Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Why The U.S. Surrendered To Microsoft 411

Posted by timothy from the follow-the-money dept.
hoggardb writes: "The Nation has an excellent column by Eben Moglen, general counsel of the FSF, on why the U.S. has surrendered to Microsoft: because the big campaign contributors like Hollywood and PC manufacturers now want Microsoft to stay a monopoly." Not everyone will agree about the PC makers, but the Hollywood argument is harder to sidestep. The free-marketeer in me especially likes the last paragraph -- Moglen didn't get to be general counsel of the FSF for nothing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why The U.S. Surrendered To Microsoft More

Why The U.S. Surrendered To Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • This makes no sense. From what I hear, Hollywood has "seen the light" with Linux, as it dramatically reduces their costs. Therefore, I doubt they care about what happens to Microsoft.

    • Re:Hollywood? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 1010011010 ( 53039 )
      It's ok for them to use it in render farms, but when was the last time you saw them being happy about people playing DVDs on Linux?

      They want maximum revenue with minimum cost, and they don't really care about the ethics of getting there.

      "One for us, none for you; two for us, none for you..."
      • I see one more post about 'Hollywood' being hypocrites because they use linux but outlaw DeCSS I will fucking puke. And to think you got moderated up too. Linux is being used by studios like Pixar, PDI, and many smaller studios that sometimes do effects shots for movies made by film studios that are part of the MPAA. The MPAA is the problem, they are the assholes. The management of big studios play a big part in the MPAA, but what the FUCK does that have to do with the animation studios contracted out by a producer who is contracted out by the studio. Do you really thing that the genuises at these studios writing software for linux aren't the same people that are mad at the MPAA? Do you think they are not giving back to the Linux community? Do you think they aren't just as pissed off as you about the same issues? Get informed on the subject before you spew worthless critical shit and stop wasting your time.
        • The MPAA is the problem, they are the assholes.

          This is true; but what exactly do you think that an association (the first 'A') is? Who do you think the MPAA works for? Who do you think pays their bills? If 'Hollywood' did not support the MPAA, it would cease to exist.

          Talk about "spewing worthless critical shit"... you take the cake.

          • You were talking about hypocracy from hollywood. The people accepting linux are graphics studios, and they are not part of 'hollywood' and have nothing to do with the MPAA, therefore they are not hypocrites.
              • The people accepting linux are graphics studios, and they are not part of 'hollywood' and have nothing to do with the MPAA, therefore they are not hypocrites

              They rely completely on "Hollywood" to pay their mortgages and build up their kids' college funds. Don't be so sure that they support your idealism

              Feel free to provide a reference to a statement by any animation studio that they oppose the stand of the MPAA, and want to see their end product being watched on Linux.

    • as it dramatically reduces their costs. Therefore, I doubt they care about what happens to Microsoft.

      Yes, for *production*. MSWindows, and its Monopoly will be aid them in extending their content monopoly into the PC world... with few bumps.

  • Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jamirocake ( 456380 ) <mgarcia2&binghamton,edu> on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:11PM (#2306568) Homepage Journal
    "Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all."
    They say at the end of the article. The truth however, and saddly, is diferent. While it is true that MS is maybe at one of its more important moments, they are doing very well and none of the threats to its monoply will stop them, they will continue. Why? Because of the perception of the avareage american computer user.
    If any of us see in what the marketing is focused on any computer related thing we will find one common denominator: Ease of use.
    What does this mean? That the public does not want to spend time thinking or learning, thus the people won't assimilate a product that is differnet from what is mainstream, the companies , on the other hand, can - and do- tell the "people" what they want, ans that is what MS has always done, in Linux is the otherway around: people think of what they want. It is sad, but that does not mean that Linux will disapear or become weak because there are people who read slashdot and actualy enjoy thinking. If the whole effort from corporations to make everybody's life 'easier' by taking away the efforrt you put in thinking companies like MS will always exist. And the minority, who is against the conventions of 'mainstream' will keep on using Linux.

    That's why Linux as a social tool is far more important than Linux as a technological tool.
    • Furthermore, Microsoft is second best at everything, which is not an easy task in itself. I've used almost all of Microsoft's current software, and the fact that you can get the second best webserver with the second best scripting language, that's ready to integrate with the second-best database is definitely a nice feature. And installation and management is a no-brainer for the most part.
      This, combined with a comparable pricetag to the other commercial products makes Microsoft a good all around choice for business.
      I've tried to convince my company to switch at least some of their applications to linux, but the cons always outweigh the pros in managements eyes. Support is always an issue, and to them an army of programmers who code for the love of coding simply cannot compete with the paid drones of Microsoft. Besides, nobody gets fired for buying MS
      If Linux only had all the pretty pictures of NT, the argument might have gone the other way. Thus is the Dilbert rule.

    • Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:51PM (#2306715) Homepage Journal
      ..the companies , on the other hand, can - and do- tell the "people" what they want, ans that is what MS has always done, in Linux is the otherway around: people think of what they want.
      ...
      ... And the minority, who is against the conventions of 'mainstream' will keep on using Linux.

      The really sad thing is, that only the minority are thinking. In a democracy, the majority decides, and that's how you get a country where thinking is outlawed.

    • I'm sorry but I really have to disagree with you.

      You speak about "ease of use" as if that is a bad thing. Boiling a kettle is a pretty easy task, does that mean everyone should rush out and buy more complicated kettles. Would we then say that these people are more intelligent? Hell no, you'd take the piss out of them for being idiotic.

      > the public does not want to spend
      > time thinking or learning

      The idea that only Linux users think, while users of Microsoft products are sheep, is arrogant in the extreme. You could just as easily argue the opposite point, that many Linux users are sheep for jumping on the aint-it-cool free open-source anti-microsoft bandwagon.

      Why should anyone have to learn about patching kernels, editing .conf files and all that nonsense? An OS should just sit there quietly in the background causing as little disturbance as possible while the user gets on with the real work/play/whatever he/she/it bought the computer for in the first place.

      Isn't 'ease of use' the main thing that Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, Debian, etc, are all working towards? Does that mean that we now have to go off and find an even more complex OS to be worthy intelligent computer users?

      And before everyone rushes to condemn me, I just would like to point out that I use Linux, Windows 2000 and Mac OS X.

  • Really free? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by terri rolle ( 413434 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:13PM (#2306577)
    From the article:

    The best software in the world continues to be free. Free as in free speech: free to use, free to copy, free to modify.

    Yes, free so long as you don't create any software that might be in violation of the DMCA and you end up in jail. This seems like bit of overly optimistic cheerleading rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. Whatever happens to Microsoft, it hardly makes a difference if Hollywood, the RIAA, etc. are working to restrict our freedoms through the legislatures and the courts.

    • It's still better software, even if it's illegal. For instance, my Linux DVD players don't make me watch the stupid commercials and FBI warnings in three languages. Whereas my RCA DVD player forces me to wait until it's done displaying its little advertisements and scary-scary FBI/Interpol warnings. Funny that they put Interpol warnings on a Regios 1 DVD...

  • Smoking crack? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dimator ( 71399 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:15PM (#2306585) Homepage Journal
    Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.


    Ummm... no. While linux companies crumble and fall apart, dying to figure out a way to make a buck off of something free, Microsoft continues to do well. (Have they ever even had a "round of layoffs" in their history?)

    I agree with the author's points about why the gubment is doing what it's doing, and why all the companies that wanted a piece of microsoft are now backing it. But I think he's deluded if he thinks anything is going to change for the better, in terms of software choice for the consumer.

    PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.

    • PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.

      I'm going to make it a point to save at least one MP3, just so I can you on that.
          • PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.
          I'm going to make it a point to save at least one MP3, just so I can you on that.

        The mists of time roll back in my crystal ball, and I see... your application for a license to run a non-government approved OS is refused, you decide that it's better to comply than go to jail, and when you try to copy your MP3 from backup media to your CPRM hard drive, Windows 2010 detects and blocks it while simultaneously sending your details to the RIAA through your (mandatory) net connection.

        And no, I am not joking.

    • While linux companies crumble and fall apart, dying to figure out a way to make a buck off of something free

      Yes, but Linux continues to do well. As does KDE, XFree86, Intel, Kingston, Maxtor, whoever made my case, and that equals a working computer for me. And each of them will do well with or without Microsoft in the pool.

      Maybe RMS's vision has won, and all that's left is improvement.

      --
      Evan

    • Please, in 10 years I'll have 1.7TB of RAM. Fuck hard disks.
        • 10 years I'll have 1.7TB of RAM. Fuck hard disks

        In 10 years, you'll be running a government approved operating system (Windows 2010, MacOS 16, GovIx 4.0), and it won't only trash your MP3, it'll use your (mandatory) net connection to whistle up an RIAA goon squad.

        This isn't meant to be funny. We're hearing this language right here and now.

  • Where Government Interests Lie (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:17PM (#2306594) Homepage
    Is there no more obvious problem with the system of government than this? It is obvious that money interests have an unfair and unjust influence over government in practice.

    The problem is that we can offer no incentive, as individuals, for the government not to listen! Even if we elected the least corrupted politican at each election, that doesn't prevent the next one from being influenced in the same way as the previous. All the emails, all the letters, all the faxes and phone calls do not carry the weight of a casual million dollars from a money interest group. The law does say, after all, that at some point, the politician can keep the money once out of office so where is the motivation not to listen to the money?

    But now we are in a position of asking the very people who profit from this system of government to stop profiting from it. I'm a very imaginitive guy, but I cannot begin to imagine how we can persuade against this. They "vote themselves raises." Who wouldn't vote himself a raise?

    Is it possible, then, that we can sue the government through the court system to stop taking PAC and other money? I'm sorry if that means campaigns will not be as flashy as they have been in the past... there are other ways to get advertising out anyway. (If a PAC 'really' believes in the candidate, then it would buy the advertising directly so that we can see conclusively that campaign funds go to the campaigns.) In a government of checks and balances, is it even possible that we could ask the court system to make illegal this obviously corrupting process?
    • I doubt you can sue the government over this. Guess who appoints the Supreme Court justices?
    • Once upon a time, the Federal Government was able to pass and enforce only those laws that the state governments and the citizenry would put up with. However, the citizenry was largely armed then, and the States had just thrown off an oppressive, usurping government.

      These days the states just jockey for their cut of FICA taxes and tobacco money.

  • Microsoft is not stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neck_of_the_Woods ( 305788 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:18PM (#2306595) Journal
    If anything Microsoft is not stupid. They are never going to make a piece of software that is a "all in one fix". Then they would only sell one thing. They are never going to make something that they can't improve, that would be killing there money stream. As long as there is something to fix, add, or tweak they have a reason to create a "new" os.

    Lets make something crystal clear when you put Microsoft vs Open Sorce. They have different goals. Microsoft is to claim the market share and reap the rewards of profit. Open Source is to share, improve, and make better to finish something. Microsoft will never "finish", and I hate to put it to you they make things easy, and in this world that is enough. When the open source movement sees that it is not the features but "ease of use" is when the tides will start to turn. The world does not care about if it can control the software, the OS, or the kernal. They care about sending and e-mail, making a spread sheet, and buying a DVD online without having to learn perl, or reading a book.

    Make it easy, and hide the hard stuff. That is how you win, and Microsoft knows it. We as open source, praise the hard stuff. We love it, we bask in it as if it was holly water, and it is our downfall.

    • Microsoft will never "finish", and I hate to put it to you they make things easy, and in this world that is enough.
      ...
      They care about sending and e-mail

      Well somebody has to care about forwarding the mail via a number of servers which are mostly *nix.

      We the open source advocates are not, I hope, competing with Windows as such. If people find that Windows is good enough for their desktop, let them use it. Some people, on the other hand, find that a *nix desktop suits their needs (e.g. sciehtific stuff) much better, and I can assure that happens from the number of Linux machines used here at CERN.

      What I fear is the PHB attitude, which crudely goes like this: 'Windows runs on computers. Network servers and number crunching machines are computers. Let's put Windows on all of them.'

  • George Bush and the M$ case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:18PM (#2306596) Homepage Journal
    So, I wonder what impact Bush's decision to drop the case against Microsoft will have on national defense? We all know about security flaws in NT, and with certain government organizations pushing for more adoption of WinNT and its derivatives to lessen their dependance on network administrators for UNIX systems (among other reasons) we will probably have more stories like the USS Yorktown which when NT entered one of its known failure modes crashed the entire system leaving the ship dead in the water. In fact, the Yorktown has been towed in to port several times because of "Smart Ship system failures".

    The Navy's plan to move from UNIX to NT (IT-21) is shortsigted, and possibly dangerous given that control of their command and communication systems is going to be NT based. One could easily imagine entire task groups being disabled without a single shot being fired by inserting viral or worm based attacks. Granted NT has TRUSTED versions, but many of the security holes and failure modes are still present. Relying on a corporation whose model for the dissemination of products is deadline based rather than product based ensures that their software will always be "not quite done or ready for release" as their goal is making money, not ensuring quality software with good engineering and tight security.

    It's bad enough running across the BSOD in my research, but I for one would not want to be seeing the BSOD in the middle of a fight. "Hang on Commander, we need to reboot before we can engage incoming targets." Screw that noise.

    • Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:4, Insightful)

      by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:37PM (#2306656) Homepage
      As a former enlisted sailor and Desert Storm veteran, this issue concerns me greatly.

      Could you be so kind as to follow-up with your sources for the information given above? I do not doubt the creditibility of the statements above, but if I am to fear something in our future, I certainly want to understand what it is I'm afraid of.

      Selling your product for profit is an acceptable motivation in business, but selling-out your country's safety is yet another issue entirely. The notion of NT running a ship's nervous system scares the crap out of me.

      I was aboard the U.S.S. Eisenhower (CVN-69) during the Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict. The state of the Navy was, at that time, pretty ideal. There were no women on combatant vessels, and "the big picture" was being run on some really nice *NIX systems. I was partly involved with the installation of the upgrades implemented on that ship at that time.

      Microsoft can't be so stupid as to think that their OS is stable enough for combat can they? Obviously they are... at least I hope they are. Otherwise, there are other conclusions about Microsoft I would be forced to draw... things like "Microsoft values its profit over national security." How about THAT for an insane conclusion?
      • >Could you be so kind as to follow-up with your >sources for the information given above? I do >not doubt the creditibility of the statements >above, but if I am to fear something in our >future, I certainly want to understand what it >is I'm afraid of.

        Absolutely. I originally read it some time ago in the Gov. Computer News, but any search will probably bring it up.

        I agree that selling a product for profit is acceptable and indeed what capitalism is all about. Furthermore, I am sure that M$ is not actively selling out their country, but rather the potential consequences are an emergent phenomenon of their corporate business practice. Accidents do happen, but in defense their are certain issues that need to be considered. Adoption of NT for the Navy's Smart Ship program is one of them.

        Here is an excerpt from the article in Gov.Comp news:

        The US Navy's so-call "Smart Ship technology" left the Aegis missile cruiser USS Yorktown dead in the water off the coast of Cape Charles, Va. for several hours. The shutdown of the ship's propulsion was credited to a database overflow in a Windows NT system. The crash was caused by the inability of the OS to properly handle division by zero. Said Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center, "Using Windows NT, which is known to have some failure modes, on a warship is similar to hoping that luck will be in our favor." The Navy is still expected to spend $138 million expanding the "Smart Ship" program to the entire Aegis class, and to other ships in the fleet. (Government Computer News, 13 July 1998)
      • is it just me or is that comment about women strangely out of place?
        • is it just me or is that comment about women strangely out of place?

          Okay, I guess I sorta deserved that. The comments I made were a short and conclusive summary of my perspective of the Navy at that time and what significant changes were occuring at the time I left the service. It was not intended to be a linkage of any sort.

          That said, I do not support women on combatant vessels but not for any particular desire to protect the "weaker sex." In fact, I would support women on combatant vessels whole-heartedly if they were on sexually segregated vessels. My argument against women on combatant vessels lies entirely on my personal experience in dealing with battle conditions! When navigating through a ship to get from one point to another, we rely not on our familiarity with the ship to find the fastest route from our current location (a) to our assigned general quarters post (b), but on our general understanding of the addressing of where we are currently and how we can get there. I know that it doesn't make sense both because of horrible grammatical construction or a civilian perspective but let me explain:

          Women's birthing spaces are GUARDED. That is to say that a member of the crew is posted outside of female crew quarters preventing the entry and passage of male crew members through those spaces. (Interestingly, there is no such counter guarding preventing female crew from entering and passing through male crew quarters.) This, in my opinion, interferes with the general "alternative traffic" flows within a combatant vessel even and especially during a call to general quarters. Getting battle ready at a moment's notice is, in my opinion and probably in fact, a sailor's #1 duty when serving aboard a combatant vessel. The mere presence of women hinder that primary and crucial duty. It's ridiculous but I don't see it changing any time soon.

          I love those sci-fi movies that show men and women quartered together under combat situations! They are forward thinking, in that respect, and depict how mature adult fighting personnel can relate to each other. I'll be the first to admit that we're not ready for it yet. But eventually, men and women sharing confined spaces in combat situations will be something I can agree with. But I hold that duty comes before issues of modesty. I will entrust my life to a female doing her duty. That has never been an issue. I think the feeling of being a member of the "untrusted sex" is insulting and degrading and, again, is counter-productive to the purpose of a combatant vessel.

          My sincere apologies for drifting so far off-topic. Please don't kill my karma too much. :) I just felt that the previous question warranted some explanation. It was an obvious question and I agree that it really had no place in the comment. As in almost all cases, I simply write off the top of my head.

          And if anyone has any doubt, I am STRAIGHT. I just take military duty very seriously. It's life and death out there and petty issues have no place over mission priorities.
      • Yes, Microsoft can be that stupid. The problem is that I think that they really believe that Windows NT and Windows 2000 Server are robust enough for mission critical applications.

        They've managed to convince much of corporate America of that quite nicely...and it is my theory that they managed to do that by believing it themselves.

        How else would anyone else believe it? :)

      • Having been working with and around the Navy's computers for nigh on 6 years now, I've come to realize that the people making decisions don't have a clue. The IT-21 decisions (I'll try to find a link for that...) were based in complete lunacy by people who had to have been paid by MS themselves.

        All of the major networks that I played with were Win-based, including several at USNA as well as those on every boat I visited (including, notably, the Seawolf). In virtually every case, the network was a hosed-up nightmare. I can only think of one that was even realistically usable, thanks to an absolutely incredible sysadmin. All of the others had so much downtime (and other manner of problems) that they were barely functional.

        To illustrate the point most dramatically, I was in a tactical simulation one afternoon, on a Win-based network. Our ships had run across the enemy in force, and we prepared for the incoming aircraft. Unfortunately, we were unable to fire any missiles, as the system locked up before the first shot was fired. We sat helplessly and watched as our fleet was destroyed. Fortunately, that was merely a simulation, but it isn't hard to imagine a similar problem happening in real life -- and nevermind the problems of fighting with a ship whose network may be under attack!

        I shouldn't have to reference the SmartShip failure, either. The Navy's experiment with a computer-based ship started out as a Unix project, but was switched out to MS at the last minute. On one occasion, a null value in a database crashed the entire ship's computer system, disabling the entire ship. It had to be towed back to port. Imagine that happening in battle.

        With leadership like this, we hardly need enemies!
    • It's bad enough running across the BSOD in my research, but I for one would not want to be seeing the BSOD in the middle of a fight. "Hang on Commander, we need to reboot before we can engage incoming targets." Screw that noise.

      Or imagine it in smart planes, like the Stealth F/B which has a tendency of falling from the sky if the computer crashes. SE-Linux on the other hand could be a real boon for the DoD.
      • All instances of the stealth fighter's (F-117) involvement in crashes that I know of did not involve computer issues. There is one shoot down that I know of, one crash due to structural failure at an air show, two cases of aircraft being "flown into the ground" due to pilot disorientation. (flying at night can be VERY difficult) One prototype (Have Blue) was destroyed during test flights due to fire after a hydraulic failurem and another prototype (Senior Trend) crashed due to "technical issues". Essentially a miswired control system.

        As for stealth bombers, (B-2) I am aware of no crashes.

  • As always, Time [time.com] puts their articles online. This one, 'Microsoft Uncut' describes the case in less than flattering terms.

    [extract from article] "Supporters of the antitrust lawsuit are worried that last week's announcement by Justice may be only the first shoe to drop. The next, they fear, could be a fuller capitulation, with the government settling the suit on terms that will let Microsoft continue to abuse its monopoly position"

  • What total FUD. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Telek ( 410366 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @05:56PM (#2306737) Homepage
    If you're a linux zealot that hates microsoft then don't bother reading and just moderate away as Troll, save yourself a few minutes.

    The article looked reasonable until I read this:

    He can do this by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences, thus requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers

    What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on /. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product. Quite a lot, I might add, that customers have been bitching about for years and years. For starters, they finally got rid of the hideous Win3.11/Win9X codebase, which BTW they have been trying to do since Windows95 came out. Windows 98 was supposed to be based on the NT kernel, but there was far too much resistance from the consumer base who was claiming that their legacy applications would not run, thus MS had to release another version off their 3.11 base. Windows98SE was supposed to be an indication that they wanted to stop yet again, and WinME was supposed to be called Win98TE (third edition) but marketing thought that it would be a very bad idea to do that again.

    In any case, they have finally released a product that is, IMO, much more user friendly, finally away from the Win3.1/9x codebase, which is what people have been asking for for years. Sure, it does take a bit more processing power, however I noticed that on a fresh install, NOT ONLY does it boot in less time than linux does (30s from POWER ON to completely logged in. It's insanely fast), but it also takes LESS memory on boot than W2K did. MS did extensive user testing on their new modifications to their interface to make it much more friendly for Mom&Pop and the traditional Win9X user base, and included the options to turn this off so that you can go back to the W2K style interface. They have also abstracted the user interface layer sufficiently so that it is possible to create your own user interface entirely, as these people [stardock.com] have done to give you whatever type of interface you want. They have made the system much more robust and fault tolerant, indeed even more than W2K. They've added driver rollback, system restore and numerous other features to save people from their own mistakes, they've implemented a much more rigerous testing plan to ensure that drivers can't cause a system problem, they've implemented a system where drivers that are known to cause system problems will have the user warned prior to installing (and before you scream foul here, you can not only disable this, but you can edit the list yourself. It will not prohibit you from installing anything that you are determined to install). They have made it very simple to use webcams and cameras and scanners and other devices with very very little effort at all, they have given simple file sharing and networking and firewall and routing capabilities for home networks, and countless other features designed to be nice to the users. Indeed this is one of the largest changes that has happened for the average user since the Windows 95 release.

    In addition, the hardware requirements are negligably higher than that of W2K. The memory has been doubled under the "Recommended" arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares? I'm glad they did this too because the memory management algorithms in W2K were far too old and based upon the premise of never having enough memory so swapping was agressive.

    My system is much faster now than it was running Windows 2000.

    They've added in many new support features like (Essentially) a built in high efficiency PCAnywhere/VNC based on the terminal server system that is fast, and designed in this case to allow other users to connect to your desktop to interface with you and help you out to configure that printer that you just bought and can't figure out how to setup. There's numerous other enchancements that I won't bother to go.

    So how do the users respond? Actually most of them like it, but there's always the super-linux-rulez-MS-sucks crowd that is impossible to please and screams foul when MS does what they've been asked to. There is no winning no matter what they do.
    • Personally I thought it was funny his prediction of how Microsoft is dying and the FSF will rule the world.

      Can there be anything further from the truth?
    • How is getting rid of the Win3.11/Win9x codebase innovative? Linux did this years ago.

    • Re:What total FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Maserati ( 8679 )


      I've been trolled, but...


      So "Innovation" is putting in features that users have been demanding for years ?


      Here's a tip: innovation means coming up with something that no one else has thought of. If shareware utilities ahve it, and consumers know to want it, then it isn't innovative, it's missing.


      From www.m-w.com

      Main Entry: innovation
      Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
      Function: noun
      Date: 15th century
      1 : the introduction of something new
      2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

    • What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on /. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product.

      How does it run on a x586 with 32 MBytes of RAM ?

      Will it require a new machine for the vast majority of computer users to be a viable operating system ?

      Will it change the fact that for most users an operating system allows them to write letters, write email, and surf the web ?

      Moore's law: the CPU speed doubles every 18 months.
      Gates' law: the speed of the operating system halves every 18 months.
      Dell's law: the average computer user needs a new machine every 18 months.

      Note that the third is a product of the first two.

    • Re:What total FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by demo9orgon ( 156675 )
      The less someone understands their system, the less empowered they are to seek something better...and I define better as:
      • A product which works on the hardware I have.
      • A product that doesn't spy on me.
      • A product that I own.
      • A product that has been reviewed independently, without worrying about political and financial obligations and obfuscations and omissions.
      • A product that doesn't reinvent file formats for the purpose of breaking compatibility with other products, or forcing upgrades.
      • A product that doesn't force me to abandon previous investments in order to reap a dubious reward...like being able to use conjoined apps that I never needed before, and probably won't use anyway.

      By the very nature of the beasties involved, no M$ product meets any of the above criteria. YMMV, but hey, it's your money, and it's a free country. I'm not arguing from ideology here, I'm talking about using common sense. A computer is a durable product.


      BTW...if you define innovation as Leveraging new and unusual ways to lock users into license verification and developer lock-in, then you're right. Just like the Pentium 4, XP is the definitive OS for making the marketing departments of many software vendors happy. But I'm not going to be running it. I'll be running winblows 98se and *nix until they're outlawed. If I want to play a game, I'll do it on a PSX2 or similar dedicated game machine, which is remarkably inexpensive and well-suited for the task. All my boxen are either 486DX or Pentium machines, and they still seem perfectly capable of programming, illustration, spreadsheets, and StarCraft.

      Other than elaborate PC games, is there really any reason someone _needs_ XP (besides the fat-cat software publishers, M$, and Big Brother)? You do understand that just like the Auto Industry, M$ wants consumers to buy a new OS (hopefully by buying a new system) every year. And as long as the luser-base is stoopid enough to throw away their money, the fat cats are going to happily churn out new crappy products to make the luser-base happy.


      Sometimes it's not about FUD, it's about visualizing being on the business end of the M$ boot stepping a human face forever. Sure it's not so bad now, but someday they'll have those suckers resoled with cleats.

    • It will be its price.

      The acceptance of XP will be slow because it is relatively expensive compared to the added advantages that most users will get. Remember, right now most home users use their PCs to send email and surf the web at 56K. Even serious multimedia users are a small percentage compared to the email/web crowd at this point in time

      I will agree that with XP, MS has finally produced a consumer OS that at least comes close to being worthy of the hardware it runs on, even though it attempts to bring with it multimedia format lock-in. With the retail price so high, however, and the fact that MS has made it more difficult to install one copy on multiple PCs, I suspect that only a small percentage of existing PC owners will bother to upgrade off the retail shelf, and even if they do, they may not upgrade all of their machines.

      Even medium sized businesses (that don't get huge site licensing deals) will hesitate because of the cost. Our company has already decided to stick with '98 for the time being.

      That leaves much of the uptake of XP to new hardware, which will of course come with XP at greatly reduced OEM prices. It will eventually gain dominace though this, and the fact that broadband and multimedia will eventually grow, but the PC market in the US is beginning to saturate as many families now have PCs capable of email and web surfing, and the growth will be slow.
        • The Problem with XP Won't be its Quality... It will be its price.

        Actually, I'd consider paying for it (first time for everything, right?) as it looks as though M$ have finally gotten it right, but I do not want to support a phone-home product.

        Actually, I may consider buying a retail version, shelving in, and using a ripped non-phone-home warez version. Work through the morality of that one.

  • We haven't yet heard the final remedy from the case, so it what sense can it be said that the 'US gave in to Microsoft' ?

    • As Time points out, the govt gave something and got nothing. Normally, if two parties can't reach an agreement, one party doesn't just say "Oh, we'll moderate our position without a similiar concession from the other side". The Bush adminstration is signalling that these crooks won't be punished - plain and simple. They'll get off real easy, another "consent decree" to ignore.
      • Maybe Bush read the works of RMS?

        Consider this RMS quote, if you dare: "The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference."

  • Break-up would have been nicer to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ded Bob ( 67043 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @06:47PM (#2306920) Homepage
    In 1996, several of the developers at a company I worked and myself discussed the possibility of a Microsoft break-up. The conclusion: the break-up might help Microsoft in the long run.

    If we take AT&T as an example, we will all notice that the Baby Bell's and AT&T may be competing, but they are also quite easily squishing out the competition around them. Since none truly have a monopoly (at least outside of their respective regions), regulations have been harder to make against them. Just think about what we call them: Baby Bells. They may be very fat babies, but the citizens think of them as babies.

    Microsoft's size is also a deterrent for growth. Sometimes it is easier to dominate from a smaller position. It is much easier to organize and grow. If we keep Microsoft as one large corporation with shakles, we will probably do the country a greater service than breaking it apart and waiting for them to get us later.

    Personally, I was worried that the Justice Department was going to just slice Microsoft apart and not really force the law on this slippery snake. With the only punishment the government wants to get being financial and restrictive, they are more likely to get it. I don't see this as favoritism but wisdom.

    On a related note, I have a question for all of those hating Bush without reason when it comes to the decision (made be Ashcroft, not Bush) concerning not breaking-up Microsoft. What would be the ideal punishment? Would it make a difference if the restrictions placed around Microsoft's neck were instead around two companies?

    If the restrictions are good enough, I would not care how many companies the Microsoft monopoly had in it. I just keep seeing them getting off easier if they are broken up. The judge might think they have been punished enough by a break-up and forego any thing further.
    • I agree for different reasons. Unless this is resolved completely to MS's benefit, they have a lot of liability inherernt in having "Market Power" as declared by the courts, and breaking them up would diffuse it to some degree.

      I am in favor of slapping them on the rists and saying "You are guilty!" and then letting the hundreds of private lawsuits immobilise the company...

      Given this last week, though, I think that this case is going to be the least of Bush's worries... I don't think we will have to wory about additional capitulation.
  • Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.

    If Microsoft is headed to the boneyard, then the free market works, Microsoft's non-government-sanctioned "monopoly" (AT&Ts was government sanctioned, like every other real monopoly) isn't worth squat, and this crusade by a bunch of success-hating left-wingers (and certain alledged Republicans with Microsoft competitors in their districts) has been much ado about nothing.

    The converse, Microsoft's continued success means the free market doesn't work, isn't necessarily true, before y'think about throwing that one at me.

    One more time: FEED ENGINEERS, NOT LAWYERS! The money spent attacking Microsoft could have paid for a helluva lot of Linux desktop development. And had Mozilla at 1.0 by now.
    • Too many people here just don't understand bonehead economics.

      From what I can see, the free market in relation to Microsoft is working very well. 95% of the consumers want to use Windows, and Windows has 95% of the market. Gee! Of the people that I know that want to run Linux, 100% of them are. Of the people that I know that want to run Mac, 100% of them are. Gee!

      To be fair, I do know a number of people who use Windows who *don't* want to use Windows. I introduced them to Linux, and they went right back to Windows. Why? Because they discovered to their embarrassment, that even though they don't want to use Windows, they DO want to use something that is identical to Windows.

      As long as Microsoft makes the only product that looks, acts and feels like Windows, and the public only wants to use systems that look, act and feel like Windows, then Microsoft will have a monopoly.
  • Am I missing something, did they drop the case? AFAIK the case still moves on. No, they aren't going to split them up, but many will agree that was a short sighted solution (read: this ain't the Bells!) So, how has the US surrendered to MS?

  • the RIAA has said as much (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mj6798 ( 514047 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @07:30PM (#2307060)
    The RIAA has said as much. I'm paraphrasing from memory from one of their press releases: "We will be working with operating system providers like Microsoft to ensure that their systems contain binary-only systems that are difficult to reverse engineer for protecting our rights". The RIAA (and probably the MPAA) have swallowed fully the idea of security through obscurity and binary-only distribution. The DMCA provides further protection to them, allowing them to go after people even if someone reverse engineers the information. Obviously, there is no room in that world for open source operating systems or open source multimedia formats; in fact, such open efforts may well end up being considered "circumvention devices" in this new world.

    I wouldn't mind that much if Hollywood tried to lock up its junk tightly, but the problem is that in such a world of DRM and controlled platforms, independent content producers end up having to go to the software publishers for the privilege of publishing. That's not because the software publishers provide any useful service, or because the software publishers have any particularly great technology, but because they hold the keys that independent publishers need to get access to the multimedia clients and document readers. This gives Microsoft and places like that an unacceptable level of control.

    PS: I would try to dig up this information on the RIAA site, but when I try to connect to it, I get the message "ODBC Error Code = 08004 (Data source rejected establishment of connection) [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect."

  • No mention of Macs and lots of slashdot baiting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @07:33PM (#2307069)
    I like the Nation but even they get it wrong:

    There are now two kinds of computers in the world: Windows computers... and free software computers

    Macs anyone? Are Apple's numbers so insignificant next to Linux that they don't deserve a mention?

    Best software in the world free? That's more arguable opinion than fact. Both sides have their winners and losers.
    • Damn you! Don't mention Macs! Get with the program, why don't you?

      You cannot buy a computer without Windows preinstalled. So don't mention Macs. And even if you could build your own computer without Windows, you still can't build a laptop. So don't mention Macs. All the software on the store shelves only runs on Windows. So don't mention Mac. KDE and GNOME are better than the Windows UI. So don't mention Mac.
  • The US "surrendered" in the same way that Microsoft "won" the appeal.

    Mr. Moglen seems politically naive. Hollywood is not monolithic, and Dubya cannot simply say "surrender" to the DOJ. It's not that simple.

    He has the same myopic view that got MS into trouble at the trial. They thought that the real world works like the computer industry. It does not.
  • Says Bill Gates from his home in Washington. It's been said before, but I feel the need to say it again:

    The greatest effect Microsoft has had upon the world of software is the way it lowers customer expectations.

    After years of leading the market with medium quality products, Microsoft has passed the first test in becoming a traditional standard. People have learned to live with the BSOD, and even joke about it instead of seeking alternatives. Not exactly good news for those in the know, but like it or not, Bill is a marketing genius.

  • Lets make it clear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aralin ( 107264 ) on Sunday September 16, 2001 @08:43PM (#2307251)
    I will make it clear for Hollywood. I rented 4 DVDs a week as long as I lived with my roommate who has DVD player. And I would buy about one a week also when I would have it myself. Now I moved, I don't have TV or DVD player, but I have my computer with DVD drive. I would most likely continue in my habit, if I could play the DVDs without hassle. I cannot so .. this means that for last 2 months I didn't rent single one and I didn't buy any. Maybe its unrelated, but I was not in the movie theatre either and I use to get every other week.

    So as I am concerned they are losing money. 'nuff said.

  • There's so much more to popular software and operating systems than cool algorithms and features only a geek can appreciate. As I've said in other posts I was a marketing slime in the early days of my career. As a product manager I had to try and get the engineers to add features, that users asked for. Boy what a nightmare. The common response was "we don't do things like that, so real user don't need it." I'd have mountains of user requests for a feature and they'd say the same thing over and over. Since then it becomes easy to spot software designed by engineers and not marketing user research. Mac and Windows do lots of things that don't make sense to Open source crowd, but they are things users want. MS would of not of got the market share they have on arm twisting alone, they had to have a product people wanted in the first place. So even if you think you have the greatest software and developers around, it won't do you any good unless you're filling the needs of the masses, and that takes listening to them, not dictating what you thing they should like. At this time KDE and Mandrake are only ones trying to give users what they want, but their software still has a lot more maturing to do, before they are going to get the masses coming to them.

  • How Open Source failed Hollywood. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @12:38AM (#2307887)
    Open Source failed Hollywood, and all media creators, by claiming those creators could no longer sell there product for $20, one that costs a quarter to make, and must now give it away for free.

    Remember all the horrid stories about Metallica and Napster here on slashdot? And most everyone saying it was unfair to sell those CDs at such a huge markup? After all, they've been doing it for twenty years now.

    There are a lot of very rich people staying rich, with elegant homes on prime real estate, with bowls of cocaine on the tables and teenage girlies all around the pool. And you think a bunch of programmers can take that lifestyle away? Get real.
    The government? Five percent of America controls the government, as long as unemployment stays under 10%. Did someone say McDonalds? Or was that WalMart?
    The new laws on the way say three important things:

    1) The NSF shall be funded by the dotGOV to create a workable DRM infrastucture. This will allow people with the right-to-use to actually use the binary object in question.

    2) If the NSF cannot perform the task in a reasonable amount of time, a corporation will be given the green light, and will be exempt from anti-trust laws (who could that be?)

    3) It will be illegal to sell or transfer a device (hw or sw) that does not protect the IP rights holder.

    Never mind that all the people who once stole on Napster are now stealing on BearShare. Never mind that nearly all the people, in either case, were/are running Microsoft products.

    So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.

    I think that is a bunch of crap. We need to focus on doing the right thing--reasonable protection for IP, reasonable non-interference with personal behavior--if a musician wants to give something away, or an author wants to give away a book, they should be able to "mark it" free.

    Just like we do with books, we should be able to trade IP -- give it away, loan it out, buy or sell it.

    All that is needed is some type of client-server infrastucture, complete with (I imagine) a one-time decryption key process. The client-server infrastucture would keep track of the current rights holder for the objects, aloowing the current holders to decypt and use the binary object.

    There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.

    Society operates this way right now. There is no need to have two policeman ride along with me to insure I am not bad--it's just a matter of my realizing that crime or violence is not a acceptable solution to life's struggles. The penalty exceeds the payoff.

    Applying a similar concept to the IP situation--harsh prosecution for using cracked s/w, distributing cracking s/w, etc.--should be more than enough to satisy Hollywood and the Government, plus it's the reasonable thing to do.
      • So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.

      By 2005, you will need a license to run a non-government approved OS. Don't waste our time explaining how stupid or unenforcable that is, it's what's going to happen.

      • There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.

      More horrific than the DMCA? Cracking lame-o-whiz protection is worse than rape and murder?

      I was with you up to there. But let's criminalise the act itself, not just having the potential to commit it.

  • You guys would make the John Bircher's proud!

    The John Birch society views every event through the filter of "it's all a communist/insider conspiracy". You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".
      • You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".

      Yeah, I know, we fall for that old ploy of businesses declaring that they've given millions of dollars to politicians, when really the situation is much worse because... no... wait... how could it be worse?

  • *how* the U.S. surrendered... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) on Monday September 17, 2001 @10:13AM (#2308949) Homepage Journal
    My perception is that Bush didn't really tell the DOJ what to do, it was more subtle than that. The Republicans, having taken office and putting their own people in high positions as they have the perogative to do, got rid of many of the anti-trust experts and litigators they hired for the case, put some junior people on the job who don't know much about anti-trust, and those are the people now making these (IMHO poor) decisions.

    --LP

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close