However, a beta release of Microsoft ClickMonger 2005 Enterprise Edition (codenamed "Fubargle") is expected later in the year. The software giant plans to incorporate this technology into the next version of Windows as an always-on background service.
The comparison to terrorists is of course inappropriate. The danger for Linux/OSS backers is not that they may be perceived as terrorists, but simply that their tactics may wear out their welcome and start turning people off Linux/OSS, just like the Amiga and OS/2 advocates did before them, and Mac advocates still do. Mr. Torvalds seems to understand this, although sometimes he can't resist heckling Microsoft just a little.
Just wondering Yaz, do you trust the courts to do the right thing, or not?
You seem to trust them when they rule the way you want (MS violated antitrust laws), but not when they rule the other way (MS doesn't have to ship Sun's Java).
Your only consistent thrust seems to be that MS must be punished, and punished hard. Your justification (correct me if I'm wrong) is that they broke the law. But when the same courts that found them in violation don't find them deserving of severe punishment, you think something is wrong with the system.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you think the system is broken, then it makes no sense to trust any of its findings, wouldn't you say?
You don't get it. Of course MS could remove IE, after rewriting the dozens of other apps in Windows that depend on it. But that wouldn't help me or others like me- small ISVs who've been building on top of IE and relying on its presence in the OS ever since it became middleware. It's simple: you use 98lite or IEradicator or whatever, you disable my app. I don't mind if you use it on your own system, but a bunch of lawyers forcing its removal from the Windows retail or OEM distribution is fucking insane.
After years of listening to obnoxious and deluded Microsoft bashers bitching
smugly about this very issue, it's great to see that some of them are finally
beginning to learn the hard truth.
There's no perfect solution to DLL Hell - not in Windows, not in Linux, not
anywhere. Why? Because it's the human DLL developer who decides whether to issue
a minor revision or a major one. As long as he believes that he hasn't
broken compatibility, he'll be compelled to issue minor revisions. But unless he
tests each and every app that uses his DLL, he can only make guesses
about compatibility. As any programmer worth a damn will tell you, any
change can break compatibility, even something that seems perfectly innocuous,
like a minor bug fix or even a purely cosmetic change. Hell, an app may be relying
on a library bug, and it's not necessarily the app developer's fault.
Many people think that the problem has to do with Windows-specific things
like bad installation software, the lack of symbolic link support, dynamic
loading limitations, etc. They're wrong. The real problem is that when libraries
are allowed to evolve independently from the apps that use them, users often end
up combining software components at runtime that were never lab-tested in
combination.
And don't start with me about LD_LIBRARY_PATH or any other after-the-crash
solution strategies. Windows has them too. The problem is that they're out of
Joe Blow's reach, and always will be.
Some folks have even mentioned static linking. Well ya, that works, but it's
not exactly a painless solution. For one thing, you give up the app's ability to
inherit library bug fixes in the field. More importantly, you lose the big
advantage of shared libraries, which isn't the code sharing, but the late
binding. Yes, I'm talking about binary plug-ins, component-oriented development,
etc.
The main motivation for the breakup order was that MSAppCo would suddenly have the incentive to port their apps (read:
IE & Office) to Linux and potentially other OSs, giving the vendors of those other OSs the ability to compete with MSWinCo. Currently they can't, because of the "app barrier to entry".
So let's get this straight. Port IE & Office to Linux and it'll suddenly become a viable competitor to Windows, yet MacOS -
which already has active IE & Office ports (that are actually often ahead of the Windows
versions) - along with 10,000 other commercial apps - is just not viable enough for MS to avoid the monopoly label.
Was Jackson high when he ordered the breakup, or just senile enough to
unlearn basic logic?
I've also been saying for years now that Linux's much vaunted reliability is an illusion. The fact is that until very recently, Linux has been living a sheltered life in the hands of caring hackers. The minute it gets out into the real world and starts getting hammered to even a fraction of the extent to which Windows gets hammered, you'll see its reliability drop like a rock.
I'm glad to see that everything I predicted is gradually coming true. People are starting to bitch left and right about poor device support, GUI apps and frameworks that crash all the time, commercial applications that work only with certain distributions, poor performance, security vulnerabilities, etc.
The Linux folks are slowly learning that it takes much more than a robust kernel and a great set of command-line utilities to make a successful desktop application platform.
Slashdot Mirror
However, a beta release of Microsoft ClickMonger 2005 Enterprise Edition (codenamed "Fubargle") is expected later in the year. The software giant plans to incorporate this technology into the next version of Windows as an always-on background service.
The comparison to terrorists is of course inappropriate. The danger for Linux/OSS backers is not that they may be perceived as terrorists, but simply that their tactics may wear out their welcome and start turning people off Linux/OSS, just like the Amiga and OS/2 advocates did before them, and Mac advocates still do. Mr. Torvalds seems to understand this, although sometimes he can't resist heckling Microsoft just a little.
Just wondering Yaz, do you trust the courts to do the right thing, or not?
You seem to trust them when they rule the way you want (MS violated antitrust laws), but not when they rule the other way (MS doesn't have to ship Sun's Java).
Your only consistent thrust seems to be that MS must be punished, and punished hard. Your justification (correct me if I'm wrong) is that they broke the law. But when the same courts that found them in violation don't find them deserving of severe punishment, you think something is wrong with the system.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you think the system is broken, then it makes no sense to trust any of its findings, wouldn't you say?
If you have any news articles regarding a Linux company paying folks to spread pro-Linux, anti-MS FUD I'd love to see them.
Heh. It's common knowledge that VA Linux handsomely compensated ESR himself.
Since when has Microsoft ever competed on merits?
Microsoft has always competed on merits. Your mistake is that you equate "merits" with "characteristics that please the geeks on Slashdot".
You don't get it. Of course MS could remove IE, after rewriting the dozens of other apps in Windows that depend on it. But that wouldn't help me or others like me- small ISVs who've been building on top of IE and relying on its presence in the OS ever since it became middleware. It's simple: you use 98lite or IEradicator or whatever, you disable my app. I don't mind if you use it on your own system, but a bunch of lawyers forcing its removal from the Windows retail or OEM distribution is fucking insane.
After years of listening to obnoxious and deluded Microsoft bashers bitching smugly about this very issue, it's great to see that some of them are finally beginning to learn the hard truth.
There's no perfect solution to DLL Hell - not in Windows, not in Linux, not anywhere. Why? Because it's the human DLL developer who decides whether to issue a minor revision or a major one. As long as he believes that he hasn't broken compatibility, he'll be compelled to issue minor revisions. But unless he tests each and every app that uses his DLL, he can only make guesses about compatibility. As any programmer worth a damn will tell you, any change can break compatibility, even something that seems perfectly innocuous, like a minor bug fix or even a purely cosmetic change. Hell, an app may be relying on a library bug, and it's not necessarily the app developer's fault.Many people think that the problem has to do with Windows-specific things like bad installation software, the lack of symbolic link support, dynamic loading limitations, etc. They're wrong. The real problem is that when libraries are allowed to evolve independently from the apps that use them, users often end up combining software components at runtime that were never lab-tested in combination.
And don't start with me about LD_LIBRARY_PATH or any other after-the-crash solution strategies. Windows has them too. The problem is that they're out of Joe Blow's reach, and always will be.
Some folks have even mentioned static linking. Well ya, that works, but it's not exactly a painless solution. For one thing, you give up the app's ability to inherit library bug fixes in the field. More importantly, you lose the big advantage of shared libraries, which isn't the code sharing, but the late binding. Yes, I'm talking about binary plug-ins, component-oriented development, etc.
The main motivation for the breakup order was that MSAppCo would suddenly have the incentive to port their apps (read: IE & Office) to Linux and potentially other OSs, giving the vendors of those other OSs the ability to compete with MSWinCo. Currently they can't, because of the "app barrier to entry".
So let's get this straight. Port IE & Office to Linux and it'll suddenly become a viable competitor to Windows, yet MacOS - which already has active IE & Office ports (that are actually often ahead of the Windows versions) - along with 10,000 other commercial apps - is just not viable enough for MS to avoid the monopoly label.
Was Jackson high when he ordered the breakup, or just senile enough to unlearn basic logic?
I've also been saying for years now that Linux's much vaunted reliability is an illusion. The fact is that until very recently, Linux has been living a sheltered life in the hands of caring hackers. The minute it gets out into the real world and starts getting hammered to even a fraction of the extent to which Windows gets hammered, you'll see its reliability drop like a rock.
I'm glad to see that everything I predicted is gradually coming true. People are starting to bitch left and right about poor device support, GUI apps and frameworks that crash all the time, commercial applications that work only with certain distributions, poor performance, security vulnerabilities, etc.
The Linux folks are slowly learning that it takes much more than a robust kernel and a great set of command-line utilities to make a successful desktop application platform.