EU's Draft Order ...Demands Two Versions of Windows

[papau]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1F1LFDRD.html

: EU's Draft Order Against Microsoft Includes 'clear Remedies' for Antitrust Abuses, Demands Two Versions of Windows
By Paul Geitner
The Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Going beyond Microsoft Corp.'s settlement of U.S. antitrust charges, the European Union wants to force the software giant to offer computer makers a version of Windows without any multimedia program to give rival companies a better shot at getting their products on consumers' desktops, sources said Wednesday.

Such an order - expected this month barring a last-minute settlement - would be sure to be instantly challenged in European courts by Microsoft. The company insists removing its Media Player program would compromise other parts of its flagship operating system.

Taking out Media Player also could undermine Microsoft's long-term strategy of keeping Windows on top by incorporating new functions, which it argues benefits consumers. <snip>

Yet contentions that nothing could be removed from XP may have been undermined by news last month that Microsoft was developing a cheaper, slimmer version of Windows for the Thai government's low-cost PC program. <snip>

[TacticalPeek]

1. "M$ programmers plead incompetence" - sheesh. n/t

[papau]

2. But interesting Linux respone by M$ to theThai;s need for cheap.

:-)

[WildWorldOfMan]

4. the Thai people better watch out

SCO is suing everyone under the sun that uses linux because they claim to have some proprietary code in it. first IBM and Intel, now Autozone and many others. Retarded. They are losing money in the fair market so they have to sue to stay in business now.

[Vitruvius]

10. And the word in the industry is that Bill Gates is funding SCO's lawsuit.

And it is in Micro$oft's interest for this to leak out -- to (a) scare anybody who may want to adopt LINUX, and (b) scare any future competitors to MS Windows.

As for SCO -- if Micro$oft is paying, this preposterous lawsuit is a no-lose for them.

Incidentally, SCO got caught showing some "proprietary" code that they -- SCO -- copied from BSD UNIX.

[MikeGalos]

12. Yep - the tinfoil hat types come up with LOT of "interesting" ideas

expecially when the facts make their dearly held beliefs look bad.

There are :tinfoilhat: tinfoil hat :tinfoilhat: types in all kinds of place and the looney-toons fringe in the Linux community has much more than their share.

Figure any "theory" that requires you to accept that "it's much too secret for anybody but a small group of us to know" combined with the coincidence that the source of the "theory" only knows these kind of "secrets" when they hurt someone they have an irrational sense of hate about and it's definately 'turn off the brain to keep listening' time.

[Vitruvius]

19. This is no secret -- it's all over the industry -- and I overheard a

Microsoftie smirking about it to an employee of one of their partners. Since MS is an exceedingly well-disciplined outfit, I assume that -- at the very least -- MS decided that this rumor can serve their purposes. And the obvious purpose is intimidation.

Microsoft has a well-documented history of destroying innovators. A history that got them convicted of antitrust violations. Then the Bu$h gang siezed power and let them off the hook. But MS is a law-breaking company that has contributed no breakthrus of any consequence itself, but has ripped off & ruined one innovative outfit after another.

Now they're doing it again with multimedia. And the Europeans at least have had the guts to throw a spoke in their wheel.

[MikeGalos]

20. Yeah and a friend of my friend swears this is true...

Sheesh. People will believe anything if they want to.

[Vitruvius]

24. If MS didn't like this report, then it would tell the little Microsofties

to stop spreading it -- and I would not have been in a position to overhear one of them doing so.

Hearing it from friends who have given me accurate info in the past is good. Hearing it from a Microsoftie is better.

That Microsoftie certainly believed it. And he wanted to believe it. Now you would say that the Microsoftie believed it because he wanted to. I say that he also has access to info that you do not have access to -- and therefore, I believe him and not you.

And -- given that Microsoft is the kind of place where people believe and want to believe that their company is pulling underhanded stunts to kneecap actual innovators -- your attempts to ignore their well-documented history of doing so look even more ridiculous.


By-the-way, I run BSD, not Linux, tho' Linux is an excellent OS. And my professional involvement with computers has nothing to do with the desktop.

Now then, do you have a dog in this fight? Specifically, do you or do you not work for Microsoft or for one of MS's partners or suppliers or the like?

[MikeGalos]

26. Microsoft doesn't work that way

they don't send out "here's what you can and can't say" memos to their 50,000 employees. Unless the softie you heard it from was at least a Group PM, Director or VP in the Windows division, they'd never have had access to that kind of material anyway. Believe it or not, internal strategy documents on competitors don't typically get sent out to every employee...

Oh, and to answer your question. I am a C#/ASP.NET/SQLServer architect in a start-up company that makes software for the equestrian industry. I spent many years at Microsoft but haven't worked there in a few years. So, yeah, I DO know what I'm talking about and NO I don't have a dog in the fight.

[Vitruvius]

28. MS could give the Bu$h White House lessons in staying on message --

they're that well-disciplined. And have a well-earned reputation for same. Whether the mechanisms for insuring that discipline are formal or informal or internalized or (most likely) all of the above doesn't matter -- they work. And that is one of the very few aspects of MS that I find admirable.

And that gives weight to MS employees when they do say something. Whether what they say is true or not, one can be confident that it is the MS line; that it is what Gates & co want us to hear.

And funding somebody else's frivolous lawsuit is perfectly legal, so far as I know. Despicable, but legal. And just the kind of shady tactic that Gates & co. have a well-earned reputation for reveling in.

If there's a loophole in the law, Gates & co will find it & exploit it to try & crush innovators. And if there isn't a loophole, Gates & co. will break the law if they think they can get away with it. As the guilty verdict in the latest antitrust suit demonstrates.

[MikeGalos]

31. Nope

unless you have some evidence I've never seen (and I was there for longer than most people) the only reason MS employees are on-target is that the truth is easy to keep track of.

Now, as for funding lawsuits, apparently it IS legal since IBM funded the original government investigation of Microsoft back in the Bush I administration as did SUN and Oracle. Now, paying the government to investigate your competitors may be legal but...

[MikeGalos]

23. Oh, and feel free to tell us

about all this well-documented history of destroying innovators. I've read all 7,000 pages of the DOJ v Microsoft case and I sure didn't see anything in there so I'm really curious what you know that the DOJ and their investigators and lawyers didn't.

Really. Please. Fill all of us in on the rumors you've heard and assumed were true because you wanted to believe them.

[Vitruvius]

25. The finding of guilt against MS speaks for itself.

Despite all your spin.

And don't assume people at DU are ignorant of history. Because we aren't. The despicable way they crushed Netscape after the people who founded it invented the internet browser -- while Bill Gates ignored the internet -- is only the most recent example of a history of bad behavior and law-breaking that goes back to the beginning of the personal computer.

Again, do you have a dog in this fight? Specifically, do you or do you not work for Microsoft or for one of MS's partners or suppliers or the like?

[MikeGalos]

27. Nope

Nobody who followed it thought the Finding of Fact had anything to do with the facts. If you DID have any knowledge of it, you'd know that the judge even included "facts" in his finding that weren't presented in the case and was soundly rebuked by the other judges in the appeals court for his incredibly awful performance. Other judges at the same level found it to be ludicrous and that was one of the reasons it went to appeal so easily. Well, that and his sleeping through the afternoon sessions.

[Vitruvius]

29. Like it or not, MS was found guilty, guilty, guilty!

And with good reason.

[MikeGalos]

32. And you base that on what?

your gut feel from watching the news coverage?

I, on the other hand, was there. I read the entire transcript. And I know, from all of that, that the suit was politically motivated and funded by MS competitors. Guess that's what YOU call justice but to me it was the Clinton witch hunt all over again.

[chenGOD]

30. Are you talking about Microsoft buying SCO license?

Cause that's not even in dispute. Even the senior VP for SCO talks about that: http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/2208691

And if you're talking about SCO copying BSD code, well take a little gander at this analysis from Bruce Perens (and if you have a smuch experience in the IT industry as you say you do in your later posts, you'll know Bruce Perens).

Now since you say you have no dog in this race, hopefully this will open your eyes a little.

[MikeGalos]

14. Of course

SCO's version would be that they're losing money because the code they spent time and money on was stolen and the thieves are using it to sell their own products without having all those silly requirements to actually pay for R&D.

It's really NOT a stupid lawsuit and there's a good chance they're right and will end up winning. Not a certainty but they've got a fairly good chance.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi WildWorldOfMan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MikeGalos]

8. EU bureaucrats demand less comptent Windows

Gee. That's the answer. Sell two versions of Windows. One with a free music player and one without so you have to download a copy or have the OEM install it for you (along with the OEM installing Real and QuickTime as they always seem to do).

Yeah. That's useful.

[TacticalPeek]

18. Illogical. As you note, since OEMs "always seem to" install RA and QT,

then they just add WMP to the list.

Don't make two versions of Windows; rather, take WMP and ALL the bloat crap out of the OS. Then write a good, secure OS that competes on its own, and write apps that compete on their merits. Don't use bundling to unfairly bludgeon competition into submission, leaving the customer with a lousy OS and mediocre apps (which MS has done since DOS).

[MikeGalos]

21. Let's see

consumers want all the bundled stuff they can get but you think Microsoft should unbundle to please you?

btw: Windows NT 3.1 (The very first Microsoft OS using the NT core) was independantly certified as a C2 level secure system (unlike ANY other PC operating system before or since). Care to tell us what this magical "secure" OS is that you want us to use? And back it up with facts rather than anecdotes?

[WildWorldOfMan]

3. Wouldn't it be fun if

some judge somewhere ordered Bill Gates to recode the entire suite of Windows operating systems using the old IBM punchcard system of the 1960s as a form of punishment?

[frylock]

5. this is fuggin stupid..

what's next? Are they to sue MS for including explorer because it's unfair to companies who used to write shells?

[Voice_of_Europe]

6. blah blah.. which benefits customers

"Taking out Media Player also could undermine Microsoft's long-term strategy of keeping Windows on top by incorporating new functions, which it argues benefits consumers."

I happen to like to decide for myself what benefits me and what not.

Every time you download a new version of Media Player some other video format stop to work because of some stupid digital rights stuff.

Finally Media Player will evolve into a pay-to-play tool which feeds you a data stream and you cannot save that data or replay it!

I'm already stocking on older Media Player Versions and alternate Programms!
All hail WinAmp!

[papau]

7. Is Winamp a compete replacement for media player?

I also noticed media player's inability to play DIVX codecs that it once had the ability to play.

[MikeGalos]

9. No - but then

with WinAmp you get to support TimeWarner and we know what great fans of liberal causes THEY are.

[papau]

11. :-)

:-)

[chocolateeater]

15. They do have a Free version of the program

so you don't have to support Time Warner if you don't want to.

[MikeGalos]

16. You still do

because your download bumps their market share and gives them more control of formats and DRM schemes even if you don't let the program phone home.

In other words, every single reason anyone could give why the free MediaPlayer helps Microsoft is also a reason the free WinAmp helps TimeWarner.

[chenGOD]

34. Except of course,

WinAMP, while not being open surce, is pretty simple to develop plug-ins for. It also plays way more formats than WMP (which can't even play .ogg files, if I remember correctly?)

So what kind of control of formats does that give TimeWarner?

[MikeGalos]

35. Simple

If they say the included version of a format doesn't include support for some feature then that's HUGE pressure for that feature to be dropped.

Figure something like 90+% of users don't modify the software.

[chenGOD]

40. Yes but those 90% don't care anyways.

And now that I read your answer again, it doesn't make any sense. When do formats support features? OR did you mean that features don't support formats, and that leads to huge pressure for that format to be dropped?

But people will make the plug-ins anyways. Have a look at the plug-in list over at winamp.com, people make plug-ins for the smallest little function/format.

[MikeGalos]

41. Of course formats support features

why do you think there are different formats and different versions OF formats?

For example, adding support for a specific encryption algorithm to a format, adding support for a different color depth, adding support for a different compression algorithm, ability to support streaming, ability to support distributed streaming, non-rectangular object support, transparency, 5.1 encoding, 7.1 encoding, etc...

[chenGOD]

42. Since we're talking about audio formats...

like .ogg, .mp3, .flac, .aac, .wav, .aiff etc etc...

Please tell me what features these support/don't support that would cause them to get dropped? And again, I would remind you that there are people making plug-ins for Winamp to play some of the most obscure audio formats out there. Since it's easy to do it (apparantly, I'm not a coder, but that's the way it seems to be over there) and it's also legal, why would this give Timewarner anymore control over audio formats?

If Timewarner made it illegal for anyone except nullsoft employees to make plug-ins for Winamp, then yes, they would have more control over formats and would almost certainly try and force some DRM down the people's throats. But since it isn't illegal....well, you see my line of reasoning.

[MikeGalos]

43. OK

Here are a few:
DRM formats supported
encryption algorithms supported
compression types supported
5.1 encoding
6.1 encoding
7.1 encoding
callback for album info
callback for tracking use
callback for copyright enforcement


As to whether add-ons are legal or not, that isn't the issue. The issue is that since plug-ins aren't used by the vast majority of users, the base package defines the market share for the formats. If Time-Warner wants a specific format to succeed they vastly improve its chances by including it in the base download. If they want one killed (say a non-DRM version) then all they have to do is NOT include it and it dies.

[chenGOD]

47. Ummm...

various compression types(mp3, ogg, aac) and 5.1,6.1,7.1 (which is all compressed audio anyways) are formats, not features.

Now, IF TimeWarner decides to drop support for a format (which hasn't been the trend) then yes the majority of people would not be able to use it. Those people aren't gonna care anyways.

The point is, Winamp is free, so you're not giving any money to TimeWarner. People can legally develop plug-ins, so no format must necessarily die. With WMP you don't have that choice.



PS: take a look at the supported formats included in the base-download with Winamp. It covers the vast majority of common and even quite a few not so common audio formats.

[Occulus]

13. Happens all the time

I have over a dozen CDs I've burned in the past several years, all of which have lots of at-first free software that has since migrated to a pay-per-copy basis. This push into profitizing what was once free goes on everywhere on the net.

[MikeGalos]

17. Not surpisingly

programmers need to eat, too. And with the Bush economy those inclined to give away their work can't really afford to anymore.

[MikeGalos]

22. let's see

Start>Control Panel>Add/Remove Programs/Optional Windows Components

Doesn't seem anywhere near as hard as searching the net for competing components that may or may not work together. But, hey, I just like getting a lot with my OS that's actually been tested with my OS...

[AP]

36. European economy will surpass US's because they take monopoly and ...

...competition seriously.

This is an excellent example.

[MikeGalos]

37. Well, at least they take

competition seriously when the competitor isn't an EU company...

[AP]

38. Other than airbus, when don't the take it seriously within the EU?

They take it seriously within the EU too -- with everything from ice cream to cell phones. But it's the Ameircan monopolies that are dominating the world now, thanks to 30 years of America gov't transferring shit loads of wealth from the American middle class to the top of the ladder. The rest of the world is right to put their feet down and stop the same sort of thing from happening to their economies.

It's why they're going to have a better economy than America's soon, unless the US sabotages them.

[Occulus]

39. How about this

"American People demand Windows Sources"

I know, I know. It'll never happen.

[MikeGalos]

44. And they'd do what with it?

Or do you really think that more than a fraction of 1% can even read C++ code?

Not only wouldn't it happen, there's absolutely no benefit from it happening for most users and absolutely some detriment to all users.

[AP]

45. They can break the vertically integrated monopoly MS has on software.

[MikeGalos]

46. Why

Please show us how that monopoly is either bad or not, in fact, inherent to the compatibility issues that arises.

Good luck. The DOJ was never able to show any harm to the public. And they spent years trying to come up with a viable theory of harm and ended up going to court without one. What DID get shown is that the MS monopoly created public APIs, open interfaces with guaranteed compatibility and a commodity market for software, hardware and services that exponentially increased the benefits to consumers while exponentially lowering consumer costs. The only ones really hurt were to companies who liked customer lock-ins to proprietary systems and who had a history of jacking up their prices to maximise profits from their captive customers (read that as IBM, SUN, Oracle and Apple).

But, hey, feel free to show us what the DOJ missed.