MS To Offer Windows Sans WMP, If EU So Orders 422
PSwim writes "Microsoft has said it will remove Media Player from Window, if ordered by the EU this week. The 'Windows-Lite'
version will only be available in Europe. Best quote from the article involves its refusal to release networking documentation: '"The Commission says Linux would disappear" if Microsoft did not grant access to its documentation, Smith claimed. "But Linux is alive and well and I don't know any person at Linux or any Linux programmers who share the Commission's view."'"
Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if the commission's view is shared by the OSS crew. Their ruling should be final and Microsoft should comply in good faith if they want to continue to trade in the EU.
They'll probably get chance to appeal the descision but I doubt the ruling will be overturned. Personally, I'm sick of them appealing on grounds they should have brought up earlier in the process. I think that if you appeal in a corporate case such as this and you lose the damages should be increased. You can justify this by lost interest due to the money sitting for in Microsoft's bank and not the EUs bank account for duration of the appeal process plus a surcharge for wasting everybody's time
Simon.
The version will contain a poison pill (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:5, Informative)
Set the computer's date to some time in the distant future (say 5 years ahead), start Quicktime player, get the message and respond as usual. Go back and reset the date correctly.
The "Upgrade to Quicktime Pro" prompt will disappear until that future date you used.
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:4, Funny)
Little late: they did that in 1995.
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:5, Funny)
Annoying software from Microsoft? Inconceivable!!
With apologies to Fezzik.
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The version will contain a poison pill (Score:3, Funny)
With apologies to Inigo.
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:5, Insightful)
Often, an appealing party has to pay costs if they lose. In the U.S. in federal court, a lawyer can be forced to pay his opponent's legal fees if he submits any frivolous articles to the court. Relax a bit on the whole condemnation of the legal system thing
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because facts and reasoning rarely fit into sound-bite sized juicy nuggets. McMedia is much more concerned with selling eyeshare than courting mindshare. The mindless eyes are as much to blame as anyone.
Give me convenience or give me reality TV.
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe the loser-pays system is the default. In the US, it is an option that you basically have to countersue for.
A better description might be that in the US if you sue somebody and lose you MIGHT have to pay their legal costs.
As a result, defence lawyers always charge heavy fees up front, and then try to get some of it back from the plaintiff later. Most people settle even if they're likely to win on defece since it is likely they'd still pay more in legal fees even if the plaintiff helps them out a little.
The US could seriously use a loser-pays system like Europe...
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:3, Insightful)
I sue them and lose. Um, I couldn't possibly afford the fees nor would most small fry attempt to go against the big dogs in the future.
Re:Linux Developer view is inmaterial (Score:3, Insightful)
And if your claim is valid, it makes you think twice about how much you trust the court system. Courts are human systems; human systems aren't perfect. Occasionally the wrong guy is going to lose. A niave Loser Pays system will destroy that occasional wrong guy and provides incentive for individuals to simply accept harm done to them.
Linux Developer view is correct, long term (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. It is.
If Microsoft release accurate documentation, it will both handicap their efforts to lock people out and dilute their ability to turn everything they touch into an "IP" black hole.
That latter is kind of a Midas touch, short term spectacular but sooner or later everything's turned to pyrites and then Midas starves in a cold hard house full of statues.
This attitude toward full and accurate publication is true for some things already;
first wtf post (Score:4, Funny)
WTF?
Re:first wtf post (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:first wtf post (Score:2)
(VA Software, anyone?)
Re:first wtf post (Score:2, Insightful)
Me either. Coincidence?
He must still be geared up to compete with companies instead of communities.
Re:first wtf post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:first wtf post (Score:3, Funny)
Linus said so himself. So there you have it on the highest authority.
Re:first wtf post (Score:5, Funny)
no its a mythical place where cats chase dogs, water flows up stream and software is free and open and yet consumers, companies and the economy all benifit from it.
hmm after reading what i just read i don't even know what side i am taking
stendec@gmail.com
Re:first wtf post (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'd like to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, who cares about the media player? WMP s*cks d*nkey b*lls! It is slow, it is invasive, and it has such bad codec support that it cannot play many common formats. No-one who is really interested in playing movies or music will stick to WMP. It simply does not do the job required.
IE, on the other hand, seems to do a good job on the surface, and is totally entrenched in the system. Furthermore, IE allows MS to really dominate an important infrastructure. IE should go.
Of course, the probable reason that MS does not fight so hard against the current ruling, is that they themselves know it is not an important fight. I also expect that the ruling has been agreed upon by the Commission in conversations with MS. Many members of the Commission are really close buddies with MS, you know.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, WMP is simply a DirectShow front end. It will play anything that DirectShow has a filter for decoding which, on Windows, is more or less anything except some QuickTime-specific things (Sorenson springs to mind).
Re:I'd like to see (Score:5, Interesting)
No, what I really would like to see, is Windows coming with a selection of browsers (perhaps a "Welcome to your brand new Microsoft (R) Windows (R) [TM] installation - which browser(s) do you want to install?" and it automatically grabs the latest version of that browser) , and be able to choose which of them to embed in explorer. Now *THAT* would be cool...
Too bad Windows isn't an open-source project :)
I'd hate to see that (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it really wouldn't. I'd bet that your average PC user doesn't appreciate the issues with IE. Many probably don't even know what a "browser" is, they just know to click this button for "the Internet" (not to be confused with e-mail).
Choice is not always a good thing. For average people without the time or inclination to learn the finer points of a subject, a single "good enough" option is often better than a choice. For people who do have the inclination to learn more, the choice is always there anyway, as the fact that I'm typing this in Firefox testifies.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no need for this. Microsoft shouldn't have to do that at all, in all honesty it isn't fair. But they shouldn't prevent any OEM from doing i
Re:I'd like to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I'd like to see it go back to the way it used to be. It used to be that computer makers (Dell, Gateway, etc) bundled and preinstalled the software they chose as being what their customers wanted. Imagine software companies competing to have their software preinstalled on a given computer manufacturer's machines. Imagine computer manufacturers being able to actually do what was suggested above and ask the user on first boot what browser they would prefer. That's the way it used to be. Computer makers set up the computer with the software they thought their customers wanted and they competed on their offerings.
Then MS came along and said, "Thou shalt bundle the software MS says you will bundle or thou shalt not get a discount on pre-installed Windows."
The rest is history. That's where MS used its monopoly illegally and did the most damage IMO.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:4, Funny)
Using MSIE is my favorite way to download FireFox.
Okay that comes across a little like a stupid joke but really -- I use this method at work quite often. It goes a little like this:
1) Download and install Mozilla/Firefox (whichever)
2) Delete MSIE icons
3) Create copies of Mozilla/Firefox icons and rename them to "Internet Exploder" and change the icon's face to the blue "e"
4)
5) Profit!!!
My users think I removed MSIE and replaced it with Mozilla... and I'll just keep letting them think so.
Re:the *real* Lite Windows (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
Kinda like MSN-messenger. Trying to remove that crap is hell-on-earth(tm) as well.
I more or less did all that stuff you mentioned + thourough registry disection. In addition I replaced all the executables with dummy-files (rundll32.exe), just for the sake of apperance.
Didn't help one bit. A quick visit to www.hotmail.com with MSIE, and wow, magically MSN-messenger is up and running again.
I bet the Windows-core has all these "services", including fronends, embedded, and any attempt to remove the ex
The other option being? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the other option is to stop selling Windows in the EU, this is not very surprising.
Re:The other option being? (Score:3, Funny)
I got Gill Sans free with my iBook. Is Windows Sans similar?
Re:The other option being? (Score:2)
ha-ha-ha (Score:4, Funny)
Muhahahahaha ! Ha-ha-ha ! Ha-...ha-...ha-ha-ha !
Sorry guys, I can't help myself, I just had a giggling spasm
Re:ha-ha-ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Interoperability does not truly depend on MS granting access to its documentation; in most cases it is the result of some succesful reverse-engineering. I bet MS would love to put an end to that. The statement "grant access to [the] documentation" is right but should be more specific: "not deny interoperability by means of secrecy or patents or other means"... The Commission touches on an important point, even if they worded it funnily.
Re:ha-ha-ha (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bad example, I think. I don't follow samba closely, but I have the general notion that (A) Samba has been implemented without any documentation from MS, and (B) the Samba team generally have a better understanding of the behavior of the MS samba stack than do Microsoft programmers.
Next?
Re:ha-ha-ha (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong! See other comment in this story [slashdot.org]
Re:ha-ha-ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, of course you have a point here and I agree with it to a point. Unfortunately (?) I've always been that type of techie (then nerd, then IT, then IT-nerd, hey some form of evolution does exist
Of course I've taken my pills and now I know this is the real world
And so we need to be highly friendly on both the lowest and highest levels e.g. with AD in Samba or with formats in OpenOffice.org. But what has always sticked me from the inside
It may happen that Linux is one of the best OS's only in my world, but then I'd like to stay in it.
Then again, give credit where it's due, Windows has managed to make fully computer-illiterate masses of people to think they are all-knowing computer geeks. For them Linux needs to be learned, and they more easily say it's crap and under-developed than to learn anything new regarding Linux. I just think I'm getting pretty offtopic so I'll just cut it here
Re:ha-ha-ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux can have the best word processor with the finest document file format, but if Word cannot read it, it will never be widely adopted. Remember that version of Word (98 I think) that produced files which could not be read by earlier versions of Word? Everybody bitched about it, and Microsoft finally gave in a made a plugin for earlier versions to read these files. You can be sure they never made that mistake again...
Similarly, you will often find Windows boxes in even the most Linux-friendly offices. Many applications are only available on Windows. For that reason, we need Samba capability. It is not so important for Linux to stand on its own, but it sure as hell makes the transition from Windows to Linux a lot easier.
The point is: most people and especially businesses cannot afford to 'stay in their own world' as you put it. People who might be interested in Linux are not starting to use computers from scratch, they will in most cases have to ransition from Windows, and will want to continue to communicate with their Windows-using friends.
This is not off-topic at all, it is the heart of the matter that is hidden underneath this silliness about shipping Windows with no media player. There is nothing wrong per sé with selling software using closed and protected protocols and file formats. Microsoft however is (mis)using closed protocols and file formats, together with their virtual monopoly in the OS and Office suite markets, to make sure everyone stays locked into the Windows solution. They do this by making the transition to Linux exceptionally painful, and by trying to ostracise Linux users from their Windows-using friends (or from their computers and data, at least). That is why the Commission should demand open and freely usable standards from Microsoft instead of demanding a WMP-free OS; not because open standards are nice and cute, but because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly and is mis-using it and closed standards to keep out competitors like Linux.
On coupling os and software (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has protested in the past that unbundling elements of Windows would be difficult and could even damage its operating system.
hm... i do not mean to flame against microsoft (yet another time), but wtf? why and how should a media player damage the os, if decently programmed? to me, it sounds sensible to separate the operating-system from the applications built upon it, not coupling them to an absurde degree. well, from the point of view "it will be easier to distribute both products that way", it is understandable, of course, but shouldn't a clear design weigh more than marketing advantage? mark the should, which is - sorrowfully - the keyword here.
ah, and by the way... what will microsoft do? if i was them, i'd offer a network-based installation of wmp, which is (semi)automatically triggered after the installation of windows. thus, they do not ship wmp with the os, but effectively bundle it in 90% of all installations.
The rest of the world would continue to use the full version of Windows, and it encouraged content developers to continue to encode music and other digital products in its Windows media format.
simply cute. encouraging developers to use a proprietary codec (i hope i am correct) to create content, when you need to additionally install software for that codec. *hm* a different approach than the one i outlined above, but an effective one, too.
though i have to say, if i was content provider, i'd see absolutely no advantage in using wmp if the player is not bundled with the os, only the drawback of lock-in by microsoft.
just my 2cent
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:2, Informative)
"if decently programmed"
We're talking about Microsoft here.
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:2, Funny)
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:2, Funny)
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds accurate. And my NT4 Domain Controller/File Server has been up and running continuously for the last 2+ years.
That's not stability. That's just not rocking the boat.
No patches. No updates. No upgrades.
Original IE which is never used.
No gateway. Intentionally. Can only talk to the LAN.
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends on what you call Media Player. Most people would consider it to be just the executable, and possibly DLLs and data files that are used only by the application.
On the other hand, the MS legal department considers it to also include any system libraries that it may use, including windowing and disk access libraries, audio drivers, and any line of code that gets called when it is being run. At least that seemed to be the
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:5, Insightful)
On Windows, the backend is an integral part of the operating system. Many other applications use it, many other applications plug into it - it's designed to be a central location for codec storage, and it succeeds in that goal admirably.
The frontend, obviously, is not.
Removing the frontend would be trivial. Removing the backend would be devastating because of all the programs that rely on it - akin to removing Internet Explorer entirely, for the exact same set of reasons.
I don't pretend to know which they've been ordered to remove. I don't put it past them for the courts to have said "remove Media Player" and for Microsoft to have said "aha! If we take that to mean the backend, we can argue that it would damage the user experience!" But it's worth pointing out that the bulk of what most moderately-technical people would consider Media Player - the chunk that does the actual decoding and playing of media - is, in fact, pretty deeply built into Windows. As is Internet Explorer. (I've seen many many MANY apps that embed IE in one way or another.)
An analogy - this would be similar to asking Linux to remove zlib entirely. Because, you know, not many people ever really need to compress things, right? Therefore zlib couldn't be that important, right?
Sometimes the user interface is only a small part of the usage a piece of software has within the system.
Now, it *would* be entirely reasonable to ask Microsoft to provide hooks to replace these modules. However that would be an extremely nontrivial programming job - I might demand it for Longhorn, but asking that they spend less than a year or so on it is really just begging for serious problems.
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:3, Informative)
It would be extremely difficult for them to claim that removing Windows Media Player means removing DirectShow...
Anyway, I don't see why anyone would want it gone.. there is nothing proprietary about it; anyone can write a media player applications that uses it.
Re:On coupling os and software (Score:3, Funny)
Crippleware (Score:4, Interesting)
This is, of course, only if Microsoft actually intends to offer an upgrade scheme (they could just force the Windows Lite purchasers to acquire a full XP license at full cost)...
Now, after this annoucement [slashdot.org], it becomes obvious that Microsoft is entering a new era in which they will be forced to lighten their products under the hostile eyes of the trade police...
What willfollow ?
Well, they'll have to cut costs in order to remain competitive in this regard.
I guess, something just broke in Microsoft and it's time for the new Norton-likes to come back and propose better add-ons than the ones that were forcibly integrated into Windows...
What's wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
the point is that microsoft claims that it would be difficult and possibly damaging to remove wmp from the os.
now talk about tight coupling between software and os. bad thing in my opinion, plus, it remove the freedom of choice from the user.
furthermore, it implies that un-installing wmp properly is hardly possible, so when you think you've gotten rid of it, it has probably just removed some superficial links or such.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that Red Hat is the most common distro, and they don't ship mplayer.
And as for your answer -- no, it isn't a monopoly. First, no single Linux distributor has a monopoly on the Linux market. Second, there's no concept of lock-in -- I can make "Debian (or someone that does ship mplayer) with xine instead of mplayer" if I want, and start handing out CDs. Microsoft does not make it legally possible for me to ship a modified version of Win
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
In America maybe, but not the rest of the world which includes Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
so with a user base of several hundred million, microsoft has a better base to sell streaming servers than its competition - and why? not because WMP is superior, but because microsoft used its desktop monopoly to push into another sector, which is illegal (unlike having a monopoly without abusing it)
as for mplayer, only few distros actually distribute it due to legal trouble, and it's not used in a monopoly en
Re:What's wrong? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that the one thing which is wrong here is that Microsoft is also pushing it's own Windows Media format (*.wm[va]) with own codecs.
What makes this a problem is that coupling the only player capable of [legally] playing these files gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over everything else.
No user wants to install for example a media player. A Windows user sees a .rm or .mov on a page, he/she might not click it because then new software might have to be installed, the user might look for a .wmv b
Re:What's wrong? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Linux had >90% market share,
- there were only one vendor of Linux,
- there were a reason why other vendors could not release Linux as well,
- that version of Linux came with mplayer as mandatory and only preinstalled player,
- that version of mplayer supported a proprietary media format owned by that only Linux distributor,
- while media formats from competitors were not supported out-of-the-box,
then it would be an abuse of monopoly.Re:What's wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every reply so far has missed the point somewhat, so I'll give it a go. Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operationg systems (or close enough to one that it makes no difference). There is a body of law that applies only to monopolies in order to prevent them from abusing the power that comes from having a monopoly. One of the things they are not allowed to do is to use their monopoly status to create dominance in a different market.
By bundling WMP with windows, Microsoft is using their monopoly on OSes to dominate the media player market. They have already done this in the web browser market. The relative merits of the players are irrelevant, only that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly powers.
Re:What's wrong? (Score:2)
The real question here is whether "media players" and "web browsers" are significant enough applications in the modern world to justify their own "market" and, if so, at what point should it end. I mean, it's not like anyone gives a damn about the "calculator applet market" anymore, or that anyone is getting their anti-trust undies in a twist ab
Re:What's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Understand these basic facts:
1. It is legal to acquire a monopoly.
2. It is legal to bundle non-monopoly products.
3. It is not legal to use your monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another market.
To completely distance ourselves from the tech issues, I'll give you a bread and butter example (literally).
1. It is not illegal to gain a monopoly on producing bread (maybe you're just that much better)
2. As long as there is competition on both bread and butter, it is legal to bundle your bread with your butter.
3. If you have a monopoly on bread, you can't bundle your butter with your bread to drive the other butter companies out of business.
It has nothing to do with bread and butter belonging together or not, it has nothing to do with the quality of either product. It is a means to ensure that competition happens on equal terms.
Without anti-trust protection, anything dependent on bread would fall like dominos in a row. Next up, bread knives bundled with bread. Butter knives bundled with butter. Next up, filet knives bundled with bread and butter knives. Markets would crumble and turn to monopolies ruled by gigantic megacorporations spreading like a cancer throughout the economy.
To return to your Linux analogy, it is not only once, but twice fatally flawed. One, neither Linux nor Mplayer have a monopoly. Second, you misinterpret corrolation with causation. Mplayer and Linux appear often together because they are both popular products. There is no causation, one isn't being used to promote the other.
If Linux demanded that with each distribution of it you would be forced to include Mplayer, then there would be causation. They don't, but if they did (which they can't because of the GPL), and they were a monopoly, which they aren't, then it would be illegal. But Windows is a monopoly, Windows is used to monopolize the media player market, and thus it is illegal. IMNSHO.
Kjella
Re:What's wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a monopoly is neither wrong, bad, or illegal.
However, it IS illegal bad and wrong to for acompany to leverage a monopoly in one product area into a monopoly in another by abusing their monopoly position. I'll use a silly example to show why this can't be allowed:
Imagine you have a monopoly on potatoes. If you used your cash reserves (or simply jacked up the price of potatoes) to give away a free carrot with every potato, and continued until all the carrot companies in the world went bust, bought them all up and then put the price of carrots up 1000%
Replace the potatoes with Desktop OS software, and the carrots with media player software, and you'll see what microsoft is doing that is wrong. It's taking a loss on WMP, and by bundling it for free (so that even by being free too, other players can't compete because they have the hassle of installation as well) it's abusing it's position to try and bankrupt all the other player companies, so it has a stranglehold on that market too. You can also replace carrots with Browsers for round 2 of the EU litigation
If the EU so orders... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm having a press conference tomorrow where I will announce that I will pay the speeding ticket if the court so orders. I just want to make sure they understand that going into the appeal hearing.
Re:If the EU so orders... (Score:2)
Two things are funny here... (Score:4, Funny)
The other funny thing, which is absolutely hilarious, is that Microsoft's general counsel Brad Smith doesn't "know any person at Linux or any Linux programmers who share the Commission's view."
What, I know several people at Linux, they say it's a great place to work and they have a beautiful campus and stuff...
Re:Two things are funny here... (Score:5, Funny)
The place has a lousy cafeteria, though. Herring this and herring that.
Re: at Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Well, herring, eggs, sausage, and herring. It's got not much herring in it.
Why is the media player so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather see them have the WMA/WMV codecs excluded and if a user plays such things, s/he gets directed to a Microsoft web site where they can be downloaded.
Not allowing a stupid media player just seems silly to me.
Re:Why is the media player so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is the media player so bad? (Score:3)
Smart spin! Install option instead of open formats (Score:4, Insightful)
MS got everyone to babble about install-options (WMP yes/no?) instead of the real thing at stake:
Open formats e.g ISO standards or privately owned formats?
Hello, everyone, it isn't about WMP yes/no. It's about standard formats with competition or not. Did you get it now?
A little child (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to sum up the Microsoft business strategy rather well.
Pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow.
I don't suppose anyone will be surprised to find the link to the WMP download presented in bold, flashing red letters among the list of "High Priority" updates (formerly merely "optional software updates") each and every time a European user runs "Windows Update."
Legislative micromanagement of Microsoft's stack of software is futile. Gate's and crew are quietly snickering as they squeak past another round of legal nonsense with another pointless concession.
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Limitations! (Score:4, Funny)
"Microsoft has said it will remove Media Player from Window, if ordered by the EU this week."
Wow. I always thought Windows had its limitations, but apparently you can only open one window at a time with this cut-down version! Hmmm, which one to open...
Millions and Millions (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing a media player from an OS costs MILLIONS! I feel like making a joke but this is just too ridiculous. The sad thing is probably many non-techies believe these blatant lies. And I don't care what expenses they dream up (testing, lawyers, still more lawyers, cost of diminished monopoly power), this is pure BS.
Interesting article. (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, if Microsoft can fuss, whine, cry, etc, over how taking some component out is "too hard" and would cripple Windows (mind you, switching the machine on seems to do that just fine) then how are they capable of removing the media player just like that? That, in itself, should send up huge bright red warning flags that Microsoft is, and quite probably always has been, lying to the courts about how "difficult" the process of removing something is.
Third, by putting some psychological pressure on Windows developers to use the Microsoft in-house format anyway, it seems clear Microsoft is attempting to cripple any efforts to switch to other formats. Pointing to things like Apple's iTunes doesn't help the argument, as that is a very carefully-crafted niche market that nobody can step into or out of. It's not in competition with anything, and as such, cannot be listed as a competing format. DUH!
Last, but by no means least, server docs would be nice. Claiming that nobody would be interested in them and nobody has asked for them is at best disingeneous (Microsoft doesn't tend to release anything it doesn't absolutely need to, and even then it's a struggle) and at worst an outright lie (I'm willing to bet at least one WINE developer has asked to see networking and media low-level documentation, and I'm willing to bet they got refused, too).
Sorry, it's hard to feel much pity for Microsoft over this. Their entire case is built up out of mistruths, scams, shams and ignorance. (Some of the ignorance is even their own.) Until they learn to "play nice", they really should accept that it is only by the generosity of the EU and other Governments that they are allowed to play at all.
Marketing is not a right, it is a privilige. That is why, for example, in the US you have business licenses. Despite abusing that privilege, Microsoft is being told that they can carry on. With some relatively minor restrictions. IMHO, that is exceedingly generous. And given their past record, quite likely too generous.
Sooner or later, someone is going to get tough. Unless a volcano in Washington State erupts first and buries Microsoft HQ in ash*. I'd feel sorry for the innocents inside (assuming any were innocent) but it would save the world, which could be quite nice.
*Volcanos are generally compliant with UNIX98 standards, starting up into ash. However, they are known to have a buggy IPC implementation. On failing to negotiate a handshake with the surrounding geography, volcanos are apt to core-dump.
Re:Interesting article. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not quite it. MS know full well what Linux is and how it is developed. They also know that if they can convince the non-tech world that it's just another corporate actor, they can fight on their own ground. For them to survive, they need to maintain the market lock-in which is their only selling point, but convince regulatory authorities that they're just another
The Gentle Hand of MicroSoft Reassures Us All. (Score:2, Insightful)
Only if by "face-to-face negotiations to tease out technological nuances" he means "coercion".
Is there
Slowing innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we all know better than that of course; why, just yesterday a Harvard professor jumped on the bandwagon warning that the current patent system inhibits, rather than encourages, innovation. How is Microsoft any different? When everyone knows M$ will come out on top in any battle it chooses to fight, the incentive to try to create something Redmond might want to compete against drops to zero. But if the EU succeeds in putting Microsoft in its place, that will tell a lot of software companies (and VCs!) that their products might finally have a chance of competing on their own merits.
Oh, and "privilege some special interests"? It's funny how one company can be so bad if it gets some help from the government (the criterion for "special interest"), but another company is beyond reproach if it has an advantage that everyone is already dependent on its products.
No problem with WMP (Score:2, Interesting)
A) 3rd party providers to provide this information for the OS
B) To have a cut down version of media player which cannot play movies by itself but serves this info.
I'd rather have neither and I'm sure Microsoft d
Re:No problem with WMP (Score:2, Insightful)
Rename (Score:3, Funny)
EU Remedy is Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
The commision is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I do. Granted, Im no "person at Linux" (WTF? does FSF member count?
-Without- access to documented API's, compatibility battles are always going to be a "catch-up" game.
Meaning MS can leveradge its closed fileformats and closed API's to keep a lock on its customers.
Even the much applauded SAMBA (Love it, love it) is mostly reversed engeneered, and often has to deal with changed Windows OS behaviour between releases and SP's.
To get out of this deadlock, people can either massively switch away from MS (unlikely, but possible) or have MS open up its secrets, and level the playing ground. Only THEN can Linux and MS compete on the one level that mnatters: "innovation".
No matter how good Gnome and KDE have gotten, if the
"/Dread"
For those that find this Over The Top... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Microsoft wants everybody to stream using its media formats, it will want to ensure that Windows Media Player is installed on as many computers as possible. Obviously.
The point here is that Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft adds to Windows what it desires, and what is most beneficial to Microsoft itself. People usually use what comes installed with the operating system (IE, WMP), and once you're used to one thing you're less likely to switch (as we've seen with Internet Explorer).
Microsoft gains an unfair advantage by doing this, and there is very little competition at this level.
Microsoft finds it attrocious that people have suggested adding Real Player (and other competing apps) to Windows. Microsoft knows that doing this would take away its advantage - if it didn't, why would there be such a big issue? Ok, Microsoft may say that it would cause users more hassle by having to download WMP; but, Microsoft has also said that it doesn't understand the fuss about bundling WMP, people can still download and install Real Player easily enough. Well, in that case, why not remove WMP and let people choose what they want to install?
I expect that if WMP was removed, Microsoft would add a pop-up window as soon as you run Windows for the first time, asking you to download and install it.
The same cannot be said of Open Source apps on a Linux DISTRIBUTION. Linux is not manufactured by one company, other companies create distributions that contain various competing apps.
If Microsoft open-sourced its file formats, and ensured that it would not use any patents surrounding them to limit their use in any way, this would certainly help things.
If Microsoft got other companies to create Windows distributions in the same way as with Linux, this would also help.
Software choice?
Welcome to Windows XP (EU Edition)... (Score:5, Funny)
Windows is now checking Microsoft's website for updates and new features.........
New Features Available! Please choose what you want to download:
1. Windows Media Player. This is required if you want to play MP3s, watch videos or DVDs.
Meanwhile, at Linux Headquarters... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure they imagine a giant L-shaped building somewhere in Helsinki, where foreign-speaking communists plot to find new ways to pirate MP3s.
Buh? (Score:3, Funny)
Where is this "Linux" place? Is it like Disneyland? Can I take the kid and the dogs and hang out?
Silly Vendors (Score:5, Interesting)
And let's face it. When vendors have tried to 'customize' Windows or add their own tools to it, it has always sucked. Ever tried using a brand new Packard Bell or Dell? You always end up with a ton of crap installed that takes up about twenty icons in the tray. In the worst scenario, you end up with some horrendously lame media player or no-name virus scanner written by a drunk Chinese five year old embedded into your computer. Vendor customizations suck!
Re:Silly Market Economy (Score:2)
That's not true. I know lots of people who buy new computers by just picking a brand at random at the computer store, and they always whine about the crappy software that came with it. If you buy a branded computer, it's almost impossible to avoid. Typically I recommend they reinstall Windows from scratch (i.e. not from some 'recovery disc' that reinstalls the
Re:Silly Market Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is valid, since the OEM could've put anything on the machine after being received from MS. But, it also means that the Vendor is now liable to handle support for its devices. Theoretically, the hand-over of the software should be the end of the agreement. If Dell doesn't want to ship media player for whatever reason, they don't have to.
That all doesn't matter though. The second Dell starts getting phone calls over people not being able to play mp3's or watch movies, the crowds will be swarming. I agree with an earlier argument, it is too late to fix what they've done before.
What we have to do now is INFORM our governments of anything Microsoft does BEFORE the damage is incurred. Imagine MS's faces being held back from releasing Longhorn due to potential Monopolistic abuses in the system. That's where any of these 'Microfot is a monopoly, we'll fix it' scenerios holds any real world hopes.
This argument could have been the same for Microsoft with MS Movie maker. What happens if they decide to sink Adobe by investing tons of money into Their movie maker. Today's Media Player is tomorrows Antivirus, Movie Makers, networking protocols, web standards, etc.. There's no stopping them if we let them run free. If you hadn't guessed already, Bill gates is spoofed as a borg for a reason.
Re:Silly Market Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing MS to remove WMP is probably the only way to guarantee that vendors are able to not include it without facing repurcussions.
The NFS/CIFS (SMB) marketing war (Score:4, Informative)
SMB has actually been documented by MS.
From The future of CIFS [vernstok.nl] by Jelmer Vernooij of the Samba team:
2.2 The NFS/CIFS marketing war
During the internet hype in the nineties, Sun and Microsoft got in a fight about which remote file system API was going to make it. Sun was promoting NFS, Microsoft was promoting SMB.
In order to get SMB supported by other vendors, Microsoft did a couple of things:
Samba even got donations from Microsoft during this period, including funding for trips to conferences and MSDN donations. Microsoft developers were encouraged to work with Samba developers to get a working implementation of a SMB server and client on Unix.
Microsoft won the war. CIFS became the standard (for LANs, at least). After this, they lost interest in having other vendors support CIFS. Rather, they tried to get everybody to use their products.
Re:Shitty submission - Rebuttal (Score:5, Informative)
As the original writer of the submission you so eloquently call "shitty," I felt the need to respond a bit.
You did read the article, didn't you?
I wish people would read the article and think about it before posting (flaming). Then again, I'm starting to be kind of old around here.