Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I fear that a ruling might put us closer to this scenario. If the government starts telling Microsoft what they can and can't do at every turn (which seems to me to be the likliest outcome) then who do you think they'll turn to if they decide we need a "acknowledged, certified, and regulated information public utility in the United States?" Wouldn't they most likely choose the corporation that they have the most influence over?

Damn straight, dude! It's bad enough to have MS products treated as defacto standards. The last thing we need is for them to become government-sanctioned real standards.

But I wonder if that's exactly what the aforementioned article is talking about at the end, with comment about pitchforks, torches, and consequences.

What if it became a federal crime in the United States to use any software that was not produced by Microsoft?

Do these thoughts chill you to the very bone marrow? They certainly do me.

If you do not think in your wildest dreams that such a nightmare could become possible, then read the article Ma Bell, Meet Ma Bill which you can find at this site . It gives a sane, compelling reason why Microsoft must be stopped dead in its tracks-- there can be no compromise!

Microsoft has demonstrated over and over again that they will not give up one inch of the power they have, and this power is very nearly absolute.

I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill Gates, coming as he does from a powerful law firm family, already sees the vision of the future as described in the article . Nothing would make him richer or even more powerful than he already is than to have the predictions made in this article come true for Microsoft. And, as far as I am concerned, nothing could be more horrific.

I certainly hope that the DOJ is not going to let Microsoft dilute the terms of this settlement like they did to the antitrust settlement they made with the DOJ in 1994. It will be a tragedy for the entire computer industry if they get away with such nefarious trickery again. Bill Gates has already demonstrated that he is ready to do it again, by his adamant insistance to have four words removed from the end of one of the conditions of settlement-- four words which would come back to haunt the DOJ again in the future-- four words which would yank all the teeth from the document, allowing Microsoft to blithely continue with their unfettered power over the industry.

The American public has to be educated about this-- everyone has to be made to see that even if they can live with the shoddy software produced by Microsoft, they had better think twice before they give absolute power over the total control and dissemination of the exchange of all information and all e-business in the world to a company as greedy and, yes, evil as Microsoft!

What if it became a federal crime in the United States to use any software that was not produced by Microsoft?

Do these thoughts chill you to the very bone marrow? They certainly do me.

If you do not think in your wildest dreams that such a nightmare could become possible, then read the article Ma Bell, Meet Ma Bill which you can find at this site . It gives a sane, compelling reason why Microsoft must be stopped dead in its tracks-- there can be no compromise!

Microsoft has demonstrated over and over again that they will not give up one inch of the power they have, and this power is very nearly absolute.

I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill Gates, coming as he does from a powerful law firm family, already sees the vision of the future as described in the article . Nothing would make him richer or even more powerful than he already is than to have the predictions made in this article come true for Microsoft. And, as far as I am concerned, nothing could be more horrific.

I certainly hope that the DOJ is not going to let Microsoft dilute the terms of this settlement like they did to the antitrust settlement they made with the DOJ in 1994. It will be a tragedy for the entire computer industry if they get away with such nefarious trickery again. Bill Gates has already demonstrated that he is ready to do it again, by his adamant insistance to have four words removed from the end of one of the conditions of settlement-- four words which would come back to haunt the DOJ again in the future-- four words which would yank all the teeth from the document, allowing Microsoft to blithely continue with their unfettered power over the industry.

The American public has to be educated about this-- everyone has to be made to see that even if they can live with the shoddy software produced by Microsoft, they had better think twice before they give absolute power over the total control and dissemination of the exchange of all information and all e-business in the world to a company as greedy and, yes, evil as Microsoft!

What if it became a federal crime in the United States to use any software that was not produced by Microsoft?

Do these thoughts chill you to the very bone marrow? They certainly do me.

If you do not think in your wildest dreams that such a nightmare could become possible, then read the article Ma Bell, Meet Ma Bill which you can find at this site . It gives a sane, compelling reason why Microsoft must be stopped dead in its tracks-- there can be no compromise!

Microsoft has demonstrated over and over again that they will not give up one inch of the power they have, and this power is very nearly absolute.

I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill Gates, coming as he does from a powerful law firm family, already sees the vision of the future as described in the article . Nothing would make him richer or even more powerful than he already is than to have the predictions made in this article come true for Microsoft. And, as far as I am concerned, nothing could be more horrific.

I certainly hope that the DOJ is not going to let Microsoft dilute the terms of this settlement like they did to the antitrust settlement they made with the DOJ in 1994. It will be a tragedy for the entire computer industry if they get away with such nefarious trickery again. Bill Gates has already demonstrated that he is ready to do it again, by his adamant insistance to have four words removed from the end of one of the conditions of settlement-- four words which would come back to haunt the DOJ again in the future-- four words which would yank all the teeth from the document, allowing Microsoft to blithely continue with their unfettered power over the industry.

The American public has to be educated about this-- everyone has to be made to see that even if they can live with the shoddy software produced by Microsoft, they had better think twice before they give absolute power over the total control and dissemination of the exchange of all information and all e-business in the world to a company as greedy and, yes, evil as Microsoft!

What if it became a federal crime in the United States to use any software that was not produced by Microsoft?

Do these thoughts chill you to the very bone marrow? They certainly do me.

If you do not think in your wildest dreams that such a nightmare could become possible, then read the article Ma Bell, Meet Ma Bill which you can find at this site . It gives a sane, compelling reason why Microsoft must be stopped dead in its tracks-- there can be no compromise!

Microsoft has demonstrated over and over again that they will not give up one inch of the power they have, and this power is very nearly absolute.

I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill Gates, coming as he does from a powerful law firm family, already sees the vision of the future as described in the article . Nothing would make him richer or even more powerful than he already is than to have the predictions made in this article come true for Microsoft. And, as far as I am concerned, nothing could be more horrific.

I certainly hope that the DOJ is not going to let Microsoft dilute the terms of this settlement like they did to the antitrust settlement they made with the DOJ in 1994. It will be a tragedy for the entire computer industry if they get away with such nefarious trickery again. Bill Gates has already demonstrated that he is ready to do it again, by his adamant insistance to have four words removed from the end of one of the conditions of settlement-- four words which would come back to haunt the DOJ again in the future-- four words which would yank all the teeth from the document, allowing Microsoft to blithely continue with their unfettered power over the industry.

The American public has to be educated about this-- everyone has to be made to see that even if they can live with the shoddy software produced by Microsoft, they had better think twice before they give absolute power over the total control and dissemination of the exchange of all information and all e-business in the world to a company as greedy and, yes, evil as Microsoft!

The Microsoft Hall Of Innovation
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml

"Most people take it on faith that a high technology company as wildly successful as Microsoft must have invented something of consequence. After all, this industry is built on invention, isn't it?"

"Certainly, Microsoft holds scores of patents and copyrights -- but we'd like to know which products or basic technologies we use can be credited to the big brains in Redmond. This is a prime opportunity for Microsoft defenders to provide some evidence for the company's original contributions to the industry, because frankly, we're at a loss to think of any."

• Auto/hiding task bar [rejected]
• CD-ROM Autorun [rejected] UPDATE
• ClearType [rejected]
• Customizable Tool Palettes [pending]
• Excel/Multiplan [rejected]
• Favorites Icon in Internet Explorer 5 NEW
• Hypertext Help [rejected]
• Infra-red Mouse [pending] NEW
• IntelliMouse [pending]
• Microsoft BOB [accepted]
• Microsoft Smartcard [pending]
• Natural Keyboard [pending]
• Pivot Table [rejected]
• QBASIC engine [pending]
• RTF (Rich Text) File format [pending] UPDATE
• Tabbed Window View [pending] UPDATE
• Talking Paper Clip [accepted]
• VFAT Filing System [rejected]
• Visual Studio Codesense Engine [pending] NEW
• Word for DOS [rejected]

The (Nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog
"A compendium of Microsoft's amazing history of software and corporate purchases, joint ventures and equity investments. Each acquisition should properly be seen in two ways: first, as an effort on the part of the company to purchase that which it apparently could not invent on its own; and second, as subtracting one from the number of companies which will be permitted to follow its own course, to enrich our technological world, and dare we say it, to compete with Microsoft."

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/catalog/yrcat alog.shtml

The Microsoft Hall Of Innovation
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml

"Most people take it on faith that a high technology company as wildly successful as Microsoft must have invented something of consequence. After all, this industry is built on invention, isn't it?"

"Certainly, Microsoft holds scores of patents and copyrights -- but we'd like to know which products or basic technologies we use can be credited to the big brains in Redmond. This is a prime opportunity for Microsoft defenders to provide some evidence for the company's original contributions to the industry, because frankly, we're at a loss to think of any."

• Auto/hiding task bar [rejected]
• CD-ROM Autorun [rejected] UPDATE
• ClearType [rejected]
• Customizable Tool Palettes [pending]
• Excel/Multiplan [rejected]
• Favorites Icon in Internet Explorer 5 NEW
• Hypertext Help [rejected]
• Infra-red Mouse [pending] NEW
• IntelliMouse [pending]
• Microsoft BOB [accepted]
• Microsoft Smartcard [pending]
• Natural Keyboard [pending]
• Pivot Table [rejected]
• QBASIC engine [pending]
• RTF (Rich Text) File format [pending] UPDATE
• Tabbed Window View [pending] UPDATE
• Talking Paper Clip [accepted]
• VFAT Filing System [rejected]
• Visual Studio Codesense Engine [pending] NEW
• Word for DOS [rejected]

The (Nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog
"A compendium of Microsoft's amazing history of software and corporate purchases, joint ventures and equity investments. Each acquisition should properly be seen in two ways: first, as an effort on the part of the company to purchase that which it apparently could not invent on its own; and second, as subtracting one from the number of companies which will be permitted to follow its own course, to enrich our technological world, and dare we say it, to compete with Microsoft."

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/catalog/yrcat alog.shtml

on the day IBM were shopping for an OS.
Additionally:-
it would seem that the creation of Microsoft was largely supported, not least financially, by the NSA.
Did the NSA really have a clue at this point in time, I thought the development of Microsoft was the acceptance of Basic in boxes like the Altair and the C64, which I would doubt the NSA would have had much interest in at the time, unless they wanted to check you were taking proper care of your Sims^H^H^H^HLittle Computer People...

Does Microsoft invent ANYTHING>?? Or at least develop it themselves??
At this list there is a list of all the products and companies that MS has purchased rather than just imitating, and practically every single thing they own is on that list. Such 'innovation'!

Also, the sheer amount of things listed in the '99 secion there is truly disturbing.

> i heard that developers of 3D visual apps like

> 1. OpenGL much more than DirectX because of easier use,

OpenGL is WAY easier to use then D3D.

OpenGL is orthogonal. SGI had tons of experience with IrisGL before they cleaned it up and "re-named" it OpenGL.

OpenGL has a consistent design (look at Direct3D having 7 versions in 5 year!) OpenGL has gone thru 2 iterations in 10 years. Does that mean OpenGL has been slow to change? No, as vendors are allowed to add any extenstion they wish.


> 2. better performance,
Not true. D3D and OpenGL perform very similiar.


> 3. more/better "API" (functionality)
Today, the 2 API's are very similiar. OpenGL used to have more features then D3D back in the early days.


> and better graphics ...
Again, very similiar.

OpenGL also has a conformance test, guaranteeing that all OpenGL implementations are feature complete, unlike D3D. Does that guarantee speed? No. Drivers are allowed to "fall-back" into software.


> ... because of some "politics" 3D accelerated graphics card vendors are prefering iplementing DirectX acceleration

Thats because Microsoft IS so bull-headed after buying Direct3D from Rendermorphics.


> so now i wonder (like you) if this "open sourcing" of OpenGL give some advantage to OpenGL

It will definately help Mesa. The video card manufactors ALREADY have the OpenGL reference code. They aren't happy having to support 3 API's either... 1) Their own API, 2) OpenGL, and 3) Direct3D


> also i'm looking for some more info about "OpenGL vs. DirectX" issue.

Sorry, you're late to the party. It was over 2 years ago.


> do someone got some URLs?

All this history can be found here...

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

Cheers

3D Game Programmer

Bzzt!! See this.

Yes they could argue that the law is vague but the Judge can simply say "The law is NOT vague" and be done with it. Supreme Court, supreme court, yaaay supreme court!

I would like to see the court order that from now on the operating system and anything bundled with it must be open sourced. Let Microsoft bundle IE with Windows 2000 then!

My $0.02 worth.

Microsoft talks about their wonderful innovation a whole lot, while in fact, I can't think of one thing they really invented (besides NetBeui... and we know how wonderful THAT is)

Instead, it has swallowed, destroyed or bought influence in companies that were innovative. Read
this list to search for your favorite Microsoft product and see who really invented it!

Also, Microsoft really likes throwing with unrelated figures to prove their point. Like: The software world is very competitive, 1 million people are working in this wonderful business, how can we have a monopoly.

They forget to mention that those 1 million people are forced to compete eachother on Microsoft platforms.

By the way, did you know that NT started out life as a port of DEC's VMS? Then it got all bloated.


...phil

Here is a link: Carmack says D3D sucks.
also of interest is the page this comes from: link
Don't miss Chris Hecker's comparision of the two APIs from GDM (link in that article).

Here is a link: Carmack says D3D sucks.
also of interest is the page this comes from: link
Don't miss Chris Hecker's comparision of the two APIs from GDM (link in that article).

Dell:

http://www.idg.net/crd_ibm_dell_9-126 405.html


http://www.dell.com/linux/press.htm

SGI:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/3 1/ns-9268.html

IBM:


http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,416 4,2267514,00.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990930 -000020.html

Compaq:


http://www.digital.com/inFORM/issues/issue27/ln0 2-linux-story.htm

Intel:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/3 2/ns-9301.html


http://www.linuxia64.com/

Fujitsu:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990929 -000017.html

Microsoft:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departm ents/nt/bugs.shtml

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q150/7/34.ASP

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q194/8/34.ASP

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/7/93.ASP

Other side: HP:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990920- 000020.html

Java (push for more standards compliance, then extend when they didn't get their way) -- this is slightly different, I admit

XML (they helped come up with the damn spec for crying out loud, yet they don't fully support the standard in 5 but support extensions)

Those are just a few. I suggest you check out the BMS site for more examples of the open standard bait and switch.

Look, I don't like Microsoft, but I come by that dislike honestly. I was a support tech through college during the emergence of Netscape before Win95 was on the map. I started disliking them when I saw how often things blew up, and how often problems were caused by Windows 3.1 or the OS. Then seeing that even though they had marginal products, no alternative could survive because of their agreements with OEMs? I used to be a big Microsoft backer, pushing my department at school to adopt NT fileservers over Netware, and to use NT web servers. It wasn't some bias of mine that caused me to dislike them. It was my experience (and the experiences of others around me) that caused me to dislike them.

Then there is the issue of many of the investigations that have been done about them. Forged and doctored evidence at trial (oops, that was a mistake), not once but twice(!), various execs testifying to market division meetings (you want me to believe that they're all lying?), reports even today from other companies that they have tying agreements with MSFT. They're all false? or biased? One could argue that everything in The Microsoft File or any of the other books written about Gates and Microsoft are "biased" or "unfair." To me, though, the investigation of President Clinton was biased, politically motivated, and in the end, quite unfair.

Did it make a difference as to whether he actually did have an affair? Like Clinton, Microsoft doesn't claim that any of the reports of their business dealings are untrue... makes me wonder....

The point being that just as it's silly to criticize MSFT out of hand, it's silly to label all criticism, even on /., as Microsoft bashing. I have legitimate issues with the company, which has nurtured serious and considered skepticism of the company and it's pronouncements. This is not Anti-Microsoft myopia! Sujal

Regards, Ralph.

Granted, I come with no proof, at least not today. (Tomorrow I sit for exam and cannot keep searching until I find it. Next time someone mentions Berst again, I should have the url ready.)

About 2 months ago I was hopping the links at vcnet , the anti-Microsoft site, and I swear I read a one-page article about the evils of Microsoft that was signed by someone called Berst! Now, don't tell me I made a mistake, this name is notorious enough to recognized it instantaneously. Can anyone confirm my story and, most importantly, make sense of all this?

sig: AC-23

Here is a link you might be looking for. It summarizes some, but not all I have heard, of the dirty tricks.

Microsoft would never hire script kiddies just to make Linux look bad. That would be a dirty trick and we know they never, ever, ever do anything like that.

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departme nts/catalog.html

This doens't include the Windows-OS/2 forked/concurrent development IIRC.

If I may quote the author, "Certainly, Microsoft holds scores of patents and copyrights but we'd like to know which products or basic technologies we use can be credited to the big brains in Redmond. This is a prime opportunity for Microsoft defenders to provide some evidence for the company's original contributions to the industry, because frankly, we're at a loss to think of a single one."

Currently the only nominations that have cleared the debunking process are :

• Microsoft BOB
• The Talking Paper Clip

• The Tabbed Window View
• ClearType
• VFAT Filing System
• Hypertext Help
• Word for DOS
• CD-ROM Autorun
• Auto/hiding taskbar
• Excel/Multiplan
• QBASIC engine

For more details on why a nomination was rejected, and/or if you can suggest any nominations or rebuttals for TMHOI, please submit them to Hall of Innovation.

Quote Du Jour
"We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while] other component prices have come down and continue to come down."
JOACHIM KEMPIN, Microsoft Senior Vice President

Puleeze... Like exclusivity clauses in contracts define whether a company is a monopoly. Sounds more like good business sense to me. I'd like to see the govt. sue McDonalds cause I can't get a Pepsi there. BTW, Pepsi doesn't own Taco Bell, or KFC, or Pizza Hut.

The point is the original posted claimed the Microsoft is buying companies and shutting them down to sqash their technologies. Someone name two of these companies for me. I didn't think so.

• BAO (Bruce Artwick Organization): Developer of Microsoft Flight Simulator and Flight Shop, a Flight Simulator add-on. Result: Purchased company, canceled U.S. distribution of Flight Shop. Circa 1995.
• Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1995.
• Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1997.
• Softimage 3D graphics applications developer. Result: Purchased company; eventually discontinued development of non-Windows products.

It saves an extra download, extra installation, and hasn't made my system and less stable. Plus I can still use Netscape and Opera, so what's the issue?

Actually if the stupid gov't would get the hell out of the way the market will take care of everything, and quicker than any court system. Linux proves that if nothing else.

--

The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".

Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.

When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.

But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)

The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".

Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.

When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.

But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)

The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".

Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.

When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.

But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)

The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".

Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.

When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.

But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)

The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".

Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.

When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.

But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)