> > "A recent Gallop poll showed that over seventy > > percent of computer users favor Microsoft in > > the antitrust suit. (People can be so > > clueless.)"
> It's safe to say that virtually all of that 70% > majority is composed of Windows users. You need > to think long and hard about the validity of > your own "clues" before you label those people > clueless.
I used the term "clueless" to refer to people's ignorance of Microsoft's business practices and their misunderstanding of the U.S. Government purpose in prosecuting Microsoft. The purpose of the suit is to enforce the antitrust laws passed by Congress. It is not to deny anybody anything or to begrudge somebody for being successful as so many pro-Microsoft people I talk to seem to think.
> They are at least as happy with their OS as you > are with yours.
I never said they weren't happy with their OS. (Besides, how would you know how happy they are with their OS? And who says I'm happy with mine?)
> It sounds like you're interested in denying them > that position.
Well, it may "sound" that way to you, but that's not what I said, not what I meant, and not what I was thinking.
Perhaps your mind is absorbed with the thought of Microsoft being "denied" the right to innovate. No?
You seem to be seriously out of touch. First, it is not true that "Everyone thinks he has no brain". More like, everybody thinks he has no personality.
More importantly, don't confuse attitudes here at Slashdot with general public opinion. Most people do not see Microsoft as the "evil empire". Instead, they see the government as the greatest threat to their well being. A recent Gallop poll showed that over seventy percent of computer users favor Microsoft in the antitrust suit. (People can be so clueless.)
I'm hugely disappointed that Gore would interfere at this point. Since we've already heard that Bush would step in on Microsoft's side, I was hoping that the judge could impose a remedy before a new administration was in place. The last thing we need is for a politician to jump in because he thinks there's votes in it for him.
"No one is forced to buy Microsoft products" which means that nobody is pointing a gun at buyers of Microsoft stuff. Well, nobody is pointing a gun at me to buy electricity or telephone service but life would be damn hard without them.
It was when Reagon came to office that the DoJ dropped it case against IBM. (Back then, IBM was just as evil a Microsoft is now. They just had a little more class.)
At one point the DoJ recommended fines of one million dollars per day. Well, Microsoft makes eleven million per day. I sure wouldn't mind having a business with those kinds of returns, if it weren't illegal.
Check out the results of a Gallop poll on the public's attitude towards Microsoft and the DoJ at:
http://www.gallup.com/
(Note that about half of the polling occurred before the FoF were released.)
One result is that computer users favor Microsoft over the DoJ by 78% to 16%. I beleive this shows that "America loves a winner." So, what will America think after it learns that Microsoft is a cheater?
The basic idea of libertarianism is "I got mine cause I deserve it. If you don't have yours, then you're a loser. So go fsck yourself."
Libertarianism applied to Microsoft goes something like this. "Bill Gates has got a lot of money because he deserves it. Anybody who doesn't like it can go fsck themselves. All of you losers are just using the government to push your communist adgenda. So go fsck yourself."
If I remember my history correctly, the IBM thing ended when Ronald RayGun took office and the Justice Dept, with its new political appointees, decided not to pursue the case anymore.
Hmm. Makes me wonder what will happen to this case when a new president takes office. Wonder who I should vote for.
You miss the point. Competition is a good thing. Microsoft is preventing competition.
It's fine if a company gains a monopoly through competition. But they cannot then use that monopoly to stifle competition or to create new monopolies. That's the law and Microsoft broke that law.
It's really that simple.
"The greatest threat to capitalism is the successful capitalist."
First, a standard has already been finalized. To reopen the standard now would set back the upgrade to TV technology by ten to fifteen years. Be patient. Remember that it took several years for color TV to be optimized and adopted by the public. The same thing will happen with HDTV.
Second, the motives of the broadcast stations need to be questioned. The FCC was fully aware that the upgrade to HDTV would be painful and expensive for broadcasters. So the FCC made a deal with broadcasters. The broadcasters would get a lot of very valuable spectrum in exchange for upgrading to HDTV. Now that the broadcasters have their share of the multibillion dollar spectrum giveaway, they are hesitating to live up to their end of the bargain. (To be fair, there have been plenty of technical glitches holding things up too.) If the standards process can be reopened, maybe they'll be able to keep the spectrum to profit from it in other ways and never have to pay for the transition to HDTV.
Finally, I must agree that it is unfortunate that nationalism is ruining a great opportunity for a single world-wide standard. But this point should have been raised in the early 1990's.
So if these little guys can permeate the cells in our bodies then they can "fix" all the DNA so that every cell is instantly young again and we could live forever.
And they could also flood our brains, create new synapses in the right places so that we would instantly know every programming language and instruction set that has ever existed.
And while they're in there, they could rearrange existing synapses to get rid of all those negative thoughts like prejudice and hate. Oh, wait a minute. We're up against that "what really is politically incorrect" question again. What if greed were eliminated and that turned out to be a "bad thing". Or, evil schemers turned us all into their slaves.
Once again, technilogical advances bring us face to face with ourselves. Human potential can be the potential for good as well as the potential for bad.
Maybe one solution would be to rearrange our synapses so that we all become satisfied with what we already have.
I can appreciate Transvirtual's need to make a buck just like the rest of us. However, Microsoft's prime objective was to sabotage Java. It is unfortunate that the otherwise decent folks at Transvirtual were sucked into Microsoft's game. (Analogies could include black actors playing stereotyped roles or Soviet-puppet leaders in east Europe.) The unfortunate result is the spread of Microsoft's pollution in the world of Java programming.
Sun also has to make a buck. However, as I see it, Sun has a history of making a buck by giving the world new and useful technologies. This is in contrast to Microsoft's history of disabling and destroying new and useful technologies, like CORBA. (This is why Microsoft is the devil.)
Sun has to walk a fine line between too open and too closed regarding Java. If too open, Java fragments. If too closed, Java withers. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not Sun is following the right path. Many, such as HP and yourself, portray Sun as Java control freaks. And I admit, you are in a better position to judge than I am.
But to me, it looks like they have done a reasonably good job shepherding Java. The rate of progress in terms of functionality, stability, and performance has been tremendous over the past four years. The documentation is comprehensive, the tools are free, and the source is available.
Maybe I'm naive, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if, when Java stabilizes over the next few years, that Sun hands off the responsibility for Java to some standards body like ANSI. Let's not forget some of Sun's other contributions like NFS. Let's also not forget that Sun is primarily a hardware company.
Slashdot Mirror
> > "A recent Gallop poll showed that over seventy
> > percent of computer users favor Microsoft in
> > the antitrust suit. (People can be so
> > clueless.)"
> It's safe to say that virtually all of that 70%
> majority is composed of Windows users. You need
> to think long and hard about the validity of
> your own "clues" before you label those people
> clueless.
I used the term "clueless" to refer to people's ignorance of Microsoft's business practices and their misunderstanding of the U.S. Government purpose in prosecuting Microsoft. The purpose of the suit is to enforce the antitrust laws passed by Congress. It is not to deny anybody anything or to begrudge somebody for being successful as so many pro-Microsoft people I talk to seem to think.
> They are at least as happy with their OS as you
> are with yours.
I never said they weren't happy with their OS. (Besides, how would you know how happy they are with their OS? And who says I'm happy with mine?)
> It sounds like you're interested in denying them
> that position.
Well, it may "sound" that way to you, but that's not what I said, not what I meant, and not what I was thinking.
Perhaps your mind is absorbed with the thought of Microsoft being "denied" the right to innovate. No?
You seem to be seriously out of touch. First, it is not true that "Everyone thinks he has no brain". More like, everybody thinks he has no personality.
More importantly, don't confuse attitudes here at Slashdot with general public opinion. Most people do not see Microsoft as the "evil empire". Instead, they see the government as the greatest threat to their well being. A recent Gallop poll showed that over seventy percent of computer users favor Microsoft in the antitrust suit. (People can be so clueless.)
I'm hugely disappointed that Gore would interfere at this point. Since we've already heard that Bush would step in on Microsoft's side, I was hoping that the judge could impose a remedy before a new administration was in place. The last thing we need is for a politician to jump in because he thinks there's votes in it for him.
"No one is forced to buy Microsoft products" which means that nobody is pointing a gun at buyers of Microsoft stuff. Well, nobody is pointing a gun at me to buy electricity or telephone service but life would be damn hard without them.
It was when Reagon came to office that the DoJ dropped it case against IBM. (Back then, IBM was just as evil a Microsoft is now. They just had a little more class.)
Microsoft could get Congress to pass legislation to override anything the courts decide. Check out this old news item from CNN:
o soft.html
http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/15/micr
I'd like to remind other posters to this comment that Microsoft has been lobbying for a cut in funding to the DoJ AntiTrust division.
At one point the DoJ recommended fines of one million dollars per day. Well, Microsoft makes eleven million per day. I sure wouldn't mind having a business with those kinds of returns, if it weren't illegal.
Just keep saying this over and over. Hopefully the idea will work its way over to the people deciding this matter.
You really want to cut off the monster's head so that many heads grow back in its place?
It really worries me that the remedy will just make matters worse.
For now, IE is better than Navigator. But I continue to use Netscape on principle.
Lately, I'm coming across more and more web sites that ONLY WORK WITH MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER!
They're about to get a good thrashing and they seriously deserve it.
Force them to open their API's.
And their file formats.
And prevent them from hijacking standards.
Check out the results of a Gallop poll on the public's attitude towards Microsoft and the DoJ at:
http://www.gallup.com/
(Note that about half of the polling occurred before the FoF were released.)
One result is that computer users favor Microsoft over the DoJ by 78% to 16%. I beleive this shows that "America loves a winner." So, what will America think after it learns that Microsoft is a cheater?
Yet another environmentally thoughtless idea.
Yes! Make Microsoft publish all interface specs. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE FILE FORMATS!!!
The basic idea of libertarianism is "I got mine cause I deserve it. If you don't have yours, then you're a loser. So go fsck yourself."
Libertarianism applied to Microsoft goes something like this. "Bill Gates has got a lot of money because he deserves it. Anybody who doesn't like it can go fsck themselves. All of you losers are just using the government to push your communist adgenda. So go fsck yourself."
[Now that's my idea of flamebait.]
If I remember my history correctly, the IBM thing ended when Ronald RayGun took office and the Justice Dept, with its new political appointees, decided not to pursue the case anymore.
Hmm. Makes me wonder what will happen to this case when a new president takes office. Wonder who I should vote for.
You miss the point. Competition is a good thing. Microsoft is preventing competition.
It's fine if a company gains a monopoly through competition. But they cannot then use that monopoly to stifle competition or to create new monopolies. That's the law and Microsoft broke that law.
It's really that simple.
"The greatest threat to capitalism is the successful capitalist."
First, a standard has already been finalized. To reopen the standard now would set back the upgrade to TV technology by ten to fifteen years. Be patient. Remember that it took several years for color TV to be optimized and adopted by the public. The same thing will happen with HDTV.
Second, the motives of the broadcast stations need to be questioned. The FCC was fully aware that the upgrade to HDTV would be painful and expensive for broadcasters. So the FCC made a deal with broadcasters. The broadcasters would get a lot of very valuable spectrum in exchange for upgrading to HDTV. Now that the broadcasters have their share of the multibillion dollar spectrum giveaway, they are hesitating to live up to their end of the bargain. (To be fair, there have been plenty of technical glitches holding things up too.) If the standards process can be reopened, maybe they'll be able to keep the spectrum to profit from it in other ways and never have to pay for the transition to HDTV.
Finally, I must agree that it is unfortunate that nationalism is ruining a great opportunity for a single world-wide standard. But this point should have been raised in the early 1990's.
You're gonna havta buy converters for all those TV's if you want to keep using them.
I thought Linus was Finnish.
"And then there is the (MS sponsored) murder of the portability promise."
If we are supposed to avoid Java because Microsoft has targeted it for termination, does that mean we should also give up on Linux?
So if these little guys can permeate the cells in our bodies then they can "fix" all the DNA so that every cell is instantly young again and we could live forever.
And they could also flood our brains, create new synapses in the right places so that we would instantly know every programming language and instruction set that has ever existed.
And while they're in there, they could rearrange existing synapses to get rid of all those negative thoughts like prejudice and hate. Oh, wait a minute. We're up against that "what really is politically incorrect" question again. What if greed were eliminated and that turned out to be a "bad thing". Or, evil schemers turned us all into their slaves.
Once again, technilogical advances bring us face to face with ourselves. Human potential can be the potential for good as well as the potential for bad.
Maybe one solution would be to rearrange our synapses so that we all become satisfied with what we already have.
Naw. That wouldn't be any fun.
CORBA was just the first example that jumped into my mind. And I agree with you. CORBA's too heavy. But that doesn't justify DCOM's existance.
I can appreciate Transvirtual's need to make a buck just like the rest of us. However, Microsoft's prime objective was to sabotage Java. It is unfortunate that the otherwise decent folks at Transvirtual were sucked into Microsoft's game. (Analogies could include black actors playing stereotyped roles or Soviet-puppet leaders in east Europe.) The unfortunate result is the spread of Microsoft's pollution in the world of Java programming.
Sun also has to make a buck. However, as I see it, Sun has a history of making a buck by giving the world new and useful technologies. This is in contrast to Microsoft's history of disabling and destroying new and useful technologies, like CORBA. (This is why Microsoft is the devil.)
Sun has to walk a fine line between too open and too closed regarding Java. If too open, Java fragments. If too closed, Java withers. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not Sun is following the right path. Many, such as HP and yourself, portray Sun as Java control freaks. And I admit, you are in a better position to judge than I am.
But to me, it looks like they have done a reasonably good job shepherding Java. The rate of progress in terms of functionality, stability, and performance has been tremendous over the past four years. The documentation is comprehensive, the tools are free, and the source is available.
Maybe I'm naive, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if, when Java stabilizes over the next few years, that Sun hands off the responsibility for Java to some standards body like ANSI. Let's not forget some of Sun's other contributions like NFS. Let's also not forget that Sun is primarily a hardware company.
I've heard that Java 1.5 will run faster than the hardware its on.