Slashdot Mirror
Caldera Evidence Might be Thrown Out in MS Trial?
Coleslaw wrote in
to send us a link over at Wired which talks about the
Caldera/MS Trial.
Apparently the latest issue is that a couple versions of
Windows might not be admittable as evidence that MS altered
Win3.1 to make DR-DOS produce errors, and to encourage the
use of MS-DOS. Interesting bit.
If, as we all supposedly know, Microsoft did it, then the evidence will be present in copies of Win 3 1 that shipped here in the U.S. Caldera shouldn't need to look at beta versions (which lots of companies, not just Microsoft, often restrict to particular environments) to prove their point. So what's the big deal? If Caldera has a point, they make it with a U.S. version that actually shipped to someone in the jurisdiction they are suing in. If they don't have a point and are just gold-digging, well, I for one won't be surprised.
Alchin can suggest things all he wants, it doesn't matter to the court case. All that matters is what actually happened.
Besides, why should MS be required to make their product run on multiple operating systems? Can Apple sue everyone who makes a Windows program that doesn't run on MacOS? Get real! This whole case is whack!
I got a copy of DR-DOS for X-Mas in 1993 or 1993 (I can't remember the year). It was great. I was able to compress my huge 40 meg HD and have virtally 80 meg worth of storage. I had a cool disk shell that roxed over anyhting MS had. Then I tried to upgrade to Windows 3.1. I had to re-format the hard drive because DR-DOS wasn't compatable. I lost the compressed drive. I was pissed. As a matter of fact I'm still pissed. Maybe that's why I like Linux/NetBSD/FreeBSD/OpenBSD now. DR-DOS was a killer dos. GEM was a KIller Windows environment. Digital Research was a great company that made great products. Microsoft is a big company that make products.
Posted by stodge:
But isnt that the whole point? Win 3.1 worked on DRDOS but MS made sure that if they knew DRDOS was running, then Win 3.1 would stop dead in its tracks. They are allowed to display a warning message (and rightly too), but not allowing Win 3.1 to run at all is just plain wrong. I bet they know Win 3.1 would run on DRDOS as well.
MS did not have the right to exclude DR-DOS because Microsoft was a monopoly. This placed special restrictions on them that would not otherwise apply.
Also, by demanding that MS-DOS be used with MS-Windows, Microsoft was implicitly bundling. They couldn't actually sell them together and they had to pretend that they weren't completely dependant on each other, for legal reasons. But the effect and intent of their actions was to tie the two products together.
This is completely different. Game makers don't own NT or Windows 95. They aren't monopolies. Those two issues -- crossownership and monopoly-position -- are at the core of the case.Even the intent to make something incompatible would not be illegal if MS were not in a monopoly situation at that point. Regardless of how MS got to be a monopoly, when that happened it couldn't legally practice predatory practices using its monopoly as leverage.
The evidence seems pretty clear that they did act in a predatory manner.
It should be quite obvious that this was not a viable option. If they had written their own shell, MS applications wouldn't have been compatible with it, MS-DOS very probably wouldn't have been compatible, and third-party apps mostly wouldn't be compatible because those third-parties would be compelled by Microsoft's monopoly position to develop primarily for MS-Windows.Summary:
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
just like GNU/Linux :)
.) :) and never looked back until I found lyx, and bought a linux (now FreeBSD) box.
I once owned a dos machine, to do my scholarly writing article for law school in 1988. 4dos made life less painful, but it seems to me that it did lead to more crashes. I opened my practice, and the first time I noted that I had bars on my window was when I was about ready to throw the dos machine through the window. I became a mac developer, bought a mac (then another, then . .
The months are already broken - it's been tried before.
...)
After all "Sept" ember Seventh month
"Oct" Eighth
"Nov" Ninth
"Dev" Tenth
A couple of guys from an older Empire had very large egos (Julius -> July and Augusus
I only replied as your post was funny!!
MS caught red-handed breaking a competitors product. Not this whole "Bill sells too much software and he wants to rule the world" rubbish.
I wonder why Caldera really purchased DR DOS. Did they realise that DOS is a pretty good OS for PDA's with millions of developers world wide before or after they decided to sue MS and rifle through their mail?
my blog: good times, man, good times
Yea!
This is like Ford saying that their cars aren't tested with Goodyear tires.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Only problem with this is that DR-DOS wasn't really a very good product.
:(
We tried to use it at work, and just had quite a few problems with it. Things not working, difficult memory config setup, etc.
It's hard to say what had the most impact on DR-DOS... Microsoft or it's poor quality.
BTW, the article is wrong on one count. Digital Research did pursue GUI, but they did it with GEM. This was part of the Atari ST OS.
That was not my experience with DR-DOS.
Of course this wasn't '91... I was primarily working with the 6.0 version in and around '93/'94. We had a lot of problems with it, not so much Windows 3.1 as just memory handling, etc.
It just had some funky stuff to it, and DOS 6.0 was a lot cleaner to install and use.
How exactly was DR-DOS not compatible? We were using Windows 3.1 under DR-DOS in '93/'94 and it worked.
Our problems were just with the other fuggly stuff that DR included.
Or are you just talking the drive compression software? I guess I was using Superstor at the time, so didn't see this problem.
I ran Dr-DOS all the way up to 6.X. Then when I needed to install Win31 I found that it only ran under MS-DOS. This realy screwed me over because I had the drive compressed with DR-DOS's compresser. I lost a ton of stuff and time because of MS's little games.
I have to return some videotapes...
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
What most people think of as DOS in this case really isn't what is at the point, because the point of the legal argument is what Windows did with what DOS really is (the interrupt vectors, in msdos.sys, io.sys, etc.) about, not command.com.
Imagine where the PC would be if IBM tried to sue clone makers a few years earlier, even if IBM knew the clone's PC was legally reverse engineered, etc. Imagine if IBM and Microsoft had gotten together and put in PC-DOS and MS-DOS (again, IBMDOS.SYS/MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, *not* command.com!) some code that checked for approved BIOS (i.e., only from IBM), and refused to load with "unapproved" BIOS, or at the very least, managed to pop up annoying error messages periodically. It would have blown the "100% compatible with IBM PC" marketing of COMPAQ head clean off.
---
Isn't that what Microsoft has really been doing all along until they essentially bought out Apple?
---
When did MS essentially 'buy out Apple'?
150 million in non-voting stock in a 4+ billion dollar company isn't usually called a buy-out where I'm from.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Being able to remember commands using the up arrow is in fact a feature of MSDOS (5 and upwards I think). Remember DOSKEY?
Admittedly, both the shareware shell 4DOS and DRDOS does the job a lot better than plain vanilla MSDOS with DOSKEY.
My experience with OpenDOS is that while it has nice taskswitching features, it is a bitch to code serious DOS stuff using it (demos using protected mode for example).
This is the version that was shipped to the trade mags that wrote their reviews on it.
Saying that "this beta isn't tested for DR-DOS" makes little sense. This is a BETA PRODUCT; this is exactly what a Beta is for! To test things and fix bugs that pop up just before the release!
For speaking Heresy against the Holy Trinity (FreeBSD, Linux, and OS/2), we hereby sentence Bill Gates to the purgatory of Perpetual Beta, beyond the land of Broken Standards, in the Pit of The Unmoving Watch Icon.
For burning the Sacred documents of Truth, we bannish ye from our domain forevermore, and declare thy software Proprietary and Inferior!
May you burn in the hells of Eternal Tech Support for your crimes!
--
Caldera bought DR DOS to vindicate the strategy of its financier, Ray Noorda, when he was CEO and Chairman of Novell.
Ray Noorda was in charge when Novell bought Digital Research and Unix System Labs, as part of a plan to leverage NetWare into Novell dominance in the OS market. Noorda claimed that the subsequent Microsoft talk about a merger was a deliberate tactic to delay Novell integrating DR into its corporate structure, and Novell sued Microsoft.
Anyway, Noorda's strategy fell out of favor. He left, Novell sold USL, stopped working on Novell DOS, and dropped its anti-Microsoft lawsuit.
Noorda then funded Caldera. Caldera proceeded to enter the Unix market with Linux, bought DR/Novell DOS from Novell, and immediately sued Microsoft over DR DOS.
Yep -- Noorda-funded Caldera adopted both of the platforms that Noorda-led Novell added. It's ego -- if Caldera succeeds, Noorda is vindicated.
nt
GEM was not a killer desktop environment.
Oh no! It's all coming back.
/me fights off old memories of a 512 KB Atari ST....
actually, watching all the duplicity, subterfuge and billion dollar marketing they have to use so that consumers 'freely choose' their products; s'like watching a record company pick a loud, lousy band (BG & the BASIC's, they only know 3 chords!) and foisting it on us with repetitive media saturation (listen to ANYTHING long enough and you'll learn to like it), people who don't know 'boogie fever' from beethoven buy it, play it on their boom-pc's thinking how cool and 'with it' they are. Then, serious musicians never had a lot of respect for pop music - once the advertising stops people will see it for what it is and it'll be consigned to the 'golden moldies' kitsch culture bargin bin. Meanwhile, keepers of the True Faith® will have some good software cloistered away for such time as when society is ready for it.
:)
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From what I read, this turns on the timing of evidence in question, specifically that it was brought to light after the full discovery period had elapsed.
I'm sure that this is purely procedural on the part of MS, since I seem to recall their lawyers pulling the exact same thing, asking that late breaking evidence be admitted, in the DOJ trial and they prevailed, though not without a little tongue lashing by Judge Jackson.
This will probably turn on the temperment of the presiding judge in the Caldera case and just how solid the evidence (prospective evidence, I should say) is.
Those that write windows programs don't intentionally insert code to make sure their programs work only on Windows. Inserting such logic may be considered predatory and anti-competative so this evidence may be valid - its a fine line. I don't think Caldera is saying that MS should QA windows for all OS's, but trying wipe out a competator by detecting its products and refusing to work has no beniefit to the consumer (ie no value added) and only serves to increase MS's market share. so I think Caldera has a valid argument.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
No one said MS had to "officially" support DR-DOS (if they did *then* they would have to share in the blame), but what MS did (if Caldera's claims are correct) add no value to Windows and are clearly intended to damage DR-DOS. Making a better product or making one for less is part of the game. However, misleading the public (faulting error messages, etc) and leveraging your market pressence to edge out a competator is another.
Again, AC's dominate the pro-MS comments. Can we get some stats showing how many comments have come from MS owned IP's? Just wondering.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
intent (as the original poster mentioned) is _very_ important. Most game developers add such code to their games because of the differences between ActiveX on Win9x and NT, not because they'll make more money by requireing users to use win9x. In other words, game developers aren't trying to kill NT (although I think a lot of us wish it would die). Its clear (to me at least) that MS was trying to kill DR-DOS.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
My understanding is that the trial is more about Microsoft's marketing practices than any particular technical issues. Specifically MS 'bundled' DOS and Windows and encouraged/forced OEMs to not support any OS other than DOS/Windows, shutting DR and Novell out of the market. (In addition Windows 95/98 disables DR-DOS during the upgrade for no real good technical reason.)
Even if the evidence that Micrsoft had DR-DOS detection code built into a Windows 3 beta is thrown out, it probably won't make that much of a difference in the trial.
Besides the DRDOS detecion code is hardly evidence of the supreme evil of Microsoft, as some folks here on
A) The code was only in certain closed betas. (It's wasn't like today where any schmuck who MS hasn't carpetbombed can buy a beta of Windows XYZ for $75).
B) The code was discovered, disassembled, and documented by a major computer magazine (either Byte or Dr.Dobbs?)
C) Lots of people ran DR-DOS under Windows 3.1. I don't think that there ever was perception that it didn't work.
D) Much worse than the beta detection code was a text file in the *released* version of Windows 3.1 saying that DR-DOS was not supported.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
At some point, Noorda went completely insane. Along with Digital Research and UNIX, Novell bought WordPerfect (only to sell it later at 1/4 the original cost). Novell/WordPerfect screwed the OpenDoc initiative by failing to do their part of the job (get it working on Windows).
Meanwhile Noorda was running around talking about some fantastic billion-node global network. He must have been talking about the Internet, right? Nope. This was a gigantic Novell network running on IPX/SPX! (Novell finally got TCP/IP running last year.)
Other than NDS, the one good idea that Novell had during this period was "SuperNOS" - essentially replacing NetWare with a version of UnixWare that could be integrated in Novell networks. Of course they dropped this plan, and proceeded to see their market share drop from 90% to 30%, mainly due to the fact that NetWare couldn't serve applications very well. Oops. Unix fans should not that this probably set Unix-on-x86 back about 5 years.
It should be noted that Novell self-destructed from being synonymous with networking to being an also-ran without too many specific evil actions on Microsoft's part. If Caldera/Noorda can win this case, it's hardly a vindication.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The specific code everyone's talking about was in the installer. Was this why your setup didn't work, or was it something else (like disk compression)?
The reason I asked is that I worked at a place that had over 100 systems on Novell DOS and Windows 3.1. It worked.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The law's the law (darn M$!). If there a really smoking gun's in the email, we'll see them and hopefully that's enough.
Isn't that what Microsoft has really been doing all along until they essentially bought out Apple?
/. when you're only knowledge of computers came from Pirates of the Silicon Valley.
Actually, its a non-voting stake, so they have no control over Apple. At the time, Apple had 4 billion in assets. Do you really think a quick $150 mil means anything when you've got 4 billion?
Apple sold a non-voting piece to get office, get support, and to drive their stock back up. And yes, that cash was also part payment for the ~$500-700 mil of Patent Infringements MS was found guilty of (can't rip off tech and get away with it...oh wait...you can...)
So please, if you learn anything from this comment, its that you shouldn't post on
Actually irregardless is not a word. If it were a word it would mean the same as "regardful" if that is a word (I don't think it is). And inflamable means combustable, flamable does not. Flamable actually means something like a conflict important to one's life, or something along those lines (I really can't remember). Flamable started being used as a synonym for inflamable on trucks that were carying combustable materials, people thought inflamable meant that the material was NOT combustable, so rather than have some un-informed trucker blow up his rig, they just put "flamable" on the back of the truck instead. I guess it's better to be safe than gramatically correct.
-matt
Not really. If the product ran fine on ms-dos, but bombed on dr-dos, most people would assume that dr-dos wasn't up to par when as an operating system. Then again i'm probally wrong. win9x runs like crap on MS-DOS and no one blames microsoft.
-matt
IIRC the machine code for the "error message" was encrypted and took a great deal of effort to decifer. Now maybe it's just me, but that seems like an awful lot of work to go through just to make sure that people knew that there could be unknown incompatabilities between the two products.
-matt
I may be wrong, but wasn't 4DOS just a shell replacement, rather than a complete MS-DOS replacement? That is, I think it needed some other DOS's io.sys and msdos.sys (or the equivalent).
I think the AARD code was looking at entry points into the kernel (if you can call it that) code, rather than the shell.
DOSKYE does the job in MSDOS Anyway, that's just a functionallity of COMMAND:COM, but DRDOS had a huge set of very good utils; Task-Max and others, which MSDOS never had.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Microsoft keeps making the "Text os is Obsolete" argument. This time it's Dr Dos is obsolete.
It was explainned to me that (of those who acually chouse to use Windows) use it becouse it's a nice dos MULTITASKER not as a GUI but as an enhancment to a text os like Xfree.
In the multitasker market Desview and Dr Dos compeat with Windows but in the GUI market it's Geoworks and DRIs GEM.
The market showed little intrest in Geoworks and GEM. GEM died long before Microsoft could kill it and Geoworks found survival in early PDAs and cell phones. Desview and Windows battled for market share but Windows won.
Sun Microsystems and other Unix venders survived where GUI venders died. Apple almost died. With so many GUIs dying off I find it hard to believe the market went to GUI operating systems.
This isn't FUD as much as it is delusional. Bill Gates would have us believe he alone saw the value of GUIs and rushed to market when in reality Windows was a late arival.
Microsoft didn't push other GUIs off the market they did that themselfs. Windows should have died with them. Clearly the market didn't want a GUI they wanted Dos.. MsDos, PcDos, DrDos it didn't matter.
Jeff
I don't actually exist.
I was using DR-DOS in 1991, and it was much much better than MS-DOS. Outdated it was not, nor as buggy as MS-DOS, either.
--- Bill
You don't think it would be a good thing if the evidence was thrown out of court. Well, isn't that just the epitomy of a useless conribution to this discussion! Just what do you mean by that very empty threat?
Records are kept of court proceedings. The various Microsoft cases will fill up volumes of very expensive legal texts. Lexis-Nexis will have the whole thing on CD-ROM and will sell access to it for ridiculously high prices...
If the two versions of 3.1x were attempted to be submitted as evidence after the discovery phase then Microsoft has every right to request that the court deny their submission.
Overall I'm confused over this lawsuit. Microsoft wrote a graphical shell for THEIR OS. To me they have every right to inform their customers that there might be incompatibilities if you run that shell on a competitor's knock-off OS. Where is it written that just because everyone was using Windows that Microsoft had to spend the R&D money to make sure it worked on a competitor's product? If DR, Novel, Caldera (et. al.) wanted a graphical shell on DR DOS they should have written their own.
Instead of blowing off the questioning of your totally abiquous comment of "That would be bad" --which, btw can be taken as a threat if you read it with the understanding that you're implying you'll make bad things happen--why don't you attempt to clarify your statement so we can understand you thinking?
That is assuming, of course, that you actually have a coherent thought behind that statement.
irregardless is a word.
it comes from the base prefix ir meaning totally
so techincally irregardless means regardless.
yes, its stupid but look at inflamable.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Win31 doesn't work under DR-DOS?
So? It doesn't work under MS-DOS either!
(Laugh. I speak in jest.)
It created a bit of a fuss that the application coders were taking advantage of secret OS capabilities...or maybe that MS OS coders were creating secret features to give the MS applications an advantage.
Lots of us are unhappy that Microsoft did what they did--but that isn't the point.
There may be some Microsoft-haters (many!) who just get off on insults, but you aren't getting the point, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Caldera (and DR before them) didn't want Microsoft to spend R&D money accommodating Windows to DR Dos. It was never requested. If it had been, Microsoft would have been fully justified in sending them a copy of the cartoon. You know it: three little guys ROFL, and the caption is, "You wanted WHAT?"
What DR wanted, what they should have had, was the same deal every other software writer got: a copy of the Beta, so DR could spend the R&D money making it compatible.
Instead Microsoft spent the R&D money making it incompatible on purpose. Is that against the law? The courts will decide.
Regards,
Ric
Part of their evidence is a hand-written note from billy g to billy g that said "PURGE EMAIL"
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
jeez... you can't compare 4dos with dr-dos! :)
4dos is just the shell, dr-dos is the whole
"kernel"
-- close but no sig
I guess you never checked out "doskey" which was
included with MS-DOS since v5.0 ?
-- close but no sig
Perhaps they were saving them for posterity. ;-)
#include "mysig.h"
...for loopholes.
... consider changing our apps to not run unless the OS is our OS." '
...
Notice they don't say anything about whether the allegations are true: instead they demand that the *exact versions of Windows in question* be ruled inadmissable as evidence in the trial!
The spokesman mentions offhand that admission of those Windows versions would 'violate the rules of evidence' but avoids mentioning the fact that they were simply presented as evidence late, after the standard discovery process.
So basically, they are sidestepping the real issue, which is that the allegations appear to be *true*, as has been reported for some time now by various sources.
To quote:
'For example, Microsoft VP Jim Allchin said in a
1991 memo that "I suggest (at least for systems) that we
(And it appears that Caldera is trying to introduce as evidence two versions of Windows in which this actually occurs.)
'Sohn [the spokesman] said DR-DOS failed because it was outdated, not because of antitrust violations. "The world was moving toward graphical user interfaces," he said. "Microsoft bet the company on them. Novell and DRI didn't." '
This is typical Microsoft crap. The issue is not that Novell and DRI weren't also developing a competitor to Windows; the issue is that Windows used DOS for its guts, and relied on the widespread installation of DOS and its application base to make Windows successful, but then decided that they could appropriate the DR-DOS portion of the market by breaking DR-DOS under Windows, selling MS-DOS with every copy of Windows, and and quietly sweeping under the rug the fact that all Windows really was was a fucking extension and driver set coupled with a no-brainer graphical shell, all of which could have been run on another version of DOS.
And yet they protest vehemently against all the slings and arrows of truth. This is why Microsoft gets so little respect. Jeez...
My 2...
Chief Justice
The article mentions that if the case isn't settled, there will be a jury trial. My question is, what kind of people are going to be on the jury? You can't expect a normal non-technical person (especially a Windows user) to understand things like source code or compatibility issues. I'd be willing to bet that if it goes to trial, Microsoft will find some way of baffling the jury into finding them innocent...
-ElJefe
... they had better not throw out the evidence. I quote the article: For example, Microsoft VP Jim Allchin said in a 1991 memo that "I suggest (at least for systems) that we ... consider changing our apps to not run unless the OS is our OS."
Isn't that what Microsoft has really been doing all along until they essentially bought out Apple?
I use Linux.
Ever seen source code for an actual release verson of Win? Didn't think so.
Exactly my point. It was there in the official release version of Win 3.1, it just isn't as easily provable. I HAD DR-DOS, and Win3.1 wouldn't work on it for me.
The specific code everyone's talking about was in the installer. Was this why your setup didn't work, or was it something else (like disk compression)?
It was.
There is a difference between support:
"spend the R&D money to make sure it worked on a competitor's product"
and spending the money to break the product.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Yes, and it wasn't even a compatibility test.
It was an "exsistance" test. Does MS-Dos exsist on this machine? No? Gotcha!
After 12 months of fixing Y2K stuff (and playing 'Watch-the-M$-website-to-see-what's-suddenly-non-c ompliant-THIS-week :) I've decided to do three things:
a) Cancel the year 2000. We'll just invent new months of 1999 (Undecember, Duodecember, etc) for another 50 years until we're sure everyone who remembers 1900 is pushing up the daisies, then we'll go back to 1900. Simple.
b) Buy an abacus. These neat little doodabs almost never demand more memory or processing power, although you can get new beads that operate in extended memory wire-frame, but you need a proprietary driver for them and they don't work with all mathematics.
c) Move to Venezuela and rescue howler monkeys. (Perhaps I could train them to make abaci... could be a winner... 'Genuine Venezuelan abacususususes made by genuine Venezuelan howler monkeys. Get 'em while they're hot!')
What's that? Oh, yes, nurse, I'll come quietly...
>I only replied as your post was funny!!
Ta, that's how it was meant. I'm going through a funny phase at the moment. Serious service will be resumed as soon as I've finished watching all my Monty Python videos. Excuse me, I feel an urge to burst into song...
/me wanders off singing the Lumberjack Song
Take that all you nay-sayers! You think Microsoft is the best thing since sliced bread? Look at the crap they pull!
If this is thrown out of court.. I don't think it would be good, put it that way.
We should keep records of all of this too, all the MS litigation, *factual( (ie no conjecture) records of their tactics, etc.. would make for good comparison to what Linux is all about.
Seriously though, email was never intended to be a private means of communication. I don't think there's anything wrong with going through a company's email for such a case, especially considering that they've found plenty of evidence in this case that may prove Microsoft did encourage deliberately creating incompatibilities. Microsoft should have wiped their old emails, especially if they were so incriminating.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."