Microsoft must give states Windows code, says judge

[wyvrn]

<<

<< you're saying that if someone bought a computer with mandrake or suse installed (maybe redmond linux or even lindows if that turns out good), they couldn't figure out how to use it? >>



That's exactly what I'm saying. The "mass market" consists of 90% AOL users. You need to step outside of the geek echo chamber, and see the consumer world as it is.

Russ, NCNE >>



You obviously do not know how to read, Russ. I teach people Linux that have no prior computer experience. I teach people that aren't even Windows savvy (wife, neighbor) how to use it. Do I teach them how to write scripts or setup a server? Of course not, I don't even know how to do that. But then how many people that have XP setup an ftp server or use IIS? Just because Linux is more powerful than the Windows OS does not make it harder out of the box. Mandrake (and others) install out of the box as easy as Windows does. Mandrake's package manager is just as easy, in my opinion. With all of the free software that comes on the cds, they don't need to shell out mega bucks on Office XP or pirate it from their friends. Honestly, the ones that are willing to learn have no problems with Linux.

You are welcome to your opinion, Russ, but then again that is all it is .

 

[gopunk]

i'm willing to agree with wyvrn... if he can tell me how to get cd burning and dual monitor support working. mind you, i didn't have to set up anything for these two things to work in xp... but i'd just like to know how to do it in mandrake, in the easiest way.

 

[Russ]

<< I teach people Linux that have no prior computer experience. I teach people that aren't even Windows savvy (wife, neighbor) how to use it. >>



Good for you. As soon as everybody who buys a computer goes to you and gets Linux training, it will be ready for "mass market". Until then, your assertion that it is has no merit. I deal with that market every day of my life. They are not ready.

Russ, NCNE

 

[rahvin]

<< Good for you. As soon as everybody who buys a computer goes to you and gets Linux training, it will be ready for "mass market". Until then, your assertion that it is has no merit. I deal with that market every day of my life. They are not ready. >>



Amen to that. My parents can't remember how to check their email or logon to the internet, you think I would DARE giving them linux? My mother managed to move a window completely off the desktop, not once, but 3 times! I didn't even know that was possible and I can't do it even trying (not one pixel of the window was visible). My parents are the non-techies that half of america is comprised of. AOL is complicated to them. It would give me nightmares to install Linux on the machines I sell. *shudder*

 

[Descartes]

<< You obviously do not know how to read, Russ. I teach people Linux that have no prior computer experience. I teach people that aren't even Windows savvy (wife, neighbor) how to use it. Do I teach them how to write scripts or setup a server? Of course not, I don't even know how to do that. But then how many people that have XP setup an ftp server or use IIS? Just because Linux is more powerful than the Windows OS does not make it harder out of the box. Mandrake (and others) install out of the box as easy as Windows does. Mandrake's package manager is just as easy, in my opinion. With all of the free software that comes on the cds, they don't need to shell out mega bucks on Office XP or pirate it from their friends. Honestly, the ones that are willing to learn have no problems with Linux. >>



No offense, but I'm willing to be that your "mass market" training is limited to your immediate family et. al? Have you ever actually sat through a corporate training session on *anything*? Most end-users can barely "get" Windows. Training end-users on the simplest things is quite a chore. I've been using linux since about '96, and I have yet to see an installation that equals the ease of setup and use that Windows provides for the tech neophyte. Try teaching an end-user to download and install a tarball. Try having an end-user setup chat scripts for their ppp session to their ISP. Only under rare circumstances have I not had to reconfigure X to get it running properly. Yes, lets have the neophyte end-user try to manually configure the X server, choose their video card, choose their refresh rate, resolution, horizontal sync, ad nauseum. The majority of end-users haven't a single idea of what any of this means. I have *never* had a single Windows installation (post-Win95) that didn't autodetect and install damn near everything perfectly. For the end-user, this is a good thing. Linux does not an end-user OS make, plain and simple.

Note, for "end-user", I mean the consumer of a computing appliance who has no interest outside of accomplishing a given task. My grandmother wanting to lookup geneology websites has no interest in anything outside of clicking on her dial-up connection and typing in her website through her browser. As geeks, we're very forgiving of the many nuances present in software today, and we often appreciate the added flexibility of more complex operating systems, but we are often the minority.

 

[tcsenter]

By the time the government could come as close to figuring-out the source code as well as MS knows it, Microsoft will have long discontinued support for all currently released Windows platforms, with the possible exception of XP Home and Pro (which aren't the primary OS under scrutiny).

 

[NOX]

Anyone who suggest Linux (even Mandrake 7.2-8.1) is as easy to learn as Windows is smoking some good sh!t.

<< Try having an end-user setup chat scripts for their ppp session to their ISP. Only under rare circumstances have I not had to reconfigure X to get it running properly. Yes, lets have the neophyte end-user try to manually configure the X server, choose their video card, choose their refresh rate, resolution, horizontal sync, ad nauseum. >>

Amen to that. I'm no Linux geek, but that had me scratching my head for a few days. Something no one else in my household would want to experience. Just getting my router configured was a %#$@ headache .

 

[wyvrn]

<< No offense, but I'm willing to be that your "mass market" training is limited to your immediate family et. al? Have you ever actually sat through a corporate training session on *anything*? Most end-users can barely "get" Windows. >>



No, I have trained non-family members. I have trained people I just met a day before and they knew I did well with computers. I often help people for free, just because I like to teach. Yes, I used to train corporate employees on windows and computers in general. I haven't run across a person that could not "get" Mandrake 8.1 with some basic training (the same training you would give a windows user, ie how to connect to internet, open Word, etc..)



<< Good for you. As soon as everybody who buys a computer goes to you and gets Linux training, it will be ready for "mass market". Until then, your assertion that it is has no merit. I deal with that market every day of my life. They are not ready.
>>



Well to use a computer, even Windows, one would need some training or help from a friend/relative to know what they were doing. No inexperienced computer noob is going to be able to assemble a computer and install and run AOL on there very first try. I could use the same argument against you, but I won't bother because it is flawed. I also deal with the mass market every day of my life It is just that I don't limit them to a bloated, pricey OS like Windows XP (I like Win2k better, thank you). Some of my customers do prefer Windows, especially if that is all they have used. Whatever is better for them is fine with me.



<< Try having an end-user setup chat scripts for their ppp session to their ISP. Only under rare circumstances have I not had to reconfigure X to get it running properly. Yes, lets have the neophyte end-user try to manually configure the X server, choose their video card, choose their refresh rate, resolution, horizontal sync, ad nauseum. >>



I have had to configure xfree86 once. That was because I was using a very old video card. I upgraded to a somewhat old (8mb) video card and Mandrake installed fine. As far as the PPP scripts go, you have me. Most of my customers have broadband, so we just install a NIC and let Mandrake grab their IP via DHCP On every other Linux install I have done, all of my hardware was supported. Of course that is because I researched what was on the compatibility list, but you would do the same thing when installing XP or Win2k. Of course for those users that don't and have problems on their Windows boxes because of outdated hardware, they call and pay me for help Besides, most newbie users don't install their OS by themselves. I would say 95% of them buy an oem job or have someone like me build them a box with OS installed.

Most of the arguments here against relatively new users and Linux have nothing to do with Linux, but the users in general. I find it is just as easy to teach someone Linux gui than it is Windows XP or Win9x. Especially in KDE, which has the look and feel of Windows. A lot of my users also like the fact that they get 2 office programs, 3 browsers, and a lot of other software for free. When I explain the subject of free, public software, most of them are intrigued into at least looking at Linux, if not making efforts to switch. In those cases, I will do an install of Linux at no charge.

 

[Double Trouble]

Interesting thread, but let me clear up a few things:

1. Having a monopoly in a market is not illegal. Taking actions to leverage a monopoly position to gain advantage in another market, however, is. From a legal perspective, there is no arguing whether MS is a monopoly or not, the courts have already ruled that it is. Further, the courts have ruled that MS took illegal actions in trying to maintain their monopoly and used it to gain in other markets (browsers among other things).

2. MS won't have to 'make their code public' or be forced to release their code to competitors. It's very simple. One of the assertions during their defense at trial was that the integration between the OS and the browser was such that the two could not be separated. How can the court, or anyone else, know that to be true if nobody gets to analyze the code?? The answer of course is to allow the plaintiffs to review the code and attempt to prove the assertion to be false.

3. Those claiming that there are alternatives to Windows: you might be right, there are alternatives, but that's not the definition of a market monopoly in legal terms. If there are no immediately viable readily available market alternatives that can compete with the product, that constitutes a monopoly. That doesn't mean it's illegal, it just means there's a monopoly, no more, no less.

4. It's easy to say "if someone would make better software, they'd be able to compete toe-to-toe with MS products". However, if MS does illegal things to make certain it maintains its monopoly position -- for example, threaten any OEM's that would dare offer other OS's -- it also creates an environment where potential competitors are discouraged from trying to enter the market. Hence, innovation is stiffled.

What's far more interesting than MS having to reveal some of the source code, is that the judge has now ordered MS to give access to XP code. Until now, XP had really not been in the picture. By having XP thrown into the mix, the stakes have suddenly gotten a whole lot higher for MS.

Another kind of ironic point is that if the judge decides to throw out the earlier settlement reached with the justice department and 9 states, the federal case will once again takes precedence over the state case, and the 9 states fighting for further sanctions will be pretty much out of the picture again (for the near future). Ironic that if they 'win' that particular point, they may lose the battle as a whole.

This could get interesting yet.......

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't agree with that ruling. It violates their intellectual property, which is theirs. This just isn't right! :|
If this stands, it will set an example and no company's IP is safe.

 

[wyvrn]

<< I don't agree with that ruling. It violates their intellectual property, which is theirs. This just isn't right! :|
If this stands, it will set an example and no company's IP is safe. >>



I agree. What is so wrong with having IE integrated into Windows? Netscape installs and runs fine, so does Opera, etc etc...

 

[compuwiz1]

We all know there are first time Windows users, who don't understand what a browser is, much less be capable of installing one. MS can be thanked for integrating it, as well as providing upgrades and security for it. Sheesh!
If someone wants to install a secondary browser, there is nothing keeping them from doing so. So, what's the beef?

 

[littlezipp]

There is no way that MS will ever hand over their code... Nor should they!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I don't agree with that ruling. It violates their intellectual property, which is theirs. This just isn't right! :|
If this stands, it will set an example and no company's IP is safe. >>



How does this threaten their "intellectual property"?



<< MS can be thanked for integrating it, as well as providing upgrades and security for it. Sheesh! >>



Security updates! HAHAHA! Sorry, I find that funny



<< There is no way that MS will ever hand over their code... Nor should they! >>



Why not? They say they are innocent. Wouldnt the code be a way to prove it? Both sides have the same access to the information, or atleast should. If the states do not have access to some of the evidence it would be an unfair trial.

 

[Double Trouble]

<< I agree. What is so wrong with having IE integrated into Windows? Netscape installs and runs fine, so does Opera, etc etc... >>



There's nothing inherently wrong with having IE integrated. The beef is about the fact that MS used that integration as a tactic (an illegal one at that) to put pressure on Netscape and drive them out of the market. As Bill Gates in his own email put it "to crush their windpipe".

I'm not one to bash MS and say everything they do is 'bad'..... However, if you look at the MS track record, it's pretty clear that they basically take other companies' ideas, integrate them into the OS, and use their OS monopoly to drive the other company out of the industry. Nothing wrong with some hardball tactics (it happens in every industry), but in the end if competition is stiffled, it's bad for the consumer. That's what anti-trust law is all about.

 

[compuwiz1]

Well, I fail to see where the consumer has been harmed. There are choices, but if there were good ones, there would be a majority Mac user, instead of majority using PC's. We sure wouldn't have the number of users enjoying a PC, if it were another company's operating system. There is Linux, other *nix, and lets not forget the Mac. Majority CHOOSES to use MS. Why? Because it's most comaptible and they can learn it the easiest. I don't see this as an anti trust, but as the failure of other companies to innovate and market their products, so they could have a fair share. Unfortunately, because they sat on their hands and did not do this, MS is financial empire that would be next to impossible to topple. So what do they do? Go crying to the government. Poor babies! :Q

 

[wyvrn]

<<

<< I agree. What is so wrong with having IE integrated into Windows? Netscape installs and runs fine, so does Opera, etc etc... >>



There's nothing inherently wrong with having IE integrated. The beef is about the fact that MS used that integration as a tactic (an illegal one at that) to put pressure on Netscape and drive them out of the market. As Bill Gates in his own email put it "to crush their windpipe".

I'm not one to bash MS and say everything they do is 'bad'..... However, if you look at the MS track record, it's pretty clear that they basically take other companies' ideas, integrate them into the OS, and use their OS monopoly to drive the other company out of the industry. Nothing wrong with some hardball tactics (it happens in every industry), but in the end if competition is stiffled, it's bad for the consumer. That's what anti-trust law is all about. >>



Well I haven't been following the suit too closely. That is probably the argument the govt. is using, and if they are right then I could see their point.

 

[glenn1]

<< New proposal: The US Government should stop using Microsoft products ASAP. >>



I agree. In fact, Microsoft ought to revoke the EULA of any government agency, state or Federal, bringing suit against them, and follow it up with legal action if they don't desist. Give them 24 hours to stop using any Microsoft products. F**k the states trying to extort Microsoft. Turn their IT infrastructure into a smoldering pile of ruins. Live by the legal sword die by it.

Now that would be sweet justice indeed.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Well, I fail to see where the consumer has been harmed. There are choices, but if there were good ones, there would be a majority Mac user, instead of majority using PC's. We sure wouldn't have the number of users enjoying a PC, if it were another company's operating system. There is Linux, other *nix, and lets not forget the Mac. Majority CHOOSES to use MS. Why? Because it's most comaptible and they can learn it the easiest. I don't see this as an anti trust, but as the failure of other companies to innovate and market their products, so they could have a fair share. Unfortunately, because they sat on their hands and did not do this, MS is financial empire that would be next to impossible to topple. So what do they do? Go crying to the government. Poor babies! :Q >>



I think it would be just as easy to learn linux for someone that has never been introduced to a PC. And if I was using a Dell or something I could not choose anything but Windows.

 

[fatbaby]

<<

<< New proposal: The US Government should stop using Microsoft products ASAP. >>



I agree. In fact, Microsoft ought to revoke the EULA of any government agency, state or Federal, bringing suit against them, and follow it up with legal action if they don't desist. Give them 24 hours to stop using any Microsoft products. F**k the states trying to extort Microsoft. Turn their IT infrastructure into a smoldering pile of ruins. Live by the legal sword die by it.

Now that would be sweet justice indeed. >>



But then my school will be 100% apple! not 95% (the other 5% use win2k =D) as it is right now.

Typing on an apple keyboard is a pita. Same goes for websurfing.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< New proposal: The US Government should stop using Microsoft products ASAP. >>



I agree. In fact, Microsoft ought to revoke the EULA of any government agency, state or Federal, bringing suit against them, and follow it up with legal action if they don't desist. Give them 24 hours to stop using any Microsoft products. F**k the states trying to extort Microsoft. Turn their IT infrastructure into a smoldering pile of ruins. Live by the legal sword die by it.

Now that would be sweet justice indeed. >>



Bitter arent you? Heh. There is no guarentee that EULAs are enforcable and that trial would give the gov plenty of time to switch over to a better solution.



<< But then my school will be 100% apple! not 95% (the other 5% use win2k =D) as it is right now. >>



Sounds like a great deal! We can only hope

 

[glenn1]

<< But then my school will be 100% apple! not 95% (the other 5% use win2k =D) as it is right now.

Typing on an apple keyboard is a pita. Same goes for websurfing. >>



Sucks to be you. Or the governor of a state suing MSFT, i guess. Let those asshats come crawling back to Bill Gates.

And for those who argue it can't be done, Microsoft has $40 billion in CASH on its books right now. They could afford to never sell another copy of Windows or Office to Uncle Sam ever again.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< But then my school will be 100% apple! not 95% (the other 5% use win2k =D) as it is right now.

Typing on an apple keyboard is a pita. Same goes for websurfing. >>



Sucks to be you. Or the governor of a state suing MSFT, i guess. Let those asshats come crawling back to Bill Gates.

And for those who argue it can't be done, Microsoft has $40 billion in CASH on its books right now. They could afford to never sell another copy of Windows or Office to Uncle Sam ever again. >>



Hopefully the government refuses to purchase more. After some of the stunts MS has pulled the government deserves better (POSIX compliance anyone?)

 

[Double Trouble]

glenn1, me thinks you underestimate the teeth in anti-trust law. At the time the government went after AT&T, it was just as powerful (if not more so) than MS is today. It still got broken up -- and thankfully so, otherwise we'd all still be using rotary "ma bell" phones, and be paying through the nose for services because there would be no competition to drive prices down. At that time, everyone was probably pretty "happy" too using AT&T. That's simply not what anti-trust law is about. Even if the consumer is "happy", in the long run, it's been proven that competition brings about innovation and drives down prices. That's a win-win for consumers.

MS will not be forced to provide it's source code to the competitors (nor should it be). It simply has to back up it's assertion that it's technically not feasible to have windows without IE. They've made that claim, and the judge has simply said that the plaintiffs have a right to verify the authenticity of that claim.



<< Well, I fail to see where the consumer has been harmed. There are choices, but if there were good ones >>


Even if the consumer has not been harmed (which we don't know, we don't know what products have not made the market because they were squashed before ever seeing the light), anti-trust law focuses on the benefits of competition -- not whether a consumer has been harmed.

Take for example the licensing tactics. MS basically says to the OEM's "Listen fellas, if you don't bundle exclusively windows on all your systems, I'm gonna screw you over with the price, drive up your costs, and make you not be able to compete". Even if I made a great new OS, I couldn't even get my foot in the door, because none of the OEM's would risk pissing off MS -- so the consumer would never get a chance to see my TAGEOS 1.3 with enhanced bugs! Hence, competition is stiffled. MS was forced to change it's licensing as a result of this trial, and now IBM, HP and several smaller companies are offering flavors of linux. Bingo, that's what the antitrust laws were designed to do -- make sure innovation has a chance.