CyberSnare
by
Roberto Di Cosmo
LIENS-DMI
Ecole Normale Supérieure
45, Rue d'Ulm - 75230 Paris CEDEX 05
E-mail: dicosmo@ens.fr
Web: http://www.dmi.ens.fr/~dicosmo
The original French version of this text has been available on the web
since March 20, 1998 at http://www.mmedium.com/dossiers/piege
Contents
Introduction
Chests of drawers and brainwashing
An information tax
The characteristics of software
Manufacturers ambushed
The Land of TechnoCretins...
... is closer than you think
Dubious practices
Getting around the law
A look at the possible future of education
The stakes: controlling the information
An opportunity for Europe and employment
A possible alternative: freely accessible software
In conclusion
Acknowledgements
Copyright Notice
End Notes
References
During the last Christmas holidays, I was once again struck by the growing
fascination of the media with the obscure object of desire hidden behind the
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
1 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
words "computer", "multimedia", "web", "Internet", and the like. According to
the media--as well as scores of self-appointed experts--one is a second-class
citizen unless one possesses the latest (and most expensive) computer
equipment to access the Promised Land of "cyberspace".
It is also hard to ignore the strange and ubiquitous notion that there is only
one kind of computer: a PC with "Intel Inside" running one unavoidable piece
of software: Microsoft Windows. ( 1 )
This is all the more peculiar considering that this intellectual bowing to two
American giants is reaching its peak just as the US seems to be emerging from
a long sleep that allowed Intel and Microsoft to attain an almost total
monopoly. In the process, an impressive number of companies, whose products
were far superior, were destroyed. All this is thoroughly documented in several
books available in the US, such as [1], [2], and [3] .
For instance, I am thinking of the campaign started by Ralph Nader (the
renowned consumer advocate who once succeeded in forcing GM to stop
producing one of their vehicles deemed unsafe), as well as the suit the US
Department of Justice has filed against Microsoft. I am especially thinking of
the surprising reaction of the American public to recent polls on the Internet:
an overwhelming majority is in favor of the DoJ's actions, even when the polls
are conducted by companies like CNN who are predominantly pro-Microsoft in
their articles. (CNN [4] and even ZDnet polls [5]; the latter was arbitrarily
stopped at a certain date which was displayed on the page only after many
letters of complaint.)
On the other hand, the French public is far from waking up. Lulled by the
sweet voice of global conformism, it sleeps more and more soundly in the arms
of Microsoft. People are dreaming of a joyful world in which a great
philanthropist distributes free copies of Windows 95 to school children, with
the only intention of helping them overcome their technological lag. They smile
as they think of blue screens filled with reassuring messages explaining how a
particular program caused a certain exception in a specific module--not
because of Windows, of course, but due to an error in the program itself. They
sleep soundly without wondering why a computer much more powerful than
the one that helped send men safely to the moon and back, is not capable of
properly handling a document of a few hundred pages when it is running
Microsoft Office, the favorite product of the pundits.
Chests of drawers and brainwashing
On several occasions, I have witnessed the depth of this hypnotic trance. The
most amusing example occurred while travelling on a high-speed train some
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
2 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
time ago. Laptops (those embryonic computers which cost as much as a small
car, can be carried around in one's briefcase, and are frequently used for
playing Solitaire) are proliferating these days--almost as much as mobile
telephones, particularly on trains and in airplanes. During one of my trips, I
was seated next to a very nice gentleman, a dynamic young executive, who was
running the catastrophic (we shall soon see why) application Defrag on his
computer. This program displays a pretty matrix filled with squares of various
colors that scuttle hither and thither while the hard disk works overtime.
I could not resist the temptation (I hope this gentleman will forgive me should
he recognize himself in this story); after complimenting him on his fine laptop,
I asked him with feigned ignorance what this beautiful software was that I did
not have on my own machine. With an expression combining condescension
and pity, ("The poor man doesn't have this beautiful program!"), he answered
that it was an important utility one needed to run once in a while "to make the
machine go faster" by "defragmenting" the disk. He went on to recite the
words from the Windows user manual by heart: the more the disk is being
used, the more it becomes "fragmented". The more the disk is fragmented, the
slower the machine runs. That is why he dutifully uses Defrag every time he
gets the chance.
At this point, I took out my own laptop computer, which is not running
Windows but GNU/Linux (an open and very powerful version of UNIX available
for free and developed through the joint efforts of thousands of people on the
Internet). Sounding very surprised, I said that all this puzzled me a great deal.
On my laptop, the disk is barely fragmented, and the more I use it, the less
fragmented it is. Our young executive, less comfortable now, replied that his
laptop was running the latest version of Windows 95, produced by the greatest
software company on the planet, and that I had to be wrong in some way.
I then tried to make him forget the propaganda that had intoxicated him thus
far by explaining the fragmentation problem in a simple way. What follows is a
short summary of a pleasurable conversation that lasted over half an hour. You
probably know that your data is saved as "files" memorized on the hard disk of
the computer. This hard disk is like a gigantic chest of drawers; each drawer
has the same storage capacity (typically, 512 bytes ( 2 )). Nowadays, each disk
contains a few million drawers. If the data you want is stored in contiguous
drawers, it can be accessed faster than if it is spread out (or "fragmented") all
over the chest. There is nothing amazing about this; we experience it every
day when we have to find a pair of matching socks: it is much faster if they are
both in the same drawer. We can therefore agree that a tidy chest of drawers is
more convenient than a messy one. The problem is finding a way to keep the
chest arranged neatly when it is used.
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
3 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
Let us now imagine an administration that keeps its folders in an enormous
filing cabinet with millions of drawers. For the reasons mentioned above, we
would like items pertaining to the same file to be stored in contiguous drawers.
You now need to hire a secretary, and two candidates apply for the job, each
with their own way of working. The first candidate just empties the drawers
when a file is removed, splits up any new file into smaller piles of documents
the size of a drawer, and randomly stuffs each pile into the first available
empty drawer. When you mention that this makes it rather difficult to find all
the files belonging to a particular case, the response is that a dozen boys must
be hired every weekend to put the chest back in order.
Instead, the second secretary maintains a list of contiguous empty drawers;
every time a file is closed and removed from the drawers, the list is updated.
When a new file arrives, the list is searched for a sufficiently long row of
empty, contiguous drawers, and that is where the new file is placed. In this
way, provided there is enough activity, the file cabinet is always tidy.
Without a doubt, it is the second secretary who should get the job, and our
young executive very much agreed.
At this point, it was an easy matter to point out to him that Windows 95 was
acting like the first secretary who needed boys to clean up the cabinet (the
Defrag program), while GNU/Linux, acting like the smart secretary, had no
need for them. By the time the train entered the station, our nice gentleman
was not so happy any more: he had been taught that Defrag "makes the
machine go faster", while we had just seen together that it is more accurate to
say that Windows is slowing it down!
In fact, the problem of efficient disk management is quite old, and we have
known for a long time how to deal with it (UNIX is much older than Microsoft,
and it has had the "smart secretary" since 1984!). However, there is much
worse than Defrag. Unfortunately, we do not have the time to relate all the
juicy details that concern it in this space, but the Scandisk software, which is
supposed to repair disks, presents unintelligible choices, the result of which is
too often the downright destruction of the folder structure, even though the
data would have been recoverable before running the program. Not only is this
impossible under UNIX, unless you crush the disk with a hammer, but proper
disk management methods have been part of basic courses in computer science
for the last decade. The mere existence of a program like Defrag, or worse, the
damages produced by one like Scandisk in Windows 95, ought to be enough
reason for any intelligent IT manager to scratch Microsoft's name from his or
her list of suppliers. But no, the brainwashing has been so effective, the sleep
so deep, that in France we are ready to shift our banking systems over to
Microsoft products and even choose them for the education of our children.
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
4 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
The marketing power of certain companies distorts reality to such an extent
that one is led to firmly believe that the serious defects of some software
products are, in fact, the latest must-have functionality. (Incidentally, the
computer world has a fitting expression for this: "it's not a bug, it's a
feature!"). Another part of the problem is that the specialists who have the
knowledge necessary to undo these traps and point out the dangers and
manipulations without being mistaken for "bashers" or, in the case of
competitors, sore losers, have kept their mouths shut for too long. It is a
strange phenomenon: on one hand, no serious-minded scientist wants to
publish an article in today's so-called computer press, lest his reputation
become tarnished for having mingled with hucksters. On the other hand,
without the support of serious scientists, the computer press has become a
questionable mirror of the computer industry's advertising campaigns, and
thus, even more peddler-like and less likely to be approached by real experts.
An information tax
Even so, the Wintel monopoly that is settling in France and other parts of the
world is so extensive--and not only economically--that one cannot remain silent
any longer, no matter what the circumstances. The issue is not only accepting
to live with bad technologies and disregarding that we could have much better
ones; this has already happened many times, for example with VHS killing
Video2000 and Betamax, both of which were of much higher quality ( 3 ). It is
also about our governments accepting a takeover of information by, and for the
sole benefit of, Microsoft and Intel. I am sure that those of you who have some
knowledge of economics can already see what I am getting at: for several
years, this monopoly has managed to impose a true monopolistic tax , i.e., to
exploit the monopolist's power to sell at inflated prices, thus milking
consumers who are forced to buy in one place only. And this tax is truly
enormous. Worse, it leaves the European marketplace practically unnoticed,
without creating any resources, and in fact destroying quite a few (for
examples, see [6] and [7] ).
Now let's see how this monopoly is gaining strength every day, keeping in
mind the various risks, both economic and otherwise, it exposes us to on a
daily basis. When dealing with computers, the possibilities afforded to ruthless
companies are quite daunting. We will try to understand this, starting with all
that does not necessarily qualify as downright illegal practices.
The characteristics of software
To begin to see how we pay a hidden tax every time we buy a PC ( 4 ) or
Windows software, we have to become familiar with an aspect of the computer
industry which distinguishes it from any other technological domain: the cost
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
5 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
of duplicating products. Once a piece of software has been written, often at
very high cost, it can be duplicated onto a CD-ROM for less than a dollar per
copy. It may also be transmitted over a network at an expense that keeps
shrinking; all this is completely independent of the quality and production cost
of the original. The only items which are not of near-zero cost are the
thousands of pages of paper manuals, and the dozens of disks necessary to
store the software in the absence of a CD-ROM drive. Software editors, to
whose advantage it obviously is to minimize this cost, have already found a
solution: PCs sold in department stores come with bundled software, but
seldom include any documentation on paper, except perhaps for some flimsy
"Getting Started" leaflets. There are, of course, so-called online versions of the
manuals; technically, nothing prevents you from spending a few hundred
francs to print them out if you like. I have even noticed that a well-known
Japanese company that sells some of the most expensive laptops on the market,
does so without including the CD-ROM containing the operating system
software. Everything is pre-installed on the hard disk, and it is up to the user
to buy the forty or so diskettes needed for a backup and play the floppy shuffle
for a day if he wants a permanent copy. Today, it is safe to say that with this
procedure, the cost of copying software is practically zero.
A second important point is the legal status of software. For reasons which,
upon reflection, are not very hard to grasp, software, this high technology
marvel used by millions of people throughout the world in their daily
professional life, this most complex object revered as the linchpin of a new
industrial revolution, benefits from the same liability protection as a work of
art. (Indeed, software industry firms are called "editors".) For example, there
is no legal guarantee that shrink-wrapped software will serve any purpose, not
even the one for which it is advertised. This situation may be acceptable when
one buys a novel or a painting (de gustibus... said the Romans), but is
absolutely unacceptable when it concerns software. It means that you cannot
sue Microsoft for malpractice after discovering that Windows 95 is not
designed in accordance with established and proven technologies, while you
can sue an electrician or plumber whose work is not up to professional
standards and norms.
Even worse, no one is responsible for any damage that the software could
cause. Once again, it is reasonable that you cannot sue a musician if his latest
techno CD bought by your son causes a family dispute in the course of which
you break a very expensive piece of Chinese pottery. But it is totally
unacceptable to be left without recourse if you were to lose 200 megabytes of
valuable commercial data on your hard disk because of Windows 95's antique
file system and its horrifying program, Scandisk. This is especially true since
you could easily prove in court that the technology needed to design a vastly
superior product, with which you would not have lost your data, has been
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
6 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
available in the public domain since the 70s, and that the code itself, as used
in the AT&T version of UNIX, has even been acquired by Microsoft. On the
other hand, you can drag your electrician to court if he runs electrical wiring
through the wooden moldings in your home ( 5 ).
Finally, a very serious consequence of this lack of accountability is that the
"editors" of the software are in no way legally bound to correct errors and
recognized failures in their products, even if those mistakes are voluntary. This
means that the software "editors" can sell whatever they like, or rather,
whatever their marketing departments make you buy, with no obligation as to
the products' fitness to purpose, while enjoying full legal immunity, even in the
case of blatant dishonesty. Better still, the customer may be forced to pay as
much as the original product price for "updates" that in reality are nothing
more than bug fixes.
These surprising legal aspects, which were probably justified when software
was written by engineers in their garages, are absolutely baffling today when
we have several international software corporations of astronomical financial
clout. Moreover, the legal immunity does not benefit all software editors, only
the most powerful ones. Indeed, a large company can and must force a
software provider to sign a contract that clearly defines the deliverables in
addition to certain guarantees. Alas, this is neither within reach of the average
consumer, nor of most small businesses that run the risk of being purchased or
destroyed in a short time if the editor they are dealing with has sufficient
financial leverage.
I can very well imagine that, just like the young executive mentioned earlier,
you are feeling slightly less comfortable by now: the Promised Land of
cyberspace is starting to reveal many unfriendly dark sides, and that
wonderful humanitarian company that was always presented to us as the finest
in computer technology, and the living success of market economy, looks less
and less philanthropic. Unfortunately, all this is only the beginning of our
journey to the dark side of planet Microsoft. The worst is yet to come.
Manufacturers ambushed
Microsoft's monopoly allows it to easily get rid of yet another source of software
marketing cost: technical support and distribution. Regarding the former, one
can imagine that even though a company may not be legally bound to help
install its software, it will still do so in order to retain its market share. Not to
worry, Microsoft has the solution. Just take a look at the license agreement for
Windows 95, of which I include this excerpt:
6. PRODUCT SUPPORT. Neither Microsoft Corporation, nor its
CyberSnare http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
7 of 23 05/24/2010 04:26 PM
affiliates, offer support for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. For support,
please contact the support number of the Computer Manufacturer
included in the documentation of the COMPUTER.
Clever, isn't it? The burden is squarely put on the shoulders of the hardware
manufacturers who are not responsible for items like Defrag, blue screens, and
so on, but who will pay--literally--their consequences (I know something about
this, given the number of times I have unsuccessfully tried to obtain telephone
support for the installation of Windows onto the aforementioned Japanese
laptop). If Windows 95 did not enjoy a monopoly position, computer
manufacturers would happily rid themselves of such an arrangement.
As for the distribution of the software itself, once again, it is the
manufacturers, assemblers, and resellers who pay: they have to "pre-install"
Windows 95 on your machine. But there is an even better solution: the
distribution, over the Internet, of software without any physical support. This
is a stroke of genius: you pay for the programs and download them at your own
expense (and quite an expense it is, considering the size of Microsoft Office
these days), thus effectiv