You are missing something... a brain. Who is stopping Adobe from suing Apple? Nobody! Anyone can sue anybody, the question is will they win their case. And if the gov't defines a standard for what is or is not a core component of an OS, then obviously anyone that falls under their jurisdiction would have to comply. As to why a basic install of XP is nearly 1GB, well maybe that has something to do with all the crap that Microsoft has thrown in under the guise of core OS components.
Again, you're being absurd. Of course Sony can do what they want. And consumers can start buying Phillips electronics if they offer TVs without toasters and the people want them. Your mistake here is that you think I'm making a judgment about the morality of offering TVs with toasters sticking out of the side, when in fact I am merely questioning the accuracy of your previous analogy. As to pens without pen caps... they make them. See you click on a little button and the penpoint pops out of the barrel. No cap needed. And you can get a car without a radio, dumbass! You'll shave about a hundred bucks off the sticker price.
Well first of all, I never said I was against FUD. I kinda' like it. Secondly, I actually use IE as my browser of choice. I just think anyone who doesn't think Microsoft uses all sorts of strongarm tactics in their business model is naive beyond belief. That is not to say other corporations don't, because they certainly do. I'm just saying I understand why people are disgruntled by it. Persoanlly, I think its funny that they're being taken to task over it. And I think it's even funnier that they're probably going to be able to smokescreen their way out of this mess
This is like going to Sony and saying, I want to buy your Trinitron TV but in red, without the remote control and without the on screen display? Why should MS be forced to do this? They shouldn't!
Nonsense! It's nothing like that. If the Sony Trinitron came with a toaster sticking out the side that couldn't be removed without disabling the TV, that would be closer to this situation with MS. In such a case, I don't think it would out of line for consumers to want a Trinitron TV without a toaster! Who needs it? Just eat your pop-tarts cold!
Hey..There are still lots of choices on the browser market, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla, Lynx even. IE never went out and "broke" them as you suggested.
I never said IE "broke" the other browsers. What I am referring to is the notion put forth by other Windows users in other posts. It is my understanding (from these posts) that IE shares DLLs with other components of the Windows operating system, and that if you remove IE, you cripple these other components. Functionally, this makes it impossible to remove IE from Windows. So the user is left with no option but to leave IE installed. Granted they can install other browsers along with it, but that's not the point! I should be able remove *ANY* piece of software from my computer (provided it isn't a core component of the OS) and still have my computer function properly. Furthermore, if the OS tries to impose it's own preferences on top of mine (like sneakily makng IE the default browser every time I update my system) then MS has again usurped my power.
What you are suggesting is that all companies must give a level playing field. That McDonald must give out its special Big Mac Sauce, that Coca cola should give out its secret recipe for the soda, that Pfizer should give away the ingredients to make Viagra. This is just not the way that the world works. Companies sole purpose is to make money. Having a competitive edge is what makes one company succeed and one fail. Remember, we live in a capitalistic society. What you are suggesting is the communist ideals. Go read Marxist and/or Stalins writings, you'll see a lot of similarities between their ideals and your thoughts.
I am not suggesting anything about the levelness of the playing field, it is anti-trust laws which make such a suggestion. And anyway the analogies you give are absolute nonsense. We're not talking about Microsoft giving away any secrets. Don't be so obtuse. We're talking about Microsoft separating its OS from its web browser. Duh! Sure a competitive edge is the reason companies succeed, but anti-trust law is an attempt to restrict how far one can go with that edge. Yes, we live in a capitalistic society. Thanks for pointing that out. I have read some Commie lit and yes I see similarities to my ideas. So what?
Now, let me ask you, what should MS have done with the browser market? Should they provide competitors with products to compete against them as you suggest ("3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE")? That is just suicide! Tell me one profitable company that has done that!
I never suggested MS should provide competitors with products to compete against them. I am saying that they should not integrate their web browser so rigidly into their OS and thus hamper the ability of 3rd parties to develop a web browser that integrates nicely into the Windows OS.
I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm just saying that you are taking a rather simplistic view at the situation. The world is not fair. Not everything works on a level of fairness in which people have to look out for the benefit of the whole.
I not saying I'm absolutely right. I think your view of the situation is simplistic. And actually the world is fair when viewed from a detached point of view. Chaos and entropy do not play favorites.
Does Sun go, oh here is the source code to Java and this is what would give you a competive edge? Or does a pharmaceutical company go..oh here is a drug that we spent 10 million dollars to research we'll just give it to you for free because we want competition?
No Sun doesn't give away the farm but they do give developers the tools necessary to develop whatever app the can come up with to run on their platform.
Now here is the part that is confusing: "And I never in any way suggested that there should be a homgeneity of ability in the NBA." and also " the clubs represent a 3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE" In one case you don't want homogenity and in the other, you are saying that MS is at fault for not providing homogenity?
Well this is typical Microsoft style obfuscation and misdirection. You've taken two disparates ideas and because they contain the same word "ability" you equate them in an attempt to refute something else. That's pure pigheadedness. In the first case I was simply denying *your* assertion that I think we should only watch basketball if every player is as good as Jordan (an assertion, I might add, that was completely off the point of my original argument). In the second case I was making reference *not* to an inability on the part of the 3rd party, but rather to a "dirty trick" on the part of Microsoft intended solely "lock out" the 3rd party.
Just think about it from a company's standpoint. Would you give your competitors a chance to compete with you directly if you have a lead?
Well, to that I can only say: I would never be CEO of a company that would have me as their leader. Personally, I find winning the race rather boring. I'd rather crash and burn. It makes for more exciting television.
Go back and read it again. Tiger represents Microsoft. The golf course is the browser market. Tiger (Microsoft) is hampering the competition by impeding their ability to play well by bending their clubs (In this case the clubs represent a 3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE). Follow me, please. And I never in any way suggested that there should be a homgeneity of ability in the NBA. Next time, think it through more carefully before you post a thinly veiled plug for Linux!... What a minute!... Is that you Torvald? You nutty Fin! I fall for this gag every time. Damn!
I dreamt I was the center of the universe And that the fate of all dangled from my balls So I threatened everybody with a fabricated enemy And the toiling of the masses fattened up my purse Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
I dreamt I was the important to the cosmic plan
And God gave me permission to further my ambition
So I stepped on everybody that I could get a boot on
But somehow I managed to keep them eating from my hands
Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
But when the rooster crows
It'll all come to a close
At the rising sun I'll be undone
And left to fend for myself
Oh, it's going to sting when the morning dove sings
'Cause when the dream is over, the nightmare begins
Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
Gates is America! Because as we all remember from history class: "the busines of America is big business". And yes, America is the best at everything. But "everything" is mainly comprised of raping the land, exploiting the masses, and stamping out philosophical differences. And who am I jealous of? You? Certainly not! You're a weak-minded media dupe who's too afraid to stand by you own words, so you post them anonymously. Remember: the king of the idiots is still an idiot. All you seem to see is a king.
No sensible person wants a slew of different 3rd party versions of Windows. There are already enough versions to give us all ulcers! I really think that this whole idea of modular versions of Windows was proposed by a Microsoft mole just to make the whole thing inherently undoable. I think all anyone with any sense wants is to be able to uninstall Internet Explorer if they want and still be able to use Windows to connect with the Internet using some other browser that was designed for use with the core Windows OS. I think people are just fed up with Microsoft's brown-shirted bullying and scare tactics. I think the majority of the computer using public (hi, all you Joe Blows out there) does want more choices. Of course they don't want a dizzying array of choices, but a few would be nice. It would also be nice if the consumer could choose a application suited to their individual needs and not have the app and the OS constantly arguing about who is in charge!
Oh, and here's a haiku for you:
Shut your filthy gob You tiny-brained underling I won't be your dupe!
absolute twaddle! you have the reasoning faculties of a shoe! if tiger woods bent all the other golfer's clubs before the tournament, then yes we would penalize him. if michael jordan was allowed to kick all the other players on the court in the scrotum, then yes people would say it was unfair. and maybe we should have tied one of joe montana's hands behind his back! i would have voted for the right hand.
Are these DLLs part of the OS or are they part of IE? I mean, I think that is the whole issue here. Isn't it? Microsoft has made it's web browser an integral part of the OS. In other words, if I choose to remove an application (namely MSIE) from my system, it really shouldn't remove part of the core OS along with it. For example, if I want to change the windshield wiper blades on my car, I would be very upset if the distributor cap was connected to the wipers in such a way that if I remove the wiper blades, I also remove the distributor cap. Wouldn't you be?
LOL. That's some funny stuff, man. Hoo boy! "consumers benefit." Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Oh Jesus, I'm gonna' piss my pants! Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee! [snort] Hehehe, Ooooh brother. ahem. . .
They are trying to make the user XPerience an easyness in using their computer, "one stop shopping" of the 21st century. Is that wrong? Sure they muscled different companies out of business. Sure they are arrogant jerks who just want to make money with a good product. Welcome to America!
Well, who says America is a good thing? Growth without limit is cancer. Microsoft is the cancer of America. America is the cancer of civilization. Civilization is the cancer of Earth. Time for a global radiation treatment, I say.
True. And I agree that their product sucks buttocks, but consider this: If Microsoft wasn't trying to shut out the competition, then maybe companies like Real could spend more time improving the way their software functions rather than devoting so much time and energy to devising ways to confound Microsoft's desktop fascism.
I don't know, I thought Rampage of the Xeroxed Badgers was a compelling and thoughtful film about the dangers of mankind's aspirations to godhood in a post-mimeograph world. Although the toner was spotty in a few scenes.
You really hit the hammer on the head when you say "as far as I know, it can't be done". That is the crux of the biscuit. If you, as a writer, are going to violate the laws of physics in your writing, there has to be a prior justification (e.g. magic, superpowers, etc.) or you must be prepared to theorize on physical properties of the universe that simply haven't been discovered yet. Now that is not to say that the writer has to come up with a bona fide, Nobel prize winning adjunct to the laws of physics for the scientific community to begin integrating into the current paradigm, but it should be plausible enough to pull the wool over the eyes of the average dope sitting in a movie theater. That is to say: As far as he knows, it can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Nothing tastes as sweet as forbidden fruit.
You are missing something... a brain. Who is stopping Adobe from suing Apple? Nobody! Anyone can sue anybody, the question is will they win their case. And if the gov't defines a standard for what is or is not a core component of an OS, then obviously anyone that falls under their jurisdiction would have to comply. As to why a basic install of XP is nearly 1GB, well maybe that has something to do with all the crap that Microsoft has thrown in under the guise of core OS components.
Yes, but if it's a choice between two evils, I want to decide what flavor of evil will be used on my computer.
Again, you're being absurd. Of course Sony can do what they want. And consumers can start buying Phillips electronics if they offer TVs without toasters and the people want them. Your mistake here is that you think I'm making a judgment about the morality of offering TVs with toasters sticking out of the side, when in fact I am merely questioning the accuracy of your previous analogy. As to pens without pen caps... they make them. See you click on a little button and the penpoint pops out of the barrel. No cap needed. And you can get a car without a radio, dumbass! You'll shave about a hundred bucks off the sticker price.
Well first of all, I never said I was against FUD. I kinda' like it. Secondly, I actually use IE as my browser of choice. I just think anyone who doesn't think Microsoft uses all sorts of strongarm tactics in their business model is naive beyond belief. That is not to say other corporations don't, because they certainly do. I'm just saying I understand why people are disgruntled by it. Persoanlly, I think its funny that they're being taken to task over it. And I think it's even funnier that they're probably going to be able to smokescreen their way out of this mess
This is like going to Sony and saying, I want to buy your Trinitron TV but in red, without the remote control and without the on screen display? Why should MS be forced to do this? They shouldn't!
Nonsense! It's nothing like that. If the Sony Trinitron came with a toaster sticking out the side that couldn't be removed without disabling the TV, that would be closer to this situation with MS. In such a case, I don't think it would out of line for consumers to want a Trinitron TV without a toaster! Who needs it? Just eat your pop-tarts cold!
Hey..There are still lots of choices on the browser market, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla, Lynx even. IE never went out and "broke" them as you suggested.
I never said IE "broke" the other browsers. What I am referring to is the notion put forth by other Windows users in other posts. It is my understanding (from these posts) that IE shares DLLs with other components of the Windows operating system, and that if you remove IE, you cripple these other components. Functionally, this makes it impossible to remove IE from Windows. So the user is left with no option but to leave IE installed. Granted they can install other browsers along with it, but that's not the point! I should be able remove *ANY* piece of software from my computer (provided it isn't a core component of the OS) and still have my computer function properly. Furthermore, if the OS tries to impose it's own preferences on top of mine (like sneakily makng IE the default browser every time I update my system) then MS has again usurped my power.
What you are suggesting is that all companies must give a level playing field. That McDonald must give out its special Big Mac Sauce, that Coca cola should give out its secret recipe for the soda, that Pfizer should give away the ingredients to make Viagra. This is just not the way that the world works. Companies sole purpose is to make money. Having a competitive edge is what makes one company succeed and one fail. Remember, we live in a capitalistic society. What you are suggesting is the communist ideals. Go read Marxist and/or Stalins writings, you'll see a lot of similarities between their ideals and your thoughts.
I am not suggesting anything about the levelness of the playing field, it is anti-trust laws which make such a suggestion. And anyway the analogies you give are absolute nonsense. We're not talking about Microsoft giving away any secrets. Don't be so obtuse. We're talking about Microsoft separating its OS from its web browser. Duh! Sure a competitive edge is the reason companies succeed, but anti-trust law is an attempt to restrict how far one can go with that edge. Yes, we live in a capitalistic society. Thanks for pointing that out. I have read some Commie lit and yes I see similarities to my ideas. So what?
Now, let me ask you, what should MS have done with the browser market? Should they provide competitors with products to compete against them as you suggest ("3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE")? That is just suicide! Tell me one profitable company that has done that!
I never suggested MS should provide competitors with products to compete against them. I am saying that they should not integrate their web browser so rigidly into their OS and thus hamper the ability of 3rd parties to develop a web browser that integrates nicely into the Windows OS.
I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm just saying that you are taking a rather simplistic view at the situation. The world is not fair. Not everything works on a level of fairness in which people have to look out for the benefit of the whole.
I not saying I'm absolutely right. I think your view of the situation is simplistic. And actually the world is fair when viewed from a detached point of view. Chaos and entropy do not play favorites.
Does Sun go, oh here is the source code to Java and this is what would give you a competive edge? Or does a pharmaceutical company go..oh here is a drug that we spent 10 million dollars to research we'll just give it to you for free because we want competition?
No Sun doesn't give away the farm but they do give developers the tools necessary to develop whatever app the can come up with to run on their platform.
Now here is the part that is confusing: "And I never in any way suggested that there should be a homgeneity of ability in the NBA." and also " the clubs represent a 3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE" In one case you don't want homogenity and in the other, you are saying that MS is at fault for not providing homogenity?
Well this is typical Microsoft style obfuscation and misdirection. You've taken two disparates ideas and because they contain the same word "ability" you equate them in an attempt to refute something else. That's pure pigheadedness. In the first case I was simply denying *your* assertion that I think we should only watch basketball if every player is as good as Jordan (an assertion, I might add, that was completely off the point of my original argument). In the second case I was making reference *not* to an inability on the part of the 3rd party, but rather to a "dirty trick" on the part of Microsoft intended solely "lock out" the 3rd party.
Just think about it from a company's standpoint. Would you give your competitors a chance to compete with you directly if you have a lead?
Well, to that I can only say: I would never be CEO of a company that would have me as their leader. Personally, I find winning the race rather boring. I'd rather crash and burn. It makes for more exciting television.
Go back and read it again. Tiger represents Microsoft. The golf course is the browser market. Tiger (Microsoft) is hampering the competition by impeding their ability to play well by bending their clubs (In this case the clubs represent a 3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE). Follow me, please. And I never in any way suggested that there should be a homgeneity of ability in the NBA. Next time, think it through more carefully before you post a thinly veiled plug for Linux!... What a minute!... Is that you Torvald? You nutty Fin! I fall for this gag every time. Damn!
The American Dream
I dreamt I was the center of the universe
And that the fate of all dangled from my balls
So I threatened everybody with a fabricated enemy
And the toiling of the masses fattened up my purse
Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
I dreamt I was the important to the cosmic plan
And God gave me permission to further my ambition
So I stepped on everybody that I could get a boot on
But somehow I managed to keep them eating from my hands
Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
But when the rooster crows
It'll all come to a close
At the rising sun I'll be undone
And left to fend for myself
Oh, it's going to sting when the morning dove sings
'Cause when the dream is over, the nightmare begins
Because:
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American - I am
I am an American
And I, an American, I live in a dream.
Gates is America! Because as we all remember from history class: "the busines of America is big business". And yes, America is the best at everything. But "everything" is mainly comprised of raping the land, exploiting the masses, and stamping out philosophical differences. And who am I jealous of? You? Certainly not! You're a weak-minded media dupe who's too afraid to stand by you own words, so you post them anonymously. Remember: the king of the idiots is still an idiot. All you seem to see is a king.
No sensible person wants a slew of different 3rd party versions of Windows. There are already enough versions to give us all ulcers! I really think that this whole idea of modular versions of Windows was proposed by a Microsoft mole just to make the whole thing inherently undoable. I think all anyone with any sense wants is to be able to uninstall Internet Explorer if they want and still be able to use Windows to connect with the Internet using some other browser that was designed for use with the core Windows OS. I think people are just fed up with Microsoft's brown-shirted bullying and scare tactics. I think the majority of the computer using public (hi, all you Joe Blows out there) does want more choices. Of course they don't want a dizzying array of choices, but a few would be nice. It would also be nice if the consumer could choose a application suited to their individual needs and not have the app and the OS constantly arguing about who is in charge!
Oh, and here's a haiku for you:
Shut your filthy gob
You tiny-brained underling
I won't be your dupe!
absolute twaddle! you have the reasoning faculties of a shoe! if tiger woods bent all the other golfer's clubs before the tournament, then yes we would penalize him. if michael jordan was allowed to kick all the other players on the court in the scrotum, then yes people would say it was unfair. and maybe we should have tied one of joe montana's hands behind his back! i would have voted for the right hand.
Are these DLLs part of the OS or are they part of IE? I mean, I think that is the whole issue here. Isn't it? Microsoft has made it's web browser an integral part of the OS. In other words, if I choose to remove an application (namely MSIE) from my system, it really shouldn't remove part of the core OS along with it. For example, if I want to change the windshield wiper blades on my car, I would be very upset if the distributor cap was connected to the wipers in such a way that if I remove the wiper blades, I also remove the distributor cap. Wouldn't you be?
LOL. That's some funny stuff, man. Hoo boy! "consumers benefit." Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Oh Jesus, I'm gonna' piss my pants! Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee! [snort] Hehehe, Ooooh brother. ahem. . .
Oh, you were serious?
They are trying to make the user XPerience an easyness in using their computer, "one stop shopping" of the 21st century. Is that wrong? Sure they muscled different companies out of business. Sure they are arrogant jerks who just want to make money with a good product. Welcome to America!
Well, who says America is a good thing? Growth without limit is cancer. Microsoft is the cancer of America. America is the cancer of civilization. Civilization is the cancer of Earth. Time for a global radiation treatment, I say.
I had no idea the Microsoft anti-trust suit was this exciting. Are they broadcasting it on C-Span?
True. And I agree that their product sucks buttocks, but consider this: If Microsoft wasn't trying to shut out the competition, then maybe companies like Real could spend more time improving the way their software functions rather than devoting so much time and energy to devising ways to confound Microsoft's desktop fascism.
I don't know, I thought Rampage of the Xeroxed Badgers was a compelling and thoughtful film about the dangers of mankind's aspirations to godhood in a post-mimeograph world. Although the toner was spotty in a few scenes.
You really hit the hammer on the head when you say "as far as I know, it can't be done". That is the crux of the biscuit. If you, as a writer, are going to violate the laws of physics in your writing, there has to be a prior justification (e.g. magic, superpowers, etc.) or you must be prepared to theorize on physical properties of the universe that simply haven't been discovered yet. Now that is not to say that the writer has to come up with a bona fide, Nobel prize winning adjunct to the laws of physics for the scientific community to begin integrating into the current paradigm, but it should be plausible enough to pull the wool over the eyes of the average dope sitting in a movie theater. That is to say: As far as he knows, it can be done.