Slashdot Log In
MS Oversight Committee Hopeful Stephen Satchell Answers
from the it's-sad-that-a-big-grown-up-company-needs-babysitters dept.
Satchell:
Before I get to your questions, I want to say something. Given my druthers, I would not be "campaigning" for a seat on the Technical Oversight Committee -- I'd rather be writing code, publishing articles and books, and testing the hell out of computer products. I like what I do today. Unfortunately, I have to act as a grown-up and recognize that there are some things more important than my personal comfort. I feel that, given my skill set, the TC is where I need to be. If they'll have me. Bob Cringley wrote that I "wanted" the job. I don't blame Bob for the slight inaccuracy, because having been a magazine columnist I know what it's like to write to a specified "news hole." Sometimes nuances get dropped when you have exactly 500 words to get your thesis across.
I apologize for correcting spelling and punctuation in the questions submitted by the readers. Blame the writer in me. Besides, Slashdot has enough mispelt words as it is.
So as Art Baker used to say on television every week, "You Asked For It!"
1) What makes you the best man for the job?
by Binestar
Do you have any special agenda to get across or have anything for/against Microsoft that would make it so you were not impartial in your oversight of any federal rulings? As much as most people hate them this needs to be done in a fair and impartial way; will you be able to be fair and impartial?
Satchell:
No, I have no special agenda or strong feelings about Microsoft pro or con. And I don't love or hate the company. Microsoft is neither "good" nor "evil."
And (as the lawyers would say) even if I did have some bias, I've proven to the satisfaction of the computer industry, and to the satisfaction of several judges over the years, that I can be fair and impartial in my evaluations even in the face of bias. (Most of the companies who suffered my reviews add the word "tough" to "fair" and "impartial" in their description of me.)
As I read the explanatory text in the Competitive Impact Statement (CIS), the Technical Committee performs investigations and evaluations of Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the Final Judgement as issued by the Judge, using software expertise -- which is a requirement for being on the Technical Committee -- to catch those things that might otherwise fly by a legal beagle. In other words, the TC is a fact-finding body, and as long as it finds the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts it will discharge its job fairly and impartially. The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) doesn't do as good a job of explaining it all, but will most likely be the controlling document.
Brian Kendig asked a side question that bears answering: "How will I be able to work with Microsoft without appearing to be biased?" Another question asked about how I would deal with the monster egos at Microsoft. I'll kill two birds with one stone; let me tell you a little story:
Over the years I have worked with the Telecommunications Industry Association, a "standards provider" recognized by ANSI. A number of years ago, a TIA Standards ballot crossed my desk, SP-2812, that described a method of encoding commands and multiple data streams in computer-to-modem connections for enhanced fax and voice-over-data support, among other things - the cellular people started using it, too.. Most of the work on this Standard was contributed by a Microsoft representative (MR), who was also the editor for the Standard. (If the MR in question wants to identify himself, he can do so - he reads Slashdot.) The Standard was virtually unreadable as balloted. After working a full two days to understand what the Standard was trying to say, I was able to construct a description that was clearer, covered all the corner cases, and left room for future expansion. I then voted "No" and faxed my vote and comments to the TIA. The committee chairman asked if I would meet with the SP-2812 editor - the Microsoft representative - as soon as I could. "Mr. MR has a huge ego," said the chairman. We met, we argued, we discussed, and we came to an understanding. I prepared a "contribution" that was a rewrite of the contents of the ballot. The result was EIA 617, better known to the rest of you as ITU Recommendation V.80.
2) Do you feel it is possible to have a unified MS?
by petree
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competitive? Specifically, if the United States government leaves Microsoft as-is (no "break-up") do you feel it is possible to regulate a company that in the past has shown no respect for government intervention?
Satchell:
Yes. Interestingly, it's the TC portion of the PFJ that lets me make that affirmative. Let me explain my take on it.
The effective sales life of a version of commercial software is now one year. The time required to get redress for grievance via lawsuit is around four years. Four years is more than enough time for a commercial software company to crash, die, crumble to dust, and blow away so that there is absolutely nothing left of it. Even if the software company wins its case against Microsoft, it's a Pyrrhic victory because the company will have lost where it counts most, in the marketplace.
The key to making the Final Judgment work to the short window dictated by the commercial-software market cycle is that the TC and Microsoft's Judgement Compliance Officer can solve a problem informally, rather than the complaining party and Microsoft taking years to build and litigate a case. It costs everyone less money, too.
In the academic and non-commercial software market, the key bottleneck isn't time, it's money. Very few non-commercial software efforts can raise the money required to take on the 360-kilogram gorilla - most of the time the leaders of such projects just sigh and go to Plan "B." With the TC (and some changes, hopefully, in the PFJ to allow academic, government, and non-commercial software projects to have standing) the cost of resolving a disclosure difficulty drops dramatically. That means that researchers, government employees, and non-profit developers can spend time getting the job done, not scratching their heads wondering how to do the job.
3) Asking slashdot?
by heyetv
Are you concerned that tying yourself to Slashdot, a known haven for us *nix freaks that are generally hostile towards Microsoft's actions, will harm your chances of obtaining this position, as it would require that those appointing the position perceive you as "objective"?
Satchell:
No. I welcome this opportunity.
I was asked by Slashdot if I would consent to be interviewed, and I agreed. This is no different than if ABC, CNN, InfoWorld, or The Wall Street Journal had called and asked for an interview.
Let me be blunt: I believe the Slashdot readership extends far beyond the boundaries you suggest. If you look at all of the questions that earned at least a +3 score from the reader-moderators, I believe you would see what I see: a broad cross-section of thoughts, opinion, and concern about the effects of the Microsoft Final Judgement. Slashdot questions are different than those that might be posed by a panel of journalists, or a panel of lawyers, or a panel of businessmen. I welcome the questions that Slashdotters ask because I suspect, frankly, no one else will ask quite the questions you have. And those (these) questions deserve answers from each and every candidate.
I would just as readily and as eagerly answer the ten most-insightful questions from, say, a community of Microsoft Certified Engineers or the Fraternal Order of Windows OEMs.
Slashdot isn't exactly a private club, either. My answers to your questions will be read (dissected?) by a wider audience than just those who have slashdot.org in the Bookmarks file of Netscape on their Linux or BSD systems. Count on it.
4) Restrict What?
by JJ
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be restricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future?
Endless loop:(n); see Loop, Endless.
Satchell:
That's part of the Great Debate between the Microsoft lawyers and the gaggle of Plaintiff lawyers. As you may have read recently, the Plaintiffs have divided on the issue over the number of yards to penalize Microsoft. The DoJ camp feel that ten yards is enough. The California camp feel that fifteen yards plus loss of down is more appropriate, and grumble that perhaps splitting up the Microsoft team into multiple "independent" teams shouldn't be taken off the table. It's now up to you fans to voice your opinion about the call. Unlike your federal elected representatives, the Department of Justice is required by law to respond to your comments, and the judge has to take that response into account.
The Technical Committee will then work within the framework of what the judge decides. I suspect that the rules of play following the pronouncement of the Final Judgement will require some tweaking and amplification once it gets going. The Court writes the rule-book. The TC will be the refs.
The biggest area of restriction that I see is Microsoft's use of NDAs to keep secret things that would block a non-Microsoft program from interoperating with Microsoft products. Much of the PFJ waxes long on this particular subject. Information is power.
5) What Would You Do With Passive Committee Partners?
by UberOogie
What would you do if you were saddled with two other do-nothings on your committee?
Satchell:
For the purpose of this answer, I'll assume that you do not intend to imply that I would be a do-nothing. Otherwise, what's the point?
There would be too many lawyers watching for a slacker to get away with it for long, I would think.
If you have never bid on a Federal contract, you wouldn't believe the amount of law that covers the behavior of contractors, and the PFJ makes clear that each member of the TC would be a contractor of the United States Government. When I prepared a bid for a Patent and Trademark Office contract, the applicable law as described in the Code of Federal Regulations ran for more than 150 pages.
The TC members had damn well better care, and work hard and fairly.
6) How tough?
by silicon_synapse
Microsoft is sure to test their boundaries and see how far the overseers will let them go. How much would Microsoft have to stray from the new regulations before you make some noise? Would you be tough and bring to attention the most minor of infractions? Or would you be more lenient and use your judgement to make sure the intent of the regulations are observed?
Satchell:
Good question. One of the nice things that the CIS stresses is that the minor stuff is intended to be settled informally. That implies to me that "the most minor of infractions" can be cleared up quickly and without any attention needed by the lawyers, let alone a judge. That's good for Microsoft, that's good for the TC, that's good for the lawyers who should have better things to do, but most importantly it's good for the outside party with the complaint because, with the dispute resolved quickly, that outside party can get back to the business of developing and out of the business of bellyaching.
Not stated anywhere (yet) is what happens when there is a legitimate difference of opinion about what the Final Judgement really means. Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the meaning of clauses in the Final Judgement might be "kicked upstairs" for resolution or clarification; alternatively, if the TC staff includes a parliamentarian a proposal could be prepared and negotiated at the TC/Compliance-Liaison level and kicked upstairs for an up-or-down decision, again quickly. That's one of the many details that would need to be determined once the Final Judgement is in place.
More importantly and implied in the PFJ is that the TC's six-month report would be able to show any pattern of tendency toward non-compliance and edge-skating, a defect in the 1995 decree that made micro-infractions, to coin a term, almost impossible to track.
7) Playing the devil's advocate...
by BOredAtWork
While the methods Microsoft has used to become an industry giant are questionable, to say the least, the fact is, they are THE industry giant now. Microsoft is responsible for a great number of jobs, conducts research that would be too expensive for almost anyone else, and MSFT is a staple of a great many investment portfolios. Assuming you would become partially responsible for ensuring their compliance with federal regulations, part of your job will inevitably become spin control.
To break Microsoft's chokehold on the industry will send their stock into a tailspin, cause their R&D cycle to slow, and cause a chaotic move for power in various niches by everyone from giants such as IBM to various smaller companies that most people have never heard of. This will cause ripples (or shock waves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dot-coms that show up and fail at trying to corner a niche to the price of new computers.
My question for you, then, is the following: If you do assume a role such that you oversee Microsoft's compliance with federal guidelines, how will you keep the ripple effects caused by your enforcement in check, and how will you justify the ripples that inevitably are created to the American people?
Satchell:
First, let me disagree in part with your first statement. Microsoft, from the beginning, had a set of axioms of operation that I believe were well-suited to the company as a start-up, served as well during its mid-growth, and led them into anti-competitive action when they became a monopoly. The axioms: "if you use it, you pay for it"; and, "we don't support products from other companies."
Some of the anti-competitive behavior described during trial was proven to be intentional and not related to company axioms, so I'm not trying to excuse Microsoft. That doesn't detract from the fact that some of their acts were good intentions coupled with bad choices, the usual paving material for the road to damnation.
Your question suffers from a touch of tunnel vision, methinks. Heikkile makes the point that Microsoft's actions go far beyond the borders and citizenry of the United States. I believe that the enforcement action that the various settlement documents contemplate will be sufficient to help everyone, not just the "American companies." As a TC member, I can put forward that anyone should be able to put forward a complaint...as long as it's in English. You can put that forward yourself, in your letter to the DoJ about your feelings about the proposed settlement.
The goal of the DoJ is to craft a Final Judgement that will stop anti-competitive behavior, reverse any gains Microsoft may have gotten from anti-competitive behavior, and keep Microsoft more on the straight and narrow in the future. The goal of the Technical Committee, as I see it, is to reduce the pain level to all involved when Microsoft strays over the line, to get Microsoft back in line with a minimum of fuss, delay, and fireworks.
I opine some more: by keeping the company intact, the PFJ doesn't upset the millions of business arrangements already in place, from developers to packagers to retailers to OEMs to volume customers. By DoJ's losing on the bundling/integration issue, Microsoft is saved from having to rebuild its operating system products and creating even more skews of its product line, which in turn saves on technical support by Microsoft and, more importantly, retraining at the OEM, retail, and IT level. In short, the DoJ/Microsoft PFJ already works to keeps the ripple effect down to something manageable, which says to me that the DoJ learned some things from its experiences with AT&T.
I repeat: the sole function of the Technical Committee is to keep Microsoft honest and to help them keep to the agreement they made with the Plaintiffs and the judgements of the Court. By doing my job to the letter, by the book, and according to Hoyle I would be minimizing the ripple effects while permitting Microsoft a chance to continue to do what it has done, bring product to market, and let the marketplace decide thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
8) To boldly go insane....
by jd
This may seem like a really obvious question, but how do you propose to oversee an organization the size and complexity of Microsoft, by yourself and maybe two others?
Microsoft has managed to avoid scrutiny by companies, courts, governments and even users. Many allegations made in the trial, such as "knifing the baby" remarks alleged by Netscape, would simply not be visible, by simply looking at Official Policy Documents. In fact, probably very little actual policy DOES appear in their Official Policy Documents.
In short, you can't hunt ghosts with an electron microscope. You need knowledge of what the right job is, and then you need the tools to do it.
Do you even remotely imagine that this is even possible?
Satchell:
It's obviously impossible. You're right, policing at the level you describe is a task too large for even 300 people, let along three. I doubt it's desirable, either. That would be like having your very own cop sitting in the back seat of your car every time you drive, writing a ticket every time you rolled a stop sign or cut a left turn (right turn for you Brits) too close.
If you read the Competitive Impact Statement, you will see that it contemplates that the Technical Committee will be complaint-driven. Because the process for the complaint (not yet defined, by the way) should be less onerous than filing a lawsuit with the 800-pound gorilla, people who feel that Microsoft has violated the agreement with respect to them will file complaints.
As suggested by the CIS, the TC will have to do some kind of triage and prioritize the complaints, and group like complaints together. Then they will investigate the complaints and work with the Microsoft Compliance Liaison Officer to see if there is a simple fix for the problem. If there is, the fix is put in place and the file closed and logged.
And if it can't be fixed? The TC reports to the Plaintiff committee, providing all information available about the complaint. It's then up to the Plaintiff committee to decide what to do. It could be as simple as a lawyer-to-lawyer phone call and directions to the TC and the Compliance Officer. It could be as complex as a special court hearing. Who knows? But all that stuff is above the TC's pay grade.
The PFJ anticipates that the TC may well need a staff. This wouldn't be a large staff, and would be sized according to the load. No, I'm not taking resumes... :)
One reason I suspect that the members of the Technical Committee must be "experts in software design and programming" is to minimize the "staff effect" that cripples the decision-making process in many oversight committees. If the members themselves have the background to understand the underlying issues, to judge the clues found in the source, books, and memos, and to assimilate the Microsoft technical and non-technical response, you eliminate the mini-trials that are the hallmark of the operation of many government regulatory boards. You also eliminate the exclusive judgement of staff, people who do not take the heat for their decisions like a member would or should.
9) The obvious question...
by Stonehead
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"?
By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..
Satchell:
As a member of the Technical Committee, my opinions in this matter are, frankly, not applicable. Other people decide the policy, the TC just implements the policy as set by the judge. But it's an interesting question, and I'm happy to take a stab at it. To wit, my opinion:
Richard M. Stallman asked the right question a long time ago: "If it's broke, how do I fix it?"
There is a BIG difference between "bundling" and "integrating" user-land applications into an operating system. If Microsoft wants to bundle a DVD-ROM full of stuff with Windows 2006, I say more power to them...as long as I don't have to have any part of Windows Recording Studio in order to install Syntrillium's CoolEdit as my multi-channel wave editor.
On the other hand, Microsoft has to be able to test and support functionality that the users want, or say they want. In the enterprise environment, the ability to install patches from a central facility is a real boon to the Information Technology department. Integrating everything together reduces the technical support headache for Microsoft. If it reduces the time for a tech support call, that's money saved, either for Microsoft for warranty support or the user if he or she is buying by-the-incident support services, or for the IT department if it provides its own support. Fewer variables.
And that is where "competition" and "user experience" clash. The optimal solution from Microsoft's perspective is also anti-competitive, not because they are worried about sales but because they are worried about tech support cost. The optimal solution from the perspective of Big Business is to standardize on a single solution that can be deployed, and if Microsoft's solution doesn't do the trick then Big Business will find someone else who can do the trick. The optimal solution from the perspective of the home user is that something happens magically. The optimal solution from the perspective of the SOHO user is to have none of it, because the SOHO computer is an attractive target for the Black Hats and the SOHO user doesn't want to have to spend $2K on a super-tricked-out firewall appliance between his computer and the outside world.
If it's broke, how do I fix it? Any solution MUST answer that question, for all users.
10a) Corruption?
by jamesidm
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the committee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?
-- plus --
10b) Re: Corruption?
by Odinson
Perhaps I could elaborate with my intended question.
Do you think board members should make themselves available for financial audits?
If so...
How deep into the board members lives can the audits go and how long after their stay on the board should their financial records be reviewed?
Satchell:
The Technical Committee has a report it has to file every six months (every month if I have any say) that details what it's done and the rationale it used for its decisions. An experienced lawyer is very, very good at seeing BS in reports like that.
And now for something I don't expect anyone here to believe: I've turned down bribes while I was a product reviewer. I turned down money. I turned down sex. I turned down neat toys. Several of my colleagues said I was a fool to turn down all that stuff - indeed, I have a long-running feud with a well-known writer over the importance of the appearance of being ethical. He tells people I commit "fiscal suicide." (Don't worry, I have equally nasty things to say about him. It balances.)
Ever been fired from a job because you couldn't lie? I have. Now you know. (Hint: it wasn't a magazine that wanted me to lie. Not that I would.) I'm just not good at lying. In order to be successfully corrupt, you have to be able to lie convincingly. I don't have that skill.
I expect that as a TC member I would have to file financial disclosure forms, that indicate major sources of income plus investments. I filed these as a journalist and as a reviewer, so I don't have a problem with that.
As for audits: people, please! This is the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE we are talking about. If DoJ suspects ANY problem, they have an in-house investigative arm that you may have heard of: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With the power to probe into any aspect of my life that they choose.
===
That's it for your ten questions as selected by Slashdot editors. There were other good questions that I think deserve a response, so I'll lump answers to them in the next handful of paragraphs.
First, in my lab I run 14 systems variously populated with Windows (98SE and 2000 Pro), Linux (Slackware and Red Hat), and MacOS (8.5) on a 6400. I have a couple of Sun boxes loaded with Solaris, too, but they aren't running right now. All but one Windows system dual-boots Linux. I have an early BeOS CD-ROM, but it's been a while since I loaded it. My 286 box has QNX on it, but that's been powered off for a long time. The last MS-DOS box bit the dust last year. I switch between operating systems frequently, choosing the one that is best suited to do the job that needs to be done. The general-purpose Linux boxes all have SAMBA, and one of those SAMBA boxes is my Windows domain controller. (I'm trying to get HP to give me Linux software to make my Network Scanner 5 work with my Linux domain controller - no luck. Anyone at HP listening?) I may be forced to load the copy of Windows NT Server I have on the shelf, or I may put the newly-acquired HP Kayak into that service. The house is wired with 100-base T, and there are a couple of ethernet switches to break up the collection into logical groups.
I have written software for resale that runs on Ultrix, SunOS, Windows, MacOS, Linux, MS-DOS, and Hunter & Ready's VRTX. I have written operating systems for embedded products, and worked on operating systems all through my 30-year career.
Some high points: Worked on ARPAnet while at University of Illinois. Software and system design for embedded-computer products at Rockwell, Recognition Equipment, Addressograph-Multigraph. Benchmark writer at InfoWorld. Technical editor at InfoWorld. Built modem test lab at Ziff-Davis Labs. SPECmark member via MacUser magazine (did SPECmarks for early 680x0 Macs). Editor of the modem testing standard for TIA (now EIA 3800). Reviewed and wrote about more than 600 products in over 400 articles. Wrote Linux IP Stacks Commentary for Coriolis Books. Work at the annual Glenn Tenney THINK conference. Cameraman for local PBS station. Test Manager at Motorola ISG on the soft-modem project. Ran BBSes, BIX Telecom Exchange, assisted with CompuServie IBMSIG. Wrote, sold, and supported OTTO suite for analog modem testing.
I have never worked for Microsoft or any operating system vendor in any capacity, technical or non-technical. Microsoft and its direct competitors, directly or through PR representatives, have never paid me a dime, given me a T-shirt, or gifted me with a logo-bearing yo-yo. All Microsoft products that I've gotten through the years were purchased, bundled with systems, or were evaluation units (clearly marked "not for resale") provided to me in my capacity as a member of the working press and obtained through [Microsoft's PR agency] WaggEd .
Some yahoo bitched about how obtuse my contribution to W3C was. My training as a writer taught me how to write to an audience. That contribution - a formal response to a W3C position paper - was written in Standard-ese. I hope the bozo sees the difference between that paper (written for stuffed shirts) and this little tome. Don't like it? Write me.
Remember the Cyberporn story Time magazine ran in 1995? A bunch of us on alt.internet.media-coverage who work in the press fumed and fumed about that story. After much discussion, and many complaints from others who fumed that we were taking over the newsgroup, we decided to form The Internet Press Guild as a resource to mainstream press people who got an Internet beat without knowing much about it. So far, nothing as bad as the infamous "Rimm Job" has hit the mainstream press since we started.
I was an OS architect a number of years ago, so I understand the mind-set all too well. Grew out of it, but I remember the feelings, the attitudes, the arrogance. It helps to understand the organization you are about to oversee. Microsoft is one of the few organizations I have ever encountered that exhibits the mind-set, behavior, and mannerisms of the OS architect.
If I don't get the job, I'll just continue doing what I'm doing today. If the TC that is selected does a bad job and the computer industry craters, I'll seek out a new career. It's that simple.
That should do it. Now some of you know just a little more about me than you did before.
PS: To be complete, I should mention I'm not the only one with my hat in the ring. John Dvorak announced his "candidacy" in his November 2, 2001 column in PC Magazine. You need to talk with him about his qualifications for sitting on the Technical Committee.
Whew (Score:4, Funny)
Top 10 (Score:2, Redundant)
Why not change the rule to "Top 10 highest scored posts, or all score:5 posts, whichever is larger"?
That way there won't be conspiracy theory behind which posts you choose, and you let the slashdot population hear all the answers they thought were important.
Honestly, I don't think the person answering the questions wouldn't mind more questions (although, there were like 20+ score:5 posts), but you can always say "answer the questions you like, combine some, and skip some if you like", that way its the answerer that can pick and choose.
Just an suggestion...
Simple answers (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Because the interviewee was told to expect 10 questions, budgeted time for 10 questions, and doesn't deserve to have that sort of bait-n-switch pulled on them.
2. Because having 20 Score: 5 questions shouldn't happen - it's an aberration of stupid moderators who missed the opportunity to winnow down the question pool themselves, by desperately hoping they can mark up and help their own favorite Score:3 post, rather than mark down (this is one instance where "Overrated" should actually be used) a bunch of Score: 5 questions that they think shouldn't be asked.
Re:Top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm...perhaps your suggestion should be floated to mainstram media too... I can see it now. Barbara Walter's Interview with Osama Bin Laden.
BW: "Osama-Why did you arrange to kill 4,000+ Americans? What is your favorite color?"
OBL: "Brown."
Ok...so
This is a problem dealt with frequently, particularly during election cycles.
Re:Top 10 (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Some interviewees ducked the hardest questions when we let them choose which ones to answer.
2) Many people we interview are too busy to answer more than 10 questions.
3) No matter what we do, the conspiracy theorists will come up with conspiracy theories about why we did it. I long ago accepted the fact that Slashdot is run by (pick one) space aliens; the CIA; the Corporate Conspiracy; the Illuminati; Jews; Nazis; Satan; Democrats; CowboyNeal. (And how do you know this post is from the "real" Roblimo, anyway? Probably an imposter!)
4) Most of the time, if we have more than 10 questions moderated +5, once we eliminate duplicates and those from people who don't understand the meaning of, "One question per post, please," we end up with just about 10 questions.
5) We have never stopped interviewees from answering additional questions, and many do, espcially those who (like Satch) are regular Slashdot readers.
- Robin
He's right (Score:5, Funny)
Here I was, reading along, thinking "smart geek", then - bam! - he throws it all away in four words
Re:He's right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He's right (Score:5, Funny)
It's all fun until he starts yelling out in bed:
"developers developers Developers Developers Developers DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS".
Hmmm, all of the sudden I pity his wife :)
focus on symptom ignores cause! no confidence (Score:2, Interesting)
This was part of the answer given to the question of how any "regulation" of M$ could ever work. Does anyone else see the problem with this reasoning?
I would say that the one and only reason "comercial" software only last one year is because of the games M$ plays as a monopolist. There is no technical reason for the bit rot seen on M$ platforms. Other OS do not have this problem at all.
So why should we trust someone who will not own up to as much? The answer, that informal resolution will be speedier than formal litigation leaves much to be desired. If a formal court order holds no weight, why would M$ listen to some little TRC? Were are the teeth?
Re:focus on symptom ignores cause! no confidence (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not condoning this but I can tell you that there as bad if not worse culprits than Microsoft.
Re:focus on symptom ignores cause! no confidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I direct your attention to a part of my answer to question six:
Just because the resolution is informal and fast doesn't mean that Microsoft wouldn't have to take heat for the act. It just means that Joe Programmer doesn't have to wade through a court fight in order to learn how to interface with some arcane corner of Windows XP in order to get his product out the door.
Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like I'm working in the wrong end of the software business. Time to launch "willacceptsexforproductreviews.com"...
Enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
zero power of enforcement. If Microsoft ignores the panel, it just has to put up with the panel for another couple of years....when they still don't have any power.
What can this guy do to get MS to change if he has to? Nothign.
Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is very hard to do. Almost everyone I know has taken sides on the Microsoft issue. I hope what you say is true.
D/\ Gooberguy
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
One of the advantages of having knocked around the industry as a white-hat hacker, writer, developer, and at one point as a QA guy is that I got to meet, work, and play around a lot of Microsoft people. My story about the Microsoft representative to TIA is typical of many of my interactions with Microsoft people. If you can get their attention and their respect, they treat you properly and with respect. Good things come from that.
Case in point: The architects of NT were adament that no device driver should mess with floating-point registers in the IA-32 architecture. If a driver needed floating point registers, the NT architects provided a slow routine to save the registers and another slow routine to load them back up. (I don't know any more details than that -- this was an API description.) In a soft modem product, the slowness of the routine (opposed to saving the floating-point context to a fixed location directly) is a killer. The NT guys had to be convinced that soft modems needed to be an exception to the floating-point rule, the same as games had been granted exception status.
I want to stress this: at no time did the NT architects say "We are Microsoft, you do what we tell you to." Instead, they (and we) argued exclusively the technical merits of our positions.
I respect that kind of alligence to keeping it technical.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
sPh
Do you think I'm Karma whoring? (Score:4, Informative)
posting comments on your own interview is such a brilliant way to karma whore. i see that you have posted 10 comments to your own interview. if you post just three more responses you should get you to the 50 cap with posts to this article alone, if you havent already.
What are you talking about? My karma has been stuck at 50 for a long, long time, because I almost never post any comment that results in a mod-down. (OK, children moderators, here is your chance to try to blast my karma if you are so inclined.) Before this article, I have articles which got +5 Interesting -- check my user page.
I'm posting because people are asking good questions that deserve answers. Period.
Satch, otherwise known as satch89450
(Posted without the +1 bonus because I'm no fool.)
What about the FIRST consent decree? (Score:4, Insightful)
sPh
Re:What about the FIRST consent decree? (Score:4, Insightful)
See the answer to Question 6.
In the first decree, there was no method to collect information cheaply about minor infractions, and no process to deal with the minor infractions. The Department of Justice didn't have the staff in place to deal with minor complaints -- do you think that including a technical oversight committee in the Proposed Final Judgement indicates that the DoJ realizes this?
Think, man, THINK. Every six months like clockword the Plaintiffs will get a report about every little complaint against Microsoft that comes over the threshold of the TC's door. Every six months the Plaintiffs will have to decide whether the weight of the infractions in the report merit bringing the stack to the attention of the Court. Every six months Microsoft faces at best a possible contempt citation for its infractions (if any), with the real possibility in the face of poor performance the extension of the term of the Final Judgement because of bad behavior, and at worst a reopening of the remedy portion of the anti-trust trial because the "Final Judgement isn't working."
We treat murderers on probation less harshly.
Re:What about the FIRST consent decree? (Score:4, Insightful)
But for your part, please think about this: Microsoft managed to outmaneuver David Boise, Joel Klein, Judge Jackson, and the best legal support from Netscape, AOL, and Sun. They had a rock-solid case, won it at both the trial and appeals court levels, and Microsoft still managed to outflank them. And you promise to do better?
sPh
Re:he thought, and so have others (Score:4, Insightful)
This is neither punishment nor assurance of competition. I assume you are referring to the PFJ. The Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States have a real huge problem: their proposed remedy has to satisfy both the letter of the law and the perception of the Judge of the "public interest."
The people who continue to say "Break it up! Break it up!" fail to see the consequences of that kind of action. See my answer to Question 7 about ripple effects -- I talk about where we would be going if Microsoft were to be splintered. Once you have the "public interest" in mind, then you need to enhance your calm regarding revenge and retribution.
That aside, you bring up very good points: How do we convince Dell, Compaq, Gateway, and others that the playing field is indeed level? Make public the rules of the game, and then the industry will put forth a stalking horse to test it. (They always do.) Then we'll see.
How many six-month reports will it take to reopen the remedy phase? None, I hope. My expectation is that Microsoft will indeed toe the line, especially as they will now have a person whose sole job is to ensure they do from the inside. Three people will be on the outside watching for fouls. And the rest of the industry doesn't have to make big shifts to accomodate all this. Stable, we hope.
How will hardware makers be reasured that it's now OK to release driver specs or even include drivers and source for non M$ OS? I'm sorry, I've not seen anything that suggests that any hardware company was pressured or convinced by Microsoft to withhold information or to no release drivers for other platforms. On the kernel hacker's mailing list, every time someone talks about a company not willing to release information, it's the company that has made the decision, not Microsoft. Some of the companies who do write drivers for Linux make it clear they won't release source because they have decided to keep the API to their software secret -- their choice. I am still miffed that Adaptec won't release hardware API information for their RAID controllers, because I have one and prefer the security model in Linux for my file servers.
What company has said "We won't release our API because Microsoft told us not to"?
Question 7: I disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
To really and truly 'deprive them of the fruits of their anticompetitive behavior' would mean pushing them out of existence - something few would want, but it leaves that part of the judgement utterly subjective - unfortunately.
Very Cool (Score:1)
That article alone I attribute to much of the fall of what was the Internet that I had known. It seems that since that thing published, all the newsgroups, chatrooms, web pages, etc just went to hell wrt signal/noise ratio.
I remember swearing a lot about the damned thing (the article). I'm glad that somebody with a voice actually did something about it!
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Stephen Satchell (Virgo)
Turn ons: MacOS, Linux, open solutions, long walks on the beach.
Turn offs: Monopolies, broken PDAs, Winmodems.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Stephen Satchell (Virgo)
Boy, do I have YOU fooled! I'm an Aries.
Stephen, tell me a story! (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, it must have been subtler than say, Hewlett-Packard sending a woman (or man or sheep or whatever) to your house wrapped in a bow and carrying a printer. How did it happen?
Re:Stephen, tell me a story! (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to hear about the time(s) you turned down sex for ethical reasons.
Well, let's see. There was the gift certificate for The Mustang Ranch that was tucked neatly into a press kit that was mailed to my home in Nevada. If I had known that the Ranch would be first run by the IRS and then closed when the government was hauled into court for running a brothal, I would have saved the thing -- it would be worth REAL money today. The press person who did this was a fool -- the Bunny Ranch is a much closer drive for me. People really should do their research.
The art of bribing people who you hope can help you is a delicate dance, and requires that the receiving party be equally as willing to accept the bribe as much as the offering party is to give it. Simply by ignoring the nuances and double entendres it's very easy to avoid impropriety.
I made the decision to avoid impropriety -- I didn't need the trouble, and I didn't need the hassle. I had enough trouble getting writing assignments to add ethics violations to the hurdles.
Holding breath here (Score:2, Insightful)
The key to making the Final Judgment work to the short window dictated by the commercial-software market cycle is that the TC and Microsoft's Judgement Compliance Officer can solve a problem informally, rather than the complaining party and Microsoft taking years to build and litigate a case. It costs everyone less money, too.
Taking your word for it on life/litigation cycle time.
I suppose the one year life cycle is for potential competitors.
'Doze, itself, is converging on that, but a buggy release won't derail Redmond.
In the second quoted paragraph, though, you appear to believe that short-term cost savings can moderate Redmond's behavior.
Pockets don't get much deeper than Mr. Softy's.
Is the final tab of the whole DOJ fracas into nine figures yet?
Listening to Bill Gates on fair competition is like listening to Bill Clinton on marital fidelity.
I like the fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
Confused about support costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either he doesn't get it, or I dont. If it's me, somebody please set me straight.
The vast majority of Windows licenses are sold to OEM's. The OEM versions of Windows defer all warranty support back onto the OEM. It costs Microsoft nothing either way in this respect.
Retail sales of Windows are warranted by Microsoft, but this is a minor component. An argument could be made that better software reduces their tech-support exposure during the warranted period (for some fraction of their customers who would actually ask for tech support), but since it would also sabotage future sales after the warranted period (for the much larger fraction of their customers whom they can be expecting to upgrade) I'd argue this still weighs in favor of releasing poor quality software.
Enterprise sales (to corporate IT departments) actually benefit from "technical support headaches". As anyone who's spent much time in a corporate tech-support setting will tell you, buggy software:
Increases job security for everyone in the support organization, by maintaining visibility (think about the Maytag repairman) and corporate relevance.
Helps the CTO build a large empire, and increase his power base and scope of decision making authority
Helps individual techs justify additional certifications and training expense (resume' building)
And trying to characterize Microsoft's per-incident support charges as some sort of loss-leader just flies over my head. Microsoft is under no obligation to offer this service; they can discontinue it at any time. The fact that they do not is proof of the aggregate value of this service to their organization.
A good designer interested in "fewer variables" will design the machine as a set of discrete components, where problems can be quickly isolated to the unit level, where individual units can be tested in isolation, and replaced with new identical units (to isolate problems at the unit level) or with functionally equivalent units of unique construction and manufacture (to isolate common-mode problems affecting all units of a given design.)
Such a design would, for example, allow a tech to rapidly and cleanly rip out IE and replace it with Netscape to isolate browser problems, like an auto mechanic replacing the master cylinder to diagnose a problem in the brakes.
This is precisely opposite to what Microsoft was accused of doing, and was the focus of the anti-compettitive behavior from the original trial.
Methinks he needs to adjust his views. Microsoft, because they are a profit-oriented corporation, and because of their monopoly status, has no reason to make the software more secure, easier to troubleshoot, easier to maintain, easier to integrate with other products, or easier to replace with a competitors products.
Farming is their optimal strategy: as the incumbent, and posessor of the monopoly, they can define what computing is and garner the profits from known and conquored business much more effectively than they can compete with the Hunters trying to redefine the territory.
Compare this to the goals of free software and open source advocates:
functions exposed (source available)
secure against unauthorized functions (security oriented)
small, tight, clean tools (function specific)
seemless integration between tools (pipes)
which have only been made possible because its development was undertaken outside of the profit-oriented development marketplace.
What monopoly has a balance-sheet incentive for producing a quality product? And what for-profit corporation has any incentive which is not balance-sheet oriented?
If you want my support as the only person not selected, in part, by Microsoft, and representing computer users in this bargain, you'll need to demonstrate a solid understanding of this reality.
Better than having slashdot editors on the board. (Score:1)
Oversight committee waste of Satchell's time? (Score:3, Interesting)
<wishful thinking> Put him in-charge of a government program like quote below from Nathan Newman's [prospect.org]
</wishful thinking>
I guess they'd need one. (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if they're trying to eliminate them or just manage them?
He doesn't want the job (Score:2)
Congressmen don't care about their salaries (though they have no trouble raising them) -- it is a pittance compared to the bribery received from lobbyists of all sorts. Roman senatorial hopeful used to mortgage their entire estates and sell franchise rights to wealthy investors to finance their elections, and it wasn't because they (or their backers) had strong moral opinions they wanted voiced.
He's following the money, and quick to deny it.
10 yards my ass (Score:2)
Actually, they are not required to respond to or even listen to citizens comments, merely provice a forum (electronic) for them to be voiced. They don't even have to recycle the envelopes.
Like having a cop in your car (Score:1, Offtopic)
Whatever, just REGULATE them (Score:2)
Say you're a small biz still happily making $$$ with some old Access 2.0 databases and want to add 10 wrkstations - Now you have to pay upwards of $300 each for Access 2002. It just as if the electric utility keeps coming up with new improved electricity and your bill keeps going up and you have no choice, you can't switch to another power company, and the open source alternative of building a generator in your back yard doesn't appeal to all users - w/o a consumer advocate/regulator we're just screwed, and Msft gets their billions and billions.
What about MS complains against others? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the TC can take complaints of the form "MS, via the BSA, is threatening to sue me for doing something I should be allowed to", and prevent MS et al from filing suit, the TC would have a major stick to use against MS. MS, being an information company, needs legal means for controlling the use of their products. If they had to ask the TC if they wanted to make anyone pay for anything, and the TC was looking unfavorably on their practices, they'd be sunk.
If an OEM knew that, if MicroSoft cancelled their special license, the TC would reject any MS copyright infringement suits against the OEM or their customers, they'd be able to make Windows optional with complete impunity.
If the TC found that a patent was anti-competitive, they'd be able to prevent MS from ever enforcing it.
Of course, this depends on the courts agreeing to send MS suits to the TC before granting injunctions or anything. If the point of the TC is to avoid slow and expensive lawsuits, it is hardly useful if it doesn't stop MS from suing people (and make MS threats useless).
"Oversight Committee" = "Irrelevant Committee" (Score:1, Interesting)
Unfortunately, all to often the 'oversight committee' is a sham, put in place for the sole purpose of swaying the vote.
The 'members' are usually comprised of at least a few 'ringers' whose purpose is to stagnate and undermine the committee
Having to rely on an 'oversight committee' to ensure something is done 'correctly' should be warning enough that something is seriously wrong, and I would advise that the prudent thing to do would be to distance yourself as far as possible from any matter which necessitates the creation of an 'oversight committee'.
primate confusion (Score:2, Funny)
Furthermore, those of us who are not familiar with the gorillas he mentioned have no idea what to think! Is a 360 kilogram (794 lb) gorilla a large gorilla or just an average gorilla. There should be a standard gorilla mass reference submitted to the ISO for standardization. I hate having to do a Google search for gorillas just so I can understand a question and answer article that I thought was about Microsoft.
Still want to know: who else should be on the TC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who else do you think should be on the committee?
WHAT!?!?! He turned down SEX?!?!? (Score:1)
Its Monopoly++ by the time the TC acts (Score:1)
When MS shafted IBM with the "New OS/2" that really was "Windows NT" it was after 2-3 years development. IBM had frozen OS/2. IBM scrambled on OS/2 and...? Now we have Windows XP.
Many examples... Internet Explorer *IS* part of the OS.
MS can probably heavily entrench monopolistic attributes. Read The Register for how MS proposes to "open" the authentication standard for
good luck to whomever gets the jobs.
sigless in Dublin
Some questions for Satch... (Score:1)
1) Do you think the proposed settlement is fair?
2) Do you think you would have the technical chops to be hired by Microsoft as a programmer, if you for some reason chose to apply?
3) The competitive impact statement implies that the job is a full-time one based in Redmond, WA. Do you plan to move there if selected?
4) The committee can set a reasonable salary for itself (paid by Microsoft!). What would you think of charging and how many hours a week would you expect to work?
Thanks.
- adam
Why does the committee hope he answers? (Score:1)
MS Oversight Committee Hopeful Stephen Satchell Answers
Why does the MS Oversight Committee still hope he answers? He already answered!
Uhh.. (Score:3, Informative)
As for answering your question.. he did. His point was that it will not happen. His point was that there will be huge contractual agreements for each individual about what they have to do and how, in order to keep the job. I think he answered it just fine.
Re:Mispelt? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Didn't answer (Score:1, Offtopic)
He wouldn't proactively have to do anything about it because someone else would.
-Tammie
Re:Didn't answer (Score:1)
Re:Didn't answer (Score:1)
Hmmm, aren't beaurocratic regulations/regulators (or lack thereof) those which have wrought this beast? The inherent danger is the creation of perfect self-perpetuating public beaurocracy staffed by those who only wish to rock the boat as much as it takes to keep their job and appear to be doing something. Perhaps Satchell will be different. If so, he will NEVER make the committee.
$rant:
Seems the quest for some sort of creative power is inherent in many of us, even if we were not the creator, we may very well get a piece of the glory via regulation. Just ask AlGore. Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave. Let's see....to whom do we apply her term "second-hander" in this story? Course it could be argued that modern Redmond is built upon second-handers. OTOH, middlemen aren't all bad
$end-rant!
Re:All this microsoft anti-monopoly stuff... (Score:2)
IBM is still the biggest player in the world on the IT front, usually more than tripling EDS's annual revenue. They're annual sales are _10 times_ Microsoft's, and about double Dell's. They still dominate the server market, and will for the foreseeable future.
Anyway, what market share they did lose in this arena, allowing these lesser players in during the 80s was due to the excessive amount of resource they put into defending the government's arguably baseless anti-trust suit. This suit was never resolved as far as an MS-type settlement, but the government took IBM's eye off the ball just long enough to let all the other players in the market. It is arguable but possible that IBM would still be the _only_ significant hardware player if this hadn't happened.
So don't think the gov't won't manipulate the situation no matter the court outcome. And don't think that, although they might lose some market share to smaller players after the fallout, MS won't be the dominate OS force into the next couple of decades.
Mispelt is misspelt (Score:2)
Have a day,
-l
Re:Didn't answer (Score:1)
To me, it sounds like he's implying that either he, or someone else, would notice real quick if someone was dragging ass and not being useful, and act on that. I could be reading too much into it though.
Why mod this down? (Score:1)
Re:All this microsoft anti-monopoly stuff... (Score:2)
IBM seemed to be indestructible at the beginning of the 80 and now they are just one major player among others.
Maybe you didn't notice the 13 year long anti-trust case against IBM?
Re:Get a new Mac! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm... I remember when Pat Paulson (he of the Smothers Brothers show) was "running" for President. I can see why you might think that this is all a gag to get some attention and to act as a carrier for some of my ideas.
I won't speak for John, he is all too capable (and willing!) to speak for himself.
For my part, I'm serious about serving on the Technical Committee. If I was trying to pull a stunt, the ideal way would be to get a series of articles (paid, of course) in one of the magazines and write my head off. (And I'm ashamed to admit I didn't think of it first.)
As for buying a more up-to-date Macintosh, I don't have any need for it right now. The only thing I use the Mac for is running PageMaker and Illustrator for the few contracts requiring desktop publishing that still come my way. When I have a need for a newer Mac, I'll get one. Until then, I will do just fine with what I have.
Re:Get a new Mac! (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I've missed something, but it's still not clear to me what your plan is. Have you been in touch with the DOJ, or with the candidates Microsoft has proposed for their slot? Oddly, Roblimo's introduction promises you'll tell us your chances of getting the job but if you did, I missed it.
My plan is simple: get noticed and considered by the lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States. I'm not asking for special favors, just a chance at the slot.
To that end, I tried to contact the Departement of Justice Anti-Trust Division and was told that it's "too soon" for them to take any applications or resumes. I also talked to the Office of the Attorney General in several of the Plaintiff states and was told pretty much the same thing: I'm too early.
I've written my Congressmen for assistance. The anthrax situtation affected both of my Senators, and that's interfered with them getting my information, let alone responding to it. My Representative may well be in a similar situation; I haven't followed up to my original letters sent at the beginning of November.
The Cringley thing came as a bit of a surprise. I had written to Mark because of our prior association at InfoWorld. I filled him in on all the facts -- we share friends and many of them know the story, so I suspected he had heard about it. He asked questions, I wrote answers, and the column was the astonishing result. I didn't seek that, just some advice from someone a little tighter in the industry than I am right now.
I've not been in touch with Microsoft, or any of the other candidates. If Microsoft wants to nominate me (worse than a snowball's chance, I'd say) I'd be happy to serve, so long as they understand that I wouldn't be there as "their guy."
As for my chances: Isn't that obvious?
You work the odds. My calculator doesn't have enough zeros.
Sorry for the lapse into negativeism. In Nevada, us residents are taught that even long odds come home. "If you don't bet, you can't win." Of course, then there are the people who don't know when to stop, the ones who end up hitchhiking home or taking up jobs in strip clubs or labor gangs. I won't bet it all against the long shot, but I will continue to tap the pot as long as I can afford to, until I win or lose. Then we'll see.
Re:Mispelt? (Score:2)
It is a word. However, it's misspelt, presumably as a joke.
You obviously have a web browser, because you posted that comment. How hard would it have been to look it up [dictionary.com] before posting?
Re:SP-2812 anecdote (Score:2, Insightful)
>Brian Kendig asked a side question that bears answering: "How will I be able to work with Microsoft without appearing to be biased?" Another question asked about how I would deal with the monster egos at Microsoft.
He was showing that he HAS worked with the egos at Microsoft successfully in the past. And it was in a situation where the person in question would have vigorously defended the document.
It wasn't a boast as much as a "I was in this situation where I could have been a slacker and done nothing. Instead I took the hard road and did the right thing."
To me it seems like this guy would do well in the oversight job.
-Jerry
Innocent till proven guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SP-2812 anecdote (Score:1)
Jeremy
Re:Mispelt? (Score:2, Funny)
misspelled --> misspelt
dreamed --> dreamt
cleaned --> cleant
flew --> flempt
ate --> empt
Wait. I think I overgeneralempt.
Re:Didn't answer (Score:2)
I think Satchel may have interpreted your question as "What if some TC members never show up for work, never return phone calls, and never return emails?" Obviously, the latter is not likely, for the reasons he pointed out.
Re:Moderators on crack (Score:2)
This is both sad and hillarious at the same time. Keep it coming.
Re:WOW. (Score:2)
Well, your comments obviously reveal you to be a poor fool who knows no more about
WE are the Truth Squad! (Score:5, Insightful)
ROTFL!
Characterizing ABC and CNN as "high-calibre news sources" and calling for "real journalists" on the payroll (and in positions of power) as a prerequisite to being a credible news "source" (I presume you mean "conduit") has totally made my day.
When was the last time you saw an article in one of your "high-calibre news sources" run by "real journalists" - where you had any PERSONAL knowlege of the events reported - where they got ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT right?
"Fact checking"? Under deadline? Give me a break! They check them all right - just enough to create plausible deniability for anything they get wrong. Then they cut out the ones that conflict with their agenda, filter the rest down to a level "their readership (read 'reporters') will understand", and write a political opinion piece disguised as fact. Their money - in their opinion as well as mine - comes from creating an entertainment product. Their power comes from creating an illusion of popular opinion in the minds of the busy, isolated, legislators and executives.
(Perhaps Wall Street Journal comes close to your ideal. They sell information to businessmen, who aren't in the mood to patronize suppliers of a product with excessive defects. Info World somewhere between - "News for Nerds" again - but more an outlet for news releases than investigative reporting.)
But go with your assumptions for a moment. What do "real journalist"s do when they're REALLY doing an investigative report?
1: They find people with information - or such people find them.
2: They interview them to get the information as they see it.
3: They get confirmation of the facts from other people - who have no more individual credibility than the original "source".
4: They MAY seek an opinion on the credibility of particular pieces of the story from an "expert" in the field (i.e. a member of an advocacy group, a staff pundit, or the guy at the next desk who once did a similar story).
5: They "write the story" - distilling it though one non-expert's mind into a coherent piece of prose that fits the outlet's style guide, genreal space requirements, and political agenda.
6: They hand it off to another "real journalist" - the editor (or editorial board), who decides whether to run it, whether it's SAFE to run, where to position it, and how much to cut out to fit today's edition's space requirements.
And all by deadline time - so on a busy day meat gets cut, while on a slow day the fat and entrails get included.
Now in case you didn't notice: The first four steps collect the informaion (along with a bunch of junk) and rate it, while the last two delete, distort, and bias it.
And also in case you didn't notice: Slashdot creates a mechanism to get the first four done, with broader access than even a large team of "real" reporters. Then presents you with the raw data and ratings but WITHOUT the filtering (unless set your browsing level too high and rejected some meat along with the heavily-panned stuff.)
WE get to be the reporter. And the good source. And the bad source. And the expert. And the pundit. And the spin-meister.
But we DON'T get to be the editor, cutting the story everyone sees down to "all the news that fits" - the space, bias, style, or the agenda. And if we as "reporters" filter the news through our lack of understanding or personal biases we affect only ourselves, individually.
Yes, it means you need to keep your bullshit detector on, because some of the crap that would be filtered out by a "real journalist" is still there. But so is the meat that the journalist would cut out. Meanwhile the "real journalist"'s personal misunderstanding of the facts is not a choke-point between the data and the reader. The "editorial board"'s political agendas and spin only make it as far as the initial subject selection and the editorializing comment in the "article" posting. From then on all spins and agendas have equal opportunity.
This is BETTER than any gang of "real journalists" can produce. And it will continue to be better until trolls, astroturf, or a too-fast or too-large influx of newbies causes the system to break down. Or possibly until the "real journalists" manage to get their act together.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the latter.
A circus without an audience (Score:1)
Goodness gracious! It's a Monty Python reference gone unnoticed (and, apparently, unmoderated) -- on Slashdot! Where is the Slashdot I once knew? The clue train must have left while I wasn't looking -- about par for me, actually.