A group of state attorneys general urged a federal judge on Tuesday to hold Microsoft to a 2002 antitrust settlement another five years so that the company can’t stymie embryonic Web 2.0 rivals of its Windows operating system. According to six states – California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts – and the District of Columbia, Microsoft could use its Internet Explorer browser as a ‘chokepoint’ to block moves that might unseat Windows dominant position on the desktop.
If they had looked at any “Web 2.0” applications, they would have realized that traditional OSs have nothing to fear.
Double ironic since the technology used to develop many of them will probably Microsoft’s Silverlight…
“If they had looked at any “Web 2.0″ applications, they would have realized that traditional OSs have nothing to fear.
Double ironic since the technology used to develop many of them will probably Microsoft’s Silverlight…”
Nothing to fear!? Thats a strange term, for monopolistic abuse. You should perhaps should take a little look at how Microsoft plan on using OOXML…and I mean as a replacement to HTML etc not as an office format.
What I’m confused about is why anyone would want Monopolistic abuse. I personally would like a working capitalistic approach to the Market myself, why would *YOU* fear that.
You seem to have missed his point: if you look at Web 2.0 apps, most of them at present are utterly laughable compared to real applications on real OSes, ergo they aren’t by any realistic measure competition, thus real OSes have nothing to fear (at present). And frankly, considering the utter and complete mess of hacks that HTML+CSS+Javascript+XMLHTTPRequest is, I really don’t see that changing unless the whole thing’s utterly scrapped and redesigned sanely. Maybe they’ll get it right with “Web 3.0” but I’m not holding my breath.
I hate those “Web Operating systems”, They completely trivialize the actual work that goes into writing and designing an actual** operating system.
* Actual, meaning Unix-like
What, Windows isn’t an ‘actual’ operating system?
Nope! It’s a kids toy wrapped in fancy clothing.
Here’s what was said of Windows 95:
32-bit extensions to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can’t stand 1 bit of competition.
(that was sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell.)
“Here’s what was said of Windows 95:
32-bit extensions to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can’t stand 1 bit of competition.”
I think people forget here how *big* and successful Windows95 and how exciting it was at the time, people queued for Windows95 it was very big news, and what a step up it was for most people.
I think people also forget that there is little to nothing that differentiate it from Vista an OS 10 years later, people pretty much had the same facilities then as they do now.
Hm, if only Vista had something significantly new that Windows 95 didn’t have, like, for example, a different kernel…
There’s a new kernel for sure. But the 1st x86 32 bit processor was the 386 back in 1986 and MS released their 1st 32 bit OS for the desktop, XP Home Edition, in 2001. Who’d think MS are still in business because they’re innovative?
I think people forget here how *big* and successful Windows95 and how exciting it was at the time, people queued for Windows95 it was very big news, and what a step up it was for most people.
When you have been raised on Soviet bread queues for 70 years, even McDonald’s seems like a luxury.
People can crow about what a big success Microsoft’s got all they like, and can whine on that “people don’t run OSes, they run applications” till the cows come home: but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s Microsoft’s marketing that’s always been superior to everyone else’s; not their technology, which (with the exception of office suites) is laughable.
I think you missed the smiley:
* Actual, meaning Unix-like
I find it ironic as-well-as a little funny that one of the states in the request is California. I’m sure some MS astro-turf user will blame Apple and Linux. But this state has the economic power of more than a sizable number of EU countries combined. There must be some reasoning for the request.
haha yes
real economic power… while im sure that they do control a large number of dollars, we all know how “much” that is worth….
It’s interesting perhaps that as a proportion of income for the debt-ridden state of California, corporation tax has become a smaller slice of the pie, relative to the 1960s – perhaps they should be squeezing Mr Jobs a bit more, as a ‘quid pro quo’…;-)
We need to disallow people with crystal balls from laying down the law on what someone might do because they might be able to do it, and it won’t make them (the prognosticators) happy.
Either that, or we need to look to “Minority Report” and the author for guidance on how it’s supposed to work. Last I knew, when it came to passing some sort of sentencing on an entity, there was a maximum time stated, with perhaps time reduced due to good behavior, but when they’ve fulfilled the terms of their sentence, it isn’t lengthened.
If Microsoft does do something wrong in the future that falls under the terms of the original agreement, then bring them into the courtroom again: until then, it’s court-ordered gimme’s to the people asking for them to be whacked down.
Nearly all laws are suggestive, they exist to encourage people from thieving, murder, genocide, etc. Hell, even the 10 commandments lay down the law on what someone might do. So why do you think this company should be any different? It ignores laws.
Microsoft has done this before, and are likely to do it again. This oversight ruling will give the states an easier turn-around time for blocking Microsoft from doing something silly, because otherwise, they would sit in the courts for years as happened in the EU without any change happening.
Please, pull head from arse.
It’s a good thing for everyone that you aren’t a lawyer, and that you also aren’t clergy: you’re horribly misguided on both accounts. In both accounts, it’s laid out that for every action, there’s a consequence: in no manner does it say that “You will be punished before you commit the act that you might do.” which is where your argument falls so flat on its face, it can only be seen on a 2D screen, and if you turned it at exactly 90 degrees on-edge towards your face around either the X or Y axis, you’d be unable to see anything at all because the line wouldn’t exist (that’d require a third dimension, which in this case, is logic and knowledge of how the real world in the law and that of commandments work).
If you truly believe your logic is correct, let’s just fine you now (and possibly include jail time for reckless driving) for speeding in your car, since we know you’re going to do it sooner or later, because that’s exactly the sort of confused logic your argument believes makes sense for Microsoft in this case.
“For every action there is a consequence.” Fine words, but in this case I don’t see your point. How has Microsoft been punished? Lets see..
1) They had to give away thousands of copies of their software to schools. Result: More school accounts and more students trained to use their software. A net gain.
2) They had to rewrite contracts allowing alternative browsers to be used on OEM machines. Result: NO OEM’s switched from IE to something they would have to pay for. IE penetration in the marketplace soared even higher. Certainly a net gain.
3) They had to document system tools so competitors would be able to write compatible software. Result: After stalling for years, the documentation that has been released is still unusable by their primary competitor. Another win.
4) They had to operate under direct oversight of justice dept auditors who were to prevent further abuses. Result: MS hasn’t acted to directly squelch another competitor that way. Since they weren’t allowed to commit illegal acts in the first place that hardly counts as ‘punishment’, but call that a draw.
We know from court records that since the monopoly judgement was handed down MS has spent hundreds of millions to prevent further court decisions and delayed compliance with court decisions for years. If I knew nothing about this sordid history I might be willing to trust this company. Unfortunately it requires neither a law degree or ordainment in ministries to detect a pattern of immoral behavior and acting to avoid and diminish the consequences.
A better famous quote to use in this circumstance would be “Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.”
Lets see, MS is still a monopoly. MS is still using their dominance in Windows and Office to subsidize ventures into the video game industry, web ad placement business and others. MS is using their dominance to slander Linux. And they just lost their appeal in the EU and were convicted of being a monopoly there too. Plus they just gave up their appeal on antitrust charges somewhere in Asia. I can’t see why anyone would ever trust them again.
“MS is still using their dominance in Windows and Office to subsidize ventures into the video game industry, web ad placement business and others. MS is using their dominance to slander Linux.”
That’s all standard operating procedure for any company of any reasonable size trying to earn a profit. You should take some business classes sometime.
“That’s all standard operating procedure for any company of any reasonable size trying to earn a profit. You should take some business classes sometime.”
No company *ever* has such control. I wrote a reply involving. Media control, the high-def market, DirectX defaults, putting a PC in the living room, bundled IE but its all pointless. The thing is Microsoft controls the lowest part of the computer, and they can bundle whatever they want, and actively market against alternatives to their products. I’d like to see *one* example from you becuase I’m certain Microsoft is a pretty unique business case. The closest examples are other monopolistic software products…but those don’t have the advantage of controlling the hardware.
If Microsoft controlled the “lowest” part of the computer, wouldn’t that prevent you from installing another OS entirely?
“If Microsoft controlled the “lowest” part of the computer, wouldn’t that prevent you from installing another OS entirely?”
I was actually referring to the OS, but I think you have raised issues regarding DRM and GPL2 vs GPL3 and garbage in the bios that I’m not sure are off topic.
My point is clear if you do not understand the control of having a defacto-monopolistic-OS in a billion homes, and the abuses of Microsoft then I can’t help you. I can only think you are acting ignorant on purpose. If you really are I am sorry, and I will go into more detail.
Thanks for replying with a sane argument, it’s soo much easier to attack the poster instead.
I dont believe your strawman about Minority Report has anything to do with my answer – I didn’t say punish them before they do anything wrong. I said continue to monitor them because they are likely to do something wrong, again.
You fail to remember that this is the punishment for Microsoft doing bad things, and they are considering extending it because the market place has so far not recovered from the affect Microsoft has had.
The problem here, it that the market leader/monopolist/whatever you want to call it today, is able to skew the market, and quickly. Any actions after the event will not matter.
To put an analogy on it (we’ll have to go back to 2003):
Microsoft is Saddam.
Saddam has done bad things, so has Microsoft. Do we:
1, give him the benefit of the doubt
2, pre-emptively invade his country
Not many people can agree on the choice, but, they acknowledge that something needs to be done. And that’s option 3, monitor closely.
(side note, I’m more than unlikely to get caught speeding)
Some states’ attorneys general are saying that the 2002 provisions have done their job. To me, that is the best reason to continue *letting them do their job*.
*If* the provisions are working, which I’m accepting for the sake of argument, then what sense does it make for them to just expire at some arbitrary time? I would favor continuing the oversight as long as MS continues to hold a monopoly position in desktop operating systems. There are certainly worse fates; Not all eyes will weep for them.
Of course, it might make sense to *adjust* the terms from time to time. Some terms may no longer be relevant. And new, nascent technologies may crop up, needing protection from the tender mercies of our friendly neighborhood desktop monopoly.
With great power come great riches… and responsibility. The terms of the settlement do nothing more than formalize that responsibility.
Edited 2007-10-19 23:26
Some of those provisions harm consumers and prevent Microsoft from fully controlling its Windows brand. Don’t like the shovelware problem on new PCs? That’s a direct side effect of the rule against discriminatory pricing against OEMs who ship a dirty Windows machine. I’m not sure Microsoft would return to that practice because of the fear of future litigation. I certainly would be afraid if some political appointee could utterly ruin my stock value and business through the imposition of vague regulations to arbitrarily cap my growth. I’m not sure if government oversight is good or bad, but fielding a ton of lawsuits constantly is bad.
“””
“””
Surely you are not arguing that Microsoft really should be able to arbitrarily raise the price of Windows to a PC manufacturer simply because they do no approve of the software set that manufacturer chooses to deliver to its customers?
Competition between vendors as to the quality of the software set they deliver looks to me to be a classic case of where the free market should be effective. Word of mouth gets around that Parka One Computers ships crap and people will buy another brand instead. They may not know the technical details, but they know that their next door neighbor and a coworker from the office are both unhappy with theirs.
Microsoft provides the operating system, which is one component of many required to make a new PC work. The ultimate responsibility for quality lies with the PC vendor and not with Microsoft. Do you think that VIA should be able to arbitrarily raise their price because they don’t approve of the CD burning software the PC vendor ships?
You have a valid point. But Microsoft instituted the policy which encouraged OEMs to ship machines without startup software to protect consumers. At the time, people like HP wanted to replace the Explorer shell with something else entirely. They essentially wanted to turn the Windows desktop into a billboard for ancillary computer software. This is the fear that Microsoft’s lawyers expressed in the antitrust trial, and this is essentially what happened.
OEMs installing a mix of software is fine, but I don’t think it’s to Microsoft’s advantage if the big tier-1 vendors ship their boxes in a way that’s unusable and harms the Windows brand. In my opinion, it is also not so great for the consumer who is not particularly tech-savvy.
“””
“””
Sorry, but I’m afraid you are going to have to defend that one before I’m willing to accept it. Microsoft has no motivation to protect consumers. If protecting consumers happens to do them good as well, I don’t suppose they would be averse to it. But there is no business reason for them to protect consumers. There is, however, and has always been, an advantage to them in maintaining an iron grip upon what software is allowed to ship with new PCs, which has little to do with consumer protection.
One of Windows’ main strengths is that there is a large variety of software available for it which people like to use. I don’t think Microsoft wants to limit the very thing which brings it success.
On the other hand, when software preloads on the system in the background, consuming resources and slowing down the user experience, or when drivers create blue screens by using techniques that would be caught and flagged during logo tests, Microsoft’s interests in preserving the perception of their brand is certainly aligned with consumer interests.
I agree that it’s a tough call on what should be allowed here, because if you return to practices of old, PC manufacturers could be prevented by pricing differences from installing innocuous software like Firefox or Quicken or PaintShop Pro. On the other hand, programs like Google Desktop, although not particularly unstable and onerous to the user, attempt to change the Windows Desktop experience and, worse, violate User Privacy by forwarding to Google a list of sites they visit.
Maintaining the quality of the Windows startup and desktop experience is an area where Microsoft’s interests align well with consumer interests. If the consumer really cares about that other stuff, she can certainly go on the web and acquire it.
I guess what I don’t understand is the feeling that Microsoft is the only one who would care about the end user experience.
Why wouldn’t Dell, HP, and Lenovo care even more? They all sell the same OS. They must differentiate themselves on the basis of their hardware, and the out of the box experience that they provide relative to their competitors.
Frankly, I view the shovelware “problem” as a uniquely geek thing, and to a great extent, a nonproblem. Of course, I am speaking as someone who has not used Windows for years, so consider that when weighting my opinion on that matter.
However, to the extent that it might be a problem… PC sales is a *very* competitive business. If Dell thought that the software they preload (presumably after an evalution and testing period) was hurting their sales, they would have every reason to act at once to avoid losing their competitive edge, or to gain one on their competitors.
This kind of detail product differentiation in a very competitive, commodity market is a classic case of where free market competition should work and work well, without upstream vendors short-circuiting the process.
Edited 2007-10-20 22:36
Well, PC buyers these days often purchase online, where they don’t get to try out the performance of the machine before they buy it. In any case, some people are more cost-conscious than quality conscious, and some people don’t know exactly what to expect. For whatever reason, PC manufacturers have an economic incentive to sell machines with tons of crapware because people don’t base their buying decisions on the absence of these programs. There really is a big difference between the typical OEM install of XP and the clean install of the OS in startup time and general memory consumption.
“””
“””
In other words, consumers don’t mind, for whatever reason, trading some start up time for some dollars. And the junk they don’t like *can* be removed, even if they have to call the kid down the street to do it. And, wonder of wonders, they might even *benefit* from some of those preloaded items of which MS does not approve. At any rate, it’s their business, their decision, and between them and their PC vendor, as far as I’m concerned.
It may seem a bit strange to some that I am arguing for letting free market economics work in this case while advocating continued regulation at the same time. But in my view, while the free market works, and is preferable to regulation when it does, it is also prone to pathological behavior at times, especially when manipulated by a too powerful player. In this case, I see a certain degree of regulation as providing the free market the more level surface it needs to operate properly. The free market is susceptible to certain pathological behaviors.
Monopoly holders, along with the associated riches, have qualitatively different, more stringent, ethical responsibilities than others, but the same business instincts as everyone else. What would normally be considered a healthy competitive strategy becomes a competition-crushing bludgeon in the hands of a monopoly player. And that player doesn’t have to be evil to do great damage. They just have to be a normal, healthy, competitive company which happens to have the special fortune of playing from a monopoly position.
Furthermore, while many focus on the fact that MS has a desktop monopoly, even using the inappropriate word “convicted” to excess, I would like to highlight the significant point that what they have is not a “natural” monopoly. It’s not like the electric company, or the gas company, where the barrier to entry for the competition is prohibitively high for reasons which are unavoidable. With a natural monopoly, there is not a whole lot one can do but continue to regulate. It’s somewhat like controlling a pathological condition which is incurable, with life-long treatment. The MS desktop monopoly is very much *not* a natural monopoly. In such cases, I believe that government should do what it can to encourage an actual cure. Which it is kind of doing now. But it is *way* too soon to stop the antibiotic. In fact, I would favor *increasing* the dosage.
Edited 2007-10-21 14:21
Either that, or we need to look to “Minority Report” and the author for guidance on how it’s supposed to work. Last I knew, when it came to passing some sort of sentencing on an entity, there was a maximum time stated, with perhaps time reduced due to good behavior, but when they’ve fulfilled the terms of their sentence, it isn’t lengthened.
This isn’t a criminal action, it is a civil one. Laws are very different for civil court. In fact you do not even have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court, nevermind the fact that laws are again different for corporations that have been ruled a monopoly. The action isn’t considered a “sentence” and if you haven’t noticed Microsoft isn’t a person, it is a corporation.
“This isn’t a criminal action, it is a civil one. Laws are very different for civil court. In fact you do not even have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court, nevermind the fact that laws are again different for corporations that have been ruled a monopoly. The action isn’t considered a “sentence” and if you haven’t noticed Microsoft isn’t a person, it is a corporation.”
Is breaking a civil law better than breaking a criminal law. I’m no expert but did you offer a correction where he hadn’t made an error. I’m not sure but doesn’t things like say the constitution give the same rights to corporations as it does people. I don’t know or care about this.
No, the Constitution doesn’t give corporations the same rights as people.
Corporate lawyers successfully argued after the passage of the 14th Amendment (which was intended to give equal protection under the law to freed slaves) that the term “person” applies to corporate entities. Thus, although the Constitution doesn’t explicitly extend rights to corporations, legal precedent was established and courts now recognize corporations as legal “persons”.
Welcome to America, where perverted justice never sleeps!
All that said, corporations are still held to a different standard than people in anti-trust law.
Is breaking a civil law better than breaking a criminal law. I’m no expert but did you offer a correction where he hadn’t made an error. I’m not sure but doesn’t things like say the constitution give the same rights to corporations as it does people. I don’t know or care about this.
You and the original poster don’t seem to be very well equiped to talk about the law. I’m no lawyer but at least I have a basic understanding. The original poster did make an error assuming innocence until proven guilty and so on. This has nothing to do with civil law. The original poster also uses another analogy that compares Microsoft’s legal woes to that of a person in a criminal case. The point I was trying to make that clearly went over your head is that the court isn’t lengthing a sentence because Microsoft was never “sentenced”. This doesn’t happen in civil court. The idea of good behavior has no place in civil law either. Such bad analogies really distorts what is going on here.
@PJBonoVox, Some claim it is – although it’s technically comparable to a fisher price product.
Seriously, the brains behind NT was involved with VMS – and we all know how that turned out.
VMS is actually a rock solid platform. Marketing or lack thereof can make or break a company, regardless of the quality of the products.
I’ve never run VMS, but know that its developers and implementers have written all code lines that Dave Cutler has ever created out of the operating system, replacing them by better implementations.
One thing that allegedly remains unmatched by any other operating system is its architecture independent and totally integrated clustering support.
OpenVMS doesn’t do failover, period. It just works. I think Linux and Solaris stand to learn much about how to implement this the right way.
Time and solidity were also factors in Cutler’s development of VMS. He had only two years or so to write it and they shipped with zero known bugs. And it was coded in VAX assembly. Given a longer amount of time and good C compilers, VMS could have had better algorithms in certain places. But the overall design is pretty unique and was different from the UNIXes of the time. As I’ve heard and seen, Cutler has a talent for writing code that performs well while being readable and straightforward. You can certainly sacrifice the second and third items for performance, but that’s only appropriate when you have a system that works.
Looks to me like the scared mice running TV/media/politics in California are mostly Bill Gates huggers and NAFTA supporters. The states high level politicians are using this as a way to publicly claim that they support free market competition, truth, justice, and the American way. You won’t see any of this free alternative software stuff getting coverage on cable TV networks anytime soon. Everbody knows that media web sites have no compliance with open standards for HTML much less non-MS web 2.0.
The last think Hillary Clinton and the American ruling class system would want is intellectual competition from a million brilliant software developers with superior problem solving skills acting like a democracy.
Good!
Johnathan:
If you don’t mind my asking, how much education have you had? Our laws and our science are based to a large extent upon inductive logic, i.e. extrapolating historical knowledge to determine likely future events. By your *logic*, just because a pedophile like the recently-apprehended Mr. Neil has been linked to violating our laws by repeatedly abusing dozens of children, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he will do it again, so I guess it would be OK with you to leave him in society…perhaps he could babysit your kids, if you ever have any?
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist which has repeatedly abused their market position and financial power to crush competitors and influence government bodies (like the recent OOXML ISO fiasco, the corruption of which is still unfolding). They have proven beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt (except in the mind of a MS-shill) that they are a power-mad, corrupt organization that cannot, and should not, be trusted to control their own actions. Hence this request for government oversight (which I hope galvanizes much more stringent actions, and also convinces people that supporting this company by purchasing or using ANYTHING from them is essentially a vote signalling your willingness to let this behavior continue).
There are excellent alternatives to Microsoft’s products which are based upon values which enhance, instead of crush, the free development of others; Linux, OpenOffice, and open source software and document formats by their open nature generate trust and cooperation between people, organizations and societies. This is something that clinging to oppressive organizations like Microsoft can never accomplish.
I find this quite ironic that you would insult someone on their education, then proceed to show a complete lack there of. Microsoft is NOT a convicted monopolist, simply because this does not exist. Then a continuation of merely blind observance of how a corporation operates.
I have absolutely 110% nothing against Linux. I do however get quite annoyed by many of the users who seem to only use Linux simply because they hate Microsoft, which is idiotic to say the least. It seems quite apparent that even in 2007 the Linux community would prefer to just whine and cry about Microsoft, instead of focusing on improving Linux.
“have absolutely 110% nothing against Linux. I do however get quite annoyed by many of the users who seem to only use Linux simply because they hate Microsoft, which is idiotic to say the least. It seems quite apparent that even in 2007 the Linux community would prefer to just whine and cry about Microsoft, instead of focusing on improving Linux.”
I object to your post for two reasons. The first being I object to an on topic-comment followed by an off-topic rant.
The second being the lie about the myth that people use linux because they hate Microsoft, or that any criticism of Microsoft is driven by hate. Why can’t linux users like the greater maintainability, the fact that they get a new OS in Ubuntu’s case every 6 months, or like the greater maintainability, or the cheaper cost, great applications like k3b, greater security or stability, or replace a broken Microsoft install, greater choice of applications, or even a little bit of fun, but for all these reasons Millions of users are now using Linux, Many Companies are building products with it and on top of it. Growth in Linux is through the roof, even with all the monopolistic abuses, not because of them.
Thats ignoring the second part that Microsoft is a monopoly and an abusive one, who use lock-in everywhere, recent news involving patent threats *again*, and the outrageous abuses of the iso standard, or unpleasant things like WGA(sic); OGA(sic); DRM(sic); trusted computing(sic) etc etc. or the simple fact that Vista is not WOW, and I posted in this very thread people forget that 95 was, and had none of this garbage.
The crazy thing is as someone locked into the monopoly why arn’t you complaining more than me.
Now alternative genuine concern about interoperability with 90+ OS’s out their when we want to use Video chat; play music/video, or even attach a machine to their network, swap Office documents; browse the Net. These are not whines these are real concerns, and are brought up by Windows Users as *advantages* of *all* Monopolistic Software products.
The bottom line is unless you have had your eyes closed the open-source desktop is here…and improving rapidly while Vista is approaching its first birthday, and even runs on BSD look at the latest BSD distributions. Thats ignoring alternative proprietary Apple OS which has a changes to be envied. The right phase is perhaps “velvet handcuffs”, although I don’t think the phrase is strong enough.
…but then these concerns are not just limited to one kernel but all alternative OS’s and applications/services/hardware that compete with Microsoft ones.
Edited 2007-10-20 06:36
I think you mean ‘maintenence costs’ here — how often does Linux break things between build? How often does a trivial fix require a recompile just to work again?
And more installation headaches for anyone in a sad enough position to have to maintain them.
A point well made by the engineers who know they will be difficult or impossible to replace (especially if they have ‘customized’ their OSs) when they ask for another raise.
Which, of course, have no comparison nor superiors in other OSs…
As created by Linux’s design goal of using passive security (as opposed to active security)… and then subverted by releasing the source code no-questions-asked to anyone, including the people looking for ways to override it…
No mean feat; if you’ve managed to break a Windows install, how the heck are you going to get any OS installed in the first place?
(By ‘Microsoft’ I assume you mean ‘Windows’.)
No significant program for Linux has not been ported to other operating systems, while Linux’s minders actively try to prevent other programs from working with their operating system; thus, Linux functionality and choice is a subset of the functionality and choice available for all other operating systems.
Hehe. Enjoy your Penguin Solitaire, I only have about twenty thousand games to choose from…
Ah, yes, the all-purpose justification for Linux faults; it’s not us, they’re just a mean old monopoly, honest.
It can’t possibly be the outdated design model, nor the outdated OS architecture, nor the vicious in-fighting over obscure points, nor the decentralized design system causing much duplication of effort, nor the number of mutually exclusive and mutually incompatible options for nearly every part of the OS, nor the clinging to idealism, justification, and zealotry instead of facing the cold harsh reality of your competitors offering superior design and superior enabling technologies… no, all our flaws are because Microsoft has a monopoly. Who are we to point out the king has no clothes?
Almafeta,
Question: Do you ever get tired of writing long posts trashing other people’s preferred operating systems and generally being negative and nonconstructive?
I only ask because you seem to devote a great deal of time to doing so, and it seems that your talents could be put to better use doing something else. Something *constructive*, perhaps. Being pro-this is usually more satisfying than being anti-that.
Don’t obsess. Be happy.
No I don’t mean maintenance costs. I think such things as TCO are better discussed elsewhere, but where people cost more than software the equation is…complicated, plus how do you compare GNU’s package management vs when most companies use a ghost disk on 1000’s of identical machines. I’m talking about the ability to upgrade your whole system applications; drivers; desktop the whole kit-and-kaboodle, at the click of a button, rather than the paper trail that is windows. In a business environment obviously things are different. As this paper trail is often done once.
Upgrading between versions of GNU does not require a new installation of Ubuntu, You just “click a button” although installation of GNU is relatively easy. There will be regressions for some, but the new features outweigh these. Although when I said cost I meant less than lb300 for the lest crippled version of a Microsoft OS or lb150 for the upgrade.
I’m sorry about the broken install. I think in terms of a installing GNU as being preferable to using a restore Disk or increasingly a restore partition, or even a fresh installation by a paid professional(sic), and easier. The likelihood is it will rescue ones data as a bonus. This is without mentioning things like post-exploit potential insecurity, because of the OEM sale model; forcing users to live with an insecure machine…and this is the majority or users, who blindly run software to remove these…or Microsoft actively spying on you.
Thank you for pointing out the OS point. I often refer to Microsoft as the Microsoft Platform rather than the OS simply becuase part of the Monopolistic concern is the bundelled applications that come as part of the OS ie. Microsoft Kernel+Desktop+Web Browser+Virus Protector+Firewall+Media Player+Parental Controls+Media Center+Chat Client+Mail client most with major and regular exploits becuase of their bundling etc etc I could probably should include Office in the list as well…but it complicates things here. If only Microsoft had been broken into two companies like the original ruling Microsoft would have a better OS, and be a better safer platform. I am bastardizing the words but terms like OS and platform do not mean what they once were.
As a side not I mention K3B because, its my favorite, burning package on any platform. If you haven’t used it you can’t comment. BTW Nero is available to GNU as well although I’ve never used it. I use K3B because its a killer application thats only available on GNU.
Just a side note…do you really believe in security through obscurity, or that those who matter don’t have Microsoft’s source, oddly I see no Vista users attacking Microsoft over their Open source(sic) license.
I prefer *GNU*, especially from *your* example, as the kernel has little to do with userspace your describing available to Linux distributions. In fact if you look at *any* BSD distribution there is a large selection of Ports. Thats ignoring killer applications like Apache; MySQL; GCC and smaller projects like Gimp and MPlayer and the whole slew of applications what were designed with cross-platform in mind. Of course GNU users have more choice, we can change things like our desktop, our OS support, file manager, the application launcher. you can even change those bundled applications tied to the Microsoft Platform to those with greater functionality without being forced to keep the Monopolistic abuse ones around adding to the whole platforms overall stability and providing a tailored OS solution. The reality is GNU offers *greater* functionality; choice than that offered on the Microsoft platform…not less, something you seem not to want
I actually stated “a bit of fun”, because GNU is a little bit of fun…if you like technology. I regret not joining a LUG as a think I would have both benefited technically, and enjoyed the social aspect, but compared to five years of XP and disappointing year of Vista anything is more fun, but to address your point as a casual gamer(sic) my current weapon of choice is UFO:AI it is available for Microsoft as well. Although I saw no sense of irony with a Vista user pointing out solitaire as the game of choice.
Now I will address GNU’s faults of which there are many, but none that you have mentioned. I would say the faults are difficult to point out, and impossible for *you*, and it has little to so with the lie over codecs, which are if anything more tricky under Microsoft, without the negative of spyware; crippling the OS; codec packs; problems with niche Monopolistic proprietary applications; niche hardcore PC gaming, and with those I think I have pointed out all the possible criticisms a Vista User can make of GNU. Its why they are raised and refuted so often.
The *real* problem with GNU is twofold, binary blobs which suffer from the same problems that all binary blobs do, with the added problem on GNU that they add a layer of complexity to installation; maintenance on an ever evolving platform, I use “Flash” as my main reference. With respect the FSF they are specifically active in making this problem go away.
The second being and the more difficult one because you can’t point your finger at it. Is that GNU is still “rough around the edges” because anything thats major has been done years ago. For the *Desktop* I’ll use my own example for Linux which is my inability to obtain a correct resolution for a monitor using the framebuffer on a X800 card using a DVI port, but these problems are getting more obscure, and new drivers overall are becoming feature complete. I’m celebrating this release of Ubuntu because it solves the “Intel widescreen problem” that is common, and its not even a bug I have or a distribution I use, I don’t use BSD on the Desktop but I imagine the experience is very similar, and reviews pointing out “its time as come” is very encouraging…but I would have to live it to go into any details. But its not *just* the kernel and with GNU’s choice of Desktop, users will find different niggles. With *my* choice of desktop XFCE the inability to select multiple icons with a loop on the Desktop is my major niggle, others that use alternative choices of Desktop will have *different* niggles. In this paragraph I have covered *everything* that is wrong with my GNU experience.
I’m glad you have finally mentioned the monopoly, and I’m going to point out something that you are perhaps unaware of, and Vista users are often blind to. The Microsoft Monopoly is bad for everyone. Its just bad in different ways. For Microsoft Users because you are *forced* through Microsoft driving competing products out of the market through unlawful methods to suffer inferior dangerous products. Bundelling is just one of them, like that of Internet Explorer, unless you are really happy with IE6, which is still the *most common* web browser in use *today*, thats ignoring all the bastardization of HTML
…but why it matters to GNU users as well is *interoperability* the IT industry’s most popular buzzword today. The very thing that Microsoft have been fighting so hard against in the EU for *5 years*, and still their documentation is not available in a usable form. Patents adds a whole new dimension to this. GNU users are not blinded to the fact that 90%+ of the market is Microsoft based and I’m not just talking about just the OS. Linux users want to share files, read web pages, swap documents, chat online with this majority. This is perhaps the only point I should make here.
Just your quickies tagged on the end, FOSS has arguably a better development!? model, arguably a better directory layout, although I’m not sure why most users would step beyond /home/user instead of c:windowsprofiles I just can’t remember exactly where on Windows profiles are kept it is very confusing
. GNU has competing products that *drive* innovation. Every part of the OS is replaceable allowing the *best* technology to win out, rather than one vision by one company. GNU is developed by a mixture of organizations and companies working in synergy. Provides a healthy environment where Developers goals can be made flesh whether it be financial or political, or even a bit of both, but also provides a free market for them to operate in.
This is my “the king has no clothes”. The desktop is feature complete. I mean Microsoft/Apple/GNU the reasons there are *no* discussions like this one anymore is simply because there is from a users perspective little to nothing in it. Its a not just a problem for alternative OS’s…its a problem for Hardware Manufactures; its a problem for new Microsoft products. I think it shows most with your arguments being that a “Single Vendor driven by protecting its monopoly with no alternatives using closed technology” is pointing out the “king wears no clothes”. Rather than any substantial X is better than Y and I’d be shocked if you can come up with an example where X is better than Y in X OS that makes it a compelling choice for the user.
Ignoring Apple who seem to have squandered the advantages they had, and I suspect are aiming at the wrong market *now*. The politics is between developer only friendly licensed code and developer/consumer friendly code. I am oversimplifying but the end result is a healthy marketplace where developers can flesh out their products, even if their product competes with that of Microsoft. Its why GNU thrives with a modest but ever growing market share. The politics are very important, but regardless of this all licenses are preferable to a legally dubious restrictive EULA. Of course you can happily ignore all that is political, and just enjoy the software
You argue against competing products; design model; multiple vendors of the various parts that make up the OS. Yet with this very method an alternative platform is able to compete and exceeds in many areas that of a Monopolistic company with 70000 employees that pockets a billion *every* month…Thats astonishing.
In slightly more detail Linux till now has always been *coming from behind* to be considered an argubly superior platform, look at when the contentious “O(1) scheduler has introduced” and thats not the only example. In fact Linux real advantage technically was the unixy(sic) stuff, things like the file layout; the multiuser environment; the CLI, a lot of stuff that Microsoft have stapled on variations of that are arguably inferior and tied to legacy implementations. We see today that technology if implemented *first* in Linux, we are not talking obscure technology we are talking about *64 bit* support. Thats ignoring the Desktop which was pitiful, and I think people forget how truly awful it was, at best it was a gateway to multiple xterms and little else, and ugly apart from enlightenment which oddly I remember as being too heavyweight for my computer…as was Linux, and looks awfully dated now, but then until the Desktop explosion there was very little interest in the Server OS(sic), post-Ubuntu it have increasingly good 3D support, and wireless neglected by those server focussed companies, thats without mentioning that there are 2/3 fully functional desktops. I don’t even have to mention OpenOffice and Firefox and a whole host of fully functional alternatives that are arguably better to Microsoft products hitting the Desktop, and provide an end-to-end solution to all must the most niche computing markets, and has created some of its own.
Now I haven’t really mentioned the Vista regression, and have used arguably all over the place simply because thats my point. We have reached a stage where we talk about DRM/Cost/Maintenance/Licenses/Monopolies/Security or minor difference of implementation of things like compositing desktops, that add little or nothing to the user interaction which has been pretty consistent since windows 95, or before if you used alternative platforms simply because the evolution of the Desktop has been slowing for *years* and now is hitting a dead end. No wonder we would rather talk about Web 2.0.
Anyway it was nice to have a trip down memory lane. I really enjoyed writing that.
First, if you’re going to attack me for my perceived (in your eyes) lack of education, you need to first have the ability to get my name spelled correctly, which is incredibly easy to do with copy/paste, but sadly, you couldn’t be bothered to avoid any silly errors and instead decided to spell my name correctly, despite it being directly in front of you, correctly spelled, minus the requirement that online, most usernames can’t have spaces.
I refuse to argue the “convictions” of MS in a court of law, as most corporations have been sued and convicted/sued for something or many things, and this point of arguement is not germane to the argument of law in this case. Your argument about child molesters starts getting relevant, but that’s where you also go off the path: those restrictions on their freedom and rights aren’t (generally) made up on the spot, after the original sentencing, but as part of their sentencing, and that’s the whole point I was making that you and so many others have gone out of your way to blatantly sweep under the rug. In the law (US, at least, it may not be the same elsewhere) once you are bound to the terms of some agreement in a contract or a settlement, it’s not legal to modify that contract or sentence to make it harsher than originally agreed upon, at least not without agreement of the parties that come out potentially the worst involved. A common example that everyday people can relate to is leases: a landlord can’t decide to change the terms of a lease without tenants agreeing to it to raise the rent, and the other side is that outside of certain things for the landlord not having the property up to par, they can’t reduce the rent they pay on a whim from what the lease states. So, too, prisoners don’t have their sentences extended outside of original sentencing, at least not for that crime they’re in for: if other things become apparent where they’ve violated the law, that’s taken into account, but if they serve their sentence, and get through whatever (if any) probationary period afterwards, they aren’t suddenly sentenced with more.
So, whether I agree or disagree to any other points as to why people think Microsoft (or anyone else) should be monitored, in the US legal system (though it seems things are getting twisted out of hand in places, admittedly, and that worries me) if you’ve done your time, you’ve done your time, and nowhere should your sentence be a blank check that can change in the future, once you’ve already served it. If a judge determines that Microsoft has violated the terms of the agreement/sentence, then sure, it follows that it’s reasonable to extend it (though as someone else pointed out, it seems the agreement didn’t hurt Microsoft too much, but as much as anything, what it clearly points out is that you simply can’t legislate how a market develops or dies, what people want, what competitors create, since FireFox still has horrible memory management issues, with threading race conditions in the base code that tend to manifest themselves more prominently on certain machines) according to the terms of the agreement/sentence. But, if the judge determines that Microsoft has complied with the terms of the agreement, then there’s no legal basis for them to extend or modify the agreement, keeping in mind that if Microsoft goes back to doing what they were doing that got them into this mess, they can always be taken back to court for new violations of whatever statutes and laws apply.
Seriously have you read *any* of this stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Its the funniest think on the net, see a Judge comparing Bill to a “drug traffickers”, and Microsoft executives being described as “gangland killers” or Microsofts defense that the OS worked slower without Internet explorer.
There is more the best quote is by Industry pundit Robert X. Cringely believes a breakup is not possible, and that “now the only way Microsoft can die is by suicide.”
The bottom line is back in 1998 twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly…and nothing has changed.
Stupid timeout (20 minutes, clearly from the start of typing) on editing, and OSAlert disallowing replying to yourself: the first paragraph should be:
“First, if you’re going to attack me for my perceived (in your eyes) lack of education, you need to first have the ability to get my name spelled correctly, which is incredibly easy to do with copy/paste, but sadly, you couldn’t be bothered to avoid any silly errors and instead decided to spell my name incorrectly, despite it being directly in front of you, correctly spelled, minus the requirement that online, most usernames can’t have spaces.”
I guess silly mistakes like that are more likely to happen with lack of sleep…
And to add something relevant, modifying punishments retroactively is what’s known as “ex post facto” and except in rare cases, not legal in any place you’d want to bother going to or living in. Thus, unless Microsoft was found to violate the terms of the agreement/judgment, the judge is legally obligated to terminate the oversight. If the judge found them to be following the terms of the agreement, and still decided to insist on them being stuck with the oversight and all the restrictions, Microsoft would have an obvious case for appeal, and likely would do so, if only for the sake of standing up for their rights and making a point.
I don’t see why anyone’s complaining [about the request for oversight], because they’re really just making sure IE doesn’t suck in the future, since lack of standards translates to web2.0 difficulties.
I wasn’t going to comment on this topic, as it bores me to tears, but some things said by JonathanBThompson, cyclops and others brought some things to mind.
dsuse, after attacking Jonathan’s education said, “Microsoft is a convicted monopolist” as if there is such a thing. First, “conviction” is a term used for criminal cases, not civil cases (look it up at dictionary.com). As Jonathan said, many many companies have lost civil cases; if Microsoft is a “convicted” entity, then so are many many companies, including tech companies such as Nintendo. I recall that even in the MS/Stacker case, MS lost the suit that Stacker brought and Stacker lost the countersuit that MS brought; so both companies would be “convicted” entities according to dsuse and his ilk. My point is, running around saying that losers of civil cases are “convicted” and therefore should be treated as criminals as if they had lost criminal cases is silly. Civil lawsuits are just a part of what comes with conducting big business these days. Second, it’s not illegal to have a monopoly in a market. The phrase “convicted monopolist” has no meaning; it’s an empty phrase created by Microsoft haters.
TechGeek said, “Lets see, MS is still a monopoly.” I fail to see how this can be when major PC makers (Dell, HP, Lenovo) are shipping PCs with Linux. Also, note that Judge Jackson ruled that Windows had monopoly status in the market for “desktop OSes for intel-compatible CPUs”, and did that to rule Macs out of the market. Well, today Macs run a “desktop OS for intel-compatible CPUs”, so according to Jackson’s definition of Windows’ market, OSX is a competitor of Windows. So Windows has competition with Linux (shipped by major OEMs) and OSX (shipped by a major computer maker). Jackson’s original ruling doesn’t apply in today’s world.
cyclops talked of Judge Jackson “a Judge comparing Bill to a “drug traffickers”, and Microsoft executives being described as “gangland killers”. Well, it’s that kind of BS that got him thrown off the case, with extreme prejudice, and which, IMO, destroys the credibility of his rulings period. The Appeals court, when throwing out his remedies and ordering the remedy phase to be retried under narrower guidelines before a more impartial (and awake and sane) judge, said that they didn’t have the authority to toss out his FOF. If they had had the authority, who knows?
cyclops also complained about Microsoft controlling the lowest levels of a computer that he used to write a repsonse. Well, use another OS; problem solved.
Lastly, I want to expand on some things that JonathanBThompson has said: It should be remembered that the final result of the MS/DOJ case, was not some remedy handed down by a judge, but was a settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft that was ratified by a judge. Since the case ended in a settlement, it would seem that in order to extend the settlement, all parties to the original settlement would have to agree. I don’t know enough about civil law to say that this is indeed the case legally, but when dealing with people in everyday life, agreements made between people (i.e. settlements) can’t be extended by just one party.
Actually, I have one further comment. It would be good for Microsoft to extend the settlement (they and the DOJ already agreed to extend portions of it to 2012 and potentially beyond (without any judge ordering such)) because the settlement provides explicit guidelines as to what is kosher and what is not. Whatever Microsoft does is first passed through both internal and external compliance committees (which is why the DOJ laughed in Google’s face when Google complained about Vista having integrated search; the compliance committees had already OK’ed Vista’s search, so Google’s complaint was dismissed quite quickly). This is a much better regime than what is going on in the EU, for instance, where “ad hoc law” is used when dealing with Microsoft; the EC’s Kafka-esque “it’s for us to know what compliance with EU law means and for you to find out” mechanism is a disgrace to jurisprudence.
Edited 2007-10-20 14:59
“cyclops also complained about Microsoft controlling the lowest levels of a computer that he used to write a repsonse. Well, use another OS; problem solved.”
Wow, thank you I’m glad that you reminded me of Microsoft coining the term “naked pc” just to solve that very problem. I expect you to actively campaigning for GPL3 and a heavy supporter of Linuxbios, becuase it would just be awful if an OS got tied to machine.
I’m also fascinated that you argue that Microsoft isn’t a Monopoly just how much market share does it need to be called a monopoly, after so many posts *pointing* out Linux’s market share. I really wish you would make
mind up. Did you realize that companies are considered an awful lot less market share than linux.
Personally though I so get a little tired I thought that the law wasn’t there to be abused, apparently its acceptable in your eyes to break civil laws, well bless you, you are awfully forgiving of them even at the cost of a greater computing experience. Although myself I like working market forces it drives costs down and little things like innovation.
As least you have leopard to look forward to
While that was a very informative post (I didn’t realize that the original ruling was on Intel Desktop PCs only), I have to ask, whats the point? Someone who posts in a place like this using terms like that immediately identifies themselves as someone who should not be taken seriously, by taking them seriously you will not change their religious beliefs, only give them an opportunity to drag you into a pointless flame war.
“you will not change their religious beliefs” really goo_ninja I thought we were talking about a mega-corporations monopolistic abuse. Are we bad on associating negative connotations of religion with choice of installed OS.
To be fair though defending Microsoft over there abuse of the law, you have to pretty extreme, or be paid. The funny thing is. If the abuses actually improved Microsoft’s products. You may not have had to wait 5 years between releases of your OS of choice, and then be presented with Vista 2006 and still unloved.
First off, I am not associating negative connotations of religion with anything. I use the term in a looser sense then most folks. Some people go to church and worship God, others go to their job, and worship money. Still others worship their cars, and others worship their spouses. As humans, it is in our wiring to worship something. When we are talking about vitriolic hatred of a technology company that has little to nothing to do with a person, that tends to indicate what they worship.
Why? And what did she say that was extreme? I would agree that sometimes Molly goes a bit far defending MS, but where did she do that here?
“google_ninja” personally I would prefer you keep your snide remarks to yourself and just focus on the facts. Although I suspect your just trying to draw me into a flame war. Seriously though *worshiping* an OS. I think most religions cover craven idols…but thats going to the extreme.
Is using “extreme” about about defending the lawbreaker(giggle) across the globe “extreme”. I think your right Microsoft has been nothing but open with its products…and responded promptly to requests, provided clear; free; easy access to information to interoperate with its system. In fact they is it faster than the way they unbundled those pesky Internet and Media Player. I believe you don’t even need a genuine advantage(sic) to install the latest version. I ask myself why oh why is all these companies bullying Microsoft who are clearly a friendly company.
The sick joke about molly is all the Kafka-esque stuff “it’s for us to know what compliance with EU law(our patents giggle) means and for you to find out”
I don’t know how about your cut the religious stuff, and if your going to make a point use facts; hell twist logic; lie its a damn sight more interesting than making an kernel into a thing of worship.
“””
“””
Unlikely.
1) google_ninja consistently makes very reasonable posts.
2) I’ve looked and looked, and see nothing that he has said here that could be considered a snide remark by a reasonable person.
And you are being deliberately obtuse. There are probably not many people here who worship a kernel. But there are plenty of people who worship the philosophy behind FS in a way which could accurately be described as religious… even Bible thumping religious. Of course, fanatics rarely see themselves as fanatics.
I suppose you are now going to do your “I’m not a fanatic, I’m just pro-technology!” routine, which has never been particularly convincing to anyone familiar with your posting history.
Or maybe you’ll just cut and paste an old post of yours, as you often do, in which you claim that I am directing some sort of insidious low level intimidation ray at you through the Internet.
Thank you for that ignorant and comical semantic word game. Sure, if you change the meaning of words to suit your purpose, Free Software could be a religion. In a similar way I could accuse Atheism could also being a religion.
An ideal is not a religion, and standing behind an ideal is not worship. There is no rigid definition of religion; however, theism is almost certainly a prerequisite. The word religion itself is from the Latin word religio meaning “reverence to God”. I’m pretty sure free software doesn’t involve theism (nor does atheism as I’m sure you can see the oxymoron that would present).
Then feel free to replace “religious” with “religious-like”, if you so desire. It makes little difference.
And excuse me, but who is really playing word games here?
You are saying that it is actually impossible to be religious about the FS philosophy because it does not involve theism. Fair enough. *Most* people stop short of considering RMS a deity.
However, I will point out that with your mini-etymology, and your personal attack, you are trying to draw attention away from the main point, which is the related fanaticism. And I doubt you are going to find any Latin that makes “fanatic” an inappropriate term to describe some of the more enthusiastic FSF supporters around here.
To avoid confusion, I should state that I put these overly enthusiastic supporters in a different class than I do RMS and Eben Moglen, whose views and advocacy skills I respect and admire, even in those areas where I might disagree with them.
Edited 2007-10-20 21:11
Need I remind you that your comment was no less of a personal attack than mine?
Fanaticism is a more appropriate term; however, merely point out that someone is overzealous does not invalidate their zeal. It just means they’re obnoxious to the point of hurting the cause they’re trying to advance.
I wasn’t trying to draw attention away from anything. I was calling you out for trying to deamonize Free Software by invoking the image of the Religious Right and placing Free Software advocates at their side with an oversimplified and false definition of religion.
There are always fanatics on both sides of every fence along with a disproportionate number of apathetic fence squatters. I think I’d prefer the fanatics to latter; at least the fanatics care.
“””
“””
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! That is a crucial point.
“””
“””
To my dismay, as a long time FOSS supporter, it appears to me that there are more fanatics on my side of the fence, and that what few fanatics I see on the other side are reactions to our fanatics.
If I were not so devoted to the FOSS movement and to The Unix Way (I was a Unix supporter for 8 years, since 1988, before I had ever heard of Linux) I would not care about the fanatics, and the damage that they do.
Edited 2007-10-20 23:34
I grew up on the Mac (as much as how I actually like vista paints me as a winZealot nowadays, I will probably always be the most biased towards apple and their products), and experienced a real similar thing to what you are talking about. As much as I loved the platform, I always seemed to either be surrounded by either people who believed that Apple could do no wrong, and the world would be a better place if everyone were on macs, no matter what their personal needs, or, people who assumed I was a part of the gibbering horde of apple fanbois.
The community is not so bad NOW, but in the 80s it had been kind of distilled down to the most diehard users. And as much as I loved the platform, I hated to be associated with them.
The good news is that it will only get better for Linux. As the userbase increases, more and more sane people will be using it, and the freaks will become diluted. There will always be those who believe in its divinity. But as more and more normal people use it to do normal things because its awesome, and not due to some bizarre devotion, the ones who believe it is evil to use anything else will become marginalized.
Yeah. The thing is, I have a bit of that bizarre devotion myself. I temper it with common sense, and a firm understanding that not everyone thinks like I do or realizes the importance and power of the underlying freedom. All those practical reasons that OSS works so well as a development model in so many areas rest, in essence, on matters of freedom. Linus likes to say “fairness” and “tit for tat”. I rather like those terms myself. But it amounts to the same thing in the grand scheme of things. I hope that enough of the philosophers (skilled and effective advocates?) remain to temper the uninformed “I just want my computer to work” hordes that lie in Linux’s future if World Domination goes as planned.
I imagine I have a least a few weeks before the invasion, though.
Edited 2007-10-21 00:37
The problem is this. I use software based on several criteria, which can be summed up as what is the best tool for the job? I love open source, both the ideas behind it, and the ecosystem itself. (any programmer would) Having access to the source code is a big plus, but it is not the end all in our “Right tool for the job” equation. I use it when I can, I support it in my free time (or at least I used to, free time seems to be disappearing on me lately), and I advocate it when it makes sense.
Sometimes, a proprietary solution makes the most sense, even in light of the lack of source code access. In those situations, I have no real problem with going that route. The FSF disagrees with me, which is their right. But they go further then that. They say that my choices are morally unsound.
I have read the literature, I have seen RMS speak, I understand where they are comming from. But I have a HUGE problem with being called unethical just for using windows to make a living. Not only that, but some of the things that have come out of RMSs mouth are downright offensive. Like how since proprietary developers are doing something wrong, they shouldn’t be compensated for their work, and by his rationalization, it is better to pirate proprietary software then to use it legally.
I live by a code of ethics, and take pride in that, and I take a HUGE exception to being told I am doing something wrong, because somebody thinks that they have to shove their ideological beliefs down my throat. I take exception to the constant proselytizing every time I talk to certain people. I take exception to being told I don’t care about freedom, simply because I don’t believe that something which is a basic human right applies to software.
I love the open source movement. The OSI says that its ideology is simply the best way to do many, but not all things. If you don’t want to use it, fine, your loss. The FSF says do it this way because it is the only morally right choice, and if you dont drink the cool-aid, you quickly feel like an atheist at the Vatican.
Whew! That post *rocks*! I don’t have to use Windows to make a living. But I do have to slip in the odd proprietary program here and there to make Linux do what my clients need, on the hard-won 70+ Linux business desktops which I support, to run their businesses. And it really pisses me off to be told I’m immoral for doing so. Especially at those times at which I have the distinct impression that my accuser’s main claim to Linux advocacy fame is setting his aunt up with PCLinuxOS.
“This is a much better regime than what is going on in the EU, for instance, where “ad hoc law” is used when dealing with Microsoft; the EC’s Kafka-esque “it’s for us to know what compliance with EU law means and for you to find out” mechanism is a disgrace to jurisprudence. ”
oh bless you love, you really must be protecting the the billion a month Microsoft make on this one. Its the standard opt-if opt-out lawyer fair, everyone knows this game. Its up to *everyone* not to break the laws, its not up to *anyone* to tell you those laws. In this instance its simply used to green light *any* future abuses build on prior ones. An interesting example would be use of OOXML in web technology which screams abuse, but then you defend that as well. The funny thing is you would think with all there well paid lawyers, you would think they would know the law. In fact they seem to know how to delay for years, and then conform to the minimum. I wonder how all those Vista users are doing with there unbundled explorer and media player. I’m not sure I would know how to find it as an option. It probably runs faster with these installed
MS is still a monopoly because they still own 90% of the market share. Period. And Jacksons original ruling still does stand, thats why we are here. The original ruling declared that after a period of time, oversight of MS would be re-evaluated. Its kind of like probation. If you go out and break the rules of probation, then you can expect MORE jail time than you were originally sentenced to. I mean, MS just tried to bribe their way through the ISO standards body for crying out loud….
According to six states — California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts — and the District of Columbia, Microsoft could use its Internet Explorer browser as a “chokepoint” to block moves that might unseat Windows dominant position on the desktop.
“Microsoft has the ability — by virtue of IE’s dominance and its resulting control of Web standards — to use the browser as a chokepoint with respect to consumer access to the Internet-centric technologies that currently represent the most promising nascent platform threats to Windows,” the states claimed.
Uhh, IExplorer can indeed set standards but they are doing the same with OOXML and ODF ! And you shut up and pay ! Getting tired of it…
If I were a lawyer and came up with such agreement – 5 years !! – my Boss and I would consider ourselves bad negotiators.
What is the justification for an allowed 5 years dominance position abuse ?
No justification ! Also, this is unacceptable under European Union Laws !
Microsoft has been declared as abusing dominance position and bad practices already for the media player here (in EU).
Guess USA citizens like to be fooled. Let me make more money by fooling you.