Well, certainly no shortage of content fodder for this day. In fact, I have two major topics to cover today, one involving a very big current news item, and the other was a fairly specific request which I received via email from one of the readers this morning.

Now, the level of seriousness intended in this request was somewhat debatable, but I have decided that I will give it the full Random Ramblings (tm) style treatment. After all, isn't it true that we, members of the clan of obsessive web content writers, upon uploading that first html file, took a solomn vow to do everything in our power to entertain the readership? Yes? That sentence parsed? Its contents made sense? Am I right? Good. :)

Therefore, these things SHALL BE DONE! But first, let's do the current news. Then, I'll submit this rambling. Then, I shall go eat some sustenance. (Wouldn't want to forget about eating now, would we?) THEN, I shall return, begin another rambling, and from there, all hell just might break loose. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Alrighty then. Now that the To Do list has been laid out, and all contingencies decided (hah!), let the plan be executed!

As I'm sure all but the cave dwellers in Timbuktu are aware of by now, Judge Jackson has made his ruling in the Microsoft trial. And quite the ruling it is. Everyone, along with his dog, her cat, and the neighbor's parakeet, are sure to have some sort of opinion about this, so I figure I may as well do my part in adding to the fray.

Before addressing the specifics of the ruling, a preliminary comment or two. First, no matter how this ruling had turned out, I don't think there would have been cause to celebrate. When it comes to Microsoft versus the government, it's a lose-lose situation. Microsoft wins? We (as in the general public) lose. Government wins? We lose. IMO, the best bet anyone can make is to avoid both entities at all costs whenever possible. They'll both try to fuck you over, and neither will have any remorse. This ruling does not change that.

Now, to cover a few of the major points of the ruling, and my reaction to them:

• The separation of the Operating Systems Business from the Applications Business.

  Well, I guess this is what a lot of people were expecting. Will it really do any good? Someone has already pointed out to me that this will do little or nothing to curb the OS monopoly which so plagues the industry. The company that keeps the OS will still have just as much market share with an exclusive right to license Windows. True enough.

  What this does do -- especially when used in combination with some of the other remedies I'll get to in a minute -- is effectively keep Microsoft from using the OS to shaft Windows lusers into having to put up with other Microsoft products. It should also provide some relief against the much-derided undocumented APIs, which have excluded competitors from making apps that interact with the OS as smoothly as Microsoft's. I think we're all fairly aware of these techniques they've used, so I won't go into excruciating detail explaining them.

  You can also read for yourself the details on how things are to be split, along with who gets IE. (Short answer: Both, but the OS people are prohibited from "innovating" it into an incompatible version, or adding to it at all, for that matter.) Next item...

• Provisions Implementing Divestiture

  Yadda yadda yadda. They're not allowed to merge back together, buy each other's stock, or share info back and forth. Pretty obvious, given the overall ruling.

  Oh, but one thing I found interesting in this section:

  Throughout the term of this Final Judgment, Microsoft, the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business shall be prohibited from taking adverse action against any person or entity in whole or in part because such person or entity provided evidence in this case.

  In other words, they're not allowed to act like the mafia! Well, hallelujah! lol. I just find it funny that the judge felt this item needed to be explicitly laid out. As IF they would ever do anything so sinister. No, not Microsoft! Innocent little innovators that they are. Why, I'm sure it never even crossed their minds. Heehee. };>

• OEM Relations. Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products.

  Ok, now THIS is a big one, and it is effective until the earlier of 3 years after the split, or the expiration of the Final Judgement (whenever that is). Basicly, they're prohibited from taking adverse action against OEMs who sells competing products. Again, it's almost silly, like making an explicit law to prohibit mafia-like behavior, but THIS is the kind of shit Microsoft HAS been doing! Ever heard of Compaq being threatened with no Windows licenses if they chose to put Netscape on users' desktops (back when Netscape was owned by Netscape)? Insanity, I say!

  Remember all those Coke/Pepsi analogies Microsoft PR people used to draw? How's this: What if Coke threatens to withhold their products from any grocery stores which sell Pepsi? It sounds ridiculous, but that's the equivilant of what was going on. This part of the ruling makes a lot of sense to me.

  It goes on to spell out more details, such as prohibiting Microsoft from giving discounts based on whether someone uses a competitor's product, etc, etc.

• OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration.

  Now here, we see the ties which have been placed around the hands of OEMs who choose to license Windows being greatly loosened. Now, OEMs will get to put what they want on the desktops they sell. Of course, I might point out that OEMs smart enough to sell LINUX desktops have had this option since the beginning of time. :)

• Disclosure of APIs

  Well, goodie goodie. If this can actually be enforced, it will be a windfall for all those struggling idio^H^H^H^H programmers who trying to write software for Windows.

  This clause requiring a "secure facility" where other parties can examine the relevant source code and documentation to make their products work is rather curious. I am skeptical as to the helpfulness of this, because (a) how many small time developers are going to have the time and/or money to travel to this "secure facility". Seems like only the big corps would really have the potential to benefit, and (b) I would immediately suspect that Microsoft would do everything in its power to keep this as obscure and unhelpful as possible. OTOH, it might just be better than what we've had. Might.

• Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product...

  Well, we know there's ample justification for this part of the judgement. Can anyone say, "DR DOS"? Good. I knew you could.

• Developer Relations.

  Microsoft doesn't get to punish people for developing things on non-Windows platforms.

Ok, I'm going long here, so I'll just summarize: Microsoft doesn't get to continue with its dirty little tricks of trying to exclude others from the market by offering rewards and threatening retaliation against those who want to deal with competitors.

Oh, and another interesting bit: Microsoft isn't allowed to jack up the price of Windows products when new versions come out. I'm not exactly sure on the reasoning behind this one, but there it is.

After that, the rest is basicly about how a bureaucracy will be setup within Microsoft to enforce all these rulings. I'm sure that if I was an employee there, I would hate it. But really, how else is the court going to enforce its decision?

Alright, final thought, and then I'm gonna go eat:

Overall, I think that what is laid out in the ruling is good. If people had been smart, Microsoft would NEVER have gotten into a position where it could impose such a draconian empire over an entire industry. If the masses had said, "billg, you can take your crashy pile of shit and go to hell", we wouldn't be having this dilemma. If OEMs, way back in the early 90s, had said, "We will not agree to such insane licensing restrictions. Our business is going elsewhere", they wouldn't have been forced to put doing what Microsoft tells them.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. People do not think long term. They take the candy that is dangled in front of their faces, and to hell with the consequences five years down the road. Greed. Blind, unthinking greed. I personally am guilty of it. And yes, I personally am guilty of having willingly put money into the coffers of Redmond. So when I criticize the masses, I must criticize myself as well. Let's face it people: We were STUPID to help them get this big.

And now, the government comes in to try and tear down this monstrosity, but it might be bringing with it a monstrosity all its own. Will it make things better? Will it make things worse? We may never know how it could have been, had the other path been taken.

I would like to have seen the populace buck this beast without government's help, by people finding better alternatives on their own. (I even recall writing a paper about it long, long ago. ;) ) Would the masses have done this eventually anyway if the court had not intervened? I guess now we'll never know.