File: DOJ_MS.TXT           Guy Dunphy           10 Jan 1998



              DOJ vs MS  -  I've changed my mind!



When I heard of the DOJ lawsuit against Microsoft for anti-competetive

practices, my first reflex was to cheer on the DOJ. Especially since I

can't stand the way MS is trying to sew their lousy Windows OS and their

crappy Web browser IE into some sort of Frankenstein 'info-monster'.

Not to mention that I'd like to see MS suffer for all the other evil

things they've done, and all the time I've personally wasted while

attempting to do usefull work with (in spite of) MS software.



But on deeper consideration, I see that there are problems with the

idea that the US government can somehow punch MS in the kisser and make

things better for us.



* Government in general, and the US government in particular, is an even

  deeper enemy of citizen-owned computer power than MS. Think of their

  stand on encryption as munitions, the clipper chip and key escrow,

  censoring the net, FBI/CIA/NSA eavesdropping net nodes, legislation to

  empower government agencies to crack down on net services at will (CDA)

  under the guise of stopping pornography/child abuse/drug traffickers/pick

  your own boogyman.

  Allowing the government to dictate to the major (or any) software supplier

  is _bad_ (regardless of how bad that supplier or their code is already.)

  A DOJ win against Microsoft will be a foot in the door for government

  regulation of computer operating systems and networking software in

  general. Disaster!



* If Microsoft is 'regulated', those who are still silly enough to respect 

  government will think that the 'MS threat' has been averted. But this will

  not be so. Bill Gates is wiley, and 'the dominant OS' is an excellent

  vehicle for subtle long term strategic goals. MS (even if ostensibly

  fragmented) will always be a powerful and dangerous force. Besides, how

  exactly _do_ you force a company to split into independently acting and

  competing components, in this age of instant communication and encrypted

  emails?

  The sole practical effect of any sort of regulation is likely to be the

  engendering of a false sense of security among naive computer users.



* Regulated or not, MS will continue to be a major supplier of computer

  operating systems for some time, unless there develops a popular movement

  to build and use a real alternative OS, _outside_ the economic and legal

  system in which MS is so adept.

  To put it bluntly, such a movement will never develop unless the pain

  and damage being caused by Microsoft becomes far more extreme than it

  is now.



Yet left to its own devices, MS is doomed by its own ethos (which is

rooted in the personality of its founder) to become very, _very_ bad.

Bad enough to cause a virtual social revolution. And _that_, is an

urgent and essential development. (See the Everist Manifesto - at

http://www.zip.com.au/~guyd/everism/index.htm)

So its best we leave MS to get on with going bad, but keep the government

out of the act. If the government does become seriously involved in the

OS business, things will still go bad, but they have guns and gaols to

back them up. Which makes it difficult to tell them to go take a hike.



Whereas we can all choose to simply de-install Microsoft anytime we like.

Instant citizen initiated referendum!