DOJ To Oversee Windows 7 Development 427
MrKaos writes "Windows 7 is already being reviewed by U.S. government technical appointees. Under the terms of Microsoft's November 2001 Justice Department settlement, and final court judgment issued about a year later, a government-sanctioned 'Technical Committee' has been formed to oversee Windows development. The TC is responsible for ensuring that Microsoft complies with the terms of the final judgment, investigating complaints about Microsoft abuses and regularly reporting on the company's compliance."
Yup. (Score:5, Funny)
This.
Will signify the year of the Linux Desktop.
If there was anything that could make windows worse, this administration will find it.
Re:Yup. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yup. (Score:4, Informative)
Is there anyplace in the US that is served by both Comcast & TW?
I can see leaving Comcast or TW for Verizon or (insert DSL provider here), but Comcast to TW implies that there's local competition for your cable dollars, and I don't think that happens today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because ISPs don't have your encryption keys.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You seriously think that there isn't a U.S. made operating system that hasn't yet been back-doored by the NSA and / or CIA as a result of a back-room deal somewhere? I mean, I'm even a US citizen and I'm not so naive as to believe that they aren't all pretty well universally compromised, and there's no need to "phone home" on a regular basis so as to be caught out that easily - there are ways, and then there are ways. If you think that there is anything in a Windows installation that somehow makes your secu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you need to back-door Windows when it's so easy to break into without it? As for your LE CD kit, yeah there's tons of tools like that you can get as a civilian for free. Windows (including Vista) is trivially easy to hack if you have physical access, it's only marginally (and debatebly) less so if you don't.
Re:Yup. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know that hasn't been in every version since they included a built in network stack? (Big Hint: You don't!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you use the Kernel debugger, pretty much everything windows does becomes pretty transparent. Especially when you connect with a Firewire computer and freeze it in Kernel Mode. It's all in Inside Windows 2000, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Homeland Computer Security (Score:5, Funny)
"Please look at the webcam, place your finger on the scanner and make sure your computer has a network connection."
or worse:
I'm sorry but your username has been placed on the 'no-compute' list. Please try again after the current US administration has expired.
I can just imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
"Power to the people!" Smack.
"This one's for Billy!" Punch.
Fistfights? Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
the staredown between the DOJ geeks and the MS geeks as they both fight for superiority. Think there'll be fistfights in the breakroom?
Nope, because the DOJ geeks will have badges, guns, pepper spray and tasers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
the staredown between the DOJ geeks and the MS geeks as they both fight for superiority. Think there'll be fistfights in the breakroom?
Nope, because the DOJ geeks will have badges, guns, pepper spray and tasers.
Re:Fistfights? Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
Looking forward to this (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Looking forward to this (Score:4, Funny)
Ooooh! And they can have it automatically change the desktop background color or something, too!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or, if you are deemed a threat, change your wallpaper to something illegal.
Re:Looking forward to this (Score:5, Funny)
You want a widget that never changes color from orangish-yellow?
You're kidding? (Score:2, Interesting)
Vista has issues without external help, so I'd hate to see what DOJ intervention is going to do other than make it even worse. I am not a big Microsoft fan, but please let them at least try to develop a decent OS without an external committee. Let them succeed or fail on their own merits. If the DOJ wants to intervene anywhere, at least do it in vetting the results or paying attention to contracts.
Re:You're kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
There fixed that for you. Bureaucracy in itself isn't bad. The problem with FEMA was that it was run by idiots who, over the years, drove away all the competent people. FEMA for the most part did a good job with the 1996 Midwest floods, Nor Cal earthquake, and Sept. 11. By the time of Katrina, who was in charge of FEMA: A lawyer who had no experience in emergency management, no experience running a large organization, and may have exaggerated or falsified his resume. Also the federal government in its wisdom decided to merge the previously small and independent FEMA into the huge conglomerate that is the Department of Homeland Security while reducing its funding.
Re:You're kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You're kidding? (Score:4, Informative)
Bureaucracy in itself IS bad! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Katrina wasn't Katrina itself, it was the idiots who built levees that allowed a city to exist below the natural water level in a zone where hurricanes happen from time to time.
The problem with MS-Windows is the legislation that allows copyrights for binary executable files. Check the US Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Which part of "Writings" they didn't understand? Where is it mentioned the exclusive Right to codes compiled from Writings?
If the US Constitution were fully respected, programmers should have to publish their source code in order to get copyright protection.
Re:Bureaucracy in itself IS bad! (Score:4, Informative)
The levees were built over 40 years ago based on the best known estimates at the time. However, over the last 30 years, the Army Core of Engineers has repeatedly warned that they were not adequate and asked for funding to replace the system. Every year, they were told to fix the levees, but when it came time to fund the upgrade, no money was given to them to actually do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're serious. (Score:4, Informative)
Where have you been?
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, most of he big MS critics are just altra rich folks who are suffering from sour grapes: Mcnealy and Ellison, I'm talking to you!
Ummm... No. Most of the big MS critics are tech people who have used an OS other then Windows (Linux, BSD, Mac, UNIX, etc) and see that Windows is worse then other OSes and don't want to pay money for an OS they will never use on a new computer. Basically, business practices can make MS illegal, but the code they use creates the most critics.
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
At first I read that summary:
"...responsible for ensuring that Microsoft compiles with the terms of the final judgment...
Pity... I thought "final judgment" would be an altogether fitting and proper name for any compiler that could successfully compile a Windows OS.
Eh. (Score:4, Informative)
As judgements go, this seems toothless or perhaps worse . . . unless you consider the specter of this years ago to have caused Microsoft to make some different decisions.
According to TFA, the DoJ is mainly concerned with:
- Compatability/bundling in four areas, three of which, such as bundling an instant messenger, Microsoft has given up on since '01. Web browser is the area on that list still in play.
- Making sure that bugs in previous versions of Windows don't recur. Congratulations, your tax dollars are providing extra Windows QA.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. Congrats and good luck to the DOJ for being voluntary beta testers!
Win 7 is officially vaporware (Score:4, Interesting)
Insert Windows Vista joke here.
So would you term this... (Score:2)
The ill-informed overseeing the absolutely stupid?
Or
The haven't-got-a-clue trying to look like they know what they're doing while watching the hard pressed to deliver working in an unrealistic timeline.
Just trying to get it figured out what kind of cluster Fsk to call this gem of an idea.
-Goran
too far (Score:5, Insightful)
does this not bother anyone else? Why is our government so powerful that it can involve itself in development of a commercial product by a private company? Do we not realize that by endorsing this, we are inviting government to get involved in more an more areas of out lives. Why not regulating what types of products you can build as a developer? This is insane. I cannot believe that my fellow slashdotters think this is ok. Government has gone too far.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The theory is that Microsoft broke the law and that regulation and scrutiny would be better (for society) than breaking it up or dissolving it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before we weep too much over Windows and their government overlords we should mourn all the good startups that were crushed by unfair competition from MS. Of course Netscape comes to mind but it isn't the only one.
And by "crushed" in this example you mean "squarely beaten by a better product after completely and utterly dropping the ball", right ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah it had nothing to do with MS hastling distributors. nothing at all to do with that right...
Nowhere near as much as it had to do with the unmitigated sucktitude of Navigator 4.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah it had nothing to do with MS hastling distributors
You're right, it didn't. Netscape 4 wiped the floor with IE 3, was on a par feature-wise with IE 4 (but a lot less stable) and was utterly outclassed by IE5.
I rant about this on here a lot, but MS did not kill Netscape, Netscape killed Netscape. Bundling IE with Windows may have killed it eventually, but it killed itself long before that happened. Netscape 4 was a slow, buggy, crash-prone piece of crap, and I speak as someone who has never and will neve
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft wouldn't even exist in its present form if the government weren't already willing to butt into peoples' private homes and businesses to dictate which files in their computers can or can't be copied. So I don't see how Microsoft would have much to complain about on this issue.
Not nearly far enough (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft came to dominance by sabotaging the API so that its competitors did not have a good API to use, and its internal divisions for Excel and Word had a secret API that worked well. This is monopolistic behavior.
Part of the judgement agreed to by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is that Microsoft will open its API to all.
Re:Not nearly far enough (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there goes Slashdot's whole purpose for existence.
Microsoft chose regulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft had been split into separate competing companies back when they lost the original DoJ lawsuit then:
(1) Microsoft would collectively be bigger and more profitable than they are now.
(2) Microsoft would be largely free of this kind of oversight.
Why did they fight so hard to remain a regulated monopoly instead?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Power. They want it and don't want to share. The shareholders didn't fight, they couldn't even if they wanted to. All the VP's and CXO's would have had half the position they had previously.
Re: (Score:2)
I wholly encourage the government to protect citizens from overly powerful corporations. I don't think this is the correct approach to MS, but it's all we as citizens left them with. The government should force MS to open up device drivers and file formats, and provide tools to encourage competition. MS should not have the power to use a successful product to hurt the country. They've made people filthy rich, good job, but the industry is stagnant so share and compete.
What the gov't is doing is stupid...but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you've missed the main point, and confused several others. This isn't about the Government butting into the development of a private company's product. This is about about the Government enforcing legal judgments on a company that was (here's the important part) convicted of breaking the law several times.
If it was just the government butting into a random developer to force them to do things Big Brother's way, you'd be closer. But it's not. It's a convicted monopolist who got busted for it, but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again, it is not illegal to be a monopoly; it is illegal to use the leverage of being a monopoly to stay a monopoly.
Actually, most of the actions they were convicted of were leveraging a monopoly to gain unfair advantage in other markets (office suites, Web browsers, server OS's, e-mail clients, media players, etc.).
This might actually be a good thing for Microsoft, as the company will know where they stand when building a product and shipping a product. If two years after Win7 ships a company cries foul play, Microsoft can point back to this committee.
Unless the net administration has any more teeth than the current, this will not make much difference. All the big players have given up on the US courts as hopelessly ineffective. They just go straight to the EU these days.
Don't hold your breath (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 7 is "scheduled" for maybe something like sometime in 2010, but they're not making any promises. And if you look at the slated "features [wikipedia.org]" It also looks like they're not sure what they have going on there. Updated versions of Paint and WordPad? Is that really what they're going for?
Instead of "Windows 7" the real code name is "Maybe we can come up with something you will want to buy, unlike Vista...?" However, unfortunately, they really have no idea how to accomplish that.
Oh, and just to be a snob... by comparison, OS X 10.5 looks like it will be adding real features [appleinsider.com] and actually be released in about one year from now.
(I know, -3 Troll/Flamebait... But it was too fun not to post.)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7 is "scheduled" for maybe something like sometime in 2010, but they're not making any promises ... Instead of "Windows 7" the real code name is "Maybe we can come up with something you will want to buy, unlike Vista...?"
Personally, I think a code name of "Not Sure" would be more concise, and if the uptake of Vista is any indication, more appropriate given the typical user.
Not Sure, now with ... electrolytes!
Then again, maybe I have it backwards. Vista is the one with electrolytes, and Not Sure wil
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How about.... (Score:5, Interesting)
they check for illegal cooperation between a OS powerhouse (Microsoft) and a music/movies powerhouse (RIAA/MPAA)
DRM annoyances (Score:2)
When will regular users notice that they are being denied of access with certain software or hardware? I know very well what the consequences of DRM are at the moment, but it seems that regular users don't know, care or notice the badness of DRM.
The sooner people start noticing they are being held back, the more they might want to use open alternatives.
Government? In MY computer? (Score:4, Insightful)
DOJ will ensure a backdoor (Score:2, Insightful)
wtf people, not enough tinfoil? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
have the DOJ gone after IBM (the IT powerhouse of the 80s)? Because last time i checked you had to do something illegal before they could sue your ass.
Not [hagley.org] true [cnet.com] at [theregister.co.uk] all [usdoj.gov]
Anyone, or any legal entity such as a corporation can be sued at any time for any reason. I am not accusing Google of doing anything more than gaining predominant market share, like Intel, for example, and getting sued for it. [google.com]
As for the utility of antitrust suits, here's an interesting view. [theatlantic.com]
After I saw an NT beta at COMDEX in the 90s, I speculated that Microsoft would be sued for antitrust by the end of the decade. I thought NT would be successful enough to get the competitors ben
History repeats itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History repeats itself... (Score:4, Insightful)
M$ has only themselves to blame for being in the position you posit.
They still aren't in compliance with documentation (Score:3, Insightful)
They still aren't in compliance with documentation from the original order. There are lots of functions for example that iexplore/explorer call which are not found in a search of MSDN, and really google fails for a lot of them - except returning one page complaining about the lack of documentation.
The explorer shell could be seen as part of the OS, but a web browser has no business calling undocumented functions. Too bad they tried to bundle the two. And it's also too bad that there is a lot of duplicated code among explorer.exe, browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll, and some others - I can't imagine trying to make a patch for this stuff. Instead of just making a documented API, they copy the code into all sorts of different places. And slightly differently I might add - so patching is not just a copy and paste job - it definitely has to be merged.
New Win7 Slogan (Score:2)
"We don't pay attention to users." -Gates
Because the DOJ knows that (Score:3, Funny)
Is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks to be a very interesting situation. MS being watched closely while Apple and F/OSS is not.
Should MS' new OS come up with a feature that is the only OS supporting a feature that is part of a newly regulated banking industry security system, how would that play out in court?
If the OS does not come up with anything new, and only adds performance hits, bloatware, and other usability problems, will the consumer throw off MS for other options? If that happens, can MS blame the government?
Somehow, I don't see this working out too well. Even if people just 'think' the government is putting in a super secret back door to spy with, MS' revenue stream will dry up fast. Foreign governments, banks, and businesses will not want that kind of spying going on in their data centers.
Knowing politicians and governments the way we do (when wearing tinfoil hats) if we know this much about how Windows7 is going to be developed, what do we NOT know?
I just don't see this as being good for the industry as a whole. A bad precedent, or so it looks.
Dear Mr. Mukasey: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux kernel in Windows 7 please.
Thanks.
At last! Microsoft seeks help! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
other people remember it differently .. (Score:3, Interesting)
"I think we should have to do even more cloning of Netscape [edge-op.org]
"In worst case scenario, Netscape will
"Java didn't take off because Sun didn't focus anywhere near enough effort early on into getting a fast interpreter"
"it becomes clear to me that the
Great (Score:4, Funny)
Government oversight.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes considering how astute government bureaucracies are I'm sure they'll really make a lot of difference
Government: We're having some issues with this 'notepad' program. You can't include it, it's anti-competitive.
Microsoft: Are you crazy?! Nobody uses that for actual word processing!
Government: That may be so, but including a word program with your operating system is unfair to the people who make MSOffice
Microsoft: Oh.. Okay... Well, what if we struck some sort of deal with the 'MSOffice' people as a gesture of good will? Maybe bundle their software with our OS?
Government: Why that sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm sure the MSOffice people would really appreciate such a brotherly gesture.
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Funny)
Pssst. DoJ had oversight of Vista, too, and it turned out just f...uhhh...oh. Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move along
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, this is how most government intervention works. They are very clever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh. That would be a good thing.
Microsoft used her portrait as a watermark on some of the old license certs, might as well use the language named in her honor. ;)
Am I the only one that thinks she was, well, kinda hot?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Interesting)
We can hate Microsoft but as a libertarian, I find this development scary. Getting the federal government involved in the design and manufacture of a product is unwarranted and is akin to precrime. The US Government should leave Microsoft's development of Windows 7 alone. If it turns out to have anti-competitive effects, then the government can punish Microsoft for it. Everyone may say that would be too little, too late, but preemptive strikes are un-American. (And besides, we can always break MS up if it keeps pushing out monopolistic products.)
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Insightful)
We can hate Microsoft but as a libertarian, I find this development scary. Getting the federal government involved in the design and manufacture of a product is unwarranted and is akin to precrime. The US Government should leave Microsoft's development of Windows 7 alone. If it turns out to have anti-competitive effects, then the government can punish Microsoft for it. Everyone may say that would be too little, too late, but preemptive strikes are un-American. (And besides, we can always break MS up if it keeps pushing out monopolistic products.)
As a republican, I find this sort of increased government intervention frightening.
darkmeridian has a great point, too--we can always break Microsoft up if the monopolistic policies do not stop. It would likely even be easier to separate than Ma Bell was in the 80s--Microsoft peripherals, Microsoft software, Microsoft gaming, etc etc.
Just my $0.02.
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Funny)
This was Clinton's doing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be noted that Robert Bork wrote a brief arguing in favor of the Justice Departments case against Microsoft. Robert Bork = The father of conservative legal theory, most notably pertaining to anti-trust as found in "The Antitrust Paradox".
BTW, the notion that someone like GW Bush who was hailed by all Republicans[back in 1999-2005 timeframe before his approval rating hit 28%] as being the Great Savior of Conservatism, is somehow no longer a Conservative is laughable. It reminds me of the Communist
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Insightful)
"We can hate Microsoft but as a libertarian, I find this development scary. "
That is okay I find libertarians scary.
This is part of the punishment that Microsoft received. A pretty ineffective one if you ask me but still one of them.
This isn't a precrime this is probation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Do you REALLY find Libertarians scary? I mean, in the sense that they want to change the status quo, they are scary... I'll go along with you on that. But Libertarians just want to bring us back to the ideals of the founding fathers of the country. Do you think that US independence was a bad idea too? Honestly?
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:4, Insightful)
bring us back to the ideals of the founding fathers of the country
Well, if those ideas are still good and pertinent ideas today, then bringing them back may be good. I don't give a hoot who came up with them though. If our founding fathers said that blacks should be slaves I would flatly disagree with them. Just because our founding fathers said something doesn't automatically make it worthy of being brought back.
But what scares me is political extremism. I don't think that *everything* should be privatized, nor do I think that businesses should have no government oversight or intervention (especially in the Day of Monopolies), though I have heard extreme libertarians say this stuff.
Extreme republicans and democrats are just as scary, IMO. Real solutions to real problems will not come from extremism, nor from blind acceptance of overbroad party-line solutions that apply quite well in economic/social/technological landscapes other than the one we have.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you SURE you know what the founding fathers wanted? I sure as hell don't, since it was 200+ years ago, and I'm not psychic. I do know, though, that they never read Ayn Rand, which seems to be the basis of most libertarian thoughts. We interpret history (and thus historical intentions) through the window of the present, and our intentions. Thus claiming you know their true intentions seems impossible, unless you can strip away all of the onus of the intervening history and your own psychology.
I know
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Funny)
Libertarians misuse US Independence (Score:3, Insightful)
Founding fathers did not intend to be interpreted the way they are interpreted now. Heck, they did not even intend "all men are create equal" to apply to blacks and women.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That statment and disconnect from reality show exactly why I find libertarians scary.
You must have been around some truly rabid Libertarian(s) or something...
That statment and disconnect from reality show exactly why I find libertarians scary. The "This is what the founding fathers meant" is just another from of rapping a political agenda in the flag.
Please point to me where I said the founding fathers were the keepers of the one true flame of Libertarian thought and ideology? Neither did I say that the Fathers set out for a Libertarian state, and therefore Libertarian ideology is sacrosanct. I was merely responding to your post that referred to the founding fathers and then how crazy Libertarianism is. Also, I do not understand your reasoning that because the US was not a 100
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a clue. There already is a free market for operating systems. There's Apple, for one. There are also hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that sell pre-built Linux and *BSD machines. Most people choose not to buy from those companies, and buy from companies that sell Window
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fine. If, as a libertarian, you don't want government meddling in a company like Microsoft, then I sure that, as a libertarian, you would be happy to remove all the government regulations that prop up a company like Microsoft; limited liability corporate status, for starters.
In this case, though, there is already a judgement against MSFT for antitrust violations, so it's not exactly "preemptive", it's more like Microsoft is on parole, and this is just part of the parole supervision.
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Insightful)
Once someone has been convicted of murder, they're put in jail until society can be reasonably sure they aren't going to do it again. The convict necessarily loses most or all of his freedoms until he regains society's trust.
While not murder, Microsoft (the corporate entity) has been convicted of anti-competitive behavior. I think it is entirely just for society to monitor them for a while to ensure they don't do it again. Think of it as a convict's probation period. Would a judge let a convicted murderer who feels their last murder was justified go without jail time or probation?
Microsoft's board has not admitted or acknowledged that they've committed anti-competitive acts; I think they still feel they've been unjustly treated by the DoJ. Saying we should just leave them alone and wait until they turn out something else that's anti-competitive is akin to saying we're not going to jail unrepentant murder convicts, not going to monitor them, and if they kill again, then we'll just tell them again that they shouldn't do that. That's not a deterrent!
Not to mention that Microsoft understands that some ethical/law violations make good business sense. They make more money by ignoring a law and paying the fines from the profits they reap than they would make by following the law. When an individual shows no scruples, we put them away. Why should a corporate entity be any different?
Re:I am _so_ calling this one: (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to get a monopoly is to provide better service than the competition.
Hah! If that were true, there'd be no need for antitrust legislation. However, the issue isn't really how they got the monopoly in the first place (it was pretty much handed to them by IBM). The laws that they broke, and are being supervised to make sure they don't break them again, are laws that are intended to prevent a monopoly from abusing its monopoly status to either maintain or expand into other areas its monopoly without providing better service than the competition. You know, things like product-tying, questionable vendor pre-load contracts, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that Windows Vista is the ultimate in "New Coke" plans?
Re:Death Knell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I predict doom, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
I see Ubuntu as overtaking Windows slowly. It's a long time coming but the momentum just seems to be on their side. When the OS is given away free, the development and evolution of the product is really, really fast and everybody is up-to-date vs. Windows Model of just security updates for X amount of years and then an upgrade that only a portion of the users get that may or may not be well recieved.
Vista really showed the flaws in the old, monolithic process of Microsoft's. I hope Windows 7 will be bett
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
What does government oversight of Windows 7 have to do with making viruses harder to spread?