This is why saying that MS is a "convicted monopoly" is such disinformation. MS wasn't "found guilty" because it was a civil case they lost, not a criminal one. Those found guilty in a criminal case can't negotiate but those who lose a civil case can.
Why was it a civil case instead of criminal one? Probably because the DOJ didn't think they could win a criminal case. That's my speculation but only those original DOJ lawyers (whom MS haters think are so great) can say for sure.
You make it sound like the federal legal team are the judges. MS wasn't broken up by a neutral judge because the case didn't warrant it.
The problem from the beginning was that the DOJ was really representing the interests of those who lobbied for the case (e.g Sun, AOL) rather than consumers. The result was those companies got a big payday from MS.
The most important issue from a consumers perspective was the OEM agreements, but instead they focused on desktop Java and one-hit-wonder Netscape.
So you're implying that Rush, Hannity et al. are really academics and liberals? They certainly fit the description as condescending assholes who sit around talking about nothing.
These people looking for security holes aren't coordinating their efforts, so the number of them (which we can only speculate on) can be misleading when comparing them to team who is attempting to deliver a secure application.
It's only because of the Agile fad that people started believing that the developer was the only one who should be testing the code. We've known better than that for decades and those who are serious about bugs (security or otherwise) always perform independent review and testing.
"Nowadays, all security experts with any credibility consider obscurity to be the opposite of security, at least with respect to computer systems."
The problem is that some security experts tangle up STO with their philosophy on F/OSS and their dislike for anything MS. So they aren't looking at it solely from a security POV.
"If a vulnerability exists, some malware author will find it, no matter how many nooks and crannies need to be poked into. Even if there are million nooks and crannies, it's easy to automate the search!"
Funny how the creators of software can't automatically search for all possible vulnerabilities but malware authors magically can even if they don't have the source code. Of course if they have the source code it becomes an order of magnitude easier to do.
Yes, it's really sad when early game programmers maximized performance by using careful timing. Most game developers who didn't do this could be sure their game would run fine in turbo mode - even if it ran significantly slower than the precise timing games in non-turbo mode.
I think a case can be made that Windows PowerShell is at least as powerful as *nix shell given that it is not limited to merely piping byte streams as *nix shells are, but can pipe objects.
I suspect that most people use a CLI with Unix/Linux because these OS's are really designed around it, not because they are trying to learn more about computers. I think most Unix/Linux users use the desktop primarily as a way to open terminal sessions. They would be just as productive with 2 or 3 VT100's.
I love how people are snobbish and then try to prove their geek cred by pointing to scripting languages. Come on, even if you've never done assembly language you could at least point to C.
This sounds more like a belief system than a fact. In both cases the consultants know a lot of stuff that is Windows specific or UNIX specific. If you spend most of your time with one or the other you might confuse OS specific knowledge with general computer knowledge.
The best example I can think of is how some people believe that knowing a CLI means you know more about computers.
Isn't the simplest answer the Google made a mistake? They originally came up with a novel way to do search and have made a ton of money off of it. It doesn't mean that everything they do is genius.
Your looking at it from the point of view of being an outsider (with respect to Windows). Visual J++ was intended to be a Windows development language, not a class-platform one.
With Windows' overwhelming market share cross-platform applications were irrelevant to most Windows developers.
Let's face it - it's UNIX developers who cared about cross-platform because they didn't have a standard hardware platform. Those folks developed on some form of UNIX and if their applications happened to run on Windows it was OK, but they really didn't care that much. Those developers wouldn't be caught dead using a MS compiler anyway.
I think this whole fragmentation issue is a bit of a red herring. How much Java Server code finds its way onto a phone? How much Java phone code finds its way onto a server?
The whole WORA idea is flawed from the start. The platform used counts and it always will.
There's nothing that Sun hates more than a Java implementation that is designed to run faster than "100% slow Java".
The fact is that Java's claim of WORA has always been a pipe dream and it certainly doesn't work well on phones.
The reason that OAK was such a failure for embedded systems is that Gosling et al. didn't have any experience in developing successful embedded systems.
Java libraries favor abstraction over simplicity and performance which is fine on the server but counter-productive on a resource-limited device like a phone.
I think if Wine merely (Right!) implemented the correctly documented part of the Win32 API they would be able to run the vast majority of Windows applications. Remember, most Windows apps aren't developed through reverse-engineering undocumented calls but through the well-known interface.
I seriously doubt that Wine will ever come close to implementing the publicly known portion of the API, however.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why saying that MS is a "convicted monopoly" is such disinformation. MS wasn't "found guilty" because it was a civil case they lost, not a criminal one. Those found guilty in a criminal case can't negotiate but those who lose a civil case can.
Why was it a civil case instead of criminal one? Probably because the DOJ didn't think they could win a criminal case. That's my speculation but only those original DOJ lawyers (whom MS haters think are so great) can say for sure.
You make it sound like the federal legal team are the judges. MS wasn't broken up by a neutral judge because the case didn't warrant it.
The problem from the beginning was that the DOJ was really representing the interests of those who lobbied for the case (e.g Sun, AOL) rather than consumers. The result was those companies got a big payday from MS.
The most important issue from a consumers perspective was the OEM agreements, but instead they focused on desktop Java and one-hit-wonder Netscape.
That is all.
Sure, then they will personally fire you for being a smartass.
Rush is hardly known for talking about facts. Perhaps if he could get off the drugs he'd do better.
After all the social networks are using the same business strategy.
So you're implying that Rush, Hannity et al. are really academics and liberals? They certainly fit the description as condescending assholes who sit around talking about nothing.
These people looking for security holes aren't coordinating their efforts, so the number of them (which we can only speculate on) can be misleading when comparing them to team who is attempting to deliver a secure application.
It's only because of the Agile fad that people started believing that the developer was the only one who should be testing the code. We've known better than that for decades and those who are serious about bugs (security or otherwise) always perform independent review and testing.
"Nowadays, all security experts with any credibility consider obscurity to be the opposite of security, at least with respect to computer systems."
The problem is that some security experts tangle up STO with their philosophy on F/OSS and their dislike for anything MS. So they aren't looking at it solely from a security POV.
"If a vulnerability exists, some malware author will find it, no matter how many nooks and crannies need to be poked into. Even if there are million nooks and crannies, it's easy to automate the search!"
Funny how the creators of software can't automatically search for all possible vulnerabilities but malware authors magically can even if they don't have the source code. Of course if they have the source code it becomes an order of magnitude easier to do.
Yes, it's really sad when early game programmers maximized performance by using careful timing. Most game developers who didn't do this could be sure their game would run fine in turbo mode - even if it ran significantly slower than the precise timing games in non-turbo mode.
This sounds more like a plan for Telcel to maintain its monopoly.
I think a case can be made that Windows PowerShell is at least as powerful as *nix shell given that it is not limited to merely piping byte streams as *nix shells are, but can pipe objects.
I suspect that most people use a CLI with Unix/Linux because these OS's are really designed around it, not because they are trying to learn more about computers. I think most Unix/Linux users use the desktop primarily as a way to open terminal sessions. They would be just as productive with 2 or 3 VT100's.
Hackers wanted to target OS/2 but they couldn't find any copies.
"First off, extra caution should be kept in mind in dealing with actions from a convicted monopolist."
Or even Microsoft.
I love how people are snobbish and then try to prove their geek cred by pointing to scripting languages. Come on, even if you've never done assembly language you could at least point to C.
This sounds more like a belief system than a fact. In both cases the consultants know a lot of stuff that is Windows specific or UNIX specific. If you spend most of your time with one or the other you might confuse OS specific knowledge with general computer knowledge.
The best example I can think of is how some people believe that knowing a CLI means you know more about computers.
I would have let some other sucker buy it.
the titles will be a kludge as well.
Isn't the simplest answer the Google made a mistake? They originally came up with a novel way to do search and have made a ton of money off of it. It doesn't mean that everything they do is genius.
Your looking at it from the point of view of being an outsider (with respect to Windows). Visual J++ was intended to be a Windows development language, not a class-platform one.
With Windows' overwhelming market share cross-platform applications were irrelevant to most Windows developers.
Let's face it - it's UNIX developers who cared about cross-platform because they didn't have a standard hardware platform. Those folks developed on some form of UNIX and if their applications happened to run on Windows it was OK, but they really didn't care that much. Those developers wouldn't be caught dead using a MS compiler anyway.
I think this whole fragmentation issue is a bit of a red herring. How much Java Server code finds its way onto a phone? How much Java phone code finds its way onto a server?
The whole WORA idea is flawed from the start. The platform used counts and it always will.
And thus Sun effectively destroyed any chance that Java would be popular on the desktop. But the important thing is that Scott beat Bill.
There's nothing that Sun hates more than a Java implementation that is designed to run faster than "100% slow Java".
The fact is that Java's claim of WORA has always been a pipe dream and it certainly doesn't work well on phones.
The reason that OAK was such a failure for embedded systems is that Gosling et al. didn't have any experience in developing successful embedded systems.
Java libraries favor abstraction over simplicity and performance which is fine on the server but counter-productive on a resource-limited device like a phone.
I think if Wine merely (Right!) implemented the correctly documented part of the Win32 API they would be able to run the vast majority of Windows applications. Remember, most Windows apps aren't developed through reverse-engineering undocumented calls but through the well-known interface.
I seriously doubt that Wine will ever come close to implementing the publicly known portion of the API, however.