There's a kernel of truth in there. But, shouldn't they be putting the consumer (the ones who put money in their pockets) first, rather than concentrating on slitting each-other's throats?
Hm. Well, I for one think you're a small-minded corporate shill, but that's beside the point.
Who's to say teen drinking is a social problem? The people who defined it as a social problem? I am neither a teenager, nor an alchoholic, just in case you're wondering.
Back on subject: I sure would like to cut the crap from some of my CD's and tote around a small collection of CD's that have a mix of what I like from my larger collection at home. Hell, I'd like the ability of burning around 100 tracks to an MP3 compliation CD and put it in the MP3 player in my car. If my tastes change, I can burn more discs. It's irresponsible to think that every person out there that burns a CD is a music pirate. It's called fair use... Maybe you've heard of it?
Personally, I think there's too many freedom depriving laws out there, nowadays. We really need to get back to the basics, and not have so damn many mandates and bans on stupid things, just becuase some moron can get hurt, or some corporation has just discovered they need a new business model. It seems that the current climate is the individual no longer adapts to the environment, if they're too stupid, the environment adapts to accomidate them. If they're a greed-stricken overly wealthy multi-billion dollar corporation they just use their weight to adapt the environment to their preference.
This is where atoms and molecules -- which existed beforehand -- are combined under circumstances where they change their molecular properties. After having done this, the molecules have different properties: these properties are often advantageous to some process. However, in a different context (e.g., as waste) these properties may in fact be harmful.
From my comment (emphasis added): ... and/or recombining it and dropping it off elsewhere. True, sometimes we recombine the stuff here into things that are toxic to us and everything else that lives here. But it's all from the same stuff.
You missed my point. My point was: We're not generating anything more than what we already have.
Unless we've started importing from a civilization on another planet, we have not added any more stuff to our planet. We've simply recombined the stuff. (I'm of course discounting any debris not originating from our planet landing here...)
And yes, some of the ways we recombine stuff can be harmful. If you had read more than the first 2 paragraphs of my comment, you would have realised that is exactly what I said.
Maybe we should find a way to turn highly toxic harmful stuff into something else?
You can't go on forever throwing things in landfill, your country will fill up. Just like you can't burn too much oil and expect the environment not to turn on you...
Hm. I have a couple points about this statement I would like to make:
1. I'm not against recycling. It's a good thing in my opnion, but I do not want some big-brother government entity charging me a tax on everything I buy so I can recycle it.
2. I think someone has said it before, but I'll go ahead and say it again. There's a thing called conservation of matter. Sure, stuff gets shifted around alot, but the "stuff" remains the same amount. Filling up a landfill? How about dumping garbage into that stip-mine, quarry, etc...? Yes. It would fill it up. But it was filled with something to begin with.
All we're doing is shifting matter aound this earth and/or recombining it and dropping it off elsewhere. True, sometimes we recombine the stuff here into things that are toxic to us and everything else that lives here. But it's all from the same stuff.
Since Doubleclick is now turned 'spammer' Does this mean that their entire subnet will be blacklisted from the net?:) I suppose, when I start getting spam from them, I can just e-mail their upstream provider (probably UU.NET) and have them pull the plug. No more spyware banners, no more junkmail, and all is well in the world!:)
Personally, I think this is an excellent move! WTG DoubleClick, spam yourselves into oblivion, please!
Apparently, you need to keep some new friends. Or at least find some friends. Since you despise other people so much, I'm sure you just quietly ignore replies to your posts, so there's not much sense in me saying anything else, but, I will anyway. Just in case, you know, you might grab a clue and socially interact once. I can only hope that you are not serious in your post, if so, you must live a very miserable and dull life. Other people, in general, aren't all that bad, Idiots, however are. Avoid the idiots, and you'll do okay. I think. I always kind of thought that social interaction was something that leads to one of the best things in life*
* You probably don't know what it is... I'm sure others will fill you in and take the mystery out.
But I did read my aggreament, it specificaly states that the landlord must give me 24 hours notice.
I wouldnt have signed it otherwise.
Things must be different in the state I'm in, because that's how our lease agreement is. Basically, services like pest control, maintenence ( if something is bad wrong ), etc may enter your apartment unannounced.
No they dont. the only clause is how long they vist, ie aslong as they dont become unpaig tennants which is defined by law as one week in this state(or county).
You're right. I got that kind of screwed up. I remember reading something along the lines of people with criminal backgrounds cannot stay in the apartment. (i.e. take up residency)
Now here I will not argue with you one iota, they can suck my sweaty nut sack if they think they can tell me what to do. thats kinda what I was saying earlier.
Yep. I kind of got the gist that was the idea behind the post.
yes, the owner can fuck off. Unless he has proof, he can not force me out early, enter my appartment without warning (generally, they have a good reason, like maintenece, pest control, etc...) , or tell me who can visit me, and at what times of day I can do what. so he can pretty much fuck off...thats why hes a "landlord" not an owner.
You didn't read your lease agreement very carefully, did you? While it is true, they cannot force you out early, unless you're violating the terms of the lease. They can enter your apartment without warning. They do (to an extent) tell you what you can do and when. And (to an extent) can tell you who can visit.
However, I'd like to know how in the hell rental relates to software? No. I did not just go down and sign a lease for Microsoft Windows XP. I purchased it from a retail outlet. I have a physical, tangable object in my possesion (a silvery, slightly refractory disc-shaped object that contains instructions for my computer to provide tools to work with it in a graphical manner). I sure as shit didn't rent it. I don't have to relinquish it after a certain period of time. It's mine. I bought it and paid for it. And, yet, they tell me I cannot do what I please with what I own. Pfft.
According to Blank and Kruger, the burden of proof is on the targeted company.
Ummm. This is disturbingly unconstitutional. Since when was the burden of proof on the defense? In the U.S. Legal system, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. I can't believe they can get away with violating the rights of U.S. citizens.
"It's no good to show me a software box," says Blank. "We need proof of ownership, and that's a dated invoice." "It's a good idea to have a document-retention policy for your company," says Kruger. "If you don't keep documentation and you don't have any ability to show you own your software, it's a problem -- there's a point at which sloppiness can get you into trouble!"
This is bullshit. What gives them the right to accuse someone who obviously legitimately owns the software? Yes, I have the box, yes, I have the original CD along with all of the printed material included with the software, but, because I can't find an invoice I'm guilty of stealing software? What a crock of shit!
Also-- The business of imposing heavy fines on a company that may have lost track of a single software license (maybe that 1 PC in the LAN closet didn't have the proper licensing for NT. Whoops, that's $150,000 out of my pocket.)
How in the hell does BSA get away with these kinds of tactics? As far as I'm concerned, if I were ever accused of software theft, I'd say bring it on, but don't be a bitch about it and take me through a lawsuit, where the tort lawyer runs amok. Bring about charges of theft so that the criminal court can take care of it. So that the burden of proof is on the BSA's side.
I should not have to prove my innocence to an unrelated third party. Or any party for that matter. I do have rights in this country, and I especially have the right that no one shall infringe on my rights!
I think you overestimate the vast majority of the people on this planet. Just drive through dallas for a few minutes, and you'll understand:)
Anyway, all bashing aside. Would you run a screensaver that was attached to a message that read:
How are you ?
When I saw this screen saver, I immediately thought about you
I am in a harry, I promise you will love it!
Upon seeing this from a well-known person in the company, and knowing they were fluent in the english language, I decided that I'm not taking chances with the cute little screensaver. Five minutes later... My e-mail is crapflooded and the network is grinding to a halt. Why? Because there are people out there gullable enough to fall for it.
Is it a security hole in Microsoft's software that lets users dig themselves into a nice deep pit, or, is it just simply a user that should know better, but apparently doesn't?
Well, no offense, but: "Duh!" Of coruse alot more Windows-based machines were exploted. You've got 2 very good reasons for this:
1) Wide distribution. Yep. Contrary to your belief, Windows is distributed more widely than Linux. So, of course more boxes will be hit.
2) Idiot users. I mean, lets face it, There's a reason why most windows users aren't on Linux. They're morons! Anyone and I mean anyone that runs an attachment from someone they hardly know that's written in worse english than a retarded 7 year old would write deserves what they get. Unfortunantly, they're the reason the network was clogged with NIMDA. Code Red was more a result of wide spread use of IIS.
Gawd, I'm sick and tired of the linux bigotry around here. Linux is great and all, but I sure wouldn't want to join a group of the most closed minded bigots in the world, just to have the privelege of using a free OS that's actually pretty decent. I think I'll stick with Windows. Monopoly and all. You people are doing Linux a great disservice. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but it doesn't serve my needs as a desktop OS. Maybe instead of basing MS someone could make it more useful for the masses?
I sent a similar article, but was rejected. Peh, guess I need to work on my editorial skills.
Anyway, before anyone gets on a high horse here. It needs to be said that it's the code. Not the features that allow users to do stupid things. Most of what's out there choking MS-Based networks is becuase of the ease of which users can execute attached scripts and executables. Oh, and a hole in IIS, but that was mentioned in the article.
Yes, MS is a monopoly. Yes, they're trying to squeeze more cash out of their consumers (Stupid WPA). But, damn, they do produce some of the most solid code out there, as well as some of the most feature-rich, usable applications. Alas, that's just my opinion, and considering that I use mostly MS apps, I might be slightly biassed.
If you're hosting a website on Geocities. Don't post it to slashdot. Sure, you want the exposure. And a popular page is great, right? Yep. Provided people can see it!
Chances are, there's gonna be a bunch of poor saps that will click on that link and get a nice message saying, "No webpage for you!"
Geocities. The webpage nazi of the 21st century. I'm sure someone has already Karam whored and posted the contents to the discussion.
Did you even bother to read the article? Or are you just doing an editorial comment on my post?
I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm just pointing to an article that contrasts Microsoft's supposed gaping secrity holes against others rife with errors. As for people who run attachments inside emails from unknown/strange people. They get what they deserve. Anyone with half a brain woild realise the attachment was bogus. So that, inherently is not a security problem, but a dumb user problem. Perhaps Microsoft should protect users from themselves. You're so clouded by your hatred for MS that you can't bother to accept opinions that are contrary to your own belief.
And yes, that line at the bottom was addressing the likes of you.
As it turns out, MS Security is not as bad as Sun's or IBM's The article is toward the bottom of the page. It's mostly about exploits via buffer overflow. But, as a Linux Zealot may not know, MS actually writes some of the more solid code.
I'll probably be modded down as troll or flaimbait, but then it just shows the/. mentality.
Ahh, yes. The findings of fact by the judge with a vendetta. Penfield Jackson. Part of the Clinton Administration If I remember correctly. The same administration that signed the DMCA. I have faith in those guys.
After skimming through some of it (It is overly verbose in my opinion) I can see what I have said before: Microsoft has just simply gained such a huge market share becuase developers wrote software for the Microsoft platform.
Now, having said that, and having read some of this lengthy, wordy document. I have to admit I've used new features in the microsoft operating system, making my software incompatible with older versions. No one at Microsoft held a gun to my head to convince me to use those features. No one at MS called to "convince" me to use those featrues. I chose to use those features because they were, well, useful. No big consipracy there.
I agree on setting price, but I think Adobe is a far worse offender than MS on that one.
Most of the findings of "fact" appeared to be the same bitching and whining about Netscape and Java and Market Dominance. Nothing new, nothing I was unaware of. Oh, and besides. I don't see how "Microsoft is the leading supplier of operating systems for PCs. The company transacts business in all fifty of the United States and in most countries around the world." is breaking the law as you said. These 300 bullet points were how you said Microsoft broke the law. Wrong.
Maybe you can create an operating system that could gain a huge application base. You can, right?
Didn't think so. And, no -- I'm not exactly pro MS. I think what they did with XP was, well, crappy. I'd really be happy if there were a viable alternative out there. And, no, OS/2 Warp was no such animal. If I remember it was a buggy, crashy piece of junk. IBM finally gave up becuase it sucked so much.
Ah, yes. I do remember the Stacker debacle. As for the QEMM issue... I hadn't heard of that one. As for windows being unstable if a directory named QEMM exists. I think they need to check their alumninum foil hats. (I used to run QEMM for a long time. Eventually didn't need it anymore becuase MS had their own EMM. (Maybe that's why I only used Win3.1 when I had to... Nah, it was just a steaming pile of crap, even without QEMM 3.1 was barely usable.)
Granted, Microsoft may be a less-than-honest company, I don't feel they cheated their way to the top. I fail to see any truely viable alternatives to the Windows OS. Why? Too many people adopted the MS achetecture. Maybe if someone else had some marketing weight and strongly encouraged developers to write for their platform they could eliminate MS alltogether.
MS didn't get good until Win95 in my opinion, when Windows was finally somewhat usable. Notwithstanding the huge memory and disk requirements.
What's needed to dethrone MS is a Killer App something useful, usable, and appeals to everyone. Until someone can do that, we're stuck with windows.
Netscape vs IE? It's painfully obvious, IE4 was a superior browser to NS4 even without the OS integation.
The point is that Microsoft didn't
earn its success; it cheated to get it. Its not fair to cheat to get ahead, and then claim that everybody has to play fair.
How, exactly did Microsoft cheat to get where they are today? By following through on an offer to create an operating system some umpteen years ago? If that's cheating, then... well, I'm a cheater, too.
Why does this sentence remind me of a 7 year old that didn't get his way, and is no whining about it? It's not fair, He cheated, I'm telling your mommy... Nevermind. I answered my own question.
The main problem with Microsoft that I can see now is that their product is so entrenched in the computer industry that we may never be able to dig ourselves out of the pile of Microsoft software we've grown so accustomed to. Not only that but the fact that they are now trying to squeeze money out of their customers like turnips. Really, those are my only problems with MS.
In this day and age, certainly not monitoring their kids' activities.
Nope. Too busy paying attention to themselves rather than their spawn. Maybe the parents should be prosecuted when one of their teenage brats stabs someone, instead of slapping the brat on the hand and letting them go until they're 18.
But, hey, this is just a preview of what we are creating for ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm,
There's a kernel of truth in there. But, shouldn't they be putting the consumer (the ones who put money in their pockets) first, rather than concentrating on slitting each-other's throats?
This is exactly the problem, here:
Sacrifice consumer convenience for corporate profit. It seems now, more than ever before, companies are no longer run by people, but greed.
"Anonymous Coward"
Hm. Well, I for one think you're a small-minded corporate shill, but that's beside the point.
Who's to say teen drinking is a social problem? The people who defined it as a social problem? I am neither a teenager, nor an alchoholic, just in case you're wondering.
Back on subject: I sure would like to cut the crap from some of my CD's and tote around a small collection of CD's that have a mix of what I like from my larger collection at home. Hell, I'd like the ability of burning around 100 tracks to an MP3 compliation CD and put it in the MP3 player in my car. If my tastes change, I can burn more discs. It's irresponsible to think that every person out there that burns a CD is a music pirate. It's called fair use... Maybe you've heard of it?
Personally, I think there's too many freedom depriving laws out there, nowadays. We really need to get back to the basics, and not have so damn many mandates and bans on stupid things, just becuase some moron can get hurt, or some corporation has just discovered they need a new business model. It seems that the current climate is the individual no longer adapts to the environment, if they're too stupid, the environment adapts to accomidate them. If they're a greed-stricken overly wealthy multi-billion dollar corporation they just use their weight to adapt the environment to their preference.
From your comment(emphasis added):
... and/or recombining it and dropping it off elsewhere. True, sometimes we recombine the stuff here into things that are toxic to us and everything else that lives here. But it's all from the same stuff.
...)
This is where atoms and molecules -- which existed beforehand -- are combined under circumstances where they change their molecular properties. After having done this, the molecules have different properties: these properties are often advantageous to some process. However, in a different context (e.g., as waste) these properties may in fact be harmful.
From my comment (emphasis added):
You missed my point. My point was: We're not generating anything more than what we already have.
Unless we've started importing from a civilization on another planet, we have not added any more stuff to our planet. We've simply recombined the stuff. (I'm of course discounting any debris not originating from our planet landing here
And yes, some of the ways we recombine stuff can be harmful. If you had read more than the first 2 paragraphs of my comment, you would have realised that is exactly what I said.
Maybe we should find a way to turn highly toxic harmful stuff into something else?
You can't go on forever throwing things in landfill, your country will fill up. Just like you can't burn too much oil and expect the environment not to turn on you...
Hm. I have a couple points about this statement I would like to make:
1. I'm not against recycling. It's a good thing in my opnion, but I do not want some big-brother government entity charging me a tax on everything I buy so I can recycle it.
2. I think someone has said it before, but I'll go ahead and say it again. There's a thing called conservation of matter. Sure, stuff gets shifted around alot, but the "stuff" remains the same amount. Filling up a landfill? How about dumping garbage into that stip-mine, quarry, etc...? Yes. It would fill it up. But it was filled with something to begin with.
All we're doing is shifting matter aound this earth and/or recombining it and dropping it off elsewhere. True, sometimes we recombine the stuff here into things that are toxic to us and everything else that lives here. But it's all from the same stuff.
Since Doubleclick is now turned 'spammer' Does this mean that their entire subnet will be blacklisted from the net? :) I suppose, when I start getting spam from them, I can just e-mail their upstream provider (probably UU.NET) and have them pull the plug. No more spyware banners, no more junkmail, and all is well in the world! :)
Personally, I think this is an excellent move! WTG DoubleClick, spam yourselves into oblivion, please!
Wow.
Apparently, you need to keep some new friends. Or at least find some friends. Since you despise other people so much, I'm sure you just quietly ignore replies to your posts, so there's not much sense in me saying anything else, but, I will anyway. Just in case, you know, you might grab a clue and socially interact once. I can only hope that you are not serious in your post, if so, you must live a very miserable and dull life.
Other people, in general, aren't all that bad, Idiots, however are. Avoid the idiots, and you'll do okay. I think. I always kind of thought that social interaction was something that leads to one of the best things in life*
* You probably don't know what it is... I'm sure others will fill you in and take the mystery out.
But I did read my aggreament, it specificaly states that the landlord must give me 24 hours notice.
I wouldnt have signed it otherwise.
Things must be different in the state I'm in, because that's how our lease agreement is. Basically, services like pest control, maintenence ( if something is bad wrong ), etc may enter your apartment unannounced.
No they dont. the only clause is how long they vist, ie aslong as they dont become unpaig tennants which is defined by law as one week in this state(or county).
You're right. I got that kind of screwed up. I remember reading something along the lines of people with criminal backgrounds cannot stay in the apartment. (i.e. take up residency)
Now here I will not argue with you one iota, they can suck my sweaty nut sack if they think they can tell me what to do. thats kinda what I was saying earlier.
Yep. I kind of got the gist that was the idea behind the post.
What law states that any random organization can fine me exhorbinant amounts and barge into my place of business at will?
Right, but generally, in the US the burden of proof is in the procsecution. In only very rare and extreme circumstances is it the other way around.
yes, the owner can fuck off. Unless he has proof, he can not force me out early, enter my appartment without warning (generally, they have a good reason, like maintenece, pest control, etc...) , or tell me who can visit me, and at what times of day I can do what. so he can pretty much fuck off...thats why hes a "landlord" not an owner.
You didn't read your lease agreement very carefully, did you? While it is true, they cannot force you out early, unless you're violating the terms of the lease. They can enter your apartment without warning. They do (to an extent) tell you what you can do and when. And (to an extent) can tell you who can visit.
However, I'd like to know how in the hell rental relates to software? No. I did not just go down and sign a lease for Microsoft Windows XP. I purchased it from a retail outlet. I have a physical, tangable object in my possesion (a silvery, slightly refractory disc-shaped object that contains instructions for my computer to provide tools to work with it in a graphical manner). I sure as shit didn't rent it. I don't have to relinquish it after a certain period of time. It's mine. I bought it and paid for it. And, yet, they tell me I cannot do what I please with what I own. Pfft.
According to Blank and Kruger, the burden of proof is on the targeted company.
Ummm. This is disturbingly unconstitutional. Since when was the burden of proof on the defense? In the U.S. Legal system, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. I can't believe they can get away with violating the rights of U.S. citizens.
"It's no good to show me a software box," says Blank. "We need proof of ownership, and that's a dated invoice." "It's a good idea to have a document-retention policy for your company," says Kruger. "If you don't keep documentation and you don't have any ability to show you own your software, it's a problem -- there's a point at which sloppiness can get you into trouble!"
This is bullshit. What gives them the right to accuse someone who obviously legitimately owns the software? Yes, I have the box, yes, I have the original CD along with all of the printed material included with the software, but, because I can't find an invoice I'm guilty of stealing software? What a crock of shit!
Also-- The business of imposing heavy fines on a company that may have lost track of a single software license (maybe that 1 PC in the LAN closet didn't have the proper licensing for NT. Whoops, that's $150,000 out of my pocket.)
How in the hell does BSA get away with these kinds of tactics? As far as I'm concerned, if I were ever accused of software theft, I'd say bring it on, but don't be a bitch about it and take me through a lawsuit, where the tort lawyer runs amok. Bring about charges of theft so that the criminal court can take care of it. So that the burden of proof is on the BSA's side.
I should not have to prove my innocence to an unrelated third party. Or any party for that matter. I do have rights in this country, and I especially have the right that no one shall infringe on my rights!
Anyway, all bashing aside. Would you run a screensaver that was attached to a message that read:
Upon seeing this from a well-known person in the company, and knowing they were fluent in the english language, I decided that I'm not taking chances with the cute little screensaver. Five minutes later... My e-mail is crapflooded and the network is grinding to a halt. Why? Because there are people out there gullable enough to fall for it.
Is it a security hole in Microsoft's software that lets users dig themselves into a nice deep pit, or, is it just simply a user that should know better, but apparently doesn't?
Blame the source, not the messenger.
Well, no offense, but: "Duh!" Of coruse alot more Windows-based machines were exploted. You've got 2 very good reasons for this:
1) Wide distribution. Yep. Contrary to your belief, Windows is distributed more widely than Linux. So, of course more boxes will be hit.
2) Idiot users. I mean, lets face it, There's a reason why most windows users aren't on Linux. They're morons! Anyone and I mean anyone that runs an attachment from someone they hardly know that's written in worse english than a retarded 7 year old would write deserves what they get. Unfortunantly, they're the reason the network was clogged with NIMDA. Code Red was more a result of wide spread use of IIS.
Gawd, I'm sick and tired of the linux bigotry around here. Linux is great and all, but I sure wouldn't want to join a group of the most closed minded bigots in the world, just to have the privelege of using a free OS that's actually pretty decent. I think I'll stick with Windows. Monopoly and all. You people are doing Linux a great disservice. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but it doesn't serve my needs as a desktop OS. Maybe instead of basing MS someone could make it more useful for the masses?
Oh, yeh. And I can't spell either. Biased not Biassed. Heh
I sent a similar article, but was rejected. Peh, guess I need to work on my editorial skills.
Anyway, before anyone gets on a high horse here. It needs to be said that it's the code. Not the features that allow users to do stupid things. Most of what's out there choking MS-Based networks is becuase of the ease of which users can execute attached scripts and executables. Oh, and a hole in IIS, but that was mentioned in the article.
Yes, MS is a monopoly. Yes, they're trying to squeeze more cash out of their consumers (Stupid WPA). But, damn, they do produce some of the most solid code out there, as well as some of the most feature-rich, usable applications. Alas, that's just my opinion, and considering that I use mostly MS apps, I might be slightly biassed.
If you're hosting a website on Geocities. Don't post it to slashdot. Sure, you want the exposure. And a popular page is great, right? Yep. Provided people can see it!
Chances are, there's gonna be a bunch of poor saps that will click on that link and get a nice message saying, "No webpage for you!"
Geocities. The webpage nazi of the 21st century. I'm sure someone has already Karam whored and posted the contents to the discussion.
[/rant]
Actually, In some cases, if you hit [menu], instead of [FF] it will happily bring you to the DVD menu where you can start the movie.
Of course, it doesn't work in all cases. (Dependant on DVD maker)
Did you even bother to read the article? Or are you just doing an editorial comment on my post?
I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm just pointing to an article that contrasts Microsoft's supposed gaping secrity holes against others rife with errors. As for people who run attachments inside emails from unknown/strange people. They get what they deserve. Anyone with half a brain woild realise the attachment was bogus. So that, inherently is not a security problem, but a dumb user problem. Perhaps Microsoft should protect users from themselves. You're so clouded by your hatred for MS that you can't bother to accept opinions that are contrary to your own belief.
And yes, that line at the bottom was addressing the likes of you.
As it turns out, MS Security is not as bad as Sun's or IBM's The article is toward the bottom of the page. It's mostly about exploits via buffer overflow. But, as a Linux Zealot may not know, MS actually writes some of the more solid code.
/. mentality.
I'll probably be modded down as troll or flaimbait, but then it just shows the
Ahh, yes. The findings of fact by the judge with a vendetta. Penfield Jackson. Part of the Clinton Administration If I remember correctly. The same administration that signed the DMCA. I have faith in those guys.
After skimming through some of it (It is overly verbose in my opinion) I can see what I have said before: Microsoft has just simply gained such a huge market share becuase developers wrote software for the Microsoft platform.
Now, having said that, and having read some of this lengthy, wordy document. I have to admit I've used new features in the microsoft operating system, making my software incompatible with older versions. No one at Microsoft held a gun to my head to convince me to use those features. No one at MS called to "convince" me to use those featrues. I chose to use those features because they were, well, useful. No big consipracy there.
I agree on setting price, but I think Adobe is a far worse offender than MS on that one.
Most of the findings of "fact" appeared to be the same bitching and whining about Netscape and Java and Market Dominance. Nothing new, nothing I was unaware of. Oh, and besides. I don't see how "Microsoft is the leading supplier of operating systems for PCs. The company transacts business in all fifty of the United States and in most countries around the world." is breaking the law as you said. These 300 bullet points were how you said Microsoft broke the law. Wrong.
Maybe you can create an operating system that could gain a huge application base. You can, right?
Didn't think so. And, no -- I'm not exactly pro MS. I think what they did with XP was, well, crappy. I'd really be happy if there were a viable alternative out there. And, no, OS/2 Warp was no such animal. If I remember it was a buggy, crashy piece of junk. IBM finally gave up becuase it sucked so much.
Ah, yes. I do remember the Stacker debacle. As for the QEMM issue... I hadn't heard of that one. As for windows being unstable if a directory named QEMM exists. I think they need to check their alumninum foil hats. (I used to run QEMM for a long time. Eventually didn't need it anymore becuase MS had their own EMM. (Maybe that's why I only used Win3.1 when I had to... Nah, it was just a steaming pile of crap, even without QEMM 3.1 was barely usable.)
Granted, Microsoft may be a less-than-honest company, I don't feel they cheated their way to the top. I fail to see any truely viable alternatives to the Windows OS. Why? Too many people adopted the MS achetecture. Maybe if someone else had some marketing weight and strongly encouraged developers to write for their platform they could eliminate MS alltogether.
MS didn't get good until Win95 in my opinion, when Windows was finally somewhat usable. Notwithstanding the huge memory and disk requirements.
What's needed to dethrone MS is a Killer App something useful, usable, and appeals to everyone. Until someone can do that, we're stuck with windows.
Netscape vs IE? It's painfully obvious, IE4 was a superior browser to NS4 even without the OS integation.
How, exactly did Microsoft cheat to get where they are today? By following through on an offer to create an operating system some umpteen years ago? If that's cheating, then... well, I'm a cheater, too.
Why does this sentence remind me of a 7 year old that didn't get his way, and is no whining about it? It's not fair, He cheated, I'm telling your mommy
The main problem with Microsoft that I can see now is that their product is so entrenched in the computer industry that we may never be able to dig ourselves out of the pile of Microsoft software we've grown so accustomed to. Not only that but the fact that they are now trying to squeeze money out of their customers like turnips. Really, those are my only problems with MS.
Where are the parents?
In this day and age, certainly not monitoring their kids' activities.
Nope. Too busy paying attention to themselves rather than their spawn. Maybe the parents should be prosecuted when one of their teenage brats stabs someone, instead of slapping the brat on the hand and letting them go until they're 18.
But, hey, this is just a preview of what we are creating for ourselves.
RealNetworks complained about MediaPlayer
And, which came first? I seem to remember having media player before the mass internet, or even RealPlayer.