Losing tons of server market share, and even a little desktop market share, to Linux b/c it can't compete on merit.
That's not really accurate, FYI. The market for servers keeps growing. The number of units shipped for Windows server products increases as well. The number of Linux servers continues to grow* (this is hard to say for 100% because there is no way to track this other than by publically available ip addresses, but it is ancedotally supported). However, the market share of both stays fairly steady. When gains in Linux market-share are realized it tends to come from other Unixes as well as Novell and proprietary legacy systems.
What isn't happening though is that tons of Windows/Microsoft customers are switching to Linux platforms. It does happen, but not in statistically important quantities.
On TW Digital Cabble it's not like that. We really do have video on demand. Go to a list of movies (pretty big.. maybe someday it will be every movie ever made, but definately not now).. and we can start it right away.. pause it.. rewind/fast forward, etc.
The cold hard truth is that MSFT is still vastly overvalued. In the late 90's Microsoft looked like the company that will take over everything
No, in the late 90's, virtually everything in the tech sector was overvalued. In the 90's, there was vast any wide speculation about the future of MS as a single company. Remember that?
The stock was valued this high because of these huge perceived future earnings.
I disagree. The stock was valued high because it is a stunningly profitable company. And because despite its legal problems it continues to earn a tidy profit.
Now things have changed a lot and Microsoft is struggling everywhere outside their core-market (which is desktop software) and even their core-market is threatened.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period. Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere. It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Microsoft has 60 billion in the bank, but will they ever be able to earn enough to justify their market cap of 300 billion?
That's a real question. But the original question is not.
How does Microsoft expect to increase their market share 35% in the next 6 years[..]
Is a bogus question. They are not trying to from 60% market share to 95% market share. What MS is projecting is the global growth of the PC market, applied to their 95% shared. Over the next 6 years is it reasonable to add 400 million Windows PCs world wide?
To get the DMCA changed or busted completely, this is the type of case that is critical.
Congress put a stop to this type of "false monopoly" on big ticket items a long time ago.. car manufacturer's tried to make it so that only "certified" techs (aka, dealerships) could work on their cars (and jack up the costs)...
Now, its' creeping back in. First, ink/toner cartridges. DMCA'd to the point where ONLY "dealer" brand is compatible. Second, "copyrighted bits" in communication protocols and whatnot. Big oh-oh. Now, copyrighted keys for "big rig" hardware.
Tough break for the guys in this case, but it is a true negative effect of the DMCA - a chilling of all kinds of previously legal activity.
That's an utter lie. I defy you to find anyone who is "forced" to work "60 hours a week" minimum at Microsoft.
Read the developer blogs over at blogs.msdn.com. These people love their jobs, but they all have vibrant social and family lives.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago things were different, but I know by e-mail and by longtime friendship several developers across the MS board and NONE work a regular work week more than 40-45 hours. Around shiptime do they work some long hours and short weekends? Yes.
Provisions in the second and third weren't voted in? Of course they were. Unless we are talking about different things.
The USA PATRIOT act was passed. NONE of the laws designated as it's "successors" have been made law.
like it was last time, I wouldn't even get close to calling that orderly
That is the definition of orderely. Order is the opposite of choas. Look it up. Even if we have what we had last time, it will still be orderely. Why? Because at the end of the day the law is the final answer. Because at the end of the day the government never loses its continunity or legal authority. Because checks and balances work. Look at many other countries. Of the 170 or countries in the world, many many many do not have an orderely transfer of power. We've been doing it for over 225 years.
I think if a candidate can get legally listed on the ballot in the majority of the states, they should be in the broadcasted debates, at a bare minimum.
You do not decide what happens in debates. Neither do I. Who does? The Presidental Debate Commission. Who is that? It's a group of television stations. Private television stations. If you would like to see a debate of all such candidates, you should try to persuade PBS. They've done them before (84, 80, 76) and eventually the ratings were so bad they cancelled them.
And look at what just happened, the records of outright foreign lobbyists "aren't available" in common electronic form, because it would "crash the system".
See, here you go twisting the facts. That was the claim. That claim is being challeneged in court. This is how things work. Someone made an FOIA request. It was rejected on stupid grounds. That claim is being tested in court. Justice and law will prevail. It happens everyday in this country. In your vision of the country has become do you think we'd have a FOIA to follow? Courts? Due process?
And then if you want to get into blackbox no trail, no reasonable audit, no legitimate verification styled voting
Well let's see what has happened. California Secretary of State has decertified machines without paper trails. So have 15 other states. In this country, the counties operate elections with supervision from the respective state governments. Due process is being worked out. The bad machines are being tossed. The ones that work and protect the propriety of the election are kept.
These aspects and more to our political system and as it applies to elections are not in any way orderly
What you are saying is that you don't like the order, not that there isn't order. Our political system is amazingly ordered. Compare if you will take the time to the political system in dozens of other countries. Our process is (1) democratic, (2) representative, (3) transparent, (4) open and (5) effective.
Just because you don't like the results or the order doesn't mean you get to go around calling everyone facist and accusing them of a bona-fide overthrow of the sitting government.
I am not a "neocon". I am saying that your posts show a disconnection with reality.
For example, your claim that proposed draft bills that have not been voted on once are in fact the law of the land. Completely false.
I am well aware of what happened to the brown shirts.
But none of that changes the fact that you are disconnected from reality. As you will see in Novemember, we are set for a democratic election and an orderely transfer of power.
You are being a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The bill says nothing of music/movie file sharing. Nothing of the sort. You made that part up in your little head.
The bill does talk about a specific type of a single application.
All your little conspiracy theories about the Patroit act are about to fall apart.
Why? It was a suggestion! As seeing how this software is used by more inexperienced people, it is a prudent suggestion.
Because do I really want to use an application that is complex that they didnt recommend _anyone_ try to upgrade to it? It had so many dependencies that it was impossible to upgrade! Why should I upgrade my whole friggin OS (Linux.. this is Linux.. not Windows!) to use one crummy app?
The problem is that in an oppressive regime, there is no - literally no - opportunity for revolution. In 1776 in the Americas, it was a different story. You could expel the foreign rulers from individual towns, form a militia with common firearms, and fight gureilla style till you could raise an army to fight European style. Which is exactly what the United States did.
In China, as you know, how large a milita would it take to defeat the army? Where would you find such arms? The army is a huge bit of the government in China, and no peaceful revolution would suceed without the backing of the army. Any plan that would diminish the role of the army would never gain such backing.
"Keeping the status quo" is fine. But don't be fooled into thinking that you could change the status quo when all your friends get tired of it. It's just not an option. In this day and age, it requires significant military power to unseat a robust militarily backed government.
Last year the FBI admitted to Congress that they authorized more than 2,000 illegal wiretaps.
Can you provide any type of reference for this? I looked extensively and didn't come up with anything.
so you would never know. Does the US have similar imoral laws?
Generally no. Though apparently in terrorism related cases they can ask a judge for a gag order on all involved participants.
However, all of that is after charges have been filed, not before.
Collusion is, specifically hidden, collobration for illegal or fradulent purposes.
1. The donations MS has made are open and in the public domain.
2. The Bush position was made public early in the campaign, with no pretenses about it. It was clear and straightforward.
3. Bush was clear and open about his intentions: he believed that the case was politically motivated, harmful to the US economy, and not likely to resolve anything. It turns out, he was pretty much dead-on.
4. There was of course an agreement of minds - most obviously not a written quid pro quo (that would just be needlessly redundant). But I am sure the arrangement was "If I get elected, the DOJ will settle your case ASAP. Would you like to help me get elected?".
5. That's the entire point of American politics. If you are hinting at sometype of underhanded dealings, you obviously haven't looked here. Bush may be your guy for dirty deals, but in this case, it is as transparent and open as the linux kernel.
6. I can for a fact there wasn't any "collusion". Look the word up. Even if everything you allege is true, no laws were broken.
In court, I think the prosecution proved its case pretty well. They caught several MS employees in lies and uncovered quite a few very incriminating emails
I think it proved several points well. Of them, that anti-competitive acts were comitted by a number of Microsoft agents and was decided at the highest levels of the company.
I think that Microsoft was very guilty.
Of several things, I agree.
I also think that the proposed remedies were mostly stupid and did not address the real problems.
And that's why the DOJ ended up losing in the end. They were so focused on splitting up the company. There proposals on why splitting up Microsoft didnt even really address how it would other than "seperate is good" mantra they bleatedly repeatedly. The DOJ had a good case until they tried to push the maximum penalty on them. That's when they started to lose. Look over the history of the case. Appeal after appeal, decision after decision against their ideas for breakup. In the end they were basically told that a breakup wasn't going to happen by the appeals court.
So I guess it doesn't really matter much whether the DOJ won or lost the case because the problem wouldn't have been solved by their remedies anyway.
You are correct. The DOJ didn't pursue any real rememdies because they wanted a head on a stick - they wanted to bring Microsoft to their knees. Mostly, for political reasons. It was supposed to be a symbolic victory.
The only reason this case is any more "high level" than any other is because the defendant is
The case is high-level because the attorney general, the president, and leaders of Congress were involved in the case on a regular basis. When the attorney general is briefing the public on the trial weekly, that's a "high level" case. It's not some case being prosecuted by low-level career prosectors. They brought in a big-name lawyer to litigate the case.
Are you saying that whether they broke the law or not is less important than who they paid money to?
I am saying that big companies often break the law. I am saying that MS had significant anti-competitive behaviour on it's hand. I am saying that the DOJ sacrificied good law and justice to go for the "big win", and in the end, the lawsuit became yet another partisan debacle instead of what it was supposed to be.
Do the research. I asked Bush personally the question in his first debate televised debate of the primary season. It was at St. Anselm's College in NH. It was literally months before MS made any donations.
Either way, I thnk you are wrong. The MS case was entirely partisan. The Republican congress would have stopped it earlier if it had of been able to.
If I want to accomplish task A which requires a political change, what is my best goal?
Find a candidate who supports my policy, fund him to win, and reap the benefits of victory - aka my agenda is met.
That's exactly what Microsoft did. Before the DOJ case, they had NEVER donated $1 to a national campaign, never been politically active in ANY way. Not a single race. Not a single dollar. Nothing.
Then they get drawn into politics. A high level DOJ case is, btw, extremely political. Clinton and Gore both personally soliticted donations from Microsoft before the case was filed. Ohh, btw, Sun, IBM, Netscape, and Novell are all big donors to the DNC and all funded the Clinton/Gore re-election ticket.
So, imagine yourself as Microsoft. What is your goal? Avoid DOJ break-up.
Okay, so, let's see. It's the primaries, and you've got 8 candidates. Forbes, Bush, and Keyes all argued against breakup during the early pre-primary season. McCain and the other candidates either said they were happy with case or that they would let it proceed without interruption.
Guess who Microsoft donated too before Super Tuesday? Guess who they donated too in the general election season? Forbes, Keyes, and then ulitimately Bush.
You are suggesting that it's:
1. Microsoft shops for a candidate, gives money to Bush.
2. Bush changes policy position.
3. Bush is "elected".
4. Bush follows through on policy change.
When what happenned actually was:
1. Bush campaigns on policy.
2. Microsoft seeks candidate to change policy.
3. Microsoft gives money to get its candidate elected.
4. Bush is "elected".
5. Bush follows through on campaign promise.
I think it's time for you to get a clue about politics. Companies seek candidates who share their agenda and then fund them. And yes, many times, companies seeks politicans with no firm agenda on an issue and persuade via cash them to have a firm position.
Of course, nobody should be surprised by this anymore.
FYI.
Bush openely promised as a campaign pledge (I know, I was at a debate and asked the question to which he responded) to instruct the DOJ to seek a settlement as soon as possible.
In light of that, your suggestion that this wasn't on the up and up doesn't really fly.
You've obviously never been in an accident where you had zero reaction time. It happens.. often. And it happens more and more the faster and faster you go.
Basically, at 120 mph, you have very little margin for error. ANd if something is less than 500 feet away and happens suddenly, you have zero time to react.
First, Java as a client tool is not popular for Windows development..NET of course will be. And it is rapidly becoming that way. If a properly written CLR and Class Library was constructed for non-Windows, any app written to use the provided libraries would run immediately on Linux/etc. This a big thing. If any old user can run any old Windows app natively on Linux, that's good (TM).
Second,.NET isn't as language specific as Java. Though the.NET CLR is slightly or moderatly biased towards some languages it is vastly more friendly to new compilers. The whole point of the.NET CLR is to encourage new languages to compile to it. This means that a single CLR can support any number of new languages. It means that a Ruby# program compiled to CLR on Windows will run under.NET.
This is a "good thing" that Sun can't really with Java.
Slashdot Mirror
Losing tons of server market share, and even a little desktop market share, to Linux b/c it can't compete on merit.
That's not really accurate, FYI. The market for servers keeps growing. The number of units shipped for Windows server products increases as well. The number of Linux servers continues to grow* (this is hard to say for 100% because there is no way to track this other than by publically available ip addresses, but it is ancedotally supported). However, the market share of both stays fairly steady. When gains in Linux market-share are realized it tends to come from other Unixes as well as Novell and proprietary legacy systems.
What isn't happening though is that tons of Windows/Microsoft customers are switching to Linux platforms. It does happen, but not in statistically important quantities.
On TW Digital Cabble it's not like that. We really do have video on demand. Go to a list of movies (pretty big.. maybe someday it will be every movie ever made, but definately not now).. and we can start it right away.. pause it.. rewind/fast forward, etc.
The cold hard truth is that MSFT is still vastly overvalued. In the late 90's Microsoft looked like the company that will take over everything
No, in the late 90's, virtually everything in the tech sector was overvalued. In the 90's, there was vast any wide speculation about the future of MS as a single company. Remember that?
The stock was valued this high because of these huge perceived future earnings.
I disagree. The stock was valued high because it is a stunningly profitable company. And because despite its legal problems it continues to earn a tidy profit.
Now things have changed a lot and Microsoft is struggling everywhere outside their core-market (which is desktop software) and even their core-market is threatened.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period. Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere. It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Microsoft has 60 billion in the bank, but will they ever be able to earn enough to justify their market cap of 300 billion?
That's a real question. But the original question is not.
How does Microsoft expect to increase their market share 35% in the next 6 years[..]
Is a bogus question. They are not trying to from 60% market share to 95% market share. What MS is projecting is the global growth of the PC market, applied to their 95% shared. Over the next 6 years is it reasonable to add 400 million Windows PCs world wide?
Yes, absolutely.
To get the DMCA changed or busted completely, this is the type of case that is critical.
Congress put a stop to this type of "false monopoly" on big ticket items a long time ago.. car manufacturer's tried to make it so that only "certified" techs (aka, dealerships) could work on their cars (and jack up the costs)...
Now, its' creeping back in. First, ink/toner cartridges. DMCA'd to the point where ONLY "dealer" brand is compatible. Second, "copyrighted bits" in communication protocols and whatnot. Big oh-oh. Now, copyrighted keys for "big rig" hardware.
Tough break for the guys in this case, but it is a true negative effect of the DMCA - a chilling of all kinds of previously legal activity.
That's an utter lie. I defy you to find anyone who is "forced" to work "60 hours a week" minimum at Microsoft.
Read the developer blogs over at blogs.msdn.com. These people love their jobs, but they all have vibrant social and family lives.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago things were different, but I know by e-mail and by longtime friendship several developers across the MS board and NONE work a regular work week more than 40-45 hours. Around shiptime do they work some long hours and short weekends? Yes.
Provisions in the second and third weren't voted in? Of course they were. Unless we are talking about different things.
The USA PATRIOT act was passed. NONE of the laws designated as it's "successors" have been made law.
like it was last time, I wouldn't even get close to calling that orderly
That is the definition of orderely. Order is the opposite of choas. Look it up. Even if we have what we had last time, it will still be orderely. Why? Because at the end of the day the law is the final answer. Because at the end of the day the government never loses its continunity or legal authority. Because checks and balances work. Look at many other countries. Of the 170 or countries in the world, many many many do not have an orderely transfer of power. We've been doing it for over 225 years.
I think if a candidate can get legally listed on the ballot in the majority of the states, they should be in the broadcasted debates, at a bare minimum.
You do not decide what happens in debates. Neither do I. Who does? The Presidental Debate Commission. Who is that? It's a group of television stations. Private television stations. If you would like to see a debate of all such candidates, you should try to persuade PBS. They've done them before (84, 80, 76) and eventually the ratings were so bad they cancelled them.
And look at what just happened, the records of outright foreign lobbyists "aren't available" in common electronic form, because it would "crash the system".
See, here you go twisting the facts. That was the claim. That claim is being challeneged in court. This is how things work. Someone made an FOIA request. It was rejected on stupid grounds. That claim is being tested in court. Justice and law will prevail. It happens everyday in this country. In your vision of the country has become do you think we'd have a FOIA to follow? Courts? Due process?
And then if you want to get into blackbox no trail, no reasonable audit, no legitimate verification styled voting
Well let's see what has happened. California Secretary of State has decertified machines without paper trails. So have 15 other states. In this country, the counties operate elections with supervision from the respective state governments. Due process is being worked out. The bad machines are being tossed. The ones that work and protect the propriety of the election are kept.
These aspects and more to our political system and as it applies to elections are not in any way orderly
What you are saying is that you don't like the order, not that there isn't order. Our political system is amazingly ordered. Compare if you will take the time to the political system in dozens of other countries. Our process is (1) democratic, (2) representative, (3) transparent, (4) open and (5) effective.
Just because you don't like the results or the order doesn't mean you get to go around calling everyone facist and accusing them of a bona-fide overthrow of the sitting government.
I am not a "neocon". I am saying that your posts show a disconnection with reality.
For example, your claim that proposed draft bills that have not been voted on once are in fact the law of the land. Completely false.
I am well aware of what happened to the brown shirts.
But none of that changes the fact that you are disconnected from reality. As you will see in Novemember, we are set for a democratic election and an orderely transfer of power.
The problem is that lots of people REALLY like Starbucks coffee.. your opinion is not exactly the average opinion of Starbucks customers.
The average Starbucks customer visits at least 2 times a week, and spends $5 per visit.
They love it.
Patriot acts "2" and "2.5" have not passed.
You are being a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The bill says nothing of music/movie file sharing. Nothing of the sort. You made that part up in your little head.
The bill does talk about a specific type of a single application.
All your little conspiracy theories about the Patroit act are about to fall apart.
And what, traditional encyclopedia's are going to be more entirely balanced?
You've got a much better chance of getting a well-vetted response on Wikipedia than anywhere else I know of...
Let's get real here.. how many of the "chinese people" would a country require before taking action? 1%, 2%, 10%, 40%, 50%, 75%, 99%?
In the US war for independence, never more than 37% of the population supported the effort..
Why? It was a suggestion! As seeing how this software is used by more inexperienced people, it is a prudent suggestion.
Because do I really want to use an application that is complex that they didnt recommend _anyone_ try to upgrade to it? It had so many dependencies that it was impossible to upgrade! Why should I upgrade my whole friggin OS (Linux.. this is Linux.. not Windows!) to use one crummy app?
The problem is that in an oppressive regime, there is no - literally no - opportunity for revolution. In 1776 in the Americas, it was a different story. You could expel the foreign rulers from individual towns, form a militia with common firearms, and fight gureilla style till you could raise an army to fight European style. Which is exactly what the United States did.
In China, as you know, how large a milita would it take to defeat the army? Where would you find such arms? The army is a huge bit of the government in China, and no peaceful revolution would suceed without the backing of the army. Any plan that would diminish the role of the army would never gain such backing.
"Keeping the status quo" is fine. But don't be fooled into thinking that you could change the status quo when all your friends get tired of it. It's just not an option. In this day and age, it requires significant military power to unseat a robust militarily backed government.
Last year the FBI admitted to Congress that they authorized more than 2,000 illegal wiretaps.
Can you provide any type of reference for this? I looked extensively and didn't come up with anything.
so you would never know. Does the US have similar imoral laws?
Generally no. Though apparently in terrorism related cases they can ask a judge for a gag order on all involved participants.
However, all of that is after charges have been filed, not before.
I stopped using GNUcash when they released a new version, and proudly put on their website:
"We don't recommend attempting to update to version x.xx yourself. You should find a distro with it already compiled and upgrade to that."
Astroturfing would be pretending to not be affliated with MS and using a false pretense to say good things about them..
..This isnt' that.
"Collusion" isn't what you think it.
Collusion is, specifically hidden, collobration for illegal or fradulent purposes.
1. The donations MS has made are open and in the public domain.
2. The Bush position was made public early in the campaign, with no pretenses about it. It was clear and straightforward.
3. Bush was clear and open about his intentions: he believed that the case was politically motivated, harmful to the US economy, and not likely to resolve anything. It turns out, he was pretty much dead-on.
4. There was of course an agreement of minds - most obviously not a written quid pro quo (that would just be needlessly redundant). But I am sure the arrangement was "If I get elected, the DOJ will settle your case ASAP. Would you like to help me get elected?".
5. That's the entire point of American politics. If you are hinting at sometype of underhanded dealings, you obviously haven't looked here. Bush may be your guy for dirty deals, but in this case, it is as transparent and open as the linux kernel.
6. I can for a fact there wasn't any "collusion". Look the word up. Even if everything you allege is true, no laws were broken.
In court, I think the prosecution proved its case pretty well. They caught several MS employees in lies and uncovered quite a few very incriminating emails
I think it proved several points well. Of them, that anti-competitive acts were comitted by a number of Microsoft agents and was decided at the highest levels of the company.
I think that Microsoft was very guilty.
Of several things, I agree.
I also think that the proposed remedies were mostly stupid and did not address the real problems.
And that's why the DOJ ended up losing in the end. They were so focused on splitting up the company. There proposals on why splitting up Microsoft didnt even really address how it would other than "seperate is good" mantra they bleatedly repeatedly. The DOJ had a good case until they tried to push the maximum penalty on them. That's when they started to lose. Look over the history of the case. Appeal after appeal, decision after decision against their ideas for breakup. In the end they were basically told that a breakup wasn't going to happen by the appeals court.
So I guess it doesn't really matter much whether the DOJ won or lost the case because the problem wouldn't have been solved by their remedies anyway.
You are correct. The DOJ didn't pursue any real rememdies because they wanted a head on a stick - they wanted to bring Microsoft to their knees. Mostly, for political reasons. It was supposed to be a symbolic victory.
The only reason this case is any more "high level" than any other is because the defendant is
The case is high-level because the attorney general, the president, and leaders of Congress were involved in the case on a regular basis. When the attorney general is briefing the public on the trial weekly, that's a "high level" case. It's not some case being prosecuted by low-level career prosectors. They brought in a big-name lawyer to litigate the case.
Are you saying that whether they broke the law or not is less important than who they paid money to?
I am saying that big companies often break the law. I am saying that MS had significant anti-competitive behaviour on it's hand. I am saying that the DOJ sacrificied good law and justice to go for the "big win", and in the end, the lawsuit became yet another partisan debacle instead of what it was supposed to be.
Do the research. I asked Bush personally the question in his first debate televised debate of the primary season. It was at St. Anselm's College in NH. It was literally months before MS made any donations.
Either way, I thnk you are wrong. The MS case was entirely partisan. The Republican congress would have stopped it earlier if it had of been able to.
Ahh, actually.. you are looking at wrong..
If I want to accomplish task A which requires a political change, what is my best goal?
Find a candidate who supports my policy, fund him to win, and reap the benefits of victory - aka my agenda is met.
That's exactly what Microsoft did. Before the DOJ case, they had NEVER donated $1 to a national campaign, never been politically active in ANY way. Not a single race. Not a single dollar. Nothing.
Then they get drawn into politics. A high level DOJ case is, btw, extremely political. Clinton and Gore both personally soliticted donations from Microsoft before the case was filed. Ohh, btw, Sun, IBM, Netscape, and Novell are all big donors to the DNC and all funded the Clinton/Gore re-election ticket.
So, imagine yourself as Microsoft. What is your goal? Avoid DOJ break-up.
Okay, so, let's see. It's the primaries, and you've got 8 candidates. Forbes, Bush, and Keyes all argued against breakup during the early pre-primary season. McCain and the other candidates either said they were happy with case or that they would let it proceed without interruption.
Guess who Microsoft donated too before Super Tuesday? Guess who they donated too in the general election season? Forbes, Keyes, and then ulitimately Bush.
You are suggesting that it's:
1. Microsoft shops for a candidate, gives money to Bush.
2. Bush changes policy position.
3. Bush is "elected".
4. Bush follows through on policy change.
When what happenned actually was:
1. Bush campaigns on policy.
2. Microsoft seeks candidate to change policy.
3. Microsoft gives money to get its candidate elected.
4. Bush is "elected".
5. Bush follows through on campaign promise.
I think it's time for you to get a clue about politics. Companies seek candidates who share their agenda and then fund them. And yes, many times, companies seeks politicans with no firm agenda on an issue and persuade via cash them to have a firm position.
But don't mistake that for quid pro quo.
Of course, nobody should be surprised by this anymore.
FYI.
Bush openely promised as a campaign pledge (I know, I was at a debate and asked the question to which he responded) to instruct the DOJ to seek a settlement as soon as possible.
In light of that, your suggestion that this wasn't on the up and up doesn't really fly.
You've obviously never been in an accident where you had zero reaction time. It happens.. often. And it happens more and more the faster and faster you go.
Reaction times vary, but at 120 mph, it is a very small window. At 120 mph, you are moving nearly 180 feet per second. That's a lot. If you come around a mild corner and there is an obstruction 50 feet in front of you, that's not a long time to react. It's less than a 1/3 of a second. Reaction times recognized by various government agencies (link) is about 3/4 of a second. Which at 120 mph you don't have. But even if you are better than the rest of the world by 50%, you still don't have enough time to spot an obstruction 50 feet in front of you and react. At 100 mph, the reaction distance is 366.66 feet. So any type of obstruction needs to be, say, 500 feet away before you have any type of chance of avoiding it or changing course or slowing down.
Basically, at 120 mph, you have very little margin for error. ANd if something is less than 500 feet away and happens suddenly, you have zero time to react.
First, Java as a client tool is not popular for Windows development. .NET of course will be. And it is rapidly becoming that way. If a properly written CLR and Class Library was constructed for non-Windows, any app written to use the provided libraries would run immediately on Linux/etc. This a big thing. If any old user can run any old Windows app natively on Linux, that's good (TM).
.NET isn't as language specific as Java. Though the .NET CLR is slightly or moderatly biased towards some languages it is vastly more friendly to new compilers. The whole point of the .NET CLR is to encourage new languages to compile to it. This means that a single CLR can support any number of new languages. It means that a Ruby# program compiled to CLR on Windows will run under .NET.
This is a "good thing" that Sun can't really with Java.
Second,
Because you can't sue the government without their permission.