Microsoft's Longhorn Faces Antitrust Scrutiny 284
benore writes "The Department of Justice
will be reviewing Microsoft's Longhorn product as part of the company's antitrust settlement. One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler. 'They don't want people to hate them anymore. They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."
Lets hope... (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't want people to hate them anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
than they had better mend their ways (Score:3, Insightful)
it has its good sides and its bad sides. so has windows. some tools are better on linux, some on windows.
but the main advantage on linux is that at least, there is some adherence to standards. most of the protocols are open, and you are basically free to do with it what you want.
if microsoft wants to be 'not hated', they had better start sharing information and decoupling olexpress, media player and iexplorer from windows.
i think that the OS market is a bit like fine sand in their hands: the more you try to hold onto it by force, the faster it slips away.
Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support, linux is becoming a feasible alternative for businesses, and microsoft is scared as hell of that.
i bet that we will start seeing more huggy type marketing as longhorn nears its release.
Re:Whats the point ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Right, but do you expect Microsoft to bundle with their OS the 10,000 sharewares created last year to play mp3 files, or the 100,000 sharewares, freewares and OSS softwares written to edit your photos, view text files or play stupid little games?
Apple has never done this and I do not see why Microsoft have to do it. It is THEIR operating system and they do what they want with it. If you don't like it, don't buy it, use Linux or grab a MacMini if you really want to spend your money.
ME was a step forward, though small. (Score:2, Insightful)
And about the XP UI, am I the only one who immidiatly changes it to the "Classic View"? Supposidly MS spent a ton of time and money looking at user efficiency when they designed the UI for XP, but I just don't see it. Am I the only one?
Impolite (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, Trusted Computing? (Score:4, Insightful)
One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Great. We have government "experts" who think the choice of media player really important and they aren't even looking at the whole Trusted Computing [cam.ac.uk] initiative and the monopolistic implications thereof.
Don't pay to have someone keep secrets from you. (Score:4, Insightful)
A government that uses closed-source, proprietary software is not an independent government. A company that uses closed-source, proprietary software is not an independent company.
Yes, Microsoft is abusive, and will remain abusive until its abusive leaders are gone, but that is not the point. The point is that you should not pay someone to keep secrets from you.
Re:They don't want people to hate them anymore? (Score:1, Insightful)
Open source fanaticism at its finest... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. And since I use Windows at home and at work, I am not a free man? Even if I chose to use Windows.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the DOJ had a clue they would have split up MFST into two+ companies that each had an OS and had to compete with each other. And the company with Word would be competing with the company that had Excel and they wouldn't be allowed to talk to each other except via a public blog. And most of the game divisions would all now be working for different companies.
But the current DOJ people never bothered to look at the Standard Oil case or were bought off.
Re:Not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently deployed a bunch of machines with Firefox as the default browser and "removed" MSIE from the machine (as claimed by the removing of the windows components thingy) and yet I can still access MSIE on these machines... more importantly, email software that utilizes MSIE as their HTML rendering libraries can still access the vulnerabilities that still exist. If somehow a bad email gets through, the machine is just toast... possibly more than that in the process.
The problem is that MSIE is bundled and imbedded in the OS. They need to be forced to extract it or at least make it conveniently possible. The product hasn't been released yet so there's plenty of time. They are dropping features and components left and right from Longhorn, so why not MSIE in order to comply with the DOJ?
Re:Whats the point ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
At home you have far greater security... (Score:3, Insightful)
At home you have far greater security that comes from the fact that no one cares what you are doing with your computer.
Remember the Vietnam war? The U.S. government killed more than 2,000,000 people, none of whom threatened the U.S. directly. Since then, the U.S. government has killed at least 1,000,000 more who did not threaten the U.S. directly. (Most people in the U.S. find these facts so painful that they refuse to learn about why they occurred.)
Don't think that a government that spends an almost endless amount of money [independent.org] on war-making capability suddenly becomes moral when considering invading the computers of foreign governments or companies.
Re:Don't smile at this crocodile (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll get you next time Linux! just you wait!
Re:i HATE microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things I sort of take issue with, though:
as well as forced upgrades
What forced upgrades, how? My company is still using Office 2000, and have not been "forced" to upgrade, despite some clients using Office XP; the documents still open just fine. There are still machines running NT 4; similarly, nothing is forcing us to upgrade them. Sure, support is running out/has run out, but the same is true of older releases of Linux distros. Without a leet C hacker or two on staff, businesses using them are similarly "forced" to upgrade if they wish to have continued support.
will be advocating limiting the use of MS products to anyone who will listen
Rather you should be advocating the use of the best tool for the job. If that tool happens to be from MS, then so be it. MS isn't the answer to everything, but then neither is Linux.
So they've changed, have they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their current mission statement [microsoft.com] is: "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."
Before October 2002, it was "To empower people through great software -- any time, any place, and on any device."
The early mission satement was far better, and more representative of how they actully do business. If you were an employee, which statement gives you the most clear goals? If you were an investor, which company's stock would you buy? Of course, there's no mention of integrity, quality, ethics, but nevermind that...
Back to the topic, has anyone seen any real changes in behavior (not just some analyst saying they want to be nicer)?
Re:i HATE microsoft! turn to APPLE?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always found it quite interesting that people choose to switch from MS products to Apple products. Apple is quite possibly the most restrictive company of the three. They don't only lock you in with their software, but they lock you in with hardware as well! They force high hardware prices on people because there are no alternatives (although many mac zealots, suprisingly, love to defend the high profit margins Apple pulls in for hardware). Their software practices just as much lock-in and integration as MS. Yes you can run unix apps on OSX, but you can do the same in Windows. Don't kid yourself, if Apple had the market share of MS, they'd be slapped with a massive anti-trust lawsuit too.
If you are leaving MS on principle, move to Linux. A fantastic, full-featured OS, with none of the capitalist 'dirtyness' to marr it.
Re:than they had better mend their ways (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to play the ignorant part for a bit...
A Windows user sitting beside me stated that he can watch any movie content, listen to any music, access any web content, and has an enourmouse choice of software to choose from to get his work done. What is this obession to a kernel and protocols? Where is the obsession to application layer?
Since the 2.6 kernel and better USB support, linux is becoming a feasible alternative for businesses, and microsoft is scared as hell of that.
I bet MS is more scared of the free applications that are more and more capable than a free kernel. How many people are saying, "Wow! I can get this great kernel!"? The OS seems to be the least cost when compared with tools that run on top of it. MySQL/PostGres vs MS SQL in license cost. Development tools on the Linux platform vs IDEs from Borland and Microsoft. Office Software on MS brand new vs Open Office or StarOffice or whatever. License costs are what hurt myself and other coworkers not kernel 2.whatever. Can we do the same task for far less money? That'll work every time and I think that in the long run is what scares MS most.
Re:Too late, Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Office and Windows are cash cows used to subsidise entry into all other markets. If this free cash is withdrawn (due to office and windows being in seperate companies than the rest), then the other microsoft stuff has to compete on something approaching a level playing field.
If Office is not obliged to lock people into Windows it would (possibly) have more interest in being more cross platform. Anyway, the main aim is to break the vertical relationship with the Windows OS. This will allow better competition in both the OS and Office markets, though I have to say I would expect Office to continue to dominate. Windows less surely so as it would run the risk of becoming a comodity without all the other microsoft stuff tied closely to it, and we are approaching a change in the way computers are architected (more parallelism, less Hz), though with 95% of the desktop market it's obviously in a strong starting position.
Re:Whats the point ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't using it's monopoly in OS to get monopolies in media players, web browsers etc. It is using it's web browsers and media players to force proprietary standards, like WMF, WMA, ms java, etc, which will only work on windows. This then reinforces the windows monopoly.
For example, microsoft licensed java, then added extensions to intentionally break compatability with any other OS. They created internet explorer to kill netscape, because netscape was the killer app at the time, and was available on every platform under the sun. Then you have a situation where IE is at version 5, meanwhile the only reasonable browser on other OS's is netscape 4. This is before Mozilla and Firefox came along, and greatly hurt the competitiveness of alot of platforms, as using netscape 4 is just slightly better than eating razor blades.
Re:hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Software had absolutely nothing to do with the price. Infact the price of software hasnt fallen much at all. Go figure.
Re:Whats the point ? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry, in this industry if you don't release a product for many years while your competitor continues to refine their product then it's not the competitors fault.
And see what happens when the tables turn? Microsoft got lazy and stopped development on IE at 6.1. So now competitors are catching up and the result is that they, in a fairly short order, have made up serious lost ground in market share.
Also, adding extensions to Java is not against the spec in the least. All companies that have licensed Java have added their own extensions and libraries which add value to their implementation and the solutions that operate against it.
Microsoft's problem with Java wasn't adding new things, it was not supporting existing portions of the specification. It wasn't that J/Invoke existed, it was that JNI didn't exist. It's a shame, however, because Microsoft did, at the time, have one of the most complete and most performant JVMs is existence, along with a plethora of tools to support it.
As for what MS releases, I do believe it should be entirely up to them what comes in a boxed retail version of Windows. The OEMs, on the other hand, reserve the right to include other products, including third-party products, because they assume the support liability. OEMs now routinely install RealPlayer, AOL and Sun's standard JRE. There is nothing in their contracts stopping them from releasing FireFox, especially with the DoJs antitrust measures in place.
However, the removal of IE and WMP don't just affect Windows. The libraries that make up both programs are reusable modules that have been incorporated into many other programs. By removing the IE HTML rendering engine, WinAmp will fail. So you get into the conundrum that while you could remove the wrapper program that makes up IE, iexplore.exe, removal of the underlying components is not so easy and would lead to a great deal of software failure.
You can't directly compare Windows to Linux. Linux is, effectively, just a kernel. The kernel in Windows is something few people ever get exposed to, and Windows itself resides in one of several user-mode subsystems (alongwith an OS/2 and a substandard POSIX subsystem). But Windows is a full platform, like KDE. And like KDE you can't really just remove KParts and expect anything to work.
Puhleez... (Score:3, Insightful)
"If" and "might" (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but that would be rather a lousy way to run a business, now wouldn't it? Maybe, if there weren't any competition, Microsoft could break compatibility every few months but that's theoretical.
I haven't had any Windows compatibility problems in the past and if I ever do I'm perfectly willing to upgrade. I don't understand why paying for a version upgrade is such an anathema. After all, Microsoft is not billing you for the service packs and patches you can download.
To me dropping Windows completely is not an option even if I wanted to do so. At home I want to be able to play games and at work I work I have to deal with MS Office documents. No, OpenOffice does not import/export documents properly.
Now, don't make a mistake. I am running Linux on my home "media server" and I've been running Linux and BSD variants since 1992. I am just pissed off at the kind of self-righteous false dichotomies offered by some people like the parent poster. The world is not black and white. It is not "you're either for free software or you're against it". His reasons - like those of RMS - for pushing free software are political, not practical, and I will not have any part in such shenanigans.
Re:One or t'other... (Score:4, Insightful)
You should not call DRM "Digital Rights Management", the term is "Digital Restrictions Management". This isn't just a linguistic trick, it's framing the debate. "Rights" has a positive connotation, "restrictions" has a negative one. The idea is that you define the debate in your terms, so that your opposition has to defend itself using your terms.
The master of this is Frank Luntz [pbs.org]. His way of framing debate with words is called "Luntz Speak" [luntzspeak.com]. I don't agree with his politics, but I admire his methods tremendously.