Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts United States News Your Rights Online

US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn 274

Posted by michael from the picador dept.
skrysakj writes "CNN/Money has a new article describing the close eye the Feds have on Longhorn and its compliance with the anti-trust settlement. I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement. Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?" The longer Washington Post piece has more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn More

US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn

Comments Filter:

  • Kinda Bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:21PM (#9752688) Homepage Journal
    Why this is kinda bad for the operating system:

    1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"

    This means it will be difficult for people to mod their Longhorn OS and reap rewards from having a custom system, beyond what the OS offers by default (like the ability to hide certain MS apps in favour of your own fare). Microsoft is being forced to be inflexible to some extent, and that means bad news for customers of the software giant. Bugs will be harder to fix, updates will be slower, response to threats even slower. This will be the repeated excuse while many suffer the wrath of virus programmers abound.

    2. Justice Department lawyers would visit Microsoft's headquarters next week to discuss a variety of antitrust compliance issues

    Okay, they're going to spend a week at Microsoft. How is that going to solve anything or be effective at all? They'll have a bunch of meetings over Shrimp and Wine coolers, get liquored up and talk about golf.

    3. When the government is involved in any project, it's subject to major setbacks, not to mention built in spyware.

    These three reasons will force many to the Linux model of computing. Yay! :-)

    • Re:Kinda Bad (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > When the government is involved in any project, it's subject to major setbacks

      Yup. Look at the IBM Anti-trust case. The point is to bog them down in bureaucracy and lawyers until everyone else catches up to them and they promise to be nice.
    • It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota. Along with the pointless Shared Source article earlier intended to generate endless OSS vs. Shared Source comparisons, the entire point of this article is to have endless antitrust discussion that has already been had countless times before, mixed in with the occasional vaporware jokes and basless government insults (like yours...they'd get liquored up and discuss golf? Get real).

      But hey, this is Slashdot. I've already gotten modded down just for making a jok
      • It's to meet the daily bash-Slashdot quota. Along with the pointless rants about the Shared Source article earlier, the entire point of your reply is to have endless discussions on the relative legitimacy of Slashdot postings that have already been had countless times before, mixed in with the occasional expression of tiring with occasional vaporware jokes and baseless government insults.

        But hey, this is Slashdot. Looks like you got your mod points back, surprisingly.

        Anyway, I feel that you picked the

      • It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota.

        If there were such an actual quota, why would this be bad? Maybe people have actual reasons to dislike Microsoft. Are all anti-Microsoft articles, or discussion forums to be banned? The anti-Open Source people seem to have their own forums for "open and honest discussion", where there is no room for rebuttal. Or is any valid article about Microsoft that is not glowingly positive a "Microsoft bashing" article?


        Along with the pointless Shared Source articl

        • It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota.

          I'd gladly offer to become the IT whipping boy on Slashdot and the server room water coolers for only a tenth as much money as Microsoft gets.

          I'd smile everytime some says I was evil incarnate and collected more money from them.

          1. Microsoft gets dissed, big time.
          2. Microsoft ignores it.
          3. Microsoft tells people what their new license will cost; like it or lump it.
          4. Microsoft collects money from the people dissing them
          5. Microsoft resembles the government.

    • Re:Kinda Bad (Score:5, Informative)

      by BenVis ( 795521 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#9752811)
      1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"
      From the article:
      [The feds are monitoring Longhorn] to make sure it is not presented with a "fait accompli" version of the software that would be difficult to change.

      The feds don't want Longhorn to be difficult to change. They are making sure they catch any violations before it is unreasonably difficult for Microsoft to change the software to fix those violations.

      • Dogbert (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:56PM (#9753142) Homepage Journal
        Sorry if you missed my joke, but Dogbert states that if you want something to be a certain way, be sure to enforce the opposite. Therefore by the DOJ enforcing Longhorn to be quick for MS to change, they will get, in result, a system that is impossible to change. It's the law.
      • I never really understood that. What kind of a punishment is that when the punisher takes the punished's interest into account? Why should we give a flying fuck about how difficult is to rip out media player or exploiter? They knew they'll be busted for them. Stupid judge, should have ordered a recall immediately :(

    • Re:Kinda Bad (Score:2, Informative)

      by Benanov ( 583592 )
      1) You're not correct here...

      "...told a federal judge yesterday that the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change". Emphasis mine.

      #2 you have some more weight on (what's the point of watchdogging it if Ashcroft ran back with his tail between his legs) and #3 you could be frighteningly right about...(what ever became of that 'NSA key' from Windows 95 or so?) but that

    • Re:Kinda Bad (Score:5, Informative)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#9752914) Homepage

      '1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"'

      Where did you get that? The only thing that I read about 'difficult to change' was this:

      '...the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change.'

      In other words, the government wants to watch Microsoft's development, so that, in 2 years, MS can't show up with a 'final' version of the OS which is in gross violation, and then say, "Oh, but it's so hard to change now that we're done." That's basically what MS did with the Internet Explorer integration- they got it nice and stuck in the OS, and then said, "Oh, but we can't take it out! That would be impossible! If only we had known ahead of time that you wouldn't like it, we wouldn't have put it in, but now, what's done is done! We can't undo it!"

      ...which, of course, is BS, but it's what Microsoft claims, and the government doesn't want a repeat.

    • 1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"

      Well actually:

      " Renata Hesse, the Justice Department lawyer in charge of monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, told a federal judge yesterday that the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change."

      That is to say, they don't want to be told that its already done, and this is it, and it is too late to make t

  • In addition to the Justice Department (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:22PM (#9752702)
    They should put the Department of Homeland Security on it too. You know, for securities sake.
  • The settlement specifically uses "Microsoft's Windows" and not, for example, "Microsoft's Operating System." I thought the purpose of that specific language was to make Longhorn exempt from the settlement. It's nice to know I'm wrong in this instance.

  • I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement.

    Well, if the Republicans win the house/senate/whitehouse again, you can bet this won't go anywhere.

    However if the Democrats win at least some of those (esp. the Whitehous) you might see at least a bit more attention from the Justice dept.

    You'll recall that after the Bush admin took over the settlement between the govmt and M$ was pretty much turned into a slap on the wrist.
    • Eh, I'm a democrat but I doubt it will make much of a difference, there are a lot of other issues that take precendence, and for most people, this is pretty much a non-issue. MS makes sure to donate to both parties too....
    • So those pictures of Bill and Bill playing golf were just for show?
      So if I vote for Kerry I might see at least a bit more attention, wow that seems worth it...

    • Re:Depends on who is in the Whitehouse (Score:5, Interesting)

      by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#9752912) Homepage Journal
      You'll recall that after the Bush admin took over the settlement between the govmt and M$ was pretty much turned into a slap on the wrist.

      More specifically, the Bush administration removed the lawyers most experienced with monopolies at the DoJ from the case before the official settlements were signed. Junior lawyers were assigned to work the trial. Right about that time Lawrence Lessig was removed as independant council from the case by the judge without any explanation. It didn't get enough press, but there's no doubt that the Bush administration had a huge impact on the end of the trial and settlement.

    • Democrats? Action against Microsoft? Take a look. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#9753138)
      You might want to check out some of Kerry's Top Donors [opensecrets.org].

      Also, if you're a fan of the DMCA you'll be pleased to see how high up Time Warner is on the list! But then the kowtowing Democrats do to Hollywood is legendary.

      Bush is only slightly better in terms of dollars accepted by Microsoft (at least he's mostly free of media companies). Basically you're going to have to vode Nader - or Perot!
    • Not exactly. SuperKendall observes who donates to whose presidential campaign. Also:

      Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
      Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

      Of the 9 Representatives from the Apple State, the breakdown is 3 Republicans, 6 Democrats.

      I used to work for the Senate Dems, and I can absolutely guarantee you that Microsoft has no greater friend than Patty Murray in Congress. And Ron Wyden, D-OR, is a pretty major booster, too.

      Simply put, all politics is local. The parties have no say whatsoever in this. You sim

  • Its all for nothing.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slungsolow ( 722380 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:26PM (#9752757) Homepage
    Microsoft, which has delayed Longhorn's rollout, has not said when it will be released as the successor to Windows XP, the current version of the personal-computer operating system. Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire. - Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] Since Longhorn will be distributed after the terms of the antitrust agreement expire they can do whatever the hell they want. They can show one thing when in reality they mean to implement another. I am not saying thats what they are going to do, its just a possibility.
    • In other words, one of the reasons for the Anti-Trust suit was to remove IE and Windows Media Player from the OS. Since the suit expires with Longhorn's release date, I suppose that removing either or both from Longhorn will be just as "impossible" to do as it was with Windows 98 (although for the most part the code base is diferent).

      Based on the amount of security holes in IE (and the occasional one with WMP), I think the Feds should force MS to not-integrate them into the OS and let consumers chose to i
      • Applications should not be connected to the OS except in cases when its needed. If companies like Adobe, Oracle, IBM and Macromedia (to name a few) can build robust and useful applications without tying them into the OS then microsoft can do the same.

  • Meh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 )
    I'm sorry, but the Republicans in the US have repeatedly shown that they put big business before the little guy.

    Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but this just seems like political hijinx, which the "news" organizations will pick up and report, will keep the people happy who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig deeper into the details of this enforcement, but will ultimately hurt us all in the long run. I can't see the government caring beyond it making a nice sound-bite in tonight's news.

    I'm j

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:36PM (#9752886)
      You're delusional if you think it's just the Republicans. The Dems are just as if not more guilty of it. Al Gore is on Apple's board of directors for christs sake. I'm so sick of the partisanship these days, you honestly think power hungry people i.e. politicians are ever innocent of pandering and profiteering? They ALL do it equally. John Kerry is the richest man to ever grace the senate, he's married to Teresa HEINZ Kerry, you know, the ketchup chick. They have billions, none of it he EARNED. He married the widow of a rich ketchup producer. I mean come on dude, do you not see the total BS you're dishing out?
      • I wish more people were aware of this. Kerry does NOT have your best interests at heart any more than any other politician (and much less than some, in all liklihood!).

        The more I see of JK, the less I know about him. PLEASE, someone, give me a reason that I should vote for him other than "he's not Bush!"
        • The more I see of JK, the less I know about him. PLEASE, someone, give me a reason that I should vote for him other than "he's not Bush!"

          Um, at least he'll use lube while screwing us?

          (And yes, I'm holding my nose and voting for Kerry in November.)

        • Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)

          by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#9753158)
          Travelling off-topic, but this year's election IS nothing more than Bush/Not Bush. I propose a nationwide electoral change that puts "None of the Above" on EVERY ballot. If that is the majority, all original offerings are scrapped, and each 'party' on the ballot can offer a new person for that position (within 30 days). All losers would be eliminated from consideration. Days 31-60 would be nation-wide debates, and the vote would be on day 61. Continue until "NOTA" is not the winner. Since the term-limit for a sitting prez is 10 total years, they can be lame-duck until the election is over.

        • Re:Meh (Score:2)

          by jdbo ( 35629 )
          Here's 3 reasons that "he's not bush" is a good enough reason on its own:

          - elections with an incumbent in the running are typically referendums on that incumbent; otherwise, the democratic lesson of "do what the people want or your toast" does not get impressed upon the political classes. pretending otherwise is silly.

          - Kerry's personal, public, and professional history, experience and character are very unlike that of Bush; this implies that he is more likely govern differently than Bush (he's REALLY no
      • MicroSoft VS Apple? You can't tell which is "big business"? Mod that +1 FUNNY!

        • Re:Meh (Score:2)

          by geek ( 5680 )
          Apple has 5 billion dollars in the bank, makes computers for a population of every country on Earth and earns billions every year and you don't think Apple is big business? I'd mod you -10 STUPID actually.
        • Apple sells proprietary hardware to which they do not produce specifications, and upon it they run an operating system which is half open source - the bottom half, where the deep voodoo lives - and the top half, the half that people target with their new and glitzy applications, is closed. They have a history of threatening people when they reproduce rumors about new mac equipment. They are absolute bastards, and if you think any differently you are purely self-deluded. If Apple were in Microsoft's position
      • Al Gore joined Apple's board of directors long after he exited from politics. There's nothing wrong with serving on the board of directors of a company, as long as you believe that there's nothing wrong with big multinationals in the first place.

        • Re:Meh (Score:2)

          by geek ( 5680 )
          Exited from politics? Yeah so those speeches he's giving every week for moveon.org aren't political right? Give me a break. Quit defending the indefensible.
          • Anybody can make political speeches. He's not running for office, and his position isn't being 'bought' by Apple, which is the normal implication that people make when saying that someone belongs to the board of directors for some corporation or another. Anyone, even a former politician, is allowed to make political statements. Just because people listen to him but don't look twice at you when you're making a political statement doesn't mean he's still in politics.

            By your definition, none of us can ever ex

      • Re:Meh (Score:3, Funny)

        by kabocox ( 199019 )
        John Kerry is the richest man to ever grace the senate, he's married to Teresa HEINZ Kerry, you know, the ketchup chick. They have billions, none of it he EARNED. He married the widow of a rich ketchup producer.

        Damn politicians, they find all the really wealthy ones. We need to make a list of the top wealthiest single females.

      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)

        by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @04:58PM (#9753828) Homepage Journal
        When faced with these sorts of forced splits, it is always useful to consider Fisher's Deduction:

        "The more issues a person tries crudely shoehorn down into an artificial liberal/conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that ther person is an American."

        It's not 100%, but it is surprisingly accurate surprisingly often.

        Jedidiah.
    • Your view is too narrow. BOTH sides are for big business now. Democrats are more insurance/lawyer based (and old mfg/union), whereas the GOP tend to the energy/hitech side.

      I include unions because they are rarely for the "people" anymore - just their agenda of stickin it to da man.

      You are correct, however, in that MS will do pretty much as they please with impunity.
    • How about you stop waiting and do something about it?
    • I'm sorry, but the Republicans in the US have repeatedly shown that they put big business before the little guy.

      Then perhaps Fritz Hollings is the man for you. After all, democrats are always looking out for the consumer, right?

      Maybe I'm too old and cynical ... I'm just waiting for the revolution.

      Not cynical enough; there's no such thing as a revolution.
    • No, the Republicans think that government shouldn't be involved in business at all. They're watching out for the little guy because maybe the little guy will want to start a software company one day too. The last thing we need is a heavily regulated software industry.

      Or do you want us to end up like the drug industry, where we have to run our products through a gauntlet of underpaid, incompetent bureacrats? Would that be "fair"? Would that be looking out for the little guy?

      And before you go sniping about

    • Re:Meh (Score:3, Informative)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )
      ' I'm sorry, but the Republicans in the US have repeatedly shown that they put big business before the little guy.

      Maybe I'm too old and cynical...'

      Not 'too cynical', you're not cynical enough. Politicians are in the business of obtaining power, staying in power, and always pulling more power into themselves. If you think it's just Republicans who aren't interested in the 'little guy', then you're being naive.

      In fact, I'll let you in on a secret, in case you really don't know. Behind closed doors, Rep

  • MS' LongHorn vs DOJ's LongArm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abhinavmodi ( 737782 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:29PM (#9752787) Homepage
    Longhorn will be expected to deliver phenomenally in terms of 1. Security 2. UI 3. "Seamless" integration of internet/multimedia tool. It is, however, this precise policy of "integration", or rather, forcing users to go with MS software, which is the bee in Microsoft's bonnet. Recent technology previews of mozilla firefox and thunderbird, along with other web content software (shareware as well as open source) are much better in terms of performance than the existing stuff from the MS stable. LongHorn will have to outperform in more ways than one to battle Linux as well as opensource

  • Close Eye... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:29PM (#9752789) Homepage Journal
    close eye the Feds have on Longhorn and its compliance with the anti-trust settlement.

    Probably because it'll come bundled with a complete government, so you won't need the on in Washington DC, state capitol, etc.

    Those guys up in Redmond are so thoughtful, but what happens when the first security hole is found?

  • Makes me wonder if Apple has any regrets over the Longhorn-themed ads... ;)

  • No wonder it's taking so long!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Varkias ( 631272 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#9752815)
    No wonder it's taking MS so long to release Longhorn.

    From the MSNBC article:
    "Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire."

  • PU...err...EU (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#9752816)
    Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?

    Not using it? :-D

  • Coincidence? I think not! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ibm1130 ( 123012 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#9752819)
    Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Longhorn is delayed until just about the time the M$ Antitrust settlement encumbrances ( such as they are) go away.

  • Fox on the henhouse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby@ c o m c a s t . net> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#9752824)
    When the fox gaurds the henhouse, there isn't much need to count the chickens. Whatever happened to anti-trust with balls? A paper tiger is meaningless, and there is nothing that microsoft and company could possibly do that would actually result in real action. Once there was at least enough of a threat to have them work hard at keep Apple afloat, but now with Linux they can act with impunity. If my government won't stop Microsoft, who will?

    • Re:Fox on the henhouse (Score:5, Funny)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:41PM (#9752951)
      When the fox gaurds the henhouse

      I thought it was well known [doonesbury.com] that FOX mainly guarded the White House.

    • Re:Fox on the henhouse (Score:5, Funny)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:49PM (#9753042) Journal
      When the fox gaurds the henhouse, there isn't much need to count the chickens. Whatever happened to anti-trust with balls? A paper tiger is meaningless...

      Sorry, my metaphor stack overflowed at that point.

    • If my government won't stop Microsoft, who will?

      It's not up to your government to stop Microsoft.

      What you should be asking is,"When will my government stop supporting Microsoft?" A large part of Microsoft's monopoly is due to taxpayer revenue being funneled to Redmond through a thousand different contracts, tax credits, consulting fees, etc.

      Rather than asking your government to grow to fight the threats you should be asking your government to shrink so it quits creating them.
      • It is my government's job to stop Microsoft. It would be nice if they would start by not supporting them, but they created both the laws that allow a corporation like Microsoft to exist, and the laws which are suppost to limit their influence. It would be less hypocritical if they would enforce both sets of laws.

  • Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbskiNO@SPAMhksilver.net> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#9752833) Homepage Journal
    I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't be able to mod an article as flamebait. :\

    It's a legit read, no doubt, but...okay, so the govt is going to be keeping an eye on the OS. Cue the arguement of "yay!" and "aw crap, here comes big brother".

    Listen. Right now on a daily basis I interact primarily with 3 OS's:

    MacOS X 10.3
    FreeBSD 5.2.1
    Some outdated version of Red Hat Linux (7.2?)

    I wouldn't mind just going around loading any one of the above on every workstation I come across, except for the irony that I work for a Micrsoft Certified Solutions Provider. Heck, we just acheived Gold status last week.

    I run the ISP, which has very little interaction with the above. Anymore, I get called in only if it's a bonified networking problem (one your MCSE can't solve. Wait, that's all of them, isn't it?) or to clean off viruses/virii (choose your term) and spyware.

    I carry a cd around with me at all times. It has Firefox + adblock + flashblock, Thunderbird, Spybot, PuTTY, and Clamwin. With that combination, at times I spend up to 6 hours cleaning up a single workstation, between installing the above apps, cleaning off the yuckies, and running Windows update.

    It's enough to make one's nerves crack. Seriously. Pick your most braindead install of Linux. I couldn't tell you which it is these days. Red Hat used to be it. I want sooooooo badly to just wipe each system, install that, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Wine anything that doesn't have an OSS equivalent. But I can't, because Uncle Bill (tm) wouldn't approve.

    Someone shoot me. :(

    • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Strudelkugel ( 594414 )

      Someone shoot me. :(

      You expect sympathy? Appears you like the money. Why not go to an all *nix shop. I doubt Uncle Bill cares where you work.

      • Like the money? Heh, the only reason they keep me around is because they already have me trained, and they can't get anyone else for as little as I work for. Finding an all-unix shop in the midwest that doesn't want some sort of scientific/cluster background with a true multi-user unix environment experience is pretty much non-existant.

        Believe me, I'd love to bail, but it's just not in the cards. Been trying for the last 2 years. :(

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2)

      by rossz ( 67331 )
      The last time I had to deal with a computer so infested with spyware and crap that it would have taken most of a day to fix it, I just formatted the bastard and reinstalled windows. It's quicker and cleaner.

      Lost data? Tough shit. Company policy is to save all important data on the server, not on the local hard drive. Workstations aren't backed up.

  • Continual monitoring (Score:5, Informative)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:33PM (#9752851) Homepage Journal
    I keep an eye on the court/DOJ/MS interaction for my web site [msversus.org] (yes, shameless plug). The federal court requests a periodic (usually quarterly) update on Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. It covers a variety of ground, but usually no specific products. For example, it explains how many more customers (yeah! one!) have signed up for licensing their newly "open" protocols. Basically, the court checks on stuff covered directly (explicitly) in the settlement.

    So it's not unusual to see them checking in and meeting with Microsoft. The real problem is the leniency and broad interpretation of the settlement itself. I'm not too surprised to see Longhorn getting a better look, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft's plans are forced to change much.
  • Of government officials standing over poor little MS Coders' shoulders and seeing a bad API Call

    Govt honcho: "Hey that API you're calling through Internet explorer is a proprietary interface to windows, delete line of code immediately and find another way...
    MS Geek: Sorry sir..

    *scenario 2: as government official is checking poor MS Coder for "code compliance for Longhorn"

    "Hmmmm....a PDF of his 2003 tax return, and he deducted quite a bit for child care...we'll see what the IRS says about that

  • Close Eye For the Straight GUI (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:37PM (#9752899) Homepage
    So they're keeping a close eye on Longhorn, eh? The problem with any of these "enforcement" deals is that usually they're reactive. The product will come out, people will cry foul, then Microsoft spends a few years dancing with the justice department all the while the product has already done its corporate damage.

    The only real way to keep an eye on them is to have someone actually be involved from the groundwork. Will such and such feature be anti-competition? If so, scrap it before anyone works on it. Otherwise it'll just be IE'ed into the OS and a teary-eyed Ballmer will have to explain to us that taking it out will kill Windows.

    Things to watch out for: DRM and the integration of Media Player, the bundled firewall, an MS Anti-virus, and the Dancing Ballmer doing the "Welcome To Windows" tour.

  • = evermore convoluted OS "Options" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by holy_smoke ( 694875 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:41PM (#9752946)
    Microsoft will just invent more layers of "Set program access and defaults" interfaces to "accomodate" the government.

    The end result to sysadmins and programmers will be more landmines in the code, more virus entry points, and more failure points in general.

    Between these and the new security provisions that will break some(?) current software, Longhorn will be a very "interesting" software release.

    I think Microsoft is really betting the farm on this one, in more ways than one.

    Either that or they will finally find OS utopia and we will all be happy (pause bursts of laughter).

  • How is it enforceable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmletzkojr ( 768460 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `rjokztelmg'> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:42PM (#9752958) Homepage Journal
    I read the shorter article (many words = enemy), and I can't help but wonder how the gov't actually intends on enforcing this issue. Are they really hiring programmers of thier own to look at the code? If not, would the average gov't employee know what he/she is looking at? Even if they were given some sort of a design document (hehhe) would they even be able to determine the true intent or implementation?

  • Translation into Cynic-Speak: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:46PM (#9753016)
    Input:
    US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn

    Output:
    Bush Administration Seeking Campaign Contributions from Microsoft
  • Maybe the Federales can uncover what's causing this little bugger...

    Here at work (:-P) I happen to have MS Access running on Windows. MS Access has registered the file extension MAF. There's a Moz extension called MAF that archives web pages, kinda-like-mht-but-supposedly-better, and it saves with extension MAF.

    So I save the archives. WhaddyIget? A file, whose extension doesn't show along with the name in explorer (despite that I have it set to show file extensions) with the icon of a shortcut.

    Go
  • Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?"

    Thank you for not abusing the phrase "begging the question".

  • Sun hasn't even signed Microsoft's CPP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @03:56PM (#9753140) Homepage Journal
    As of the July 16 2004, Sun has not signed up to Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program [com.com].

    on April 15 2004, Sun's James Gosling, in response to this article [linuxworld.com] and some "slashdot flamage" from the same author [slashdot.org], blogged in More on Sun & Microsoft [java.net]

    My last blog entry stirred up a lot of commentary and flamage (and some of the flamage was entertainingly wild: I love the Internet!). Reading through it, it's clear that there's still confusion about the meaning of our "collaboration" agreement with Microsoft.

    While it is true that as a part of it we did sign up for Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program that is a part of the US v. Microsoft case, our full agreement both modifies and expands on it to give us a much more broad and useful agreement. It is important to understand that in no way does this lock Sun or Sun customers into interoperating with any Microsoft system on Microsoft's strict terms. Right now, most of our interoperability is achieved through reverse-engineering. We have the option, entirely at our discretion, to access Microsoft's specifications through the collaboration agreement. But before we do so, on a case-by-case basis, we will do an analysis of the business case for the entanglements that such access implies (principally confidentiality and royalties). Right now, the vast majority of the software that we (Sun) produce has free and open specifications and we provide the implementations of a large and growing fraction of it as open source. We are not going to slow down our involvement in the open source community. Right now we have launched no projects that will access any Microsoft specifications under the agreement - we simply have the option to, if we decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.

    This ablity to selectively pick and choose and other "flexabilities" was a detail left out of Sun's press release, and more interestingly, the recent joint status report on Microsoft's complicance with the US DOJ final antitrust judgement. [usdoj.gov]

  • Slap the other wrist? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @04:16PM (#9753362)
    Hilarious. What will those diligent Longhorn watchers do if they find one a violation? Give Microsoft a slap on the other wrist?

    The only result of the entire Microsoft antitrust case was to show just how insignificant the antitrust laws really are.
  • how much do you think MS can sway the eyes of those doing the look over?

    And Hey, When Longhorn comes out MS can say its "government approved".....

    Don't we all know MS got off to easy?
  • Security Rollup Package, 2007

    Fixes security issues Q1075635 and Q1156037, resolves several incompatibilities with NGCSB and legacy apps, deletes all non-Microsoft software on system, enhances firewall.

  • I know the future! (Score:3)

    by greymond ( 539980 ) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @05:53PM (#9754387) Homepage Journal
    January 1st 2006
    MS Ships Longhorn with IE and Media Player as part of the OS.

    January 2nd 2006
    Slashdot posts links to 100 different articles talking about how the "Feds are looking at MS" and may file another Anti-Trust lawsuit.

    January 3rd 2006
    Feds file lawsuit.

    January 4th 2006
    MS Laughs and says "Oh no! lets go to court...AGAIN".

    January 1st 2011
    5 years later the government wins the case, but by this time Longhorn2K and LonghornXP have already been released - MS now has 328397834972392345 Billion in the bank and continues to ignore the antitrust settlement... again.

    January 2nd 2011
    Slashdot posts about how the Fed are keeping an eye on MS Windows 20011 or rather OSXI, readers post about how Apple should file a lawsuit...
  • GW is all about "Big business". This is just a ploy to make it seem like the government is doing something. The DOJ will do squat. MS has already "integrated" IE, and in Longhorn they are "integrating" Media Player. In addition, they are planning some major non-standards compliant additions to IE that will lock you in to Longhorn. As long as MS continues to be the larget software donator of bribes [opensecrets.org], I don't see much effort from the government to stop them.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close