“Microsoft chairman Bill Gates says his company would be unable to allow manufacturers and consumers to choose which elements of its Windows operating system to install on their computers under sanctions being proposed to a federal judge.[…]The issue stems from how different portions of Windows are reliant on each other. If one piece is removed, such as the part of the Internet Explorer Web browser that makes Web pages appear, other features like the Windows Help system would break.” Read the rest of the story at Yahoo!News. You can also read the submitted Gates testimony as a PDF here. Our Take: Personally, I prefer products to be solid and in one piece, as they were designed to be. Recreating something like Linux’s dependancy hell at all levels, is naturally something that does not benefit the consumer. Or my hot temper when dealing with it. What is needed IMHO, is restrict Microsoft’s business practices, not its product line. Update: More about Gates on the stand.
Gates Says Microsoft Can’t Comply and Make Modular Windows
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I don’t see why Microsoft should not be forced to comply with this. What is wrong with us being able to go to the store and purchase a stripped down version of the Windows OS for less money. Maybe I don’t want/use Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Why should I be forced to pay for it when I purchase the OS? And please don’t tell me that you get it for free, because anyone with half a brain knows that Microsoft is including it in the total price of the OS (I’m sure Microsoft does not pay its IE and MP developers in penuts). So, why not ? I don’t get it. I just want the OS, thats all. Why should I be forced to pay for middleware I won’t use?
Gates argument is that if they comply, they will create somewhat incompatible versions of Windows. Because Gateway will want its Windows one way, Dell a bit differently, and Compaq/HP differently. This will create a chaos of incompatibilities as opposed to a solid product, and at a later date, incompatibilities at the level of code, in a similar way that Debian and RedHat are different. They are both Linux, however one likes to have /usr/bin/ as its main bin directory, while the other one likes /usr/local/bin/. In the beginning these will just be annoyances for the users, but as the time goes by and things like that will be more distinct, the developers themselves will have trouble supporting all these versions. In fact, that would cost developers more money.
And that is not a solid product. Microsoft’s business will be in a loss, developers will need to spend more money on QA, and users will have a kind of a dependancy hell.
Crippling Windows is NOT an option and personally, as a developer and a user, *I do not want it*. What I want, is someone to spank Microsoft’s a$$ and make them PAY about their business practises and do not allow them to undermine other companies anymore. I just want them to play fair, not to destroy their product line. The 90% of the industry is relying on that product line, it will be a mistake to try to destroy this status quo. Economically and technologically.
I just want them to play fair, nothing more. I am happy with XP currently. I like IE and I like WMP. Crippling this configuration will only make me unhappy, not happy because we beat the big monster. We like it or not, the industry depends on that monster.
Call me conservative, but I don’t like big changes.
I don’t get it. Why a corporation, in a free market country, should be dictated HOW to package it’s own product ? If they want to sell that in a big block, which law goes against that ? *THIS*IS*FREE*MARKET* ! And not because it’s “evil” Microsoft that laws must be bended.
As a customer, that’s YOUR CALL to get MacOS-X or Linux if you prefere.
> I prefer products to be solid and
> in one piece, as they were
> designed to be. Recreating
> something like Linux’s dependancy hell
Hey, wasn’t that supposed to be Windows DLL hell?
Anyways, I think there is a big difference between bundling different programs with an OS, and creating dependency hell of the sort you are concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of third-party developers write all sorts of programs for the Windows Platform. The fact these are “add-on” programs does not create dependency hell. I don’t see how a CDrecording software, say, can be so important to an OS, and in any case, a modular approach to software design is almost always excellent.
Governmental intervention in product design is pure evil, but with MS using its OS monopoly to steal markets and crush competition in other markets, I am not sure what the should be.
The problem is that there are millions of 3rd party developers that use those microsoft widgets in their software.
The simplist example is Real Player — it uses microsoft’s ie as its browsing widget. Now if Dell is going to sell a computer with a full version of XP in it, but Gateway sells a XP computer without IE. Then Real Player can’t function normally in Gateway computers. So Real Inc. has to create, test and support at least 2 versions of Real Player. What if they also use microsoft’s instant messaging widget — then Real has to create 4 versions of Real Player (2×2 permutations). What if they also use Microsoft’s mp3 decoder — then Real has to create 8 versions of Real Player (2x2x2 permutations).
Blame it on the rest of computing industry for being lazy and uses Microsoft’s widgets. It’s like if the court forces Microsoft to only use w3c’s html standards and delete from IE all of the non-conforming standards in the widget —- then probably more the 1/2 of all websites would break.
Just read Eugenia comments, and I agree 100% with her. As a professional programmer myself, I REALLY don’t want the Windows product line to change. It’s now a system 10 times easier and faster to develop for compared to Linux, especially because you don’t have to QAs under such various environments as Linux. Windows XP by example is clean and straigthforward. There’s limitations, but they are mostly for the good of users and developers. When it’s working perfectly under one XP, you can be sure at 99.9% it will work perfectly under any other existing XP.
Now, as for making Microsoft paying for bad business practices, I’m 100% for it. That’s the heart of the problem, not Windows architecture.
Narrow minded is a better expression.
I think that Microsoft should be able to bundle any software they want to with their OS. I don’t think that they should be allowed to dictate to anyone, OEMs to end users, what software they are allowed to bundle with or how they are allowed to use their software. It is technically the OEMs’ and end users’ fault for agreeing to Microsoft’s contracts and licenses, and therefore the government technically didn’t need to get involved as the free market has been eventually correcting itself through things like free software. However, I can see how businesses like Be have been hurt unfairly and the eventual correction is not happening quickly enough. Innovation (and just plain every day work) has been obstructed by Microsoft in many ways, especially through apis and file formats that are not fully disclosed. Again the market has been correcting itself, but in the mean time many people are at the mercy of Microsoft…unless they realize that there really are alternatives and choose not to be.
well, I though it was windows that coined the term..DLL Hell.
try debian woody, no hell there.
Yeah, it’s dumb for the government to dictate how Windoze should be. Don’t like Windows? Don’t use it. I don’t, except for at work. I can open MS Office apps on my Mac.
However, modular and and solid aren’t mutually exclusive. Windows sucks. Unix (and Linux) is also a rather poorly designed system, hence dependency hell. However, well done modularity doesn’t lead to the shitpile known as Linux. BeOS managed to do it. An “easy to use” (so I’m told, bah!) and well-support system doesn’t have to lead to a heap of steaming feces like Windows. Again, I cite BeOS, but it’s not the only possible implementation.
> I don’t get it. Why a corporation,
> in a free market country, should
> be dictated HOW to package
> it’s own product ?
And I dont get why a corporation, just because it is a big corporation, should dictate to other corporations how to package their own products? That’s what MS has been doing to PC manufacturers, for instance. How do you intend to address that?
>Narrow minded is a better expression.
Hgm, I wonder WHO is the narrow minded here…
>well, I though it was windows that coined the term..DLL Hell.
Windows XP has solved the dependancy dll hell.
A freemarket is the same as a free country. you cannot be forced to do anything, under normal conditions; however, both a freemarket and a free country have laws, if you break the laws you must pay the price, i.e. being forcd to do somthing you donot want to do.
I do not see how a modular windows would cause any problems.
if a program needs MSHTML to run, then there is no reason that MS cannot include it in the same location that it would be if IE were on the computer.
what Gates is upset about is that by makig it modular you ruin the way windows works as a total package. there would be no problems with 3rd party programs, but remote desktop will no longer work on all machines as not everyone will have windows messenger installed. windows update will no longer work on all machines because you need IE for that and some might not have IE on their machine (a quick stand alone app should work fine though for this)
it is the features that MS has worked on for so long that he does not want disrupted. but he will not tell you that, he will just say that Windows will no longer be a predictable environmnet to program on. which is a lie.
that is an idiocy…
xpcom,corba and the other component architecture are developend to make things modular….
if an application doesn’t find a certain module that it use for a certain widget it should just not showing that.
Is THAT so hard?
think about QNX Voyager, it use the vserver, opera and geko seemlessly as reneder engine for html…
or think about nautilus or konqueror, if I don’t have eog I still can see images on them using another module telling them to use it.
Maybe is just a problem of design….
If that is free marked why I cannot get a PC from a big producer w/out the OS?
I think this is a great opportunity for the states to amend their settlement. Unless the judge decrees that no decree will be the result at this point, I think that the states should take a different tact. The whole problem here is conflict of interest. The bundling of the applications group with the OS group is leading to the monopolistic practices that are being seen. How would Windows .NET have been able to have been hatched independant of all other corporate entities, unless the makes of the .NET development environment were integrally connected with the makers of the OS software.
I think that the company should be forced to be broken into two major divisions, the applications group and OS group. All applications, including Developer studio, Windows Media Player, et cetera, should be in the application group. The Windows operating systems and PocketPC operating system should be a seperate operating system company. Furthermore, a non-competitive agreement should be put in place, where Microsoft can’t pull the OEM contractual strong arming that they tried against Dell and other computer manufacturers.
This requires no product logistics work, but requires future evolution of the the operating system to include non-Microsoft entities.
MS does not have to remove MSHTML, they only need to remove IE, a program that USES MSHTML.
they can leave all the DLLs that the addons use and no 3rd party program gets hurt.
I think Microsoft should be forced to comply. There doesn’t have to be multiple incompatible versions of Windows. They could just release 1 version of Windows without all of the middleware (i.e. IE6, Media Player) welded to it. This version could be sold in a retail box with the middleware included on the CD but not installed by default. A consumer buying this retail boxed version would have the option of installing any or all of these middleware products at any time or using other companies products if they want. Updates to both the core Windows OS and the middleware that came on the CD could be obtained the same way Windows Update works now except that if, for example, Windows Media Player wasn’t installed by the consumer, then Windows Update won’t tell the user that there’s an update if there is one for it.
As for the OEMs, sell them the same thing and let them decide which of these addon middleware products they want to pre-install on their systems and which competitors’ products they want to install on their systems before selling them. And no more bullying by M$ of the OEMs, If they want to install other operating systems besides Windows on their prebuilt systems, let’em. They can put OS-9 Level II on them for all I care. I just want choice.
Gates is blowing this issue way out of proportion as usual with his gloom and doom scenarios. He’s so obvious it’s sickening. Anything to keep the monopoly going, right, Billy Boy? Guess you just don’t have enough money and power already…
Windows would’ve been a much better OS from the start if they would’ve just made it modular in the first place. I’m not sitting here saying that, oh Microsoft shouldn’t be able to ship IE or Media Player or Personal Web Server with a copy of Windows at all. I’m just saying that Microsoft should quit forcing their middleware products down consumers’ throats by welding those products to the core Windows OS. OK, maybe there should be 2 versions of Windows. 1 version with ONLY the core OS where people or OEMs can download the middleware products from M$ if they want and the OS *SHOULD* cost less. And 1 version with the core OS and the M$ middleware products on the same CD(s) but NOT installed by default. The core OS should not be dependent on anything like IE, Media Player, etc.
If Windows has to be taken off the market in order for M$ to get their crap together and create a version of Windows that’s modular and doesn’t force their middleware on consumers, then so be it. The world will not end if there isn’t a major Windows upgrade in the next year or two, regardless of what Billy Boy says in court.
Oh, and Gates, quit cutting your own hair. It looks like crap!
Thank you, drive through…
“Narrow minded is a better expression.”
Not if the change imply for the users and developers full pain, no gain.
“I don’t get it. Why a corporation, in a free market country, should be dictated HOW to package it’s own product?”
– You’ve forgotten that MS has been found guilty of using its monopoly in an ilegal fasion. The problem is that by “forcing” its browser and media player on users does not allow room for competition. Whats next, a built in cd burner, compresser, picture viewer, etc…? I would be supprised how anyone can’t see this as being a bad thing. But that’s besides the point, as MS has already been found guilty of this. The problem is how hard should they be punished.
“Blame it on the rest of computing industry for being lazy and uses Microsoft’s widgets”
– Exactly why we should stop this. Compaies like Real would have to find another way rather then “expect” IE to be there. This is a good thing becouse REAL could just make one program that could run on any version of Windows, with or without IE.
“Gates argument is that if they comply, they will create somewhat incompatible versions of Windows.”
Of course he is going to say that, however, it is nonsence. I work at a company that produces about 10 different retail applications. Our software has plugs, links, etc. throughout it and it is very modular. We do make customizations for large hardware dealers, but it does not screw up the basic core of our product or make it incompatible with other versions of our software. It simply has more or different functionality. The same is true of Windows.
Look at Linux, for example, I don’t have to have KDE installed and I don’t have to use it as my window manager if I want to use KMail. I just download the files that KMail requires and run it in WindowMaker. My Linux machine doesn’t become incompatible with other versions of Linux because I did that; it just works.
Windows developers are not stupid. They are a pompous bunch of rectums (determined from personal experience working there), but they are not stupid. To say that they can’t figure out how to strip all the middleware crap out of Windows is a downright lie. To believe that Windows will become incompatible with itself by simply installing a component is naive.
“And I dont get why a corporation, just because it is a big corporation, should dictate to other corporations how to package their own products? That’s what MS has been doing to PC manufacturers, for instance. How do you intend to address that?”
I don’t see any point in your argument. Microsoft paid developers and engineer to make a product. Then it’s their RIGHTS to bundle it the way they want. IT’S THEIR PRODUCT ! Not governement product. Not OEM product. BUT MICROSOFT PRODUCT. Period. The governement don’t have the right to tell how to bundle it. And if the users are not happy, they can ask, all together: “it’s this way, or the highway”, and Microsoft will change it. The fact there’s only ONE single bundling choice, it’s maybe because 99% of the customers are happy with that… You are in the 1% left, you have to realize you’re in a minority …
> If that is free marked why I cannot get a PC from a big producer w/out the OS?
Try to get a car w/o tires. Really, why would you need to pay for that $hitty regular tires when you’ve got a set of Bridgestone Potenzas sitting in your garage ?
“Try to get a car w/o tires. Really, why would you need to pay for that $hitty regular tires when you’ve got a set of Bridgestone Potenzas sitting in your garage ?”
Isn’t it great when people compare apples to oranges.
thanks for the laugh.
yes.. exactly what i was thinking.
Eugenia, breaking things into dll is not going to create any sort of hell. as long as they are willing to stuff all the functionallity into dll’s (which is mostly done now) then who cares what browser oem’s ship with it.. likely any oem browser is STILL going to use mshtml’s rendering.
making things modular is good. Microsoft’s claim that you can’t is oblivious a lie. the fact that they say the window’s help system will break if IE is removed.. does this mean that the windows’s help system is actually USING iexplore.exe? no.. just linking to the same dll’s that ie uses.. hence, modularity.
“To say that they can’t figure out how to strip all the middleware crap out of Windows is a downright lie”
You are exactly right. Bill and Steve are truly lying. I’ve been developing for over 15 years and for them to suggest such things is stupid. People you know, know better. They saw Netscape as a threat, so they embed IE into Windows and would not allow you to remove it, therefore over time who gains marketshare? The same will happen with Windows Messenger, today, you can’t remove it easily. Who has the largest IM marketshare in 2002? AOL for the moment.
“The governement don’t have the right to tell how to bundle it.”
Yes they do have the right. MS has been found guilty, period. They are, by textbook definition and by US courts, a monolopy.
AmigaOS’ modular design has proved that this can be implemented in a very efficient way. I believe applications like browers, mediaplayers, messenger/IRC/FTP clients and so on, should never be tied to its underlying operating system.
Personally I don’t think Linux is a good example with regard to this subject. I do think Linux is a good example of what anarchy would mean for OSes. Too many incompatibility issues between endless different versions. Therefor I do believe defining clear protocols are vey important, but that’s an entirely different story IMO and in the case of an OS monopoly standards should never be determined by the monopolist itself, but by an international board of experts.
Let’s take a DVD player as an example, there are many different ones out there, you may prefer a different player than me. Now Microsoft all the sudden comes along and bundles their own implementation for “free” with the OS. Both of the previously mentioned implentations most likely die out, leaving you, me and other consumers only with one choice. If it was not from such practices, the Opera browser would probably be alot more popular today and due to more funds available to them be a more solid solution.
The techniques used by Microsoft stifles competition and slows technical advancements. Let’s imagine you have an excellent developer team and you believe you could develop a better browser or multimedia implementation. Would you do it? I don’t think so, regardless that movies may run 30% more resource friendly, if people already have an inferior multimedia player (for which they had to pay!) available to them, only very few would buy your application.
> Isn’t it great when people compare apples to oranges.
Let me help you : in both cases you must pay for something you are not going to use.
I just don’t get why bundled Windows is so special. Each and every manufacturer violates your consumer rights this way.
Q – When is it OK to kill Gates and/or Balmer?
A – When you see them.
I’m sorry, I just can’t resist commenting on more of this post.
“This will create a chaos of incompatibilities as opposed to a solid product, and at a later date, incompatibilities at the level of code, in a similar way that Debian and RedHat are different.”
That is silly don’t you think? It’s all about running applications is it not? Nobody buys just the OS. That said, I hardly think that installing software, or modules, is going to make incompatible versions of Windows. That’s like listing the system requirements of a game and saying, “Windows users who have installed WordPerfect will not be able to run this game.” That is ridiculous.
“…They are both Linux, however one likes to have /usr/bin/ as its main bin directory, while the other one likes /usr/local/ bin/.”
Yes, and in XP, the menus and directory structure is totally different than they are in other versions of Windows, yet they are compatible. That’s like saying, “My Windows system has become incompatible from yours because I chose to install Word not in the Program Files directory, but off the root directory on my F: drive.” Or, “My IE can’t render pages anymore because the Options menu has been moved from the View menu to the Tools menu in newer versions.”
“…the developers themselves will have trouble supporting all these versions.”
Again, you are saying that by removing the browser, the video player, the defrag program and whatever else that Windows would become unstable and hard to work with. These are applications! An operating system doesn’t become unstable because of the absence of applications. In fact, if it’s Windows, the exact opposite is often times true.
“I just want them to play fair, nothing more. I am happy with XP currently. I like IE and I like WMP. Crippling this configuration will only make me unhappy, not happy because we beat the big monster. We like it or not, the industry depends on that monster.”
That is what those that oppose MS are after! Force them to work on their OS only and let other companies compete against them for other applications. Nobody is saying Microsoft can’t write these applications, they are saying that it is not right for MS to use their monopoly to force these apps onto their users, thus killing the competition.
“I don’t get it. Why a corporation, in a free market country, should be dictated HOW to package it’s own product ?”
It isn’t about packaging, it is about using a monopoly to kill you competition. That is exactly what MS is doing and has done for a long time. Regardless of what kind of society we live in, this practice is against the law and should be punished according to the law.
“The simplist example is Real Player — it uses microsoft’s ie as its browsing widget. Now if Dell is going to sell a computer with a full version of XP in it, but Gateway sells a XP computer without IE.”
The solution there is for Microsoft to offer an SDK to developers that wish to use these widgets. Nothing wrong, or impossible, about that. The don’t have to bundle IE with the OS to give developers access to the APIs.
>>>>MS does not have to remove MSHTML, they only need to remove IE, a program that USES MSHTML. they can leave all the DLLs that the addons use and no 3rd party program gets hurt.
What the 9 non-settling states ask for the right to get the complete removal of all things called “middleware” — it’s so vague that it includes the mshtml widgets. It’s the 9 non-settling states’ job to convince the judge that their definition of middleware is not too vague to create chaos in the computing industry. It’s not Bill Gates’ job to provide the judge a more suitable definition of middleware.
As an aside, the settling states have 4 different definitions of middleware — each of the definitions applied to different sections of the settlement. The 9 non-settling states have only 2 different definitions of middleware — fewer versions mean more vagueness.
>>>think about QNX Voyager, it use the vserver, opera and geko seemlessly as reneder engine for html…
QNX Voyager is a browser front-end specifically developed by an embedded OS provider for easy interchanging of different back-end html parsers (where the parser is the most critical part of the software). What Bill Gates is talking about is that millions of 3rd party developers use microsoft’s middleware in “less critical” situations. Your video games may use microsoft’s mshtml widget to display FAQ files, or use microsoft’s instant messaging widget for online chatting functions in the ever popular online games. “Less critical” means that these 3rd party developers aren’t going to fully test that part of the software in the first place and may break if a substitute widget is used.
“I don’t see why Microsoft should not be forced to comply with this. What is wrong with us being able to go to the store and purchase a stripped down version of the Windows OS for less money.”
Gee… Ok… Guess we better sue the KDE people as well and force them to remove Konqueror from the KDE project. Maybe we better make them remove all of the media support as well. After all… The fact that KDE is bundling a browser is probably hurting Opera’s Linux browser sales.
This is what seriously annoys me about this kind of thing. The same people who have a fit that Microsoft is bundling an Internet browser with Windows think the fact that KDE and such is doing the same thing is great.
Don’t set a double standard. If Microsoft can’t do it, than KDE can’t do it either. In fact, if a court successfully forces Microsoft to remove IE from Windows, it wouldn’t surprise me if some browser manufactuer that makes Linux browsers did come along and sue the KDE project.
In the legal world, precidence is a dangerous thing.
“Yeah, it’s dumb for the government to dictate how Windoze should be. Don’t like Windows? Don’t use it.”
That’s fine for the end user. Personally, I don’t use Windows, however, I have to at work (sending from Windows right now in fact). But consider a company trying to make money. You want to write an application that will benefit your customers (or gather you the largest number of customers if you don’t already have them) and most of your customers are running Windows.
Let’s say that your company is doing really well and has a nice product that is very popular. Then, when the next version of Windows is released, you find that they have bundled an app that does exactly what yours did. And they are giving it away for free. It would most likely ruin your business.
If Microsoft wanted to write a comparible app and sell it at a fair price, that is competition (a good thing) and is not illegal. But if they use the popularity of their operating system to force their product onto their customers and kill your company, that is illegal and should be punished by the law.
To answer your question, since it is our government’s business to protect its citizens and uphold law and order, MS’s infractions must be punished the same as any other infraction should be.
I don’t see any point in your argument. Microsoft paid developers and engineer to make a product. Then it’s their RIGHTS to bundle it the way they want. IT’S THEIR PRODUCT ! Not governement product. Not OEM product. BUT MICROSOFT PRODUCT. Period. The governement don’t have the right to tell how to bundle it. And if the users are not happy, they can ask, all together: “it’s this way, or the highway”, and Microsoft will change it. The fact there’s only ONE single bundling choice, it’s maybe because 99% of the customers are happy with that… You are in the 1% left, you have to realize you’re in a minority …
This is precisely why you are not dealing with a free market economy as all the MS lovers have said. In a free market (competitive market) OEMs would tell MS to provide the features they want or buzz off.
But they can’t do that because MS has a monopoly. If they tell MS to buzz off then they will destroy that business.
That monopoly is not the product of 99% of all consumers being happy. MS got lucky and established early market share by standing on IBM’s shoulders. Developers supported the early market share leader with applications. Consumers then purchased the PCs with the lowest price and applications. Adn the monopoly just rolled on and on.
I can use opera mozilla and even galeon w/out any problems and I can use konqueror in gnome
=P
well at the time, MS used its market power to kill a company. is KDE a company that take monitary compensation for a product so as to develope its product some more? no it is not. besides. Konq is already removeable. I can use 10 diffent apps to do the things that konq can do with no problems.
>> “Our Take: Personally, I prefer products to be solid and in one piece, as they were designed to be. Recreating something like Linux’s dependancy hell at all levels, is naturally something that does not benefit the consumer. Or my hot temper when dealing with it. What needs to be done IMHO, is restrict Microsoft at its business practises, not its product line.”
Note that modular Windows will not be the only option. MSFT can still sell the 100% MS Windows. They can not and should not force OEMs to install MS software exclusively. OEMs and customers should be able to choose. Some none MSFT modules from Apple, RealNetworks, AOL and others may prove to be better the their windows counter parts.
So MSFT is essencially being prevented from abusing it’s monopoly power to crush competitors not from creating innovative products in it’s product line. If MSFT modules are really better, OEMs and Users will prefer them.
ciao
yc
Imagine this:
A world where Microsoft had equal competition in the OS business. Where MS had 2 or 3 equally favored OSs. And picture these OSs being sold for 20% to 30% less then MSs because they can sell it without the bundled middleware or with alternative (maybe even free) middleware.
Now you would see how quickley MS would run to make a stirpped down version of Windows that sold for 20 to 30% less.
What a wonderfull world this would be.
I just knew this argument was going to surface.
“Gee… Ok… Guess we better sue the KDE people as well and force them to remove Konqueror from the KDE project.”
Gee, the difference is that KDE is free and is not killing any other business by forcing its products on anyone. KDE is not a monopoly and KDE has not broken the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
“Don’t set a double standard. If Microsoft can’t do it, than KDE can’t do it either.”
KDE is not an operating system. It is a graphical environment for Linux. KDE is a suite of tools to be used on Linux and other free operating systems. It would be more appropriate to compare KDE with things like Norton System Works, Microsoft Office, or a bundling of Microsoft Bob with a suite of internet tools from your local ISP. You can’t compare it to Windows since they aren’t even the same thing.
“In fact, if a court successfully forces Microsoft to remove IE from Windows, it wouldn’t surprise me if some browser manufactuer that makes Linux browsers did come along and sue the KDE project.”
Again, KDE is a suite of tools, not an OS. Your argument is like saying it should be illegal to make software suites period. Nobody has said that and MS is still allowed to sell MS Office and Visual Studio. Nobody has complained about either of those things and since KDE is more like them than Windows, nobody will say anything about it either (except the really uninformed).
“In the legal world, precidence is a dangerous thing.”
In the real world, ignorance is a dangerous thing.
Fine ’em, and then watch ’em like a hawk.
Tearing apart Windows will do nothing helpful.
“It isn’t about packaging, it is about using a monopoly to kill you competition. That is exactly what MS is doing and has done for a long time. Regardless of what kind of society we live in, this practice is against the law and should be punished according to the law.”
Ok, but where to stop ? Where is the line ? If I made a file explorer (aka File Commander), can I pursue Microsoft because they bundle a file explorer ? Or a tcp/ip stack (aka Trumpet Winsock) ? Or a calculator ? Notepad ?
Why the internet browser is so special ? Especially in 2002 ?
(sorry, too many questions 🙂
“I just knew this argument was going to surface.”
Camel, i think it was RE: Simba that you intended to write.
Nice rebuttal though!
Bill is correct, you can’t break up windows, it’s “not just a few applications”. You can’t remove APIs as you wish. This is not Linux, this is not chaos. Please don’t go around thinking these things are easy, I’ve worked closely with a major OS, and even though it’s huge compared to what most people deal with, it’s a lot smaller than windows.
If Microsoft has been competing unfairly (I leave that up to those who know more about american law and business practises, I’m an expert on software.) they should be punished according to the law, they should not be forced to create a *MUCH* worse product that will never be nearly as good as it is today.
To say that Microsoft can’t devote its THOUSANDS of programmers to design a version of Windows that uses objects that can be added or removed at will is just asinine. Go to http://www.eiffel.com if you don’t believe that true object architecture can’t be done. We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of programming technology; it’s programmers like the ones that I read on these forums that makes MS as dominant as it is. Let’s try something new for a change instead of clinging to what’s easy.
>>>>The solution there is for Microsoft to offer an SDK to developers that wish to use these widgets. Nothing wrong, or impossible, about that. The don’t have to bundle IE with the OS to give developers access to the APIs.
The problem is that the companies (the usual suspects of AOL, SUN and Oracle) that are supporting the non-settling states want to sell you their own widgets, and the 3rd party developers don’t want to pay the usual suspects for those widgets. Companies use Microsoft’s widgets because they are quick and dirty, and most importantly they are free.
The end result would still be the same. 3rd party developers (everyone except the usual suspects) will use the Microsoft supplied SDK in their software because they already use those widgets, it’s free, chances are OEM’s like Dell/HP/Compaq ain’t going to remove those widgets anyway and the 3rd party developers don’t want to create, test and support multiple versions of the software. I don’t think AOL/SUN/Oracle would be satisfied with that.
“This is precisely why you are not dealing with a free market economy as all the MS lovers have said. In a free market (competitive market) OEMs would tell MS to provide the features they want or buzz off.”
So the real question is: Do the OEMs and customers are happy with Windows, or they aren’t but can’t argue in front of Microsoft ?
Personnaly, I think the answer is the first one. I never seen people hating Windows in the last few years except in geeks places (Slashdot, OS News, etc). In the “common” world, everybody seems happy with Windows.
That’s why I’m not very hot for this Windows breakup. I don’t see any needs from the customers, except from the 1% louder.
>>>To say that Microsoft can’t devote its THOUSANDS of programmers to design a version of Windows that uses objects that can be added or removed at will is just asinine. Go to http://www.eiffel.com if you don’t believe that true object architecture can’t be done. We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of programming technology; it’s programmers like the ones that I read on these forums that makes MS as dominant as it is. Let’s try something new for a change instead of clinging to what’s easy.
Of course it can be done. But it would take thousands of Microsoft programmers and it would take years to do it. Meanwhile Microsoft has to pull Windows off the market because continuing to sell Windows would be a contempt of court.
“That’s why I’m not very hot for this Windows breakup. I don’t see any needs from the customers, except from the 1% louder.”
This magical 1% is that based on scientific market research?
What is it based on?
Don’t think stability was a problem? Why is one of the key XP features greater stability? Just geeks who hate MS? The entire internet appliance field was developed to avoid the complexities of using a computer. Since 95% of all computers run windblows guess what? They were developed to avoid using windows.
I myself have not run a scientific sample as to what percentage of users hate or love windows which why i don’t claim any figures. I encourage others who have not performed such research to practice the same.
Where is the line? well since notepad is a very minimel text editor, I see no problems with advanced text editor market like Jext (though it is freeware).
the file browser has been considered a nesisary part of a graphical operating system. MS neve bundled a Norton Comander work alike with Dos. Explorer is to graphical environmnets what the CD comand is to DOS and Unix command prompts.
BSD has the best TCP/IP stack (which is a nessisary tool for network operations) MS uses the BSD stack. and who would by a TCP/IP stack anyway? it is basic operation software for an OS.
MS offers a pretty damn crappy calculater. if anyone needed somthing other than what they get with the MS calc (somthing a 1 dollor CVS calc cad do anyway) then they would by a frige graphing calculator to do som ereal math on.
and the over riding point. IE is middle ware. it expresses an API that then talks to the win32 API. MS was scared that if they did not control this API onthere platform then they would lose control of the OS market since cross platform applications that use the middleware API become much easier to port to other systems.
netscape was a threat to them so they took the company out of business. none of the other applications that you mention are considered middleware. they are accessories or basic functionality-ware.
Java is asmuch a threat to MS as Netscape was. that is what gave birth to the whole .NET crap. they want to create the Sandbox software market so that they can control it, just like they control the middle ware market.
however, it is hard to leverage a desktop monopoly into the programming languages. Java is used on serverside now and is rarly used in stand alone programs. and, most Java stand alone programs come with a jave run-time so, MS has to actualy compete!!!
to use the Java SDK? and so what if you do…….you pay extra for the win32 Widgets, it is just part of the cost of the development product you buy.
also, there are a ton of free Java widgets around, go check out the open source world.
Anyway it turned out that those three applications, namely IE, MM and WMP, are the Most Important Things in computers
It’s like there is nothing else you can do with your PC.
Lets look at these solutions…
* Break Microsoft up – This one has been rehashed to death by people a lot more knowledgeable about the way the computer and software industry works. It won’t work, and is projected to create an even worse situation that we have now.
* Break Windows up – You’re seriously suggesting they create sdk’s and dll’s and different packages and do this fairly? That’s one sdk I’m sure will be optimized to the fullest! Lets show users the package way and have them read
“This software requires MS Windows XP using 5.01.0114 Internet Explorer, 2.222.64 STABLE of Microsoft Messenger and 3.90a of the Windows Widgets Package. If you have newer packages than those listed you will need to downgrade the versions to guarantee stability. We are a small company don’t have the financial resources to offer support for different versions that those listed.”
Oh yeah, that’s going to go over great. I really feel sorry for those CompUSA floor techs now.
Mike- How can you compare Amiga to Microsoft? And which AmigaOS version? I know you’re the designated forum advocate but that’s just plain idiotic. I guess you’ve never worked tech support or read any forums where people complain about the biggest problems.. here’s a sample call..
Hello How may I help you today? “I upgraded to Windows XP2 and I can’t play DVD’s anymore!” Did you install your manufacturers dvd playing software? “What?” Ok, read what’s on your dvd rom drive? “Creative 12x/10x/24x/8x” Ok, one sec.. Hrmms, creative doesn’t seem to have a WindowsXP2 version yet because the SDK package is still in development. You’re going to have to pay $50 for PowerDVD or other 3rd party software. “WHAT?! Can I go back to XP1?” No that’s Illegal. “Listen, I just paid $100 for this upgrade and I can’t even play my dvd’s anymore? I also burn CD’s with that drive. I can’t do that anymore either?” You will also have to pay for a 3rd party cd burning software pacakge. “Fuck you, I have kids to feed.” Sorry ma’am, try writing an email to Creative asking them to update their software and wait paitently.
I don’t really know what the effective punishment for microsoft is. But most of what you’re suggesting will only hurt and punish the consumer, thus lowering their confidence and productivity. Then when people look to other alternatives, which ARE NOT general public ready yet, your cause is going to suffer.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything. Just face the reality that the DOJ can put Bill over their lap and spank the billionaire all they want, but in the end only better programming is the only method that’s going to win. The bootloader license lock should be removed posthaste though.
Make MS produce its applications for at least 3 diffrent Operating systems that run on the PC and if 3 do not exist, then what ever the maximum is until 3 are in existence. also make sure MS keeps developing their products for the mac.
The process would take no longer than MS usually takes in releasing an OS update. Get real.
“Camel, i think it was RE: Simba that you intended to write.
Nice rebuttal though!”
I realized that after I posted. I like your name better anyway.
> Mike- How can you compare Amiga to Microsoft?
Easy, both develop desktop operating systems (as well as embedded OS solutions).
> And which AmigaOS version?
Any AmigaOS version. No version of AmigaOS has browsing or multimedia software tied to its internals, you can still watch movies or browse the web with any 3rd party software solution available.
There is absolutely no reason that by having several different browsers and multimedia software all supporting the same standards and following well defined protocols, would ever have to result in severe in-compatibilities. However this would mainly result in competition and more consumer choice.
It’s amazing to me that now that a remedy for MSFT’s anticompetitve behavior has been proposed, how many of the Hawks for LINUX/BE/BSD, and even Eugenia now side with windows on keeping the OS intact.
Y’all want to have it both ways.
“The bootloader license lock should be removed posthaste though.”
Amen.
“Gee, the difference is that KDE is free and is not killing any other business by forcing its products on anyone. KDE is not a monopoly and KDE has not broken the law. Is it really that hard to understand?”
Microsoft isn’t forcing its products on anyone either. You are perfectly free to install Netscape, or Mozzila. or Opera if you want to. No one is forcing you to use Internet Explorer.
“KDE is not an operating system. It is a graphical environment for Linux. KDE is a suite of tools to be used on Linux and other free operating systems.”
KDE is a window mananger / desktop environment. Opera requires one of these to run. Therefore, it might as well be an operating system as far as Opera is concerned. And one could make the argument that the bundled browser with KDE hurts Opera. Like I said, legal precidence is a dangerous thing. Frivolous lawsuits are common and all to likely to win if there is legal precidence.
“Again, KDE is a suite of tools, not an OS.”
Once again, as far as Opera is concerned, it might as well be an OS because Opera requires a window managwer of one form or another to run. And since KDE is bundled as the default window mananger with many Linux desktops, Linux users already havea built in browser. So why buy Opera?
“In the real world, ignorance is a dangerous thing.”
In the real world, Linux and OSS fanaticism is a dangerous thing.
“Konq is already removeable. I can use 10 diffent apps to do the things that konq can do with no problems.”
ASFAIK, Konq is not removable from KDE2 without breaking almost all of the funtionality of the desktop. If you remove Konq, you remove the file manager, the help system, the ftp VFS system, and probably also the drag and drop capabilities and the desktop icons.
“I can use opera mozilla and even galeon w/out any problems and I can use konqueror in gnome
=P”
Yep… And you can use Mozzila and Netscape and Opera in Windows without any problems. And you can use IE in Mac, Solaris, and HPUX.
Not surprisingly a lot of mislead comments from both sides (imo). Firstly being a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal (in fact the government encouraged this for decades, phone companies, cable companies, gas, electric, etc.). Secondly since corporations have all the same rights under us law as individuals you can’t change the rules to punish them (otherwise it would be legal to not hire ex-cons because their ex-cons, it would also be legal to torture them in prison). Thirdly its not the governments right to tell a company how to package their products (the tire analogy was good, look at when ford had a monopoly on cars, no one forced them to use chrysler engines because people who liked different manufacturers bought other cars and didn’t care what came with the model t). Fourthly technically strong arming oems isn’t illegal (intel does it, coke and pepsi both do it to restaurants that try to sell competing products). Fifthly even if it was legal to force ms to allow oems to use stripped down versions of windows (its not, and if it is forced, I guarantee it will be overturned) who decides whats middle ware? Sure most ms pundits agree their im, wmp and ie, but what about calc, notepad, defrag, scandisk, etc.? Most would say they’re of little importance so leave em, but then you get companies that make calculator, text editors, disc tools, etc. suing ms because they’re pay programs are being left out in the cold. Sixthly I think most windows users like the “middleware” being bundled into windows. I don’t want to have to download a text editor, disc tools, browser, etc. if I prefer the ms ones. Granted they’re haven’t been a scientific polls on the subject saying people like windows as is, but there haven’t been any saying they don’t. Seventhly ms pundits act like people don’t know they have options, they do. Everyone I know (even people who don’t use a computer) have heard of linux, so they know options exist. Eightly “middle ware” is indeed free. A copy of xp home upgrade costs the same as a copy of win 95 upgrade cost 8 years ago (yes professional is more expensive, but its designed for a different market). Ninthly ms isn’t the only os that bundles “middle ware” (osX ships with middle ware, but since they have no oems to deal with its not an issue, so does every version of linux, btw linux is the only one where a case can be made that middle ware adds cost since you can download a stripped down version of most distros for free, but certain tools cost you). Tenthly people act like ms always had a monopoly to use, they didn’t apple had a monopoly. Apple squandered their monopoly and allowed ms to create a monopoly, obviously ms had to do some things right to not just topple apple but to become a monopoly. Eleventhly(sp?)all of the states still pursuing this lame duck of a case are doing so for monatary reasons (in all cases big wigs in each state received massive campaign financing from anti-ms companies; aol, sun, oracle). If that wasn’t the case I’m sure none of these states would waste tax payers money (which is what they’re doing, they’re pursuing a case with public money on the behest of contributors, it should be a big political scandel, but because of terrorism and the anti ms sentiment in select fields its not). Lastly why isn’t anyone forcing aol to remove the browser, im, email client, etc. from their isp package? They have a monopoly on the isp business (msn and others are making headway, but aol still controls a large enough % to be a monopoly) yet its ok for them to shove their programs down their users throats.
They shouldn’t disassemble windows now because it will destroy it. they should split up the company. unfortunately they can’t do it because by splitting MS they will destroy the fragile economy
Genaldar, for God’s sake, use some paragraphs. Your text is unreadable like that.
As for KDE:
I don’t get it. Why KDE should not be forced to take Konqueror out? They “SHOULD”. They say that they are an X desktop environment. Well, Blackbox is also an X window manager and desktop environment for many people, but it does not have a web browser to show off. KDE does more than an X environment these days. They try to do almost everything.
And Windows also tries to do everything, because there is not a fine line as to what is the OS and what else should be included or not. I mean, OS is what operates the computer and makes it boot. According to this, Windows or any other OS should not even include the graphical shell at all!!
Let’s be realistic, it makes SENSE to have a complete SOLUTION to the desktop: text editor, calculator, web browser and mail etc etc.
These are modern days, 99.99% of the people *want* all these stuff on their computer when they buy a PC. And that is what Microsoft does exactly. They make a product the way most people want it. And that is what KDE does too. And Apple with its OSX too.
Asking to take all these componennts out, after so many years of building so many products on top of all this big framework, it is just stupid and illogical. It is too late to do something like that NOW, plus it won’t be for the good of the consumer OR the developer. A ZILLION applications will be BROKEN, and developers will be unhappy, and companies will lose LOTS of money.
I said it before: Economically and technologically, it does not make sense to destroy Windows. No matter if we love to hate Windows, it just doesn’t make sense. Be realistic.
Microsoft should just pay for the cases they have made bad business practices (like the bootloader issue), but they should be left alone regarding their product line. In fact, their product line makes perfect sense, and I personally like it.
What is the most effective solution to the issue that is best for everyone involved? The answer seems to be that no single solution jumps out far enough to be a plausible solution. If this were 5 or 6 years ago, when IE was new, and the current pressures were mounting more, maybe something could have been done. Up to that point, most of the included software was basic, like wordpad, and calculator.
With the Internet as it is, a browser can only be so complicated before the user can’t use it. IE, as well as most browsers, serve their purpose well enough; they let you see webpages. Since most people that got computers between then and now were reletively new to them, what the computer had was good enough, until they actually needed more. That was probably the point; make something good enough, include it for “free”, and sit back and watch. That’s what happened with IE, and seems to be happening with MSN IM. CD recording software may be in microsoft’s path in a similar way.
Microsoft has done a good jop of getting the novice user initially. This is not to say they don’t produce quality software, or that people who use MS products are simple. Now, as the apparent case with Real, etc., removing the “weeds” from Windows without killing it is going to take time. Will the courts make that decision; who knows?
By the way…
IBM bundled Web Explorer with OS/2 Warp long before Microsoft got the idea of bundling IE with Windows. Hell, IBM even bundled IBM Works with OS/2 Warp. IBM Works was really a very capable office package.
Yet, I didn’t see Novell (who owned Word Perfect Suite at the time) suing IBM with the claim that the IBM Works bundle was hurting their sales of Word Perfect Suite for OS/2. I also didn’t see Lotus (this was before the buyout) suing IBM and claiming that their sales of SmartSuite for OS/2 were being hurt by the bundled IBM Works. And yes, IBM did have contracts with vendors to preload OS/2 on OEM systems at the time.
The only reason people are suing Microsoft is because they are big. But the reality of the situation is that Microsoft isn’t doing anything that IBM didn’t do long before Microsoft got the idea. And KDE is doing exactly what Microsoft is doing now.
Maybe we better sue Linux vendors for bundling OpenOffice and KDE with their Linux distros? After all, this could hurt various businesses that make Linux office suites and commercial desktop environments.
I have an even better idea. Lets force Microsoft to remove Windows from their product completely and just ship a command line OS. After all, a bundled GUI with an OS killed the many third party companies that were making graphical interfaces and graphical application packages for DOS.
And as long as we are doing that, we better force Linux vendors to stop shipping XFree86 with their Linux distros. After all, this hurts the commericial companies that make commercial X servers.
Like others have pointed out, if we start dictating what software OS vendors can include, we open the door for all kinds of absurd claims and lawsuits against many vendors other than Microsoft.
I can’t believe I forgot paragraphs, I suck. Hell I can barely follow what I wrote. Sorry to anyone who tried to read my post.
This nonsense about Windows being broken if it was modularized is so ridiculous as to be laughable. People, remember that MS is a company with tremendous resources… object technology has matured to the point that creating a finely granular program is not the challenge it used to be. Hardware speed is no longer an issue to truly object programming; hell, MS is making the file system a true database!! Once again, go to http://www.eiffel.com if you don’t think it can be done. Microsoft worked closely with ISE regarding .Net because the eiffel programming language is excellent as a component technology and language combinator. Saying that Windows would be broken or it is financially unfeasible is as irresponsible as Microsoft’s actions.
What good is the OS if you don’t have a web browser and email program? 99% of people simple use their computer to browse the web and stay in contact with other people (email, IM). So if Joe User buys a stripped down version of XP, how is he going to get a web browser or an IM client without having access to the web? I know he can just ftp to ms, but how many home users know how to do this? It just makes sense that it would be included in the OS since that is what EVERYBODY uses their computer for. Most other Operating systems include a browser.
Which brings up another point…is ftp middleware? Where do you draw the line? And once they get the browser, they can’t use Windows internet connection utility…that’s middleware too. See a pattern here.
While I am ranting, how does bundling MSN Messenger help their monopoly? MSN Messenger is free, and has always been free, as has it’s competitors. AOL and Yahoo IM clients are also free. What company is hurt by this? AFAIK, no company is surviving off of their nonexistant IM revenue.
MS is only getting sued because they are the most profitable, influential, and successful software company on the planet. And, being a BeOS user and advocate it hurts me to say this but, they have top notch products in pretty much all areas. IE, Office, XP, etc…
-G
Well said gmlogo!
There are companies surviving off of im revenue (well kind of). But for the most part they offer secure ims meant for the corporate world. No company is being hurt by ms bundling a non secure im (of course if they made a secure im and bundled it with windows companies could complain ms is hurting their business, but I don’t think people who use ms messanger would complain about it being secure).
Amercian showmanship at it’s best.
“I don’t see why Microsoft should not be forced to comply with this. What is wrong with us being able to go to the store and purchase a stripped down version of the Windows OS for less money. Maybe I don’t want/use Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Why should I be forced to pay for it when I purchase the OS? And please don’t tell me that you get it for free, because anyone with half a brain knows that Microsoft is including it in the total price of the OS (I’m sure Microsoft does not pay its IE and MP developers in penuts). So, why not ? I don’t get it. I just want the OS, thats all. Why should I be forced to pay for middleware I won’t use?”
Easy: buyers don’t have the right to dictate what they can buy from sellers. It’s the same reason you can’t force BMW to sell you a car without an engine, Country Farms to sell you a loaf of bread without the ends, or Sony to sell you a walkman without the earphones. A buyer can only choose to buy what a seller chooses to sell him; anything else would enslave the slave to the buyer. This should be more than obvious to, in your words, “anyone with half a brain.”
Nice try, but no cigar. Konqueror is NOT bundled with KDE. I run Konqueror on a KDE free system, and i’ve seen KDE run without Konqueror.
And all these people calling linux dependency hell… i really wonder if they have ever tried Debian. I’ve been running it for over a year, and i have NEVER seen a dependency problem.
Euginia: comparing /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin is a bad example if you ask me. They are just paths, and as long as they are in the $PATH environment variable, all is good. I have both on my system, so apps can be in either, without a problem.
There are a lot of people who dont seem to understand why M$ is in court. They arent in court because they bundled software with their OS, that they have the right to do. Its the fact that they use their MASSIVE power/money to clobber any competition in doing so. If it wasnt illegal, they wouldnt be in court, so stop your whinning. Competition is good for everyone.
I made the point that earlier that the states still pursuing the case are doing it for money and not for the good of the people. After being reminded my home state is still involved in the case (Minnesota) I did googled a few things and found the following things.
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/julyboondogglehatchmicrosoft.htm
A press release from almost a year ago by the taxpayersleague calling for the end of Minnesota’s involvement (included are man hours by the ag’s office and money spent, those numbers I’m sure are much higher now).
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/dojletter.htm
A letter sent to the antitrust devision of the doj (dated late january)
The Tax Payers League of Minnesota has over 10,000 members. Interesting tie in, qwest (provides local phone service) is closing down its isp and switching everyone over to msn, in another move against ms the ag’s office sued qwest to force them to inform people they can choose to go with a different isp (they already were informing people, the ag’s office just made they release ads saying they had a choice). btw over 90% of the people are going with msn, because they don’t care. Its sad my home state’s ag is in somebody’s pocket (there was a petition by the tpl to stop the suit almost 2 years ago, but 12,000 signatures had no effect on then ag Skip Humphrey who ran, unsuccessfully, for governor around the same time, and who had large contributions from sun).
There is nothing illegal about having a 99% market share or having exclusivity agreements in and of themselves. However, it was established back in the days of the big railroads and Standard Oil, that the government has the right to protect the consumers from companies who seek to control the market to the detriment of the consumer. This is what Microsoft is guilty of doing, and there is more than enough historical precedence for the government to get rid of their anti-competitive, negative practices.
I’d be willing to bet that there are experts who have found ways of breaking Microsoft up in an economically viable way. Those won’t be trumped out by either the government or Microsoft. Microsoft’s reasons are obvious. The government won’t do it because there is too much money from big businesses in general influencing the case.
The bottom line is that had Microsoft “played fair” in the first place, there would be no calls for their breakup of any kind.
“Nice try, but no cigar. Konqueror is NOT bundled with KDE. I run Konqueror on a KDE free system, and i’ve seen KDE run without Konqueror.”
Konq is part of KDE Base, which means that it IS installed by default and difficult to remove.
Of course KDE1 can run without it. But I don’t think KDE2 or KDE3 can.
“There are a lot of people who dont seem to understand why M$ is in court. They arent in court because they bundled software with their OS, that they have the right to do. Its the fact that they use their MASSIVE power/money to clobber any competition in doing so. If it wasnt illegal, they wouldnt be in court, so stop your whinning. Competition is good for everyone.”
Rich companies use their money and power to squash competition all the time. Its the way ms did it thats debateable (they were found guilty, but its a fine line, they just blew right past it). Competition is good, but not if you level the field against 1 of the competitors (which is what this would do), which ironically ms taught us by leveling the field in its own favor.
1. Force MS to open up the API and the proprietary file formats.
2. Fine the hell out of ’em. Like, 30 Billion $
Commoditizing the browser destroyed a $500 million a year industry and that wasn’t damage? People, do your homework. Just because you get the product for free doesn’t mean damage hasn’t been done. It’s gullibility like what I’ve read that makes me frustrated whenever this topic comes up.
>>>>Commoditizing the browser destroyed a $500 million a year industry and that wasn’t damage? People, do your homework. Just because you get the product for free doesn’t mean damage hasn’t been done. It’s gullibility like what I’ve read that makes me frustrated whenever this topic comes up.
Commoditizing the browser led to the quicker deployment of the web-based ERP, CRM, B2B exchanges…. that it creates brand new industries that are worth billions of dollars, more than enough to cover the lost of the browser industry.
The problem here is clearly the lawyers. They docn’t care if the punishment is appropriate, they just want to win the case.
Lawyers don’t seem to be at all about helping bring justice anymore (assuming they once were).
Microsoft commited a crime and needs to be brought to justice, not ridiculed and made to break stuff for the lawyers ammusment.
Though personally I would prefer they got this punishment instead of nothing at all.
Remember if MS had played fair in the first place they wouldn’t be defending themselves now. MS is so careful not to let GPL code into their stuff that they go so far as to ban customers from using it (according to the Editorial here anyway), why could they not be careful enough to avoid breaking any antitrust laws?
I think maybe the states should get together with the people that have been most hurt by MS’s practices and see if they can think of better punishment.
Making parts of Windows optional is a stpupid idea. If you take out parts, the system will run a lot worse. And Internet explorer should be integrated itno the system as it is, it makes IE a lot faster and other aspects a lot pretier
.
MS should be the ones to decice what goes in and out of their OS, not the government.
I think they should just limit their busienss partices as the OSnews editor said in the text above. Their going at it all wrong. Let Be Inc and the Open Source community and anyone else who has been hurt, create the right punishment.
Again, apples to oranges.
How in the hell can you intellectually argue your point by comparing a loaf of bread to a billion dollar monopolized Operating System? And, because I’m sure you’ll bring it up, you can’t seriously compare buying a car without an engine to buying an operating system without a web broser.
Who’s the one with half a brain now?
ASFAIK, Konq is not removable from KDE2 without breaking almost all of the funtionality of the desktop. If you remove
Konq, you remove the file manager, the help system, the ftp VFS system, and probably also the drag and drop capabilities and the desktop icons.
I think you’re wrong : Konq uses lots of components, you can remove it, the components are still there and work. Actually I believe *nothing* really depends on Konq. For example, the help system may use the HTML renderer component, without Konq.
“Windows 98 SE
I don’t get it. Why a corporation, in a free market country, should be
dictated HOW to package it’s own product
?”
Because it stops being a free country when you commit a crime. The top
management of MS are lucky not to be in jail for threatening behavior.
“Any AmigaOS version. No version of AmigaOS has browsing or multimedia software tied to its internals, you can still watch
movies or browse the web with any 3rd party software solution
available. ”
However, a browser is to be bundled with the next version of AmigaOS.
I think this will have a bad effect on sales of other browser
programs.
Hi,
just read what Be, Inc. thinks about M$, if you haven’t yet:
http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf
If you want to try out BeOS, download the iso-image here:
http://bezip.de/app/1194/
Ciao,
Sebastian
Eugenia: “Personally, I prefer products to be solid and in one piece, as they were designed to be.”
————————————————————
JW: “So do I! Prior to 98, Windows WAS an Operating System.
Now, Windows is just a means to an end, without any regard
for the consumer or the industry. Microsoft made a concious
effort to kill the competition, and extend its monopoly into
every nook and cranny, and we have all PAID THE PRICE! There
is no TECHNICAL reason for not returning to the status quo
ante Windows 98… IE Eradicator is proof of that; along
with Opera, WordPerfect, and the host of other applications
that run better than their Microsoft equivalents on my 98
home PC! I hope the states force Microsoft to disintegrate
the middleware from the operating system, and let the BUYER
DECIDE which applications best meet their needs…
Otherwise, the next PC I build will run Linux!”
“Because it stops being a free country when you commit a crime. The top
management of MS are lucky not to be in jail for threatening behavior.”
No it doesn’t. Convicted companies (like convicted people) still have the same basic rights as regular citizens. And I don’t believe any individual employees of ms could be held respnosible for this so I doubt there will be any individual criminal charges).
Be was a badly run company, thats the main reason why its dead. ms contributed, but any time 1 company succeeds while another fails the winning company could be said to have contributed to the losing companies demise. I personally think the suit is a thinly veiled attempt to attack ms by palm.
I see a lot of comparisons on this board between MS and other companies/projects that bunle(d) products together.
BMW bundles engines.
KDE bundles konqueror.
IBM bundled their own web browser with OS/2
etc…
What you all fail to realize and accept is that unlike these other companies, MS has been convicted of using unfair practices to maintain an illegal monopoly. Until you accept this fact, a rational discussion is not possible.
Adam
Restricting the biZZZZ practices, but REALLY restricting them is enough. The consumer that has a problem with interlaced apps has the freedom to try another OS that is less YGALMTWYS (you get a lot more than what you see). That way, those who insist on having an inferior, insecure, top-heavy, poorly coded, bloated, “father-knows-best”, Operating System built for complete credulous idiots, are welcome to use Windows. Whereas, the intelligent, good-looking, super-fine, understand, and humble rest of us, will use Linux, OS X, FreeBSD, and whatever appeals to out intellectual fancies. I have always felt that those who are dumb enough to use Windows, deserve Windows.
“I think you’re wrong : Konq uses lots of components, you can remove it, the components are still there and work. Actually I believe *nothing* really depends on Konq. For example, the help system may use the HTML renderer component, without Konq.”
I think you would break a lot of the functionality though unless you were a serious source code hacker. For example, the help system used Konq to display itself and I am pretty sure that is hard coded. So you would have to manually hack the source to get it to use Mozilla or something for displaying the help files.
Also, the file manager runs in Konq (similar to how Windows Explorer is actually running in IE), so I think you would lose the KDE file manager if you dumped Konq. Also, and I could be wrong about this one, the desktop icons and the drag and drop my load with Konq. (similar to how GMC in GNOME provides the desktop icons). So you might lose that if you removed Konq too.
It may be true that it is technically possible to remove Konq from KDE, but like I said, I think you would have to be a serious source code hacker to successfully do it and not break most of the desktop funtionality.
And in that sense, it is probably no different than Windows. I’m sure it is technically possible to remove IE from Windows, but it would require a huge amount of reprogramming because almost all of the desktop functionality of Windows runs in IE these days.
I was thinking though (which is kind of dangerous but I did it anyway :p), but anyway… I was thinking… Why not just leave IE in Windows and disable its internet browser functionality? That seems like a solution that would make people happy and it also seems like it would be pretty damn easy to do. I mean it could still do file management, still do FTP, and even display active desktop. It just wouldn’t be able to display Web pages located outside the local system. I’m not a programmer, but that sounds like it would be pretty simple to do.
Any one out there got any thoughts on that?
You can’t construct the perfect scenario like that. If Microsoft was not strong-arming OEM’s in the mid 80’s, Amiga and QNX might still be in the desktop OS business.
The first version of QNX was a real desktop OS — used in all of the province of Ontario’s public schools in Canada in the mid 80’s. QNX retreated from the desktop OS business in the late 80’s and went into the embedded OS business with QNX4 in the early 90’s.
If Microsoft wasn’t teaming with IBM for the original OS/2 development in the late 80’s, Apple might have increased its market share — thereby giving JLG/Sakoman huge apple stock options and they wouldn’t have left Apple in the first place to start Be Inc.
If Microsoft wasn’t strong-arming OEM’s in the early 90’s to mid 90’s with Windows 3.0/3.1, QNX probably would have decided to revisit the desktop OS market much sooner (instead of revisiting the issue in the late 90’s by flirting with Amiga Inc. to be Amiga OS’s new kernel in the real timeline). Intel would have probably invested their money on QSSL instead of Be Inc. because QSSL is a much stronger company financially (the company has always been profitable since the early 80’s), has been a x86 shop for 20 years from a technical standpoint (i.e. no porting from powerpc needed), has a better technology reputation than Be Inc. and QSSL management has actual x86 desktop OS business experience.
You can’t even construct the perfect scenario even if you want to. There has always been alternative desktop OS providers that has more money than Be, has better technology reputations than Be and has better management teams than Be.
> However, a browser is to be bundled with the next version
> of AmigaOS. I think this will have a bad effect on sales
> of other browser programs.
Note that I’m not against bundling as such, but against tying applications to OS internals, so that it becomes dependent on it being available in order to function properly. Or at least this is what Microsoft is claiming.
Also note that AmigaOS 3.9 came with an AWeb browser and AmigaOS 4.0 will come with the IBrowse browser, if AWeb would have been tied to AmigaOS this would not have been an option.
I strongly believe that OEMs should have the option to use i.e. different browser solutions (Voyager or Espial’s Escape browser for example). In the case of an operating system monopoly. I think that next to full packages, a bare bones version should be available to consumers and OEMs as well. There should have to be a rational price difference between different packages. An international organ should investigate and penalize abusive behaviours by monopolists.
I believe such actions would finally push development of OS related innovations/efficiency and performance forward. I believe true competition is the key.
>Commoditizing the browser led to the quicker deployment of >the web-based ERP, CRM, B2B exchanges…. that it creates >brand new industries that are worth billions of dollars, >more than enough to cover the lost of the browser industry.
???? The rate of expansion for the internet was already exponential; commoditizing the browser did not speed this up significantly. The HARD evidence is that an entire industry was torpedoed by MS, your point is just speculation. Save the pseudo-intellect for someone else.
“What you all fail to realize and accept is that unlike these other companies, MS has been convicted of using unfair practices to maintain an illegal monopoly.”
1.) MONOPOLIES AREN’T ILLEGAL, LEVERIGING THEM TO GET INTO NEW MARKETS CAN BE.
I’m so sick of people saying monopolies are illegal, and that for that sole reason ms needs to be broken up or punished. I mean if your going to try and talk about legal matters at least learn whats illegal.
>>>???? The rate of expansion for the internet was already exponential; commoditizing the browser did not speed this up significantly. The HARD evidence is that an entire industry was torpedoed by MS, your point is just speculation. Save the pseudo-intellect for someone else.
Commoditizing the browser means that everyone was using the same html standard. OK, everyone is using the same non-W3C sanctioned proprietary html standard. People get lazy and they all coded the web pages “optimized for IE” — cheaper for them to deploy those industries.
I never said that monopolies are illegal. I said that Microsoft’s monopoly is illegal. There’s a huge difference.
Try some basic reading comprehension next time.
Again, apples to oranges.
Not at all.
How in the hell can you intellectually argue your point by comparing a loaf of bread to a billion dollar monopolized Operating System?
How does the monetary value of the product, or the fact that it is “monopolized,” play any relevance? My point is simply about who should dictate which items are available for sale and which are not.
And, because I’m sure you’ll bring it up, you can’t seriously compare buying a car without an engine to buying an operating system without a web broser.
Sure you can. In both cases, you’re trying to force the company to sell you something that they don’t want to sell you. I’m assuming you’re drawing a distinction based on the fact that an OS can run without a browser, yet a car cannot run without an engine. That, however, is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that only sellers, not consumers, have the right to dictate what is sold. Consumers can only decide whether or not to purchase said items. If a seller doesn’t feel that it is in his best interest to make a product available for sale, what possible right do you have to demand it from him?
Who’s the one with half a brain now?
The person who clearly misunderstood and misrepresented my obvious point by confusing distinctions which are not relevant with those that are.