Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Crime, but no punishment for M$

Filed under
Microsoft

Who's in charge of a system where the guilty set their own sentence?

You've been swindled. The conman is caught and brought to trial. Guilty, says the jury. "Guilty, by Jove!" says the judge. "As this is by no means your first offence, I sentence you to... well, what would you like?"

"How about forcing me to buy a new suit?", says the criminal. "I've got the money. Business has been good. And if you could hurry up, I've got a lot on my plate."

As the swindled party, how would you feel?

Better get used to that feeling. This is what's playing out in the European Commission. Microsoft has been found guilty of abuse of its position - as it was in America, remember - on activities that have given millions of people a bad deal and crippled sectors of the IT industry. Yet it and the EC are negotiating away any hint of effective action.

Take Windows XP N, the version of XP without the Media Player. By allowing Microsoft to offer this at the same price as full XP, the EC has ensured that Microsoft will not only suffer no loss of revenue whatsoever - not a single penny - but can say "Look! No demand!" when everyone else ignores it. If that's a punishment, we're the Bolshoi Ballet.

And server interoperability, where Microsoft has also been found guilty of using its IP to illegally lock people out, is still being discussed. Why? What is wrong with saying that Microsoft has forfeited its right to that IP, such as it is, by egregious abuse, and it will immediately open it up or be hit with those seven figure daily fines?

Watching the conman shake hands with the judge, you may wonder what's going on between those two.

Let's look at Microsoft's modus operandi under pressure.

Full Article.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more