The development model that Microsoft uses, even for a commercial closed-source development model, is in no way the best. However, this could be forgiven if they released their products after they had squashed any bugs that they knew about. In this case, however, they sent the product to their distributors 3 months before it was scheduled to be released to the general public. This is time that could have been spent squashing these bugs and making the system more efficient.
Hmmm, last I checked Linux wasn't translated into 20+ different languages and released internationally on the same date. The argument that the 3 months lead time between the time that MS RTM'd Win2K and it's retail availability next week is a bit weak to me. If you're an international company that wants to ship the exact same product in almost all your markets on the same date, you're going to need some lead time for translation and production efforts. When Linux can accomplish the same, we'll have an argument on equal footing.
At the same time, 65,000 "bugs" in MS terminology is not the same as "bugs" from an OSS developer standpoint. This can include everything from "When you hold the mouse button, hit shift three times and drag across the screen, the wallpaper flicks annoyingly" to "I don't like the way this wizard page looks." Some are ridiculous, many are issues that may be legitimate, but you're not going to halt production of a billion dollar product because a button doesn't resize right. Like it or not, at some point with a product the size of Win2K the managers have to draw a line in the sand "Only bugs of severity X will be fixed. The rest go into a service pack." And the closer you get to finishing, the higher you make the bar. Otherwise you'll never finish.
Actually, international corporations are still precluded from operating within the United States if they are a monopoly entity.
The most obvious example is the DeBeers corporation. They control over 90% of the world's diamond market (a worldwide monopoly), and are thus barred from selling diamonds directly in the US. They have to sell diamonds to 10-12 "preferred" vendors who then re-sell them to jewelers and retailers across the US. (which is why you see all these DeBeers diamond commercials but you've never seen a DeBeers diamond store in the US.)
A lot of discussion in the press has revolved around comparing the Microsoft trial with the break-ups of Standard Oil and AT&T (although AT&T was, technically, a voluntary measure through a consent decree). Reading through parts of the Findings of Fact, I have thought that Jackson is trying very hard to align his findings with those justifying the breakup of AT&T, including:
High barrier to entry
Economies of scale
Positive network effects
My question is how useful this comparison can take the government's case, and how closely the analogy works.
For example, the AT&T high barrier to entry was based on the plant requirements of creating a viable telephone network. One has to build and maintain telephone lines, switching stations, and other network elements to create a useful product. In terms of physicality, Microsoft creates nothing "physical" in a manufacturing sense; their entire product is basically intellectual property.
The points of positive network effects and economies of scale also correlate between the two cases, but also have substantial differences. Is the media correct to make this correlation? Do you feel that this Jackson is consciously trying to align the two cases to strengthen his final findings? Will the differences between the two be possible causes for appeal?
As a recently graduated student of CMU and a former member of both the Student Government and an employee of the Computing Services division, I can tell you the following things:
1. CMU, as a private university, has reserved the right to enter and inspect your dorm room, your computer, or any of your possessions if university public safety officials or officers believe a violation of university policy is occuring (or something like that).
2. This was NOT a random search. The Computing Services division looked for the students' computers with the highest traffic on the dorm net and targeted them specifically.
3. Most of the times the MP3 files were publicly available, or had a README which said "Password to muzak is 'mp3rockz!' or something like that. Most students had been lulled into not bothering to password protect their shares.
4. As a student, you could find a bunch of MP3s with just the passwords "mp3" "music", or something else blatantly obvious.
5. CMU students have a knack for complaining loudly about something for about 2 weeks, then stop caring (usually because a project or final is due).:)
6. This was not using administrative shares, just publicly available ones.
7. IMHO, this had to come eventually. CMU students in general are very complacent about MP3s and copyright violation. Mind you, I think the RIAA is fighting a losing battle (mp3.lycos.com comes to mind), but the students were definitely violating copyright law. And it's not up to the university to warn students before instituting punishment, students should be well aware that they are breaking the law. (Of course, technically I can't use the acronym CMU, it's been trademarked by Central Michigan University, forcing Carnegie Mellon to drop it from all their apparel and logos.:)
8. The end result? Students will password protect their MP3 files, and you'll have to know someone who knows someone to get the password anymore. As always, the strong survive, the weak are weeded out.:)
Why should this type of announcement be a surprise? It's already well known that China is the largest consumer of pirated software in the world, both commercially and in government organizations. I've heard numerous estimates that their piracy rate for software is over 90%.
Not to mention the large underground (and above ground) market in pirated US videos, DVDs, CDs, pretty much anything they can get their hands on and copy.
From a political standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Rather than take a US commercial OS (such as Microsoft), where they'd have to deal with cultural differences, a lack of control of what goes in, and have to pay billions; or else risk antagonizing large US software firms who could pressure the WTO to deny China membership. Now they can simply take a free OS with open source code, modify it to their tastes, and use it with no worries under GPL.
Don't think that this decision is not highly political in nature, especially considering the upcoming WTO meeting in Seattle, where rumors have the admission of China as a possible agenda item. Everything China does is a political statement.
The money is an investment, either in creating laws which are favorable to the contributor or in protecting the contributor from the grasping claws of the government. The less the government does, the less incentive people have to try to buy it. The bigger government gets, the more important it becomes to influence the government, and the more money will flow to politicians.
****
On this issue is an excellent book comparing the rise and decline of major societies to the behavior of their capital. Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips, compares what happens when government becomes entrenched, with its own infrastructure and society based around it. I was forced to read it for a class, but found it surprisingly insightful.
At the same time, if we removed the ability for people to buy politicans in the first place (through political donations), then we remove (or at least reduce) the influence of those donations on the political process. The problem with the current system is that it forces candidates to raise money first, then get it back later. This is bass ackwards.
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if subsidizing the whole election system might not be a better idea. Each candidate gets equal time and advertising (TV, radio, newspaper). A larger problem would be how for individuals to discuss their support of a candidate without it becoming a "donation". (i.e. - buying ads, etc.) Could we possibly just require that if you want to take out an ad for a candidate, it has to come from you? (i.e. - No ads from "Citizens for XYZ Candidate") Is this just shifting the influence around?
Most of the arguments seem to center around restricting money vs. the free flow of money. My question is more fundamental: Why are donations even required?
Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead.
Is anyone else seriously bothered by this?
Why does it need to cost, on average, close to a million dollars to become a US Rep? Close to 5 million to become a Senator? And for President? Bush has over $60 million, and we're still more than a year from the election! Don't we think this money could have better uses? And the advantage still always goes to the incumbent!
I'm not sure how I feel about public funding of all elections. It's different, but it may be a solution. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about how to remove these utterly ridiculous price tags to elected positions.
You can posture all you want on free speech and contributions. I say that as soon as you put a requirement that a candidate fund raise, you corrupt the process. The interests of the poor and the rich are not equivalent, hence the advantage always goes to the rich (or at least those who donate). That's fine in business, but what is the best candidate for creating the laws of our land should not have price tags attached to it.
Sorry, but just on the "they make too much noise" issue, this is common in all movies. It's called foley artistry, and it's probably one of the coolest jobs you can have.
For example, when a movie character walks across a hardwood floor, you hear every step along the way in crystal clear steps. In real life it's just a series of dull thuds. Foley artists add exaggerated sounds to _make_ you aware of the sounds, making it part of the movie.
This is why people slurping sodas through straws get great effects, and why keyboards clack in the day of the "quiet keys". They give the mind something else to register with what they're seeing. The fact that they can do it so well, in a room just full of, well, stuff, I think is great.
And finally, it's a movie. It's fiction. Yes, it would be great if Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible wasn't using Netscape 1.0, and when he searched for "Job" on Usenet wasn't able to find the _exact_ person he was looking for in Hollywood can certainly make efforts to be more accurate in their portrayls , but it's still fiction, people. You go to forget about your boring technocratic life, not indulge in it, remember?:)
When it comes to "competition" where a monopoly service is "forced" to compete with smaller companies who don't control the actual network being used, it might be a good idea to look at your local phone service as an example.
The "Baby Bell" companies (what are left of them) still physically control your local phone service. They are your de facto local service unless you choose otherwise, and they own and control every aspect of the physical plant required to connect your phone to the telephone network. (wiring, switches, etc.)
The FCC has mandated that ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) "unbundle" their access points from their service to CLECs (Competing Local Exchange Carriers) so that customers have a "choice".
What's happened? ILECs drag their feet allowing CLECs access to their equipment (with good reason, one malicious person can cause millions of dollars of damage in seconds), and when there is a problem, the CLEC has to schedule repairs with the ILEC! The customer gets frustrated with the lack of customer service, and switches back to the local monopoly, accomplishing nothing. This might be why the baby bells still control the local telephone market despite "competition" over the last few years.
Whoever owns your physical connection wins, period.
What does this mean for cable broadband? As long as cable companies have a legal monopoly over the physical plant of your cable connection. A more drastic, but I think, effective solution may be to do the same thing to cable company wiring what happened to AT&T, force a breakup. Seperate the ownership of the cabling from the provision of service. Allow the consumer to choose the content provider.
Obviously this is more complicated than a simple posting to/., but it's an interesting thought.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, last I checked Linux wasn't translated into 20+ different languages and released internationally on the same date. The argument that the 3 months lead time between the time that MS RTM'd Win2K and it's retail availability next week is a bit weak to me. If you're an international company that wants to ship the exact same product in almost all your markets on the same date, you're going to need some lead time for translation and production efforts. When Linux can accomplish the same, we'll have an argument on equal footing.
At the same time, 65,000 "bugs" in MS terminology is not the same as "bugs" from an OSS developer standpoint. This can include everything from "When you hold the mouse button, hit shift three times and drag across the screen, the wallpaper flicks annoyingly" to "I don't like the way this wizard page looks." Some are ridiculous, many are issues that may be legitimate, but you're not going to halt production of a billion dollar product because a button doesn't resize right. Like it or not, at some point with a product the size of Win2K the managers have to draw a line in the sand "Only bugs of severity X will be fixed. The rest go into a service pack." And the closer you get to finishing, the higher you make the bar. Otherwise you'll never finish.
Gates will remain as Chairman of the Board, not President
Ballmer is now President and CEO
The most obvious example is the DeBeers corporation. They control over 90% of the world's diamond market (a worldwide monopoly), and are thus barred from selling diamonds directly in the US. They have to sell diamonds to 10-12 "preferred" vendors who then re-sell them to jewelers and retailers across the US. (which is why you see all these DeBeers diamond commercials but you've never seen a DeBeers diamond store in the US.)
High barrier to entry
Economies of scale
Positive network effects
My question is how useful this comparison can take the government's case, and how closely the analogy works.
For example, the AT&T high barrier to entry was based on the plant requirements of creating a viable telephone network. One has to build and maintain telephone lines, switching stations, and other network elements to create a useful product. In terms of physicality, Microsoft creates nothing "physical" in a manufacturing sense; their entire product is basically intellectual property.
The points of positive network effects and economies of scale also correlate between the two cases, but also have substantial differences. Is the media correct to make this correlation? Do you feel that this Jackson is consciously trying to align the two cases to strengthen his final findings? Will the differences between the two be possible causes for appeal?
1. CMU, as a private university, has reserved the right to enter and inspect your dorm room, your computer, or any of your possessions if university public safety officials or officers believe a violation of university policy is occuring (or something like that).
2. This was NOT a random search. The Computing Services division looked for the students' computers with the highest traffic on the dorm net and targeted them specifically.
3. Most of the times the MP3 files were publicly available, or had a README which said "Password to muzak is 'mp3rockz!' or something like that. Most students had been lulled into not bothering to password protect their shares.
4. As a student, you could find a bunch of MP3s with just the passwords "mp3" "music", or something else blatantly obvious.
5. CMU students have a knack for complaining loudly about something for about 2 weeks, then stop caring (usually because a project or final is due). :)
6. This was not using administrative shares, just publicly available ones.
7. IMHO, this had to come eventually. CMU students in general are very complacent about MP3s and copyright violation. Mind you, I think the RIAA is fighting a losing battle (mp3.lycos.com comes to mind), but the students were definitely violating copyright law. And it's not up to the university to warn students before instituting punishment, students should be well aware that they are breaking the law. (Of course, technically I can't use the acronym CMU, it's been trademarked by Central Michigan University, forcing Carnegie Mellon to drop it from all their apparel and logos. :)
8. The end result? Students will password protect their MP3 files, and you'll have to know someone who knows someone to get the password anymore. As always, the strong survive, the weak are weeded out. :)
Not to mention the large underground (and above ground) market in pirated US videos, DVDs, CDs, pretty much anything they can get their hands on and copy.
From a political standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Rather than take a US commercial OS (such as Microsoft), where they'd have to deal with cultural differences, a lack of control of what goes in, and have to pay billions; or else risk antagonizing large US software firms who could pressure the WTO to deny China membership. Now they can simply take a free OS with open source code, modify it to their tastes, and use it with no worries under GPL.
Don't think that this decision is not highly political in nature, especially considering the upcoming WTO meeting in Seattle, where rumors have the admission of China as a possible agenda item. Everything China does is a political statement.
****
On this issue is an excellent book comparing the rise and decline of major societies to the behavior of their capital. Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips, compares what happens when government becomes entrenched, with its own infrastructure and society based around it. I was forced to read it for a class, but found it surprisingly insightful.
At the same time, if we removed the ability for people to buy politicans in the first place (through political donations), then we remove (or at least reduce) the influence of those donations on the political process. The problem with the current system is that it forces candidates to raise money first, then get it back later. This is bass ackwards.
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if subsidizing the whole election system might not be a better idea. Each candidate gets equal time and advertising (TV, radio, newspaper). A larger problem would be how for individuals to discuss their support of a candidate without it becoming a "donation". (i.e. - buying ads, etc.) Could we possibly just require that if you want to take out an ad for a candidate, it has to come from you? (i.e. - No ads from "Citizens for XYZ Candidate") Is this just shifting the influence around?
Anyone else have any good ideas?
Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead.
Is anyone else seriously bothered by this?
Why does it need to cost, on average, close to a million dollars to become a US Rep? Close to 5 million to become a Senator? And for President? Bush has over $60 million, and we're still more than a year from the election! Don't we think this money could have better uses? And the advantage still always goes to the incumbent!
I'm not sure how I feel about public funding of all elections. It's different, but it may be a solution. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about how to remove these utterly ridiculous price tags to elected positions.
You can posture all you want on free speech and contributions. I say that as soon as you put a requirement that a candidate fund raise, you corrupt the process. The interests of the poor and the rich are not equivalent, hence the advantage always goes to the rich (or at least those who donate). That's fine in business, but what is the best candidate for creating the laws of our land should not have price tags attached to it.
For example, when a movie character walks across a hardwood floor, you hear every step along the way in crystal clear steps. In real life it's just a series of dull thuds. Foley artists add exaggerated sounds to _make_ you aware of the sounds, making it part of the movie.
This is why people slurping sodas through straws get great effects, and why keyboards clack in the day of the "quiet keys". They give the mind something else to register with what they're seeing. The fact that they can do it so well, in a room just full of, well, stuff, I think is great.
And finally, it's a movie. It's fiction. Yes, it would be great if Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible wasn't using Netscape 1.0, and when he searched for "Job" on Usenet wasn't able to find the _exact_ person he was looking for in Hollywood can certainly make efforts to be more accurate in their portrayls , but it's still fiction, people. You go to forget about your boring technocratic life, not indulge in it, remember? :)
The "Baby Bell" companies (what are left of them) still physically control your local phone service. They are your de facto local service unless you choose otherwise, and they own and control every aspect of the physical plant required to connect your phone to the telephone network. (wiring, switches, etc.)
The FCC has mandated that ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) "unbundle" their access points from their service to CLECs (Competing Local Exchange Carriers) so that customers have a "choice".
What's happened? ILECs drag their feet allowing CLECs access to their equipment (with good reason, one malicious person can cause millions of dollars of damage in seconds), and when there is a problem, the CLEC has to schedule repairs with the ILEC! The customer gets frustrated with the lack of customer service, and switches back to the local monopoly, accomplishing nothing. This might be why the baby bells still control the local telephone market despite "competition" over the last few years.
Whoever owns your physical connection wins, period.
What does this mean for cable broadband? As long as cable companies have a legal monopoly over the physical plant of your cable connection. A more drastic, but I think, effective solution may be to do the same thing to cable company wiring what happened to AT&T, force a breakup. Seperate the ownership of the cabling from the provision of service. Allow the consumer to choose the content provider.
Obviously this is more complicated than a simple posting to /., but it's an interesting thought. :)