Slashdot Mirror
Domain: slated.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to slated.org.
Comments · 74
-
Re:So what?
For reference, here is Bill Gates' email asking how they can make ACPI incompatible with Linux.
-
Re:So what?
-
Dear Foxconn you are in trouble!
-
Re:100% fake(S)ince when does the Head executive of the company refer to the company as "they" instead of "we"?
It could be argued that he was referring to the group that supports the website. I don't think that's a part of the company that Gates is directly involved with, so he would likely refer to that group as "they".
This is not actually a "leaked" email, but an email that was entered as evidence in the Iowa antitrust trial (Comes v Microsoft) and can be found here.
-
Re:100% fake(S)ince when does the Head executive of the company refer to the company as "they" instead of "we"?
It could be argued that he was referring to the group that supports the website. I don't think that's a part of the company that Gates is directly involved with, so he would likely refer to that group as "they".
This is not actually a "leaked" email, but an email that was entered as evidence in the Iowa antitrust trial (Comes v Microsoft) and can be found here.
-
Re:Its real. Here are the links
The file he links to is rather older than that blog article, featuring on this website discussing the case Comes vs. Microsoft. It was one of several thousand files submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs, specifically in this batch (file PX07199). This was a case back in 2007. Seeing as the version from 2007 has an evidence stamp, and the blog version doesn't, I suspect they're both copies of some original pdf found on the internet and therefore the veracity is still unclear.
-
Re:Its real. Here are the links
The file he links to is rather older than that blog article, featuring on this website discussing the case Comes vs. Microsoft. It was one of several thousand files submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs, specifically in this batch (file PX07199). This was a case back in 2007. Seeing as the version from 2007 has an evidence stamp, and the blog version doesn't, I suspect they're both copies of some original pdf found on the internet and therefore the veracity is still unclear.
-
Re:Its real. Here are the links
The file he links to is rather older than that blog article, featuring on this website discussing the case Comes vs. Microsoft. It was one of several thousand files submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs, specifically in this batch (file PX07199). This was a case back in 2007. Seeing as the version from 2007 has an evidence stamp, and the blog version doesn't, I suspect they're both copies of some original pdf found on the internet and therefore the veracity is still unclear.
-
Wrong Goal.
The goal is to waste developer time on Windows and create debate and animosity about it. This is well documented behavior. They won't provide real help.
-
MS philosophy towards "openess" in a nutshellTranscribed from the Iowa State anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft.
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdfFrom: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Weslorinon, Ben Fatbi
Cc: Carl Stork (Exchange); Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Window specific.
It seem unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.
Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open .Or maybe we could patent something related to this.
That's MS's philosopy about "open" standards in 1999, and it's their philosphy in 2008. -
OOXML is all about the Web
Au Contraire Mon Ami. It's all about the Web.
Check out the MSOffice SDK beta and you'll find a nifty conversion component that can be called with a few lines of code. The component perfects a high fidelity conversion of OOXML documents to XAML (fixed/flow).
XAML is a proprietary WPF format that is a web ready alternative to W3C XHTML - CSS. Combined with Silverlight (check out TextGlow) and Smart Tags, XAML represents a proprietary challenge to W3C XHTML, CSS-3, SVG, RDF, CDF and/or RIA Adobe PDF - Flash/Flex/AIR.
Now note that IE-8 does not support XHTML, SVG, XForms or RDF. CSS support is limited to CSS 2.1.
Consider the integration advantage the MS Web Server Stack (Exchange/SharePoint/MS SQL Server) juggernaut has with some 500 million MSOffice-Outlook desktops, many of which anchor the client side of more than a few business processes.
Sadly, ISO approval of OOXML will stamp MSOffice as a standards compliant editor for the proprietary Microsoft cloud, setting the stage for a massive migration of existing desktop bound business processes to the MS Web Server Stack.
Interestingly, IE-8 will force W3C compliant web sights to dumb their documents down (HTML 5- CSS 2.1), reserving for Microsoft the realm of complex data rich business documents transitioning from legacy client/server information systems to an exclusive MS Web-Cloud business process management system of global collaborative computing reach.
Good thing Windows can't do cloud computing! But maybe the acquisition of Yahoo! will combine with the Viridian-on-Solaris Data Centers to cover that embarrassment?
The real threat to Microsoft has always been HTML. In the Iowa antitrust case there was discovered this interesting 1998 memo from Chairman Bill to the MSOffice development team:
"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities."
"Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.""I would be glad to explain at greater length."
"Likewise, this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well."
The challenge for Microsoft is that of transitioning their monopoly base to the Web without losing control. This meant developing IE, Exchange, SharePoint, Windows Server, and MS SQL Server while fully protecting the integration channel to MSOffice/Outlook. At the heart of this strategy though is the dilemma of limiting HTML to consumer only web applications until such time as the business process management systems were ready.
Of course, there is also that little problem with continuing anti trust oversight. At the core of the Sherman Anti Trust Act is the issue of leveraging an existing monopoly into other markets.
Hope this helps,
~ge~ -
Re:Doesn't make senseBut their standard is completely dead now it seems, and to keep pushing for it is incomprehensible. I mean, they have to be more intelligent than that, right?! The fact that they lost this one does not mean they will be willing to chance the loss of their position in the market with Windows. They exist only because Windows exists and believe it or not, Blu-ray is a platform threat to Windows. Also remember that Microsoft only "supports" products which are Windows platform lock-ins. They tolerate others doing things on their platform only until those vendors products become a threat or start enabling capabilities on other platforms. One thing about Blu-ray Microsoft despises is its menu system is implemented in Java and every Blu-ray device ships with embedded Java in it.
Check this out and look for the word "pawn" in it:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
So thinking that Microsoft will do what the market asks and help a potential threat to their existence is asking a very lot of Microsoft. They've never done this without either a way to own or destroy the cross-platform capabilities or a way to force their own product(s) onto the market. Microsoft's profits in a market sector have been traded many many times for protection of the Windows platform. Again, Microsoft exists only because Windows exists and without that, over 60% of the profits go away very very quickly. If Blu-ray is seen as a platform threat, Microsoft will not support it without some plan to eliminate the platform threat. And I think the threat has more to do with Java being the Blu-ray spec than Sony's ownership or creation of the spec. IMO.
I find it hard to believe they think the distribution/network is mature enough to jump on a network distribution mechanism instead. But they may feel that they can slow the adaption enough with disabling or stalling the Blu-ray devices on their platform(s). Xbox is the obvious one because they attempted to leverage it for promoting HD-DVD. They knew they couldn't embed it in the Xbox because the price increase would have given PS3 more leverage. We should soon start to see see how they will try to stall Blu-ray on Windows as the devices start moving to PCs.
LoB -
Re:nag screens and annoyancesFor other people the consequence could be rather more serious, and I'd like to see MS offering something in the way of compensation if they're mistaken. Sure you are entitled to compensation. From the EULA: 18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose. Don't spend it all at once.
-
Re:My desktop machine has been up 700hrs
Just in case a casual reader passes by here and thinks you are not a misinformed troll.
Phoenix were not involved in the 1.0 specifications.
Microsoft were very much involved in attempting to create a windows specific specification.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If the manufacturers made PROPER DSDT tables they would work just fine with Microsoft's compiler. Microsoft tweaked their compiler to deal with all the broken DSDT tables they were getting from the manufacturers (particularly the the Taiwanese manufacturers), NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. That's a FACT.
This shows a complete ignorance on what a compiler does.
Compilers are supposed to throw out messages when they detect an error. Microsoft's compiler only threw out errors if it was part of the specification that Microsoft's OS needed.
Microsoft were not getting "broken DSDT tables" from manufacturers. Microsoft were shipping software that generated broken DSDT tables.
-
Re:Violation? Really?
But if those same guys are Linux OSF zealots then beware if you're closely touching or perhaps violating the GPL or any other open source license they favor. Because then everything is different and you should be made to comply no matter what. Why don't we leave these things as they are as well and only start making noise when someone actually complaints about it for reasons other than "Whaaa, you violated
I disagree with you there.
ACPI is a very precise and sensitive issue. So the workding of the news is misleading and yes, no flamfest is needed, but clarification around this issue is important.
If you have been through a few installations of linux on different laptops, you will know what I mean. Just do 3 install parties and you should begin to understand the problems in this area, and you should see that some laptops behave well and some behave strangely, you will start to be wary of certain brands and after a while and some documentation, you will learn that there is a spec, an intel compiler, a microsoft compiler, and that strangely the microsoft one is crappy to the point that some BIOSes are crappy because of it and not the other way around, and that some OSes have difficulties because of that situation.
Here is some doc:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Fix_Common_ACPI_Problems
Here is some related info from a broken legal system that can't manage its misbehaving trusts anymore:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf
Even in terms of support to asus, it might be important. If this is just a temporary problem, then asus might come out as a reliable source of linux compatible laptops with working ACPI. Or not. Right now, there are more and more laptops working for linux out of the box and it's a no brainer to find one, but we have to stay alert so that the situation continues to improve. -
Even if it *was* a good standard...Even if we thought that it was a good standard--you know, something that would not contain ugly hacks like formatLikeWord95, would not need a major international company to brib^W cajole hundreds of Microsoft Certified Gold Partners to join NB's that are members of the ISO to get it passed--how does all that backwards compatibility hack^W support actually work in practice?
Well, let's take a look at one company's deployment of Office 2007 to 25,000 workstations. Oh, what's that? It's still crap? Figures.
Yes, the information should help people interoperate with Microsoft. But all the parts they're keeping from us are important. They want to control de facto standards and keep all other ISVs at second-tier status without having to make good products.
People would be better off with standards not controlled by any one company. Even if Microsoft were the most benevolent company in the world, there's no excuse for giving another company the power to hold your documents hostage in this day and age. And it's about time that people realized that, especially when Microsoft has intentionally perverted standards like ACPI to harm Linux.
The PDF link above is just for proof. Here's a transcript of the PDF so you don't have to view it unless you don't believe me:Plaintiff's Exhibit 3020
Comes v. Microsoft
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Weslorinen; Ben Falbi
Cc: Carl Stork (Exchange); Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try to make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.
It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.
Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
Or maybe we could patent something related to this.
MS-PCA 1389717
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Gates Deposition Exhibit 32
2/28/02 -
Re:Clarifications...
Check out this memo about document converters by Bill Gates.
I think it's safe to say that MS are *totally* against the possibility of ever letting anyone's software open an MS format as well as MSOffice. I mean, his words say as much, but that he says that DAV is bad (in the memo) implies that Office was going open, could be open, before he stepped in.
Microsoft can author an incomplete 6000 OOXML spec, but they can't be bothered to properly follow the 37-page DHCP RFC...
Psst: I don't think they really want us to succeed! -
Re:Clarifications...
Read this memo from Bill Gates. I think this explains Microsoft's position on document converters.
And Bill's personality.
Consequently, why we can't rest until MS's stock is worth pennies. Gates and Balmer are doing everything they can to ruin free computing.
Because of this you won't find a lot of open source for Windows. Everyone has a very mercenary angle as compared to FOSS people. To a Microsoftie, everyone is a bit of an enemy. Why would you share much code, or explain much?
Second Life is the same way. A culture totally in the mindset of paying for a three-line program.
Both Second Life and Windows are similar. They're very restricted, there's one way to do *it* and if that doesn't work, you're screwed. If you don't like the word processor in Windows (write.exe), shell out $500 to get one. If you don't like the games (solitaire), shell out more, if you want a development environment, shell out again. To have a full Windows station where you could work, relax, and play would cost a fortune!
So yeah, it'll be a while before much of a sharing culture picks up over there. -
Re:Not their problem.
I suggest you re-read my message, especially the part where the ISP should try to work with Microsoft.
I suggest you re-read the article. They did try to work with Microsoft. They and their customers both got poor treatment and no real help.
What if their router explodes and burns the bulding down? Don't be inane.
I think untested software patches in a diverse environment are fairly likely to break things. But then I've only been a programmer for years, so whatever.
It's directly because of people like you that the html coding standards on the web suck so much. Microsoft can author a 6000 page OOXML spec, they can surely find time to figure out the 37-page DHCP RFC.
This memo pretty clearly indicates what Microsoft intends to do with these changes. If not they'd fix these bugs. -
Re:What is microsoft actually trying to achieve?
"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities."
Bill Gates 1998. (http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase. org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf) -
Personally..Personally I like this link (pdf) in the ariticle. From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.I'm not saying this as some linux nut job but its things like that which just drive me nuts. Regardless of which ever os I prefer that kind of thinking just boils my blood.
How can any committee deciding on open standards seriously take a company which has been proven time and time again to play by its own rules and whenever it offers something labeled OPEN its about as open as the doors to Fort Knock are to the average person. -
Re:Google's master plan.
No, that is not the point: The point is that Microsoft does intentionally "evil". It is their business model!
Bill Gates: "why would the office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to competitors. to me this seems crazy"
It's like saying: will the Y be the next mafia? The anormality is Microsoft. And its business conduct was good for them as the Mafia also makes big business. But when you contravene bones mores earlier or later people will show up and protest.
I don't trust a new open format. -
I told you so.
I did send you a memo. Don't you listen to me anymore?
Here it is again, but I guess it's too late: http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.o rg/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf
Please listen to what I have to say in the future! -
Re:Jumping to conclusions - REALLY??Microsoft penalizes competitors in mysterious ways. Take this recently released strategic email from Bill Gates: From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
[...]
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows
specific.
It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without
having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
Or maybe we could patent something related to this. This is clear evidence that they (at least) considered using patents and deliberately creating incompatibility to hurt competitors, even under the guise of being "open". Don't you think this virtualization pricing thing just might be less a concern about security (?) and more an attempt to do something similar via the EULA?
W