[Sussex] 'nuff said

[steve at dobson.org]

Hi Geoff

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:02:07PM +0000, Geoff Teale wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 15:26, steve at dobson.org wrote:
<snip>
> 2/ 
> The proceedings that followed happened under the stewardship of the
> present US government who feel that is acceptable to risk peoples lives
> in Iraq for oil and sell of the infrastructure of the country to US
> contractor; to destroy America's national parks for oil; to destroy the
> Florida coastline (America's biggest tourist resort) for oil; ...<snip>

I agree that the USA is far to dependant on oil.  Too far off topic even
for me :-)  So I'll shut up

> As for the EU punishment, well the profits Microsoft have made over the
> last 10-15 years are huge.  It may be hard to say how different these
> profits would have been if Microsoft had acted within the law, but it is
> likely that the true figure would be in terms of hundreds of billions of
> dollars

But Microsoft has also spent a lot of money.  I don't know how much they have
in the bank.  The fine has to be seen in terms of the money Microsoft has
available.

> > >  - give proprietary access to Microsoft software.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> 
> Force them to publish API's/Source so that competitors have the same
> access to the platform as Microsoft do.

This is what I saw as the point below - fine - I'll live with that.
 
> > >  - lock out competitors through proprietary file formats, API's or
> > > communication protocols.
> > 
> > Opening up internal APIs would be a real step forward for competitors to 
> > M$ on M$ platforms.  It might also show the security holes in M$ internals.
> > If those holes are in the APIs then publishing the APIs could make the virus
> > writer's job easier.
> 
> I think that the security by obscurity idea is well established as being
> "bunk and hokum".

This is not what I meant.  "[S]curity by obscurity" I agree is flawed.  Having
a secret encryption method is an "security by obscurity".  GPG (and PGP for that
mater) is based on sound maths that are know to all (even if they are only
understood by a few).  Here security is in the keys chosen by the users, knowing
the maths is not enough to break a message.

The security I was talking about yesterday is that of insecure API calls where
the OS is not checking that the caller has the rights to do something, or that
the protocol of such API calls allows the application to modify cookies in some
way to gain more power.
 
> When we truly separate the costs?  Maybe £100-£200 cheaper.  It is
> likely that Windows licenses will become more expensive as a result (as
> OEM sales is one of two profitable Microsoft divisions).

I'm not sure this will happen like this.  Big OEM deals with Dell and the 
like are likely to see lowish OS costs from them.  It's more likely that the
small high street retailer will see higher costs but not be able to pass them
on because of the cheaper price of the big box shifters.
 
> This is exactly the action that Israel has taken for government
> agencies.  There is no need to ban support by third parties - only
> further sales of MS products and services.  I don't see it happening,
> but it is necessary to prescribe such a penalty to enforce compliance. 
> Microsoft has a record of ignoring court decisions and paying the fines
> - the threat has to be something more than a fine!

God, the cure sounds worse than the disease.  Having to go to the likes of
EDS for WIndows support.  I may not like want Microsoft do, but I do believe
that they have some very cleaver people working for them.  From my dealings
with them in the past and from what you've said EDS are just a bunch of
winkers [misprint :-)].

> No.. but the labour party (like the tories before them) have a very
> unhealthy relationship with big business, and the idea that Bill Gates
> gets a knighthood for "creating employment" is a joke to anyone with
> even the most basic grasp on the economics of a monopoly.  As has been
> noted by many people this is more about the Labour party gearing up for
> the next election.

I agree that big business and governments have a bad relationship as fare
as the "man in the street" is concerned.  But on mass we "the men in the 
streets" have more power if, and only if we band together.  If all the
F/OSS advocates where to gather in London and walk past Westminster then
I bet you that the MPs inside would sit up and take note.

Yes, big business can court MPs with expensive campaigns (the term kickback
never entered by head) but I still say that we have more power (as a mob).
Because before an MP can get access to the big business gravy train they
first have to convince us to give them our vote.

> What you might say is that we have much more experience of Empire than
> the US does....   I of course couldn't possibly comment ;)

But I will :-)

Has has been pointed out to me (not in this group) the US does not go in
for empire building, that is not their model.  But they do have a pseudo-
empire in the influence they have over the rest of the world.

However,  I feel that the average American is not prepared to take the
responsibility that comes with being a superpower.  This was not true of
empires before (British, French, Roman, ...).  And that is where the 
problem of the US lie.

> The US is unlikely to stamp on Microsoft so long as it is one of the
> largest funders of both major political parties.

I don't agree.  The US judiciary is independent from the two political
parties.  Yes, the parties can influence by who they appoint, but
appointees have in the past turned on their appointers, not often true
but they have.

If enough evidence of illegal practices is brought to bear then the US 
judiciary will have to do something.

Steve

P.S. Looking forward to tonight, its been to long since the last one.