No, it is not well documented because it didn't happen. Microsoft never released a product that deliberately broke a competitor's product.
It very funny that the very next post after yours contains a link to the Dr. Dobbs article that not only shows that it was done but how it was done.
The anti-MS folks are relying on the fact that if you repeat something enough times, some people will start to believe you. Unfortunately, their immoral tactics seem to be working.
No, they are relying on the truth. I've been an MS developer since windows 3.1. I've watched them do these things. I've seen them do everything they can to kill the competition. Well, now finally they are caught (the FoF, not this story which is probably just a mistake on their part) and good lord, talk about the whine that was heard around the world!
Have you read the history of the Dr.Dos case at the Register? It uses documents from the Caldera case... which is about... ta dah exactly what we are talking about.
I hope this help clear up any misconceptions the Microsoft marketing department may have caused you.
I'm using Office 2K right now. At first it was great, they've really made some improvements. (Althought the UI is about as usablable/pretty as one of those red-assed baboons....
Now (after a month), I'm weeping and crying for a return to office 97.....
My theory is that MS hired the Castaways (Gilligan's Island) for QA/QC.
The Howells cashed in their stock options. The Professor took one look around and quit. Mary Ann found out about the FUD and quit because she didn't approve of the lies. Ginger mysteriously disappeared, but strange grunts and groans have been heard from various execs offices.
Leaving the Skipper and Gilligan in charge of QA/QC. :)
Please name me one operating system that has to, and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating with so many other systems. The weight that Microsoft carries and the scrutiny under which it carries that weight should be a warning to everyone who wants them out of the way. Erm... excuse me? The Mac, Novell and *nix actually interoperate with more operating systems and do it in a more efficient manner. Can you boot your windows box from a ext2 floppy? Can you read Mac disks (w/o third party software). What is this? Do you work in systems integration? Do you realize that most SI work is done with *NIX leading the way and the other OS's following? Asinine headlines like this one from "Roblimo" only have a place with the rest of the quacks looking for "the smoking man" and UFOs. Because you are making the rest of us look like those quacks when you post that garbage here. Even though it is well documented that they did this to DR DOS (could some one through up a link to the article in Dr Dobbs about the code?). Come on buddy, quit checking your MS stock prices and look around.
Oh for the love of god, that looks like crap. Sorry about that I was in a hurry. It should read:
First off, I have a problem with pushing the blame onto Lotus... why would they do this to themselves?
Secondly, even if lotus made the boo-boo, it makes MS look bad. After the FoF, who the hell is going to believe them? When we can see that their horns have knocked the halo off to an angle, why believe?
MS has done this to me numerous times, and I haven't been using outdated or unpublished anything. They are just sloppy with most of their service packs.
First off, I have a problem with trying to blame Lotus... why would they do this to themselves?
Secondly, even if it is lotus's fault, it makes MS look bad. After the FoF, how the hell is going to believe them? When we can see that their horns have knocked their halo to an angle?
Myself, MS has done this to me numerous times, and I haven't been using outdated or unpublished anything. They are just sloppy with most of their service packs.
The FoF is appealable, however it is _very_ rare for an appeals court to disagree with it. Normally when you get to the appeallate level, you are arguing law, not facts.
Sorry I should have been a little strong in wording the part that says "Assuming the FoF is unappealable.." to more like... "If the appellate court decides the FoF is not up for discussion..."
Let's see a good ole fashioned Disney Fight... My take: Let's see... hmmm innovations:
Gates: Charging People for software
Disney: First cartoon with sound (Steamboat Willie) First cartoon with color (the flowers & the trees ( I think that was the name) Development of multi-level animation (debuted in "the Old Mill", perfected in Fantasia) First Feature Length Motion Picture (Snow White) One of the first TV shows to film in color (The Magical World Of Disney) DisneyLand/Disney world. Yes there where amusment parks, but if you think there is an equivalnce, then you've never been. "Audio-Animatronics" A vast-vast-vast improvement on the moving parts in dark house rides that exsited before.
I've read in many places that the FoF is hard to overturn. Reading the FoF it seems to me that if you accept it as fact, then you have to conclude that MS broke the law and should be punished (harshly).
Assuming the FoF is unappealable then, where is the opening for Microsoft to appeal the discision? I.E. Assuming the FoF is untouchable how could MS "win on appeal" as we keep hearing from various tech analysts?
While serving my two week notice for my last job (they wouldn't give me anything new to do, but wouldn't let me take the time off either), I did a little research on this. (I was very bored.) From what I read, there aren't any objective sources on this one.
I went through the morase of half-truths, truths and just wierd stuff on this and came to the conclusion that JohnV. is a prick, but the other side isn't "pure", they just seem slightly less dirty than JV...just my opinion.
I'd say look at the non-objective sides to, but comparing them (i.e. how much they deal with substantiated facts compared to rhetoric, etc.) you can get a feel for who is slimier (not who is right...).
Then let's take a look at the facts... Ken Williams posted a photo of his younger sister, along with her address. In response, JP wrote a letter to Harvard suggesting they take a look Ken's sight to make sure it met their acceptable use policy. The sight was removed. If I remember correctly, the only person claiming this is JohnV. everyone else involved is saying something else. I think you can get a better idea by going to attrition.org Disclaimer: This is true based on my memeory which may be faulty. As my wife will attest, I often start to leave the hose with out wallet, hat, shirt, pants, etc so don't take me at my word, check it out.....
Please read the posts in this thread again. No one involved in the discussion said we should keep China (or anyone) from using Linux (or any thing else). What I said was I wasn't happy about it. It's their right to use it, and mine to feel horrible about it.
If you are confused about why, then maybe you should do some research at amnesty international or at the UN about China's history with human rights.
But again, no one in this conversation (under the thread name "It looks to me like") has advocated trying to prevent china from using Linux or any other software they choose.
Planning On Using That Trick
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 1
I'm actually thinking of using this for a few personal databases that I want to have availible to me through the day...
It's not so much of a novelty, but that I don't want joe average to stumble upon this before it's ready, but I do want to be able to run remote tests..... seems like a cheap way to alpha test a site....
The problem is that the Open Source movement -cannot- and -should not- interfere with the choice of users. So long as the licences are honored, we have no say-so over who uses the software, or for what. Freedom cannot simply be dispensed to those we choose to like, and withheld from the rest. I didn't say that it did. In fact I said that I was appalled by the use, but that I would have deal with that. Myself. Freedom means freedom. I honestly think software open or closed should avoid the morality question completely. It gets way to sticky way to fast. If we resort to spin-doctoring to "fix" someone else's decision, to control or manipulate someone else's reaction, we're no better than the worst excesses of politicians or corporations. That is one hell of a slippery slope, and woe betide all who choose to go that route. I'm not talking about spin doctoring, you miss my point. If Yahoo printed a false story, they should retract it, as proponets of a movement that might be hurt by that false story I feel we should make them retract it in a very public way. Keep your eye on the ball, NOT your opponents, NOT the grandstands, and DEFINITELY NOT the people you are hoping to impress. That is a sure way for the open source community to stay small. If we want to become mainstream, then we have to be aware of the people who want to prevent that, and what they are doing. Focus on them, and you'll fall flat on your face, and that's no way to impress anyone Why are you assuming I want to impress someone? I really don't care about that. What I do want is to see open source become a main stream development method because I enjoy using and writing quality software. Leave other people to react as they will. Do that, and their reaction won't matter. I disagree. We left other people to react as they will to win95 and look what happened. We can't stand idlely by and let people distort what we are about. I'm sorry I don't share you idealism, I did once, and I wish I could again. I'm not talking about "spin doctoring" or "fixing" other people's descions I'm talking about making sure the public gets the facts, that's all.
His problem with China adopting Linux is purely political (which after reading the LinuxToday article is what I came away with). No there are more problems than just the horrible, horrible things the Chinese gov't has done. If this happens, it will really hurt those of us trying to get small/mediums size bussiness to look at linux.
Believe it or not there is still a great deal of fear and paranioa about Communism out there. On many occasions when describing the FSF I heard things like "Sounds like Communisim" and from that point on, nothing I say matters. This would just add weight to this arguement.
This tack was also attempted by the founder of 3Com in an article that was posted on/. back in july or aug. Basically he said that Open Source would fail because it was communism and communism failed.
If this is a hoax we have to get yahoo to retract the story in a public way. If this story is true, then it behoves the open source community to find a response that works to takes politics out of the Open Source movement.
It's not about politics, it's about not letting the cold war generation dismiss Open Source as communisim.
Disclosure: I converted to Tibetan Buddhism in 1995, Drikung Kagyu lineage. I am appalled that my efforts in open source (which have = 0 to date, but maybe someday) might be used to make the People's Republic a more efficient killing machine. However, that is the nature of free/open software, and I'll just have to deal with it. Free Tibet!
No but if he goes over an knocks over their stands and steals all their lemons.... OH YEAH! He should not only be sent to his room, he shouldn't be allowed to sell anything again.
No, go get a clue. According to several experts that have been quoted liberally in the press for the last year all it takes is 85% or more market share... Gee, MS has that in spades. Idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Could some one give me a http mirror for Win32 mozilla? My firewall doesn't allow ftp.
Thanks
No, it is not well documented because it didn't happen. Microsoft never released a product that deliberately broke a competitor's product.
It very funny that the very next post after yours contains a link to the Dr. Dobbs article that not only shows that it was done but how it was done.
The anti-MS folks are relying on the fact that if you repeat something enough times, some people will start to believe you. Unfortunately, their immoral tactics seem to be working.
No, they are relying on the truth. I've been an MS developer since windows 3.1. I've watched them do these things. I've seen them do everything they can to kill the competition. Well, now finally they are caught (the FoF, not this story which is probably just a mistake on their part) and good lord, talk about the whine that was heard around the world!
Have you read the history of the Dr.Dos case at the Register? It uses documents from the Caldera case... which is about... ta dah exactly what we are talking about.
I hope this help clear up any misconceptions the Microsoft marketing department may have caused you.
I was refering to the fact the Mac's and Linix have support for multiple filesystems built in. No third party software.
And btw, I run Linux, Mac, and windows.
I'm using Office 2K right now.
At first it was great, they've really made
some improvements. (Althought the UI is about as usablable/pretty as one of those red-assed baboons....
Now (after a month), I'm weeping and crying for a return to office 97.....
(Mostly based on Access)
My theory is that MS hired the Castaways (Gilligan's Island) for QA/QC.
The Howells cashed in their stock options.
The Professor took one look around and quit.
Mary Ann found out about the FUD and quit because she didn't approve of the lies.
Ginger mysteriously disappeared, but strange grunts and groans have been heard from various execs offices.
Leaving the Skipper and Gilligan in charge of QA/QC.
:)
oops.. that a really good point.
Are you claiming that Lotus plained this before the FoF was even out? How long ago was that software written????
I'm sorry to play Scully to your Mulder, but that seems to be stretching it.
Honestly I think it's a mistake, just sheer negligence. I know MS has done this to me over a half dozen times.
Please name me one operating system that has to, and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating with so many other systems. The weight that Microsoft carries and the scrutiny under which it carries that weight should be a warning to everyone who wants them out of the way. Erm... excuse me? The Mac, Novell and *nix actually interoperate with more operating systems and do it in a more efficient manner.
Can you boot your windows box from a ext2 floppy? Can you read Mac disks (w/o third party software). What is this? Do you work in systems integration? Do you realize that most SI work is done with *NIX leading the way and the other OS's following? Asinine headlines like this one from "Roblimo" only have a place with the rest of the quacks looking for "the smoking man" and UFOs. Because you are making the rest of us look like those quacks when you post that garbage here. Even though it is well documented that they did this to DR DOS (could some one through up a link to the article in Dr Dobbs about the code?). Come on buddy, quit checking your MS stock prices and look around.
Oh for the love of god, that looks like crap. Sorry about that I was in a hurry. It should read:
First off, I have a problem with pushing the blame onto Lotus... why would they do this to themselves?
Secondly, even if lotus made the boo-boo, it makes MS look bad. After the FoF, who the hell is going to believe them? When we can see that their horns have knocked the halo off to an angle, why believe?
MS has done this to me numerous times, and I haven't been using outdated or unpublished anything. They are just sloppy with most of their service packs.
First off, I have a problem with trying to blame Lotus... why would they do this to themselves?
Secondly, even if it is lotus's fault, it makes MS look bad. After the FoF, how the hell is going to believe them? When we can see that their horns have knocked their halo to an angle?
Myself, MS has done this to me numerous times, and I haven't been using outdated or unpublished anything. They are just sloppy with most of their service packs.
Oh yeah, and IANAL Damn it!
The FoF is appealable, however it is _very_ rare for an appeals court to disagree with it. Normally when you get to the appeallate level, you are arguing law, not facts.
:)
Sorry I should have been a little strong in wording the part that says "Assuming the FoF is unappealable.." to more like...
"If the appellate court decides the FoF is not up for discussion..."
Sorry about the confusion... My bad.
Let's see a good ole fashioned Disney Fight...
My take:
Let's see... hmmm innovations:
Gates:
Charging People for software
Disney:
First cartoon with sound (Steamboat Willie)
First cartoon with color (the flowers & the trees ( I think that was the name)
Development of multi-level animation (debuted in "the Old Mill", perfected in Fantasia)
First Feature Length Motion Picture (Snow White)
One of the first TV shows to film in color (The Magical World Of Disney)
DisneyLand/Disney world. Yes there where amusment parks, but if you think there is an equivalnce, then you've never been.
"Audio-Animatronics" A vast-vast-vast improvement on the moving parts in dark house rides that exsited before.
I'd have to say their is a _big_ difference!
I've read in many places that the FoF is hard to overturn. Reading the FoF it seems to me that if you accept it as fact, then you have to conclude that MS broke the law and should be punished (harshly).
Assuming the FoF is unappealable then, where is the opening for Microsoft to appeal the discision? I.E. Assuming the FoF is untouchable how could MS "win on appeal" as we keep hearing from various tech analysts?
While serving my two week notice for my last job (they wouldn't give me anything new to do, but wouldn't let me take the time off either), I did a little research on this. (I was very bored.) From what I read, there aren't any objective sources on this one.
I went through the morase of half-truths, truths and just wierd stuff on this and came to the conclusion that JohnV. is a prick, but the other side isn't "pure", they just seem slightly less dirty than JV...just my opinion.
I'd say look at the non-objective sides to, but comparing them (i.e. how much they deal with substantiated facts compared to rhetoric, etc.) you can get a feel for who is slimier (not who is right...).
Then let's take a look at the facts... Ken Williams posted a photo of his younger sister, along with her address. In response, JP wrote a letter to Harvard suggesting they take a look Ken's sight to make sure it met their acceptable use policy. The sight was removed. If I remember correctly, the only person claiming this is JohnV. everyone else involved is saying something else. I think you can get a better idea by going to attrition.org Disclaimer: This is true based on my memeory which may be faulty. As my wife will attest, I often start to leave the hose with out wallet, hat, shirt, pants, etc so don't take me at my word, check it out.....
Please read the posts in this thread again.
No one involved in the discussion said we should keep China (or anyone) from using Linux (or any thing else). What I said was I wasn't happy about it. It's their right to use it, and mine to feel horrible about it.
If you are confused about why, then maybe you should do some research at amnesty international or at the UN about China's history with human rights.
But again, no one in this conversation (under the thread name "It looks to me like") has advocated trying to prevent china from using Linux or any other software they choose.
I'm actually thinking of using this
for a few personal databases that I want to
have availible to me through the day...
It's not so much of a novelty, but that I don't
want joe average to stumble upon this before
it's ready, but I do want to be able to
run remote tests..... seems like
a cheap way to alpha test a site....
Agreed.
The problem is that the Open Source movement -cannot- and -should not- interfere with the choice of users. So long as the licences are honored, we have no say-so over who uses the software, or for what. Freedom cannot simply be dispensed to those we choose to like, and withheld from the rest. I didn't say that it did. In fact I said that I was appalled by the use, but that I would have deal with that. Myself. Freedom means freedom. I honestly think software open or closed should avoid the morality question completely. It gets way to sticky way to fast. If we resort to spin-doctoring to "fix" someone else's decision, to control or manipulate someone else's reaction, we're no better than the worst excesses of politicians or corporations. That is one hell of a slippery slope, and woe betide all who choose to go that route. I'm not talking about spin doctoring, you miss my point. If Yahoo printed a false story, they should retract it, as proponets of a movement that might be hurt by that false story I feel we should make them retract it in a very public way. Keep your eye on the ball, NOT your opponents, NOT the grandstands, and DEFINITELY NOT the people you are hoping to impress. That is a sure way for the open source community to stay small. If we want to become mainstream, then we have to be aware of the people who want to prevent that, and what they are doing. Focus on them, and you'll fall flat on your face, and that's no way to impress anyone Why are you assuming I want to impress someone? I really don't care about that. What I do want is to see open source become a main stream development method because I enjoy using and writing quality software. Leave other people to react as they will. Do that, and their reaction won't matter. I disagree. We left other people to react as they will to win95 and look what happened. We can't stand idlely by and let people distort what we are about. I'm sorry I don't share you idealism, I did once, and I wish I could again. I'm not talking about "spin doctoring" or "fixing" other people's descions I'm talking about making sure the public gets the facts, that's all.
His problem with China adopting Linux is purely political (which after reading the LinuxToday article is what I came away with). No there are more problems than just the horrible, horrible things the Chinese gov't has done. If this happens, it will really hurt those of us trying to get small/mediums size bussiness to look at linux.
/. back in july or aug. Basically he said that Open Source would fail because it was communism and communism failed.
Believe it or not there is still a great deal of fear and paranioa about Communism out there. On many occasions when describing the FSF I heard things like "Sounds like Communisim" and from that point on, nothing I say matters. This would just add weight to this arguement.
This tack was also attempted by the founder of 3Com in an article that was posted on
If this is a hoax we have to get yahoo to retract the story in a public way. If this story is true, then it behoves the open source community to find a response that works to takes politics out of the Open Source movement.
It's not about politics, it's about not letting the cold war generation dismiss Open Source as communisim.
Disclosure: I converted to Tibetan Buddhism in 1995, Drikung Kagyu lineage. I am appalled that my efforts in open source (which have = 0 to date, but maybe someday) might be used to make the People's Republic a more efficient killing machine. However, that is the nature of free/open software, and I'll just have to deal with it.
Free Tibet!
I know too many dumb programmers. How many do you know? Hi my name is Rob, and I'm a dumb programmer. :)
Sorry couldn't help it.
Do you even work in the IT industry? Outside M$?
It's not trumped up hype and distortion, it
was a Finding of _FACT_. Not someoneone's opinion... this is what was proven in a court of law.
No but if he goes over an knocks over
their stands and steals all their lemons....
OH YEAH! He should not only be sent to
his room, he shouldn't be allowed to sell
anything again.
No, go get a clue.
According to several experts that have
been quoted liberally in the press for the last year all it takes is 85% or more market share...
Gee, MS has that in spades.
Idiot.