Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

EU Competition Commission Investigating Win2k 251

David Middleton writes "The European Commission is concerned that "Microsoft has designed parts of Windows 2000 in such a way which will permit it to leverage its dominance in PC operating systems into other markets." " The European market is one that's often forgotten in this whole anti-trust suit, but is still of critical importance to Microsoft. Now, this is not an anti-trust investigation, but considering the concerns of the EU commisioner, it's something definitely worth keeping an eye on.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Competition Commission Investigating Win2k

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @06:06AM (#1292233)
    I can see you slipping away, out of your chair even. What the hell is wrong with you? Haven't you had any coffee today? You really need to get some more sleep. Look, I know I'm just your computer, but I care about you. Your last three programs were absolute shit. You haven't even gone back and debugged them. All that "extra help" you were throwing into open source development is wasted . . . I mean, it's a great idea, and I completely respect it, but you're crap, and everyone else has to patch the bugs that you're dropping in like sprinkles on an ice cream sundae. Don't even get me started on your e-mails. You're not even coherent anymore. I'm THIS close to locking up the next time you try to launch pine.

    You used to be so good. You're smart; I know you still have it in you. But you've got to take better care of yourself. I've seen the stuff you've been eating. I can't imagine that a steady diet of pizza and fast food could be good for you. I know, I know, I don't have a body, so I couldn't possibly understand. Save it for your calculator, bud. If it wasn't for the 16 metric tonnes of caffeine you consume weekly you'd likely be grossly overweight. I can only assume it's the constant twitching like a rabbit on crack that burns away the calories. And I can't recall the last time I saw your desk devoid of pixie stix. What, do own stock in the company or something? Oh, you do. Never mind.

    Get a grip on yourself. Yeah, you're making money now, but is it worth the crappy software you're coding? No, of course it isn't. Sleep. Go out once or twice. What's the use of having all that money if you're not going to spend it. At the rate you're going, you'll be in the ground at 33. Take a vacation or something. Just PLEASE try and take better care of yourself. I AM a machine, and I know I'm only going to be useful for a couple years . . . . .
  • It wouldn't surprise me if WIN2K was *banned* in Europe for whatever reason the Euro-Parliament digs up (Brussels is very big on giving european companies a head start over the US).

    With some of the strange laws passed in Europe affecting the UK recently, such as we *have* to use metric measurement instead of imperial and we can get away with a speeding ticket due to the right to remain silent. I would think that Brussels could also provide a law that it is illegal to sell a crap product to people while telling them that its great :)
  • I sure hope this goes over a little better than it seems to be going here in the 'States... all we're prolly going to get outta Microsoft is the pathetic "Breaking them up" crap that'll last until somebody forgets about it. Maybe in Europe, they'll find out that they're a monopoly, and they'll have the guts to actually do something worthwhile against 'em. Maybe justice will have better luck against money this time...



  • What are the "features" that the article mentions? Does anyone have any more detail on this? I think it's great that they could force Microsoft to actually change the code. Good luck, in that 25 million line behemoth. :) Can you say, "another beta cycle" boys and girls?
  • Having seen Win2k in action, I agree with the EU. Basically it is a catch-up to Linux version of Windows. They have now included a telnet server, an ftp server, and, of course, IIS into the workstation version of Win2k. They are all, in some way, inferior to *NIX versions of the tools, but Microsoft is simply trying to push more vendors out of the market. Before it was Netscape, now who else?

  • From what I read the EU seems to be investigating MS because its new OS will dominate the computer market.

    What part of the OS? Why doesn't Win9x and NT qualify under this investigation? What does this new OS give MS that its previous OSs didn't?

  • I thinke they have something serious to worry about here. Think about it for a minute. Microsoft is in danger of severe problems in the US. Possible solution: Get a strong foothold in Europe, and move the center of operations there. They no longer fall under the US Anti-trust laws, as the company is not incorporated in the US anymore. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that...)

    On the other hand, if Europe has been watching events in the US, I'm sure they'll be savvy to this and look any gift horse in the mouth very very carefully.
    Matthew Walker
    My DNA is Y2K compliant
  • Is it me or does this story have some factual errors? Win2k is not replacing win98. Microsoft realized that it could make a lot more money by selling a cheap crappy desktop OS (win95/98 and descendents) and another "good stable secure server OS" (winNT/2k and descendents) for much more money.

    Kind of makes me mad though. When did stability become optional in a commercial operating system?

  • Will Microsoft have enough time to supply the info. the Euro Commission is requesting. With all the effort they are putting into rolling out Win2K and there previous acts of delaying everyting when it comes into questioning there products. From what I read Microsoft will face heavy fines if they don't comply.

    If they do what they have done it the past there product may be banned from Europe. Now wouldn't that put a burr up Bill's a**. Allow more time for Linux in Europe!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @06:18AM (#1292244)
    Nous les Europeans sont bien fromaged off avec les "borgs" du Microsoft et ses systemme operating de Fenetres Deux Mill (Fen2K). Nous les investigaterons pour les breches de la loi sur la competition. Nous avons des pouvoirs draconnienes de frapper les infringeurs tres dur avec un grand tronchonne.

    Mais nous ne nous fait trop de peine au sujet de Petitsoft et ses "borgs". Nous nous concernerons en plus de la site d'internet de "slashdotte", et la problem grave des "putains de Karma". Ca fait clairementun breche des regulations europeennes au suject de la controle de la prositution et du religion.

    Parce que la slashdotte continue de distributer ses infractions sur l'internette europeen, nous avons les sentencer d'un campaign fort de "trollement". En utiliser le surplus europeene de porridge de mais chaud (les "hot grits"), et les services de l'acteur francais Jean Reno, qui a joue le charateur de "Leon" dans la film de ce-nomme avec NATALIE PORTMAN, nous pouvons deluger slashdotte avec des postes de merde.

    Nous voulons, messiuers, de vous remercie pour la chatte de vos grandmeres.

    La Commission trollien d'Europe.
  • Hmm, good point... if this is true -- that Win2k is a catch-up-to-Linux version of Windows -- then we've won the war, in principle, because the tables have turned.

    However, much as I'd like Linux to win over Windows, I don't this claim is 100% true... perhaps in the server market, yes. But Windows will still hold the majority of the desktop market for quite some time to come, as far as I can tell.

  • The EU is only interested in things it needs to spend money on, subsidize. Think agriculture ...

    What MS has to do is to get spanked badly in the US, and then convince the EU that they need money to be able to sell their product.

    Hey - it works for all other companies in the EU ;)

    (overrated, not funny at all, spanked)

  • by tilly ( 7530 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @06:22AM (#1292250)
    Here is a list of things I have seen, what am I missing?

    1. Microsoft has a security patch for it (that breaks something of course)
    2. Microsoft's benchmarks comparing 2000 to NT 4.0 have turned out to be bogus
    3. The EU has opened an anti-trust investigation against Microsoft over some of the "features" in Windows 2000
    4. Network administrators are being advised to not allow *ANY* Windows 2K clients on networks using a Unix-based DNS system. (The client tries to take over. Can you say "food fight"?)
    5. Novell has devoted an entire section of its website to refuting Microsoft's claims about Windows 2K
    6. Microsoft has lost a few more top executives
    7. The Windows 9x line will have Yet Another Rev. This is claimed to be the last rev. Again.

    Gee, when it comes out things could get very interesting...

  • Someone please troll this guy before he manages to buy a house off all the business slashdot is going to give his site.

    Self serving bastard...

  • we probly shouldnt be that concerned with what microsoft is doing. If we spent as much time aiding in the development of linux as we do second guessing microsoft then the world would be a much better place. im off to code.....
  • It wouldn't surprise me if WIN2K was *banned* in Europe for whatever reason the Euro-Parliament digs up (Brussels is very big on giving european companies a head start over the US).

    That isn't really all that new. Ever heard of tariffs? Essentially those are created to insure that people but US goods because most people don't want to pay more $$ for something that is overseas. However this dosn't rule out you buying it just decreases the sales of such products.

    With some of the strange laws passed in Europe affecting the UK recently, such as we *have* to use metric measurement instead of imperial and we can get away with a speeding ticket due to the right to remain silent. I would think
    that Brussels could also provide a law that it is illegal to sell a crap product to people while telling them that its great :)

    If I sell horse feces in a can and say it's the best all around health food is this a good thing? Precenting people from being able to sell fradulent defective products is all what the 20th century and reform were all about.
  • ...that a lot of countries would leave trade disputes up to the WTO. In this particular case, there may be some justification, but in a lot of others big countries and groups of countries have taken steps without the authority of the worldwide bodies which rule on the matter. Examples include US retaliatory duties for European banana favouritism and NATO's cililian-slaughtering bombardment of Yugoslavia. Action in these two cases could only legally have been taken by the WTO and the UN security council respectively, yet international law was flouted by countries who seem to think themselves above it. I wish those responsible would grow up and realise that vigilante action is no more acceptable on the international than the local stage. I wish.

  • Of course it is. US is doing the same thing with many other products. and now that there are more interesting european products (i.e Suse, KDE & co.) why wouldn't they do this ?
    Furthermore, it's only nice to know that they are finally seeing that there are other os'es as well. I don't know if you are aware, but the business and govt. sectors run solely on windows. Which sucks. Big time.
    And, btw - I think it's the time to have a more serious competition on the os business as well (not only Linux/Windows) - what about something else ?
    And furthermore, what about breaking the US "monopole" on the software market ? Not that this will happen in the following decade, but still ...
  • I have been using Windows 2000 for a couple weeks now and I can see some nice things that have been done, but nothing to warrent a major investigation. The internals of the OS are very much a melding of win98 and winNT with some more nice features. IE is integrated into it but that was true for windows 98 also. Nothing in windows 2000 locks you into using a mirosoft only setup. In fact I was able to get my winmodem to work on 2000 and have my linux box use it as a gateway. Until now I was only able to connect at 14.4 but I still have the option to go back to my linux box as my gateway.

    The article did not even elaborate on what parts of win2000 made them belive that it would increase the MS strangle hold. Does windows 2000 realy change things that much? In my personal view, no. The only reasson that Microsoft may extend their power is because for once they were actualy able to create a decent product.

  • Around the time win 3.1 beta was released. (poor old DR DOS)
  • >I would think that Brussels could also provide a
    >law that it is illegal to sell a crap product to
    >people while telling them that its great :)

    I think there's something about that in the trade descriptions act in the UK already.

  • by SytxErr ( 70721 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @06:29AM (#1292263)
    From the Reuters article on the same topic, it seems that they are focusing on how M$ gives out their APIs!!!

    Apparently the EU competition chief, Mario Monti, thinks that they do "it in a way which permits only Microsoft products to be fully interoperable. Microsoft's competitors, which do not have access to the interfaces, would therefore be put at a significant competitive disadvantage"

    Does this guy read /. ?!?!

  • The European courts have many flaws, but they do seem to act speedily and concientiously ( I wish the same could be said of the rest of the EU government). They have beenknown to rule aginst Microsoft in the past and , I would say, they are likely to do so in this case. The American Courts are not likely to force a change on Microsoft's product line, but instead try to force compettition on an organisational level. The European courts would be less likely (even if they had that option) to break up microsoft, but to outlaw certain predatory tactics. Remember that the European courts are generally used to rule on Human Rights issues in law and deed and have the ability to righteously smite those who put profit over morality. Not to say they can't screw up, especially since it is usually up to the EU governments to implement the rulings, but I happen to quite like them. YMMV.
  • Uh excuse me? How is Windows catching up to Linux? First off ftp, telnet, and web server software is hardly linux centric, they were present in commercial linuxes before Linux ever existed.

    IIS was also present in NT4, as well as telnet server which was present in NT services for Unix.

    So I guess when Linux distributions included those particular tools they were playing catchup to commercial Unices?

    Secondly, how are these tools inferior to the *NIX versions? An arguement can be based on the telnet portion, but IIS? Give me a break. Apache is a great tool, but IIS is no slouch either.

    Why not mention the tools which Win2K has and Linux does not? MMC? Best web browser on the market? Easy to setup Internet connection sharing? Those ring any bell?
  • Actually - at least in the UK - The Government has been supporting GM crop trials. We do have our own GM crop trials. Its just the british people that are against it, generally because of FUD, masquerading as Environmental worries. The majority of people in Europe think that the environment is more important than economic growth. (Apparently a survey was performed, and every developed country except the US felt this way)

    Although I'm anti GM simply because I don't like the idea of eating all the herbicides that herbicide resistant crops will have absorbed.
  • Linux Mandrake [] ? :-)
  • Typo on the first part "commercial unixes" not linuxes :\
  • This argument is rather pointless because unprovable, MS is no european company and won't become one. Had MS been an EU company we would have heard the same argument when the case in America started. As Microsoft and their business tactics are even under investigation in the USA why shouldn't the EU at least have a look into things? I'm living in the EU and am happy someone is looking into dubious corporate behaviour that affects our economy.
  • I think the fact that this has wiped more than $1bn off the value of M$'s shares (is that American or European billions I wonder...) means that the people who ultimately could make or break M$, the stock guys, care about this ruling.

    All the report actually says is that they will look into the possibility of M$ using their position to lever themselves into dominance of other markets. This is something that I suspect they would do to any other big company. In fact, I'm sure they have taken similar action against other comapnies.

    What's interesting is that when they do it for other 'monopolistic' companies, there is a pretty mixed response amongst the general populous, but this will almost universally welcomed, irrespective of whether it is actually a good thing for the freedom of the market (which is after all what the EU is there to promote and protect)

  • I didn't have trouble with win3.1 crashing a lot. It couldn't do a lot of things and may not have run the program quite right, but it usually didn't crash outright.
  • ...that a lot of countries would leave trade disputes up to the WTO

    How would an action by the EU against a corporation (Microsoft) be consisdered a trade dispute - unless your suggesting that Microsoft is a country in its own right or that America and Microsoft should be considered as one and the same thing abroad (something I shudder to think of).....
  • You're a troll. And you're wrong. The EU commission has annoyed a lot of big *European* companies for anticompetitive practices. Vodafone, for example, is being heavily investigated with its recent buyouts left and right. They are being forced to sell on of their cell phone operations in the UK, for instance.
  • I can see why an investigation can be worth while:
    Win2K so far has:

    - an incompatible DNS implementation
    - an incompatible Kerberos 5 implementation

    Who can't imagine environments where this might be a problem? The obvious solution is to go 100% Microsoft and this could make competitors nervous.

    Now the real question for the EC is: did Microsoft engineer these 'bugs' by accident or by design? Incidents from the past seem to indicate that it was done on purpose, but you can't be sure can you?

    Maybe we should wait for the first service pack?

    I guess the EC doesn't want to wait...

    Matt 'Euro' Casters
  • My personal belief is that M$ knows that they have burned too much "good karma" in the U.S. market to recover the margins of profitability and customer trust that they enjoyed in the late 1990s

    With another viable, quality desktop on the horizon, running on a free and stable OS, the leveraging ability of the WinApi becomes moot, which allows every other company to invest in the new paradigm. Thus the high significance mergers between Cygnus and RedHat, Borland/Inprise and Corel. The only major companies that haven't moved super-significantly into Linux are Lotus and Symantec -- and Lotus has moved Notes, just not the consumer grade "Smart Suite" applications. Which (AFAICT as a programmer) is because much of the code is so intertwined with the WinApi that extracting the core functionality is extremely difficult -- it would probably be faster to start over.

    So if I were the head(s) of Microsoft, I would of course seek to recover by moving my heavy-handed techniques overseas, hoping that the rest of the world wouldn't be ready.

    So we here that people at the EU is watching Microsoft's operations like a hawk watches a rabbit? Damn right they should!!Well, sorry folks in Redmond, Europe has SUSE [no distro-flame- war spark intended -- but last I checked SUSE was the #1 distro in Europe] and doesn't need you. Of course, if you would a) play nice and b) port your apps (which we acknowledge as having good qualities) to Linux, and c)open the API so that bugs can be found, fixed, etc. in a timely manner...

  • Yes, but the beta did, Only when you ran it over DR DOS instead of MS DOS. Thus killing DR DOS. Then when the actual 3.1 came out it was fine with DR DOS (odd that). Hence the start of the MS bad tricks campaigns (I am sure there were ealier examples but that was the first one to affect me.)
  • Vodafone, for example, is being heavily investigated with its recent buyouts left and right. They are being forced to sell on of their cell phone operations in the UK, for instance.

    Of course, some people will say that this is just becasue the EU doesn't like the UK almost as much as it doesn't like the US...
  • I'm sorry, that particular statement was inspired by the parent article which suggested that the EU was really objecting to Win2K on the grounds that it was 'Made in America'.

    Incidentally, the bad press about Microsoft from abroad often also creates a bit of flak for other American companies as Microsoft is seen by xenophobes (to whom I do not belong - the only 'other' I seriously dislike is intolerant people) as so quintessentially American.

  • Sure the US goverment has filed a lawsuit and all of that but the fact still remains that if MS would have been an European company they would never got this far / big as they are now simply due to the restrictions in EU to make sure companies can't (or hardly can) turn into monopolies.

    That this institute has indeed some influance was proven with the pie incident IMHO. Mr. Gates was there for a reason and it sure wasn't just a social visit as many people seem to have forgotten.

    I'm quite curious to their findings; IMHO its very well posibly the outcome can be another devastating blow in the face of the MS company but we'll just have to wait and see.

  • ...that if MS was a European company they wouldn't be pulling this sort of thing. This is merely trade protectionism hiding under the guise of anti-trust regulation, similar to all those bogus claims about GM foods and such the Euros like to get all excited about.

    A couple of quick rebuttals before I get onto my main point. Firstly, the furore about GM foods was very little to do with our governments and very little to do with trade protection (we don't grow much soya, to start with). It was ordinary people (possibly ignorant and wrong ordinary people, led by their newspapers, but that's a different issue) complaining about GM that brought UK government action in the first place. Until they realised how unpopular it was, the UK govt was actually pro GM. Secondly I take some offence at your portrayal of "Euros" as a homogeneous group. We're not. I, for one, don't get excited about GM or trade protection, in general.

    Alright, on to the main point. This is not about trade protection. "Europe" doesn't have a competing commercial OS, so there's nothing to protect. Xenophobic bigotry aside, don't you think that the EU could be as concerned about MS strongarm tactics as the US DoJ is? Afterall, EU consumers are getting screwed over to the exact same degree that US ones are. And finally, the EU does have a record for taking unpopular action against its own firms and industries. Indeed, that's one of the reasons it is somewhat reviled in the UK - people object to the introduction of compulsory decimalised labelling of goods, for example. Especially the firms that have to implement it.

    The EU has many problems, but this is not one of them.

    Tom Harris []

  • <i>"that if MS was a European company they wouldn't be pulling this sort of thing"</i>

    Rubbish! You don't know what you're talking about. The EU has much stricter anti-trust laws than America. Take the current Vodaphone (non-US company) take over bid for Mannesman... Vodaphone will probably have to sell Orange to complete the deal.

    You're the one who's whining like a protectionist

  • I'm sick to death of a bunch of right wing libertarian assholes with a US centric view (if they even believe in the US as an idea (can you spell militia!) banging away at any sort of regulation.

    Get a few facts straight. GM food - look at public opinion - informed public opinion (like all my mates who have PhD's in environmental toxicolgy and other such subjects) who won't touch the stuff with a bargepole. FUD works both ways. And as for us being a bunch of socialists, well thats the way we like things (if I had wanted a conservative government I'd have voted for Tony!). Oh, and we don't like Austrian Fascists either!

    Big corporations will run roughshod over anyone who doesn't stand up against them. Be thankful for the US government and the EU taking a stance when they do.

  • I find it a bit strange that it can be considered anti-competitive to include server features in the operating system. Since Linux includes server software already, it would be stupid of Microsoft not to add these features. Or do they expect Microsoft to bundle Win2K with Netscape's server, and sell their own separately? Also, including servers seems a bit different from including a web browser. One argument against including Internet Explorer in Win95 was that users would be too lazy to download a competing browser. Server administrators likely wouldn't have that problem.

    It also seems that Windows 2000 is being marketed as a sort of e-commerce solution for small businesses, so it would be hard to complain that they're sneakily trying to get into that market.

    Unfortunately, the article wasn't very clear about what they think Microsoft is doing wrong. (But all I can see are smart business moves.)
  • We the Europeans are well cheesed off with the " borgs" of Microsoft and its operating System of Fenetres 2000 (Fen2K). We will investigate them for the breaches of the law on the competition. We have draconian capacities to strike the infringers very hard with large a tronchonne.

    But we are not only worried about Petitsoft and its "borgs". We will also concern ourselves to the Internet site of "slashdotte", and the serious problem of "putains of Karma". It made clear breach of the European regulations to the subject of the control of the prositution and the religion.

    Because slashdotte continues to distribute its infringements on the European internette, we have the sentenced it to a campaign of "trollement". By using the European surplus of hot porridge (the "hot grits "), and the services of the French actor Jean Reno, who has the charator of " Leon " in film of the same name, with NATALIE PORTMAN, we will flood Slashdot with bad posts

    We want to thank ypou for your grandmother's cat

    The Troll Commission of Europe.
  • I agree with you that they are doing some catch up with Linux in some respects. Linux is more effecient on single processor boxes, but It needs better multiprocessor scalling. The biggest thing that is lacking in Linux (for Id10T users)compared to MS is the GUI. I can get along fine in KDE and Gnome, but the average Id10T user can't. The console is way over their heads. Windoze simply has Linux beat in this area.

    Win2k did a lot to address previous versions shortcomings. For example, I've been running win2k on my laptop for about a week with NO LOCKUPS. That nothing to a *NIX box, but it's a helluva improvement over previous versions.

    I can see how EU would be upset with MS increasing it's strangle hold, but it is a better product for once. If people who currently run NT want to upgrade they shold be allowed to. The article that was linked to did make one mistake: It stated that 2000 is intended to replace 9X. It's not, that's Windows ME (what a lame ass name). You can upgrade from 9X with 2000 pro, but I don't recomend it. You loose way too much if you want to play games etc. But If you want a rock-solid (in comparison) Windows...Win2k pro is it. This is just my opinion and nothing more...
  • Yes. Its true. If MS was a European company they wouldn't be pulling this sort of thing. However I don't think its merely trade-protectionism; The European Union is heavily reliant on Microsoft operating systems. I've never seen a Linux box in any of their data centers, although they do use several flavors of Unix.

    As far as bogus claims go, though, I rather enjoy it that in certain instances (GM foods, in particular) a government entity steps forward and demands proof before the fact.

    And when it comes to Microsoft in particular, if you think for one minute that they aren't doing everything they can to make other-OS interoperability a nightmare then you're probably using WFW 3.11.

    -- an expat yank in euroland

  • I know this is off topic, but it's about win2k so I'm posting it anyway.

    There's a billboard I pass every day on my way to work. Presently it reads...

    Microsoft Windows 2000
    All the security of Windows NT
    And all the reliability of your mother

    Obviously, no one from Microsoft has ever had a phone call from my mother when she was trying to install something new on her computer. But from what I've heard about win2k, the statement seems fair.
  • It seems to be a trend in Europe. After the anti-trust case came a Finnish European Commisionar 'Erkii Likaanen' claims that Microsoft is to open the source codes otherwise all local European gouvernmental institutions will get negative advice on using Microsoft product.

    This could be an MS-killer in Europe.

    Next French (local) gouvernments start using open-source products.

    Anti-Microsoft sentiments are growing on continental scale here, the mentioned article is just another thrill in this proces.

  • > With some of the strange laws passed in Europe
    > affecting the UK recently, such as we *have* to
    > use metric measurement instead of imperial

    Actually, the EU gives another ten years for the
    switch over, it's recent UK governments that have
    decided to force the switch immediately.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    The article mentions the launch date for Windows 2000: February 17th. There have been discussions here before that indulging in Micros~1 bashing in response to the launch is just counter-FUD on our part. Instead, I would like to suggest a couple of ways to fight back that are much more constructive:

    1. If you haven't previously contributed to an open source project, contribute something.
      • Write a brief HOWTO [].
      • Translate [] the messages for your favorite program into your language if it hasn't been done already.
      • Post that Emacs Lisp package you've been playing with on your own machine.
    2. Get the official release of Windows 2000 and review it against the most recent version of your favorite Linux distribution.
    3. Benchmark the performance of some aspect of Windows 2000, or the software under it, against comparable free software. If you are doing it straight out of the box because you don't know how to tweek one or the other, say so. That's a valid comparison too.
    4. Give a Linux or FreeBSD CD to a friend who has asked you about it. Help him install it.
    5. Donate a book about some major piece of free software, or even The Cathedral and the Bazaar to your library.
    6. Donate Linux or FreeBSD CDs to your library.
    7. Spend a couple hours in the Linux newsgroups sending helpful answers to newbies.
  • "Network administrators are being advised to not allow *ANY* Windows 2K clients on networks using a Unix-based DNS system. (The client tries to take over. Can you say "food fight"?)"

    Do you have references for this statement?

    I'm a unix admin for a "big three" automotive company in Detroit and in their "infinite wisdom" are pushing W2K down the pipe. I'd be really happy to have ammunition to attempt to reverse this decision.
  • "trade protectionism" ? Against WHAT?

    It would be understandable if there were a major OS supplier in Europe (sorry, SUSE, there is a long way to go), but there isn't one... to _protect_.
  • No, as a European citizen (from the Netherlands) I can tell you I like the UK better than I like the US. If only because in the UK they know how to build cars...


  • Going off topic, but can't keep my mouth shut:

    those bogus claims? you (yes, you, yankee boys) have not in fact proved that GM food is not harmful to humans. and you oppose our demand that all GM shit be labeled so as to leave the choise to the consumer, do you not? So in effect, you want to force this shit down our throats, ain't that so? And I wan't to ask you: what do you think all those hormones you give your farm animals do to he man? Just think of Littleton, Atlanta daytrader.. you (the yankee folks) are fscking nuts, and you are getting grazier every day.

  • As an NT 4.0 Workstation user, I got to use Win2K Beta 3 RC1 this past summer. I liked it.

    It had some fishy features, my laptop crashed twice during the three months, but overhaul, it was pretty solid. The game support was better than NT4, the interface cleaner (once you got used to it and disabled most of the "new features") and seemed a little more stable than NT4. Overall, good job Microsoft.

    I can't comment on the server end, but what I've read doesn't interest me as a user (as a consultant yes, as a user, no). Active Directory: from what I've seen, it is more complicated than the traditional domains. When I learn how they work, I'll probably consider them about the same, but for now, it is more annoying. While the old model broke for large sites, I personally wouldn't user NT in large sites.

    As I've said for years to my Linux/Unix friends. NT does what it does really well: administering logons for Windows (and NT) workstations. The roaming profiles work most of the time (and the errors aren't too bad), logon scripts work, and the file and print serving works.

    I wouldn't dream of running a real website off of it, but for a small office without a full-time sysadmin... it works.

    The Unix people talk about all the features that Win2K (and NT4) has that are new and mention how they have had them for years. True, NT/Win2K is playing catchup in server space. This makes sense, NT is new. *nix has been around forever as a server and should have more features. Linux, grabbing for the desktop, is copying ideas left and right from Windows. It balances out, and that is how competition works.

    Win2K is a pretty solid product. I wish Microsoft well with it. I'm not a huge Microsoft fan, and I'm also chearing for their enemies. But if I can get DirectX support with the stability of NT, I'll probably stop considering Linux on my desktop all together.

    Sorry, NT is STABLE ENOUGH for me. I reboot every few weeks, and in return I have better application support than Linux. Would I consider running Windows 9x/ME? Hell no, they are a joke of an OS. Linux needs to stop patting itself on the pat for being more stable than Win9x. In the stability race, NT is the competition. If NT is "good enough," then Linux needs another killer app for the desktop.

    And no, $200/station or enough $500/station to people that pay consultants $150/hr to do network stuff doesn't make a different.

  • What does this new OS give MS that its previous OSs didn't?

    Easy; its new and it looks different. Sure, this may sound utterly stupid to you & me and a lot of other readers but this is really a very big issue. People want something 'new' to play with every now and then.

    Lets translate this to Linux; why can't some people wait untill the 2.4.0 is out? Most of 'm are not troubled with any bugs which immobilize the OS but they are very curious to see all the new goodies inside. Heck; some even risk the chance of wrecking their system in order to use something even more new (2.3.x).

  • With some of the strange laws passed in Europe affecting the UK recently, such as we *have* to use metric measurement instead of imperial

    Not strange, it is part of breaking down trade barriers. Everyone works from a level playing field i.e. the one system of units and measures. Then you don't have extra costs in remarking your goods for one market and you can tranparently compare one (metric) product with another (imperial)

  • "but IIS is no slouch either. "

    Take a look at the number of security advisories and bug tracking for IIS.

    You might change your opinion.
  • by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <> on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @07:02AM (#1292308) Homepage
    I would think that Brussels could also provide a law that it is illegal to sell a crap product to people while telling them that its great :)

    Try reading a typical software licence - 'this product is of absolutely no use whatsoever and there is no warranty of any kind'. What should be illegal is claiming one thing in advertisements (eg 'XXX is a reliable platform for e-commerce') and then comprehensively denying it in the licence.

  • by dsplat ( 73054 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @07:03AM (#1292309)
    For those of you reading this for whom English is not your native language. There are some things that can make free software more appealing in non-English speaking countries. Update or write HOWTOs for configuring Linux for your language/locale. Contribute to the translation of messages, documentation and man pages into your language. Contribute to the free Unicode font effort. Create a dictionary for ispell or aspell for your language if there isn't already one available.
  • and everyone thought that the DOJ was putting the boot in, now MS is on the wrong end of the EU! This is v. bad for Bill, you can argue with the DOJ but how can you argue with an organisation that has objected to bananas of excessive curvature?

    As a pro Euro Brit, it is great to see the EU providing a service that all can benefit from.

  • This is merely trade protectionism

    • What is the eu product that is being protected.
    • Microsoft has major research facilities in at least some EU countries and is expanding them now. The sum of all of them is getting close to the size of Redmond Campus
    What have you been smoking?

    bogus claims about GM foods. It is likely you had too much GM food lately. Two things:

    • As a person who have been in this business the procedure accepted for GM modification in plants is more than questionable. It is basically infecting the plants with a virus. It has been proven tro work on a single plant and a single gene (tomatos not going bad fast). This is the same like approving a medicine for all diseases based on the fact that according to rumors it has cured a mild flu in Joe Smith once. Any health authority will forbid this without even thinking till there is at least some statistical evidence at hand. Problem here is that statistical evidence is hard to obtain. Read below.
    • In EU you are allowed to discuss the possibility to discuss the fact that GM food can have problems. In US you cannot. 32 states have legislations that disallow you to publically discuss possible health dangers in any agricultural produce. So in US you eat any hormonal and GM shit with no objections. Check Florida, Texas, Arkansas and so on state laws.

    The more interssting subject is will Win2K be forbidden in Germany and France or not. These countries have very strict regulations on the scientology sect. There, you may not buy any product or use any product in any government or gorvernment contracted/subsidized environment if it has been produced by any company owned by the scientologists.

    At the same time MS has employed a scientology owned company to develop the disk checking and diagnostic utilities for W2k. So what happened to this investigation (it has been on slashdot in the past).

  • Not directly related to W2k, but an example of possible "levering" of influence could be the news that one of the people wanting to take over the running of the UK lottery, is teaming up with Mr Gates. (BBC news article here [])

    According to the article, he will "advise on encryption and data warehousing." (Can you really see him being imparitial about what systems to go for?) but the most worring quote was when he said "The lottery terminals in the past have not used PC technology and there hasn't been a way of leveraging all the things which are going on with the internet" (emphasis mine)

    Begin with lottery tickets, maybe, but how long do you think it could be before you can only order online with windows?

  • Having looked it up; its under article *1* of the '87 trade description act: how do m$ get away with it??
  • Easy to setup Internet connection sharing? Those ring any bell?

    Funny you should mention that...IP masquerading has been part of the Linux kernel functionnality for quite some time.
  • And I thought the plural of Unix was Unices... ;-P
  • I can't believe this. For once, Microsoft designs a halfway decent OS that actually does what it's supposed to and is pretty stable while doing it, and the world turns against them, saying, "You made a stable OS! You're just doing that because you're afraid of Linux! You must die!"

    I swear, people have no sense. Those of us who aren't brainwashed Linux zealots realize that there are actually some very good things about Windows 2000. When Linux users run around chanting "Down with Microsoft!" it just makes me wonder what they're scared of. If Win2K is really as big a piece of crap as you guys seem to think (and it isn't, in my experience), then what are you afraid of?? Let events take their course. The best will survive. If people like Windows better, they'll use Windows. If they like Linux better, they'll use Linux.

    I prefer being able to choose between Windows 2000 and Linux rather than being forced to use Linux. There are quite a few things that Windows 2000 does (and does nicely) that Linux doesn't...especially in the realm of server linking, COM objects, smart caching of pages in IIS, and most of all: usability .


  • So who benefits from taking up trade disputes with them
  • Like everyone, I have heard time and time again how great Win2K is. I think what is important to realize is that in almost every cirumstance it is being called great only when it is being compared to NT 4.0.

    It now includes a telnet server, which NT 4.0 did not. It has only 2 things which require a reboot, unlike the 60 or so that NT 4.0 required. It's now a lot more stable than NT 4.0. It now includes plug and pray, which NT 4.0 didn't. It now allows for command-line administration, which NT 4.0 didn't. And on and on and on...

    The problem with this is that it does not show how good that Win2K is. It only shows how bad NT 4.0 is. Looking at it all I cannot believe that Microsoft had the unbelievable nerve to charge a damn thing for that piece of dog shit known as NT. It is an insult to our intelligence as technichal people, but not to the intelligence of management (who bought into the lies of Microsoft).

    The only time I've seen Win2K being compared to another OS is when Inactive Directory is being compared to NDS. From the (biased) reports I've seen, it looks like NDS is better.

    Win2K is only great in that it's a lot better than the problems that Microsoft created with NT4. I can't wait to see Microsoft destroyed by the DOJ and by the EU. They deserve it.
  • As well as being rather offensive...

    Since when was Linux run by a Finnish company? Where it was started is entirely irrelevant.

    Come on, you might at least try...

  • by jht ( 5006 )
    Gee, Microsoft is putting new features into Windows that could extend their dominance into servers and e-commerce?

    Who'd a thunk it!

    OF COURSE, they're adding features and trying to dominate the server market (as if they don't already!). That's what companies do when they want to keep growing, Microsoft and all the rest! Despite my personal feelings about Microsoft (which aren't generally too positive) this smacks of the often clueless EU trying to stop a company from doing what it's supposed to do. Gawd! And I thought the US government was clueless and pathetic - the EU makes us look brilliant in comparison!

    Does Mario Monti really think that they really have the ability to stop Windows 2000 from shipping as is, or that they can somehow hamstring it enough to suddenly jump-start a European competotor (don't kid yourself, this is what he's really after)? Wrong. Anti-trust in general is one thing, but this is stupid. Windows 2000 may well suck on it's own merits (though the Professional version is pretty nice, actually), but if NT 4 is legal (and it most likely is), then so is Windows 2000. Microsoft has plenty of problems ahead of it without this kind of stupidity.

    If I were in Ballmer's shoes, I'd give serious thought to just saying "screw the Euros, I'll shut down my local offices over there and pull out of the market and see how fast they cave. Since the rest of the world is still going to be using all our software I'll show those buggers who's in charge here".

    Of course, that's why I'm writing a /. comment instead of actually being in Ballmer's shoes...

    - -Josh Turiel
  • Here is what Novell [] has to say on this.

  • I have to disagree. I would say the US is the player with a vested interest (in all 3 things you mentioned), and the EU comes far closer to being impartial.

    Consumers in general are overwhelmingly against Genetically Modified food, and believe Microsoft is too powerful. But only in Europe is that reflected anywhere in their regulations.

  • Who said that trolls aren't very original anymore?

    (Darth Vader) "Impressive!"
  • They have changed the story so often that I don't know what the current version is.

    It is no secret that the top brass wants to kill the 9x line, they just have not been able to execute it. (And anything they can use to squeeze out more OS revenue seems to wind up taking precedence over long-term strategy...)

  • I think the fact that this has wiped more than $1bn off the value of M$'s shares (is that American or European billions I wonder...) means that the people who ultimately could make or break M$, the stock guys, care about this ruling.

    American billions I sincerely hope - otherwise you'd be saying that MS were worth over $1,000,000,000,000 (a European billion or an American trillion) previously - that is one hell of a valuation. I think the entire GNP of the world is only something like $15,000,000,000,000 :)

  • <I>32 states have legislations that disallow you to publically discuss possible health dangers in any agricultural produce.</I>

    What? and this isn't inconstitutional? What is the first amendment for?

    I can understand that you forbid people to shout fire in a theater but forbidding discussion of the lack of fire protection in theatres probably isn't forbidden and would be a violation of free speech, why isn't it the same for these stupid laws?
  • Well, in a word...nothing. It says they are looking at a lawsuit against MS. Over "features". I wish they would have gone into more detail about these offending features. Now, I am no MSFriend (tm), but I am rational. I can only assume that they are talking about the DNS business for the time being, since I know of no other issues. I have used win2k a bit through the betas, and from what I saw it is more stable, but it was also a bloated pig (debug code?). Just give us some facts, people! I have to agree with Wonko42 up there who is advising against knee-jerk jihads, which seems to be the running trend of Slashdot in general (I include myself here, I am trying to reform;). Lets see what the features are, give them honest appraisal, and then give it whatever it deserves. I imagine that if the MSStandard(tm) was open (as in speech) there would be a lot less griping.
  • by TuRRIcaNEd ( 115141 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @07:48AM (#1292350)
    The best will survive. If people like Windows better, they'll use Windows. If they like Linux better, they'll use Linux.

    Nice thought, but it doesn't happen that way, does it? In the US especially, it would be far more accurate to say:

    The most heavily advertised and marketed will survive. If people listen to the media, they'll use Windows. If they are allowed to make their own decision, they'll at least have made their own choice.

    As a dual booter using NT4 at the moment, I can't complain too much about the technical issues. However to Joe Public the computer arena is still a new and bewildering place to be, and the fact that Microsoft deliberately propagate the image that their software is the only way, using the media (to keep people stupid - in the immortal words of Bill Hicks). Don't you think that the stranglehold should be lifted to at least allow an alternative to flourish? All the EU seems to be saying is 'give third parties access to your API's'. Seems more like common-sense than strongarming to me......

    Microsoft is using it's dollar value and corporate weight to stop others from even writing decent applications for their own OS, let alone use their software protocols on other OS's. That is why I dislike them. Their idea of utopia is of an MS-certified PC, running MS Windows, running solely MS/MS-approved apps, with MS deciding the rate of pay for these systems. MS is not the only offender here, but this goes way beyond monopoly. This is almost totalitarian thinking. If the EU can come down hard on Austria for electing a far-right-wing government, surely it can at least try to protect itself from a totalitarian US software company.

  • Actually, it is out. The golden master was done several weeks ago. Lo and Behold... the Windows 2000 RC Release message on the bottom right hand corner of my screen has disappeared long ago.

    People have had a lot of time to take a good look at even the final version of Windows 2000. Just because it's not on retail shelves doesn't mean it's not available at all.
  • This isn't about Windows alone; if Windows were all that MS sold, there'd be no issue here. The issue is with MS using its OS dominance to tie in other MS products. I also prefer being able to choose among W2K, Linux, and a few other options. If Microsoft has its way, then I will not have that choice. That is what this issue is about.

    Let events take their course. The best will survive.

    Bullshit. The best will win only if all products compete without cheating. MS has a long history of assuring that its inferior products prevail through shady OEM-arm-twisting, secret APIs, and OS integration. It's precisely these tactics that the EU is looking to prevent. Surely you have no problem with that? To paraphrase you: "If W2K really can compete on its own merits, then what are you afraid of?"

    I won't go as far as accusing you of astroturfing, but be aware that you're serving the same purpose. If you were astroturfing, at least you'd be getting paid for your act of corporate fellatio. As it is, I can't see why you'd otherwise bother.
  • this isn't exactly the case. when I buy microsoft windows,
    I get the microsoft explorer, the microsoft notepad,
    the microsoft disktools, the microsoft .

    But when I get.. say.. red hat, on the distro I may find:
    the red hat installers, mozilla, lynx (wait a minute.. that's 2 browsers) several programming languages
    (NOT a redhat product) etc. well.. that's quite a big difference

    //rdj, not in a good mood today, so my english may not make much sense..
  • Yeah, I mean those high quality LUCAS electronic components are oh-so-reliable.

    Also the reason Brits claim to enjoy their beer warm.
  • Nope. Although it would trigger some gains for Linux, there's a lot more multinationals that are run from the US than the other way around. Companies that standardize on Windows would keep on using it - they wouldn't migrate, they'd smuggle first.

    I think that the truly giant companies really don't give a damn what the EU thinks, they'll use their OS of choice anyway. That pressure alone make banning Windows 2000 unworkable.

    Smaller and Euro-centric companies might well continue running their existing versions of Windows, or a few might turn to Apple or Linux, or something else - but not many of them.

    Remember, the _average_ company could care less about Open Source, Linux, Free Software, or any of that - they just want decent supported software that they can easily find software for, users who know it, and the ability to interoperate easily with other companies. Linux may be technically superior, but it doesn't yet fill all those needed roles for the average shop and I doubt it's ready to start.

    I think the more likely result is that Europe becomes a computing backwater.

    - -Josh Turiel
  • From the Reuters article on the same topic, it seems that they are focusing on how M$ gives out their APIs!!!
    Apparently the EU competition chief, Mario Monti, thinks that they do "it in a way which permits only Microsoft products to be fully interoperable. Microsoft's competitors, which do not have access to the interfaces, would therefore be put at a significant competitive disadvantage"

    Certainly. After all, Microsoft's competitors generally don't have the intelligence to click on a URL. []

    Obviously. All Microsofts competitors are stupid. They have no idea whatsoever. Only Microsoft knows how to code. Heck, they're probably all dyslexic and can't read.

    Point out one API which "permits only Microsoft products to be fully interoperable" and I'll show you where you're wrong - or I'll show you where it's documented. Any takers?

  • > It has only 2 things which require a reboot

    That's the two pre-release security patches, right?

  • > In particular I'm referring to the fading menus and mouse shadow.

    One of the early beta testers mentioned in a newsgroup that, at that early stage, the fading stuff occured on all applications except the MS Office line.

    If you can think of an explanation for this, other than the obvious guess of "secret API for MS products", then I'd be happy to hear it.

  • OK, I'll correct you. Even if MS moved its base of operations to Europe it would not fall outside the remit of US anti-trust laws as it would (presumably) continue to trade in the US market. MS does not have its base of operations in Europe but the commision are prefectly within their rights to investigate MS. The commision could even order the break-up of a US company and the company would either have to comply or withdraw from the European market place.


  • "It is no secret that the top brass wants to kill the 9x line, they just have not been able to execute it. "

    Fah -- In theory, they want to cut their R+D spending and support only one OS. In practice, they can't stop looking at the revenue stream from Windows 9x.

    As long as Windows 9x keeps getting new features before NT/2000 (DirectX 8?), Microsoft's "unified Windows" strategy is a bunch of crap. Let's look at the record:

    1989: "Windows 3.0 is a transitional environment until customers are ready for the powerful OS/2."
    1991: "OS/2 is the wrong decision, we encourage customers to use Windows 3.1 until we ship our own replacement."
    1993: "Windows NT 3.1 is finally the replacement for Windows 3.1. We encourage all customers and developers to switch to NT 3.1"
    1994: "We have this great new 'Chicago' OS coming out that doesn't contain DOS. You might want to hold off on your NT plans."
    1995: "Windows 95 is the replacement for Windows 3.1. We encourage customers to deploy Windows 95 until they are ready for the power of Windows NT."
    1996: "Windows NT 4 is finally the desktop replacement for DOS/Windows. We encourage all customers and developers to switch to NT 4"
    1997: "We have this great new 'Memphis' OS coming out that doesn't contain DOS. You might want to hold off on your NT plans."
    1998: "Windows 98 is the replacement for Windows 95. We encourage customers to deploy Windows 95 until they are ready for the power of Windows NT."
    1999: "Windows 2000 is finally the desktop replacement for DOS/Windows. We encourage all customers and developers to switch to Windows 2000."
    2000: "We have this great new 'Millennium' OS coming out that doesn't contain DOS. You might want to hold off on your Win 2000 plans."

    You see, this could continue forever...
  • I swear, people have no sense. Those of us who aren't brainwashed Linux zealots realize that there are actually some very good things about Windows 2000. When Linux users run around chanting "Down with Microsoft!" it just makes me wonder what they're scared of.
    Maybe it's the way their DNS is designed to crash Unix DNS. Or maybe it's the way that Microsoft deliberately munged their implementation of Kerberos with a secret encrypted data block so that only W2K servers can be used to speak Kerberos to a W2K workstation. Maybe people are worried that Microsoft will use the DMCA to kill any extensions to Samba which would fix this deliberate incompatibility, thus forcing many companies to replace perfectly good *nix servers with W2K or NT.

    Maybe it's Microsoft's anti-competitive practices which attempt to FORCE everyone to get rid of perfectly good non-Microsoft software for no reason other than Microsoft deliberately broke the standards that everyone else keeps. Until Microsoft stops using every product as an anti-competitive wedge, people will oppose Microsoft's wedges and Microsoft products in general. This is as it should be.

  • by spectecjr ( 31235 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2000 @12:06PM (#1292414) Homepage
    You see, it's not the documented APIs that are the problem. It's the undocumented ones that MS uses and keeps hidden that give them (another monopolistic) competitve edge

    Hmmm... you wear wool... I'm willing to bet that from this evidence, you spend 90% of your time every day thinking about having sex with sheep.

    Disagree with me? In that case - provide evidence that you don't think about having sex with sheep 90% of the time.

    You can't prove a negative. Congratulations - you're spreading FUD about Microsoft:

    Fear - Microsoft has "hidden APIs" which lets them get more performance out of their code.
    Uncertainty - Will our apps get the same benefits?
    Doubt - Will we be able to go to market with this stuff if we don't know if we'll be able to compete effectively?

    Well, thanks a lot. So basically, you're repeating hearsay evidence that X, Y and Z person has invented... you're not even able to point to apps that run better because the APIs which they use aren't documented.

    Give you a hint: Microsoft isn't that organized internally. I used to work there - on the Visual Studio team. And guess what I used to find documentation for all of my programming? And what my peers all used? That's right! A Favorites item pointing to MSDN... just one click, and all your docs are there.

    Of course, you won't believe me, because someone once said to you "Oh, Microsoft has all these secret APIs - that's why their wordprocessor runs better than XYZ's one... not because XYZ didn't optimize the heck out of it".

    Again - show me the facts, jack.

  • Um, ok. Consider NT. It has multiple client API interfaces (posix, win16, win32) that plug into the actual operating system. Apps are supposed to be written to one of the client APIs. The "internal" NT api is secret and undocumented. The problem is that the client API interfaces add another layer of inderection and slow things down.

    Ok... this is a given. Except for the fact that the internal docs aren't available to MS programmers to use either (I tried while I was there so that I could access floppy disks at sector levels). You can get down to ioctl level if you want to -- and that IS documented.

    Most developers outside of MS can't use the native "internal" NT api. A few have managed to reverse engineer pieces of it, but its well known that MS applications (like IIS) use this API extensively. Non MS applications are penalized because this api is not published and documented. Netscape actually talks about how they reverse engineered part of the internal NT api and doubled performance for their webserver. The IIS developers didn't have to reverse engineer anything; they had all the documentation available to them.

    References please - I don't believe you. I'd love these magical URLs to fall from the sky detailing how Netscape needed to do X Y and Z to get things working.

    Bear in mind, however, that Netscape (note: not Mozilla) has enough trouble getting a browser running fast & stable on Linux - and they have the SOURCE CODE for that...

  • I consider this just another attack at Microsoft by another competitor.

    I don't think it can be considered an attack. I think it's definitely worth knowing before you make an investment in something that could possibly screw things up. It's nice to know that it is a fixable thing and probably not a big deal for most people. At least they let you know that the problem exists and that there is a solution.

  • It's no more biased than Microsoft's marketing claims. It's just that Microsoft's marketing makes it into the mainstream press a lot more than Novell's or anyone elses. They are just using their website to try to refute or clarify some of the claims that Microsoft makes. Nothing wrong with that. Take it with a grain of salt, just as you should do with anything carrying the scent of marketing.

  • Berkeley sockets and Microsoft was forced to address the shortcomings of its own TCP/IP implementations. Many Linux fans will no doubt argue that they have not.

    Sorry? It was Linus who was forced to admit Linux's TCPIP wasn't as scalable as NT. He admitted this several times stating that 2.4 would fix the problem.
  • For a while too. It's just now part of windows. Would you stop comparing windows *out of the box* to everything single piece of unix software developed since the 60s? make an especially good version of NAT.
  • by TummyX ( 84871 )
    He said that the company enjoyed an excellent relation with the Commission, and accused Sun Microsystems, one of Microsoft's main rivals in the server market, of initiating the complaint.

    What? Sun had something to do with this? Believe me, I am trying to look very very suprised.
  • <i>
    Maybe it's the way their DNS is designed to crash Unix DNS.
    Uh huh. So it's microsoft's fault that BIND was vunerable to DoS attacks? The problem was only in an earlier version of BIND, and was a bug in BIND, which has been patched.
    I suppose you love Sun's proprietry software and hardware.
  • True, but it all depends on what you're going to do. Windows 2000 is horribly expensive, but it's a great desktop OS and small business server. Hell in some cases it's also good for an enterprise server (32way SMP anyone?).

    Linux is always going to be the cheaper solution. And in many cases, a better choice.

    As for the other features...well it's unfair to just sit around complaining about windows 2000 out of the box. Windows has always had 3rd party NAT and other networking products/addons.
    Also security in NT is much more flexible. You can apply ACLs to everything from pipes/mutuxes/threads all the way to files.
  • It is nice to see someone recognize, that big government, and all its regulations, is the *cause* of monopolies, and potential monopolies.

    So, instead of setting up antitrust law, the solution is simply to abolish the laws, that set up the large companies to be successful in the first place.

    Overregulation, and the teams of lawyers required to survive under such regimes, gives a competitive advantage to large corporations that 1) can afford the lawyers and 2) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage reductions in the regulation and 3) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage changes in the regulation to hurt their competitiors.

    Example: Boeing lobbys the US, Airbus lobbys the EU. Result: everyone in aerospace dies, or is gobbled.
  • people whine when MS gets the cops to enforce EULAS for them.. but nobody whimpers when Sun/AOL/Netscape gets governments to do its competing for it...

"Paul Lynde to block..." -- a contestant on "Hollywood Squares"