Slashdot Mirror

It's "Micro$oft.

You're right that PowerShell is a real shell and it may be subjective that I prefer bash because of its simplicity and in my opinion better usability, e.g. tabbing/copy-pasting.

Some other non-subjective example points:
performance
documentation - man wins big time regarding technical details
file system - ext3 is not subject to fragmentation
enhance security/permission features - no sudo-equivalent in Windows
lower hardware requirements
get rid of the sick registry
better modularization - Windows has a pretty monolithic setup compared to Linux

You're right that PowerShell is a real shell and it may be subjective that I prefer bash because of its simplicity and in my opinion better usability, e.g. tabbing/copy-pasting.

Some other non-subjective example points:
performance
documentation - man wins big time regarding technical details
file system - ext3 is not subject to fragmentation
enhance security/permission features - no sudo-equivalent in Windows
lower hardware requirements
get rid of the sick registry
better modularization - Windows has a pretty monolithic setup compared to Linux

More like time to dump Micro$oft.

smells like micro$oft all right

http://www.msversus.org/

http://www.msversus.org/

That's when they dropped the ball and became completely uninteresting and evil.

http://msversus.org/

You mean like http://msversus.org/ ?

So you vouch for global patent system, eh? How 'bout A FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM?!

I have zero respect for Micro$oft.

You know, think of the children. Just read between the lines. It's about MAFIAA and Micro$oft closing down the free software ecosystem. Those guys just don't like competition, like wiseguys generally don't.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/

Micro$oft tried the treacherous compting trap and it's still slowly going onwards. Then they tried the patent FUD "we own the Linux kernel". And now they're playing this ACTA shit. What a bunch of crooks!

again their most valuable asset, FUD.

http://msversus.org/

Now don't be silly. Who do you think voice those attitudes here? Hint, they're people employed by a large North American company selling proprietary software...

Read all about it at http://msversus.org/

Actually, I've given a source.

All you've done is mention ECMA-334, which includes a boilerplate legal message stating that Microsoft will "grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on reasonable terms and conditions, for its patent(s) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard".

You have not given any evidence that any such patents actually exist, or that anyone has been or will be charged for a license (i.e. that the statement about royalty-free licensing is untrue).

You, so far, haven't.

My source for the royalty-free claim is a mailing list posting, archived here, in which Jim Miller says "Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a 'royalty-free and otherwise RAND' basis for this purpose."

I assumed you were already familiar with that source, since you said earlier "the only thing I have been able to find were informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews".

So if we're going to apply the same standard, why don't you put up or shut up, Mr. Shill?

Please, call me Microsoft, or Mike for short. Mr. Shill was my father.

Here you go.

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all

International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose.

“our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis”

(emphasis mine). It is interesting to note that this particular patent application was filed after the standardization by ECMA.

I wish some knowledgeable folks would weigh in how possible it would actually be for MS to do this for C# in particular. (Do they already hold relevant patents?)

I do not know about C# in particular, but about .NET, yes, they hold relevant patents.

If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project;

I know it is a bit old but, we'll file one once they publish which part they're going to patent, of course, that shouldn't be long. PS: The only complaint I have of .NET is the syntax of LINQ, but what'cha going do?

Besides, anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents isn't giving Microsoft any credit. I figure that they would try to kill Linux (GNOME proper, since GNOME != Linux) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents. It just seems too obvious to go that (patents) route. Linux isn't the problem with MS, it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is.

Also I develop on OpenJDK, I was wondering if you could provide a list of patents that the OpenJDK is infringing on? I'm sure we could work out what it is that you feel is something we may have overlooked.

Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard

Could you clear that up? I'm not sure I follow what you are talking about. Is it because .NET is a standard through an organized body? Whereas, Java is basically a community process with Sun at the head of the community? If this is your beef with Java then what exactly is different between how Java is made versus something like, Linux or GNU HURD?

Besides, what is all this seemingly bad blood between .NET and Java? I've been to many PDCs and the people behind .NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love (which granted isn't awesome but it is still pretty good). Also, the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC. Really? Do we need to build walls?

Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.

Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states). And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus' true intent.

Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C# main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the .NET infrastructure. So far, Microsoft has agred to offer these under a "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of use" and they are currently royalty free. No one seems to be clear on how you get this into writing but it's allegedly the way things are.

Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET. Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner, I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned "standards" and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package. I'd beef up the Debian wiki with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze.

At that point, sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft. Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet.

In the copyright/patent infringement sense you are correct. But everyone at time time used the word "stole" because they didn't just accidentally implement a similar technology- they purposely took stac's exact technology and duplicated it knowing that they were violating the patent.

http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html

It was very common for microsoft to enter into technology partnerships with smaller companies and loot them of their technology. Frequently they would make the technology part of the next operating system upgrade. Sure it was not as good as the tiny companies product- but it was free and built in so the market was destroyed.

Back when Microsoft was publicly beta testing .NET they claimed that it was the future of application development on Windows. They claimed that all of their applications would be rewritten in .NET. Yet as years went by and new versions of their apps were released, none were rewritten. Miguel de Icaza, one of .NET's big advocates, wrote, "Frankly, I'm as confused as you probably are." Even Microsoft's own hosting service, bCentral, didn't offer .NET.

I don't know how many 3rd party developers they lost with .NET, other than myself, but they certainly didn't market it well. I think they're making the exact same mistake now. We'll have to wait another couple of years to see.

The patent office says the new rules would speed up the patent process, but critics say they hurt inventors.

Inventors? Or just multi-billion-dollar transnational conglomerates?

Multi-billion-dollar transnational conglomerates tend to hire a lot of inventors. Some of them do use patents as a key part of their business model. It is likely that efforts that undercut such business models would mean that such companies would be less effective at capitalizing on the innovations produced by their inventors, which could mean that they would hire fewer inventors or hire them at reduced salaries. Some small companies also use patents, sometimes to collect money for sales lost to powerful players and sometimes just to deter competition and potentially become a big player too. Undermining these business models can also lead to reduced demand for inventors.

Eliminating or minimizing the drawbacks that come with a patent system may create enough opportunities for inventors to maintain demand, but it can also shift money away from inventors towards craftsmen and marketers. After all, if you can't make more money by protecting something that's new, why not just make something that's old better and invest in branding it to artificially stimulate demand?

In 2003 Microsoft listed Open Source in their SEC filings as a threat to their business model. Before then they mostly ignored it. Then it was "a cancer." And now they pretend to like open source. I hardly consider them "on the wagon" as much as realizing they must augment some of their practices in order to compete affectively.

And Microsoft takes a "cavalier approach" to their users, to privacy, to the free market... so who's more evil?

If Google really didn't care they could do far far worse to abuse copyright than anything they've done so far. Microsoft is just placating an audience.

Anyone who chose to go with VB.NET did it only within the last few years while there are many real cross-platform options (Python, Java, even C++). No one chose .NET and then complained it wasn't cross-platform. It wasn't advertised as cross-platform. It was chosen for Windows-only development and therefore isn't something many people are interested in.

No one is dumb enough to choose a Microsoft technology without assuming it almost certainly means lock-in. Today they're simply lucky some of their apps can now be ported to other OSs.

Anyone who chose to go with VB.NET did it only within the last few years while there are many real cross-platform options (Python, Java, even C++). No one chose .NET and then complained it wasn't cross-platform. It wasn't advertised as cross-platform. It was chosen for Windows-only development and therefore isn't something many people are interested in.

No one is dumb enough to choose a Microsoft technology without assuming it almost certainly means lock-in. Today they're simply lucky some of their apps can now be ported to other OSs.

You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is.

How about when the BSA enters your property with armed marshals and shuts down your business while you're doing everything you can to be compliant with licenses? At least it converts some to open source.

In my opinion there are two reasons Microsoft is trying to create their own standard: PR and government contracts. The PR aspect is obvious. The US government is Microsoft's largest customer (by far) and also the most likely to demand open document standards. Other governments will likely do the same long before corporations demand it. So Microsoft needs to have their own standard which they implement first in order to get the contracts.

They don't have to implement it correctly. They can claim support for a standard for years without actually following it (e.g. CSS, Kerberos, etc.) and still get the contracts. They were actually involved in creating some CSS standards and still didn't follow them.

It's all about the money. Get the big contracts and nothing else matters.

Can you please cite some examples of Microsoft using submarine patents.

Here ya go: Microsoft Patents

Regarding business conduct...

- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.

Regarding business conduct...

- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.

Regarding business conduct...

- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.

Regarding business conduct...

- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.

Regarding business conduct...

- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.

Do you know that XP has most of the same legal restrictions? Yet that didn't send millions of desktop users to Linux. It's simply ignored. Corporate users who need to care more about licenses will simply buy the corporate licenses that have less of these restrictions.

Since very little here is different than XP I imagine this news won't provoke massive Linux migrations.

I have one of the "I hate Microsoft" web sites he linked to. I used to read Scoble's blog and comment on it occasionally before he become famous. As soon as his blog started to get any traction he stopped posting anything intelligent. He became a pure evangelist who claimed Microsoft should listen to the haters, then bashed anything critical of Microsoft. And in the end, not much if anything changed. Microsoft used him to try to improve their image. And having this fake power Scoble became full of himself. He's a tool. Microsoft still ignores critics.

I've asked before and continue to do so now - in what way was Microsoft's behvior detrimental to the public?

The question that you should be asking is "in what ways has and is Microsoft's behaviour detrimental to society".

The answer to this question is long and complicated, which is one of the reasons for why so many people disregard it and instead give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.

I'm pointing you towards some other sources because I'm so tired of repeatedly answering this question:

Common criticisms of Microsoft
Halloween Documents
Dissecting Microsoft
Newly Released Documents Shed Light on Microsoft Tactics
Paul Allen's Microsoft Experience

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

But of course I am and have been aware that "software" does enjoy copyright protections.

Oh, so you know that software has IP protection from copyrights even if it's not patented...

Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place.

...but you still claimed that having no software patents would remove any rights of software developers to IP protection. You made this deliberately false assertion (in your original post)...

...I was trying to goad the "dude" into explaining to me why a copyright is inherently better for the software industry than a patent.

... in order to antagonise someone (who had not yet even posted in the discussion). But now you'd like to have a sensible discussion of the issue. Very well then:

the fact is you need both copyright and patent protections.

Actually, this is disputed by many people, and many of those are software developers. There have been many good reasons put forward in support of the view that software patents stifle innovation. Good enough for the EU, for example, to reject the software patent directive. Since you are not a software developer but a lawyer, and not a patent lawyer, it's really up to you to provide some reason why copyright is inadequate. You could start by:
1 - Addressing what patents and copyrights are for (refer to the US constitution) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and showing how (if) software patents produce a net increase of innovation in software compared to not having software patents.
2 - Explaining why some-one like Bill Gates, who surely understands the issue of IP protection for software, made this statement in 1991 "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." if software patents help innovation.
3 - Read and refute this anti-software patent statement released by Oracle, one of the largest idependent software producers.

Really, it's fairly obvious: we have copyrights and patents to provide protection for different things. I am not aware of anything in the history of copyright and patent law that has been protected by patents and copyrights other than software. I have seen no convincing arguement that providing both copyright and patent protection to software increases the progress of "science and the arts". Indeed, everything I have heard in favour of patents focuses primarily on the developers rights, yet the rights granted to temporary monopoly through patents are a means to an end, not the end itself. Patent law/practice that give temporary monopoly to the detriment of the progess of science and the arts is unconstitutional. As you said, idealism is not a legal argument. Legal arguments can be made very effectively from the constitution though. That's what it's for.

The patent protects the functionality of the software, among other things.

This is a significant problem. It is that ideas are being patented, rather than inventions. Functionality rather than invention. Imagine if during the development of carburettors a patent had been issued for a "device that increases fuel efficiency of engines" rather than the actual improvement. The fuel injector would have been illegal! You referred to Edison patenting the light bulb - light bulbs were an invention, not an idea. He did not patent "method of producing light". If someone had come up with a different way to produce light that was equal

You can't just judge Microsoft based on their products. Their tactics are destructive. They may have the best word processor on the planet. I don't care. I will not give money to a company that hurts my industry and the overall economy if I don't need to.

I don't like to think of business as a battle. Every conflict is not a war. But Microsoft chooses to make it one.

• Bill Parish
• Why Microsoft stock options scare me
• Microsoft's questionable profits

Have you read any of Microsoft's SEC filings? All statements regarding revenue outlook are about attacks on their monopoly or ways they're using their desktop monopoly to gain in other markets. Everything in the way they run their business is about the desktop monoploy. I could understand someone saying "being a monopoly" is Microsoft's business model. I've been watching Microsoft for years.

I've documented many of the bugs I've run into. They cost me (or really my employer) hundreds of hours of my work time.

It took a leaked Microsoft memo to find out Windows 2000 shipped with 65,000 bugs. Even the author of the memo wrote, ""How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of software with over 63,000 potential known defects?"

The problem is with a number that large, no matter how small the proportion is to code size, the backlash would be huge. No potential customer could hear that number and then actually want to buy a copy. I believe they should disclose as much information as possible. But from their perspective no amount of marketing could make up for the negative impact of disclosure.

But that's not what he said. There's a big difference between promoting a product as non-Microsoft and educating people on why Microsoft is bad for them. We can educate without advertising.

Microsoft also has begun exploring how to apply Massive technology...

Have you seen the disk requirements for Vista? They already know how to apply massive technology!

(I apologize for the terrible joke... couldn't resist)

My take on Microsoft's future.

And here's Bill's: "We've done some good work, but all of these products become obsolete so fast....It will be some finite number of years, and I don't know the number -- before our doom comes." - Bill Gates (Gross, Daniel. "Greatest Business Stories of All Time" 1997)

and some of their stuff was done with .NET. Go figure?

The "magic" of Pageflakes has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with the server. It's all about client-side javascript. The server side can be kept relatively simple.

Don't get me wrong. I hate .NET. But pageflakes isn't a good selling point for it.

Did I just violate the DMCA by disclosing this?

Yes.

We'll see you in a few minutes. Thanks.

- BSA

On a related note is an old but still relevant essay: Debunking Common GNU/Linux Myths by Jem Matzan.

• Darrow, Barbara. "Microsoft, The New IBM." CRN 7 Jun 2004
• Goldberg, Aaron. "Microsoft Hits Downslope." eWeek 19 May 2003
• Kanellos, Michael. "The Rise and Fall of the Wintel Empire." ZDNet 5 Aug 2004
• Reifman, Jeff. "Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow." Seattle Weekly 2 Jun 2004