This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
believe this pertains to linux-kernel.
From: Rick Hohensee <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Microsoft's word
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: [email protected]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
I get the impression that parties tasked with remedying the Microsoft
situation may be receptive to suggestions such as this one, the opinion of
an independant programmer, on the matter of what is likely to work.
Possible actions I've seen mentioned are variously flawed, for example
providing relief to narrow sectors for damage that has been quite difuse.
Simply taking Microsoft at thier word would be appropriate, and would
probably be appropriately massively remedial.
I suggest that Microsoft operating system products be surrendered to the
public domain, including all sourcecode required to verifiably build
exact copies of the entire operating system products, no more than five
years after thier market release dates, on a continuing permanent basis.
This is what a remedy to be asserted upon a Microsoft must be; simple.
Rather than interfering with Microsoft innovation, this mechanism would
mandate the birth of it. This may actually be relatively attractive to
Microsoft. This avoids government micromanagement, mecrifully sparing
Microsoft of the sorts of stupifying effects they themselves have lavished
on so many others. This puts Microsoft in competition with thier own past,
without a breakup or other questionable complications.
Parties that are otherwise distinct from Microsoft may have contributed
components to Windows or MSDos under non-disclosure agreements. Any such
parties should be expected to comply with the remedy immediately, having
been part of and parcel to the problem being remedied. It is questionable
whether non-disclosure agreements with the habitually unlawful are
supportable. Similar questions pertain to software patents in such
cirrcumstances. If any such parties have a grievance, it is with
Microsoft.
A five year window is more than ample for a great innovator, and more than
Microsoft deserves. Nobody uses five year old Linux, for example, which
has changed a lot in five years, despite being based on UNIX, which
existed twelve years before MSDos. A competent software company can easily
thrive under such conditions. 3M, as another example, maintains a business
strategy of turning over it's product lineup by 20% a year, in much less
flexible industries than software. Assuming timely enforcement, Windows 95
and I believe early versions of Windows NT would become public property
immediately. The on-going involvement of the government would be fairly
constrained, assuming timely compliance by Microsoft. The government would
maintain the initial distribution site for the surrendered software,
verify that the surrendered sourcecode builds the products exactly as they
were sold, and verify that surrendered software reflects the entirety of
the operating system products as sold five years earlier.
Rick Hohensee
Maryland
http://www.clienux.com
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:39:58AM -0400, Rick Hohensee wrote:
[mostly snipped]
> A five year window is more than ample for a great innovator, and more than
> Microsoft deserves. Nobody uses five year old Linux, for example, which
sure they do. often in situations where no upgrade has been necessary
and the server in question has worked without issues for years.
> constrained, assuming timely compliance by Microsoft. The government would
> maintain the initial distribution site for the surrendered software,
> verify that the surrendered sourcecode builds the products exactly as they
> were sold, and verify that surrendered software reflects the entirety of
> the operating system products as sold five years earlier.
and precisely whose taxes are going to pay for this? "NOT MINE!", i
hear you say. i can't see any american government doing something that
could potentially benefit people in other countries, at no cost to those
others... warm+fuzzy feelings just don't cut it in politics.
j.
--
"Bobby, jiggle Grandpa's rat so it looks alive, please" -- gary larson
Rick Hohensee wrote:
>
>
> I suggest that Microsoft operating system products be surrendered to the
> public domain, including all sourcecode required to verifiably build
> exact copies of the entire operating system products, no more than five
> years after thier market release dates, on a continuing permanent basis.
>
Five years is a long time. Sources for windows 1996 anyone?
> This is what a remedy to be asserted upon a Microsoft must be; simple.
> Rather than interfering with Microsoft innovation, this mechanism would
> mandate the birth of it.
Nope. It might cause microsoft to ensure that nothing remains backward
compatible for as much as five years. True innovation is one way,
obfuscation and needless interface changes and standards
breakage/"extension"
is the easier route. What tends to happen when a competitor implements
some popular standard better than ms does?
> This may actually be relatively attractive to Microsoft.
Perhaps, but not to others, for the above mentioned reasons.
Helge Hafting
Helge Hafting <[email protected]> writes:
>Nope. It might cause microsoft to ensure that nothing remains backward
>compatible for as much as five years. True innovation is one way,
>obfuscation and needless interface changes and standards
>breakage/"extension"
>is the easier route. What tends to happen when a competitor implements
>some popular standard better than ms does?
We may find this out for .NET and Ximian.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
> believe this pertains to linux-kernel.
Sorry. I do believe this is your third troll in 2 weeks.
Have you stopped working on clienux and devoted your time
to trolling? ;)
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to [email protected] (spam digging piggy)
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>
> > This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
> > believe this pertains to linux-kernel.
>
> Sorry. I do believe this is your third troll in 2 weeks.
>
> Have you stopped working on clienux and devoted your time
> to trolling? ;)
The world is ready for the Linux community to speak on this matter. I have
spoken.
Also, it's unfortunate that it has taken these sorts of things for Linux
people to spell cLIeNUX and my name correctly, rather than things like
DFSH and an in-kernel interpreter.
Rick Hohensee
http://www.clienux.com
>
> Rik
> --
> Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
> However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
>
> http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
>
> Send all your spam to [email protected] (spam digging piggy)
>
Rick Hohensee writes:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> >
> > > This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
> > > believe this pertains to linux-kernel.
> >
> > Sorry. I do believe this is your third troll in 2 weeks.
> >
> > Have you stopped working on clienux and devoted your time
> > to trolling? ;)
>
> The world is ready for the Linux community to speak on this matter. I have
> spoken.
You have spoken . . . in a place where the kind of discussion you're
trying to have is completely off-topic. This mailing list is for the
discussion directly relating to Linux kernel development -- not general
Linux questions, not Linux advocacy issues, and absolutely not anything
related to Microsoft. Quit interfering with the intended purpose of
this mailing list.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> >
> > > This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
> > > believe this pertains to linux-kernel.
> >
> > Sorry. I do believe this is your third troll in 2 weeks.
> >
> > Have you stopped working on clienux and devoted your time
> > to trolling? ;)
>
> The world is ready for the Linux community to speak on this matter. I
> have spoken.
Sounds like you may have wanted to ask slashdot instead
of linux-kernel.
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to [email protected] (spam digging piggy)