Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system [LWN.net]

Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

Posted Jan 24, 2024 15:01 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system by paulj
Parent article: Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

My memory is MS actually had to provide a version of OEM Windows with IE unbundled/removed to vendors who wanted it. The library might still have been there, but there wasn't an IE app.

One of the reasons for the suit being that Netscape had had deals with PC makers to ship PCs with Netscape installed, which then became awkward / suboptimal when MS bundled IE and made it hard to set other browsers as default (fully). The ruling provided some relief on that. I don't know if many vendors went for that unbundled OEM version though - 1 did I thought, but that's my vague recollection. Part of how they got away with so little punishment was the Clinton admin got replaced by Bush.

Did it address all the issues, did it right all wrongs MS did with anti-competitive behaviours? No. But it did damage their reputation, it did put some kind of check on them, and it was the catalyst for further competition law investigations and restrictions put on them. E.g., the EU required them to open up protocol specs, and stop stymying projects such as Samba. They also got a massive fine and had to unbundle WMP cause of EU actions.

Things would certainly be much much worse now if MS had been left completely unchecked.

to post comments

Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

Posted Jan 25, 2024 1:58 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] (2 responses)

> Things would certainly be much much worse now if MS had been left completely unchecked.

Case in point: this

> Every new PC sold with Windows 8 will be locked up tight with Microsoft's UEFI ... secure boot on

Not that I don't agree that there's a potentially dangerous precedent here, but this is omitting a key detail. For x86 computers, MS's certification requires that users can disable secure boot. (emphasis mine) Of course, this is not true for ARM computers, hence the dangerous precedent.

I don't remember the exact details, but for some reason I'd been under the impression that the final settlement with the DOJ in that 2001 antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. had the effect of imposing that requirement that PC owners must be allowed to disable Secure Boot. (Or if not specifically that one, then maybe the 2004-2007 antitrust action in Europe is the one that forced MS to not prohibit end-users from disabling Secure Boot instead?)

(see also this Q/A on superuser.com for some more technical details that might be relevant here)

Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

Posted Jan 25, 2024 13:34 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

The UEFI disableable-secure-boot thing was driven by the fact that Windows 7 had major issues with UEFI booting, and large PC makers (and their customers) wanted to keep using Windows 7 on new hardware at least until the initial teething problems with Win8 were handled.

As it turned out, Win8 was so bad that most folks downgraded it to Win 7 (via an officially-sanctioned-by-Microsoft mechanism), and the status quo didn't really change until Win 10.

This had nothing to do with any antitrust action, and everything to do with actual market forces.

Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

Posted Jan 25, 2024 14:12 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> This had nothing to do with any antitrust action, and everything to do with actual market forces.

Mess-up or not, I'm pretty certain it was rather more than market forces. The EU is keeping a close eye on Microsoft, and I'm pretty certain it got pushed through as "If MS is allowed to do that, then it's a pretty safe bet that consumer hardware will ONLY be able to run Windows". Hence the requirement that buyers MUST be able to disable Secure Boot, if they so wish.

Cheers,
Wol