MS Exec Testifies In Favor of OS Manipulation 823
Niscenus writes: "The NYTimes, where free registration is required, reports that a Microsoft VP, Christopher Jones, explains that Microsoft must be allowed to prevent competitors' programmes from being installed for the consumer's best interest. Most interesting quote: 'In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.' Any dualboot LiLo user who learned they can't defrag the hard way can understand this ..."
Is it just me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, many of these novices end up purchasing new computers and hoping they can learn something without breaking the thing. You can imagine a call to Windows tech support from someone using Windows that has had the Start button removed.
Dual boot could be a problem depending on how it's done. If there was a giant Windows logo on the front of the box, but it booted into Linux by default, then you could have some confused users.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, what they would do is refuse to help you if you are running a version of windows that is in any way modified.
This could create a huge secondary market for telephone technical support.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:2, Interesting)
His kid's computer, which I built, and installed dual-boot WinME and Slackware, was having problems booting into Windows. Windows was on one drive, and Linux on the other. Lilo was set to dual boot, with Windows as the default. He tried reinstalling Windows but he was unable to. When he called me, I said it sounded like the harddrive was going out. So he took it into the local shop, and they found nothing wrong with any of the hardware.
From what the tech told him, LILO was preventing Windows from operating. He did a DOS fdisk/mbr, and everything worked. Sounds to me like LILO was giving Windows some of it's own medicine
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other side, I've already seen for quite a few times Windows destroying MBR block (no Linux was on the scene). This and bad sectors were caused by software error in 90% so I think more like LILO was trying to load from MBR and yes, LILO was causing noisy sounds.
Not to start a flamewar, but counting my machines: Windows disk failures 6 : Linux 0. And I'm mostly deploying linux servers with multiple hard drives.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy a computer pre installed with OEM Windows, the support comes from the vendor, not MS. Ever see an OEM disk? It specifically states to contact the vendor for support. How would allowing a vendor to install whatever make it harder on MS? If the vendor installs it, the vendor supports it. This is no different for OEM hardware. MS will help you if you call them but you will pay for it. Sounds like MS is trying to increase the FUD factor for a practice that has already been in existance for years.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Informative)
And when Microsoft causes Windows service packs to deactivate application software like Eudora, and replace it with other application software like Outlook, and dosot on Federal Interest Computers -- as they have done, then Microsoft has committed a felony. And should have been punished accordingly: not simply broken up into different divisions, but broken up, dissolved, and all their assets confiscated.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And which OS would be a successor for Windows?
- Linux - forget it. Fine for techies, unusable for computer illiterates.
- Minix - ahahahahahaha! No comment.
- Other Unices/BSD - see Linux.
- BeOs - gone.
- QNX - fits on a disk, contains a GUI and a browser. But it's still far too geeky.
- Several Windows Clones/free implementations of the Windows API - latest thing I saw was a blue screen, so a part of the kernel was already there.
- A new development? Stuff it. We need something now. And right now there is nothing that could match Windows when it comes to companies and "normal" consumers.
I guess not only companies would be fucked. What about you? What about me?Microsoft dead is a damn bad thing, if you ask me. (No, I don't work for them, no, they don't pay me. This is just my opinion.) Splitting stuff like the HTML control (the Internet Explorer is in fact just a window around that control) from the rest of the OS would be a stupid thing to do. But letting vendors place other icons on the desktop - damn, who cares?
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Redhat is not the most user friendly (they market for the server end.) Use a desktop based distro, like Mandrake, SUSE or hell, even Lycoris.) my mother uses Linux (SUSE). No problems.My wife uses Linux. My GRANDMOTHER uses Mandrake (installed myself and givena s an xmas present) no problems....so what about it not being usable to computer illiterates?
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux - forget it. Fine for techies, unusable for computer illiterates.
If Windows ceased to exist, you'd be very suprised at how fast Linux would become usable by the masses. Remember neccessity is the mother of invention. I'd bet overnight, RedHat would be a billion dollar company, within a week, every Dell would ship with Linux and within a month IBM would be fielding a new version of OS/2. There would be no shortage of companies rushing to fill the void and of all the alterentive OS's, Linux is the closest to being viable on the desktop.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you have a point there. I think that in order to protect everyone from having to ever think again, we should take this to its natural conclusion. Since very few people know what a soffet is, I propose that the world forcefully aggregates all building materials and building technologies to a single company (how about Black & Decker, since that's a well-known company).
I further propose that any attempt to produce any non-B&D tools, machinery, or compatible technologies be punishable by multimillion dollar fines since any new construction will obviously be infringing on B&D's intellectual property. After all, it's well known that building materials and techniques were all invented by Black & Decker.
Any improvements to existing technology must also be banned because it might hurt Black & Decker's profits and the resulting tools may confuse non-builders who believe that complex projects should build themselves.
Also, Black & Decker should be allowed to automatically seek out and destroy competing tools in order to ease the confusion of the end user. After all, swinging a hammer with a blue grip is much different from swinging a hammer with a red grip. Such disparity in the end user's experience is harmful to the industry. Imagine what would happen if the end-user bought a toolbox with a big Black & Decker logo on the side, but found a non-Black & Decker hammer inside. Oh the horror.
I just want to know (Score:2)
Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:2)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now someone can make a replacement (a la the old Norton Desktop for Windows or something), but GE doesn't have to support it, nor give the dealers selling it the option of including it with the original purchase..
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:2, Insightful)
This would be a valid analogy only if Microsoft made computers.
In this analogy, Microsoft would make the compressor, HP or Dell would have made the refridgerator. The manufacturer of one component should have no say in what manufacturers are used for other components.
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore it is much more like the previous analogy where Windows is the Refrigerator and M$ wants to make sure you also buy their brand of toaster, microwave, dishwasher, etc. so your appliances will be 'compatible' even though competing brands do just fine and they all receive power from the same source of electricity.
The UI might be a little different and you may get different features from different suppliers but as long as the product does what you want and 'interoperates' to the degree you require, who is M$ to say you can't use it.
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:2)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blockquoth the poster:
Great idea! But how are you going to do it? The US Government, under whose jurisdiction Microsoft falls, has been unable to break up the company, or even impose penalties of any severity for their proven monopolistic crimes.
So, maybe we turn to the users? Get real. Approx 95% of the computer-using populace uses Windows for their operating system, and approximately 99% of those users have no idea what it is that Microsoft has done wrong. They don't care, either.
That about eliminates the possible attacks against Microsoft, unless you want to turn to illegal methods. Attacking the company on a physical level (instead of legal) is an EXCELLENT way to get yourself hunted down, arrested, charged with terrorism, and executed.
Face it, no matter how much you dislike MS, they are basically unassailable. They have the US government in one pocket, and a boatload of high-class lawyers in the other.
So there it is. We're stuck with them until 1) they do something so unnuterably ludicrous that the common man on the street sits up and pays attention or 2) they implode due to internal politics. Nothing lasts forever . . . but it sure looks like Microsoft is going to outlast *me*, and I'm only 22.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh... how about just not buying Windows instead?
I would really like to know what might have been accomplished if all the passion, all the lawyering, all the planning, all the brainpower that goes into trying to take down MSFT had been used to create competing products instead (and I don't mean GPL software that has no hope of generating enough revenue to really compete). Sadly, we will probably never find out. Seems like too many people have been taught it's easier to whine. Maybe it is, but it's a helluva lot less interesting to watch. Come on, IBM, bring back OS/2. Scrape off Be and verticly integrate it with hardware. Heck, if you verticly integrate Linux with hardware (thus removing the economic problem associated with the GPL) that would work too. There are so many fine creative ways to strike at the heart of MSFT and benefit the consumer. But no. You'd rather play lawyerball.
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Informative)
That would have been done a long time ago if Microsoft hadn't used its monopoly to make sure [theregister.co.uk] no major hardware vendor would dare to do it. If anything deserves legal redress, it's that.
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad, but true. There is no company out there (outside a few Free/Opensource software developers) who's interested in the PC platform at all. IBM's basically given it up (though they'll make ThinkPads as long as they sell) and Sun has this whole `PCs suck' attitude that will bite them every time they try anything to do with the desktop.
Face it, the only people on Earth trying to create a good experience for the desktop user is Apple, Microsoft, and the GNOME and KDE teams. And here GNOME (even with Sun support) and KDE are waaay short on resources. What'd be really interesting is IBM (or Sun) pumping some money into a Quartz-workalike for Linux. Or release some high-quality hinted fonts into the public domain. Or getting real usability engineers to create a good graphic-from-bottom-up OS. (Heck, if Apple can do this with BSD/Darwin, why not OrganizationX with Linux?)
Something like this, coupled with a getting-better Office suite (OpenOffice) for $49.95 -- now that would get Microsoft's attention all right. But hey, hiring lawyers is cheaper than doing R&D, I guess
Re:Well. That throws me off the fence. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to finish the harmful existence of Microsoft, then just spread the word about Bill Parish's MSFT Fraud Facts: Microsoft Financial Pyramid Summary [billparish.com] and other updates [billparish.com] to current and potential MSFT shareholders. That should do it.
The heart of a nice argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we have yet another senior MS executive who is saying that
- MS should be able to restrict competition if it thinks it's in the interests of the consumer
- arguing that the decisions that they made about Netscape (and found to have been illegal and against consumer interests) are in the consumer's interests
- arguing that having a machine boot up into Linux by default is bad for consumers. (remember that they argued that Linux is one of the few viable competetor to themselves).
They are, in effect, arguing that the DOJ agreement should stand because it would allow them to continue the sorts of anti-competitive actions that they've been convicted of, and that the agreement is supposed to remedy.Random NYT Account Generator (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
Take care,
Steve
Or... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html?url=http://
Link to the NYTimes article in this submission. [majcher.com]
I've found that feature to be quite useful... maybe Slashdot should start posting all the NYTimes URLs with the registration generator.
Or... (Score:3)
- A.P.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. I'll bite. The reason they thumb their nose at the group you mention is because you're very, very small. You say "significant minority", i think, somewhere in your post. It's a SM of Slashdot readers, who are probably an insignificant minority.
You want to pay money instead of give up "privacy". Great. How you gonna pay the money? Let's see a good RFC for anonymous micropayments, and maybe you'll be credible.
You don't like the NYT from an editorial standpoint (you call it a "rag"). Great, so now you're "boycotting" the NYT like I'm boycotting tampons (I'm male). It's not a boycott unless you'd be a customer anyway. But don't let that stop you from bitchin'. (it's fun!)
They've got Ads. So does almost any paper publication you pick up. The horror. They want to collect some (pretty god-damned anonymous) usage stats. Obviously it's a big plot to derive your SSN and Mother's Maiden Name. I'm sure it has nothing to do with figuring out how to effectively compete with other news sources.
I'd really like to see the books for the online divisions of major newspapers. Who thinks those departments are contributing to the profitiablilty of the paper in any quantifyable way.
Wanna read the NYT anonymously? Go to the newstand and pay for the dead-tree edition. Or get it online with non-but-near-zero "invasion" of "privacy".
Also, keep your voice down. You're making us look dumb. :-)
LILO and Defrag (Score:3, Informative)
Would someone explain to me what the issue he refers to is?
(Personally, I use System Commander 7 --- mouse-enabled boot loaders are a Good Thing (tm) )
His Example Makes no Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
His argument is pretty weak for the VP of a major corporation. Hopefully the court sees through it.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
Re:His Example Makes no Sense (Score:2)
Everything they do is to keep their software on top and NOT to make the OS easier to use. Keeping other OS's from booting is the same as keeping other applications buried from the users access.
It still amazes me business's buy PC's with MS Windows on it. If they just looked at a graph of their IT expenses over the last 5+ years they would be saying, "What business are we in, funding IT or our 'product X'?"
The rest of the world is finally getting this. Why the US market doesn't is just plain stupid. Look at the US Government, they still require MS Office file formats. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
LoB
Arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm completely disgusted.
I don't know what to think. (Score:4, Insightful)
In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.
Yeah, God forbid we should allow a competing operating system to start up instead of Windows. If this is the kind of stuff coming out of a Microsoft exec's mouth during trial, the states must be having a field day.
Now what's all this about the Start button? Maybe Microsoft has predicted that the next step for companies who are trying desperately to get into the desktop (Yahoo, etc.) to offer their own customized Start Menu replacements?
Re:I don't know what to think. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft rewrote its OEM contracts to forbid such behavior, publically claiming that it hurt the integrety of the "consistent" (their word, not mine
More recently, Microsoft has claimed that allowing OEMs to customize Windows before shipping a machine to a customer violates their Windows copyright. In effect, I believe their argument is that the OEMs are creating an unauthorized derivative work. Ironically, it's because of Microsoft's successful defense against Apple that look-and-feel is not protected by copyright, and hence the OEMs cannot possibly be violating Microsoft's Windows copyright when they mess with the desktop icons and start button.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that the witness was trying to confuse or pursuede the judge with this statement. That is, Microsoft is trying to spread FUD in the courtroom. I'm really hoping that Judge Collen Kollar-Kottelly has learned enough computer history to be able to discard such nonsense. Failing that, I'm hoping that she is smart enough to recognize unsupported FUD and dismiss it when making her decision.
-Paul Komarek
Let me see if I've got this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
This is part of their *defense* against punishment for illegally using monopolistic powers?
KFG
Re:Let me see if I've got this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is allowed to... (Score:2)
I don't!!!!!
Re:Microsoft is allowed to... (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, this is like a dope pusher on trial caught trying to sell a kilo to a juror! Any hope Microsoft had for overturning the conviction on appeal is destroyed. I've seen some mafiosos pull similar stunts, but you would think a corporate executive would have a few more brains.
Gotta love this line ... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, um
The arrogance coming out of Redmond just gets more breathtaking by the day. They deny any wrongdoing while admitting to exactly the behavior which even the appeals court (which was so clearly biased in Microsoft's favor that it was almost embarrassing) found was illegal, and then insist that this behavior is not only legal but ethical and right. These people really do not live in the same world as the rest of us.
Different look and feel in windows itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
The exec's statement seems contradictory. Microsoft dumps tonnes of new things (innovations like clippy) in every version of product, and they are telling people that if the manufacturer wanted to add or remove a couple of icons, it will make the user confused?
The exec's reasoning that "there is a potential threat of dual booting" is absolutely ridiculous. Further, if the manufacturer wanted their users to run linux, they probably would be smart enough not to buy the XPensive bloatware for that PC to start with!
S
Ouch ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.
So he belives that computer manufaturers have to deliver their machines with Windows. That supplying it with Linux would violate some written standard. Windows may be a de facto standard, but come on
Last, but not least listen to this:
I go to work every day to build great products that people are going to love.
On what planet?
For the record: I'm not entirely anti-Microsoft, but I am anti-Windows. Microsoft has made some great stuff and should be admired for some of the things that they've achived. (IANEAMBIAAW)
Because, of course, competition is a bad thing! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think there's any easy way for competition to be encouraged, that will really hold Microsoft to any type of behaviour. Witness, for example, the way Microsoft used a license to cut the documention of CIFS off from their only real big competitor for that particular file system -- SAMBA. Because Samba is licensed under the GPL, they are unable to use the information contained within the document because of the license on it.
OS and look and feel (Score:2)
This type of statement seems to be confusing the Windows operating system with the skin of the Windows operating system... at least that's probably the best name for it these days, because it's essentially the look and feel of the OS. How many people apart from sysadmins want to use Windows, or any OS, because of "good" security or "good" file formats, or "good" anything except ease and consistency of use?
Most people don't buy Windows because of the OS, they buy it for how it looks and works on top. If Microsoft were required to sell the OS separately from the skin, or at least let vendors replace the skin with a different one, I wouldn't personally mind as much about them requiring that people can't change their own marketed look and feel... To me that seems to be all that he's complaining about here.
As long as consumers can actually choose the look and feel they want in the first place, it would be much easier for others to compete than to compete with an entire operating system.
Re:OS and look and feel (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots, actually. For many -- maybe even most -- people, one user interface is just as frustrating and complex as the next. To the extent that these people choose their OS at all, they choose to use the system that runs most of the applications they want to use. Until recently, this has by and large meant Windows since it had the best web browsers, Office, and the AOL client. Lately, an awful lot of these people have been walking into stores wanting an iMac because they saw a friend editing home videos or because that's what is advertized to work with the iPod.
Most of the people I work with use Linux or similar, and none of them are sysadmins. They use it because the two more popular desktop OSes make astoundingly pathetic scientific workstations.
Old FTC investigation (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that Microsoft wants lift these restrictions, after they have been found guilty of abusing a monopoly. Isn't this bizarre?
I can't believe how blatantly arrogant M$ is (Score:2)
I realize the average user may not wish to use Linux or a diff. *Nix system, but for those that would this seems like a blatant attack on them.
Why do they keep getting away with this? Is everyone in Washington retarded? I don't mean to give retards a bad name, but come on?
Why didn't he just come out and say, "We want to tell you what you can put on your computer. We know what's best. Resistance is futile." Fess up you wussy.
Christopherrjones.com (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Christopherrjones.com (Score:4, Funny)
At least he's not worshiping some deity within the everquest world and making a web site about it. Now *THAT* would be cause for concern! :)
Re:Christopherrjones.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Less concern than the religion he is promoting. Being a majority religion doesn't make it any nicer than being a majority OS makes MS. If it's all that you know, it can seem ok. Or even good. But that's because it's all that you know.
Somewhere down in Houston, Texas... (Score:3, Funny)
[Email from ISP tech support: your monthly bandwidth quota has been exceeded.]
Those $@#%#$%^*%% Slashdot editors! Arrruggh!!!
What a joke! (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was right on: Cut out the OS - give it to a separtate company and let all the other's compete as they choose on applications.
As long as this clear separation is avoided, there is bickering and cheating - in particular from the side of Microsoft. They are very skillful in this game. That's why they got there in the first place.
The company owning the OS and writing applications to it always has an advantage and Microsoft tried and is succeeding in blurring the border between OS and applications to keep this advantage.
This opportunity to clean this up was missed due to the fact that the judges of the appeals court are wimps.
Just look at the possibility of being prejudiced. Has it ever been looked at if any of the judges or their close relatives had any stock or mututal fund with Microsoft stock in it? I doubt it.
The courage to do "what is right" is missing in the US judidical system, things are done which are "politially right" or "don't hurt the consumer". What a mess!
Very disappointing.
Re:What a joke! (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Darwin is Unix, but OS X is not. OS X is a union of Darwin and a UI. The UI was certainly not targeted at me, and Darwin was certainly not targetted at Apple's primary audience. At any rate, my comment about Unix being made by hackers, for hackers, was primarily a historical reference to the origins of Unix (as well as GNU/Linux).
2) Why would I want to make XP look like 95? The way it *looks* is not that important to me. Heck, I thought fvwm was a good-enough window manager, since my idea of a good window manager is one which lets you put lots of terminals on one screen, and then gives you further virtual desktops to fill up with more terminals (and allows customized key-bindings to hop between the desktops). I recently saw that some Microsoft employees released "power user" software that gives a semblance of these capabilities to Windows XP, and I think this is great (even though the pager appears to be a hack using iconized windows). But why didn't Microsoft include this stuff in XP?
3) I should make it clear that calling the MS filesystems "disgraceful" is my opinion, which I believe has some merit. This is why I don't like any of the Windows filesystems (please correct me if MS has "fixed" any of these things into NTFS 5):
a) The Windows filesystems have a hard-wired connection between filesystem names and physical devices (i.e. C:\..., D:\..., etc), which causes software configuration information in the non-human-readable registry to depend on physical device configuration.
b) Using \ instead of
c) The separation between devices and files. It is my opinion that the "everything is a file" philosophy employed in the Unix file systems is arguably superior to Microsoft's half-assed support of this concept ('copy con foo.txt' works, but which file represents the sound card's DSP on NTFS 5?). This philosophy goes a long ways in providing nearly-uniform access to all parts of your computer. This design decision greatly enhances the power of scripts, especially when coupled with pipes, redirection, and fine control over file handles.
d) The lack of symbolic links (does NTFS finally have these?). Windows shortcuts require unnecessary nonsense to create programmatically.
e) Windows filesystems, AFAIK, *all* make a distinction between "text" and "binary" files. It is arguable whether this was appropriate in DOS. It is clearly inappropriate now.
f) I don't know about NTFS, but VFAT is case-random. It is difficult, programatically, to correctly discover the original capitalization of a filename.
I'll stop there, because that's what was on the top of my head when I made the comment that Windows filesystems were "disgraceful".
4) My accusation was that Microsoft has completely neglected the command line. That Cygnus Solutions saw fit to remedy this, as best they could, does not excuse Microsoft's utter failure to provide a reasonable command line interface by default. For me, this is important. And XEmacs isn't really the sort of command-line use I'm referring to; even if it were, it isn't supported by Microsoft or provided by default. Finally, why bother turning Windows into Unix, instead of just using Unix? Especially since you can find Free (and free, to boot) Unix implementations? Doing so makes sense for people not allowed to run Unix, but I'm not among these people.
FWIW, there are many LaTeX implementations available for Windows, and you can use TeTeX or MikTeX via cygwin. However, Microsoft decidied to focus its effort on various equation editors that can't seem to agree which font to use (for instance, curly-epsilon or set-inclusion epsilon seems to depend on which Microsoft software packages happen to be present on the computer used for display -- can't they at least be consistent within their own software?).
I wasn't really trying to support the assertion that Windows sucked for everyone. I was trying to support the assertion that Windows sucks for me. I wanted to make this point against my perception that you were asserting everyone could like Windows if they just got over their ethical hangups about Microsoft and Windows.
The Windows power users I've watched (all of which are developers or researchers, because of the company I keep) seem to make every effort to turn Windows into Unix. It seems you are suggesting that something in Windows has the possibility of causing power users to lose their minds every day. This suggests to me that Windows is ill-suited for power users. I must admit I don't understand the point of your quote from Tim O'Reilly.
Although you didn't suggest it, I'd like to emphasize that , given a choice, there is no good reason to overcome one's sense of ethics in order to use Windows.
-Paul Komarek
Unrealistic (Score:2)
Second of all, people are doing a lot of work to make linux better. Herculean efforts are underway as we speak. Hang out at the dot (dot.kde.org), or at any number of sites at sourceforge if you're missing out on it. Or at freshmeat. Or any one of hundreds of other sites.
Finally, the line about "microsoft and its gayness" was kind of offensive.
The Soviet Union was Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is the same way: they don't give you much, but they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting confused by too much choice. Come to papa Gates, he'll take care of you, just like papa Stalin did before.
Re:The Soviet Union was Good (Score:3, Interesting)
A more apt comparison might be made to the US's political parties. You don't get much choice, but at least you aren't confused.
Re:The Soviet Union was Good (Score:3)
-Paul Komarek
Re:The Soviet Union was Good (Score:3, Funny)
Favorite Quote...and bumbled answer (Score:2)
Pure Bullshit (Score:2, Flamebait)
I love the part about, "even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows". Please, there's no reason to think that's bad except from MS' exclusive point of view where good means it makes them money. There is no impairment of function by allowing users to start up into another OS.
When MS says they're doing this stuff to benefit the consumer, its pure fucking bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Jones' personal site runs Unix! (Score:2)
The site www.christopherrjones.com is running Apache/1.3.20 Sun Cobalt (Unix) PHP/4.2.0 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b mod_auth_pam_external/0.1 FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_perl/1.25 on Linux
The sun cobalt stuff is a little confusing. I think it's a linux box, though.
Now That The Fix Is In ... (Score:3, Insightful)
With no worries about antitrust prosecution, we're going to see a lot more of this stuff. We've already seen them state flat out [microsoft.com] that "donated" computers must have a legal Microsoft OS and attack the GPL directly; [microsoft.com] more FUD will surely follow.
The only question is how far their "customers" can be pushed. My guess is pretty far. Never underestimate the pointy-hair factor. Most places, "learning something new" is interpereted as "complete retraining". PHBs regard doing anything new the way a nun would regard going to work in a brothel.
About the only thing we can do is to make sure Open Source solutions don't get wired out due to:
1. Laws or standards that mandate the use of patented/licensed technology. (*Must* use GIF, *must* pony up US$5000 to Unisys.)
2. Laws that specify "maufacturer's liability" (release an Open Source program; get sued if somebody doesn't like it.)
3. Laws mandating DRM hardware/software.
I'm sure we're going to see a flood of these from the Microsoft keiretsu.
What ?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What ?!? (Score:2)
Did you ever try StarOffice 5.2? The "desktop" feature was just plain stupid.
Taking it one step further... (Score:2, Interesting)
Which leads to the question what would happen when (after browser & co were made part of the Windows) Microsoft decided that MS Internet(R) is part of Windows. With Microsoft's ever-extending definition of what consitutes the Windows operating system this wouldn't be too far a stretch for their Marketing department I guess...
Learn from History. (Score:3, Funny)
are there. There will soon be another revolution in the US and this kind of thing will be sorted out most effectively.
A jury of one's peers (Score:5, Funny)
1) Microsoft is an OS vendor. Sun, Be (what's left of 'em), and Apple ought to be there.
2) Microsoft is an office apps vendor. Lotus might like a seat.
3) Microsoft is a video game console vendor. I'm sure Sony and Nintendo have some choice words.
4) Microsoft provides internet service. Let's add AOL/TW.
5) Microsoft provides a web server, a database, a mail server, and other such apps. Let's get someone from the Apache foundation, Oracle, Sendmail, and what the hell, the Samba team too.
6) Microsoft writes a lot of buggy code, so let's get an old Netscape exec in too to round out our dozen.
I'll bet we'd see some substantive remedies then!
Before you complain that Be is hardly a peer of Microsoft, consider how 12 upper-middle-class white folks can be considered peers of a poor black woman.
They should open the file formats. (Score:3, Interesting)
As I see it, it is only right that you should pay for an application you use if it is sold as a proprietary application. However, you should not be forced to continue to use that application to manipulate your files if a superior alternative exists.
Neither Microsoft nor Corel nor any other provider of a quality word processor owns the copyright to works I create with their application. So why should they require me to use only their application to manipulate those works.
END COMMUNICATION
Standard Oil (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, the old "we're doing it for the consumer's benefit" plea. How can they continue with the "Msft is a giant because of consumer choice" party line and, at the same time, do everything possible to take away consumer choice? And I don't mean consumers 'chose' dos back in 1981 and so it's gotta to be that way forever. I mean, just like in the US once a politician is democratically elected he isn't in power forever, every 2-4-6 years he has to be chosen again.
They should have just broken up M$ (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the judge, the states, and M$ are getting into an endless and convoluted debate about whether or not M$ can offer stripped-down or modified version of Windows to reintroduce competition. Whatever *legitimate* (the present settlement is, IMHO, collusion between M$ and the feds) settlement is made that pleased the states will be a logistical and regulatory nightmare whose implementation will probably contain numerous loopholes that M$ can exploit and can stall for years in court defending.
Judge Jackson had the right idea. Breaking up Microsoft into two separate companies would have accomplished in one fell swoop and with relatively little oversight and regulation what the states are proposing with their remedies. It would have automatically forced the applications company to offer Office and other M$ software for Linux and other alternative operating systems.. Furthermore, the Windows company would have simply offered an infinitely customizable operating system because they would have had no incentive to offer the application company's software as a default over competing software (ex, IE over Netscape).
Instead of implementing this simple and self-policing remedy, everyone whether pro or anti settlement is proposing to make themselves jump through an infinite amount of regulatory and logistical hoops to accomplish the same objectives with far greater effort.
M$ pulled a fast one when they managed to convince everybody that Judge Jackson was biased. He has every right to speak his mind on his opinion *AFTER* the verdict was rendered!
At least they are not lying.... (Score:3, Funny)
"Are you a big evil monopoly that is out to take over the world, crush everyone and everything in your way?"
The answer might be:
"Yes, that is us".
Lawyer might then say:
"But if this appeals court goes against everything you want, would that not stop you?"
Answer could be:
"We would pull Windows from the market place, and watch IT fall apart as we are the structure that binds IT. We are the IT Gods and the court should realise that you don't mess in the affairs of Gods. Mess in our affairs and its bye bye IT".
Lawyer:
"Do you really believe you are IT Gods?"
Possible answer:
"Oh yes we are
Lawyer:
"What about Linux, what about Apple, would they not prosper?"
Possible answer:
"Huh? A stupid fat bad! They cannot even make a user friendly system, of course using a Unix like system has a lot to do with that. But it gets more popular hence we're clever enough to attack its GPL under pinnings".
Lawyer:
"Erm, Apple?".
Possible Response:
"What about Apple? We make fairly good profit off of them, but attacking right now is only what a stupid person would do in a court case that could decide our companies future, of course we're not going to try and finish them off until this case is over!".
Lawyer:
"I was referring to the user friendliness of OS X that runs on top of a Unix like system".
Bang, bang bang from the judge:
"Witness can stand down now please, I just cannot take anymore right now".
Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow.
You know what honks my hairs? MS didn't REALLY start acting like a monopoly until they were already convicted.
WTF.
When this whole anti-trust thing came up, I (frankly) didn't think there was much of a case. Sure, there's the whole preferred pricing OEM license leverage thing, but hey, cheap software was cool, right? Most of the other stuff (IE?) was the sort of really nitpicky Al-Capone-tax-evasion stuff I'd expect from Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs because Bill Gates is smarter than they are, they know it and they're too ego-saturated to stop whining.
Now I'm not so sure. In fact, place me FIRMLY in the camp that now believes the first judge (whassisname?) had the right idea. MS needs to be broken up into (at least) four parts:
1)OS/Development
2)application software and games.
3)consumer products (XBox, peripherals)
4)services (MSN, Expedia, Hotmail, Passport/hailstorm/whatever)
Re:He runs linux! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only is he using PHP, but his forum [christopherrjones.com] is based on phpBB, an open source project (GASP).
Re:not the same christopher jones (Score:2)
Re:So what!? (Score:2)
Re:I have an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may say "But what if we make installation so easy that people can just do it later?" That's a flawed premise. Installation of Linux is already fairly easy, especially when compared with Windows' primitive text-based installer that can hardly do anything. Besides the fact that most people are never going to bother with the installation of a new OS, the problem is that people who convert to Linux will want to preserve their existing Windows systems. To do so, they will have to resize their existing partitions, which are increasingly in Microsoft's proprietary NTFS file system format. Resizing NTFS partitions, to my knowledge, is not possible with any Linux installer, and if it is made possible, MS can threaten to sue those who implement it over their NTFS patents (as they have done in the past), as well as alter the standard unpredictably. This makes it almost impossible to implement simple dual boot installation, unless you're willing to piggyback on NTFS and the Windows bootloader -- generally a bad idea for obvious reasons.
Simply put, if Microsoft keeps the OEM channel, gaining ground outside schools and developing countries will be hard.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has. Try Lycoris or Mandrake. Nowadays you play Solitaire during the install. Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
MS's setup is the best OS setup I have ever used, period.
Then why doesn't the Windows XP installer recognize my FreeBSD and Linux partitions and allow me to select them from its boot manager, or allow me to resize or create any non-Windows file system? That's right, because Microsoft has a monopoly and doesn't need to implement certain functionality others do need to implement. Feature-wise, Linux installers are far superior.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes. If your hardware doesn't work in Linux, you're supposed to submit extremely detailed bug reports to mailing lists where they won't care about your problems or solve them in a timely fashion.
Wrong. Making a hardware driver is no easy task, and their existence is generally based on the availability of specs. If there are no published specs for a piece of hardware, then forget about ever getting a driver (or least one that is complete) except from the manufacturer.
For a short time I was involved in the gnokii project, which was an attempt to make unix drivers for a few serial-based Nokia phones. Many of us spent days trying to reverse-engineer the serial protocol using a "man in the middle" computers. After almost 6 months of work, gnokii was finally able to send and receive text messages. However, the ultimate goal was to be able to make data calls. Unfortunately, Nokia used a key-based authetication mechanism to enable data calls, which I believe was so they could license the technology to other driver makers (like TDK's mobile stuff). This would have been a dead-end for gnokii, but then one day the key algorithm surfaced anonymously. Now gnokii can make data calls, although I question the legality of it.
Anyhow, after around 3 years under development, the project is still not at version 1.0, and I would imagine most users of those old Nokia phones have gone on. New Nokia phones nowadays use standard protocols (the 8890, for instance, acts as just an IR modem. Works in Linux 100% with no driver).
The moral of the story? If Nokia had released the full specs to their phones then I can guarantee there would have been fully-featured drivers within just a few months. Instead, the gnokii developers were forced to dick around with reverse-engineering, which is almost always a lost cause. Seen the Linux driver situation for Winmodems lately? Just forget about it.
I once wanted to make program to query GPS values from my Earthmate GPS device, so I went out and sought the hardware specs. The Earthmate uses the Zodiac chipset, of which there is a full PDF file available. I coded a simple program to interface with the Earthmate in only a few days. Mind you, this was for Windows 98. Linux is irrelevent here. Specs are all that matter.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:2)
So you're basing your opinion of Linux installers on a system from 4 years ago? Things have changed so radically since then it's difficult to make a comparison. I installed both Windows and Linux on my current machine, and I personally found the Red Hat 7.2 installer to be at least as easy to use, if not easier, than the XP installer. It didn't hiccup once, autodetected hardware that I had to set up manually in XP, and didn't require a reboot until the one into the finished system. That's the expected norm for Linux systems these days, and most distributions live up to it.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the best YOU have ever used but there are few million people that could tell you that the Mas OS installer is definatly the easiest and most trouble free ever
Re:I have an idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is one better than that... no setup at all. You buy your PC at Frye's, bring it home, plug it in, and everything is already set up and ready to use. That's what Microsoft has now, and what it is desparately trying to keep any other OS from obtaining.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I have an idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
--tzan
Re:I have an idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's take your notion to an extreme, and say that EVERYONE who is opposed to being limited to Microsoft Windoze make a stand and switch to the Mac OS on Macintosh hardware. If I have any sort of understanding as to the relative sizes of the users involved, not only would Microsoft not notice the absence of the "Linux Community", Apple would only perceive a 4%-5% increase in sales.
Given this, one has to wonder why Microsoft bothers to struggle for the last 5% of market share (they'd like to snuff Apple as well as Linux)... and it has to come down to a desire on their part to obliterate any possible alternatives to running Windoze, so they can make their immense income seem small against the potential of making environmentally-friendly versions of Windoze that bio-degrade over the span of a year requiring a new purchase at ever-increasing prices (.NET by any other name).
Alternatives to Microsoft products do not pose a threat to Microsoft's current operations, but do limit the amount of pain they can force upon the consumer in the future. Elected officials pose no threat to them, so long as we continue to have the best government money can buy.
Excuse me! (Score:5, Funny)
Pardon me, sir, but I am gay, and I certainly take offense to being likened to anything Microsoft-ish.
No kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a good way to rally the troops, especially the same-sex partnered coders.
Re:I have an idea... (Score:2)
Re:Preventing Software Installation (Score:2)
Microsoft is a marketing company, choice is not an option. Competition is not an option.
LoB
Re:I have to agree with this guy... (Score:2)
Win98 SE defrag does nothing to my MBR.
Of course, it's the Technical Beta Special Edition that we beta testers got...
Re:I have to agree with this guy... (Score:2)
To tell lilo that you want Windows to start first, you want to edit the
As for defragging, I have never seen this problem on any dual boot machine I've used. Defrags always worked fine.
Replacing the start bar is certainly a problem, but windows has a warning message for everything. It seems like they could post a warning when an application does this, asking the user if they are REALLY sure.
Microsoft can come up with creative solutions to their problems, but only when it suits them.
Re:I have to agree with this guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
What they *are* doing is marveling at the fact that Microsoft is confirming in their own testimonies exactly what it is they are be charged with, except they seem to be under some delusion that their efforts are not illegal and even justified because "it is acting in the best interest of Windows users."
It's very funny to me and others that the company views the existence of other operating systems as bad for computer users and that anybody who suggests a non-Windows operating system to anybody could not possibly acting in their best interests.
We agree that their practices and attitudes are illegal and monopolistic. There's no discrediting going on at all.
-jag
Re:cover the start button? (Score:2)
Basically, it is the type of program they are describing here, it hides Windows behind it, and gives the user a completely different interface. My mom seriously didn't recognize Windows when I showed it to her on my machine, because she only knew Ace (you ran all your programs from within it, and even shut down your computer from it!).
Microsoft is being smart by trying to stop these programs from being put on machines, because it protects their monopoly. Honestly, given the choice between Ace or just Windows on a new pre-built machine, I'd rather take Windows. Not that I really buy pre-built machines anymore anyway...
Re:Obligatory Username / Password for NYTimes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)