I whole-heartedly agree with Paul. I'd already been aware of the deadline because of the Samba site -- another site with a clear interest in MS affairs. I highly recommend reading the page they link to, http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3952/1/ . It has much good info and many good suggestions. In the letter I wrote, I tried to be as informative and objective as possible... though I've never claimed to be objective about MS, not, at least, since NT came out, and still sucked. For the hell of it, I've included a copy of my letter -- by no means a perfect document, believe me, but I figure that every little bit helps. Please feel free to swipe anything that anyone thinks might be of use.
-Ken On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 09:44, Paul Lussier wrote: > > In case you haven't seen /. this morning, this page was linked to > from it: > > http://www.codeweavers.com/~jwhite/tunney.html > From: Ken D'Ambrosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Remedies for Microsoft antitrust suit. Date: 08 Jan 2002 11:29:43 -0500 Being as it currently appears that no settlement will occur, I felt it in my, and my industry's, best interests to express my feelings with regards to Microsoft, their actions, and some potential remedies. First and foremost, let me explain that I have been a system administrator for close to 20 years, and have had in-depth experience with most every operating system that Microsoft has released, since and including DOS 2.0 and Windows 1.0. In all that time, I have seen relatively little of the much-vaunted "innovation" that Microsoft claims. For example, it was only when Digital Research's DR-DOS had clearly surpassed DOS 3.x's capabilities (partition size, full-screen editor, etc.) that Microsoft enhanced their own version of DOS (4.01 and 5.0 addressed the two above issues, respectively). It was also during the beta phase of Windows 3.1, however, that they caused DR-DOS' own operating system to crash when attempting to run Windows (1). While I certainly can't criticize a company for attempting to make money, I can when I believe they are hurting the consumers they purport to help. I have seen Microsoft attempt this, time and again, when Microsoft intentionally obfuscates file formats(2), communications protocols, and API interactions, not to mention the explicit desire to sabotage competition with said practices(3). Finally, some of their latest legal shenanigans include a case against Lindows (www.lindows.com), a Linux/Windows hybrid. It contends that Lindows infringes on Microsoft's trademark of "Windows"(4). I, personally, find it abhorrent that Windows, a descriptive name if ever I heard one, was able to be trademarked in the first place, and certainly find nothing wrong with combining the first half of the word "Linux" with the second half of the word "Windows": I find it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would become confused in any way about this -- certainly no moreso than Windows, itself, would become confused with the previously trademarked windowing system for Unix, X Windows(5). So, given a history of consistent, persistent abuses -- many more of which I have failed to discuss (eg. Stac Software vs. Microsoft), but would willingly do so upon request -- I humbly submit that only pervasive, unarguable remedies will cause Microsoft to alter its behavior. - In order for alternative operating systems (eg., Linux, or the now defunct BeOS) to be viable from a price perspective, new computer purchases should have the operating system cost be seperated out from the cost of the system as a whole. That way, the consumer is aware of what he is paying for, and what alternatives would truly cost, instead of merely purchasing a bundled system, and having no idea how much money is being spent on software. - Microsoft uses much that is proprietary in their system, which can then, in turn, lock out competitors from creating competing programs. (The fact that Microsoft has the best-selling operating system with an embedded web browser, and the best-selling office software suite, gives them an almost airtight stranglehold on what is essentially a self-contained system.) Therefore, I recommend that all proprietary formats, protocols, etc., be opened: the API, itself, file formats for all (non-licensed) applications, communications protocols, and anything else that would hinder competitors from being on a level playing field when writing applications for the Windows platform. Being that I am (obviously) a lay person, please forgive my relative ignorance of pertinent law and/or guidelines for submission, but I felt it important that I take the time to comment, and give some background. Thank you for your time, Ken D'Ambrosio Sr. System Administrator, Xanoptix, Inc. 1) See Caldera vs. Microsoft (http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/lineo1_10_00.html), which was settled out of court, but which was documented quite well by the respected industry journal "Dr. Dobbs Magazine", as well as "Red Herring" (http://www.tbtf.com/archive/0159.html#s02). 2) http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20001225_99.html#5, look for paragraph starting "Elsewhere, Jeff V. M. added..." 3) http://winnetou.lcd.lu/halloween1.html#_Toc427495714 4) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/20/237217&mode=thread 5) http://www.x.org/terms.htm, bottom of page. ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
