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Still, while
consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them and the American
economy, and overwhelmingly want to move beyond this litigation, nine states
have refused to join the settlement. Some, including Utah Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, are urging
citizens via email or Web site to submit their comments to the DoJ during
the Tunney review period.
While Microsoft commends these public officials for involving
citizens in a decision that will affect them so profoundly, your voice is
more important now than ever before to ensure that the DoJ hears the full
spectrum of opinion on this matter. Concerned citizens already have begun
submitting their comments about whether the Microsoft case should be settled
or further litigated.
The Department of Justice will take all public comments and viewpoints
and include them in a report for the District Court to consider. Please send
your comments directly to the Department of Justice via email or fax no later
than January 28th.
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today to ensure
your voice is heard.
Email:
mailto:microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
.
In the Subject line of the e-mail,
type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act review
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.
Class-action Lawsuit Returns to Litigation
Friday, January 11, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick
Motz rejected a settlement that would have resolved more than 100
private class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in the wake of the 1999
decision issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the trial court phase
of the federal antitrust lawsuit. Under the proposal?s terms, Microsoft would
have given disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in funding, software,
services and training, and around 1 million Windows licenses for renovated
PCs.
Microsoft, who sought input from educators on specific terms of the agreement,
will review the court?s opinion
and at the same time move forward with the next steps in the litigation while
we continue to look for reasonable ways to resolve the matter.
For more information on the class-action lawsuits, go to the Freedom to Innovate
Web site at
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate
.
At the end of the article, Stallman's #3 reply says:
"Microsoft can (and did recently in Kenya and Brazil) have local police enforce laws that prohibit students from studying the code, prohibit entrepreneurs starting new companies, and prohibit professionals offering their services."
I've not seen this in the news.
Can anybody provide a link to specifics concerning what MS did in Kenya and Brazil to stop acedemic study of their.doc format?
>...this sounds much less painful and involved than various homebrewed TiVO upgrades...
It doesn't take 10 minutes to upgrade (add a second hard disk) to a TiVo. What's so painful about that?
This xmas, I found five 20-hour TiVo's at Wallmart for $129 each, added $100 40GB drives (making them 72-hour). They made excellent xmas gifts, and they don't require much work at all.
The problem is, browsers in Linux must masquerade as IE on MS/Apple in order to be allowed to render content.
I exclusively surf from Linux desktops (I don't do Windows at all), but I have all my ID strings changed to indicate that I'm running IE on NT because many sites won't allow access to non-IE browsers and/or non MS/Apple OSes.
>Put Windows 2000 on the machine and run netmeeting.
You may not want to limit yourself so dramatically...
Note that MS netmeeting has explicitly stopped support for all open standard
codec protocols. This is another attempt to lock out compatibility with
Open Source software. MS has done their best to hide that they ever
supported any open standard protocols, but you can still
get support for an open standard netmeeting codec
(if you need to interoperate with folks using netmeeting).
The project mentioned in this article sounds like it's trying to solve a
specific videoconferencing problem, and not be a generic desktop solution.
In that case, you definitely don't want the excess MS baggage: you're
getting the whole elephant when all you need is the tail; linux is much easier
to tailor to suit a specific need. Compound that with the high pricetag
of W2K and the limited budget, and Windows becomes very unattractive.
WebBriefing is a closed source project for Linux. I have found
that it complements GnomeMeeting very well in that each has functionality
missing in the other. WebBriefing seems to have
dropped off the face of the earth
, but I could still find the
RPM
.
Also, realize that GnomeMeeting relies on
PWLib. It's V4L compatibility stems from this. I remember
going through the source once and seeing the limited compatibility... you
might want to do the same. I don't know what project is in control
of this library, but that might be a good place to ask about compatibility.
The
V4L mailing list
is also a good resource.
Yup. While there were many systems available at the time, the BIOS personalized and made proprietary the mainboard. The other boards available were not 100% compatible, until the BIOS was reverse engineered. Try running DOS software on an S-100... it doesn't work.
While a BIOS is simple to reverse engineer when compared to a CPU or an OS, it was not a trivial task.
The history is well known and well documented throughout the computer industry: IBM thought it could control the systems sales by holding the BIOS proprietary. Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and ended IBM's lock on the PC hardware, and ignited the PC hardware revolution from which Intel and MS have obtained their monopolies.
IBM outsourced the CPU from Intel, the OS from MS, but they could control all systems sales by holding the BIOS as their IP. That was their secret weapon to control the market, and it blew up in their face when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS (although, Gates seems to be taking credit for that, now).
Reverse engineering the BIOS ignited the PC hardware revolution. With this single event, anybody could make motherboards and adapters that were compatible with the IBM PC. The PC hardware competition has not been a proble since.
The OS and CPU were the only proprietary elements left atop an open platform. Both companies still abuse that monopoly position.
What Gate's is saying is that he invented Open Source by opening the PC bios; which started the PC hardware revolution.
Until this admission, Compaq had been credited with clean-room reverse-engineering the PC bios. IBM had outsourced the CPU and OS thinking that control over the proprietary BIOS gave them comntrol over manufacture of the system.
Since Gates signed many NDA's with IBM, I wonder if this admission might get him into any trouble.
Anyway, a more complete quote:
"really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there." -- Bill Gates
>going to force the breakup of Microsoft are just that.
I didn't say "breakup"... there are other ways to introduce competition to software, and the appellate court explicitly forbid "breakup". Re-read the comment, and try again.
by emphasizing "middleware" they forgot that MS has new platforms upon which to leverage their monopoly.
Now that IE is ubiquitous, they can leverage the content rendered (i.e..NET service apps), like they leveraged their OS to favor their apps.
In talking with the AG office of Utah, they said that even though the appellate court sent the "tying" issue back to the lower court, and the DOJ refused to retry that point: the remedy would reflect a solution to using their monopoly to leverage their applications atop their platforms, no matter what the platform.
I doubt the states are going to settle. The DOJ is out of the case, but the states will continue.
Try "The
Case Against Open Source" by Mathias Strasser. Note that Mathias
isn't a bad fellow. He actually runs a Linux server.
I fear most of his arguments are due to listening to RMS too much (I
have great respect for genius, just a problem with his views in public).
They don't reflect Open Source, more the FSF saying "all software must
be mandated/forced open".
But, the valid case against Open Source is (realize I _AM_ a proponent,
it's just good to know the negatives):
Suppose I tried to sell a customer a desktop Linux operating system
and distribution.
The first consumer question is: is it compatible with MS applications?
The answer is "of course not". While Linux has many "Office" applications,
compatibility with a proprietary protocol or format is a moving target,
compatibility can't ever be guaranteed by anyone, and any competition is
always one step behind, because MS changes their proprietary "standards"
at will. As long as consumer's demand proprietary standards, their
can be no real standards nor competition.
(It's very tough, but not insurmountable to overcome proprietary standards.)
Then, the consumer asks: I want to watch my DVD's... can Linux do that?
The answer is "yes... but it's illegal". No distribution can install
the necessary DeCSS code, or the folks who sell the distribution would
be charged with a criminal offense under the DMCA. Only those companies
approved by the MPAA can legally sell the software for watching DVD's,
and they aren't allowing any Open Source projects to do it. But you
can go off shore (France) to get DVD
viewing programs; but realize that software is illegal to possess in
the states. Note that you bought or rented the DVD legally -- they're just
trying to control the applications that allow you to watch it. The
legislators decided that they couldn't stop those illegally distributing
copyrighted material, so they wrote laws that make it criminal to write
programs that compete with programs that handle copyrighted material.
When Open Source gets beyond proprietary standards, laws benefiting
those with the proprietary lock-in kick in to help maintain monopolies
and proprietary standards.
So, the customer asks: you mean to be compatible with Windows I have
to use illegal "hacker" software.
The answer is, in the states, "yes".
As long as the answer is "yes", no Open Source distribution can be a
legitimate contender for the desktop.
I'm currently working with a group of folks trying to start an Open Source lobby (http://opensourcelobby.org).
One big debate: How do we present ourselves to lawmakers?
One faction is pushing for, what I refer to as, "pablum": simplistic sweet anecdotes your grandmother could understand.
I'm of the ilk that would rather dump arguments and facts, like my acerbic http://home.graffiti.net/orrinhatch/IPIdiots.html diatribe. [side note: I actually noticed that I recieved more detailed replies when I wrote them a letter referring to the "Damn DMCA"; where swearing is supposed to be bad in such communications.]
What is the proper method of convincing lawmakers?
>Calling the GNU/Linux system just "Linux" leads to confusion. Making consistent distinctions between GNU/Linux, the operating system, and Linux, the kernel, clears up the confusion.
I think Stallman is jealous that he's not the Open Source poster boy. I wonder if he understands why?
I remember one patch to Windows, sometime between '89 and '94, that caused all applications compiled with Borland's C compiler to crash. Every app vendor using Borland's C had to rush out updates to their customers. Borland was the most popular browser before that time; MSC took over soon after. I remember telling my boss: "you must use a MS compiler atop an MS OS".
I remember MSVC being able to debug windowed apps in a VM... which made it the best compiler (in my view) for windowed apps (no more locking up your system trying to debug). Trouble is, there were no published interfaces for making a VM... only MS compilers could do it.
I remember when IE came out and allowed you to make a web page your Windows background (and periodically update) -- Netscape couldn't do that -- it wasn't a published API.
Etc... I can't believe you were there and missed the tactics.
It isn't hard to prove that MS leverages their proprietary knowledge of the OS to make special hooks for their applications and break others applications.
The appelate court said that "MS's tying was inherant in their business practices, but not in their products" -- which is B.S.: their applications owe their monopoly to the ability to leverage their ubiquitous proprietary OS in their applications favor.
The solution is an Open Source standard API, like WINE, that can be used to deterministacally measure their applications compliance with their API.
Of course, WINE is just a start. All MS API's must be emulated, with MS's help in making the emulation correct. Furthermore, it must be extended to any place where MS has created a "platform" to leverage applications.
For example, they leveraged their OS to destroy browser competition and put IE on top. Now, IE is itself a platform for.NET, which again can be used to leverage their planned services into a monopoly. Those interfaces must also be externally emulatable.
His timing was often bad. His ideas were great, the execution was often poor.
He had a Java version of Draw 3 years ago... now they're going to do it all over again with.NET.
Burney is the idiot. He could have partnered with an OEM like Dell/Compaq to create an office-oriented distribution with one-stop service; competing with MS using the same rules MS plays with.
Burney did his infamous "matchbox assessment" (that's CEO speak for "I don't like the idea, let's kill it quickly") of Linux, and Corel's Linux momentum and future died.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be familiar with "Utah County Ethics": money made by any means is ethical.
They are not just hiding the names, they want the compensation packages kept secret. Now Daryl and his cronies can place whatever cash the company has remaining into their parachutes before bailing, and the creditors (and public) will never hear a word about it, and that cash will be "off the table" for creditors to grab.
Nobody goes after laid-off employees. How stupid do they think the judge is? Lots of people lost lots of money at Enron, but nobody attacked laid-off employees.
It's just a smoke screen so they can "take the money and run". I hope the Judge can see through this, and tells SCO that he'll look into such anonymity on a case-by-case basis for each employee laid off: low level employees w/ reasonable compensation can be kept private... lavish parachutes for the execs will be hung in public.
So what did the judge say SCO bought from Novell?
I saw there were summary judgments for and against SCO, but not the judgements. Does SCO have ANY wiggle room left?
Interesting that they don't include VoIP in there "disallowed uses". I run Skype atop EVDO on my Verizon/Audiovox XV6700 ("Apache" version). Given the $20 per year for unlimited SkypeIn (which is also limited) across the US, plus $20/yr for a Skype phone number, and everybody in Eurpope has Skype, I always assure that any call I send/recieve is free (and doesn't eat into my cell-phone minutes). I also forward my Verizon phone to my Skype phone, as voicemail in Skype is so much easier to use.
I've been w/ Verizon for a few years... my original agreement had no data clauses whatsoever (they didn't have a data service back then), and they've not provided me any new agreements.
I bought my XV8600 new off Ebay for $180 (Verizon would have sold it for $300+2yr contract). Initially, I didn't even turn the data on... just changed the SIM ID of my existing account. Once I convinced my boss to pay for it, I had them (via phone call) turn on the data, and all they said was "unlimited"... they didn't have me even browse through any additional agreements. They just switched it on and started billing. There is, of course, the standard agreement that the agreement can be changed by Verizon at any time and w/o notice.
Given that Sprint is $15 a month for unlimited EVDO, I wonder if they have similar clauses?
I also worry about Verizon not switching to GSM... their phone system is going to get more antiquated over time.
>Have you sent email to the DOJ about this?
;)
I make sure my state's AG gets a copy of most everything they send.
Given that they mention his efforts specifically, it looks like everybody has a mole in each other's camp
---
I've been recieving weekly urges to comment from MS's FIN lobby...
.
Update: Settlement News; Public can Comment in Antitrust Matter; Class-Actions Suit Returns to Litigation; Deadline Nears for Public Comment on Antitrust Settlement
The Tunney Act review period, during which the Department of Justice seeks public comment on its proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft, closes Monday, January 28. The settlement is not guaranteed until after the review ends and the District Court determines whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest.
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Still, while consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them and the American economy, and overwhelmingly want to move beyond this litigation, nine states have refused to join the settlement. Some, including Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, are urging citizens via email or Web site to submit their comments to the DoJ during the Tunney review period. While Microsoft commends these public officials for involving citizens in a decision that will affect them so profoundly, your voice is more important now than ever before to ensure that the DoJ hears the full spectrum of opinion on this matter. Concerned citizens already have begun submitting their comments about whether the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. The Department of Justice will take all public comments and viewpoints and include them in a report for the District Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today to ensure your voice is heard. Email: mailto:microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov . In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act review period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.
Class-action Lawsuit Returns to Litigation
Friday, January 11, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick Motz rejected a settlement that would have resolved more than 100 private class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in the wake of the 1999 decision issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the trial court phase of the federal antitrust lawsuit. Under the proposal?s terms, Microsoft would have given disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and training, and around 1 million Windows licenses for renovated PCs.
Microsoft, who sought input from educators on specific terms of the agreement, will review the court?s opinion and at the same time move forward with the next steps in the litigation while we continue to look for reasonable ways to resolve the matter.
For more information on the class-action lawsuits, go to the Freedom to Innovate Web site at www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate .
At the end of the article, Stallman's #3 reply says:
.doc format?
"Microsoft can (and did recently in Kenya and Brazil) have local police enforce laws that prohibit students from studying the code, prohibit entrepreneurs starting new companies, and prohibit professionals offering their services."
I've not seen this in the news.
Can anybody provide a link to specifics concerning what MS did in Kenya and Brazil to stop acedemic study of their
----
>...this sounds much less painful and involved than various homebrewed TiVO upgrades...
It doesn't take 10 minutes to upgrade (add a second hard disk) to a TiVo. What's so painful about that?
This xmas, I found five 20-hour TiVo's at Wallmart for $129 each, added $100 40GB drives (making them 72-hour). They made excellent xmas gifts, and they don't require much work at all.
The problem is, browsers in Linux must masquerade as IE on MS/Apple in order to be allowed to render content.
I exclusively surf from Linux desktops (I don't do Windows at all), but I have all my ID strings changed to indicate that I'm running IE on NT because many sites won't allow access to non-IE browsers and/or non MS/Apple OSes.
Could sombody provide a URL?
>Put Windows 2000 on the machine and run netmeeting.
You may not want to limit yourself so dramatically...
Note that MS netmeeting has explicitly stopped support for all open standard codec protocols. This is another attempt to lock out compatibility with Open Source software. MS has done their best to hide that they ever supported any open standard protocols, but you can still get support for an open standard netmeeting codec (if you need to interoperate with folks using netmeeting).
The project mentioned in this article sounds like it's trying to solve a specific videoconferencing problem, and not be a generic desktop solution. In that case, you definitely don't want the excess MS baggage: you're getting the whole elephant when all you need is the tail; linux is much easier to tailor to suit a specific need. Compound that with the high pricetag of W2K and the limited budget, and Windows becomes very unattractive.
WebBriefing is a closed source project for Linux. I have found that it complements GnomeMeeting very well in that each has functionality missing in the other. WebBriefing seems to have dropped off the face of the earth , but I could still find the RPM .
Also, realize that GnomeMeeting relies on PWLib. It's V4L compatibility stems from this. I remember going through the source once and seeing the limited compatibility... you might want to do the same. I don't know what project is in control of this library, but that might be a good place to ask about compatibility. The V4L mailing list is also a good resource.
> If by "DOS Software" you meant CP/M software
I think the difference can be understood in the history of two men:
Gary Kildall, writer of CP/M, committed suicide.
Bill Gates, buyer of QDOS, is now the richest man in the world.
IBM PC platform compatibility was very important, and made a big difference, as shown in the lives of these two men.
----
>Nope
Yup. While there were many systems available at the time, the BIOS personalized and made proprietary the mainboard. The other boards available were not 100% compatible, until the BIOS was reverse engineered. Try running DOS software on an S-100... it doesn't work.
While a BIOS is simple to reverse engineer when compared to a CPU or an OS, it was not a trivial task.
The history is well known and well documented throughout the computer industry: IBM thought it could control the systems sales by holding the BIOS proprietary. Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and ended IBM's lock on the PC hardware, and ignited the PC hardware revolution from which Intel and MS have obtained their monopolies.
>IBM didn't even invent the Intel-based 'clone'.
They invented the "original".
IBM outsourced the CPU from Intel, the OS from MS, but they could control all systems sales by holding the BIOS as their IP. That was their secret weapon to control the market, and it blew up in their face when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS (although, Gates seems to be taking credit for that, now).
Reverse engineering the BIOS ignited the PC hardware revolution. With this single event, anybody could make motherboards and adapters that were compatible with the IBM PC. The PC hardware competition has not been a proble since.
The OS and CPU were the only proprietary elements left atop an open platform. Both companies still abuse that monopoly position.
What Gate's is saying is that he invented Open Source by opening the PC bios; which started the PC hardware revolution.
Until this admission, Compaq had been credited with clean-room reverse-engineering the PC bios. IBM had outsourced the CPU and OS thinking that control over the proprietary BIOS gave them comntrol over manufacture of the system.
Since Gates signed many NDA's with IBM, I wonder if this admission might get him into any trouble.
Anyway, a more complete quote:
"really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there." -- Bill Gates
>going to force the breakup of Microsoft are just that.
I didn't say "breakup"... there are other ways to introduce competition to software, and the appellate court explicitly forbid "breakup". Re-read the comment, and try again.
by emphasizing "middleware" they forgot that MS has new platforms upon which to leverage their monopoly.
.NET service apps), like they leveraged their OS to favor their apps.
Now that IE is ubiquitous, they can leverage the content rendered (i.e.
In talking with the AG office of Utah, they said that even though the appellate court sent the "tying" issue back to the lower court, and the DOJ refused to retry that point: the remedy would reflect a solution to using their monopoly to leverage their applications atop their platforms, no matter what the platform.
I doubt the states are going to settle. The DOJ is out of the case, but the states will continue.
>...how many closed WINE forks does the world need?
One that works.
Until you can _RELIABLY_ run MS and Adobe apps under Wine without MS DLL's, we don't have a story.
Every time I look at the Wine database I see marginal compatibility for the desktop apps that folks want.
I'm really hoping Wine works. I've been hoping that for about 5 years now.
I fear most of his arguments are due to listening to RMS too much (I have great respect for genius, just a problem with his views in public). They don't reflect Open Source, more the FSF saying "all software must be mandated/forced open".
But, the valid case against Open Source is (realize I _AM_ a proponent, it's just good to know the negatives):
Suppose I tried to sell a customer a desktop Linux operating system and distribution.
The first consumer question is: is it compatible with MS applications?
The answer is "of course not". While Linux has many "Office" applications, compatibility with a proprietary protocol or format is a moving target, compatibility can't ever be guaranteed by anyone, and any competition is always one step behind, because MS changes their proprietary "standards" at will. As long as consumer's demand proprietary standards, their can be no real standards nor competition.
(It's very tough, but not insurmountable to overcome proprietary standards.)
Then, the consumer asks: I want to watch my DVD's... can Linux do that?
The answer is "yes... but it's illegal". No distribution can install the necessary DeCSS code, or the folks who sell the distribution would be charged with a criminal offense under the DMCA. Only those companies approved by the MPAA can legally sell the software for watching DVD's, and they aren't allowing any Open Source projects to do it. But you can go off shore (France) to get DVD viewing programs; but realize that software is illegal to possess in the states. Note that you bought or rented the DVD legally -- they're just trying to control the applications that allow you to watch it. The legislators decided that they couldn't stop those illegally distributing copyrighted material, so they wrote laws that make it criminal to write programs that compete with programs that handle copyrighted material.
When Open Source gets beyond proprietary standards, laws benefiting those with the proprietary lock-in kick in to help maintain monopolies and proprietary standards.
So, the customer asks: you mean to be compatible with Windows I have to use illegal "hacker" software.
The answer is, in the states, "yes".
As long as the answer is "yes", no Open Source distribution can be a legitimate contender for the desktop.
I'm currently working with a group of folks trying to start an Open Source lobby (http://opensourcelobby.org).
One big debate: How do we present ourselves to lawmakers?
One faction is pushing for, what I refer to as, "pablum": simplistic sweet anecdotes your grandmother could understand.
I'm of the ilk that would rather dump arguments and facts, like my acerbic http://home.graffiti.net/orrinhatch/IPIdiots.html diatribe. [side note: I actually noticed that I recieved more detailed replies when I wrote them a letter referring to the "Damn DMCA"; where swearing is supposed to be bad in such communications.]
What is the proper method of convincing lawmakers?
>Calling the GNU/Linux system just "Linux" leads to confusion. Making consistent distinctions between GNU/Linux, the operating system, and Linux, the kernel, clears up the confusion.
I think Stallman is jealous that he's not the Open Source poster boy. I wonder if he understands why?
>I was shocked to see that the only upgrade path from Win 2000 is to the XP Professional Edition, which costs $100 more than the Home Edition.
Does anybody know the history of DOS/Windows pricing?
It seems hardware competition is fierce; greater functionality and lower prices to the point of putting memory manufacturers out of business.
I'd like to see a comparison between PC hardware and MS OS prices.
Does anybody know a link to this info?
>So where is that proof ?
I remember one patch to Windows, sometime between '89 and '94, that caused all applications compiled with Borland's C compiler to crash. Every app vendor using Borland's C had to rush out updates to their customers. Borland was the most popular browser before that time; MSC took over soon after. I remember telling my boss: "you must use a MS compiler atop an MS OS".
I remember MSVC being able to debug windowed apps in a VM... which made it the best compiler (in my view) for windowed apps (no more locking up your system trying to debug). Trouble is, there were no published interfaces for making a VM... only MS compilers could do it.
I remember when IE came out and allowed you to make a web page your Windows background (and periodically update) -- Netscape couldn't do that -- it wasn't a published API.
Etc... I can't believe you were there and missed the tactics.
It isn't hard to prove that MS leverages their proprietary knowledge of the OS to make special hooks for their applications and break others applications.
.NET, which again can be used to leverage their planned services into a monopoly. Those interfaces must also be externally emulatable.
The appelate court said that "MS's tying was inherant in their business practices, but not in their products" -- which is B.S.: their applications owe their monopoly to the ability to leverage their ubiquitous proprietary OS in their applications favor.
The solution is an Open Source standard API, like WINE, that can be used to deterministacally measure their applications compliance with their API.
Of course, WINE is just a start. All MS API's must be emulated, with MS's help in making the emulation correct. Furthermore, it must be extended to any place where MS has created a "platform" to leverage applications.
For example, they leveraged their OS to destroy browser competition and put IE on top. Now, IE is itself a platform for
Whenever I'm at at a tradeshow, the Microsoft booth is always flanked by small "Microsoft Partner" booths.
They remind me of Pilotfish, that swim in the bow wake of sharks, eating food scraps discarded by the shark. A symbiotic relationship.
If a Pilotfish becomes too large, it becomes it's feeders food. Again, an apt analogy.
Burney may find dancing with the devil currently profitable, but if he ever catches his feeders hungry eye...
>I always thought Copland was a little flakey
.NET.
His timing was often bad. His ideas were great, the execution was often poor.
He had a Java version of Draw 3 years ago... now they're going to do it all over again with
Burney is the idiot. He could have partnered with an OEM like Dell/Compaq to create an office-oriented distribution with one-stop service; competing with MS using the same rules MS plays with.
Burney did his infamous "matchbox assessment" (that's CEO speak for "I don't like the idea, let's kill it quickly") of Linux, and Corel's Linux momentum and future died.
This news merely a prolonged post mortem.