Re: no Java in XP Windows

Responses in line.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Taylor" <jtaylor@rpg2java.com>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: no Java in XP Windows


>
> Ok, now you're talking about a lot more than simply breaking the company
up.
> You're talking about some specific court imposed restrictions on how they
do
> business; namely:
>
> 1) Bundling for marketing purposes.
> 2) Opening up the API.

I don't think there is any reason to have court restrictions in these areas.

> For example, how does a court determine what constitutes an "application",
> from an extension of an operating system? The TCP/IP stack itself was once
> sold as a separate application for Windows. Does that mean that Windows
> shouldn't have networking protocols built in? Even if we really stretch
here
> and assume that Windows is effectively frozen with it's current feature
set
> and everything new must be sold as a separate application, what's to stop
> "MS Office Co." from doing the bundling instead of MS Windows Co.? Another
> lawsuit?

Interestingly, this is the exact same example used by Bill Gates to attack
the split up. The TCP/IP stack.

Now, maybe Windows shouldn't have the TCP/IP stack built in. I agree this is
a tough call. But let me ask you, do you suppose this is free? Do you
suppose the cost for developing and improving that stack is taken from the
dividend checks of the stockholders?

I suspect that although the TCP/IP stack is bundled within Windows that
there is a cost associated with it that is passed within the cost of the OS
to us the consumer. So what if there was a competing TCP/IP stack developed
by Bob's Programming Warehouse that was as good a fit but a better price.
Shouldn't it get some consideration?

Drawing the line for that is difficult. But, with the amount of illegal
manipulation of the market that has gone on over the last two decades, it
does seem that some remedy is in order. One of the reasons the break up is a
preferable solution is that it will require far less government oversite
than if there is no breakup.


> Depending upon the API to solve the problem is equally fruitless; there
are
> too many technical tricks that can be played behind the public interface
of
> an API. Moreover, are we really naive enough to believe that MS Office Co.
> won't get an advance copy of any new API, so that they're first to market
> with support for each new version of Windows?

I am not sure why we would be naive to believe this. What exactly would be
MS OS Co.'s incentive to provide one application vendor with better support
than other vendors?

The point of the split up is to reach two seperate companies. If they become
(over time) two actually separate companies, then we will have an actual
competing marketplace and room for new companies to enter and compete in the
marketplace.

> Your final point was that a separate applications company would have to
look
> at porting to alternate platforms, based on profitability. But why? Is the
> court now running this new company? If Billy G. and gang own both
companies,
> then they're naturally going to make decisions based on what's best for
the
> entire empire, no matter how many different ways you carve it up.

Not so. First, sure, Bill G. owns 20%, but he would probably be prohibited
from chairing the board at both companies. Second, if the company ever made
decisions based on the "overall empire" rather than any one company, they
would be open to lawsuits from their stockholders. So, if a guy like me
owned a hundred or so shares of MS OS Co., and they seemed to be giving
preferential treatment to MS App. Co., then they would be cheating me as a
stockholder. I can then sue the board and the officers.

> In the end, all of this is rather academic anyway, since the current Bush
> administration is already bought and paid for. Your chances of even
slowing
> down MS died with your last election.

I think this is pretty far off base, considering that the two judges that
Microsoft has blown out so far were the two most likely to be favorable to
them. Judge Sporkin was the judge they preferred most. He decided that the
original consent decree wasn't strong enough and that more should be done to
stop Microsoft's illegal practices. Immediately after he made this statement
and refused to sign the consent decree, Bill Gates met in Washington with
Bill Clinton, and then with Al Gore. The next week Sporkin was removed from
the case and the most conservative and Microsoft friendly justice possible
was placed on the case. That judge is Thomas Jackson, the one just removed
for his statements about what criminals Microsoft is.

The bottom line is that any judge who looks into this case at depth is
deeply offended by the practices of Microsoft and saying that this
administration is the problem ignores the behavior of the last
administration.

The idea of a breakup isn't that it will suddenly make all the world okay.
It is that it opens the door to a competitive marketplace. It will take
time, but the other two choices are to let things keep going like this (and
I don't like that as a consumer) or to have the feds regulate Microsoft (and
I don't like that as a consumer).

> John Taylor

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---