Discussion:
[OT] Windows XP Reduced Media Edition
(too old to reply)
7
2005-03-24 10:24:39 UTC
Permalink
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/

'Windows XP Reduced Media Edition'

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAAHHH!!!!!


Windows XP Missing Media Edition

Windows XP Without Media Edition

Windows XP Media Player Left Out Edition

Windows XP Media Player Not In This Edition Edition

My Other Edition Has Media Player Edition

Windows XP The European Commission Ate My Media Player Edition
The Ghost In The Machine
2005-03-24 20:00:04 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7
<***@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:24:39 GMT
Post by 7
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/
'Windows XP Reduced Media Edition'
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAAHHH!!!!!
Windows XP Missing Media Edition
Windows XP Without Media Edition
Windows XP Media Player Left Out Edition
Windows XP Media Player Not In This Edition Edition
My Other Edition Has Media Player Edition
Windows XP The European Commission Ate My Media Player Edition
Windows XP No Lawsuits Against This Edition

Windows XP Can't Touch This Edition

Windows XP Can't Even Use This Edition
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
DFS
2005-03-24 20:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7
on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:24:39 GMT
Post by 7
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/
'Windows XP Reduced Media Edition'
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAAHHH!!!!!
Windows XP Missing Media Edition
Windows XP Without Media Edition
Windows XP Media Player Left Out Edition
Windows XP Media Player Not In This Edition Edition
My Other Edition Has Media Player Edition
Windows XP The European Commission Ate My Media Player Edition
Windows XP No Lawsuits Against This Edition
Windows XP Can't Touch This Edition
Windows XP Can't Even Use This Edition
Windows XP Capture Even More Of The Market Edition

Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition

Windows XP Cave In To Abusive Government Edition

Windows XP Wink Wink Nod Nod Here's How To Download Media Player Edition
B Gruff
2005-03-24 21:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)

Bill
DFS
2005-03-24 22:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.

Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is going to
help competition somehow. It's not MS keeping iTunes or RealPlayer or
WinAmp or MusicMatch off Windows desktops - it's the quality of the
competition and the users choice.

"Reduced Edition" buyers will just point to
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/download/download.aspx
and before you can say "EU can kiss my rump" they'll be using WMP.
Post by B Gruff
Bill
B Gruff
2005-03-24 22:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.
Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is going to
help competition somehow. It's not MS keeping iTunes or RealPlayer
or WinAmp or MusicMatch off Windows desktops - it's the quality of
the competition and the users choice.
Good - I think it does the same to MS. I hope so.

I don't see the incident quite so simplistically or as innocently as
you seem to. Rather, I see it as the EU finally starting to waken up
to what some people have been saying for a long time.
The technique has at last been recognised, and we saw it with the
browser, of course:-

- make your own version available for free

- then start to include it with the O/S or whatever

- integrate it with the O/S or whatever.

- make the means of producing the "content" available free, or very
cheaply at first.

- bit-by-bit change the "standards". Anybody using your means of
producing content (the web server in this example) and your client is
fine - everything still works......

- enjoy your imposed monopoly.
Answer all protests about web-sites not rendering with "Use I.E.
like the rest of the world does - it's free - it comes with the O/S!"

I must admit, it worked in the U.S.
The E.U. however seems to be under a delusion or something (poor
things!). The governments here, collectively if not unanimously so
individually, seem to be under the impression that they are Elected
to serve the Electorate, and that on behalf of the Electorate, they
will curb the excesses of large corporations.
A foolish notion, I know, and one that you guys long since abandonned
as unworkable and/or undesirable, preferring instead that the large
corporations should run both the government and the judiciary.
Nevertheless, the EU seem bent on showing that things are different
here, and yes, they do have the constitutional right to play it that
way.
Call it communism, anti-American, or whatever you like. I doubt that
Mr Gates is very happy about it, and would even suggest that he
shares your feelings. I certainly hope so:-)

Bill
DFS
2005-03-24 23:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.
Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is going to
help competition somehow. It's not MS keeping iTunes or RealPlayer
or WinAmp or MusicMatch off Windows desktops - it's the quality of
the competition and the users choice.
Good - I think it does the same to MS. I hope so.
I don't see the incident quite so simplistically or as innocently as
you seem to. Rather, I see it as the EU finally starting to waken up
to what some people have been saying for a long time.
But I notice the EU is "waking up" much too late; they gladly helped MS
build their monopoly, but now want to play hero and try to slay the monster
they helped create.

But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods to Bill
Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise? It's almost as if...
one-EU-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-other's-doing.
Post by B Gruff
The technique has at last been recognised,
My what sharp eyes you Brits have.
Post by B Gruff
and we saw it with the
browser, of course:-
- make your own version available for free
- then start to include it with the O/S or whatever
- integrate it with the O/S or whatever.
- make the means of producing the "content" available free, or very
cheaply at first.
Are you advocating OSS or what?
Post by B Gruff
- bit-by-bit change the "standards". Anybody using your means of
producing content (the web server in this example) and your client is
fine - everything still works......
- enjoy your imposed monopoly.
Huh? Explain how MS imposed a monopoly?

No, the world gets what it pays for. The world chose MS and Windows. Now
parts of it want to unchoose, on their terms. Too bad. It's not going to
be so easy.
Post by B Gruff
Answer all protests about web-sites not rendering with "Use I.E.
like the rest of the world does - it's free - it comes with the O/S!"
I must admit, it worked in the U.S.
And in the UK.
Post by B Gruff
The E.U. however seems to be under a delusion or something (poor
things!). The governments here, collectively if not unanimously so
individually, seem to be under the impression that they are Elected
to serve the Electorate, and that on behalf of the Electorate, they
will curb the excesses of large corporations.
Yes, I see how your government is curbing MS excesses - by making huge
investments in MS products. Is their strategy to throw money at MS in the
hopes they will leave?
Post by B Gruff
A foolish notion, I know, and one that you guys long since abandonned
as unworkable and/or undesirable, preferring instead that the large
corporations should run both the government and the judiciary.
This is sad, Bill. You've revealed yourself to be silly and moronic and
biased. Almost like Rex Ballard, matter of fact.

And here I thought you were a notch above a cola nutcase.
Post by B Gruff
Nevertheless, the EU seem bent on showing that things are different
here, and yes, they do have the constitutional right to play it that
way.
Well, technically they have just a constitutional treaty right to play it
that way.
Post by B Gruff
Call it communism, anti-American, or whatever you like. I doubt that
Mr Gates is very happy about it, and would even suggest that he
shares your feelings. I certainly hope so:-)
No need to grin. It looks rather foolish, as the sentiment behind it
doesn't match.
Post by B Gruff
Bill
B Gruff
2005-03-25 01:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
you seem to. Rather, I see it as the EU finally starting to waken
up to what some people have been saying for a long time.
But I notice the EU is "waking up" much too late; they gladly helped
MS build their monopoly, but now want to play hero and try to slay
the monster they helped create.
Quite correct.
Do you use the same phrase that we do, "Better late than never"?
Post by DFS
But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods
to Bill Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise?
I thought that it was for his philanthropic donations, but I'd need to
check.
Post by DFS
It's almost as if...one-EU-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-other's-doing.
Oh yes - very much so.
Several things that you must bear in mind though:-

- Microsoft is up in front of the EU Court - not the court of a single
country (perhaps "State" in your parlance)

- also, you judge the UK poorly. Politically, the U.K. has Special
Ties, a Special Understanding, etc. with the U.S. In public, it will
tend to side with you, present a united front, and all that.
What goes on behind the scenes is quite something else - as it always
has been. To put it bluntly, and so that you can understand, I
believe the U.K. to be letting Germany and France do its dirty work
for it in this particular instance.
You appreciate that the U.K. has more to lose in this (MS) respect
than anybody else in Europe - jobs, tie-ins, etc.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The technique has at last been recognised,
My what sharp eyes you Brits have.
Perhaps not so much the Brits. Certainly some Brits, but I doubt it
was they who instigated this one.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
and we saw it with the
browser, of course:-
- make your own version available for free
- then start to include it with the O/S or whatever
- integrate it with the O/S or whatever.
- make the means of producing the "content" available free, or very
cheaply at first.
Are you advocating OSS or what?
Post by B Gruff
- bit-by-bit change the "standards". Anybody using your means of
producing content (the web server in this example) and your client
is fine - everything still works......
- enjoy your imposed monopoly.
Huh? Explain how MS imposed a monopoly?
I thought that I had!
Is it "imposed" to which you are objecting?
Would "which you have engineered" be more acceptable?
Post by DFS
No, the world gets what it pays for. The world chose MS and
Windows. Now parts of it want to unchoose,
Correct.
Post by DFS
on their terms.
Under the terms of their anti-monopoly laws and regulations etc, yes.
Post by DFS
Too bad. It's not going to be so easy.
I think that we all understand that.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Answer all protests about web-sites not rendering with "Use I.E.
like the rest of the world does - it's free - it comes with the O/S!"
I must admit, it worked in the U.S.
And in the UK.
Correct!
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The E.U. however seems to be under a delusion or something (poor
things!). The governments here, collectively if not unanimously so
individually, seem to be under the impression that they are Elected
to serve the Electorate, and that on behalf of the Electorate, they
will curb the excesses of large corporations.
Yes, I see how your government is curbing MS excesses - by making
huge investments in MS products. Is their strategy to throw money
at MS in the hopes they will leave?
Again, I agree with you - very foolish of HMG imo.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
A foolish notion, I know, and one that you guys long since
abandonned as unworkable and/or undesirable, preferring instead
that the large corporations should run both the government and the
judiciary.
This is sad, Bill. You've revealed yourself to be silly and moronic
and biased. Almost like Rex Ballard, matter of fact.
I seem to have spent a lot of time agreeing with you on this one:-)
Post by DFS
And here I thought you were a notch above a cola nutcase.
What a nice chap - and all that I offer in return is to patronise you
from time to time. Oh that I had your Souther charm.......
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Nevertheless, the EU seem bent on showing that things are different
here, and yes, they do have the constitutional right to play it
that way.
Well, technically they have just a constitutional treaty right to
play it that way.
Post by B Gruff
Call it communism, anti-American, or whatever you like. I doubt
that Mr Gates is very happy about it, and would even suggest that
he shares your feelings. I certainly hope so:-)
No need to grin. It looks rather foolish, as the sentiment behind
it doesn't match.
The sentiment does match, in that I am both amused and happy at how
things are going in this case at the moment. I just have to trust
that the EU will not crumble. If they do, I shall be as
disillusioned with (in particular) the Germans and French as I am
with my own lot.

One point that you have not yet raised in all this.
You always assert that if people do not wish to purchase MS products,
they are not forced to.
Tell me, if MS does not wish to do business with the EU, or any of its
member states, is there anything which compels it to?

Bill
DFS
2005-03-25 03:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
But I notice the EU is "waking up" much too late; they gladly helped
MS build their monopoly, but now want to play hero and try to slay
the monster they helped create.
Quite correct.
Do you use the same phrase that we do, "Better late than never"?
We do. Do you also use the phrase "there's nothing worse than a reformed
sinner" that we use?
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods
to Bill Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise?
I thought that it was for his philanthropic donations, but I'd need to
check.
It was for both.
Post by B Gruff
- also, you judge the UK poorly. Politically, the U.K. has Special
Ties, a Special Understanding, etc. with the U.S. In public, it will
tend to side with you, present a united front, and all that.
For that we're very grateful.
Post by B Gruff
What goes on behind the scenes is quite something else - as it always
has been. To put it bluntly, and so that you can understand, I
believe the U.K. to be letting Germany and France do its dirty work
for it in this particular instance.
Why do you believe that? I haven't looked into the nationalities of the EU
participants in the case against MS. Lots of Germans and French?
Post by B Gruff
You appreciate that the U.K. has more to lose in this (MS) respect
than anybody else in Europe - jobs, tie-ins, etc.
Yes, I figured they have a lot at stake. They know MS would never pull up
stakes and leave a market as large as the EU. So they have the upper hand -
even though we all know MS will probably "win" in the end. "Win," as in:
not suffer appreciable loss of market share, not suffer appreciable loss of
revenue, not suffer appreciable loss of anything.
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The technique has at last been recognised,
My what sharp eyes you Brits have.
Perhaps not so much the Brits. Certainly some Brits, but I doubt it
was they who instigated this one.
"They"? You're not British?
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Huh? Explain how MS imposed a monopoly?
I thought that I had!
Is it "imposed" to which you are objecting?
Would "which you have engineered" be more acceptable?
Huh? Explain how MS "engineered" a monopoly all by their lonesome.
Certainly you and I contributed to the building of the most successful
company in the history of the world. I know I have, considering I bought:

a couple versions of MS-DOS
systems with Windows 3.1 and Win95 pre-installed
Windows 98SE, Windows ME, NT Server 3.51, Windows 2000 Pro
Office 4.3 Pro, Office 95 Pro, Office 97 Developer Edition, Office 2000 Pro,
Access 2003
Frontpage 97, Frontpage 2000
a few MS games
VB 4.0, VB 5.0
SQL Server 6.0, SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition
MSDN Professional

Some were upgrades.

I used to be a bit of a software junkie. In my defense, I've cut way down
on my MS software purchases.

Do you know MS just sent me an MSDN Pro subscription renewal offer for the
bargain price of $899 plus tax? <sarcasm> Who could resist a deal like
that? </sarcasm>
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
A foolish notion, I know, and one that you guys long since
abandonned as unworkable and/or undesirable, preferring instead
that the large corporations should run both the government and the
judiciary.
This is sad, Bill. You've revealed yourself to be silly and moronic
and biased. Almost like Rex Ballard, matter of fact.
I seem to have spent a lot of time agreeing with you on this one:-)
You have, but please stop now and retain a modicum of dignity and refuse to
agree that you're almost like Rex Ballard. You don't want to go there (even
though you were sounding like him).
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
And here I thought you were a notch above a cola nutcase.
What a nice chap - and all that I offer in return is to patronise you
from time to time.
ha! You do it well, I must say.
Post by B Gruff
Oh that I had your Souther charm.......
The middling amounts of charm I possess generally fail me once I enter this
den of iniquity.
Post by B Gruff
One point that you have not yet raised in all this.
You always assert that if people do not wish to purchase MS products,
they are not forced to.
True. I do assert that.
Post by B Gruff
Tell me, if MS does not wish to do business with the EU, or any of its
member states, is there anything which compels it to?
Stakeholders.
Post by B Gruff
Bill
r***@usa.net
2005-03-29 06:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.
Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
going to help competition somehow.
They went with the wrong approach. The EU (and the DOJ) should have
simply said that Microsoft had to include ALL competitor software
(INCLUDING Linux) in every distribution shipped by OEMs. Instead, they
let Microsoft have a loophole that you can drive a oil tanker through,
and still have room for an aircraft carrier fleet.

Forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
non-punishment. Microsoft can still rig it so that if you connect to
the Internet (which you have to do to register and enable XP within 30
days) you automatically get a download unless you expressly tell it you
do NOT want Media Player.

Microsoft still controls what gets loaded, it still has the freedom to
pervert the standards, and is not required to disclose them.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
It's not MS keeping iTunes or RealPlayer
or WinAmp or MusicMatch off Windows desktops - it's the quality of
the competition and the users choice.
Other vendors chose to adopt industry standards such as MP3, but
Microsoft "embraced" (announced compliance - which was false
advertising) and then "Extended" (released a version so incompatible as
to be completly non-standard and incompatible with all standards
compliant software). The irony is that they will tell you that Active
Directory is LDAP and Kerberos, even though they are incompatible with
standard implementations - but demand noncompete monopoly protecting
nondisclosures and license agreements in which you must promise never
to write another line of code for Linux again - in order to see the
specification for the one field they actually implemented in a
nonstandard way.

The fact that this little "enhancement" also creates a huge security
hole is only available to those who have signed the NDA/LA.

Essentially, Microsoft is trying to force Open Source supporters to
stop supporting Open Source by offering to let them see Open Source
code.

Microsoft controls what is distributed by the OEMs. The OEM licenses
prevent them from making any alterations not approved in writing, by
Microsoft. When Compaq attempted to install Netscape Browser on the
desktop, Microsoft sent them a letter declaring that their License
would be revoked in 30 days.

It is this control of the OEMs that must be monitored and regulated,
even if it means Micromanaging the daylights out of Microsoft until
they stop restricting the OEMs. The OEMs now pay more for Microsoft's
software than for any other component on the PC, and they are not
allowed to include anything which might give them a competitive edge,
stimulate new markets, or just keep sales up.

OEMs are left to the mercy of Microsoft, waiting 2 years for Longhorn,
which has turned into a short-horned steer, while XP sales dwindle to
nothing, PCs are sold at below cost, and the losses must be subsidized
by Consulting and accessory revenue. Gateway is losing money on every
box it sells, HP has to sell a printer just to break even, IBM has sold
off it's OEM PC business, perhaps so that they can distribute Thinkpads
and Netfinity PCs as VARs (which means they are not bound by OEM
restrictions).

People don't choose the operating system on their PC. If they actually
had a choice, between a Windows PC and a comparably priced Linux or
UNIX PC, they would be choosing Linux/UNIX consistently. As it is,
people are paying almost twice as much for iMacs with OS/X, because it
is so much better than Windows.

Apple has proven that UNIX can be easy to use, and Steve Jobs has even
made it an artistic and delightful experience, using most of the
technology which originated in BSD and Open Source.

Most people don't have this choice for work. The CIO just chooses for
them, and usually chooses the hardware, and the version of Windows, and
the Version of MS-Office, and the version of Outlook, and so-on.
Pretty much, the CIO is simply a yes-man to Microsoft, his only
"flexibility" is whether to skip the upgrade from Office-2000 to
Office-XP and go directly to Office 2003.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
I don't see the incident quite so simplistically or as innocently as
you seem to. Rather, I see it as the EU finally starting to waken up
to what some people have been saying for a long time.
Politicians aren't stupid. They see Open Source pushing the technology
envelope, while Microsoft does everything in it's power to protect it's
status-quo. The major innovations in the marketplace were in the Open
Source world, and it took years for Microsoft to announce them as
"Innovations", and most of these "Innovations" came with very expensive
price tags, legal restrictions, and negative consequences such as
viruses, worms, and security holes.
Post by DFS
But I notice the EU is "waking up" much too late; they gladly helped MS
build their monopoly, but now want to play hero and try to slay the monster
they helped create.
Bill Gates announced that he was going to RULE the WORLD back in 1984.
The only people who took him seriously were people in the UNIX and Open
Source community.

For the next 20 years, Microsoft attempted to gain and maintain
monopolies over the Operating systems, the Applications, the
Networking, the financial transactions, and the information being
passed between corporations and between individuals. The plan was
mapped out in 1984, right after Microsoft's revenues went higher than
Lotus' revenues.

During that same 20 years, the Open Source community created and
distributed TCP/IP (Internet), HTTP (Web), SMTP (e-mail), SGML, HTML,
XML, distributed processing, clusters, and all of the other engines
that power what we now call "the Internet". Ironically, there are many
other features and treasures which are available when Linux reaches the
Desktop, but when Microsoft attempts to imitate them, the result is
security holes and back-doors so exposed that the techonology itself is
condemned.

If Microsoft had been able to control the evolution of the Internet,
we'd be paying Microsoft $1/megabyte and every byte would be read by
Microsoft's "Big Brother" machines. As it is, they can only watch
about 10% of the traffic on the web, even that is enough to turn the
outcome of an election, establish the political agenda, or have a
political leader disabled.
Post by DFS
But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods to Bill
Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise? It's almost as if...
one-EU-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-other's-doing.
Bill and Microsoft did make the original Windows 3.1 one of the first
truly easy-to-use computer systems. Windows 3.1 made it possible for
nearly 1/4 million users to use computers at work, at home, and in new
ways, to be more productive. I often say that Microsoft's one true
"innovation" was the "Dancing Paper Clip", knowing that everyone hates
that thing, but in reality, Microsoft did teach nearly 1 billion people
how to use a computer. That is no small accomplishement. And the key
ingredient in this was all of the context sensitive help, help bubbles,
good labeling, wizards, and other "hand holding" that Microsoft was
able to do electronically.

Of course, since most people have no experience of anything else, this
creates a challenge for the Linux community. Users who know and
understand Windows can react to Linux in one of two ways - either they
like that it does most of the things they like to do without the
hassles, expense, viruses, and crashes, in which case they love it, or
they feel that they still need those helps and hand-holding, and they
even like the dancing paperclip, in which case they hate Linux. In
most cases, the people who hate Linux are the ones who struggle for
weeks to get it installed (without asking anyone qualified for help)
then use it for a week or two, then based on the comparison of 15 years
of Windows and 2 weeks of Linux, decide that Windows is better.

I think Bill deserves to be knighted for the work he has done.

This doesn't mean that he should be allowed to become the world's
dictator through his control of the world's information. This doesn't
mean that he should be allowed to engage in criminal acts to protect
his monopolies. Keep in mind, Microsoft holds several monopolies,
which is what makes it so dangerous.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The technique has at last been recognised,
My what sharp eyes you Brits have.
Post by B Gruff
and we saw it with the
browser, of course:-
- make your own version available for free
Actually, Windows 95 wasn't exactly free. The price was higher, the
hardware required was much more expensive, and the browser just
happened to be bundled with the later versions. If you purchased a
Windows 95 machine, you paid substantially more to both Microsoft and
to the OEM.

Of course, the OEMs kept paying the premium prices, even when Windows
95 sales were slagging through the floor. Microsoft had sold Windows
95 on the promise that NT would be out "real soon now", and OEMs agreed
to draconian terms, including the exclusion of competitors, bundling
agreements, minimum license volume quotas that far exceeded their
actual unit volumes, and prices substantially higher than those
requested by the competiton, on the promise that NT 4.0 would be sold
on every new box.

NT 4.0 came out, it didn't run very well, and in a head-to-head
competition Red Hat Linux 4.0 was knocking the socks off NT 4.0 in
performance, reliability, security, and features. OEMs knew at this
point, that they had backed the losing horse, but couldn't get out of
the draconian terms. They couldn't even sell Linux as a "supplemental
disk". Small companies were popping up out of nowhere and reaping huge
profits on Linux enabled PCs, and the OEMs were thumbcuffed.

In 1997, IBM finally decided to get behind Linux. They saw the
low-hanging fruit in the server market and invested $1 billion into
Linux. Within less than 18 months, they had recovered that investment
several times over in Linux driven sales of hardware (including new
life for the Z-Series), software (including WebSphere, DB2, Lotus
Notes, and numerous other products), and consulting (installation,
consulting, support), and while Windows OEMs and vendors struggled to
survive 2000 and 2001, IBM was thriving and growing.

Ironically, the only other company that thrived was Microsoft, who
released Windows 2000 and practically force-fed upgrades to corporate
customers. In reality, Microsoft had promised NT 5.0 which was later
renamed Windows 2000 to all of the corporate customers who had
purchased Windows NT 4.0. The first week after release, Microsoft
shipped the license keys for nearly 40 million workstations - which it
claimed in it's press releases as units "shipped". No mention of the
fact that there was no revenue with those shipments.

As a result, the OEMs signed their agreements for Windows 2000,
accepting equally draconian terms, anticipating that they would be
seeing their share of high-end PCs. Shortly after these contracts were
signed however, Microsoft told customers to stay with Windows 98 until
Windows Millenium Edition was released. OEMs were stuck for Windows
2000 licenses and were selling very few Windows 98 machines. They had
backed the wrong horse again.

Microsoft eventually did release ME, and people hated it so badly, that
they demanded refunds unless the OEM or retailer gave them a
"downgrade" to Windows 98. Needless to say, rather than a sudden surge
in home machine sales, the sales dropped lower than ever, while
Microsoft promised Windows XP.

Windows XP was a bitter pill for everyone. The OEMs got screwed
because Microsoft had established "Support Contracts" for millions of
corporate desktops. Windows XP would run on Windows 2000 hardware, and
so there was no mad panic rush to go out and buy Windows XP hardware.
The Corporate customers were also screwed, because Microsoft
unilaterally demanded triple the maintenence fees and the corporate
customers had to sign agreements within 30 days or forfeit all future
service and support. To make matters worse, some of the worst viruses
and worms were infecting Windows NT and 2000 servers so security fixes
were perceived to be critical.

Within 6 months of the release of Windows XP, most major companies and
government agencies were establishing contingincy plans to migrate to
Linux on the desktop. Microsoft has tried to placate anyone who made
such plans, by offering them lower rates, free upgrades, and other
incentives, but these often also included provisions which effectively
excluded Linux from ANY corporate workstation (direct violations of the
DOJ rulings of Law and Appeals court rulings without even a peep), in
many cases, Linux users had to purchase their own workstations or
laptops to get around these restrictions.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- then start to include it with the O/S or whatever
The key was that back in 1989-90, they had a legitimate monopoly over
MS-DOS. It just wasn't practical or cost-effective to put two
operating systems on the same PC. The average PC hard drive held
around 20 megabytes, and Windows 3.0 ate about 1/2 of that. Documents
and user storage quickly consumed the rest so quickly that efforts were
made to compress the contents of the hard drive, first by a company
called Stack/Stacker, then later by Microsoft's illegal bundleware
which sabotaged the Stacker software.

By 1994 however, the playing field had changed substantially. Linux
could be installed on a partition as small as 4 gigabytes, and hard
drives often exceeded 200 Megabytes in size. There was plenty of room
for Linux, and all of the technology to support allowing the user to
choose between Linux and Windows was available. Microsoft simply used
their contracts with the OEMs to prevent this. To prevent any
defections, they revoked Compaq's license to Windows for one of their
computer lines for simply altering the appearance of the desktop. The
message was as clear as it could be, Microsoft would tolerate no
defections to Linux. Ironically, when companies such as VA-Linux
started selling Linux machines, Microsoft offered them dual-boot
capabilities at OEM rates.

This of course triggered the series of legal actions against Microsoft
including the contempt of the 1993 settlement, then the DOJ antitrust
filing.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- integrate it with the O/S or whatever.
- make the means of producing the "content" available free, or very
cheaply at first.
Are you advocating OSS or what?
Post by B Gruff
- bit-by-bit change the "standards". Anybody using your means of
producing content (the web server in this example) and your client is
fine - everything still works......
Actually, Microsoft didn't wait very long to "extend" what it
"embraced". Microsoft embraces open standards like an anaconda
embraces a gazelle, just before it "extends" it's jaws to swallow it
whole. And there are usually negative consequences when this happens.

For example, when Microsoft embraced TCP/IP for corporate networking,
they extended it with DHCP. This meant that Windows had to assign the
IP addresses, and that you could no longer trace worms, viruses, and
other security violations back to the originator.

When Microsoft embraced Dial-up Internet - they imposed MS-CHAT, which
provided an encrypted handshake, but the password was stored in
clear-text on the client PC - in addition, there was no firewalling on
the terminal server, which meant that you could share FAT drives with
whoever else happened to be calling on that Windows NT based terminal
server. Most of these were quickly replaced by Linux implementations.

When Microsoft embraced Web browsers, they quickly added scripting and
Active-X controls which made it possible to view MS-Office documents on
your web browser. It also made it possible for anyone to install
software which could read, write, modify, create, or delete, any file
on your hard drive, without even so much as a polite graphic.

When Microsoft embraced e-mail, Outlook enhanced it's viewer with the
ability to view or preview documents using IE. This meant that you
didn't even have to open a document to get a virus, you just had to
preview it.

When Microsoft embraced corba - they implemented DCOM, DCOM was
completely incompatible with CORBA, but just as the CORBA comunity
resolved the incompatibility issues, Microsoft switched to COM+, again,
security was comprimized, and now an infected laptop or workstation
could run any function on any Windows machine without telling either
the user of the infected machine, or the user of the target machine.

When Microsoft embraced Java - the broke the sandbox, which meant that
Java applets could now read, write, modify, create, or destroy any file
on the user's hard drive, and run any Java RMI function on any other
MS-Java machine in the network - without telling anybody anything.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- enjoy your imposed monopoly.
Huh? Explain how MS imposed a monopoly?
I described all of this in quite a bit of detail above. Ultimately,
Microsoft threatened and demanded an "all or nothing" choice. An OEM
who wanted to try and make it without being able to sell Windows on ANY
of it's machines was likely to have a huge drop in revenue, possibly
even bankrupting the company. Since the only other alternative
Microsoft was offering was for the OEM to give Microsoft complete and
exclusive control over the system configuration, right down to the
desktop applications, there was no negotiation. This was fundamentally
the same as if a Microsoft salesperson had pointed a gun to each PC
purchaser's head and said "buy the machine with Windows or I'll pull
the trigger". It minimum this was extortion - threatening to destroy a
company, a reputation, and the holdings of millions of investors,
unless the contract is accepted exactly as worded (at least as far as
the major provisions are concerned) is extortion.

When IBM refused to knuckle under immediately, Microsoft threatened to
publish their assertion that IBM had illegally shipped millions of
unlicensed PCs. The fact was that these machines were sold as OS/2
only machines, and IBM still had more than enough licenses to cover the
difference, but Microsoft claimed that this was piracy because IBM did
not ship the Windows capability. This was blackmail. IBM settled,
paying the money, but still refused to stop selling OS/2. Microsoft
threatened to revoke ALL Windows licenses - and refused to allow IBM to
sell ANY Windows 95 machines. Ironically, the only reason Microsoft
finally accepted terms which allowed IBM to continue to sell Lotus
products, was because the IBM logo was prominantly displayed on the
unveiling backdrop and 15 minutes before the curtain was to go up, the
legal department was afraid of fraud charges and other FTC
prosecutions.
Post by DFS
No, the world gets what it pays for.
No, the world gets what the vendor is willing and able to sell.
If I can buy a Pantera De Thomaso - but it can't be brought to the US
because of safety and emission regulations, I really can't buy one. I
might be able find a vendor who could make a car that runs on sewage,
but if I can't drive it because of required EPA devices, then I really
can't buy that car.

When Microsoft tells an OEM that they can ONLY sell Windows on their
machines if they purchase licenses for EVERY machine (and 10% extra)
and that every machine licensed must be configured in a manner that
excludes all competitors, than Microsoft is not only imposing a
monopoly, they are extending it.

In reality, Red Hat offered a price of $2/copy in 1994, to ANY OEM who
wanted to install it on their system in a dual-boot configuration.
They weren't asking for exclusive control of the machine, only the
ability to let users actually choose. Microsoft threatened to revoke
the contracts of any OEM who attempted to accept this offer. The
following year, when Windows95 was released, they sabotoged the hard
drive - wiping the boot track and repartitioning the entire drive.
Many users lost years of data when they attempted to install Windows 95
on a Windows 3.1 machine - all because Microsfot wanted to completely
destroy any boot manager that would allow a user to boot Linux as well
as Windows 95. If any company or individual other than Microsoft had
done this, it would have been criminal destruction of the computer, and
also sabotage, but Microsoft's EULA gave them permission to do it. At
least that's what Microsoft's position was during the DOJ trial.
Post by DFS
The world chose MS and Windows.
The last time I went to a retailer and saw to comparable priced
machines, one running Microsoft technology, the other running a
competitor's techonology, was when DRI was offering GEM, the computer
was the Atari ST, the PC was the PC-AT. When Atari tried to increase
the amount of RAM to 1 Meg, they couldn't get FCC certifications -
seems that several MS-DOS OEMs had requested FCC certification of
numerous permutations of hardware that tied the lab up for about 9
months. By then the market window was gone.

I can go to CompUSA and see a Mac, but the Mac is either twice the
price or 1/2 the speed. Since Apple has no competitors in their
hardware niche, their prices are substantially higher.
Post by DFS
Now parts of it want to unchoose, on their terms.
Right now, Microsoft is facing competition in some of it's markets for
the first time in years. Because OpenOffice
Post by DFS
Too bad. It's not going to be so easy.
Actually, it's very easy - it's just reducing the retail shelves to
games and antivirus software. I can download a CD-ROM in about 10
minutes - a knoppix CD-ROM will have be running Linux in about 20
minutes. No configuration, no hard work, just put in the bootable
CD-ROM, reboot the computer, and tell the machine to boot from the
CD-ROM. I'm up.

If I don't want to give up Windows completely, I can use Cygwin and get
Linux applicatinos that run on Cygwin. Putty, WinCVS, and several
other applications now include their own cygwin library, giving me the
choice of which cygwin to run.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Answer all protests about web-sites not rendering with "Use I.E.
like the rest of the world does - it's free - it comes with the O/S!"
I must admit, it worked in the U.S.
And in the UK.
And there was a price. Viruses, security holes, lost time, lost
hardware, servers that crash, in fact, these days, the bigger fear is
that you Windows machine WON'T BSOD when you get infected with some
cute little virus from hell.

You can spend $10 million protecting the front door, and have the whole
thing come unglued because you wouldn't spend 15 minutes downloading
and installing FireFox.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The E.U. however seems to be under a delusion or something (poor
things!). The governments here, collectively if not unanimously so
individually, seem to be under the impression that they are Elected
to serve the Electorate, and that on behalf of the Electorate, they
will curb the excesses of large corporations.
We also know that there were many governments in the EU who had
publicly announced their intention to switch to Linux on the desktop,
even under public challenges by Microsoft's CEO. Yet at the last
minute, these same officials signed undisclosed agreements to stick
with Microsoft (often to the exclusion of Linux). One would almost
suspect blackmail, extortion, or worse. You know that when Microsoft
really wants to know about you, they can dig up information you may not
even have meant for wide-spread publication, and smear it all over the
people you most want to influence. If they were willing to take a
personals posting I posted 15 years ago and post it all over this
newsgroup, don't you think they might have attempted similar tactics
with the Linux advocate who had sold Munich on Linux?

Microsoft can see what sights you visit, what e-mails you send and
receive, what your finances look like (especially if you use Money),
and pretty much any information you have ever stored on a computer - if
they really want to. And you don't think that hasn't pissed off a few
people in the EU?

Microsoft can even publish that information via MSNBC or MSN and then
use that to get it on headline news on every major cable network.
Post by DFS
Yes, I see how your government is curbing MS excesses - by making huge
investments in MS products. Is their strategy to throw money at MS in the
hopes they will leave?
The U.S. government is in the same boat as everybody else. They hate
Microsoft software, they hate getting charged through the noses for
inferior products when they can get better capabilities for lower
prices through the Open Source community. But they can't get the OEM
to sell them PCs that have been preconfigured with Linux fully
operational from the very fist boot-up. They can't visit the IE-Only
sites and get good results, or they get no results.

12 years ago, I warned numerous people, including people in newsgroups
and several mailing lists, that if we allowed proprietary vendors to
just start imposing their own undocumented unpublished communications
protocols on the web, that we would start to have serious problems,
including security, priviacy, and possibly even criminal activities.

20 years ago, Richard Stallman warned that if we allowed proprietary
softare vendors to control the software which was used to create, edit,
and view our documents and critical information, we would find
ourselves at the mercy of those vendors. Even Richard had a hard time
with the possibility that one company, effectively controlled by 1 man,
could actually gain control of nearly EVERY file storage format,
communication protocol, AND the underlying operating system, giving
them the ability to not only prevent us from looking at our own
documents, but also giving them the ability to read, copy, and even
publish, any docement we have created, without our knowledge.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
A foolish notion, I know, and one that you guys long since
abandonned
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
as unworkable and/or undesirable, preferring instead that the large
corporations should run both the government and the judiciary.
The U.S. economic system works in cycles. We have a cycle of
innovation, with lots of little companies, all searching for markets
for new technologies, each finding their niche, then we have a series
of mergers, with small companies being merged into larger companies,
then we have more mergers until we have huge oligopolies, but the key
is that there is always competition, between the competitors, and the
possibility that a whole new wave of technology will sweep in.

But once in a while, you get a huge company that attempts to become a
monopoly. That company uses it's control of the entire supply chain to
impose it's terms. Eventually, it even begins to engage in criminal
acts, but because they own everything significant, they become the law.
The Railroad burned farmers off their homesteads which they gave to
the cattle barons. Telephone companies wiretapped into private
telephone conversations, and eventually charged nearly an hour's wages
for a 3 minute conversation. IBM could get your entire personal and
economic history through the right computer databases.

But in each case, the monopolist struggled to retaine their control of
the monopoly while the innovationists competed in the unrestricted
competitive market. Railroads tried to protect their markets from the
Trucks and Planes, and they lost, today, people drive their own cars,
from the door of their house to within a few hundred feet of their
office, with no trains required.

AT&T suddenly found that MCI had the legal right to plug in their pay
phones, and to share the revenue with the establishment owner, before
long, MCI was offering long distance, and AT&T was forced to make room
for the competitors - the competive market reduced the rates to the
point where 3 minutes wages can get you 1 hour of talk time.

IBM tried to maintain control - pushing SNA, APPC, MVS, and CICS/COBOL,
mainframes, while the rest of the industry switched to TCP/IP, UNIX,
Windows, and Linux on PCs and Minicomputers. Today, nearly 1 billion
people do their own taxes on PCs, track their own finances on PCs, even
manage their own investment portfolios on PCs, thanks to the power of
Windows and *nix.

While Microsoft has clung to MS-Office, Windows, and Browser/Active-X
technology, Linux has been introducing clusters, peer-to-peer, instant
messaging, security that makes the NSA nervous, and control. Within 5
years, people won't be using an ISP to store their e-mail, chats, web
content, and so on, they will have their own Linux system at
home/office and will be able to access it from any location, using a
laptop or PDA that has voice recognition, detachable Dvorak keyboard,
optical scanner, and can be viewed using XHD (1600x1200) goggles or
heads-up display on any window or reflective surface.

We can see cell phones that do some of this today. The computer of
tomorrow won't even look like a computer, it might even just be
component parts, all about the size of a small cell phone. The
communication module, the storage module, the display module, and the
networking module, each less than 4 ounces, each less than 3 cubic
inches, and the combined unit would be more powerful than a modern
Linux cluster.
Post by DFS
This is sad, Bill. You've revealed yourself to be silly and moronic and
biased. Almost like Rex Ballard, matter of fact.
I saw my name and felt I had to respond. You through the gauntlet, and
I just felt I needed to slap your face silly with it.
Post by DFS
And here I thought you were a notch above a cola nutcase.
You had such a good focused article, but you had to get personal.
Too bad. I might have just looked the other way.
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Bill
DFS
2005-03-30 05:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.
Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
going to help competition somehow.
They went with the wrong approach. The EU (and the DOJ) should have
simply said that Microsoft had to include ALL competitor software
(INCLUDING Linux) in every distribution shipped by OEMs.
What do you mean by ALL competitor software? And which Linux distro? Who
gets to choose?

I can see the huge legal fights breaking out when the "Rex Ballard Visionary
retail
plan for Windows XP" is revealed.
Post by r***@usa.net
Instead,
they let Microsoft have a loophole that you can drive a oil tanker
through, and still have room for an aircraft carrier fleet.
Good. MS and OEM's shouldn't be forced to include anything they don't want
to pre-install. That's for the end-user to do.
Post by r***@usa.net
Forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
non-punishment. Microsoft can still rig it so that if you connect to
the Internet (which you have to do to register and enable XP within 30
days) you automatically get a download unless you expressly tell it
you do NOT want Media Player.
They could "rig" it that way, but they're not going to. And even if they
did, so what? You just click No.
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft still controls what gets loaded, it still has the freedom to
pervert the standards, and is not required to disclose them.
They are the standard - well, some standards anyway.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
It's not MS keeping iTunes or RealPlayer
or WinAmp or MusicMatch off Windows desktops - it's the quality of
the competition and the users choice.
Other vendors chose to adopt industry standards such as MP3, but
Microsoft "embraced" (announced compliance - which was false
advertising) and then "Extended" (released a version so incompatible
as to be completly non-standard and incompatible with all standards
compliant software).
? Windows Media Player 10, the one that won't be included in the EU version
of Windows XP, let's you play and burn .mp3 files. And it looks to be a
really good media player system. I'm betting those N customers won't be N
for long.
Post by r***@usa.net
The irony is that they will tell you that Active
Directory is LDAP and Kerberos, even though they are incompatible with
standard implementations - but demand noncompete monopoly protecting
nondisclosures and license agreements in which you must promise never
to write another line of code for Linux again -
Lie.
Post by r***@usa.net
in order to see the
specification for the one field they actually implemented in a
nonstandard way.
Lie.
Post by r***@usa.net
The fact that this little "enhancement" also creates a huge security
hole is only available to those who have signed the NDA/LA.
Meaning you've signed the non-disclosure agreement? But here you are
breaking it, right now. Which is it? Liar or criminal?

Looks like Rex Ballard has painted himself into another corner with his
lies.
Post by r***@usa.net
Essentially, Microsoft is trying to force Open Source supporters to
stop supporting Open Source by offering to let them see Open Source
code.
Nah. What I see is a pack of OSS bozos trying to force MS to support open
source by
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft controls what is distributed by the OEMs.
No they don't. HP and Dell and every OEM out there ships systems with
WordPerfect Office Suite, or Quicken, or many other non-MS programs.
Post by r***@usa.net
The OEM licenses
prevent them from making any alterations not approved in writing, by
Microsoft.
If that's what the OEM agreed to, who are you to gripe about it?
Post by r***@usa.net
When Compaq attempted to install Netscape Browser on the
desktop, Microsoft sent them a letter declaring that their License
would be revoked in 30 days.
It is this control of the OEMs that must be monitored and regulated,
even if it means Micromanaging the daylights out of Microsoft until
they stop restricting the OEMs.
They don't restrict the OEMs. The OEMs restrict themselves, by agreeing to
the contracts. It happens a million times a day, in every industry.
Post by r***@usa.net
The OEMs now pay more for Microsoft's
software than for any other component on the PC,
That definitely depends on the OEM, the version of Windows, and on the
components. Big hard drives and motherboards and video cards all cost much
more than Windows.
Post by r***@usa.net
and they are not
allowed to include anything which might give them a competitive edge,
stimulate new markets, or just keep sales up.
Sure they are. OEMs are allowed to include whatever software they want,
within the terms of their contracts with MS and other software vendors, the
terms of which contracts you or I are not privy to.
Post by r***@usa.net
OEMs are left to the mercy of Microsoft, waiting 2 years for Longhorn,
which has turned into a short-horned steer, while XP sales dwindle to
nothing, PCs are sold at below cost, and the losses must be subsidized
by Consulting and accessory revenue. Gateway is losing money on every
box it sells, HP has to sell a printer just to break even, IBM has
sold off it's OEM PC business, perhaps so that they can distribute
Thinkpads and Netfinity PCs as VARs (which means they are not bound
by OEM restrictions).
People don't choose the operating system on their PC.
They choose the PC with the operating system they want.
Post by r***@usa.net
If they
actually had a choice, between a Windows PC and a comparably priced
Linux or UNIX PC, they would be choosing Linux/UNIX consistently.
I think not.
Post by r***@usa.net
As
it is, people are paying almost twice as much for iMacs with OS/X,
because it is so much better than Windows.
So much better, yet they can hardly sell 1/30th the number of Windows
systems? Are people really that dumb, or is it just that OS/X and Linux
isn't better than Windows.
Post by r***@usa.net
Apple has proven that UNIX can be easy to use, and Steve Jobs has even
made it an artistic and delightful experience, using most of the
technology which originated in BSD and Open Source.
Very little of what makes OSX good is BSD or open source. It's the hardware
and software integration, and the nice GUI and superb applications. In
fact, Apple does as much as possible to hide the typical BSD and open-source
look and feel. You know, like the way KCron looks
http://docs.kde.org/en/3.4/kdeadmin/kcron/new-task.html#id2873611
Post by r***@usa.net
Most people don't have this choice for work. The CIO just chooses for
them, and usually chooses the hardware, and the version of Windows,
and the Version of MS-Office, and the version of Outlook, and so-on.
I know! Smart choices, all of them. Why don't these CIO's mandate Linux,
and "save" all that money on licensing costs?
Post by r***@usa.net
Pretty much, the CIO is simply a yes-man to Microsoft, his only
"flexibility" is whether to skip the upgrade from Office-2000 to
Office-XP and go directly to Office 2003.
Matter of fact, I skipped that upgrade.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
I don't see the incident quite so simplistically or as innocently as
you seem to. Rather, I see it as the EU finally starting to waken
up to what some people have been saying for a long time.
Politicians aren't stupid. They see Open Source pushing the
technology envelope, while Microsoft does everything in it's power to
protect it's status-quo. The major innovations in the marketplace
were in the Open Source world,
There is some innovation going on in the open source world, but more often
than not the open source world is chock full of cloners, borrowers, beggars,
and outright thieves.
Post by r***@usa.net
and it took years for Microsoft to
announce them as "Innovations", and most of these "Innovations" came
with very expensive price tags, legal restrictions, and negative
consequences such as viruses, worms, and security holes.
But that didn't stop them from selling $billions of their "innovations."
Wonder why OSS can't seem to gain any real momentum on the desktop.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
But I notice the EU is "waking up" much too late; they gladly helped
MS build their monopoly, but now want to play hero and try to slay
the monster they helped create.
Bill Gates announced that he was going to RULE the WORLD back in 1984.
The only people who took him seriously were people in the UNIX and
Open Source community.
I don't believe he afforded you guys the same respect. And why should he?
Unix and OSS has shown it can't market products very well, or compete with
MS on price.
Post by r***@usa.net
For the next 20 years, Microsoft attempted to gain and maintain
monopolies over the Operating systems, the Applications, the
Networking, the financial transactions,
They did, huh? Tell me when and how. I missed it.
Post by r***@usa.net
and the information being
passed between corporations and between individuals. The plan was
mapped out in 1984, right after Microsoft's revenues went higher than
Lotus' revenues.
And with the help of hundreds of millions of consumers, they achieved a lot
of what they planned.
Post by r***@usa.net
During that same 20 years, the Open Source community created and
distributed TCP/IP (Internet), HTTP (Web), SMTP (e-mail), SGML, HTML,
XML, distributed processing, clusters, and all of the other engines
that power what we now call "the Internet".
I thought you invented all those things?

Besides, those aren't open source projects or products. Those are standards
and protocols produced by a variety of academic and government and business
organizations.
Post by r***@usa.net
Ironically, there are
many other features and treasures which are available when Linux
reaches the Desktop, but when Microsoft attempts to imitate them, the
result is security holes and back-doors so exposed that the
techonology itself is condemned.
If Microsoft had been able to control the evolution of the Internet,
we'd be paying Microsoft $1/megabyte and every byte would be read by
Microsoft's "Big Brother" machines.
Lie. Grandiose silliness. Absurd. Take your pick.

MS controls/ed the desktop, from which Windows systems most Internet content
is produced and consumed, and they have NEVER attempted to charge for
Internet transactions or read emails.
Post by r***@usa.net
As it is, they can only watch
about 10% of the traffic on the web,
LOL! You're a maniac.
Post by r***@usa.net
even that is enough to turn the
outcome of an election, establish the political agenda, or have a
political leader disabled.
And don't forget about the retired widows going to bed hungry each night
because of the Microsoft tax...

You're also disturbed.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods
to Bill Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise? It's
almost as if... one-EU-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-other's-doing.
Bill and Microsoft did make the original Windows 3.1 one of the first
truly easy-to-use computer systems. Windows 3.1 made it possible for
nearly 1/4 million users to use computers at work, at home, and in new
ways, to be more productive. I often say that Microsoft's one true
"innovation" was the "Dancing Paper Clip", knowing that everyone hates
that thing, but in reality, Microsoft did teach nearly 1 billion
people how to use a computer. That is no small accomplishement. And
the key ingredient in this was all of the context sensitive help,
help bubbles, good labeling, wizards, and other "hand holding" that
Microsoft was able to do electronically.
Well how about that - Rex is feeling warm and fuzzy toward MS? Or are you
having pangs of guilt for lying about Microsoft so much and so often for so
many years? Let me tell you - one paragraph of sarcastic statements,
wrapped around nuggets of the truth, doesn't begin to make up for even one
post full of your lies and idiocy.
Post by r***@usa.net
I think Bill deserves to be knighted for the work he has done.
Probably so. That he concurrently became the richest man in the world makes
many cheap and broke cola weirdos furious.
Post by r***@usa.net
This doesn't mean that he should be allowed to become the world's
dictator through his control of the world's information.
MS doesn't control anyone's information, nor have they ever tried to, nor do
they want to. What they want to do is sell products to help you process
your own information.
Post by r***@usa.net
This doesn't
mean that he should be allowed to engage in criminal acts to protect
his monopolies. Keep in mind, Microsoft holds several monopolies,
which is what makes it so dangerous.
They're not dangerous.
Post by r***@usa.net
NT 4.0 came out, it didn't run very well, and in a head-to-head
competition Red Hat Linux 4.0 was knocking the socks off NT 4.0 in
performance, reliability, security, and features. OEMs knew at this
point, that they had backed the losing horse, but couldn't get out of
the draconian terms. They couldn't even sell Linux as a "supplemental
disk". Small companies were popping up out of nowhere and reaping
huge profits on Linux enabled PCs,
They were, huh? You better tell them that, 'cause they don't remember it
that way.
Post by r***@usa.net
and the OEMs were thumbcuffed.
Keep your perversions to yourself.
Post by r***@usa.net
In 1997, IBM finally decided to get behind Linux. They saw the
low-hanging fruit in the server market and invested $1 billion into
Linux. Within less than 18 months, they had recovered that investment
several times over in Linux driven sales of hardware (including new
life for the Z-Series), software (including WebSphere, DB2, Lotus
Notes, and numerous other products), and consulting (installation,
consulting, support), and while Windows OEMs and vendors struggled to
survive 2000 and 2001, IBM was thriving and growing.
Where's your support for a single statement you just made? Where is a link
to an IBM article stating they recaptured a $1 billion Linux investment in
18 months. In short, where is the proof Rex? (here's where you skip over
and snip and fail to respond).
Post by r***@usa.net
Windows XP was a bitter pill for everyone. The OEMs got screwed
because Microsoft had established "Support Contracts" for millions of
corporate desktops. Windows XP would run on Windows 2000 hardware,
and so there was no mad panic rush to go out and buy Windows XP
hardware.
You're actually criticizing Windows XP for being able to run on older
hardware? You're totally out of touch with the other cola bozos, whose most
fond claim is Linux runs on their old piece of crap Pentium 2.
Post by r***@usa.net
The Corporate customers were also screwed, because Microsoft
unilaterally demanded triple the maintenence fees and the corporate
customers had to sign agreements within 30 days or forfeit all future
service and support.
Where's the proof, Rex? Just one independent source verifying these
statements, and I'll concede the point. Until I see that proof, everything
you say is suspect.
Post by r***@usa.net
To make matters worse, some of the worst viruses
and worms were infecting Windows NT and 2000 servers so security fixes
were perceived to be critical.
Within 6 months of the release of Windows XP, most major companies and
government agencies were establishing contingincy plans to migrate to
Linux on the desktop.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Do you know how wrong you are?
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft has tried to placate anyone who made
such plans, by offering them lower rates, free upgrades, and other
incentives, but these often also included provisions which effectively
excluded Linux from ANY corporate workstation (direct violations of
the DOJ rulings of Law and Appeals court rulings without even a
peep), in many cases, Linux users had to purchase their own
workstations or laptops to get around these restrictions.
Where's the proof, Rex? Just one independent source verifying these
statements, and I'll concede the point. Until I see that proof, everything
you say is suspect.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- then start to include it with the O/S or whatever
The key was that back in 1989-90, they had a legitimate monopoly over
MS-DOS. It just wasn't practical or cost-effective to put two
operating systems on the same PC.
So now it's the size of the user's hard drive which determines whether their
monopoly is legitimate or not?
Post by r***@usa.net
The average PC hard drive held
around 20 megabytes, and Windows 3.0 ate about 1/2 of that. Documents
and user storage quickly consumed the rest so quickly that efforts
were made to compress the contents of the hard drive, first by a
company called Stack/Stacker, then later by Microsoft's illegal
bundleware which sabotaged the Stacker software.
Of course, you neglect to mention Stac was found guilty of stealing
technology from Microsoft, and ordered to pay $12.6 or $13.6 million (ask
Ray Ingles for the exact amount).
Post by r***@usa.net
By 1994 however, the playing field had changed substantially. Linux
could be installed on a partition as small as 4 gigabytes, and hard
drives often exceeded 200 Megabytes in size. There was plenty of room
for Linux, and all of the technology to support allowing the user to
choose between Linux and Windows was available. Microsoft simply used
their contracts with the OEMs to prevent this.
Good. That's what any rational business would do: protect its image and its
investment.
Post by r***@usa.net
To prevent any
defections, they revoked Compaq's license to Windows for one of their
computer lines for simply altering the appearance of the desktop. The
message was as clear as it could be, Microsoft would tolerate no
defections to Linux.
Neither, apparently, will the general public.
Post by r***@usa.net
Ironically, when companies such as VA-Linux
started selling Linux machines, Microsoft offered them dual-boot
capabilities at OEM rates.
So why are you bitching?
Post by r***@usa.net
This of course triggered the series of legal actions against Microsoft
including the contempt of the 1993 settlement, then the DOJ antitrust
filing.
Perhaps it also triggered your psychotic break with reality?
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- bit-by-bit change the "standards". Anybody using your means of
producing content (the web server in this example) and your client
is fine - everything still works......
Actually, Microsoft didn't wait very long to "extend" what it
"embraced". Microsoft embraces open standards like an anaconda
embraces a gazelle, just before it "extends" it's jaws to swallow it
whole. And there are usually negative consequences when this happens.
For example, when Microsoft embraced TCP/IP for corporate networking,
they extended it with DHCP. This meant that Windows had to assign the
IP addresses, and that you could no longer trace worms, viruses, and
other security violations back to the originator.
This meant a great ease of the workload involved in administering a large IP
network, which made Windows even more of a hero, which in turn led to more
sales of Windows. It's a great cycle.

Naturally, the copycat Linux world has embraced DHCP as well.
Post by r***@usa.net
When Microsoft embraced Dial-up Internet - they imposed MS-CHAT, which
provided an encrypted handshake, but the password was stored in
clear-text on the client PC - in addition, there was no firewalling on
the terminal server, which meant that you could share FAT drives with
whoever else happened to be calling on that Windows NT based terminal
server. Most of these were quickly replaced by Linux implementations.
When Microsoft embraced Web browsers, they quickly added scripting and
Active-X controls which made it possible to view MS-Office documents
on your web browser. It also made it possible for anyone to install
software which could read, write, modify, create, or delete, any file
on your hard drive, without even so much as a polite graphic.
When Microsoft embraced e-mail, Outlook enhanced it's viewer with the
ability to view or preview documents using IE. This meant that you
didn't even have to open a document to get a virus, you just had to
preview it.
All those ease-of-use features are what customers wanted.
Post by r***@usa.net
When Microsoft embraced corba - they implemented DCOM, DCOM was
completely incompatible with CORBA, but just as the CORBA comunity
resolved the incompatibility issues, Microsoft switched to COM+,
again, security was comprimized, and now an infected laptop or
workstation could run any function on any Windows machine without
telling either the user of the infected machine, or the user of the
target machine.
When Microsoft embraced Java - the broke the sandbox, which meant that
Java applets could now read, write, modify, create, or destroy any
file on the user's hard drive, and run any Java RMI function on any
other MS-Java machine in the network - without telling anybody
anything.
You sure about that? Because as of IE 4.0, Microsoft refused to even
include the RMI library in the jre they shipped.

http://www.javacoffeebreak.com/articles/microsoftjava/

Now, it wasn't impossible to add RMI support to J++, but it was difficult.

Rex, I know by now I have to take EVERYTHING you say with a liberal grain of
salt. When it's not an obvious fabrication, I have to waste my time proving
over and over and over again that you're a serial liar, fabricator and
exaggerator. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
- enjoy your imposed monopoly.
Huh? Explain how MS imposed a monopoly?
I described all of this in quite a bit of detail above. Ultimately,
Microsoft threatened and demanded an "all or nothing" choice.
Ultimately, consumers voted to buy PCs with Windows pre-installed. And they
voted to build PCs and install Windows on them - just as they continue to do
today.

Given a choice, the overwhelming majority of people choose
Windows - not Linux/UNIX as you say above.
Post by r***@usa.net
An OEM
who wanted to try and make it without being able to sell Windows on
ANY of it's machines was likely to have a huge drop in revenue,
Why?
Post by r***@usa.net
possibly even bankrupting the company. Since the only other
alternative Microsoft was offering was for the OEM to give Microsoft
complete and exclusive control over the system configuration, right
down to the desktop applications, there was no negotiation.
Which is only your speculation, of course. You have ZERO proof of those
statements.
Post by r***@usa.net
This was
fundamentally the same as if a Microsoft salesperson had pointed a
gun to each PC purchaser's head and said "buy the machine with
Windows or I'll pull the trigger". It minimum this was extortion -
threatening to destroy a company, a reputation, and the holdings of
millions of investors, unless the contract is accepted exactly as
worded (at least as far as the major provisions are concerned) is
extortion.
When IBM refused to knuckle under immediately, Microsoft threatened to
publish their assertion that IBM had illegally shipped millions of
unlicensed PCs. The fact was that these machines were sold as OS/2
only machines, and IBM still had more than enough licenses to cover
the difference, but Microsoft claimed that this was piracy because
IBM did not ship the Windows capability. This was blackmail. IBM
settled, paying the money, but still refused to stop selling OS/2.
Microsoft threatened to revoke ALL Windows licenses - and refused to
allow IBM to sell ANY Windows 95 machines. Ironically, the only
reason Microsoft finally accepted terms which allowed IBM to continue
to sell Lotus products, was because the IBM logo was prominantly
displayed on the unveiling backdrop and 15 minutes before the curtain
was to go up, the legal department was afraid of fraud charges and
other FTC prosecutions.
It all sounds so dramatic, what with all the CAPS you use, and all the terms
like 'fraud' and 'blackmail'. And being a dramatic sort that you are, you
naturally take many liberties with the true story.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
No, the world gets what it pays for.
No, the world gets what the vendor is willing and able to sell.
If I can buy a Pantera De Thomaso - but it can't be brought to the US
because of safety and emission regulations, I really can't buy one. I
might be able find a vendor who could make a car that runs on sewage,
but if I can't drive it because of required EPA devices, then I really
can't buy that car.
Newsflash, Rex: did you know you really can remove Windows from your hard
drive? And did you know you really can buy the parts to build your own PC
without Windows? And did you know you can put a Linux or OS/2 or BSD or
Unix or
BeOS disk in the computer CD player on first boot and never even have to see
the Microsoft logo? Not once!

Isn't that amazing! And all this time you thought you were being forced to
use Windows...
Post by r***@usa.net
When Microsoft tells an OEM that they can ONLY sell Windows on their
machines if they purchase licenses for EVERY machine (and 10% extra)
and that every machine licensed must be configured in a manner that
excludes all competitors, than Microsoft is not only imposing a
monopoly, they are extending it.
They cannot impose a monopoly. OEMs are free to accept or reject whatever
terms. Buyers are free to accept or reject computers with Windows on them.

The fact is, the world chose Windows. All your whining and bellyaching
about OEM contracts won't change the fact that people bought Windows because
they wanted it. And they still want it. Linux takeup by the public?
Negligible. Apple? The same.
Post by r***@usa.net
In reality, Red Hat offered a price of $2/copy in 1994, to ANY OEM who
wanted to install it on their system in a dual-boot configuration.
They weren't asking for exclusive control of the machine, only the
ability to let users actually choose. Microsoft threatened to revoke
the contracts of any OEM who attempted to accept this offer.
Good. Let the customer install the OS. Mercedes doesn't allow their
dealers to sell Kia's in their showrooms, do they? So what makes you think
Microsoft should make it easier for customers to compare and use and switch
to competing products? You're naive for thinking that.
Post by r***@usa.net
The
following year, when Windows95 was released, they sabotoged the hard
drive - wiping the boot track and repartitioning the entire drive.
Many users lost years of data when they attempted to install Windows
95 on a Windows 3.1 machine -
They should have backed up their data.
Post by r***@usa.net
all because Microsfot wanted to
completely destroy any boot manager that would allow a user to boot
Linux as well as Windows 95.
Is that what they said? No, of course not. That's your oddball
interpretation. You could never produce a shred of evidence that this was
their intention.
Post by r***@usa.net
If any company or individual other than
Microsoft had done this, it would have been criminal destruction of
the computer, and also sabotage, but Microsoft's EULA gave them
permission to do it. At least that's what Microsoft's position was
during the DOJ trial.
And are we sure the reverse problems caused by Linux kernel 2.6 sometimes
rendering Windows partitions unbootable is an innocent error? I mean,
seeing how much hatred for MS exists in the Linux/OSS world, there's a
distinct possibility it was done maliciously.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
The world chose MS and Windows.
The last time I went to a retailer and saw to comparable priced
machines, one running Microsoft technology, the other running a
competitor's techonology, was when DRI was offering GEM, the computer
was the Atari ST, the PC was the PC-AT.
Looks like the world got what it wanted: Windows.
Post by r***@usa.net
When Atari tried to increase
the amount of RAM to 1 Meg, they couldn't get FCC certifications -
seems that several MS-DOS OEMs had requested FCC certification of
numerous permutations of hardware that tied the lab up for about 9
months. By then the market window was gone.
I'm sure those lab technicians were being paid under the table by MS. Who
isn't these days?
Post by r***@usa.net
I can go to CompUSA and see a Mac, but the Mac is either twice the
price or 1/2 the speed. Since Apple has no competitors in their
hardware niche, their prices are substantially higher.
Why doesn't Apple ship RedHat with OS/X? They need to be micromanaged,
Apple tax, destroy mbr, Jobs runs the country, blah blah blah...
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Now parts of it want to unchoose, on their terms.
Right now, Microsoft is facing competition in some of it's markets for
the first time in years. Because OpenOffice
is a joke, MS has no worries.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Too bad. It's not going to be so easy.
Actually, it's very easy - it's just reducing the retail shelves to
games and antivirus software. I can download a CD-ROM in about 10
minutes - a knoppix CD-ROM will have be running Linux in about 20
minutes. No configuration, no hard work, just put in the bootable
CD-ROM, reboot the computer, and tell the machine to boot from the
CD-ROM. I'm up.
If I don't want to give up Windows completely, I can use Cygwin and
get Linux applicatinos that run on Cygwin. Putty, WinCVS, and several
other applications now include their own cygwin library, giving me the
choice of which cygwin to run.
Or VMWare, or QEMU, or bochs, or MS VirtualPC, or Xen
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Answer all protests about web-sites not rendering with "Use I.E.
like the rest of the world does - it's free - it comes with the
O/S!" I must admit, it worked in the U.S.
And in the UK.
And there was a price. Viruses, security holes, lost time, lost
hardware, servers that crash, in fact, these days, the bigger fear is
that you Windows machine WON'T BSOD when you get infected with some
cute little virus from hell.
You can spend $10 million protecting the front door, and have the
whole thing come unglued because you wouldn't spend 15 minutes
downloading and installing FireFox.
Unglued? That's funny, 'cause I used IE exclusively for at least 6 years,
half of that time without a firewall or any kind of protection, and I got
only one piece of malware - a coolwebsearch hijack of my home page.

Note: these days I do use Firefox on Windows (usually Konqueror in Linux).
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
The E.U. however seems to be under a delusion or something (poor
things!). The governments here, collectively if not unanimously so
individually, seem to be under the impression that they are Elected
to serve the Electorate, and that on behalf of the Electorate, they
will curb the excesses of large corporations.
We also know that there were many governments in the EU who had
publicly announced their intention to switch to Linux on the desktop,
even under public challenges by Microsoft's CEO. Yet at the last
minute, these same officials signed undisclosed agreements to stick
with Microsoft (often to the exclusion of Linux). One would almost
suspect blackmail, extortion, or worse.
What's this almost wishy-washy stuff? Go ahead and accuse them of bad faith
like you always do...
Post by r***@usa.net
You know that when Microsoft
really wants to know about you, they can dig up information you may
not even have meant for wide-spread publication, and smear it all
over the people you most want to influence. If they were willing to
take a personals posting I posted 15 years ago and post it all over
this newsgroup, don't you think they might have attempted similar
tactics with the Linux advocate who had sold Munich on Linux?
...that's better.
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft can see what sights you visit, what e-mails you send and
receive, what your finances look like (especially if you use Money),
and pretty much any information you have ever stored on a computer -
if they really want to. And you don't think that hasn't pissed off a
few people in the EU?
Microsoft can even publish that information via MSNBC or MSN and then
use that to get it on headline news on every major cable network.
LOL! I'm sitting here roaring, and just amazed at your paranoia and
schizophrenia. Are you sure you're considered a "high functioning" human
being?
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Yes, I see how your government is curbing MS excesses - by making
huge investments in MS products. Is their strategy to throw money
at MS in the hopes they will leave?
The U.S. government is in the same boat as everybody else. They hate
Microsoft software, they hate getting charged through the noses for
inferior products when they can get better capabilities for lower
prices through the Open Source community.
What "better capabilities" are you speaking of?
Post by r***@usa.net
But they can't get the OEM
to sell them PCs that have been preconfigured with Linux fully
operational from the very fist boot-up. They can't visit the IE-Only
sites and get good results, or they get no results.
Which IE-only site are you speaking about? Last time I searched for one, I
couldn't find any.
Post by r***@usa.net
12 years ago, I warned numerous people, including people in newsgroups
and several mailing lists, that if we allowed proprietary vendors to
just start imposing their own undocumented unpublished communications
protocols on the web, that we would start to have serious problems,
including security, priviacy, and possibly even criminal activities.
So you were a self-appointed MS sheriff way back in '92?
Post by r***@usa.net
20 years ago, Richard Stallman warned that if we allowed proprietary
softare vendors to control the software which was used to create,
edit, and view our documents and critical information, we would find
ourselves at the mercy of those vendors. Even Richard had a hard time
with the possibility that one company, effectively controlled by 1
man, could actually gain control of nearly EVERY file storage format,
communication protocol, AND the underlying operating system, giving
them the ability to not only prevent us from looking at our own
documents, but also giving them the ability to read, copy, and even
publish, any docement we have created, without our knowledge.
Luckily emacs and gcc saved us from big, bad MS.

And, do you actually believe anything you just wrote? MS controls a tiny
handful of file formats, and no communication protocols - they do, of
course, control the OS. But there has never been any evidence of anything
you wrote. Never.
Post by r***@usa.net
IBM tried to maintain control - pushing SNA, APPC, MVS, and
CICS/COBOL, mainframes, while the rest of the industry switched to
TCP/IP, UNIX, Windows, and Linux on PCs and Minicomputers. Today,
nearly 1 billion people do their own taxes on PCs, track their own
finances on PCs, even manage their own investment portfolios on PCs,
thanks to the power of Windows and *nix.
Mostly Windows, of course.
Post by r***@usa.net
While Microsoft has clung to MS-Office, Windows, and Browser/Active-X
technology,
It took them to the top, didn't it?
Post by r***@usa.net
Linux has been introducing clusters, peer-to-peer, instant
messaging, security that makes the NSA nervous, and control. Within 5
years, people won't be using an ISP to store their e-mail, chats, web
content, and so on, they will have their own Linux system at
home/office and will be able to access it from any location, using a
laptop or PDA that has voice recognition, detachable Dvorak keyboard,
optical scanner, and can be viewed using XHD (1600x1200) goggles or
heads-up display on any window or reflective surface.
Sounds like you've been reading Computer Shopper again.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
This is sad, Bill. You've revealed yourself to be silly and moronic
and biased. Almost like Rex Ballard, matter of fact.
I saw my name and felt I had to respond.
It was B Gruff's accusation that MS runs the USA which raised the
association in my mind between him and you. And God Bless You, Rex, you
didn't let me down - right here in this post you claim MS can change the
outcome of an election.

Keep it up.
Post by r***@usa.net
You through the gauntlet,
and I just felt I needed to slap your face silly with it.
I understand that's what you feel you do with your insane ramblings, bold
and unsupported (and usually unsupportable) assertions, lies, hyperbole,
exaggerations, hatred, insanity and anti-MS FUD, but to me it just sounds
like "Rex Gone Wild!"
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
And here I thought you were a notch above a cola nutcase.
You had such a good focused article, but you had to get personal.
Too bad. I might have just looked the other way.
Always feel free to jump in. I admit I learn something from each of your
posts - after carving away the 99% chaff.
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Bill
r***@usa.net
2005-04-13 10:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
Post by DFS
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
It pisses me off to no end, actually.
Like forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
going to help competition somehow.
They went with the wrong approach. The EU (and the DOJ) should have
simply said that Microsoft had to include ALL competitor software
(INCLUDING Linux) in every distribution shipped by OEMs.
What do you mean by ALL competitor software? And which Linux distro?
Who
Post by DFS
gets to choose?
Microsoft tried to justify putting in Media player and Web Browser
because Linux did. The difference is that Linux puts in lots of
competing browsers. Most of these browser makers get revenue from
other sources, for example, through advertizing and preset links.

When OEMS such as Compaq and Gateway tried to install other browsers
and remove the IE icon from the Microsoft desktop (not actually remove
the application, just move the application off of the desktop)
Microsoft didn't just threaten to revoke their license, they actually
gave them formal notice that their licenses HAD BEEN REVOKED, effective
30 days from the date of notification.

Essentially, Microsoft said "All or nothing", "our way or not at all".
Of course, this meant no way to gain a competitive edge, no way to
distinguish your product. Ironically, Microsoft was much more generous
with VA Linux who was selling Linux machines, and Microsoft offered to
let them sell Windows/Linux dual-boot machines, without the "all or
nothing" terms.
Post by DFS
I can see the huge legal fights breaking out when the
"Rex Ballard Visionary retail
plan for Windows XP" is revealed.
Terrible isn't it? The very thought of letting vendors compete for the
user's desktop and favor. The possibility of having FireFox and IE on
every single PC, or having NetScape Communicator and IE on every single
box.

Maybe we should let the OEM decide what goes onto the box. Maybe Dell
would like to have Roxio, Opera, and Notes, while Gateway would like to
have RealPlayer, FireFox, and Thunderbird.

Microsoft should not have the right to tell the OEM what the final
product should look like.

The OEMs are supposed to be able to sell Linux as well as Windows, and
there are a number of excellent technologies which allow them to sell
both of on the same machine in a dual-boot configuration.

The OEMs would have a much more marketable product if they could break
the PC's hard drive into multiple partitions, but Microsoft won't let
them. They know that multiple partitions make it much easier and
cheaper to install Windows and Linux in Dual-boot configuration.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Instead,
they let Microsoft have a loophole that you can drive a oil tanker
through, and still have room for an aircraft carrier fleet.
Good. MS and OEM's shouldn't be forced to include anything they don't want
to pre-install. That's for the end-user to do.
It's the OEM producing the machine, putting up the capital, taking the
risk, and at the moment assuming all of the losses. It's the OEM who
makes less than 10% margins even in the best of years while Microsoft
makes an 85% profit. Microsoft can control any OEM by simply
threatening to revoke the license for any line which is not configured
the way Microsoft wants it configured.

Microsoft isn't supposed to be allowed to punish OEMs who sell Linux,
but they are allowed to give huge kickbacks to OEMs who install
"Windows Only" hardware and peripherals. This is thinly disguised as
"research reembursement", but simply means that Microsoft will punish
anyone who produces Linux-Friendly hardware.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Forcing MS to sell a version of XP without Media Player is
non-punishment. Microsoft can still rig it so that if you connect to
the Internet (which you have to do to register and enable XP within 30
days) you automatically get a download unless you expressly tell it
you do NOT want Media Player.
They could "rig" it that way, but they're not going to. And even if they
did, so what? You just click No.
Again, it defeats the intent of the ruling, which was to promote
competition by giving all vendors equal access to the available market.
If you have to go out and download RealPlayer or any other
competitor's product, it should take the same amount of effort to get
the Microsoft product.

Still, the user can easily go to Microsoft.com and download WinPlayer -
which is good. This means the user now has a choice between players,
including 1 or 4 different players.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Microsoft still controls what gets loaded, it still has the freedom to
pervert the standards, and is not required to disclose them.
They are the standard - well, some standards anyway.
Subject to change without notice, to be implemented as a "security
fix", and may adversely impact 3rd party products. IBM is refusing to
insntall SP2 on employee because of the terrible impacts on things like
Lotus Notes, DB2, and other IBM products.

Every release of Microsoft's product have predictable problems with
competitor software, Lotus 1-2-3 has been torpedoed since Microsoft
released Multiplan.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Apple has proven that UNIX can be easy to use, and Steve Jobs has even
made it an artistic and delightful experience, using most of the
technology which originated in BSD and Open Source.
Very little of what makes OSX good is BSD or open source. It's the hardware
and software integration, and the nice GUI and superb applications.
In
Post by DFS
fact, Apple does as much as possible to hide the typical BSD and open-source
look and feel. You know, like the way KCron looks
http://docs.kde.org/en/3.4/kdeadmin/kcron/new-task.html#id2873611
But the core system, the reliability and performance came from UNIX.
Jobs and Apple did an excellent job of making *nix easy to use. At the
same time, they didn't strip away some of the really powerful features
of UNIX.

It's no surprise that users are willing to spend as much as 3 times the
price for OS/X that they would spend on a similarly equipped XP
machine.

It's ironic that most preinstalled Linux machines are often sold at
higher prices and higher profit than the similarly equipped XP machine.

It also says quite a bit that Linux users like Linux enough to do their
own installation, configuration, support, and upgrades. 70 million new
users this year, compared to 100 million Windows XP machines shipped
through OEMs.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Bill Gates announced that he was going to RULE the WORLD back in 1984.
The only people who took him seriously were people in the UNIX and
Open Source community.
I don't believe he afforded you guys the same respect. And why should he?
Unix and OSS has shown it can't market products very well, or compete with
MS on price.
Actually, Gates sold his interests in UNIX to SCO back in 1987, because
he didn't thing UNIX would survive the 1980s. He realized that he had
made a mistake almost immediately. In 1989, X11 on UNIX was doing
things that Microsoft's operating systems were not capable of doing
until Windows 2000.

The irony is that even though Microsoft still controls the branding of
the desktop, about 80% of the work done on PCs is actually being done
by UNIX, not Windows. In fact, most of the technology was Open Source.
Even the HTML viewer of IE was originally released under an NCSA
Public License very similar to the GNU Public License.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
For the next 20 years, Microsoft attempted to gain and maintain
monopolies over the Operating systems, the Applications, the
Networking, the financial transactions,
They did, huh? Tell me when and how. I missed it.
Too bad, I was right on the front lines. I literally sat next to the
Microsoft team that was trying to create MSN as a "Lotus Notes-like"
Network that was to be completely controlled by Microsoft, with all
content being stored and forwarded by Microsoft servers. Meanwhile I
was working on a project involving WAIS Inc, NCSA http server, and
Mosaic Browser with Trumpet Winsock. Only Trumpet Winsock was not open
source.

I was collaberating with 8000 publishers, many of whom had very small
budgets, often less than $100,000 which was enough to configure a Linux
server with WAIS, NCSA Server (later apache), WAIS search engine, htdig
crawler, and a Fractional T1 or Frame-Relay connection.
Post by DFS
And with the help of hundreds of millions of consumers, they achieved a lot
of what they planned.
Yep. Imagine what it would have been like if they had accomplished
everything they had planned on. You could only buy products with your
"Billy Card", buy things with "Billy Bucks", and work for employers who
paid 20% of your salary to "Billy Jobs". You'd pay 20% of your salary
to Microsoft, maybe even 50% of your after-tax salary.

Actually, come to think about it, the average budget for Microsoft for
the average company over 1000 employees is roughly 20% of the payroll.

Maybe people would be less enthusiastic if they realized that they were
getting a 4% raise because Microsoft was getting a 20% increase.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
During that same 20 years, the Open Source community created and
distributed TCP/IP (Internet), HTTP (Web), SMTP (e-mail), SGML, HTML,
XML, distributed processing, clusters, and all of the other engines
that power what we now call "the Internet".
I thought you invented all those things?
Nope, I was a leader in introducing them to the commercial market, to
the general public, but there were thousands of people involved in the
invention of those projects. Guys like John Postel, Vint Cerf, Bill
Joy, and thousands of people whose names barely appear at all. Along
with all of the people who tested, promoted, and distributed these
technologies.
Post by DFS
Besides, those aren't open source projects or products. Those are standards
and protocols produced by a variety of academic and government and business
organizations.
Actually, most of these were initially implemented as Open Source
technology under licenses ranging from BSD to GPL. Ironically, much of
the source code actually used in Microsoft Windows XP is based on Open
Source technology under flexible Open Source licenses such as BSD,
NCSA-PL, and MIT public license, too bad that many contributors are now
retaliating by publishing their support packs and fixpacks exclusively
in GPL or Artistic License or Common Public License.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Ironically, there are
many other features and treasures which are available when Linux
reaches the Desktop, but when Microsoft attempts to imitate them, the
result is security holes and back-doors so exposed that the
techonology itself is condemned.
If Microsoft had been able to control the evolution of the
Internet,
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
we'd be paying Microsoft $1/megabyte and every byte would be read by
Microsoft's "Big Brother" machines.
Lie. Grandiose silliness. Absurd. Take your pick.
Too bad I don't have those archives from the Dow Jones/Microsoft
project from 1993. Of course, I had to honor the nondisclosure
agreements and leave the really dirty stuff at the client site.

Microsoft avoids regulation and micro-management by partnering with
companies such as Qwest, Bank of America, and other 3rd party vendors,
in exchange for 25% ownership and a percentage of the revenue "off the
top".
Post by DFS
MS controls/ed the desktop, from which Windows systems most Internet content
is produced and consumed, and they have NEVER attempted to charge for
Internet transactions or read emails.
Post by r***@usa.net
As it is, they can only watch
about 10% of the traffic on the web,
LOL! You're a maniac.
MSN, Verisign, MSNBC, and other Microsoft sites are all capable of
probing computers as well as providing the desired information. The
code for doing this has been published since the release of IE 4.0 with
ActiveX controls. It's also possible to do this with Signed Applets.
Post by DFS
And don't forget about the retired widows going to bed hungry each night
because of the Microsoft tax...
Actually, I thought the story about the grandmothers who were selling
the underwear of their grandaughters for $50/pair to pedophiles was
much more "disturbing".

The 70 year old woman posing as a really beautiful bombshell in a chat
room was much more entertaining. What was really fun was watching over
her shoulder as she would bite into a banana while she chatted the guy
to an orgasm. No THAT was funny. A bit sick, but funny.
Post by DFS
You're also disturbed.
Yes. But I've had the benefit of 25 years of sobriety, 15 years of
Landmark, and nearly 43 years of support in my mental, emotional, and
spiritual development.

Yes, I really shouldn't rant so much about Microsoft. It really is
repetitive and it even gets a bit boring - to ME.

Perhaps I should focus more on the possibilities that Linux has made
available, and more importantly the possibilities that Open Source
technologies can STILL make available.

I'm still using Windows. I have a machine that runs Linux and Windows,
with Linux running under VMWare. I also have cygwin installed on all
of my Windows machines (which makes it possible to run Linux
applications from the Windows console).

Still, the system I PREFERR to use is LINUX. This is the system that
gets me excited, that has so many possibilities, that evolves so
quickly I even have a hard time keeping up with all of the advances.
It seems like every week, when I get updates and security fixes, that
the system is getting more powerful and effective every week.

When I download XP security fixes and service packs, I just pray that
it doesn't turn my hard drive into hamburger. I have lots of 3rd party
applications, and Microsoft's "fixes" often do a lot of damages to
those applications.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Post by DFS
But at the same time the Queen is handing out honorary knighthoods
to Bill Gates for his role in furthering British enterprise? It's
almost as if... one-EU-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-other's-doing.
Bill and Microsoft did make the original Windows 3.1 one of the first
truly easy-to-use computer systems. Windows 3.1 made it possible for
nearly 1/4 million users to use computers at work, at home, and in new
ways, to be more productive. I often say that Microsoft's one true
"innovation" was the "Dancing Paper Clip", knowing that everyone hates
that thing, but in reality, Microsoft did teach nearly 1 billion
people how to use a computer. That is no small accomplishement.
And
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
the key ingredient in this was all of the context sensitive help,
help bubbles, good labeling, wizards, and other "hand holding" that
Microsoft was able to do electronically.
Well how about that - Rex is feeling warm and fuzzy toward MS? Or are you
having pangs of guilt for lying about Microsoft so much and so often for so
many years? Let me tell you - one paragraph of sarcastic statements,
wrapped around nuggets of the truth, doesn't begin to make up for even one
post full of your lies and idiocy.
No. I'm not an idiot, but sometimes I do get a bit overzealous.
Microsoft has done a great deal of good to the world, and Bill Gates
and Melinda Gates have done some really great things with their
foundation. My understanding is that Melinda is even removing some of
the "strings" originally attached to some of the early donations. My
understanding is that she has decided that saving children's lives is
more important than getting the price of Microsoft stock back up to
$30/share.

I really don't think Bill is evil. For good reasons, he certainly wants
to maintain the price of Microsoft stock, and it's getting harder and
harder for him to do that and still keep his customer base.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
I think Bill deserves to be knighted for the work he has done.
Probably so. That he concurrently became the richest man in the world makes
many cheap and broke cola weirdos furious.
Different people play different games and use different scoreboards.
If Bill wants to get as much money as possible from as many people as
possible so that he can be the richest man in the world, that's fine.
I always find it amusing that people somehow thing that they will get
some of "Billy's Billions" if they engage in some "joint venture".
Bill Gates did not make his fortune by giving money to others. In
fact, most of the companies who have partnered with Microsoft since
1977 have ended up severely damaged in the process. Even IBM had a
stock price crash back in 1991 when Microsoft used OS/2 technology in
Windows 3.1 to drive IBM out of the O.S. market.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
This doesn't mean that he should be allowed to become the world's
dictator through his control of the world's information.
MS doesn't control anyone's information, nor have they ever tried to, nor do
they want to. What they want to do is sell products to help you process
your own information.
Keep in mind that Identity theft is simply the result of amateours who
have been accessing the same back doors used by Microsoft. Microsoft's
primary purpose for those back doors is to track piracy. On the other
hand, this same technology makes it POSSIBLE for Microsoft to tap into
any computer capable of accessing the Web.

How much information does MSN/MSNBC/Microsoft actually collect? My
guess is that this would be classified information. If you think about
it, Microsoft's ability to tap into some PC in Pakistan to locate Osama
Bin Ladin, Sadaam Hussein, or to get critical evidence against a drug
lord is probably not the worst thing that could happen. Of course,
Microsoft can function as an "informant" - since searching into a
person's computer is actually part of the EULA agreement, is something
Microsoft can legally do without a warrant, without a court order, and
with a very simple targeted well-placed trojan or virus.

Hitler's SS, Stalin's KGB, and McCarthy's Anticommunists could only
WISH for such power. The ability to read the most private thoughts and
communications of political opponents, allies suspected of being
disloyal, or even neutrals who need to be manipulated into influencing
opponents and allies.

We can hope that such power doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Hitler
had Eichmann, Stalin didn't need much help, and Hoover did everything
he could to prevent the abuses of his intelligence gathering
capabilities. I'm sure that we can trust Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer
to do the right thing.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
This doesn't
mean that he should be allowed to engage in criminal acts to
protect
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
his monopolies. Keep in mind, Microsoft holds several monopolies,
which is what makes it so dangerous.
They're not dangerous.
OK They're not dangerous. But what if that immense power fell into
the wrong hands? What if Russian Mobsters in NYC could access this
same information. What if script kiddies could access your credit card
information, what if your competitors could access not only your
customer database, but all of your proposals, including the final
estimates.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
NT 4.0 came out, it didn't run very well, and in a head-to-head
competition Red Hat Linux 4.0 was knocking the socks off NT 4.0 in
performance, reliability, security, and features. OEMs knew at this
point, that they had backed the losing horse, but couldn't get out of
the draconian terms. They couldn't even sell Linux as a
"supplemental
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
disk". Small companies were popping up out of nowhere and reaping
huge profits on Linux enabled PCs,
They were, huh? You better tell them that, 'cause they don't
remember it
Post by DFS
that way.
The ones who were so far in the red, were the ones who were using
Microsoft, Oracle, and other proprietary software that was priced with
hidden costs such as Client Access licenses, or indirect user licenses.
I remember when I was working with a publisher who wanted to use
Oracle and Windows NT. He absolutely insisted that the Client Access
Licenses gave him the right to download and install Windows NT onto
PCs. He also assumed that Oracle user licenses only included the
administrator accounts.

He ignored my warnings, did not seek the advice of the corporate law
deparment, and six months later, Microsoft wanted to be paid for the
hundreds of PCs that had been loaded with Windows NT. A year later,
Oracle wanted $150 for every customer who had a record in the customer
database table.

Oracle finally woke up to reality and swithed to "flat rate" server
pricing for Oracle 8i and 9i. Compared to the CALS solution, the flat
rate was a bargain, especially for internet servers.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
and the OEMs were thumbcuffed.
Keep your perversions to yourself.
I'd like to - unfortunately, they show up at the top of the google.
None of the nice people who posted that information ever gave their
information about their private desires. I posted a personals ad back
in 1993 when I was divorced, single, and certain WinTrolls decided to
publish them.

I've addressed them in this forum, mainly because they had been brought
to this forum.

And no, thumbcuffs aren't my thing. It's a metaphor.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
In 1997, IBM finally decided to get behind Linux. They saw the
low-hanging fruit in the server market and invested $1 billion into
Linux. Within less than 18 months, they had recovered that
investment
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
several times over in Linux driven sales of hardware (including new
life for the Z-Series), software (including WebSphere, DB2, Lotus
Notes, and numerous other products), and consulting (installation,
consulting, support), and while Windows OEMs and vendors struggled to
survive 2000 and 2001, IBM was thriving and growing.
Where's your support for a single statement you just made? Where is a link
to an IBM article stating they recaptured a $1 billion Linux
investment in
Post by DFS
18 months. In short, where is the proof Rex? (here's where you skip over
and snip and fail to respond).
Maybe some time I'll look it up. Right now it's really late and I need
to get up in the morning.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
Windows XP was a bitter pill for everyone. The OEMs got screwed
because Microsoft had established "Support Contracts" for millions of
corporate desktops. Windows XP would run on Windows 2000 hardware,
and so there was no mad panic rush to go out and buy Windows XP
hardware.
You're actually criticizing Windows XP for being able to run on older
hardware? You're totally out of touch with the other cola bozos, whose most
fond claim is Linux runs on their old piece of crap Pentium 2.
Actually, no, I think it was great that XP ran on Windows 2000
hardware. And XP was MUCH better than Windows ME. Ironically, I think
Windows 2000 was better in so many ways compared to Windows 2000.
Windows XP has better games, but I don't play many video games. If I
really wanted to play video games, I'd probably buy an X-Box, or a
PS/2.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
The Corporate customers were also screwed, because Microsoft
unilaterally demanded triple the maintenence fees and the corporate
customers had to sign agreements within 30 days or forfeit all future
service and support.
Where's the proof, Rex? Just one independent source verifying these
statements, and I'll concede the point. Until I see that proof, everything
you say is suspect.
These were all reported in ComputerWorld and E-Week, along with web
pages on the Microsoft Web Site. Unfortunately these publications have
terrible archives and articles disappear. I gave up saving print
copies of weekly trade magazines about 15 years ago - when I had 90
shelf-feet in spare bedroom.

Once upon a time I had every issue of Byte Magazine from 1979 to 1996,
but they were rotting in a storage garage and I finally had someone
come in and sell everything in the garage. I got about $300 for the
collection.
Post by DFS
Post by r***@usa.net
To make matters worse, some of the worst v>
Post by DFS
Bill
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2005-04-05 20:59:50 UTC
Permalink
begin In <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on
03/28/2005
Post by r***@usa.net
IBM tried to maintain control - pushing SNA, APPC,
No. IBM tried to get APPC into OSI; the C.C.I.T.T. people weren't
interested. IBM published full specifications.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Leigh Knox-Ux
2005-04-09 23:50:18 UTC
Permalink
They
way.
<snipped 31KB>


How's work on the GPL 3 coming along ?
Mark Kent
2005-03-24 22:25:04 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
Yeah - they've found an organisation which they can neither bully nor
bribe (at least, so far). It must *really* grate. It's also a clear
sign that Microsoft's influence is waning, which must be deeply
disturbing for a generation of Microsoft employees who were told that
they were completely unstoppable...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
My favorite sandwich is peanut butter, baloney, cheddar cheese, lettuce
and mayonnaise on toasted bread with catsup on the side.
-- Senator Hubert Humphrey
B Gruff
2005-03-24 22:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
(at least, so far)
That's the only bit that worries me, Mark.
Fingers crossed?:-)

Bill
Mark Kent
2005-03-24 23:05:45 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by B Gruff
Post by Mark Kent
(at least, so far)
That's the only bit that worries me, Mark.
Fingers crossed?:-)
I know what you mean...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
My favorite sandwich is peanut butter, baloney, cheddar cheese, lettuce
and mayonnaise on toasted bread with catsup on the side.
-- Senator Hubert Humphrey
William Poaster
2005-03-24 23:24:41 UTC
Permalink
begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:26:01 +0000, that B Gruff
Post by B Gruff
Post by DFS
Windows XP Shut The Whining EU Up Forever Edition
It's getting to you guys, isn't it?:-)
Heh heh, looks like it. And there's more to come it seems:-
"The European Commission is investigating claims that Microsoft has
deliberately sabotaged the video-player free version of Windows it is
forced to sell in Europe.
[-]
But the EC is investigating complaints that this video-free version does
not work properly."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/

So M$haft has gone into a sulk, & *deliberately* sabotaging it's own
product? Maybe this will piss more people off, & prompt them to try
alternative OS's. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. ;-)
--
"Hit any button to continue...
Heeey? Where's "Any" button?"
- Homer Simpson -
B Gruff
2005-03-25 00:14:48 UTC
Permalink
So M$haft has gone into a sulk, & deliberately sabotaging it's own
product? Maybe this will piss more people off, & prompt them to try
alternative OS's. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. ;-)
I can only think that they are being very unwise, William - but it's
their business, and they must run it as they see fit.

At the moment, they have got away lightly, as I understand it.
They merely need to offer two versions, one with and one without the
media player, and NOT price them so that the one WITH has an
advantage.

They would do well to comply. If they fall foul again, the situation
could be much worse for them. They could (I understand) be forced to
un-bundle all the bits, with a price for the OS, a price for the
media player, a price for the browser, for DRM..... AND of course
much tighter monitoring.

At least their old trick has failed. They sought to delay the
imposition of the terms and penalties pending appeal, knowing full
well that the process could take up to 5 years. Their request that
the terms should not be imposed until after the appeal has failed.
Also, until they market their new version with a name acceptable to
the EU (Reduced Media Edition will not hack it!), they are going to
be liable for a daily fine. I thought 5M/day after 11 April?

Bill
Linønut
2005-03-25 00:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Heh heh, looks like it. And there's more to come it seems:- "The European
Commission is investigating claims that Microsoft has deliberately
sabotaged the video-player free version of Windows it is forced to sell in
Europe.
[-]
But the EC is investigating complaints that this video-free version does
not work properly."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/
So M$haft has gone into a sulk, & *deliberately* sabotaging it's own
product? Maybe this will piss more people off, & prompt them to try
alternative OS's. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. ;-)
It could also be due to the incompetence of their programmers. Or due to
their products being such spaghetti code that there's no way of pulling out
a single strand intact.
--
Reinvent yourself!
Roy Culley
2005-03-25 02:04:21 UTC
Permalink
begin risky.vbs
Post by Linønut
Heh heh, looks like it. And there's more to come it seems:- "The
European Commission is investigating claims that Microsoft has
deliberately sabotaged the video-player free version of Windows it
is forced to sell in Europe.
[-]
But the EC is investigating complaints that this video-free version
does not work properly."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/microsoft_ec_disagree/
So M$haft has gone into a sulk, & *deliberately* sabotaging it's
own product? Maybe this will piss more people off, & prompt them to
try alternative OS's. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. ;-)
It could also be due to the incompetence of their programmers. Or
due to their products being such spaghetti code that there's no way
of pulling out a single strand intact.
This could well be true. MS's code is clearly unmaintainable as is
evident from the number of patches that either don't properly fix
security bugs or introduce new ones. I doubt that excuse will sway the
EU on the matter.
--
Windows - insecure by design
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...