Sam, the maintainer of RinkWorks is like that. He doesn't get overly upset by personal injustices and put up a fight. (a la 2600)
He kinda just shrugs and moves on.
However, it seems that some of the media (besides slashdot) may pick up this story from the sounds of it, so maybe he'll be persuaded to take a stronger stance
> Did you know that there is a federal law determining the minimum width of a pickle on your McDonald's hamburger? > > There is. That's the result of opening the Federal Government's floodgates.
I would actually like to see this law. is this FDA? i can't imagine why. or is it related to the product matching the appearances in advertising. that i can understand. anyways, personally, it's not an example that has the impact that u intend, of showing 'open floodgates'
> That's not what the Justice Department wants. It's no secret that they want some authority over what Microsoft adds to their next generation operating system.
They are specifically trying to _avoid_ solutions that require gvmt regulation. Im not arguing with the statement that gvmt would _like_ to regulate the industry more than they are, but they know that at least for the time being they need to leave it alone. (see http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-10/lessig-l.h tml)
> Also, if the Windows source is released, there is a good chance that the consumer applications market will suffer. Unix was forked, fragmented and has been permanently damaged. And Unix > was a well designed system.
would that be like the interenet has suffered with competing browsers flaunting w3c standards? (not saying that that is right)
> Oh, and please don't force them to remove their web browser or bundle a competing one. > > An OS without a browser out of the box is useless to almost everyone. Almost all new OSes come with browsers from Linux to PalmOS to Be to Windows. Nobody would be helped by > removing the browser, and don't kid yourselves - nobody would switch to Linux just because it comes with a browser and Windows doesn't.
bundling is not the issue. integration.
> Oh, and one last thing. The notion that breaking up MS would cripple them is ridiculous. The powerful MS would be the one who sells Windows. They would still have a monopoly on > OSes, and their stock would skyrocket on the first day of trading to, likely, MS's present day value. > > That would make Gates richer. Do you really want that?:)
not likely, no. and anyways the object is not to presonally bankrupt Bill:)
Slashdot Mirror
He kinda just shrugs and moves on.
However, it seems that some of the media (besides slashdot) may pick up this story from the sounds of it, so maybe he'll be persuaded to take a stronger stance
By refusing to settle, are they not able to drag out the implementation of any actual remedies for much longer, possible 2 years?
Put off the laws they don't like for as long as possible, till it doesn't matter anymore. Hasn't that always been a MS tactic?
> Did you know that there is a federal law determining the minimum width of a pickle on your McDonald's hamburger?
h tml)
:)
:)
>
> There is. That's the result of opening the Federal Government's floodgates.
I would actually like to see this law. is this FDA? i can't imagine why. or is it related to the product matching the appearances in advertising. that i can understand. anyways, personally, it's not an example that has the impact that u intend, of showing 'open floodgates'
> That's not what the Justice Department wants. It's no secret that they want some authority over what Microsoft adds to their next generation operating system.
They are specifically trying to _avoid_ solutions that require gvmt regulation. Im not arguing with the statement that gvmt would _like_ to regulate the industry more than they are, but they know that at least for the time being they need to leave it alone. (see http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-10/lessig-l.
> Also, if the Windows source is released, there is a good chance that the consumer applications market will suffer. Unix was forked, fragmented and has been permanently damaged. And Unix
> was a well designed system.
would that be like the interenet has suffered with competing browsers flaunting w3c standards? (not saying that that is right)
> Oh, and please don't force them to remove their web browser or bundle a competing one.
>
> An OS without a browser out of the box is useless to almost everyone. Almost all new OSes come with browsers from Linux to PalmOS to Be to Windows. Nobody would be helped by
> removing the browser, and don't kid yourselves - nobody would switch to Linux just because it comes with a browser and Windows doesn't.
bundling is not the issue. integration.
> Oh, and one last thing. The notion that breaking up MS would cripple them is ridiculous. The powerful MS would be the one who sells Windows. They would still have a monopoly on
> OSes, and their stock would skyrocket on the first day of trading to, likely, MS's present day value.
>
> That would make Gates richer. Do you really want that?
not likely, no. and anyways the object is not to presonally bankrupt Bill