Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Microsoft Brothers

By drdink in News
Mon May 01, 2000 at 01:14:54 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

As this InterNetNews.com story says, the feds are out to get Microsoft cut in two. One half would work on the OS, while the other would do the applications. At first, this sounds like an okay idea, stopping Microsoft from overtaking the Internet market. But before you make your decision that "Microsoft sucks", think about it. Integration is the way of the future. We have DVD players that play MP3s and CDs, we have TVs with built-in VCRs, and so why not have operating systems which are Internet ready? Sure, they should make a way to install other software not made by themselves, but I see nothing wrong with allowing Microsoft to throw their browser in. If Netscape doesn't like it, maybe they should hook up with RedHat and get their browser thrown in. Even the Linux KDE project is trying to do what Microsoft is doing. Its filemanager can also view webpages. Integration isn't bad, more its how open your system is to external software to perform similar tasks by third party companies.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o InterNetNe ws.com
o RedHat
o Also by drdink


Display: Sort:
The Microsoft Brothers | 60 comments (60 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
I don't see the point of posting th... (none / 0) (#32)
by nictamer on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 08:18:18 PM EST

nictamer voted -1 on this story.

I don't see the point of posting this. Waste of bandwidth, and poorly written.
--
Religion is for sheep.

We know about this. This article is... (none / 0) (#18)
by Velian on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 08:57:42 PM EST

Velian voted -1 on this story.

We know about this. This article isn't even up to date (there were some more announcements a couple hours ago). In addition, this article is almost completely the equivalent of a comment on a story. Why couldn't you add that stuff as a comment? Or at least tell us something we don't know, heh.

Nobody disagrees that it's a good i... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by bmetzler on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 09:10:46 PM EST

bmetzler voted 1 on this story.

Nobody disagrees that it's a good idea to integrate internet support into the OS. It's a wonderful marvelous, spectacular idea! I think that all OS's should have internet access integrated. Actually, everything should be integrated.

But that's not the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft isn't being sued because they developed both an OS and a browser. They are being sued because, among other thing, they used their OS to force on OEMs a browser that the OEM's didn't want.The the Laws of the US, that was a crime.

Now, when you commit a crime, in the US you often lose rights that everyone else has. If a cracker commits a computer crime, they often lose the right to use a computer for many, many years. A those who commit other crimes may lose their freedom to go where they want (ie, be put in jail), and other thigns like make phone calls, play golf, and so on.

In Microsoft's case, because they used the OS and browser to break anti-trust law, they may lose the right to integrate the products in the future. This seems totally reasonable. Sure, it'll put them in a grave disadvantage against other companies, but normally, that's what happens when you break the law. I don't feel bad for a convicted killer when he doesn't have the same rights to do what he wants, like I do, and I won't feel bad for Microsoft either.

They should have had an anti-trust lawyer watch what they did, to keep them from breaking the law. Their actions were blatent, as found by the FoF, a competent lawyer would have easily pinpointed their problems. Then they wouldn't have had a lawsuit against them, and wouldn't be facing the removal of their rights.

-Brent
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
I disagree... (none / 0) (#42)
by Y on Mon May 01, 2000 at 01:29:48 AM EST

I think integrating a web browser into an OS is a terrible idea.  

The point of an OS is to provide a base level of operation and a layer of
abstraction between the hardware and the application software.	The OS kernel
also forms the part of a complete computer system called the "trusted computing
base."	If you integrate an entire web browser into this trusted computing
base, you diminish the security by adding complexity.  If you design an OS
properly, you have hooks for browsers and such that can be added as modules
that don't affect the core operation of the system.

What if you are using a computer that doesn't have connectivity?  Will your
performance be inhibited because it can't find an internet connection?	This
whole integration trend doesn't encourage proper software design - where is the
modularity? If you don't have modularity, it becomes very difficult to isolate
bugs.  Spaghetti code in the name of integration can never be justified.

</rant>

Integration is best achieved by defining extensible interfaces and components
that implement these interfaces, not the way Microsoft defines integration.


[ Parent ]
Re: Nobody disagrees that it's a good i... (none / 0) (#43)
by Inoshiro on Mon May 01, 2000 at 01:36:17 AM EST

I disagree.

Integration is like glueing lego together. You can't fix problems that develop without doing a lot of damage, and you lose flexibility. People who have no internet connection shouldn't have a browser forced upon them, nor should people who don't want the existing browser be forced to have it. A screen that lets you choose your browser would be nice.. especially if the other choices you don't want could be removed.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Nobody disagrees that it's a good i... (none / 0) (#50)
by bmetzler on Mon May 01, 2000 at 08:48:02 AM EST

You can't fix problems that develop without doing a lot of damage, and you lose flexibility.

I agree with you. I wasn't saying that integration was the best, or the most flexible, just that that's where companies are going and that there was nothing wrong legally about it.

I certainly don't want a browser running on my headless server, or stupid stuff like that, but Microsoft seems insistant that it belongs there. Well, that's to their own detriment, but that's not what the lawsuit is about.

-Brent
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
[ Parent ]
Re: Nobody disagrees that it's a good i... (none / 0) (#56)
by Inoshiro on Tue May 02, 2000 at 12:24:44 PM EST

"I agree with you. I wasn't saying that integration was the best, or the most flexible, just that that's where companies are going and that there was nothing wrong legally about it."

It is illegal when the company is a monopoly.. Compare:
There is only one baby food company in the world which sells to 95% of the world's baby population. The company decides to add lead to it. Parents ask for "non-leaded" baby food. The company points to its older stock of baby food ("Baby 95") which is all mouldy and old.

Or: the world's only gas company decides that eat time you fill up your tank, you need a swift kick in the ass. A lot of people decide they don't want this, and the company stops selling them gas, saying that they can use propane if they don't like ass kickings. Unfortunately, propane (while cheaper and better) is much, much harder to use for the average joe, and would require a retrofit of their cars.

Since there's no competition (because of the monopoly), choice has to be legislated.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Nobody disagrees that it's a good i... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by bmetzler on Wed May 03, 2000 at 10:05:36 AM EST

It is illegal when the company is a monopoly..

That's really the point I was trying to make. People will say that we shouldn't prevent Microsoft from having the same rights that other companies have. We can't prevent Microsoft from bundling the browser with the OS, because then we'd have to prevent Apple and Red Hat from doing so. But that's not the case. When you break the law, you lose priviledges that other people have. Because Microsoft broke the law, they lose the rights to do somethings that other companies will now be able to freely do. The article that started this thread said that we shouldn't prevent Microsoft from doing what other companies can do. But I say, that when Microsoft knowingly choose to break the law, they gave up those rights.

-Brent
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
[ Parent ]
Definitions... (none / 0) (#54)
by Eimi on Mon May 01, 2000 at 01:59:53 PM EST

Nobody disagrees that it's a good idea to integrate internet support into the OS. It's a wonderful marvelous, spectacular idea! I think that all OS's should have internet access integrated.

I agree that most OS's should have internet access integrate (altho I would have a hard time justifying a TCP/IP stack for, say, PalmOS). But you're confusing the OS with the shell (file manager), and the internet with the WWW. Of course we need internet access from the OS; what would we do otherwise, do it in user space? But there's a difference between that and putting a web browser in the file manager. Actually, what bothers me most is the integration of the file manager into the OS. If you want a file manager that also browses the web, then by all means, I think you should be able to get one, but I'd rather have one that does just that, manages files (and a few other things; then again, I don't like gui shells anyway, and stick with zsh). I would have no trouble with Internet Exploiter integrating WWW and local files, and I certainly don't mind internet through the OS, it's when the OS relies on a particular shell that it bothers me.

[ Parent ]

K5HBT. HTH. HAND. ... (none / 0) (#33)
by Decklin Foster on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 09:12:24 PM EST

Decklin Foster voted -1 on this story.

K5HBT. HTH. HAND. *sigh*...

Re: K5HBT. HTH. HAND.... (none / 0) (#55)
by mattm on Tue May 02, 2000 at 04:05:05 AM EST

For those not familiar with Usenet (and particularly alt.fan.warlord), that's "Kuro5hin Has Been Trolled. Hope This Helps. Have A Nice Day".

To be honest, I'd somewhat agree. This dink [snigger] isn't starting a conversation, he/she/it's pushing people's buttons.



[ Parent ]
The whole Microsoft thing, IMO, is ... (none / 0) (#14)
by skim123 on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 09:44:43 PM EST

skim123 voted 1 on this story.

The whole Microsoft thing, IMO, is silly. Very silly. It's a sign of a government that doesn't fully understand the technology field and are greasping at straws trying to come up with ways to punish Microsoft.

Yes, Microsoft broke the law and did things they shouldn't have. They stiffled competition, set back technology, broke the law, and acted like a bunch of SOBs. However, is breaking them up the best route?

I don't think so. I don't know what a better idea is, though. Hehe, maybe threaten Bill himself with a little jailtime if Microsoft breaks anymore antitrust laws or uses their muscle to stiffle technology? :-)

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


Would have voted +1 if the writeup ... (none / 0) (#6)
by Demona on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 10:08:07 PM EST

Demona voted -1 on this story.

Would have voted +1 if the writeup had been more in depth. Opinion or fact doesn't really matter to me, but this just wasn't "meaty" enough.

IE is a piece of shit that slows do... (none / 0) (#22)
by buzzbomb on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 10:12:50 PM EST

buzzbomb voted -1 on this story.

IE is a piece of shit that slows down the OS and hogs memory. OSes shouldn't be "integrated" with the internet any more than having a TCP/IP stack and a well-documented API. This is retarded.

Re: IE is a piece of shit that slows do... (none / 0) (#44)
by skim123 on Mon May 01, 2000 at 02:27:43 AM EST

IE is a piece of shit that slows down the OS and hogs memory

What the hell are you talking about? IE is the best browser available, by far. It loads uber-quick in Windows due to its tight integration with the OS, renders HTML a lot nicer-looking than Netscape, and doesn't whine about missing TD tags like Netscape.

Granted, browsers like lynx are less memory-intensive, but if you look at feature/memory needed, IE beats any browser hands down.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Re: IE is a piece of shit that slows do... (none / 0) (#47)
by buzzbomb on Mon May 01, 2000 at 03:01:01 AM EST

It loads "uber-quick" because it's always loaded and thusly, wasting memory. I prefer Netscape because I prefer the standard that THEY created...not the standard that MS took from Netscape and then bastardized. What the fsck is "J"?? It also doesn't hurt that I have the same browser running under Linux that I do under Winders.

[ Parent ]
Re: IE is a piece of shit that slows do... (none / 0) (#53)
by fluffy grue on Mon May 01, 2000 at 01:01:06 PM EST

Funny, not too long ago, people were complaining about Netscape taking the OPEN standard of HTML and bastardizing it with their own tags (center, table, etc.). I had no idea that Netscape created HTML, even though they came about long after a host of other web browsers. Thanks for educating everyone.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Re: IE is a piece of shit that slows do... (none / 0) (#57)
by Field Marshall Stack on Tue May 02, 2000 at 01:29:19 PM EST

It's better than *spit* Netscape, I'll give you that, but I hold that Opera is much more all-around pleasant than IE, especially on memory-starved systems. (I'm still hoping someone will take the Gecko engine and build something decent around it...but until then...)
--
Ben Allen, hiway@speakeasy.org
"Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor"
-Peter Tork
[ Parent ]
At first this sounds like an ok ide... (none / 0) (#19)
by mihalis on Fri Apr 28, 2000 at 10:44:04 PM EST

mihalis voted 1 on this story.

At first this sounds like an ok idea. It's not 'til you think about it some more that you come to really really like it a lot.
-- Chris Morgan <see em at mihalis dot net>

Microsoft did abuse their monopoly ... (none / 0) (#8)
by starlitz on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 12:04:57 AM EST

starlitz voted 1 on this story.

Microsoft did abuse their monopoly power, IMO, but by the time the appeals process is even anywhere close to being resolved, the penalty will probably not even be relevent anymore. The comment about KDE really says it all.

these are the reasons we should wan... (none / 0) (#4)
by Nyarlathotep on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 12:43:48 AM EST

Nyarlathotep voted -1 on this story.

these are the reasons we should want Microsoft to be broken up. We want them to be a less effective company. Actually, the only problem with the break up is that they might become more effeective. It's a good thing that the internet stuff would be going with the operating system. I would love to the the company controlling microsoft windows be treated just like another netscape or dot.com. Regardless, seperation is good for consumers since people will nolonger see microsoft as one complete package. This is what the DOJ wants.. and this is what every rational moderate (I'm NOT a moderate as you can tell from my first paragraph) should want too. Microsoft is an example of why a vertical monopoly can be a very bad thing. The DOJ understands this. This bvreak up will accomplish what the DOJ wants (but not what Linux advocates like me want).
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

The whole point of the case was not... (2.00 / 1) (#26)
by warpeightbot on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 01:32:58 AM EST

warpeightbot voted 1 on this story.

The whole point of the case was not that M$ integrated the browser with the OS, but that it used anti-competitive tactics to prohibit other browsers from getting space. KDE has a browser, but they don't bitch about Lynx or Netscape or Links being on the very same CD.... you have a CHOICE. Besides, KDE isn't an OS anyway, it's a GUI, which you don't even have to have to run Lynx or Links. (btw, K5 does real well in Links; it will handle those huge articles that Netscape sometimes upchucks on...) Oh, and one more thing. Neither Netscape nor Lynx nor Links nor the KDE browser are trying to CHANGE the steenking STANDARD...

There's a HUGE difference between a... (none / 0) (#13)
by typhatix on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 01:56:40 AM EST

typhatix voted -1 on this story.

There's a HUGE difference between a DVD player that can play mp3s (another feature) and combining products for the sole purpose of forcing them upon the user. Most people use a word processor, sure, but if you built it into the OS that is not another feature of the OS, that is merely trying to disallow any other word processor from being used on that OS...AND if that OS is on 90% of machines then that is effectively crippling any other word processor. This was the situation with the s/word processor/internet explorer Bundling with redhat which has (at a guess) 2% of the market is NOT COMPETING with one that is bundled with 90%. There's a level of fairness that must be maintained in order for software to win for quality instead of (shady) tactics. "But thats just my opinion and I could be wrong..." -Dennis Miller

Okay, first, cards on the table: I'... (none / 0) (#27)
by magney on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 03:16:47 AM EST

magney voted 1 on this story.

Okay, first, cards on the table: I'm a Microsoft employee. So I've got more than a little personal interest in this issue. That said, I don't really have a clear idea of whether breaking us up is a good or a bad thing. (Obviously, the recent stock gyrations have hit me hard in the options, but y'all don't care about that, I'm sure. ^_^ Besides, it's only money. Aaaanyway. I'm curious to see what the response is to this post.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?

Ask the cygwin developers, or the g... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by your_desired_username on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 04:27:23 AM EST

your_desired_username voted 0 on this story.

Ask the cygwin developers, or the gcc develpers, how the integration of M$ apps affects them.

I do not care whether the browser is 'integrated', but I have my worries about some of the other applications.

I wish the stupid browser wars had never become the center of the integration controversy.
Look at MSOffice, look at M$DeviantStudio. Collusion between apps like these and the OS are a much bigger threat to competition than integration of a silly browser.



There are enough Microsoft stories ... (none / 0) (#37)
by warp on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 08:42:11 AM EST

warp voted -1 on this story.

There are enough Microsoft stories anywhere else on the net...

On the surface integrating the bwos... (none / 0) (#34)
by Camelot on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 10:09:40 AM EST

Camelot voted 1 on this story.

On the surface integrating the bwoser into the operation system is a good idea. Thinking a bit farther - it's inevitable. Before internet became such a buzz, there were operating systems that did not have TCP/IP stacks. Nowadays it is accepted as a standard part of the operating system

Because of this, I have always had mixed feelings about integration being in the core of the law suit. Microsoft is a bad corporation and they should be punished, but is the basis of the lawsuit sound ?

Fortunately, Microsoft is making it easier for me to decide, because they are going too far with the integration by requiring that everything needs the browser. Install SQL server client ? You have to install IE first. The law suit is making Microsoft act in a even more warped way that it would normally exhibit - and this is wrong.

Bear in mind that Microsoft also pr... (none / 0) (#35)
by paranoidfish on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 10:23:03 AM EST

paranoidfish voted 1 on this story.

Bear in mind that Microsoft also produce an Office Suite which makes much more profit than IE does. And it has much more "stickyness", what with the file formats being closed. At least IE5 is a reasonable piece of software. 2p

Re: Bear in mind that Microsoft also pr... (none / 0) (#45)
by skim123 on Mon May 01, 2000 at 02:35:05 AM EST

Bear in mind that Microsoft also produce an Office Suite which makes much more profit than IE does

Does IE make any profit? I don't see how it could, since it is 100% free.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Re: Bear in mind that Microsoft also pr... (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon May 01, 2000 at 08:36:38 AM EST

advertisement of three hundert worthless links. Don't no if it will give you a profit but it will at least recupe some of the money

[ Parent ]
Re: Bear in mind that Microsoft also pr... (none / 0) (#58)
by paranoidfish on Tue May 02, 2000 at 02:46:03 PM EST

Does IE make any profit? I don't see how it could, since it is 100% free.

My point exactly :-)

if you are going to moan about abuse of monopoly, at least moan about the abuses that are making money and increrasing audiences. At the moment IE is doing neither

2p (+2p = 4p and I've just realised I should be using cents not pence what with this being an american site :)



[ Parent ]
Re: Bear in mind that Microsoft also pr... (none / 0) (#59)
by skim123 on Tue May 02, 2000 at 11:40:56 PM EST

if you are going to moan about abuse of monopoly, at least moan about the abuses that are making money and increrasing audiences. At the moment IE is doing neither

But, at the time IE was first released for nothing, Netscape was being sold. So, Microsoft illegally fucked Netscape by giving away IE, knowing that would hurt Netscape's revenue. Of course the trial was not about that, but it is an evil thing to do.

It would be similar to Time Warner taking a loss on their magazines by giving away Time for free and using the profits from AOL to stay in business long enough to force competitors in the News market out of the market (like Newsweek). Once Newsweek went out of business (because people chose the free magazine), Time could jack their prices way up.

Who's to say that Microsoft's plan wasn't to run Netscape into the ground and then start selling IE?

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
This is a good discussion topic, an... (none / 0) (#24)
by psicE on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 10:56:49 AM EST

psicE voted 1 on this story.

This is a good discussion topic, and a good example of news misinterpretation. If you correctly read the article, you would have noticed that both halves would have access to the browser technology, and the real division was between the OS and other apps so that Office would be ported to Linux, etc., or one would make a built-in IE and the other a separate IE that might not be compatible and everyone would switch to Mozilla, the standards compliant browser.

I disagree. Microsoft should be bro... (none / 0) (#10)
by xah on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 11:13:25 AM EST

xah voted 1 on this story.

I disagree. Microsoft should be broken up into little, tiny pieces for their use of monopoly power to squeeze out competitors.

It simply does not make sense to ti... (none / 0) (#25)
by zforce on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 11:28:51 AM EST

zforce voted -1 on this story.

It simply does not make sense to tie a browser into the operating system. Are you sure integration is the way of the future? Seems to me it's SEPARATION. MP3 players, internet only apps, productivity machines, blah. More specialized. Heh.

Wow, before you editorialize think ... (none / 0) (#29)
by kovacsp on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 11:37:32 AM EST

kovacsp voted 1 on this story.

Wow, before you editorialize think a little more. There's nothing stopping either company from entering eachother sectors. I.e. the OS company would start developing applications and the applications company would start developing an OS (or buy one, or convert everything to linux or whatever). In fact that's what is *expected* to happen. That's the whould reason behind splitting them up! To encourage the use of market forces to control the company rather than an imposed behavioral remedy.

I think that the main problem with ... (none / 0) (#38)
by Wodin on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 12:42:54 PM EST

Wodin voted 1 on this story.

I think that the main problem with massive integration is that development times get larger and larger, and so innovation and evolution in software start to slow down. Further, if one system "wins" in an integrated system, nobody ever has a chance to go to something better. In one respect, however, Microsoft has been a boon, and that is hardware/file standards. True, the .doc files are crap compared to what they could be, and there are some problems with hardware. But it's still so much better than it used to be, where you had to do extensive research to find out if the stupid modem would just work with your system.

Call me crazy, but the break-up sou... (none / 0) (#21)
by inspire on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 01:12:20 PM EST

inspire voted 1 on this story.

Call me crazy, but the break-up sounds like a good thing for Microsoft.

Instead of one monolithic company, you've got a forced restructuring into two leaner companies with a clear focus on their jurisdiction, leading to better developed software, and higher profits in the long run.

Or am I missing something here?
--
What is the helix?

Microsoft's problem here is not inc... (none / 0) (#41)
by flamingcow on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 01:40:02 PM EST

flamingcow voted 1 on this story.

Microsoft's problem here is not including the browser, its preventing us from removing it, and making attempts to cripple other competing software running on the same system. I don't mind default configurations, but I mind not being able to change them.

Well, I heard Bill Gates complain t... (none / 0) (#11)
by FlinkDelDinky on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 01:47:35 PM EST

FlinkDelDinky voted 1 on this story.

Well, I heard Bill Gates complain that seperating the two companies would be bad because it would make it impossable to integrate the apps.

I assume by integration he means work together. Why would that be? Are there aspects of the Windows API that are poorly documented or even hidden (from other developers)?

If so, all that has to be done is to make the Windows API fully documented so that the MS Apps (and everybody else) can use them in their products. The product that could most benefit is Wine :-). PS. I have an addiction to these MS monoply post, I just can't help voting for them.

I'm all for integration. I also th... (none / 0) (#16)
by fluffy grue on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 03:00:24 PM EST

fluffy grue voted 1 on this story.

I'm all for integration. I also think that the suggested split is wrong, and that the feds have been barking up the wrong tree (the browser war) all this time. I'd like to see OS and Internet in one division, and everything else in another company. The problems I have with Microsoft's monopoly stem from their control over hardware ("Designed for Microsoft Windows 98") and application software ("Please send your resume in DOC format"), not Internet tools.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Re: I'm all for integration. I also th... (none / 0) (#46)
by skim123 on Mon May 01, 2000 at 02:40:31 AM EST

From my understanding the whole issue hasn't been just on the browser integration. The trial was brought to court because Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust laws: they used their existing legal monopoly (Windows) to develop another monopoly (browser monopoly) - this is illegal.

During the findings of fact, a number of issues came to the forefront about Microsoft's unscrupulous behavior. They fucked over a ton of companies, they really did. They withheld technologcal innovation, which upsets me more than strongarming a company. They dicked over Netscape hard, screwed over IBM, and kicked Intel in the balls.

All of these pressure moves were done to keep Windows a monopoly and where able to be completed due to Window's dominating presence. Microsoft deserves some sort of punishment; what, exactly, that should be I don't know. I don't think the Justice Department really knows either, and I doubt splitting them up will do much good.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Re: I'm all for integration. I also th... (none / 0) (#52)
by fluffy grue on Mon May 01, 2000 at 12:58:07 PM EST

Ah. The impression I got from the media was that the only issue which was ever really explored was MSIE killing Netscape. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning MSFT killing OS/2 or any of the things they did before to shove IBM out of the market on their own platform, or any of the thousands of lesser companies they've assimilated, destroyed, and otherwise fucked over using their market dominance. Maybe the media just oversimplified things for the poor stupid people out there who only use their GHz Athlons for webbrowsing and reading email.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

My girlfriend and I just yesterday ... (none / 0) (#15)
by evro on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 03:00:28 PM EST

evro voted 1 on this story.

My girlfriend and I just yesterday were discussing that, yes, it wasn't nice that MS killed off Netscape (the company, at least), and that they didn't need to "integrate" the browser into the OS (which I still think is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen) but we both thought it was essential that a browser be included with the OS. If you think about it, imagine you just got your first computer and it doesn't have a browser. How do you get a browser if you don't already have a browser? I guess there's FTP, but that supposed you have a decent FTP client, and finding a browser on an FTP server is always a challenge. But for grandma with her new iMac, let's say, how is she going to know that? I guess if the new computer owner has a CD from an ISP with Netscape / IE on it that'll do, but bundling the browser with the OS isn't a crime and I think it's a really nice feature.
---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"

I think the poster is misunderstand... (none / 0) (#23)
by pvg on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 07:09:39 PM EST

pvg voted -1 on this story.

I think the poster is misunderstanding the DOJ's argument. They are not claiming integration is bad. They argue that a) usoft is a monopoly b) they are using their monopoly position to corner other markets, which is illegal.

If a company is _not_ in a monopoly position, these laws do not apply (i.e. it's not illegal).

personally, i am sick of hearing ab... (none / 0) (#9)
by mr. creep on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 08:22:43 PM EST

mr. creep voted -1 on this story.

personally, i am sick of hearing about this microsoft stuff. almost as sick of this as i am of hearing about elian gonzalez. blah.
--
brian - geeknik.net

Integration is not in-and-of-itself... (none / 0) (#2)
by joeyo on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 08:25:20 PM EST

joeyo voted 1 on this story.

Integration is not in-and-of-itself bad... it is the abuses which Microsoft perpetrated which was the problem.

--
"Give me enough variables to work with, and I can probably do away with the notion of human free will." -- demi

There may be stuff to discuss regar... (none / 0) (#36)
by heinzkeinz on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 08:37:26 PM EST

heinzkeinz voted -1 on this story.

There may be stuff to discuss regarding the split-up, but this sure isn't it.

Very biased. ... (none / 0) (#40)
by ejf on Sat Apr 29, 2000 at 11:20:16 PM EST

ejf voted -1 on this story.

Very biased. Integration isnīt all that good, and these point have been uttered before. Why do you think Unix has been in the wild for 30 years ? Itīs not integrated. You can take any piece of it apart even further ...
--- men are reasoning, not reasonable animals.

Don't confuse integration and conve... (none / 0) (#5)
by Inoshiro on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 04:02:46 AM EST

Inoshiro voted 0 on this story.

Don't confuse integration and convergence. Convergence is allowing me to route my phone calls over land line or Voice over IP. Integration is having my phone handset stick to my monitor. Convergence is the various Linux apps which work and play well together through pipes. Integration is IWebControl and IWebControl2 in MS Windows (stupid IE, you go squish now).

Sigh



--
[ イノシロ ]
Well, I agree that splitting MS int... (none / 0) (#1)
by rongen on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 08:26:13 AM EST

rongen voted -1 on this story.

Well, I agree that splitting MS into two companies isn't going to do much. But the heart of the argument shouldn't be that MS IE comes prebundled. It's the trouble (nay impossibility) of getting rid of it. It's the way Outlook gets installed no matter if you choose to install it or not. Its the way Encarta "upgrades" all your file associations to use MS products for viewers when it's installed (whether you tell it to or not). None of this will be affected by the ruling. But perhaps the ruling is more complex than a headline. Maybe there will be restrictions on how the two companies interact? And maybe the big auto manufactures don't practice price-leader pricing schemes (yeah, right).

I just want to say that I haven't used Windows (except for occasionally helping a friend trouble-shoot some networking stuff, and one project where I needed it about an hour a week) for a long time so if any of the above statements are really off the mark, please feel free to correct me. I am more than willing to take them back if these problems no longer occur. Based on what friends and collegues have told me, though, they still do...
read/write http://www.prosebush.com

I'll somewhat agree that integratio... (none / 0) (#7)
by Emacs on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 10:03:16 AM EST

Emacs voted 1 on this story.

I'll somewhat agree that integration can be a good thing, the issue here is more that if one company can block other companies from integrating there is no way for them to compete. Integration with proprietary "standards" can also be a huge barrier to entry.

Integration sucks, it really does. ... (none / 0) (#17)
by alisdair on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 11:30:20 AM EST

alisdair voted 1 on this story.

Integration sucks, it really does. The UNIX philosophy of `do one thing and do it well' works superbly, as long as you allow for communication. Boo hiss to integrated browsers and KDE.

Re: Integration sucks, it really does. ... (none / 0) (#51)
by fluffy grue on Mon May 01, 2000 at 12:53:30 PM EST

I must disagree with you, at one level. Simple-mindedness of a commandline program is great. The netpbm library/toolset comes to mind here. However, its power is that everything is implicitly integrated, to a point. Integration using a unified interface is something which would be really nice for end-users who don't want to learn the commandline and don't want to think about 10 different programs for 10 different but related tasks.

Here's an idea for what I think is the ultimate in taking the simplicity of UNIX to create a unified ("integrated") interface for what end-users need. First, create an HTML renderer (preferrably which can handle Javascript, and which uses plugins for ALL image rendering, making proper PNG, Flash and Java support easier to implement). Create a (simple) web-browsing backend which uses wget and the like, create a (simple) mail backend which makes an HTML interface to your mailserver (using IMAP or fetchmail or something), create a (simple) directory-browsing backend. Everything can communicate through pipes (except between the GUI and the HTML renderer, and between the HTML renderer and the image plugins, of course). No version dependencies, since all of the inter-process stuff is just through standard HTML. More backends can be made for other tasks as needed (USEnet, IRC, etc.), more frontends can be made for different toolkits (don't like GTK? use Qt. Don't like Qt? Use Athena. Whatever.) and alternate HTML renderers can be used as well (use w3m, get all this integration in a text terminal). Nice and simple. In fact, I see most of the backends being written in various scripting languages. Hell, the web-browsing backend could be written pretty easily in one line of sh (wget -O - "$*"), if you didn't want to handle any methods other than GET. Handling POST wouldn't be much more difficult. Caching would be completely unnecessary to implement if you just ran Squid locally, as an added bonus.

Sounds good to me. What do other people think?
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

interoperability between various bi... (none / 0) (#12)
by neonman on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 02:30:17 PM EST

neonman voted -1 on this story.

interoperability between various bits of software does not in any way require market control.
_________________________
Aaron Grogan
aaron@stufflikethat.org
http://stufflikethat.org/

I don't really agree with the submi... (2.00 / 1) (#30)
by synaptik on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 04:17:37 PM EST

synaptik voted 1 on this story.

I don't really agree with the submitor's position (I want the OS I use to be lean-- let me decide what-and-who's apps to "trick" it out with.) But I think his opinion and ideas are interesting enough to present to an open forum.

--synaptik
warning C4717: 'WORLD3D::operator=' : recursive on all control paths, function will cause runtime stack overflow

nice and inflammatory-- go for it.... (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by thelaw on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 04:37:20 PM EST

thelaw voted 1 on this story.

nice and inflammatory-- go for it.

Bah. Instead of one company with a... (3.00 / 1) (#28)
by RobotSlave on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 06:57:03 PM EST

RobotSlave voted -1 on this story.

Bah. Instead of one company with a monopoly on operating systems and office apps, we'll have two companies-- one with an OS monopoly, the other with an office app monopoly. Wake me up when they're done, so I can laugh at the DOJ.

This topic is worth discussing -- a... (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by The Baptist Death Ray on Sun Apr 30, 2000 at 10:56:58 PM EST

The Baptist Death Ray voted 1 on this story.

This topic is worth discussing -- and I'd like to add that even though the trend may be towards integration, remember that splitting MS up in two is supposed to be PUNISHMENT for them. It's SUPPOSED to make life difficulty, it's a PENALTY for abusing their monopoly power in the market.

The Baptist Death Ray
"The urge to destroy is a creative urge."
- M. Bakunin

You confuse integrated software with pre-installed (none / 0) (#48)
by Pelorat on Mon May 01, 2000 at 08:30:44 AM EST

Netscape and KDE, hell - even X Window itself, are entirely non-essential to the core operation of Linux. They can be installed and uninstalled at will with no detrimental effects on the OS, provided you have some kind of clue before you go hacking away at directory trees with rm.

Sure, you will probably get Netscape and KDE or GNOME installed as default for whatever distribution you use (at least, I know Red Hat does this), but they're not integrated - merely bundled and installed by default. Removing them (or declining to install them in the first place) will not break X Window or Linux. Try that with Internet Explorer and see how far you get... try telling the Windows installer that you don't want IE to begin with... and good luck.

The Microsoft Brothers | 60 comments (60 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest Đ 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!