Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 19, 2003 12:43 AM
Nice post!
I agree with you about the reasons to feel optimistic.
However, we must not let our guard down. Microsoft is still dangerous.
Microsoft's next version of Windows is going to have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, DRM, and Palladium built in. The browser and e-mail will be integrated, and nothing will run on it unless permitted by Microsoft (and any competing products that are allowed to run will be running in Palladium-controlled "flaky" mode, to pressure users into switching).
These clients won't run Java, and the only way to provide a fully interactive Internet service to them will be to use Microsoft software at the server end.
Microsoft will manage to convince some media companies to buy into Microsoft DRM. Those companies won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the money.
Microsoft will try to buy legislation that makes DRM a legal requirement. The politicians involved won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the campaign contributions.
In this way, Microsoft will try to enforce the use of Microsoft software on both the client and server ends. Remember that Microsoft is not in the software business -- they don't work by competition. Instead, Microsoft is in the extortion and protection business -- they work by force, they sabotage your alternatives, they lock up your data and communications and prevent what you want to do unless you do it through them. In the past, they managed this through control of the OS and its protocols. This time they'll try to use government legislation, and control of Internet protocols.
I agree with you that we are in fairly good shape at the moment. Despite Microsoft's efforts to pollute the Internet with Windows-only protocols for audio, video, document formats, and so on, they have made little progress. As you say, the Internet is still governed by mostly open standards, and non-Microsoft server and communications software.
I agree that Microsoft faces an uphill battle. Even without the forces of good working against them, it will still take time to produce the next version of Windows, then convince people to use it, and then to convince companies to support it with Microsoft software at the server end. In each step, we have both inertia and Microsoft's basic level of incompetence working in our favor.
Nevertheless, Microsoft will not stop pushing, and they will succeed eventually, unless we can increase the percentage of non-Microsoft client software on the Internet.
That means increasing the use of non-Microsoft browsers, such as Mozilla. It means increasing the use of non-Microsoft platforms, such as Linux, or OS/X. And so on. (It also means watching out for sneak-attack lock-ins, for example, will Flash be tied to Windows?)
Microsoft also knows that, in order for their scheme to succeed, they must prevent the growth of Linux on the desktop. That's why they've turned up their FUD campaign against Linux. It's also why SCO, at Microsoft's bidding, is playing their IP card, despite the fact that their hand is so weak. SCO's lawsuit is not expected to win any money (SCO's executives have already been paid), rather, it is only intended to slow down the growth of Linux to give Microsoft more time.
Do I believe that good is going to win, and the Internet will remain open? Yes I do, but it is going to be a tough battle, and it is too soon for us to relax. Like it or not, Microsoft has declared war on us, and we need to continue to fight their lock-in schemes, and push Linux and other alternatives. We need to do this until Microsoft's near-monopoly on the desktop has been reduced to just one choice among many.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Nevertheless, we need to fight
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 19, 2003 12:43 AMI agree with you about the reasons to feel optimistic.
However, we must not let our guard down. Microsoft is still dangerous.
Microsoft's next version of Windows is going to have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, DRM, and Palladium built in. The browser and e-mail will be integrated, and nothing will run on it unless permitted by Microsoft (and any competing products that are allowed to run will be running in Palladium-controlled "flaky" mode, to pressure users into switching).
These clients won't run Java, and the only way to provide a fully interactive Internet service to them will be to use Microsoft software at the server end.
Microsoft will manage to convince some media companies to buy into Microsoft DRM. Those companies won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the money.
Microsoft will try to buy legislation that makes DRM a legal requirement. The politicians involved won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the campaign contributions.
In this way, Microsoft will try to enforce the use of Microsoft software on both the client and server ends. Remember that Microsoft is not in the software business -- they don't work by competition. Instead, Microsoft is in the extortion and protection business -- they work by force, they sabotage your alternatives, they lock up your data and communications and prevent what you want to do unless you do it through them. In the past, they managed this through control of the OS and its protocols. This time they'll try to use government legislation, and control of Internet protocols.
I agree with you that we are in fairly good shape at the moment. Despite Microsoft's efforts to pollute the Internet with Windows-only protocols for audio, video, document formats, and so on, they have made little progress. As you say, the Internet is still governed by mostly open standards, and non-Microsoft server and communications software.
I agree that Microsoft faces an uphill battle. Even without the forces of good working against them, it will still take time to produce the next version of Windows, then convince people to use it, and then to convince companies to support it with Microsoft software at the server end. In each step, we have both inertia and Microsoft's basic level of incompetence working in our favor.
Nevertheless, Microsoft will not stop pushing, and they will succeed eventually, unless we can increase the percentage of non-Microsoft client software on the Internet.
That means increasing the use of non-Microsoft browsers, such as Mozilla. It means increasing the use of non-Microsoft platforms, such as Linux, or OS/X. And so on. (It also means watching out for sneak-attack lock-ins, for example, will Flash be tied to Windows?)
Microsoft also knows that, in order for their scheme to succeed, they must prevent the growth of Linux on the desktop. That's why they've turned up their FUD campaign against Linux. It's also why SCO, at Microsoft's bidding, is playing their IP card, despite the fact that their hand is so weak. SCO's lawsuit is not expected to win any money (SCO's executives have already been paid), rather, it is only intended to slow down the growth of Linux to give Microsoft more time.
Do I believe that good is going to win, and the Internet will remain open? Yes I do, but it is going to be a tough battle, and it is too soon for us to relax. Like it or not, Microsoft has declared war on us, and we need to continue to fight their lock-in schemes, and push Linux and other alternatives. We need to do this until Microsoft's near-monopoly on the desktop has been reduced to just one choice among many.
#