well i knew they were trying to equate open source with communism but MSFT is really pissing madly over the lawn about this aren't they?
i wish, just once, people would read the shrill high-pitched whines coming out of MSFT's fuddie arses for the red-alert it really is.
apply the Costanza filter to MSFT's statements and out will pop that every one of these "issues" reflects a massive effort to cover-up the holes, gaps, omissions or errrors in their own products.
thing is, they may dodge part of the "harsh penalties" portion of the trial here i guess by using the cloak of "national security", but just imagine the great PR job they are doing for themselves in admitting their code is riddled with holes.
a) you're right, like we didn't already know, but did their customers? b) at this rate there may not be much of a company left if they keep shooting themselves in the foot to avoid being punished. that in the long run may end up being harsher than anything a judge could come up with.
They tried to say the industry would die if they were forced to reveal source code 'cause they'd have to stop making Windows 'cause it would just be too hard.
Uh-huh
Now they are saying they suck ass so badly that world + dog must be kept away at all costs or it will become clear how anyone can can-opener this wretched junk.
Uh-huh
These freaks would say anything to anyone to get their way. I'm surprised Gates didn't throw a tantrum in court and demand an apology for being forced to show how ludicrous the arguments made in defense of a monopoly truly can be.
um, we were there 30 years ago guys. there is nothing there or we would have exploited the living poop out of it.
unless someone can name a mineral that can be brought back cheaply enough to make the trip worthwhile in the first place this seems unlikely to be more than a nice PR piece.
look, the idea that IT employment in this country is going back to pre 2001 levels is a fantasy.
most of the jobs lost were from dotcoms that are never coming back (does anyone not realize this yet?) and from financial services companies that are pretty much in the same boat.
i'm sure there will be hiring, but not on that scale again. not until the next new new thing shows up.
Sure, he peronsally would shit-can a 350 billion dollar company 'cause he doesn't want to do some tinkering. Uh-huh. This is like when he said nopt shipping Windows '98 on time would destory the US economy. Right Bill, uh-huh.
In further reply, of course MHTML is supposed to be an open standard. Thanks for having the courtesy to assume that I didn't know that.
Check this out. A.mht file written by IE cannot be opened in Mozilla, in fact it crashes the browser utterly. Mozilla can write an MHTML file that Explorer has no problem reading. A.mht file written on the Windows side with IE cannot be read by a Mac IE client.
Need I go on? Clearly MSFT is doing something here that is either buggy (possible) or just off enough from the standard that it makes using other tools with their file formats a challenge. Enough of a challenge that people stop trying to use alternatives. That's the kind of embrace and extend putz-nik that your pals in Redmond have a talent for creating.
Cripes! I had no idea. Nice to see the Uber Rich helping us po' folks out.
Anyway, this reply likely doesn't belong here but the issue is that MSFT can basically use this tactic (and has) on any of its large customers and force them to accept the license deal whether it makes sense for them or not.
The issue here is that the customer bears the whole of the burden for the audit. Now, how fair is that? Sure, they should have the right to audit, but at their expense. I am sure that is not in the cards. So, it seems like another instance of a large monopoly strong-arming their customers. Gee, think that's what this whole trial thingie might be about?
as you may recall Netscape was not free at first. it was forced into cutting its own throat in order to try to keep client share when MSFT started giving away IE. or more aptly bolting it in.
unless you've been napping and i suspect you have been or are a billg rimmer, that's how this trial got started -- it's clear as a bell MSFT deliberately sought to put Netscape out of business as the infamous memo that started it all said "by cutting off their air supply". got it? you can't stay in buisiness that way jack-o.
as for not being too bright, don't you get that people have to pretty much use IE in order to use the web? try using Netscape for a week or Mozilla, they don't work. why? in large part because Microsoft has so contaminated the pool that only their browser works. it isn't the best, it's a monpolist's cudgel used to hold the rest of us hostage.
rinse and repeat:
1) they deliberately kill competiton 2) their browser "works best" because they pretty much set the standards 3) although they claim to share those standards and adhere to them this isn't true. they've spiked them just enough to break things except on their platform. even this isn't consistent. IE for example does not work well on the Mac, it breaks.
ps, as to using IE. i'm at work where i have to use it which goes further to my point. IS is so brainwashed they won't install anything else. oh, and tell me, really, how would i truly get rid of it if i wanted to?
You know what is really, really odd about all the Microsoft ooga-booga attempts to scare people is that it is really unsophisticated. It always points back directly to their paranoia, their agenda. I wonder why people don't see that?
Of course Open Source is going to hurt him. It already is in South Korea where the government has punted Windows. Sure, it's not much, about 100K seats, but it's a start.
Same thing with the EU and even the UK where government bodies for the first time are required to look at open source alternatives in the bidding process. That's right, they were not before. And we know that governments generally (perhaps ours excluded) have to go with the lowest bidder of acceptable quality.
Gates must be crapping his drawers for reasons we already know. He should thank his lucky stars that desktop/client-side Linux has not takne off. Otherwise he would already be face down in the pool.
the conclusion appears to be that Jerry Sanders is nuts. look, you can run n number versions of Windows, Linux, and at one time even the MacOS on an Intel chip. Now, how would that be possible if "software" broke "hardware". it's so fucking stupid it's laughable.
want to see how cheap a PC is without all the "Windows Crap"? check out the Microtel (cute) boxes that are sold stripped without a MSFT install of any kind at Wal-Mart. literally hundreds less. hundreds. this notion alone, of requiring each and every box you buy to come pre-installed with a supposedly unique Windows license(consumer now, corporations get around this) alone has made MSFT stupidly rich.
Well, think about it though. Did it become the best browser as you say because MSFT is the best, or because no one else had a reasonable chance to develop one and make money? Thing is we will never know. And that's the whole point.
Further, preventing OEMs from embracing the software of others, or charging them a different license fee if they chose to support other software is anti-competitive and illegal. So I think that's why the States have zeroed in on this. In truth it has zilch to do with the "browser" per se and more to do with letting other people at least have a shot at creating one and trying to market it if they want to.
If MSFT sees threats and simply gives away software in that category it kills any chance of getting another product funded and on the way to consumers. That's the issue here. If they are allowed to keep doing this, in the end you end up with a bunch of free, mediocre and "contaminated" products and formats.
Consider.mht. Can anyone else read and write this format? No. What does that do if MSFT won't tell me how and people want to use it? It cuts me out of the equation, and I can't therefore compete.
Make sense? They do this on hundreds of levels, much more important than the browser, making it impossible to compete in the areas MSFT most wants to control.
It is a joke. This is revisionist history at its worst. Makes it sound like MSFT created the industry and provided every innovation. That is utter crap. Anyone stupid enough (the government?) to believe it deserves what they get (letting MSFT off the hook?). The more we get this "you'll destroy the industry" nonsense the better the 9 states look.
Anyway, of course this is transparently political and meant to curry favor.
The comment about "changing the way chips work" is funny. Thing is MSFT is working on an independent (well, carefully stolen) chipset for the Xbox anyway. Maybe that's what Sanders is worried about - that they will roll their own if he doesn't say nice things.
Um, isn't that coercion? (sp? - sorry, i'm an idiot). I hope the 9 states skewer him on cross.
I agree. Thing is the remedies proposed by the states as far as I can tell advocate a few very simple things:
1) remove the wrapper applications (IE, WMP are just that, they aren't even apps per se really) but not the bits underneath
2) let other people write wrappers
3) expose the APIs for the bits so that others can write equally high quality wrappers
4) let people bring their own bits and wrappers if they want.
What the hell is unreasonable about that? The thing it isn't. But the Beast of Redmond can't let this happen or they are "just" the platform guys and that somehow ain't enough for them.
The more they scream in pain, the closer the 9 states come to appering reasonable.
Well, it's clear he is trying to curry favor. Frankly AMD doesn't even matter anymore. But I'd be wangling for the next Xbox contract if I were him as well.
Anyway, the gist of what Sanders says is utter crap. He is arguing as if MSFT has not wantonly broken the law. We know they have. The thing is because of MSFT's conduct we will never know what benefits might have come from fair and open competition. Of course consumers have benefited from being given stuff for free from the monopolist. However, this very act was an act of aggression against competitors who might have produced an even better products. We won't ever know.
Further, the fact that MSFT strong-armed the distribution channel (OEMs and retail) into favoring MSFT or outright excluding competing products would have gotten any other company's ass in jail by now. MSFT is getting away with this shit because they are big. And that's the whole point of this case -- they are too damn big for our own good. And theirs. Bascially Sanders' argument further reinforces the notion that MSFT can't compete any other way except through strong arm tactics and cheating. How can that be good for anyone other than a MSFT share owner?
The 9 states frankly are proposing mild remedies. The more hyperbole I hear from MSFT supporters, the more it seems those remedies would do exactly the right thing.
Um, try openSWF.org Seems like there are plenty of tools there.
By the way, the SWF format is at least partially open, not that you can extend it or anything. OK, it sucks and is uselsss, but at least you can get the kit for less.
Slashdot Mirror
man-o-man-o,
well i knew they were trying to equate open source with communism but MSFT is really pissing madly over the lawn about this aren't they?
i wish, just once, people would read the shrill high-pitched whines coming out of MSFT's fuddie arses for the red-alert it really is.
apply the Costanza filter to MSFT's statements and out will pop that every one of these "issues" reflects a massive effort to cover-up the holes, gaps, omissions or errrors in their own products.
duh!
thing is, they may dodge part of the "harsh penalties" portion of the trial here i guess by using the cloak of "national security", but just imagine the great PR job they are doing for themselves in admitting their code is riddled with holes.
a) you're right, like we didn't already know, but did their customers?
b) at this rate there may not be much of a company left if they keep shooting themselves in the foot to avoid being punished. that in the long run may end up being harsher than anything a judge could come up with.
OK, let's see...
They tried to say the industry would die if they were forced to reveal source code 'cause they'd have to stop making Windows 'cause it would just be too hard.
Uh-huh
Now they are saying they suck ass so badly that world + dog must be kept away at all costs or it will become clear how anyone can can-opener this wretched junk.
Uh-huh
These freaks would say anything to anyone to get their way. I'm surprised Gates didn't throw a tantrum in court and demand an apology for being forced to show how ludicrous the arguments made in defense of a monopoly truly can be.
um, we were there 30 years ago guys. there is nothing there or we would have exploited the living poop out of it.
unless someone can name a mineral that can be brought back cheaply enough to make the trip worthwhile in the first place this seems unlikely to be more than a nice PR piece.
well, it would probably help if they tried a manned mission first huh?
kind of ludicrous given the expenses involved. good way to bankrupt themselves if they were serious about commercial exploitation.
but i agree, this is posturing for something more military. there is no practical reason for trying to mine ore readily available here from the moon.
look, the idea that IT employment in this country is going back to pre 2001 levels is a fantasy.
most of the jobs lost were from dotcoms that are never coming back (does anyone not realize this yet?) and from financial services companies that are pretty much in the same boat.
i'm sure there will be hiring, but not on that scale again. not until the next new new thing shows up.
I thought he was simply providing us with an anti-Christ figure to rally against.
Damn! Who's next, huh?
Sure, he peronsally would shit-can a 350 billion dollar company 'cause he doesn't want to do some tinkering. Uh-huh. This is like when he said nopt shipping Windows '98 on time would destory the US economy. Right Bill, uh-huh.
In further reply, of course MHTML is supposed to be an open standard. Thanks for having the courtesy to assume that I didn't know that.
.mht file written by IE cannot be opened in Mozilla, in fact it crashes the browser utterly. Mozilla can write an MHTML file that Explorer has no problem reading. A .mht file written on the Windows side with IE cannot be read by a Mac IE client.
Check this out. A
Need I go on? Clearly MSFT is doing something here that is either buggy (possible) or just off enough from the standard that it makes using other tools with their file formats a challenge. Enough of a challenge that people stop trying to use alternatives. That's the kind of embrace and extend putz-nik that your pals in Redmond have a talent for creating.
Cripes! I had no idea. Nice to see the Uber Rich helping us po' folks out.
Anyway, this reply likely doesn't belong here but the issue is that MSFT can basically use this tactic (and has) on any of its large customers and force them to accept the license deal whether it makes sense for them or not.
The issue here is that the customer bears the whole of the burden for the audit. Now, how fair is that? Sure, they should have the right to audit, but at their expense. I am sure that is not in the cards. So, it seems like another instance of a large monopoly strong-arming their customers. Gee, think that's what this whole trial thingie might be about?
as you may recall Netscape was not free at first. it was forced into cutting its own throat in order to try to keep client share when MSFT started giving away IE. or more aptly bolting it in.
unless you've been napping and i suspect you have been or are a billg rimmer, that's how this trial got started -- it's clear as a bell MSFT deliberately sought to put Netscape out of business as the infamous memo that started it all said "by cutting off their air supply". got it? you can't stay in buisiness that way jack-o.
as for not being too bright, don't you get that people have to pretty much use IE in order to use the web? try using Netscape for a week or Mozilla, they don't work. why? in large part because Microsoft has so contaminated the pool that only their browser works. it isn't the best, it's a monpolist's cudgel used to hold the rest of us hostage.
rinse and repeat:
1) they deliberately kill competiton
2) their browser "works best" because they pretty much set the standards
3) although they claim to share those standards and adhere to them this isn't true. they've spiked them just enough to break things except on their platform. even this isn't consistent. IE for example does not work well on the Mac, it breaks.
ps, as to using IE. i'm at work where i have to use it which goes further to my point. IS is so brainwashed they won't install anything else. oh, and tell me, really, how would i truly get rid of it if i wanted to?
Agree.
You know what is really, really odd about all the Microsoft ooga-booga attempts to scare people is that it is really unsophisticated. It always points back directly to their paranoia, their agenda. I wonder why people don't see that?
Of course Open Source is going to hurt him. It already is in South Korea where the government has punted Windows. Sure, it's not much, about 100K seats, but it's a start.
Same thing with the EU and even the UK where government bodies for the first time are required to look at open source alternatives in the bidding process. That's right, they were not before. And we know that governments generally (perhaps ours excluded) have to go with the lowest bidder of acceptable quality.
Gates must be crapping his drawers for reasons we already know. He should thank his lucky stars that desktop/client-side Linux has not takne off. Otherwise he would already be face down in the pool.
Unfortunately I think everyone missed the "script kiddies" field day this would bring on!
Just like our Government to pick the one company that has the most horrific security record in the world to base authentication on.
Um, did they not notice that Hailstorm was cancelled, for a reason. Like no one will go near it?
don't worry, the States will make it clear in the cross examination if they haven't already.
the conclusion appears to be that Jerry Sanders is nuts. look, you can run n number versions of Windows, Linux, and at one time even the MacOS on an Intel chip. Now, how would that be possible if "software" broke "hardware". it's so fucking stupid it's laughable.
have to agree with you here.
want to see how cheap a PC is without all the "Windows Crap"? check out the Microtel (cute) boxes that are sold stripped without a MSFT install of any kind at Wal-Mart. literally hundreds less. hundreds. this notion alone, of requiring each and every box you buy to come pre-installed with a supposedly unique Windows license(consumer now, corporations get around this) alone has made MSFT stupidly rich.
Well, nice. That kind of makes the States' case I would think.
What an idiot, talk about destroying your own credibility.
Of course he is, Kentucky Fried Chips bro, that's the ticket.
Just imagine how funny it wil be for AMD when they get neither the Xbox contract or ongoing Linux users. Oops!
Gosh you mean the fact that it is bolted in and filled with a billion security holes is a bad thing? ;-)
Well, think about it though. Did it become the best browser as you say because MSFT is the best, or because no one else had a reasonable chance to develop one and make money? Thing is we will never know. And that's the whole point.
.mht. Can anyone else read and write this format? No. What does that do if MSFT won't tell me how and people want to use it? It cuts me out of the equation, and I can't therefore compete.
Further, preventing OEMs from embracing the software of others, or charging them a different license fee if they chose to support other software is anti-competitive and illegal. So I think that's why the States have zeroed in on this. In truth it has zilch to do with the "browser" per se and more to do with letting other people at least have a shot at creating one and trying to market it if they want to.
If MSFT sees threats and simply gives away software in that category it kills any chance of getting another product funded and on the way to consumers. That's the issue here. If they are allowed to keep doing this, in the end you end up with a bunch of free, mediocre and "contaminated" products and formats.
Consider
Make sense? They do this on hundreds of levels, much more important than the browser, making it impossible to compete in the areas MSFT most wants to control.
It is a joke. This is revisionist history at its worst. Makes it sound like MSFT created the industry and provided every innovation. That is utter crap. Anyone stupid enough (the government?) to believe it deserves what they get (letting MSFT off the hook?). The more we get this "you'll destroy the industry" nonsense the better the 9 states look.
Anyway, of course this is transparently political and meant to curry favor.
The comment about "changing the way chips work" is funny. Thing is MSFT is working on an independent (well, carefully stolen) chipset for the Xbox anyway. Maybe that's what Sanders is worried about - that they will roll their own if he doesn't say nice things.
Um, isn't that coercion? (sp? - sorry, i'm an idiot). I hope the 9 states skewer him on cross.
I agree. Thing is the remedies proposed by the states as far as I can tell advocate a few very simple things:
1) remove the wrapper applications (IE, WMP are just that, they aren't even apps per se really) but not the bits underneath
2) let other people write wrappers
3) expose the APIs for the bits so that others can write equally high quality wrappers
4) let people bring their own bits and wrappers if they want.
What the hell is unreasonable about that? The thing it isn't. But the Beast of Redmond can't let this happen or they are "just" the platform guys and that somehow ain't enough for them.
The more they scream in pain, the closer the 9 states come to appering reasonable.
Well, it's clear he is trying to curry favor. Frankly AMD doesn't even matter anymore. But I'd be wangling for the next Xbox contract if I were him as well.
Anyway, the gist of what Sanders says is utter crap. He is arguing as if MSFT has not wantonly broken the law. We know they have. The thing is because of MSFT's conduct we will never know what benefits might have come from fair and open competition. Of course consumers have benefited from being given stuff for free from the monopolist. However, this very act was an act of aggression against competitors who might have produced an even better products. We won't ever know.
Further, the fact that MSFT strong-armed the distribution channel (OEMs and retail) into favoring MSFT or outright excluding competing products would have gotten any other company's ass in jail by now. MSFT is getting away with this shit because they are big. And that's the whole point of this case -- they are too damn big for our own good. And theirs. Bascially Sanders' argument further reinforces the notion that MSFT can't compete any other way except through strong arm tactics and cheating. How can that be good for anyone other than a MSFT share owner?
The 9 states frankly are proposing mild remedies. The more hyperbole I hear from MSFT supporters, the more it seems those remedies would do exactly the right thing.
Um, try openSWF.org Seems like there are plenty of tools there. By the way, the SWF format is at least partially open, not that you can extend it or anything. OK, it sucks and is uselsss, but at least you can get the kit for less.