Slashdot Mirror
Allchin Admits MSFT Violated the Law
An Anonymous Coward writes: "CNN is running what amounts to a two part article about the nine states who are continuing their case against Microsoft in which Jim Allchins admits Microsoft violated the law.
The first part of the article deals with Jim Allchins assertion that there is no way for Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows without crippling the OS. However, he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged and that they have not done studies to se if it would be possible to produce an OS without the browser imbedded in it.
The second part of the story involves Allchin admitting that Microsoft has violated the law but refused to specify the violations. 'I don't think that I can summarize those,' Allchin said. 'I'm not an attorney.'"
"Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell
you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft."'
I'll do it for $5 million a year!
'I don't think that I can summarize those,' Allchin said. 'I'm not an attorney.'"
;)
So?
'Nuff said.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
How many others have rigged as a rule? Enron had an entire Energy Securities Trade Center occupying a floor of an office building in Houston. They rigged that demo for the gov't.... The gov't rigged its missle tests (and those still failed!).
No need to mod or flame. I just think its interesting/sad that companies stoop to this level. Now excuse me as I go rig my code so my boss will sign off on it before the deadline...
I guess its time to start buying lots of canned food, and building bomb shelters.
I would have sooner expected them to admit that Bill Gates is a mortal.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
And they did it intentionally. Hopefully he can understand what is wrong with that even though he is not a lawyer.
IANAL, but...oh, wait, he isn't either.
So he's admitting it doesn't take a lawyer to know that M$ broke the law. Isn't that special.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
How can Microsoft state that they cannot create an OS without an imbedded browser, when Solaris, BSD, and Linux are all perfectly viable, and usable operating systems, that do not have the browser imbedded in them. Someone please enlighten me.
Allchin isn't Bill Gates, and he isn't Steve Ballmer. Allchin admitting that Microsoft broke the law would be like if slashdot's janitor came out and said that moderation violates free speech.
Allchin can't speak for Microsoft and he doesn't speak for Microsoft. There's no news here. Move along. Oh, and this isn't a troll.
Build?
Something wrong with just licensing the one that Sun already provides for free? That provides cross-platform portability (more or less) right out of the box?
Oh wait, sorry, I forgot I was talking about Microsoft.
So after a federal judge and court of appeals said that they violated a law and after half a year of haggling someone in Microsoft finally admits it. Well, what a headline. :)
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Since by this mans own admission MS has purgered itself in a court of law we can not trust MS to be truethful. So in order for the courts to get the real story they should open up the source for us to "explain" to the court system. Or at least have a non-biased third party look at the code.
Just when I think that MS couldn't get any dumber they go and shot themselves in the foot.
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
WTF? This guy could't say why Windows couldn't run without IE, let alone what the legal violations were. What the hell was Win95 if it wasn't Windows without IE? Do they seriously think that there is not another engine that can do what IE did for Win98, 2k, XP?
This article was a little to vague and short on content for my taste. Why the hell did they even run it?
Nahtanoj
Ballmer said if the states should prevail with their demands, the decision would serve the interests of neither computer manufacturers nor users.
Thank goodness for us that Microsoft includes IE with the OS!
Are you being served?
;)
Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves? -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
"Sun Microsystems (can) go buy 10,000 copies, and they can have people just sit there and generate work requests to us every minute of every day," Ballmer said. "Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft.'"
I just want to say that I'm totally available to take that job.
This takes me back to every Microsoft blandishment that other software companies were just being paranoid about their tactics. The spectacle of the richest corporation in the world whining about how Sun Microsystems is out to get them is both funny and sad. O Brave New World...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I can just imagine the conference call going on in Redmond ... "Hey, Allchin, save some for the consent decree, willya?" The transcripts of Allchin's meeting with the attys general have got to be right up there with Jeff "Not Taking The Advice Of My Lawyers" Skilling.
Oh, and hey! There's one of those big ads Malda was talking about. I can live with that.
-Baka!
Gee does he? I must have missed where in the article he actually said that.
Plus the big claim that Allchin is admitting some big thing is overblown (admittedly the linked-to article makes the same mistake). If you wade through Allchin's 250+ page deposition, the exchange is (p. 27):
Q. Well, you understand, do you not, that Microsoft was found to have done certain things that violated the law?
A. Yes.
This is just a statement of fact...Microsoft was indeed found guilty. It doesn't imply he thinks Microsoft *should* have been found guilty.
- adam
If you want the "Scheduled Tasks" folder in My Computer, you have to install Internet Explorer...Since when has the equivilent of cron needed a web browser to work?
Pbur
Bill Gates and current chief executive officer, said Microsoft would be forced to offer an infinite number of Windows versions under the states' demands, all with or without extra features.
OK, now he's just being plain silly. Why can't Microsoft integrate a browser that can easily be removed, or simply allowing the option to install it, and other components. It works for Microsoft Office, why not Windows?
and that they have not done studies to se if it would be possible to produce an OS without the browser imbedded in it.
Hello, Windows 3.11? Who are these people kidding?
When 9x codebase first came out, I know the idea of "integrating" Windows Explorer with Internet Explorer was some big huge revolutionary idea, but isn't it about time to admit that idea has pretty much run it course? 5 versions later, and the most Microsoft has done to get rid of Windows Explorer is hide it under the Accessories group. I don't see any of my lusers actively using this "browse your local drives through IE" feature, they all still differentiate between IE and Explorer/MyComputer.
When did Microsoft become a lifeform? Between his recent comments and his "monkey boy" episode, I'm beginning to wonder if Ballmer is an even bigger nutcase than Steve Jobs.
Regardless of what Microsoft says, anyone who works in IT knows that you can essentially achieve anything you can dream if given enough time and money. They *can* remove IE from their operating system should they decide to do it. Would it cost them alot of money? Would it cost them more than they earned by driving competition from the marketplace?
Seems to me like this suit is something they foresaw so they built themselves a defense by integrating their browser into the OS just in case this argument was needed...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
Were they too numerous to count or something?
With Products like IEradicator from 98lite which removes IE from all the Windows OS versions right up to Win2K and still keeps OS usable, would anyone in their right minds ever believe when Jim says "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it." ?
- Jalil
The actual exchange was:
Q: "What practices do you understand Microsoft was found guilty of?"
A: "I believe that we were found that we tried to maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system space."
Q:"And is it your understanding that Microsoft did that by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?"
A: "Yes,"
This is like asking someone if they understand the charges against them, or asking them what the court verdict was. If they followed up with the question "do you believe the court's verdict was correct?" and he answered "yes", then it would be an admission.
MSNBC just put up an article saying that Execs believe the browser cannot be stripped from the OS. Hilarious.
Of course, this is the same place that ran an "article" talking about how Microsoft couldn't have been a Monopoly, one day before the Findings of Fact. Hilarious x2.
Still think Chomsky's a kook, do ya?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The second part of the story involves Allchin admitting that Microsoft has violated the law but refused to specify the violations.
;-)
LOL
First time ever in history!
I thought this would never, ever happen.
I've finally read someone at Microsoft admit it did something wrong at something!
And I always thought Microsoft believed it was always correct at everything it ever ventured into.
I'm sure the Linux crowd won't agree with me, and this will almost certainly be modded down -1 (Troll), but I'm going to say it anyway.
Monopolies are determined by what percentage of the market share a company owns given a specific market. This market definition can make or break a company.
I'm not claiming that Microsoft isn't a monopoly, but I'm claiming that the original judge defined the market wrong. In determining MS's monopoly status, Penfield Jackson defined the market as Intel-Based home computers. So freaking what??? If I'm going to restrict the market to Apple home computers guess who has the monopoly on OS's for them?
Great.. so Microsoft has a monopoly on home OS's, AND Apple has a monopoly on home OS's. Here's my next question: Is that neccesarily bad? One major OS means one major driver for hardware manufacturers, and it also assures me that I can buy pretty much any software at Electronics Boutique without having to wonder if it will support my hardware. Don't get me wrong... there are plenty of disadvantages, but WE CAN'T FOOL OURSELVES INTO THINKING THAT ALL THINGS MICROSOFT ARE BAD (apologies for the caps.)
Where it not for the ease of use of Microsoft products, home computers would not have taken off nearly as much as they have (try getting a tech illiterate person to install Linux on ANYTHING.) If Microsoft hadn't done it, some other "nasty corporation" would have. Why, you ask? Because it needed to be done. Standardization IN SOME CASES is a good thing... don't forget it.
It's perfectly possible to know whether or not something is possible (meaning "realistic", since given unlimited time/resources anything is possible) without performing a study to find out.
Given the direction that Microsoft is gone, it probably ISN'T possible to remove IE without rewriting massive parts of the OS. With the amount of in-depth knowledge Allchin has, he can probably state that with 100% certainty - and he doesn't need to do a study to know it for certain.
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Also, Allchin cannot either confirm or deny whether Microsoft broke the law. That determination is for the courts, and his statement, in either direction, does not make it so.
Have I missed something? Hasn't MS been found guilty of lying in court (things like the rigged video)? Why isn't someone at least paying a perjury fine (or spending time in jail)? Or is that only for us regular folks?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I use Opera and Netscape instead.
If you're running Windows 9.x-2000, I suggest you back up your machine completely and then give the MSIE install a try. You should get both satisfactory proof that Ballmer lied AND a better-running computer. Usual warning, your mileage may vary...
As for XP, while MS may have done a better job at kludging IE into the OS to make it harder to untangle this time, I'm sure a development contract to the people at 98lite plus access to the Windows API will result in a very fast and clean solution to the problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I hate to say it, but isnt this the same company that claims they ARE smart enough to securely handle ALL of our id's and financial information (ie Hailstorm)
And now this same company tells me it can not do something as simple as modularize source code. I don't feel very safe anymore.
Wow, for a company so obsessed with innovation, you'd think separating a piece of software from the OS would be a snap!
How in the world do Apple, Linux, Sun, and BSD all do it?
The quote in the article is that "Technically I just couldn't do it."
OK, so Allchin cannot remove IE. Can Real Programmers remove IE?
The fact that Micosoft won't even admit they were getting close to the line when everyone else was screaming they were far across it greatly disturbs me. Such an inability to distinguish right-from-wrong justifies unusually strong protective [harsh] measures.
Allchin most certainly did not say this without approval. I think this is a trail-balloon being floated. How could MSFT be expected to abid by any conduct remedy when they don't recognize offending conduct?
Ok, if I spend a lot of cash and agree not to sell it in a real consumer PC, Microsoft will sell me a version of XP where I can mix and match parts. I think I can even remove the browser. This is their embedded version of XP (does it have product activation?).
But although they say it is too technically challenging to re-engineer windows XP so OEMs can do it, in their embedded section this is a selling point.
is like a fish without a bicycle.
With apologies to Gloria Steinem.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I seriously wonder what people (the nine states included) would do if MS stripped Windows down until it was just the OS itself. Bye-bye, calc, notepad, wordpad, solitaire, ftp, telnet, minesweeper, icons, windows, menus...
This could be a classic case of "be careful what you wish for."
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
They can write something that will be able work without IE. It may take them time and money, but this monopolist has plenty of money...and as much time as anyone else. Make them ship a stripped down version by date X, or open their OS code under the LGPL or BSD license. Or break the company in two at that point. Either one serves the consumer nicely.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
- adam
By upgrading IE from version 4 to version 6 I could potentially cripple windows?
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
some words seem too new for my dictionary!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
He referred to an especially embarrassing part of Microsoft's case, in which the company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged.
The timeline in question is that Microsoft, after the original presentation, admitted that it had been rigged. Allchin did not admit it in this deposition.
Nope, no sig
Embedded XP, WinCE are modular, WindowsXP is... according to Microsoft a whole new platform that was a massive development undertaking.
And you are saying that as part of the WindowsXP development they couldn't do on a server what they can do on a PDA ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Sounds to me like they just want Microsoft to make everything more difficult for the end user. How much extra downloading and installing are we gonna have to do to make things work properly before the justice department (or whoever else feels like suing) is satisified.
Just have Microsoft pay off here, license there and play nice, meanwhile leave the software alone! It works fine, it doesn't need any so called 'pro-competitive' improvements. Sheesh!
Z. http://www.play.net Your games, my job. C'est la vie!
If you lumped in all of Apple's hardware, Windows would still be on something like 95% of all computers since PC compatible hardware is so much larger a market. So I don't see what you get by redrawing the market there.
As to 'Microsoft bad', you are making the assumption that 'monopoly == bad' which is not the case legally. in the eyes of the law, monopoly == extra responsibilities. If you fail to meet those responsibilities, then yes, you are breaking the law.
That's the real problem for Microsoft in this case. Not just that they have the monopoly. But that they operate the monopoly in a predatory way. If they would tone down their 'cut off the air supply' style of doing business, they would have no legal problems from an antitrust standpoint.
Jim Allchins assertion that there is no way for Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows without crippling the OS.
... well, as carefully as probably anything is. But then, that's a DeepDarkSecret, innit?
This is such an obvious crock to anyone beyond programming 101.
Apple doesn't have a browser cleverly woven into it's operating systems. What, MS programmers can't do what Apple programmers can do?
I would even be willing to wager that the Explorer stuff is carefully marked out in The Source Code
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Absolutely, because we all know that the Supreme Court justices are paragons of virtue. They make their rulings strictly according to the law, and would never find in favor of one side or the other due to political or personal reasons. The very notion is ridiculous.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
First words of truth from MS. Yay.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Okay, okay... Any programmer in their right mind *knows* that the browser isn't an absolute, integral, part of the OS. Of course, MS is doing everything they can to 'fix' this - through actions like the change in direction of their help files from the old RTF-based nightmare. But, what has Microsoft gained? Millions and Millions of dollars in browser revenue? Put down the crack-pipe. It seems to me that all they've done is secure their position against other OS's. As I recall Netscape wasn't free when all this first started (if you were honest). I would have thought it natural that Apple or someone else would have integrated the browser with the OS and used it as a leverage point against Microsoft. Microsoft successfully countered any attack along these lines ahead of time without paying Netscape an arm and a leg to do it. I will bet my left testicle that had MS reached a licensing agreement with Netscape that right now Netscape would be swearing up and down on their mothers graves that browser integration into an OS is a 'great thing for the user'. Download a Linux distro and what do you find? A web browser is included. Users obviously *want* web browsers, and they like them to be included. Web browsers today are as integral a tool as notepad or calc... I'd hate if they weren't included because "they're not core to the OS" or "they stifle competition in the Hello World/Notepad programming arena". I like where the Windows help system is headed. I like easy access to online updates. I like the possibilities here. And, if such browser-enabled services are going to be basic parts of the OS I would expect *some* kind of browser to be included so that I don't have to install extra software just to unlock the full power of the OS. I don't just want the browser integrated in Windows. I want it integrated in *all* OS's. Okay, I'm done with my pro-MS mini-rant. *Now* you can flame me for my moronic opinion. Maybe I'm the *only* guy who likes IE. I'm a freak like that.
[T]he company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged.
:-)
"Do you have any expectation as to whether or not you will be putting together a similar demonstration for this part of the case?" state lawyers asked.
"Not exactly like that one," Allchin said.
I should hope not!
One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
There is a limit to modularity. You decide up front which components will be core components (i.e. not removable). Then your modular components make use of the core components when accomplishing their tasks.
I have never seen XP's source code, but I would guess IE was specified as a core component, and its removal WOULD stop the bulk of the OS from functioning. Likely the majority of modular components make calls to the IE DLL's.
That decision may have been politically motivated, of course, but that doesn't change the reality of IE being required.
It's entirely possible to rip out IE (hell, removing the icon and associations would at least simulate it) and still leave the rendering engine in place for the help system, add/remove programs, whatever.
Personally, I would love to see the Gecko engine become as ubiquitous in *nix as IE's renderer is in Windows.
rodent...
Tactical nuclear weapons are a viable alternative!
Please take Linus's cock out of your mouth before you speak, you are mumbling
Not exactly,
;)
You CAN switch the HTML engine or even the browser for help - if you're talking about HTML help of course - nothing stopping you from using Gecko (select KMozilla), Mozilla, Galeon or even Opera - it's up to you..
Of course - you'll loose other features of Konqueror - all the plugins
Hetz (Heunique)
Microsoft didn't commit perjury. Microsoft, Inc., isn't a person and can't think, speak, or act. It's nothing more than a legal abstraction for an actual body of workers and equipment bound together in a commercial endeavor.
No, Microsoft didn't commit perjury. But folks who work for Microsoft did. Now, if *I* were to commit perjury in a court of law *I'd* go to jail. Why, then, are you protected from punishment when you commit felonies while working for a corporation?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Why is it a requirement for Microsoft to remove all components that make up Internet Explorer? The reason that they can cry foul about removing IE is because to do so fully would require the removal of APIs that are used by Explorer (the file manager, not the web browser) and other programs.
... at least in part. This "all or nothing" argument is old and tired.
So what?
Remove the IE graphic interface. Remove Explorer's (the file manager) ability to open remote URLs (or simply make the option of loading those URLs in a 3rd party program, of which IE could be one).
This forces the user to install the IE UI component, which then forces Microsoft to give choice back to the consumer.
The APIs are a good thing
...
Anyone else think we need to have a new lawyer specialty like tax, criminal, etc but focusing on technology and making part of the qualification for that practice be certifications in at least 2 major OS architectures?
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
And yet THEY and ONLY they are the final arbitors of what is and what is not Constitutional. They ARE the final word still on ANY case.
Microsoft is guilty. The Supremes will not hear any silly appeal they make after Microsoft finally receives its justified punishments (there is no Constitutional question here, afterall). The courts say they are guilty so Gates' opinion, Ballmer's opinion, Allchin's opinion are totally and absolutely irrelevant. The convicted criminal doesn't have a say in whether or not they are punished. It's as simple as that.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
All they need to do is modify Explorer as it ships with Windows to not access any external URLs. We're talking 10 lines of code here! You can still then use Explorer to browse your filesystem, etc.
When you 'install' Explorer, those 10 lines of code can be disabled.
You don't really need to rip the guts of IE out of Windows to remove the unfair advantage.
---
I support spreading santorum
http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html
Though some (microsoft) software requires it to be present - such as Money 2000 - or so I've heard.
So why doesn't this discussion about if its part of the operating system go away? We discuss if this application is part of the O/S most weeks. Its an application they added to their bundle, despite it reducing the reliability of their software.
Its almost funny that MS want to own the web-browser for windows so badly! They give it away for free, it reduces the security and reliability of their operating system even though it isn't really needed, you can't remove it even from a server that doesn't even have a console attached. It's hurting their products quiet a lot... they must be desperate to take all this pain.
"there is no Constitutional question here, afterall"
The Supreme Court is not limited to hearing cases with constitutional issues.
"technically I just couldn't do it" can be parsed a number of ways.... Consider, for instance, the following possible interpretations
(my PC was turned off when I tried), so "technically....."--- emphasis on "technically"
(I haven't studied the nuances of the relevant programming language), so "technically I... " ---emphasis on "I"
(I signed a contract agreeing not to), so "technically I just couldn't..." ---emphasis on couldn't
Just call me paranoid...but they may still be out to get me
I don't care if IE is intigrated in windows, it hardly bothers me, leave it there. Besides maybe IE default searching with MSN even after you dissable address search it in options (under advanced). I think the larger ant competive act is the bootloader issue is the one where MSFT's OEM liscence agreement restrics vendors from selling a dual boot computer. With all the talk over linux being main stream ready have you ever wondered why you can't just buy a dual boot linux/windows computer? This is what BeOS in the process of targeting MS for. But I feel that the rulling of removing IE and handing over the source code etc. is all counter productive. I would have rather had MS throw billions of dollars a backing open source or maybe even creating it's own main stream GPL linux distro. Not that I want a MS linux distro but I would admit it wold do quite a bit for the movement.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Imagine. If Tim Berners-Lee hadn't invented the World Wide Web, MSFT would have this huge component of their operating system hanging around with nothing to do, and there would be nothing they could do about it.
MS Guy #1: What's this program over here?
MS Guy #2: I call it "iexplore.exe"
#1: What's it do?
#2: Well, nothing yet. I mean, it sends requests
to servers, captures the results and
displays them, but there aren't any servers
it works with, so...
#1: So.... why is it here?
#2: Well, I'll be damned if I know why, but the
operating system just kept crapping out until
I wrote the thing. So, I guess we're stuck
with it.
#1: Sounds good to me.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
LOL, maybe I oughta.
Never trust Slashdot blurbs, I guess.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
...is like a fish with a bicycle
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
1) They made the first tape (I have the impression he was in Washington at the trial and the tape was being made back in Redmond, but I could be wrong). It turned out they had switched machines in the middle, which was evident because of some difference in the desktop.
2) They made a second tape, and amazingly managed to botch that one also...once again they had switched machines. Allchin said the people involved felt terrible about it (no word on if they were out on the street the next day).
3) They did the demonstration live, in Washington, with Allchin at the keyboard, with the judge, Felten and his grad students watching like hawks, and the claim Microsoft was making *was* verified.
Now that point #3 is just from Allchin's mouth, I have no independent verification, but if it is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then despite the botched tapes, which hurt Microsoft's credibility, the point they were trying to make was valid.
- adam
The want IE removed from windows so they don't have to support it? easy since IE and explorer are just about the same thing you can remove it without entirely killing the OS. but they didn't say to remove explorer, they said remove IE, so just delete the icon, leave E, and block E from interpreting http requests. done.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Use cross-platform libraries and they won't have to. Qt, GTK, etc. are available on Windows and *nix. Write your stuff in that and you don't force users into anything. To be prepared, I'm going to start porting my apps at the company I work for to one of these cross-platform GUI solutions, with an independant app server middleware, also platform independant. That way any department in the world can do as they please. That helps in making everyone happy.
But of course you have a good point... where does integration end and the "pure" os begin? Well IE is an application, so definitely not needed in an os. A good example is Linux with GNU. Dropping some standard GNU apps, you've got the core needed for the OS to operate. The rest are apps. But then again that's just my judgement and anyone's answer would be opinion and not fact.
Developers: We can use your help.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think some people around here will find it entertaining so I'm going to post it anyway. This is a true story, I saw it happen just last night at a Microsoft sponsered .NET unavailing. One of MS's representatives was opening with a PowerPoint presentation when, suddenly and for no apparent reason, the presentation went back into PP's editor while she was speaking. She said "That's not good [pause] As you can see, some things have stayed the same." I got a chuckle out of a Microsoft employee joking about their own buggy software.
This is the oldest trick in the lazy geek handbook. If you don't want to do something, instead of saying you don't want to do it, say that it's just really hard or impossible for unspecified technical reasons. Smart managers, and judges shouldn't buy that sort of logic.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"without question, without argument, without qualification"
but with the chance to appeal.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
"MSFT Violated the Law"
I nearly fell out of my seat when I saw the headline! Who would of ever guessed that a company as respectable as Microsoft could EVER do something that even remotly resembles violating the law!! Boy I'm so stunned I think I'm just going to turn off my computer and go watch some pro-wrestling, now at least that's something I KNOW is for real!
I stole this Sig
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
the question, essentially, is this:
is it your understanding that Microsoft tried to maintain a monopoly by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?
Now, to me, the phrase "by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful" is the exact same thing as "by breaking the law".
so in other words:
is it your understanding that Microsoft tried to maintain a monopoly by breaking the law?
To which he answered yes. Sounds like an admission to me...
Of course, if I were a businessman seeing this sort of schoolyard-bully crap ("If you don't play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!") on the witness stand of a Federal court from the CEO of the company supplying my enterprise software, I'd be beating down the doors at IBM or Red Hat to sign up for MS-rehab ASAP. What this particular schoolyard bully seems to have missed is the pile of other balls the rest of the neighborhood has collected along the sidelines waiting for the fool to get off their field :-)
Plenty of Windows users here too.. everyone has an opinion, you anonymous wuss.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Additionally, numerous companies and the DOJ have already proven IE can be de-"integrated" from the OS,. resulting in a speed increase, contrary to the falsified MS video to prove otherwise.
Add to that, Windows didnt always come with IE as the shell - and when IE 4.01/4.02 came out, the IE "integration" came (for many OEM's such as ourselves) on a second CD. It was, and is an addon.
Keep in mind, the rest of Windows components are installed on a "Check this box to install" method - there is no reason why IE cannot be installed or not installed in the same fashion. Nor is there a reason why MS couldnt write a decent file manager that doesnt need IE - or also as suggested here, at least while using IE as a file manager, block it from pulling http requests - or better yet, make an option to set and select Window's default browser and pass all URL's to it via DDE...
Also, I for one, am happy having an extensible object oriented (not object based) GUI that doesnt require IE's overhead just to open a simple drive folder. MacOS, OS/2, eComStation and some *nix desktop variants come to mind in that category.
This dead horse keeps coming up. MS knows they can easily remove IE, it was already proven in court, MS had to falsify videotaped tests to try to prove otherwise, were caught and admitted it, while the DOJ proved it could be done, and easily.
Robert - Baltimore FoodPlaces
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
Gee...I wonder how Daimler-Chrysler offers so many versions of the PT Cruiser? Four models, nine colors, manual or automatic transmission, three choices for "security group", side airbags or not, deep tint windows or not, three choices of exterior accents, six more options one can choose or not....let's see, that comes to 165,888 possible variations on the PT Cruiser (and I'm leaving out the "woody" and gold exteriors, I think...). Mr. Ballmer, Henry "you can have a Model T in any color you want as long as it's black" Ford was a long time ago--why should computer users have fewer choices than car buyers?
Monkey boy took over for billybob because they knew he'd have to speak in court for more than just depositions.
They knew they'd be sunk if billybob opened his mouth in an interactive forum.
This sticking point is just so old it's unbalievable. If you aren't shipping a browser with a desktop OS, you are crazy. Have you seen what XP does with embeded IE? It's beautiful. I go from browsing files to browsing the internet seemlessley. Pick on IE for security all you want, but it's definetley a usability improvement the way they have it bundled in like that.
Anyway, yeah. My point was that arguing about building a browser into the OS is so 1997.
"Ballmer complained that it would be too expensive to build a version of the Java programming language to package with Windows"
:)
"S'OK Mate!", chirps Scott McNealy, "we've got one here you can have for nothing".
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Back in the earliest days of DOS, I was upset that Microsoft didn't supply a backup program with DOS. But they didn't and up sprang many third party backup programs. You might say there was a truly competitive market that formed around backup programs that competed on price, features, and support.
Sometime near when Windows came out, Microsoft did have a backup program, but it was not very good. I recall it was rumored that your backups had to be restored with the same exact version of the backup program. So still there was a healthy market for backup programs.
Windows 95 or NT comes out, and Microsoft claims to have bundled in a useful, featurific backup program. By that time, the healthy market was down to two or three brand competitors including Norton. With the release of 95 or NT, Norton completely exits the market for backup programs as they believe there is no way of competing with a useful backup program from MS.
And as folks have noted, throughout the years Windows has always cost about $200.
So why would consumers not want bundled in features? Because intelligent consumers know they do better when competition is healthy.
Am I missing something? Where is the second part?
Here is the best quote:
The states' lawyers, Stephen Houck and Mark Breckler, asked if it would be important for the head Windows executive to know what the violations were, so they wouldn't be repeated.
"Well, it's a very complicated area," Allchin said. "Very complicated,"
Come on! "Does the boss need to know about every violation of the law in order to hide from it?" "I can't lie so... its very complicated"
I think the real news here is that Microsoft finally admitted that it does not follow basic, time-tested principles of good software design, such as modularity,good separation between interface & implementation, and proper separation of kernel & application responsibilities. If they practiced good software design, they would be able to remove IE from windows.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Is this all it takes to keep Windows off the market? Let's settle this puppy, call his bluff, and move on.
The world will be a better place.
Consumer Deception. Of which is so deep that even now people are being fooled by it, even here on slashdot.
I am pretty pissed that the states are trying to make Microsoft muck around with Windows like this. It's not going to fix a damn thing. What they need to do is force them to publish COMPLETE documentation of all their protocols, APIs, and file formats and update them with any changes in a timely manner. Then prevent them from forming exclusionary deals with OEMs. Perhaps even some sort of mandatory licensing scheme such as that with radio and the record labels is in order so that Microsoft can't strongarm OEMs into doing things by threatening to revoke their Windows license (off the record of course). Forcing them to modularize Windows isn't really going to help. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that nobody can be compatible with the de-facto Windows standard without Microsoft's permission and cooperation. Unless they solve that problem, they've just been wasting our time and money.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
... I would still be using Linux.
'nuff said.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
It seems that somewhere, there has to be some core code to windows that is not all built into a gui, and that handles all the memory management and basic operating system functions. Here in college they tell us it's a kernel, and that it has to be there for the operating system to work. I don't see how Microsoft could possibly say that they can't strip a bit of GUI off of the operating system. It's code. It's not a life...so it can't really be crippled. You take it out, and fix the resulting code. Or you make something new. Although I disagree with people saying that microsoft should have to strip down things and not work to their full potential, I do disagree with microsoft's statement that they "can't" do something with code. That's a blatant lie, and any programmer could tell you that.
"The modified measures should deflate Microsoft's overblown rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions about the proposed remedies," Blumenthal said.
This would require a smaller ego, would it not?
Yes, the Web Browser is the killer app for desktop operating systems. Yes it makes sense for MS to include one in their system.
What they did was use Monopoly power to kill a competitor. Netscape (with all its problems) was building a user interface system. A cross platform, internet aware system for running applications. Sincer it was crossplatform, you could write an application (albeit a simple, HTML one) and run it anywhere that the system was supported. Mac, Solaris, OS/2, Linux, BSD, Amiga...this was a real threat to Microsoft. By bundling the broswer with their OS, they used their monoply to kill Netscape. The court stepped in to tell them to stop, and they lied to the court. Perjury is a felony, up their with Rape and Homicide in the legal levle. Why is it such a highly prosecuted crime? Because it is the underpinning of our legal system that is at stake.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
So fucking what if Microsoft integrates the web browser into the OS? I may be swearing, pro-
Microsoft and headed for "-1" troll here, but most of my posts get modded down anyway, "so I
say 'Fuck it, let's fight this thing!'"
Bad things (supposedly) about integrating a web browser into an OS:
1) It stifles competition. Those poor other manufacturers of web-browsers can't compete.
Well, boo fucking hoo. Microsoft also includes zip file functionality, a text editor, an image
editor, movie editor, defrag capability blah blah etc. Oh no! They also include the ability
to display graphics, run more than one program at the same time, encrypt files etc. What the
fuck are they supposed to do, ship you Windows XP as a copy of DOS 6.2 because they can't
provide functionality that third parties could profit from ? No, because third parties make
money by identifying *weaknesses* in the OS and then "filling in the gaps", or by introducing
new features people want, e.g. divx, games or colour console directory listers. (Still absent
from MS). You can't expect MS to say "Ooh, hang on, we'd better not put the ability to print text
documents in the OS, someone else might want to do that!"
You still can produce your own web-browser, and if you do it well, people will buy it for its
better security or faster rendering or whatever.
2) Ah, but because IE is in the OS to start with
most people will never even consider getting
another web-browser, so MS has an unfair advantage!
An advantage, yes, but not an unfair one. Why
the hell shouldn't MS put a browser in the OS?
Are you saying that ice-cream cones with chocolate
flakes in are "illegally using their power as
ice-cream makers to bundle the chocolate flake
with the ice-cream, thus depriving chocolate
flake manufacturers of a fair chance to compete!"
??? Oh, my, the only chance the flake manufacturers
have to make money is to get bought out by the
ice-cream company and used as the official flake
in the ice-cream!!! Like really....
Maybe I'll take MS to court myself because their
bundling of DirectX with Windows is hampering
my fair ability to compete in the global marketplace
with my ancient DOS 3D engine...
3) You've got it all wrong! IE is *integrated* into
Windows. You can't get it out- it's used for file dialogs
and file browser windows and everything!
Well, so fucking what? This is good, because it
means you can't argue that you want to remove IE
to reclaim the precious space, since you have to
keep it there to be used in the aforementioned
dialogs and file browser. They would be using code
of an equivelent size anyway so what's your problem?
I thought everyone liked adherence to standards-
isn't using javascript and html for file browsing windows a good thing? What, instead they should
make up their own proprietary system instead for displaying information?
And since the rendering engine etc would be in there to support file browsing etc anyway, you
can just put netscape 6 on if you want, make it the default application for html and tada! You're
not wasting space, as already pointed out, it's as easy and natural to launch as is IE.
Any of you anti-MS people want to rip my argument to shreds? Go ahead, just use intelligent reasoning rather than flamiage and I *am* prepared to listen.
Otherwise I don't see what the problem is...
graspee
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 34.2).
Well, I'm *trying to beat the page-widening you dumb-fuck spunk chunk of a perl script...
Why doesn't somebody make a HTML rendering engine that is perfect to the W3C standard and nobody will have to use anything else? If you have a problem with the standard, use something else, instead of rewriting the standard.
Zodiac Survey
If it wasn't for Mosaic microsoft nor netscape would have done much. Mosaic is what put the universities up on the web.. after all students never buy software :)
BTW, i could care less about netscape, i hated it when the became instant millionairs and went off starting other huge failures and then collapsed themselves. I was rather joyous in seeing them overdue themselves and go under. It wasn't MICROSOFT's fault that Netscape was a disaster, after all HUNDREDS of other companies repeated the same mistakes.
Had netscape used there IPO money for things like development, research and marketing rather then a new headquarters, fast cars and huge parties, they quite possibly could have competed.
Afterall, microsoft didn't start out but in a warehouse, netscape when from rags to ritches and didn't know how to cope and plummeted.
If there was a lesson to be learned from MS "embedding" IE into the O/S, and if Microsoft was open to learning it, it might be this: that their move to own the browser market ultimately cost them more than it gave them. Maybe. Maybe they earned some customer loyalty, developers who coded to the built-in IE.
Ultimately, out on the 'net, I see sites that are mostly cross-platform. Microsoft took IE's programming interface (HTML, DHTML, CSS, CSS/Javascript, DOM, etc.) in a different direction from their competition, Netscape, presumably to entice then ensnare the marketplace.
But, it didn't happen. Most sites don't use DHTML, except maybe for drop-down menus and the occasional popup. More often you're likely to encounter a Flash-based site than one based on DHTML -or one as richly designed as Flash.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
... anymore?
Does this mean that -- -- OS/2 is NOT the platform for the 90's?
Isn't 90% of the legal problem solved just by removing the 'iexplore.exe' executable and the icons for it?
The problem seems to be that Microsoft uses it's dominance in the desktop OS market to gain dominance in the web browser market.
If Joe User buys a computer with Internet Explorer on it, he most likely won't bother to download and try out Netscape or Opera. He'll just click the big 'e' icon that already sits there on the desktop. He probably doesn't even know how to download and install applications.
This problem is easily solved by merely removing the 'iexplore.exe' executable and the icons for it. Then every web browser is on an equal footing, and the computer manufacturer can bundle any web browser they want. So why all this talk about removing 'mshtml.dll' and Internet Explorer components integrated into the OS? What's the point of that?
Anyway its pretty amusing to read how much they hate each other . . . -ms2k
More evil MSFT news: MSFT has agreed to pay $100,000 (chump change, right?) to MSN subscribers unable to cancel their accounts because of billing snafus, according to this article.
-- i drop mine in braille so you blind cats can read me
actually, konqueror can be removed from kde. the "kdebase" package under debian doesn't even include konqueror, you have to install it seperatley.
We're fooling around with WindowsXP embedded (unforunately!) at the office, and it's just your standard edition of WindowsXP, and you get a bunch of tools to help you remove whatever it is you don't need, and create some policies on the machine.
Hell, the instructions tell you to start with a machine that has a "normal" version of WindowsXP Professional...
Now, the first thing to go was IE. And the system runs perfectly. So MS should cut the "IE being absolutely necessary for Windows' emotional well-being" bullcrap.
Oh, and maybe some brilliant lawyer should bring Windows 2000 Embedded or WindowsXP Embedded to the case...
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
So the guy that is head of Windows (You remember Windows right? That OS that is tied so closely with Internet Explorer) doesn't know about IE on the Mac. Yeah, right!
What I find absolutely hilarious is that these guys, some of the richest guys in the world, with all their money and power, still have to lie like little children who have been caught doing something wrong. It's pathetic, really pathetic.
1. I'd love to see you in court. You have to be very careful what you say, because lawyers will twist your words and present them as fact -- and then say "no further questions" before you have the chance to explain your statement. This isn't a dress rehearsal; it's the real deal. You have to frame every answer as if they will stop you at the end of that sentence and mark it as the "Recorded Truth". (I hope I'm never in court; I'd very likely strangle the lawyer if they tried that with me).
2. Microsoft is *huge*. Over 35,000 people. And the Mac Business Unit -- who do all the Mac development -- are in California. He's in charge of Windows, in Redmond. They're two separate divisions, and unless things have changed since I've worked there, communication is probably lousy or nonexistant between the two. Heck, usually it's lousy or nonexistant between groups who have to work together unless Ballmer or Gates hits them with a big stick.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
"Right now, the system is in a very confused state," Allchin said during the demonstration. "It's definitely not well right now."
Hmm, So what is different? Mine is never well and always confused.
Really Though, What is seperating the browser going to do? They need to publish all their APIs and Document formats. That is the only thing thats holding back. Windows isn't dominant because of windows, it's dominant because of office.
This page left intentionally blank.
if you want even the illusion of credibility you should probably not post for the next 2-3 months.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate, oh Anonymous (and obviously gutless) wonder?
Si
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Ya cause MS pays for that license to distribute the JRE.
Are you sure? J2SE 1.4 (not the SDK) is free as in beer to redistribute with other programs. Read the "Supplemental License Terms" that begin halfway down the license agreement.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, it depends on whether you believe that a law has it's meaning based on the words in it or based on a courts interpretation of those words. What a court finds to be legal is what is enforced, it may or may not be correct.
Under modern common law systems (such as the legal systems of the United States and of every state except Louisiana), the courts are free to make decisions that set precedent, provided that they stay within 1) the Constitution and 2) the statutes that conform to the Constitution. Thus, a court's interpretation of the law in effect becomes the law. If a court makes a precedent, the precedent enters the body of case law, and it takes an additional statute to throw out that precedent.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The real key to the whole Micro$oft thing is the "knife the baby" comment in reference to QuickTime and its far superiour handling of streaming media.
That's just begging for someone to write a wrapper for Gecko and drop it in place of shdocvw.dll and/or mshtml.dll.
Problem: Bug 74201 (implement IE DOM extensions) is VERIFIED WONTFIX. Apps that expect mshtml.dll expect the document.all JS API to be available. The Mozilla Organization is strongly opposed to implementing document.all.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is simple.
First, note that IE was included in the OS to forclose the market for NS. This is itself illegal.
Second, by creating an artificial tie between the OS and the browser, they have made it impossible for an end user or anyone else to remove IE. Yes, I know about 98lite, but 98lite only restores the system to how it ought have been.
Third, by promoting IE as "the browser of choice" and by making it available only for Windows, it makes Windows the "OS of choice" for Internet access, and therefore protect their monopoly.
Fourthly, that Windows cannot change its shell and that functionality is affected is clearly not true. Consider:
- The default shell in Win 1.x and 2.x is msdos.exe, a "file open" dialog box.
- The default shell in Win 3.x was lifted from OS/2 1.3's desktop manager and file manager, even replicatng the bugs... Lining up the icons in a vertical list is straight out of OS/2's program manager.
- Windows 95 and NT4 sported a shell that did not have any internet or web based hooks.
- The shell in Windows 2000, 98 and Me can all be replaced, but XP and SP 2 onwards can not.
- All it needs is a "new-found desire" to move the shell into "new and exciting directions" to get MS to uncouple the shell from the browser.
But even removing the icons from the desktop does not remove the code. All it does is remove the icon. Ye might as well say that there is no registry editor, since there is no icon for it.The third largest market of Win3x software was programs to replace the default shell: Norton Desktop for Windows was pretty common that programs needed to be aware of it.
98lite pro, really DOES remove IE code. It also patches a number of files (including wordpad and notepad), so that the dependance is gone. There's about a dozen files it patches to make Windows work without IE.
Whether or not you can use the RTF tool if you're making a competing word processor has never been tested in court, as far as I know.
Microsoft are saying "They can't remove IE", because it is the comingling of code that they're in the courts for. They have not been accused of comingling DefectX code, or notepad, into the OS. Both of these are freely installable and uninstallable. Like browsers in every other OS.
Microsoft could charge you for using DefectX right now. DefectX basically allows you to play DefectX games. Offis plugins allow you to extend Offis, and you need that virus installed for the plugin to work. I mean, Netscape charged in the order of 25$ for their browser, and people brought it.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with charging for an engine, and then charging a different amount for games to play under that.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Hey that "Tortuing M$" is best idea I ever seen. I'll pay for that. I don't care what judge wants. I want my revenge now. I'll pay it, and I don't care costs. Lets punish them hard
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
http://www.cyberdog.org/
Cyberdog was a document-centric, OpenDoc based integrated set of internet applications. It used a precursor of Sherlock indexing technology to store email messages, and could search hundreds of megs of 'em in an eyeblink. It had no visible logos, advertisements, or chrome anywhere- there were no splash screens of any sort- FTP windows acted and worked like Finder list views. Links were stored in containers like yellow-lined notebooks, which themselves could be dragged onto things like email messages. I, personally, saw a loosely-collected list of Cyberdog fanciers assemble a stunning, shockingly complete list of Cyberdog references using this technology: one person said "We should have a list of cool Cyberdog stuff, like these links" and posted an incomplete list, five people dragged that embedded document to their desktops and dragged over THEIR links, and dragged it back onto their newsgroup responses, where ten more people saw that and did the same thing, and finally a couple people organised things: result, a collective data gathering effort that would take tens of people, done in an evening with Cyberdog objects, effortlessly.
Microsoft paid Apple to kill that, and OpenDoc, and standardize on IE. Cyberdog was abandoned. I used it for a year after that, until I ended up having to do some site authoring that used Javascript, and grudgingly moved back to Netscape/Eudora/Newswatcher. I'm still on that diet- and usually I don't remember how much poorer I am, or count the number of seconds that these programs force me to sit staring at splash screens to remind me I'm using them.
But... did you even know there was anything as neat as that, out there, ever?
Microsoft is not integration- Apple had internet/OS integration absolutely nailed, far better and more seamlessly and quite humbly and undramatically. Using Cyberdog and the associated programs felt more like the future, years ago, than my Netscape/Eudora/Newswatcher/Fetch setup feels now, in 2002. It wouldn't absolutely require OpenDoc, either- it was about the self-effacing, borderless interface that didn't need to make any kind of statement of "HEY, I'M RUNNING NOW! AREN'T YOU LUCKY YOU HAVE ME??". We could still have that.
We'd have that... I'd have that, right now, if it was not for Microsoft pulling Apple off the project.
Chris Johnson
yep.. like $20M sure
The only injunction in this case is against M$'s use of the JAVA COMPATIBLE® mark, which it had never really made a big deal of on the box or in consumer literature anyway. To get a completely fresh agreement to redistribute unmodified Java platform runtime binaries, a duly authorized M$ representative need only click "I Agree".
Will I retire or break 10K?
I say leave Microsoft alone, let them think they have something they can bully users with. Soon they will get EVEN MORE OBNOXIOUS and users/corp-customers will get tired of paying by the hour to keep their Windows XPv2 license and decide to switch to linux. The $$$ penalty for NOT switching to a free OS will get bigger and bigger, until linux and free software will have become easy enough for joe user, and a good number of joe-type users will have spent little time to learn what is needed to free themselves of the MS monkey on their backs. This could be as simple as having the local computer shop build them a linux box instead of buying a box with windows preinstalled and lots of corners cut to pay for it. A word about Macs: My first real computer ( not counting the TI 99 4/A ) was a Mac 512Ke then a Mac II si then a Mac Centris 610. By the time of the 610, I had internet access through my college ( though ISPs were still rare ). This is when I downloaded TONS of free Mac software using Fetch. There was SO much more free stuff for the Mac than for Windows! People loved the Mac and wanted to have lots of software be available for it. So the wrote it and gave it away for free. Shortly after graduating I got an IBM with Win95 installed. But.. Windows sucked... Then I bought a second hard drive for it and made it a dual boot Win95/redhat 5.2? box. I was new to linux, and never got my modem to work ( A year later I found out I had a WinModem and decided to replace it so I could get PPP working on Slackware ) I used primarily Win95 until I got PPP running under Slackware. ) I used redhat 6.2 at work. Now I run redhat 7.2 with KDE at work and at home on my Pentium 4 Dell. It runs like a dream, and I never touch Windows now. It is as easy to install as windows ever was! PPP, Printing, Sound all worked with no tweaking from me! There is so much free stuff for linux, and most free stuff that is being produced is for linux now. This is because the technical people who once loved macs, and wrote free software for MacOS now love Linux and write free software for Linux. This is because they know Linux is the best OS around and they want to make sure their operating system continues to kick ass by writing software for it. Anyone without a hole in their head knows that Pre-OSX MacOs did not have preemptive multitasking and therefore sucked. Even though MacOS is Unix and good and talented technical people like *nix over M$, why should somewone write a free program for Cocoa when they can write it for X and have everyone use it?
Eat at Joe's.
With Linux you can choose to not run KDE. Sure konqueror is somewhat imbedded into KDE, it operates as the file manager as well as the browser. However, I can just as easily run Gnome, or IceWM, or enlightenment or Sawfish which does not have an imbedded browser. Even while running these environments I still have the option of running konqueror, or Mozilla, or whatever other browser I want. This is because the core of Linux is the kernel, and everything after that is just fluff. It makes it more usable sure, but I still have the option of stripping it down, or not using one particular component, while stilll maintaining a viable, and usable operating system.
I don't care about market share. Market share does not dictate whether or not a desktop operating system is viable. I use Linux everyday as my desktop os and I'm quite happy with it. I have also managed to convert my girlfriend and her roomate. Neither of them is incredibly tech savy, and they have no problem using Linux on a day to day basis, to browse the web, talk to friend, trade files, write papers, listen to music, etc. If they can do all that on linux with minimal frustration I would have to call it a viable operating system.
The Mozilla Organization is strongly opposed to implementing document.all.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. If I may, I'd like to make a couple of rebuttal points.
In any event, I merely threw that comment in as an after-thought (as I said then, others had already brought up the point). The point I was really interested in getting across was the first one: MS's complaint that modifying Windows will break apps is hypocritical.
I do appreciate the heads-up, though. That might explain the JS problem my buddy in the next cube is having with NS 6.2.
All the crashes, BSOD's, hangups... in Windows are in fact due to software that MS didn't write because they didn't know they had to write it for Windows to work. So if Windows gets any better with new versions it is not because of added functionalities directly but because the code of these added functionalities make the old code work correctly.
Oh, wait, all these new functionality won't work well until even more features are added to make the latest ones work, thus creating an infinite upgrade loop.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
1. You can't spell.
2. Find out what 'amateur' means.
3. Einstein is dead, therefore his actions can't be present tense ("Einstein has...").
4. You are wrong.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
No, I think he's saying that Microsoft doesn't make steel or iron, and also has nothing to do with railroads.