Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Wends Onward
Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a
timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses.
Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you
stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.
Acoording to the Register... Basically, MS is claiming that removing IE will destroy Win2k, WinME, and the ability for them to develop future operating systems.
Hmm, I wonder..........Insanity defense?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.
Oh please, please, please!!!
Nah, that sounds just too good to be true.
I am a genius; therefore, you suck.
I can personally decide to stop using it. That is, I can stop using it a home. However, in 99% of the corporate environments out there, Microsoft is the only game in town. Corporations can't just stop using Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't just allow companies to go cold turkey. Even if you have excellent arguments, it is hard to get Microsoft out of companies. Forget about the technology and start thinking about their marketing machine.
How to Download YouTube Videos
MS said in an ap.com article that they can't/won't offer a modular Windows, and that there is no demand for such an offering.
Linux is modular, and there is demand for it.
XP USERS: Wow. that is neat.
Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems. Hasn't this been the claim for every version of windows, in accordance with the timeline, ie Win98 lite just isn't technically possible to build? I also like the idea (no not really) that the states have to act with the DOJ in lockstep, since its a constitutional construct that the states can act more powerfully and restrict more things then the federal government, except in cases where the power of both governments is specifically limited, such as fourth and fifth amendment cases.
Slashdot uses the word "wends" properly.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Read MusicCity bash Gnutella:
http://www.musiccity.com/helpfaq.htm
Will anybody file a motion for trial by combat?
This
(offtopic) /. that geeks had no real control. I say we have decent control now that us ageing geeks have positions of influence. Do not lose hope, the only real fear should be what platform you will chose when everyone uses a Unix lookalike...
When I first arrived at this job under two years ago, I was limited in the number of non MS servers I was allowed to provide. Just 1.5 years later, ditching windows wholesale is near a reality as it is 'too hard to support our driver and our hardware' (quote from management) for windows users.
A few years ago it was being argued on
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
In case you were wondering the nine states that are not settled yet are:
:-)
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Florida
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. Utah
9. West Virginia
Also the District of Columbia.
I wish they would state this in each article.
Then I look forward to the federal judge modularizing Micro$oft into several Pico$ofts!
.. the screams of a million geeks, "LIKE WE GIVE A FUCK."
It was like a million voices suddenly cried out, and then clinked their glasses in celebration, if you will.
Does anyone know offhand of how IBM and Ma Bell handled themselves in their antitrust affairs? Did their head honchos act like such dorks?
I guess my final statement is, big deal. Other than Word I don't use MS products, anyway. I could get a copy of Acrobat and create my resume as PDF (from some source input, maybe LaTeX?) which it seems more and more want, anyway.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
http://www.dictionary.com
The company also is preparing a broad attack on the case as being inspired by Microsoft competitors,
such as AOL Time Warner Inc., Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems, as a means of crippling the
software company.
Who are they trying to kid? What percentage of microsoft business is msn internet access? The msn access has been rated one of the worst isp's on a regular basis. Doesn't oracle primarily do databases.
If microshaft puts this out and people actually buy it, my entire opinion of the species goes down a couple of notches.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Honestly, what has Microsoft done to deserve this. Sure, they have created a crappy OS, along with a bunch of crappy, bloated, buggy software. But, if its so crappy, why do people buy it? Its not like Microsoft has come into people's homes and forced them to buy software. Everyone has bought, or not bought, Microsoft stuff on their own free will.
Sure, they bundled IE with windows, but when I last bought Red Hat Linux, Mozilla came bundled with Linux. Is anyone prosecuting RedHat because of this? No.
The software market is realatively young. If those pesky politicians would just let the market be, then they would see that most of the problems would work themselves out, as they have done so in the past.
Fuck Slashdot
cf. "Last November, Allchin presided over the launch of Windows XP Embedded, which consists of about 10,000 components that can be assembled into custom products..."
Can't, won't or don't?
.:the truth is a lie undiscovered:.
Just in case some of you don't get the reference, check out this video of Steve Ballmer at a MicroSoft pep rally.
It really speaks for itself :-)
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
The way I read that is quite simple - he's a guy who might actually understand a little bit about the SCOPE of Windows as an OS and knows what an incredibly monumental task it would be to go in and clean up all the little kludges and hacks and all the general design changes it would take to make Windows compliant.
He's not saying "Screw you, DOJ" he's saying "WTF, do you think we're gods?"
The states are being unreasonable and probably indeed bought by the companies he mentioned at least in part - don't you think that Oracle would love to see MS take a fall? I KNOW they would.
AOL? Same thing - I'm sure they would love to market an AOL Windows or their own crappy version anyway. They've talked about it in the past (their own OS) as has Netscape.
Bottom line - MS is not always the evil empire. Sometimes they're the ones getting fucked.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
This reminds me of the time Harold Ballard had a large Hamilton Tigercats crest painted under the ice at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. When asked to remove it he basically said it was his arena and he could do whatever the hell he wanted in it.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft can basically do whatever the hell it wants to with it's products...
You're using her as bait, Master!
And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT
If the settlement continues to carry on (like M$ keeps on trying to make it do) and they continue this assertion this might seriously hurt windows dominance. Corporations don't like uncertainty and if they think no more windows is a legitimate threat they just might decide to put a few of their eggs in another basket and get some other boxes.
I stole this Sig
"plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latestWindows computeroperating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems."
"Windows XP, and the business-oriented Windows 2000 system could not be redesigned to satisfy state demands that they be made available in separate versions, with and without key programs, such as the Internet Explorer Web browser. "
So they will not be able to develop any new os without an integrated browser.
The browser went from something that microsoft was not being developed when the current generation of OS were (at that time Bill Gates didnt even mention it in his book about the future (the road ahead)) to something that was so integral to the os that it would cause it to perform badly without it.
But its not over apperently, now the browser has become so important that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make an OS without a browser included in it.
Wow, just wow.
It would be interesting if MS ever develops OS for home appliances (toasters, etc), whether they will add a browser to it just to keep their lies consistent.
It occurs to me that Microsoft might actually be pleased by this never-ending legal "battle". Besides the nearly constant news coverage which is easy advertising that comes with the relatively marginal cost of the lawyers fees (from a multi-billion dollar corporation's standpoint), it also allows them to continue doing as they please without anything such as an injunction to prevent them from continuing to expand their monopoly and snuff out would-be competitors. During the past 6 some-odd years of high-gear courtroom battles, Microsoft has only had to contend with a single injuction (circa '97) which was later thrown out on appeal. This means they've had plenty of time to virtually wipe out Netscape, Be, and a slew of other companies by using the same illegal tactics they continue using today.
It's been shown for years that Internet Explorer can be removed safely from Windows with only a minimal loss in functionality, yet it remains. Participants have been after the Window's source code for years, yet it remains safely locked behind Redmond's doors. Illegal, anti-competitive practices have been on-going, if not accelerating over the course of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that this on-going court battle has yet to solve a single problem with the software giant, and has probably only helped it. Let's not forget that were some sort of settlement reached with the Federal government some time this year, (don't hold your breath) it would almost certainly have absolutely no real consequences, and if the initial settlement proposal is any indication, may only serve to allow Microsoft to further force its products into the marketplace, giving it further penetration in such areas as schools where it has been lacking.
Then one may look at the other nine states, who appear to be seeking a much better legal settlement against Softzilla. They want the source, they want IE out, and they want other versions of Windows available at a lesser cost without the unwanted "features" Windows buyers pay for. Well first of all, this would probably drag on for years, meaning no changes would take place. Were there to be a settlement, I doubt Microsoft would aggree to anything which does not eventually come out to their benefit; ie. selling a stripped-down version of Windows at a cheaper price would probably increase rather than decrease their sales figures. Were there a judgement issued against them, they would most certainly appeal time and time again, adding yet many more years to the total length of this litigation, by which time, any possible good coming forth from the judgement would have long since lost any tangible meaning.
In all this, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should be trying Microsoft and large corporations like it in a tribunal much like the ones being used around the world for war crimes. A swifter, more final form of judicial proceeding is obviously needed for a company who's resources allow it to drag on court battles for year apon year, thereby pretty much defeating the judicial system in place. Draconian laws obviously had to be updated to deal with high tech companies, perhaps the courts should take a note from the legislators and realize you can't treat M$ like Standard Oil.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I mean this as a serious question, not a potshot at MSFT products or users of MS-Windows products. Year after year, Gates, Ballmer, Allchin, etc. tell so many *obvious* lies wherever they speak. In the press, under oath, it makes no difference. Verbal communication for them is simply an extension of strategic competition. They feel no compunction whatsoever to tell the truth and therefore there is no literal information value in anything they say. But yet every pronouncement from their lips is treated as some kind of major news event. I don't get it. Does anyone out there understand this phenomena?
I think he is saying that the current design integrates IE and other components so tightly into the GUI and back end of the OS that it is impossible to extricate it and replace the missing programming with something not akin to a web browser. A total re-write of 5+ million lines of code is not in order either as it would take millions of man hours and alot of cash (for an OS end product that would not sell nearly as well as the integrated version which is, besides all the *nix community and press groaning, quite well recieved and liked by average joe user).
Further, he is saying that MS might just opt out entirely. You can't order them to continue development... they could just fold the house up and go home, rich, leaving a small patent enforcement division in place to sue the hell out of anyone trying to re-use their code until the patent expires.
I mean, why not? What do they have to loose? You can't jail them for not wanting to stay in business, and they would have the IT industry in a shambles (As well as a great many economies around the world) within a year. That's a really big stick to tell the gov't to get real and try again with something more realistic.
I have often dreamed of a world without without Microsoft. But Microsoft talking about making my dream a reality by pulling Windows off the shelf, like the defective product it is.
It is just too good to be true...
The simple fact of the matter is that if Microsoft had honored the first consent decree they probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they thumbed their nose at the court and went straight back to business as usual. They deserve to have their products pulled from the market at this point. The industry would be far stronger if it had to figure out how to live without Microsoft.
Everybody says MS products suck, how Windows sucks and so on. But everybody still uses it, if for nothing else than to play pirated games.
So, if you want to spout how Windows is crap, get rid of it altogether! Dump it forever! You can live without games. You can live without Microsoft.
So instead of talking the talk also walk the walk.
Thank you for a) potentially increasing the cost to subscribers and b) hastening Slashdot's conversion to a subscription-only site and eventual demise. Have a nice day.
...that you can just do a 'deltree c:\windows' with this hole...'nother reason to avoid XP.
What does the MS trial have to do with wends, sorbs, or trees in the rose family?
"The reason the non-settling states have proposed relief that is significantly broader than the [settlement agreement] . . . is no secret," Microsoft attorneys wrote. "They seek to advance the commercial interests of Microsoft's competitors."
Nine seperate states out to aid Microsoft's competitors? Who would that be, the rest of the computer industry and anyone who's ever dreamed of programing so much as a digital watch? Pathetic paranoia, or rampant propaganda. It's almost as good as today's earlier anouncement that the US government would fail, Universities would stop researching, and the world would end if M$'s software model failed to earn lots of money hawking the same old shit forever to a gullible clientel. From Mr. Mundi's Zdnet quotations:
If there is not commercialization there (because the big bad GPL supposedly denies this, bzzt - wrong!) , a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do," said Mundie.
They really are afraid, but why? What do they know that we don't? I've read that M$ is a kind of ponzi scheme with the emloyees being paid in stock options, that pay no dividens, instead of cash... Could the Enron disaster be hitting home?
Blah, enough irresponsible speculation tonight. As I sit here at a Debian powered 486 with a big 24 megs of ram and a 420MB hard disk used as an Xterminal to a more reasonable computer, I know it just does not matter. Microsoft can dissapear tomorow and I would not notice. If I can do it, anyone can. Really.
Go away Micro$haft, you have earned your beatings and are begging for new ones with the new XP licensing system, SSSCA, DCMA and other unAmerican activites.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Perhaps he should look at the Jargon Filke for a proper definition.
15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
16 moment ago and I --
17 A. Hmm?
18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
23 It's kind of like a variable to the
24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
25 know --
I'm once again amused by the amount of anti-microsoft sentiment I'm seeing here. The newsforge article reads a little like the anti-evolution creationist propaganda writing. BTW, the fact that Microsoft is presenting an argument in court (threatening to pull the OS), is just that! It should be quite obvious to anyone who gives this a bit of thought that they would never consider making such a move in reality. CySurflex
If Slashdot moves to a subscripton only method, the community (or at least me) will happily move on to kuro5hin or some similar site.
I'm not going to pay $5 a month or whatever for every 2 bit web log written by people who don't even care enough to check spelling or make sure the same story doesn't get posted multiple times (each with unique, glaring errors). When I'm literally paying per page view, I don't want to waste page views on things I've seen.
If Slashdot goes under because I didn't pay to view contect created by someone else, I won't shed a tear. I have no vested interest in making sure their business model succeeds, just like the US government shouldn't be making laws solely to preserve the income of a single powerful industry.
You shouldn't care either, unless you have some financial or friendship bond to VA or the editors Slashdot employs. I have better things to do with my life than watch after the revenue stream of a web site.
It seems that the fact that Microsoft could make this threat and make it sound so dire, is further evidence of Microsoft's monopoly position.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition [...].
Geez, I almost feel sorry for the guy. Being the subject of grilling by hostile, powerful lawyers has got to be very stressful.
BTW, the CEO of Lindows is handling fairly well the Microsoft lawsuit against the company for allegedly stealing a common English word, kinda, but not really.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
It won't.
Ooh, irony! :) :)
37 billion in the bank and even today, M$ still insists that they are offering consumers "Value".
If they cut the prices in 1/2, they'd still make money hand over fist.
It is quite suprising to me that a company "Clearly convicted of a Monopoly in these United States", can sit there and dictate what they think is clearly harm to consumers. It's like AT&T saying, "If you break us up, who will offer long distance?" "Who will offer phone service?" "Who will supply any type of quality and price competativeness?"
Well, that just goes to show that even AT&T was wrong in there arguments. We still have phone service, and yes mom, we have some, though not alot, of competition.
M$ would have us believe that this ruling would cause a major buckle in the computing industry, but in fact, it would put the M$ developers on the same playing field as the rest of the world.
Live on competition, destruction to monopolies. Innovation exists not in monopolies, but in competition.
This is also quite scary. Check out those sweat stains!
Lesson learned; don't wear business casual when you intend to do high-impact aerobics.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Touchee ;)
And, for the record, I have nothing but respect for you personally. I just don't have a problem with disabling the ads here and bypassing part [most?] of your revenue stream.
What's wrong with yelling out "Give it up for me" when Steve has helped build the most successful software company of all time?
Sure is more than you've probably done.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Then Steve Balmer is the alien that says "You are smart, you can make us go"
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Shutdown Windowsupdate.com.
:-D
Within a few months windows viruses and exploited holes will render the OS completely useless.
One of my good friends was offered some GPL software at a party by a guy who said it was free.
Of course it wasn't free at all, since after he started using the GPL software his mind was changed. He wouldn't hang out with his old friends and if he did, he just insulted them for using the wrong software.
After a year or so, he was so GPL'ed out, that he would yell at people at in the street and insist on that ever software he ever saw should be GPL.
I once showed him a nice program that Microsoft made on the base of a BSD framework, and he got so loud and wild screaming, that the Police had to take him to a hospital, where I visited him today.
I think it is sad, and I hope that the young people of today may learn from this story.
I'm curious why MS is so adamant about keeping IE with the OS? It's free in the first place. Why should they care what browser you use after you've already bought the recycled, pretty OS from them? If M$ applications require the IE rendering engine, it should ship with the application. If M$ is putting up this fight just so that it can continue with its "own standards" in HTMl and .NET, well, they should burn.
If the jewish lawyers were not involved this whole trial would be over already. They just want to postpone the lawsuit as long as possiable in order to rack up the massive legal bill Microsoft is fronting. It's the sad truth.
His position only makes sense if MS management is so weak that they haven't been able to force their programmers to document their internal interfaces and file formats... in which case they should thank the courts for coming in and making those bastards document their work since they're blowing off billg and Balmer.
Yeah, right.
I'm sorry, but this is should be a non-brainer. Every major API and every file format should already be documented - or the person in charge of that group should be fired on the spot for incompetency and his/her replacement's first task will be getting that documentation in place. The same managers should also have in place a review and approval process for changes in that API.
Bottom line - either Balmer can produce the requested documentation by releasing internal documentation, or he's incompetent. Or he's taking his lead from the Enron leadership and deliberately lying because he figures that jail time for perjury and contempt doesn't apply to the likes of him.
(Of course, I'm sure that the internal documentation includes hundreds of unpublished calls that they've denied exist. Tough shit - they made their bed and it's time they lie in it.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
"That's right," said Balmer, "if Microsoft is forced to remove Internet Explorer from the Windows XP operating system, I duh dunno what we're gunnah do!" Balmer also explained how a programmer (who was subsequently fired) accidentally added "all the .c files for IE into the Windows kernel Visual Studio project," and continued by explaining that the OS was made to work strictly by "luck" and that subsequent releases became more and more costly because "we had to hire alot of people to do alot of guesswork."
Reporters from the T.R. Press tried to reach Balmer for later comments, but reached an automated recording exclaming "Give it up for me! WOOOOOOOOOOOO......"
In related news, Michael Eisner of Disney claims Microsoft failed to live up to it's contract to have CD burning software tightly integrated into the Windows OS by 2001. "I paid those bastards to have that done by now, and it still isn't reliable! Now I have to ditch Pixar and claim that 5% of computer users are causing all the piracy problems that are er...putting us out of business! Yeah..." When asked for comments, Eisner only replied "Hang on, I'm trying to get LimeWire to connect..."
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
in our exciting "internet age" you don't even have to BUY a fucking dictionary - look it up fucknut
In light of the Visual Studio ad, shouldn't the
headline read "Microsoft Faces Threat of Judicial Cyber Terrorism"?
You can get a good update, that will fix xp to work up to the states expectitation at...
The Windows Update Site
It has all sorts of useful utilities for seperating IE from the main OS. And ways to stop bugs from crashing and shutting down your OS from remote internet attacks.
From the Washington Post article:
Microsoft will assert that under the law, antitrust sanctions should not be punitive, nor should they be designed to help competitors.
Hmm... IANAL, but I sure thought that was *exactly* the point to the antitrust law. The violater should be stripped of it's illegal gains and the competitors are supposed to benefit by a leveled playing field. Duh...
If I'm wrong, can someone please correct me.
When I read that line I blew Code Red out my nose. Is there no depth to which these bastards won't reach? No lie that they won't tell? I guess all those jocks are really getting theirs for calling little Billy G a wimp back in high school. Microsoft - Bill Gates ego made manifest in the form of the most powerful lying, cheating, stealing marketing corporation.
And further in the Washington Post:
the company would be forced to pull its latestWindows computeroperating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.
Go ahead Bill, take your marbles and go home, won't hurt my feelings a bit. Besides, you know this is a PR spin tactic. You have no plans to do this, your ego wouldn't allow it. And, you have shareholders who would never permit it. In addition, it would open you up to even more litigation. Don't make bluffs that it's not possible to follow through on.
If our legal system buys this BS, it's *really* time to pack it up and go live on that island in the South Pacific.
Feh!
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
The fact that they CAN and apparently are willing to use pulling their "premiere" product from the market place, I think, shows that they know they are a monopoly. They are essentially thumbing their noses and saying, it's our way or the highway; and while wo know there ARE in fact alternatives, it is not feasible, nor is it plausible, to have the entire world switch away from Microsoft. Yet the fact that they can leverage their monoplolistic stronghold in their own antitrust trial is amazing! just my 2 cents OctaneZ
Screw quitting "cold turkey". Just don't move "forward" towards the Win2000/XP/ME bloat. The world's offices can do just fine on Win98, WinNT, etc. Heck, I know of many multi-million corporations still coasting on Win95 and doing just fine.
Windows may suck beyond the telling, but it does manage to grow old gracefully.
Yep.
Lord help the users, the actual revenue producers in the companies all across America, when the bearded Unix gestapo takes control.
People: If you've ever worried before about that new NT, and how you can't even install the programs you need to do your work, because some IT boing-boy is two weeks behind on changing toner cartridges and can't install it for you, you're gonna LOVE the new Unix dynasty.
Bearded fucking hippies will tsk tsk that your home directory (your date- the only part of the computer system that EVEN FUCKING MATTERS) is totally vulnerable, but their precious filesystem of apps and libraries (all of which could be spooled off a CD-ROM in a second anyway) are protected by the shitty obsolete nine-bit security that Unix provides.
Until the beginning of the year, every place I've worked and I have been collectively hogtied to Microsoft software. In stages I'm migrating to OpenBSD and RedHat. At work, I have a Citrix Server, run TigerPaw, and am running ASP 3.0 web applications with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise. All workstations are running Windows 2000 Professional. It's expensive and insecure.
I've fooled with various flavors of Linux/Unix on and off for years, but not seriously until recently. No, I didn't use it as my home system much. I've done basic admin stuff, written a few apps in Ada, C++, and Java; did some web stuff with PHP and MySQL (in vi, even) - but not day-to-day by any stretch. But recently I've been RTFM and investigating how I can replicate and extend functionality. I've been learning.
I have one proprietary application I'm trying to get running with WINE, then it's gravy. Of course, we'll have to eat the licenses we've already purchased; but that's a small price to pay when you consider the benefits of being free from the shackles of endless licensing fees, forced upgrades, abusive EULAs, poor security, and so on ad nauseum.
A year ago the company paid $30,000 for a Citrix Server, and a 10 user TigerPaw license. When the need arose to add more users to TigerPaw, I was told I needed to "upgrade" to the "brand new" latest version of TigerPaw THEN purchase additional licenses - which would cost me an additional $20,000. "Oh, and you should probably upgrade to the latest version of Citrix too," was helpful advice. They weren't "offering" CALs for my version anymore.
Yes, there are some bumps and potholes in the open-source road, but at least I can find a fix quickly or (gasp) fix it myself. I don't have to worry about landmines and pay a toll every mile in order to get somewhere.
KDE does essentially the same thing with Konqueror, and we like it.
What's the difference?
Note to gnome users: substitute Gnome for KDE, and Mozilla/Galeon for Konqueror, and the point applies about the same. I used KDE for the example since the embedding of Konqueror in KDE is just more apparent, IMHO.
Solution to blink tags: wrap them in another blink tag, with a javascript delay loop, so they cancel each other out
It's also the -exact- reason why I removed ALL MS software from the Macs in my house. You get tired of machines locking up all of the time and I was beginning to understand what the BSOD was like, so there was no choice.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
The above link logs off Windows XP users, demonstrating once again the quality of Microsoft code.
Bush's education improvements were
Somehow it's funny to watch Steve Balmer on Realplayer. Just seems kinda funny.
They might want to get the hang of releasing on time before worrying about compatibility between v3684 and v2249.
Even assuming they keep their version numbers based on years, 1682 years should be enough time to figure out how to separate IE from Windows, even for an MS employee! (sorry, flame, I know...)
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
No. You idiot. I was implying that 'Wends' IS the correct term. I pointed to dictionary.com so that yourself and the other illiterate idiots floating around here could read the definition of Wend and stop trolling your mindless babble all over this discussion.
I bought Windows XP Home Edition and am fully satisfied with it. It's worth every dollar they charge for it. Now, what's the government complaining about? I'm sure everyone who tried XP seriously (more than "where's grep, XP sucks") would very much like Microsoft to keep going with their products. Who's the government trying to protect here? AOL because they're to lame to compete?
It seems to me from reading the timeline, and a little plain observation, that Microsoft has had a singular tactic since day one: appease where strategically possible, otherwise, stall. They will argue the dumbest point to death. It seems from time to time they file motions only to force their opponent to respond.
I'm sure this is, on some scale, pretty much standard legal maneuvering. What bothers me is that since MS has so much money, they can basically just keep stalling, delaying, and appealing until the cows come home. Since this isn't a murder trial there's less impetus, it seems, to hurry up and wrap things up - after all, it's not like Bill and Steve are weaing orange denim.
Does anyone know of any information about this legal stalling? Is there any precedent, or even any grounds, to say "please stop mucking about and get on with the fucking case"?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
If I were Bill Gates and forced to release a stripped-down version of Windows, I'd call it "Windows - State Attorneys General Edition" with the subtitle "Designed by Lawyers". That should pretty much prevent anyone from buying it or OEMs from preloading it on a PC.
You must have forgotten that Apple required all big computer companies to ship new Macs with their MAC OS. This wasn't an option. They *had* to ship MACOS with the machine and they couldn't offer any other Oss as options.
Of course, being afraid of losing MAC sales, they all shipped MACOS, making Jobs the wealthy person he is today.
What's so different?
Ballmer also said the states' proposed sanctions could cost billions of dollars and "erode" the value of Microsoft's flagship product by allowing competitors to "clone" the operating system.
Um, interesting choice of words. In this context, the word "clone" immediately conjures images of Compaq's cloning of the IBM PC's BIOS--an action that (with apologies to Woz) was probably the single most important event in the launching of the industry.
If Balmer's trying to argue that the proposed sanctions would be harmful to the consumer or would fail to promote competition, isn't this the worst comparison he could possibly make?
In the unlikely case that Windows actually does get pulled, the world might not be screwed as Microsoft would want us to believe.
Consider that Apple has programmed MacOS X to be easily ported to new architectures. The underlying OS, Darwin, already runs on many Intel-based machines. With this operating system for the people who lack the confidence required to try linux (most of the market) and linux and BSD for the rest, Apple would have everything to gain from releasing their OS for sale on the Intel platform. The world still might be withing Jobs reach.
Granted, trading one monopoly for another might not be the best thing to happen to the world, but Microsoft would surely try to fight its way back and a strengthened Linux would be fighting away, too.
In the alternative distantly possible case that MS removes IE from their OS in a day after being ordered to do so and prevents Apple from making such a move, at least some MS people might get nailed for lying for years about the feasibility of removing IE from their products. And with the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, people really might look at a non-MS browser.
I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws. In my view, this makes Microsoft a state-sponsored monopoly. If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code, others could develop software compatible with Microsoft's, thus destroying their customer lock-in strategy and the entire basis of their monopoly.
So let them take it away. Proof positive that they hold the monopoly position they've been convicted of building through illegal means. After that there'll be no doubt in anyone's mind (except for the BillyG-fanboys, of course) that they're guilty as sin.
Not that any of this matters. Kotar-Kelly is well aware of what happened to the previous two judges on the MS case and isn't about to sacrifice her career to fight a rigged game. MS will get a slap on the wrist and continue on its merry way, fucking over anyone who dares to defy it. And the Bush administration, along with the corporate whores in Congress, will provide MS with whatever aid it needs to retain its monopoly and avoid any punishment for its actions.
It'd be nice to try actual capitalism for once. You know, that idea of free, unimpeded markets where the laws applied equally to all players. Just my personal crack-pipe dream.
But hey! If the SSSCA passes it's all moot anyway. MS will be the only player in town in the U.S. Forever.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I couldn't decide which smartass comment to make, so what the hell? I'll post 'em both.
...And a collective cheer was heard from computer users worldwide!
...and...
Good! Pull 'em! Start over and hope you can get it right this time. I mean, the previous code must have been horrible if it wasn't possible, as you claim, to remove something as unrelated to operating system funtionality as the web browser!
SIGFEH
without serious hacking. _THAT_'s what's this is all about. Sure they can replace a lot of lines of code to make Windows XP have a true modular interface for a webbrowser component so that that webbrowser component can do the help system, be the webbrowser of the system, work inside the filemanager (explorer) and be the desktop shell.
But that will take serious time and effort. Because it's not DESIGNED that way. Like the Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel where you can't just say "I want this and that in stead of what's in it now". You have to do serious hacking and patching and TESTING, since it will make the system probably unstable.
IE is the result of the usage of a lot of system components that are used ELSEWHERE in the system also. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making statements like "[he] is telling a big, fat lie", because you don't know jack shit about system design nor developing large pieces of software.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
So they product a version of windows without IE and maybe some other things. Nobody would buy it. Everyone would just buy the full version. Why don't they just do it and keep everyone happy.
Sig is taking a break!
I don't think so. If MS will create a system where all it takes is a set of com components that then can be used as IE is used now in XP, would Netscape adopt that scheme and create such a set of components? They don't even do that today with NS6.x. They don't even use the native windowing code of Windows to render the interface. So chances are that MS will change XP, strip IE from it, create that interface so other browsers can plug right into the system, but no browser will! Sun made a Java plugin for IE. Did you see them advertise for it so users would download it? No. I bet the majority of the XP users doesn't even know that Sun makes that plugin.
And there is the problem: the USER doesn't care. Only MS competitors, blind zealots and professional whiners care. The USER wants XP with a browser. It comes with a browser, so he/she is happy. "Oh, there are more browsertypes? Are they better? No? Why would I want to use them then?".
So ask yourself: is this really about the customer (i.e.: the USER) ? Or is this about the sour grapes of the MS competition plus their loudmouth supporters?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The Reg has a snippet which rates lower in information content (although this is debatable) but significantly higher in entertainment value of a Ballmer performance. It contrasts nicely with his current performance and is worth the watch.
============== quote
========== quote from article
In court filings late Friday, the company said the recently released consumer operating system, Windows XP, and the business-oriented Windows 2000 system could not be redesigned to satisfy state demands that they be made available in separate versions, with and without key programs, such as the Internet Explorer Web browser.
==========end quote from article
to Jonathan Krim:
I have been running without Internet Explorer on my PC since a few months after I got Windows 95 using products provided by 98lite.net . What I got out of de-integrating MSIE from my computer is reduced resource utilization and increased stability.
I'm running Windows 98SE now without MSIE. At this point, the first thing I do with a MS operating system is to remove IE as an operating system component. MS originally claimed that 98SE doesn't work without MSIE. 98SE works *better* without MSIE as an OS component. MS lied then. I'm using Opera and Netscape at this point.
The *freeware* product below is one that will eliminate MSIE from W2000. Unfortunately, they don't have a version for XP yet.
Try it on one of your organization's Windows 2000 machines and see for yourself if Microsoft is lying about the impossibility of detaching MSIE from W2000. If their thousands of programmers can't figure out how, perhaps they can license this company's products.
I recommend trying this on a newly installed W2000 OS with no new apps or user data, like any other software running on Windows, there's no guarantee that the next installation of any Windows program whatsoever won't cause the hard drive to melt or the monitor to explode or Satan to appear in person sitting on your desk. ;-) The script version is a no-brainer, simply download the file, read the brief instructions, and run as directed.
A.Lizard ;-)
p.s. any way to get a copy of this e-mail to the law firm for the State AGs doing the MS antitrust prosecution? The script version of the deinstaller takes about 2 minutes to run and a reboot to bring up the new IE-free OS. The judge might find a demo of IE disappearing from W2000 in an effortless way entertaining. The MS attorneys who are running W2000 will probably request it. a cc of the file. For their personal use.
fair usage quote from 98lite site
http://www.98lite.net/products.html
IEradicator 2001 NEW!!!
Looking for the hit-man? IEradicator is the first and only utility to remove all versions of Internet Explorer from all versions of Windows 95/98/ Me/2000 in 8 different languages!. IEradicator uses the built- in Windows setup engine to "rub out da big fella" in less time than it takes to oil your 12-gauge.
------------- end 98lite quote
============= end quote
This version is "free as in beer", a demo for a more sophisticated product. If MS can't figure out how to get rid of MSIE, I'm sure these people could come up with reasonable licensing terms.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Ballmers performance was particularly bad in the other parts of the video that Microsoft didn't include.
.NET.
Other snippets from the video are on ZDNet and show Ballmer being worryingly inept as the CEO of multi-billion dollar company.
He totally fails to remember the products that allow OEMs to build modular versions of the Windows platform including Embedded Windows XP and Windows CE
This is just another example of why Judge Jackson got so pissed off with the Microsoft executives as they are blatantly lying to the court, and judges hate it when people lie to their face when they think they can get away with it.
(sorry couldn't find a link that doesn't have the annonying ad first)
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Microsoft "Quit picking on us, or we'll take our toys and go home..."
The NYT article makes Ballmer sound like a spoiled child.. Not a good thing to do in front of the American public. So, Microsoft, who has more money than God, says they can't produce Windows if they are forced to release a version without IE? How many programmers do they have? If they were to release a crippled version of Windows without IE it would look better to the public than to not release any at all. This kinda makes them look dumb.
Bah!!
Wherever you go, there I am...
All due respect to the gov't lawyer doing the Ballmer deposition but based on the brief video clips the affair seemed all too accommodating to give Ballmer a platform (pun unintended) for calmly regurgitating MS party line. Heck, it could be used almost unedited as a Microsoft advertisement on those home shopping networks!
After watching those eight minutes the only issue I could raise against MS would be that they consider it their god-given right to own and control the software platforms everyone should be (and damn near is) using. For the benefit of the consumers naturally. And that itself isn't really illegal but the smugness of these MS commanders still irks me after having watched them kill promising technologies and competitors with total predictability ever since the days of MS-DOS.
The US gov't appears to be determined to encourage that to continue so it's time for the rest of the world to stand up for themselves and for foreign governments to demand that any software to be sold in their territories must conform to globally standardized and open file formats and protocols.
Will the US still insist on protecting their homegrown multi-faced monopoly after the rest of the world has moved onto other globally compatible formats and data exchange? Most of the world consists of either poor and developing countries or otherwise insignificantly small markets that under MS market vision would never reach parity or equality with the first world. But we need to help those countries develop and open protocols, file formats and platforms should really be considered as a long overdue stage of economic aid that isn't one-off giveaway which often only increase dependency on aid. The United Nations, European Union and even countries like India and China working together could get the wheels rolling very quickly without any help from the self-serving US gov't.
I have written to my representatives about the need for such a change. Perhaps the people here who understand the gravity of the situation should consider doing the same.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
So much of Microsoft's fortune has been made illegally.
Therefore punitive damages are absolutely fair.
Further, forcing Microsoft to use some of their illegally obtained fortune to encourage competition can hardly be considered unfair.
Lastly, Microsoft's definition of a fair settlement is irrelevant because they are the criminal here (proved in court and upheld on appeal).
The video deposition is now available from CNET. This version is a much better quality for broadband users.
THIS is an argument? They are trying to say that if thier product is mandated to NOT break the law then it can't be sold or supported any longer?
I don't know about you, but that sounds like PROOF that the software is *inherently* illegal.
If they are able to pull it off, that ploy would beat even the Chewbaka Defence...
"Judge, please! If Mr. Thugga can't sell smack to minors, how exactly s he going to addict the youth in his neighborhood?"
"We are sorry to inform the court that if Auther Anderson is no longer allowed to cook the books, then they will simly not be able to defraud investors."
"I'm sorry your Honor, if my client were to go to jail, he would have no choice but to stop killing people."
"If my client is not a wookie, you must aquit..."
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
The Linux kurnal may well be monalithic, but even thats changing, however I can compile in only those things I require.
If I don't have a scuzzy card then I can ditch the support for that from the OS.
No LAN card then that can be ignored.
Try doing that with Windows.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Windows 98 lite does nothing more than give you the Windows 95 Explorer. Missing from this is 7 years of new shell API that many programs do depend on.
WHILES they_are_misusing_words
complain
WENDS
graspee
Yes you can. Support in drivers is not included until you install those drivers from the CD, or copy the bulk of the drivers CAB file to the harddrive.
And how would any of this be different from Windows if it were true? Steve Ballmer, get a new job! ;-)
I ment: I want a different VFS, a different VM etc. You can't change that overnight. That takes serious effort and testing to see if all applications work with the new element in the OS.
Of course I can compile different stuff into the kernel. You can do that with windows too (install different services, drivers etc). It's about replacing OS parts with other parts from 3rd parties.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I thought M$ always said that IE wasn't an integral part of Windows, but now they can no longer develop Windows without IE?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Does anyone have an audio file (.wav or .mp3) of the deposition of Mr. Ballmer?
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Remember when Joe down the street let you use his Windows 3.1 disks to upgrade your DOS system. Remember when you figured out how to upgrade to Windows 95 without owning a previous copy? Remember when you borrowed that Office 95 CD.
Microsoft users you are to blame for making Microsoft the monolpy that it is.
If you'd just listened to Bill Gates and not stolen his software.
There is no safe mode in Win2K (though there is VGA mode. Perhaps you're confusing w2K with winME?
Money implies poverty (Ian M. Banks)
Isn't that the entire point of an antitrust case? Or at least to give the non-monopolies a chance to compete? Or did Microsoft not put this definition into their version of english?
"Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems"
This is obviously a bluff to scare people, but what would actually happen if they did it?
If Microsoft never produced another version of Windows, no one would really care, there have been no useful new features in WinXP anyway, just gimmics and bundled software.
If Microsoft stopped selling Windows licenses for existing products, companies who needed new licences would be forced to use bootleg copies. THis would be breaking the law, technically, but some companies are so dependant on Microsoft, they would have to do it, or go out of business. What are Microsoft going to do, sue the whole world?
How about Microsoft pulling their products in just these nine states ? I doubt if the brain trust in these states have considered the possiblility that only their states' economies would get affected. Be careful what you wish for.
I think it is sad, and I hope that the young people of today may learn from this story.
Yes. What I learned from this story is you are an ass.
In Windows, devices are controlled by things called "drivers", which are not part of the kernel. Windows NT (for example) has a driver subsystem that is part of (or linked to, I forget) the kernel.
So what you're describing is much easier to do with Windows.
Hey, I'm a Linux nut, don't get me wrong, but you're mistaken.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
While the threat to take Windows away may work as intended, and underline its importance to such a degree that noone dare put too much pressure on Microsoft, politicians might realize, that the fate of Windows, being so important to the US- and World- Economy, can't be trusted to the hands of a single large corporation. That way Microsoft risks to have their business run by politicians through legislation, overviewing comitees and the like. A sure way to ruin a business.
---
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Woot! Bout time they took their crap out of the hands of unsuspecting users everywhere!
On the audio and video front, Houck questioned Allchin about whether consumers can obtain the most recent version of Media Player without buying XP and whether PC makers can remove the "software code" for Media Player from the OS.
Wow that is impressive. I seriously doubt that is true, since I've performed window-ectomy of one sort or another since win95. What ever happened to Microsoft's claim their software is modular and scalable? If one were to play along and say that statement is true, a logical conclusion would be "what a piece of junk." That would be like Ford saying, "You can't put a different radio in the car, because it would break the whole electrical system. You have to buy a ford approved radio for your mustang."
Anyone think Allchin is lying through his teeth :)
Bullmer can't imagine how to comply? Well Jeez Microsoft, get a president who can imagine how to comply. If this was a small company, and they wouldn't comply with a court order, wouldn't they be shut down? It this small company supplied an essential service, and they wouldn't comply, wouldn't the government appoint a trustee to oversee their operation. Hello, as others have pointed out, it is hard to believe that Microsoft has not been documenting all of their, APIs for internal use, all along. I have shamelessly modified Bullmer's statement here. I believe that what Bullmer really means is that they cannot comply with a court ordered disclosure -- while maintaining the kind of secret booby-traps they used to torpedo DRDOS. Everyone who wants to follow this case owes it to themselves to learn about the steps Microsoft took to torpedo DRDOS. Here is a link to an article by Andrew Shulman.
DRDOS (Digital Research DOS) was an alternative to MSDOS. Like MSDOS, DRDOSes roots lay in Digital Research's CP/m, a primitive operating system to 8080 machines. DRDOS was a better DOS than DOS. It always lead MSDOS in features. It used high memory before MSDOS, it had a compressed volumes facility, like doublespace, before MSDOS. The suit against Microsoft in the DRDOS case was whether MS Windows 3.x was written to detect whether it was being invoked on a machine running DRDOS, and if so, it would fail, with an error message that said that DRDOS had failed. Damning evidence was introduced in this case. Microsoft announed that they had settled in early January 2000. While the terms of the settlement are confidential all reports are that the monetary portion of the settlement was nine figures. Some commentators suggest that a confidential clause in the settlement was that Bill Gates would have to resign the presidency of Microsoft. He did, in fact, resign within a couple of days of the announcement of the settlement.
From the constitutional law department I was fascinated by the tactic of M$ asking the judge to toss out the non-settling states on the grounds that anti-trust is a federal matter. Yow, talk about Ides of March for the settling states, as well. If they were to toss them out, then the settling states would have no basis for their continuing involvement, futher this would impact future anti-trust battles states wish to bring against any business. I'll say this, at least the DoJ had the brains not to take that stance, as it would be political suicide. Only Microsoft could be so arrogant and not worry about the political fallout. There's always been some bit of bridge burning by M$ when they go to court. This is the telling stuff about the character of the executives. As if remarks by Allchin, Ballmer and Mundie weren't enough.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
this Story on yahoo has some interesting info. Including the following quote ""That's the way good software gets designed. So if you pull out a piece it won't run," Ballmer said. " Hilarious. Maybe if we all continue to be bad Mr Ballmer will come through and take our windows away. Then we'll be all sad
You had me nodding through the second sentence.
The next sentence about the Linux kernel is not correct. True, the mainline Linux kernel is monolithic, but it can be stripped down into dynamically loading modules fairly easily. There are some logical dependencies in it such as USB devices requiring the USB subsystem, but none that cause stability problems if they are added in a specific combination. Each part is stable/unstable largely on it's own.
The Linux core that remains afte the modular parts are removed is in design still monolithic, but is about as small as a similar microkernel OS. In addition, there are non-monolythic ports of Linux to some processors.
In the case of IE, it is optional...on MacOS and WinCE. That MS can't/won't make even modest changes at the browser level for the Windows95+ and WindowsNT+ lines is laughable. They and others outside of Microsoft can and will if properly motivated; they've done it before, they're doing it now, and to pleed otherwise is just nonsense.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I keep reading comments about how important Microsoft it, how they're the backbone of the industry, so innovative that we need them, etc...
BULL.
They've never done anything on their own. Their entire opperating system's interface: stolen (ok, ok, gained in a "deal") from apple in the 80s. Current OS interface: ripped off from Apple again. Did they make the first browser? NO. did they make the first media player? NO. All that they've done is "aggressivly market" (aka monopolize with) their products.
The industry might have a few problems if they pulled their products, but after a few months, people would start realizing alternatives, and by the time Microsoft tried to start selling again, they'd have lost such a share of the market that they would have crippled themselves. Picture it: the global economy begins to make a shift to free software, and profits skyrocket because their technology overhead DIVES. Who in their right mind would go back?
Why are we forced to rely on testimony from Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer that "IE cannot be removed"??? Subpoena the whole damn windows / IE programming team, grill the hell out of them and get the TRUTH. I doubt either Gates or Ballmer are even qualified to answer the question of separation.
So what you're describing is much easier to do with Windows.
While I agree mostly with what you've said -- both Windows and Linux have kernel based modular device support -- the ease of use part is not correct.
Under Linux, most distributions are pre-configured with the kernel consisting of modules. If you want to remove any module, you can without rebooting safely as long as it is not being used. Hotplug support and manual enabling/disabling of parts of the kernel using insmod/rmmod or runlevels make module management simple if not automatic.
Drivers under NT serve the same basic function as modules under Linux. NT Drivers are usually loaded at boot time and can not be unloaded. The exception are hot plug devices...just like they are under Linux.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
If anything proves Microsoft's bully mentality is this. Let me paraphrase: "If you try to force me to play fair, I won't play with you anymore."
Ok, we all know they make their real money on Office, but does anyone actually think that MS would be so dumb as to simply pull Windows off the market completely and give up their OS monopoly?
They're smart enough to know what would happen:
1 - All those Windows machines would keep running. They might be able to "remotely deactivate" XP machines via Product Activation somehow, but Win9x/ME/NT/2K machines would stay in operation for quite some time.
2 - As Windows machines reach the end of their life, people will look to buy new ones. Computer vendors aren't going to stop including an OS just because Microsoft isn't providing one. They'll find some other OS (most likely Linux) to install and configure. Those "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" ads would start touting how Dells have the best versions of Linux installed.
3 - Customers would gradually come to be able to work with Linux the way they worked with Windows. (Not using it's full potential, perhaps, but using it enough to type up reports, browse the web, and send e-mails.) Software vendors would have to follow suit and release Linux versions to hedge their bets.
4 - MS would change their mind, and re-release Windows. By then, Linux would have a much larger stake in the OS market. This isn't to say that MS couldn't regain dominance, but it wouldn't be easy for them. And if they didn't, their Office suite might be replaced by someone else's which works on Linux. (Which would mean they'd lose most of their revenue.)
I don't see MS possibly putting themselves in a position like that. The MS execs might be many things, but they're not stupid.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
dear mr lawyer given all the outrage over internet explorer recently, can you please get microsoft to unbundle minesweeper from all versions of windows as well. my shitty, greasy, jobless, buggy, gnu'd, open source source version of it isn't selling too well and i feel that fair competition in the marketplace will allow me greater freedom to not have a life. yours, rms p.s. is it ok if i pay in beard lice again?
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
when he when on tv, trying to prove he didn't assault the babysitter. Than's exactly what this video is like... edited BY microsoft, FOR microsoft.
But haven't decades of attempting to turn software from an art into science and engineering told us a few things:
- Make the code modular, cleanly separating functions.
- Clearly define the interfaces, avoiding side-effects wherever possible.
- et cetera
Had they followed these practices, re-packaging Windows to change feature sets would be a piece of cake. As someone else mentions, don't they offer this modular packaging on embedded XP?
So let's walk the logic tree on this:
Either Microsoft could modularly bundle WinXP, or they can't. They say they can't.
-> If they really can, and say they can't, they're lying, lying to the courts as well as the public, including their customers.
-> If they really can't, then why can't they? Good software practice says they should be able to. That leaves two conclusions:
--> They did this intentionally, making Windows into an inseparable mess to confound competition and the cours. (Sounds akin to malfeasance to me, but IANAL)
--> It just happened, and Windows grew that way. But wait a minute, isn't Microsoft the biggest and most profitable software company in the world? If they can't do it right, who can? (tongue in cheek for the prior questions) If even Microsoft can't do software 'the way it should be done', then maybe nobody can, and we should *really* examine carefully any trust we place in computers. Maybe we can't really trust them at all. (this sounds to me like misfeasance, but again, IANAL)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
He may have misspoke, but Microsoft is going to pull Windows when pigs to to the skies.
Last I checked Mozilla wasn't build into the kernel...
If you want to look at good, componentized development, take a gander at Gnome or KDE. KDE can be installed without Konqueror. Gnome can be run without Sawfish. If some weak, communist open source project can do it, why can't Microsoft?
I wonder how many bananas and hours of coaching it took to get monkey boy under control and teach him how to act like that?
>:D
BlackGriffen
"On Wednesday, District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly plans a hearing to help her decide whether to approve the settlement deal as being in the public interest." I think every article about the case has contained this line, and I really don't see why. I thought corporations were effectively "individuals" as seen by the law. Now if an individual does something wrong, and is convicted of doing something wrong, a judgment is passed against that individual to punish them. Why should this be any different? Microsoft did something wrong (became a monopoly), was convicted of it, and now the courts are deciding the appropriate penalty. Why should "the public interest" become so important here? Is it because Microsoft is so big that the penalty could likely affect a huge number of people? Well gee, that is a result of the problem...they are a monopoly. You break a monopoly up and you let natural economic forces take their effect. It may end up being in the public interest and it may not, but you can't predict that. I'm just afraid the judge will end up with something like "well, they are a monopoly, but breaking them up or making them do any of these other things would affect too many people so I can't do that to them." Does anyone see my point here?
2) "Who cares? Linux can easily fill the void left by the loss of Windows."
... which is a thought Microsoft doesn't want to have cross *anyone's* mind. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft pulled Windows and the fallout lasted for a few months and then it was over and people found alternatives and nobody cared any more?
Back in 1997, I was technical support at United Parcel Service (UPS) when UPS's union went on strike. It lasted for about a week and a half in effect. The customers still needed to ship packages and that's where companies like FedEx came in. It took UPS a long time to recover and several companies have a policy to ship through various companies so as to not rely on any one company.
The sad thing about the UPS strike is it was a power play Teamsters vs. companies. The Teamsters got approval to strike even before UPS made their offer to the employees. The employees lost because the teamsters had them sign (basicly) the same deal, but lost UPS's sign on bonus of 1500. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Whether it was from the Teamsters or from UPS management caving into them, I don't know. I left the company a couple of months later.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
This is kinda funny, actually. Ballmer used "foo" as a miscellaneous identifier for a Sun product because he couldn't remember the name and it turned into:
15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
16 moment ago and I --
17 A. Hmm?
18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
23 It's kind of like a variable to the
24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
25 know --
0315
1 Q. Let me --
2 A. You'd need to read it back to me. I
3 use the word Foo quite a bit.
4 Q. Okay.
I'm a 2000 man.
Microsoft did this: "If you want to sell all your prebuilt PCs with Windows95, we'll charge you $X per MS license. If you sell any PCs with another operating system, we'll charge you $3X for per MS license."
When DR-DOS was released way back when, Microsoft announced that they would have a superior product out in six months. So sales of DR-DOS fell well short of projections. Over a year later, MS came out with the latest version of DOS - and it was inferior to DR-DOS. It didn't matter, their lying had the intended affect.
Internet Explorer and Netscape were fighting a war on the desktop for most popular internet browser, and for a while they were about equal for speed and quality. Microsoft jacked up the prices of Windows, and bundled IE with it. Since consumers had no choice but to pay for IE, Netscape sales plummeted. Microsoft now had millions in cash to pump into improving IE, while Netscape scrambled to stay alive. That's when IE got a leg (and an arm, and a head) up over Netscape. IE wasn't better than the Netscape browser until after Microsoft cripped Netscape inc.
There's plenty more. These aren't rumors or rantings of a crazed Linux fanatic (I use MS, dammit!). They're documented. MS didn't get their monopoly by being the best in the market. They clawed their way to the top with a two punch combination of tremendous advertising (which is legal) and screwing their competition any way they could (which is not).
I don't get it...all other software producers around the world have managed to learn how to rely on third party products/components. Aren't Microsoft competent enough to learn this as well..?
For what reason should they have a privilege no other company has (i.e. not having to rely on third party products) - I mean, is it too much to ask that they should only have the same privileges as any other software producing company?
Hence, the "wend"
It's ok, little ac, there are some great treatment programs out there, you can get help.
This guy is amusing because he is so non-sharp (put nicely)... every interview I read of him he says something dumb. Then I read the text of his deposition. Here are some fine moments:
Q. When did you assume your present position?
A. In the group vice-president level, I'm not sure. Two years ago, three years ago, four years ago.
Q. Was that a promotion for you, sir?
A. I guess.
Q. What had been your prior position?
A. I had been a senior vice-president and right now I can't remember of what.
Q. Did you assume additional responsibility when you became group vice-president?
A. I don't -- maybe, but I'm not sure.
Classic! MS high-level execs are WAY more entertaining than Enron's batch of winners.
that is, if you think that MS is playing a joke here.
.NET, Messenger, etc...). 90% of people won't bother, and who cares.
.NET... it's a great idea, and while security of information and ID is a big issue, who do you really think is in a better position to do something like this (make it secure, offer it, support it, market it, etc...). Certainly not the *nix community in it's factional, disinfranchised and non-conformist state (and here is where Open Source would negate any and all security anyway).
A few points:
1) MS can indeed yank the OS from the market, and cancel all licenses... read the TOS and license itself... it's clearly in there.
2) MS can indeed yank the license and code for all dev tools on the MS platforms. Same deal.
3) MS has billions of dollars. They can all go home and retire right now and snicker as the computer industry collapses.
4) MS is making this point simply because the whole penalty phase has gotten out of hand. They are willing to accept a certain amount of 'punishment' for their obvious bullying tactics over the years, as they know they can't be pushed from the top of the mountain so easily. They are not, however, going to have 9 states dictate that they re-tool their OS and offer it in stripped down form.
Why not? Would you I ask in reply? If you were building and manufacturing anything, as long as it directly did not harm (intentionally) the end user, allow some busy body paid off political figure to step in and say that you are 'wrong' and must build your product the way the competitors think you should?
This is comparable to buick suing Ford and saying that they have to offer a version of the Explorer stripped to the frame and carry Buick parts in house that the customer can order to add to the Explorer. BS.
What is the big deal with integrating the browser with the OS for crying out loud. My only real gripe is that they don't have an option to uninstall it if you don't want that functionality, which several companies have proven can be done... they don't limit what browser you can use elsewise, nor do they prevent anyone from uninstalling it from Win2K/XP (i recently watched a demo on TV of how it can be done, and it's not that hard) and installing their own version of integrated browser. What I am seeing is companies like AOHell and Nutscrap screaming and bitching about competitiveness when they could just make an uninstaller and integrated version of their own code to drop over and in 2K/XP. They are doing the same things you all bitch about MS doing, manipulating the system to their advantage (legally and politically).
My solution is break MS up into two divisions... OS and Software. MS must offer, as a patch and integrated in all future versions, the ability to uninstall any or all non-OS related functions (IE, Media Player,
Have you used REAL Player? It blows... full of ads and with low quality video. Have you used ICQ lately??? Full of spam and massive security holes (same goes for AIM). If you use AOHell, well, you are just an idiot, so I won't bother. As for
Grow up... rally to your favorite political figures and propose decent, realisitc punishment for the things we know MS has done wrong. Stop plying your BS in the media and places like this... your personal hatreds only blind you to the reality of the situation and paint you as zealous idiots to your own personal cause.
What exactly *would* that mean for those of us using a Microsoft product? Would it affect pre-existing installations of Windows, or only new sales?
Of all the articles and posts I have seen, I haven't seen either of these simple questions answered.
Remember how M$ made its initial money. Remember what IBM thought initially. Let me rahash
M$: the money is in the software
IBM: they money is in the hardware
This point is really outside of the monolopy issue. Free software WILL KILL M$. Free cars would Kill Ford, but Ford has safety because nobody is willing to build cars nor give physical parts for free. However, the "people" have said they are willing to develop software for free in their spare time.
The M$ model is failing because "the people" can make their own software, and linux makes it that much easier. Its elementary. Change or die.
Dont get me wrong. People will always pay for your software if its that much better than what they can get for free. But to me, that advances technology, not stiffles it.
Microsoft owns the rights to the Windows OS. If they decide to stop releasing / selling it, they have that right. Granted, I'm aware that it won't happen, but the right is theirs. The only commitment that Microsoft has is in providing contractual support to owners of software that they have released.
I've seen several previous posts that compare this "gambit" to a five year old saying "I'm taking my ball and going home". Ironically, that statement proves my point. If a five year old owns a ball, (s)he can do as (s)he pleases with it. Taking it home may be an unpopular or selfish decision, but it's neither wrong, illegal, or (I submit) immoral.
Let's look at this from another perspective, one a bit less ignorant.
Back 10 years ago or so it was very uncommon for Unix distributions to ship with TCP/IP implementations. They were frequently add-on pieces, usually costing a goodly sum of money. Most customers didn't want TCP/IP at the time because all of their users were connected to the Unix box using serial terminals.
Then things changed, and it became the norm to network your machines and so all Unix distributions began including TCP/IP by default.
Now let's say the government comes along and says "By integrating TCP/IP into your OS you have destroyed a market for third party network solutions. You must remove it."
Think about that one for a few hours. Is it possible? Would it be a good idea? Would you want this?
That is what Microsoft is claiming.
I'm curious why MS is so adamant about keeping IE with the OS? It's free in the first place. Why should they care what browser you use after you've already bought the recycled, pretty OS from them? If M$ applications require the IE rendering engine, it should ship with the application. If M$ is putting up this fight just so that it can continue with its "own standards" in HTMl and .NET, well, they should burn.
The real reason they don't want to remove IE from the OS is because of the mechanism IE uses to route network traffic thru proxy servers. All of the spyware portions of code from various apps use this mechanism to forward the data they collect disguised as outbound HTTP requests to servers out on the Internet. This makes it damn near impossible for the average firewall to filter out and block. In addition, the addresses to which the gathered data gets sent is dynamically changing all the time and portions of the proxy support layer help hide the addresses in encrypted strings in the registry. Just put a sniffer between a windoze box's ethernet card and the internet and look at all the crap it tries to send out when you boot up the damned thing. Pretty scary stuff indeed.
I believe someone else said it first, I just wish I could remember who and give props. But, the issue isn't that windows is everywhere. The issue is that M$ makes the office/finacial software, and makes it with proprietary doc formats. When the new VP of some company gets a new PC (which happens all the time) s/he gets a new version of Office, which requires him to upgrade the versions used by the rest of the company rather than be bothered to remember to save-down his spreadsheets.
.doc renderer that would do a good enough job, then the M$ stranglehold would be broken. Their scheissware would have to compete on its technical and usability merits (read: doomed) instead of being the only choice for reading all your vital commercial docs.
This locks every employee into a management driven (not technology driven) upgrade cycle that hoses M$ down with cash, and holds everyones data hostage.
If document formats were to be mandated as open, all changes public, and any high-school student had all the info necessary to write a
Let the OS be whatever the hell it wants to be. Just enforce the abillity for any other company or OS initiative to write programs that can read and write any and all files, from M$ Money to Word to Excell, and let them write these programs for BSD, Linux, Solaris, Windows, OS/2, or Be.
Then people will actually be able to do work with the big nest of legacy docs on the platform of their choice. Then the buisness sector will have a real choice.
Then, after a year or two, we can all start telling our children stories about the big scary company that allmost ate up all the computer users untill it's achilles heel was found.
9:48pm up 426 day(s), 6:01, 16 users, load average: 220.60, 138.45, 63.50
If your company depends on a Microsoft OS, they might take it away? What are we in first grade all of a sudden? "Waaaah! Play it my way or I'll go away with all my toys! They're mine, not yours, and I can do whatever I want with them! Nya nya...." For their own sake they need to start being a mite bit more professional, lest they be hoist on their own petard. Bah.... why do I have the feeling that Steve Ballmer is taking out all his aggression on operating systems run by people that actually have hair? Just a random thought.... -Archan
Blah to the skins and Blah to the punks and Blah to the world and everybody sucks.
"But this time the company seems to be threatening to withdraw Windows from the market entirely, and not develop or ship it ever again."
Is this a bad thing Mr. Gates? Do you think that the world would stop turning without your over priced bloated, insecure OS?
The world would still continue to use Windows 2000 while the majority of the world's developers would start to develop software for other operating systems. Mostly Linux and Mac I would suspect. We would survive and in a few years be more empowered than we ever would be under your monopolistic tyranny.
So you take your fucking marbles and go home. We really don't need you.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
* Microsoft continues to make new versions of windows: "Ack! Forced upgrades is a major reason you should switch to Linux!."
* Microsoft stops making new versions: "Ack! No more upgrades! This is insane. - you need to switch to Linux as fast as you possible can!"
To put it simply, Microsoft does not have the cohones to stop shipping Windows. Many of the illegal activities they engaged in revolved around making software developers write Windows-only code and making hardware vendors bundle Windows with their PCs. Why else did they make OEMs sign exclusive agreements? Why else would they stop shipping Java?
If Microsoft stopped shipping Windows, even for a short while, hardware and software developers would be forced to switch operating systems. If Dell has thousands of PCs that they can't ship because of Microsoft, you can bet that they will be calling on RedHat or somebody to get them out of that mess. When AutoDesk realizes that no new computers can run AutoCad, they will resume development of their Macintosh version.
If Microsoft had to stop shipping Windows for a while, the rest of the market would have a chance to catch up. There is no way that Microsoft's buggy, insecure software could compete without the benefit of a monopoly. Microsoft knows this. They are bluffing.
t'nera semordnilap
Microsoft is great at adding new code, but it's the end of the world when it comes to maintaining any of it. It was easy enough "integrating" the OS with the browser, but now it's impossible to take existing code, and modify it.
;)
...remember that these are software engineers at a 8-to-5:30 job, not a little band of hackers that just dive in. And to make matters worse, the specifications are being handed to them from outside Microsoft! These same people probably go beserk when another division starts telling them how to do thing. So I can see why they've been kicking and screaming about the web integration, even if it's blown out of proportions.
Code maintenance is a costly pain. It's where the real debugging is at. Who can expect Microsoft to modify their code when they can't even debug it?
[ouch]
But seriously, it's so easy sometimes to just start fresh. Contending with an old project, with all the bad memories of things gone wrong, can be overwhelming. That in itself should suggest something else. I think Microsoft is implying they don't want to touch that code with a 50-foot pole. It was probably developed under older development standards, with out-of-date documentation. Nobody that did the work in the first place can be found...
No I'm not trolling.
Whether you want to laugh at it, see if you can find bugs, write improved versions of things, write ubercool viruses or whatever, we all want the source.
Frankly, as a Joe Blow-level user (well ok, maybe a tad above that but still just a user), I find the casual reference to writing ubercool virii uncool at best.My computer is a tool I use for a lot of my daily life-functions; some of those functions are reliant upon my MicroSoft OS (I dual-boot, but the heavy lifting is still done by M$. I don't necessarily like it, but this is my reality).
I really, truly don't appreciate the efforts of all those altruists out there who alert me to the security flaws in my cyber-home by handing out skeleton keys to the local branches of the Thieves and Vandals Guilds.
If there's one tiny inkling of justification in MicroSoft's preference for keeping the source code under wraps, you support it with those words. It does the cause of opening up the computers of the world to other OS's (a cause I fully support) no good at all to feed the FUD monster in this fashion.
Yes, to many of you, there is one enemy. You believe that Microsoft needs to be destroy and then Linux will spring up and clear your ugly emotions of hatred. Look, IBM, Sun, Oracle, AOL are all on your side, right? Fools. They're playing you. Wake up! It's a business. If Microsoft is crippled, do you really believe that these companies wouldn't try to circle in and take its place? Not right away, they wouldn't. That would be stupid. They're watching and waiting. Do you really believe in their current lovefest for Linux? Check out what's happening with Java -- same thing that happened with Corba. It was only a matter of time. The fight isn't over Java and everything else any more. It's IBM vs. BEA. Sun doesn't matter other than creating specs. If Java continues its prominence, in 10 years, compatibility between vendors will be ancient history. The only reason they're on the Java and Linux bandwagon is marketing. Do you really think cross platform compatibility or offering you free software is really a driving motivation for them? Or is it profits? They're on the wagon until they see their opportunity to take Microsoft place. You guys are a bunch of fools. They know you are emotionally charged and easy to manipulate. They're taking advantage of you, and you're too ready to oblige. I suggest we try to prevent Microsoft from practicing what is a natural tendency of dominant corporations and then let the market decide. No need to punish. You'd just end up replacing one monopoly for another. Step away from the emotions, see it in a rational, objective view.