Um, the MS Office team rolls its own UI, just as any other dev is free to do. They don't sit around waiting for the Windows team to provide no UI widgets, and other devs can do likewise. Office hasn't even used "real" (i.e. OS-provided) menus starting with Office97.
Good post. You're right, this is not a PayPal competitor. PayPal's real competitors are StormPay, iKobo, and the like.
(Yahoo has, or used to to have, a "Yahoo Payments" service that was like PayPal, but I don't know if that service still exists (payments.yahoo.com gives DNS errors, though the old help page still exists: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/payments/ ).)
"I'm happy google's here, because it makes everyone else have to try harder. Let's hope the same happens to E-Bay. They haven't changed their interface since their inception."
Competition is good, but regarding ebay's interface, I think it's fine, myself. Do we really need ebay to change its UI to some ajax/web 2.0 thingamajig?
"Vista is not based on the new longhorn code but is a glorified XP, a lot of business apps and features get implemented in XP but not the ones for consumers. Also XP is not old, its not 5 years of age, its brand new, its the newest Windows currently available so you can't really compare it with an old linux kernel and the Mac OS. In fact its more comparable with WMA, QT, Quickdraw, OpenGL,..."
First, Vista is based on Windows Server 2003, not XP.
Second, try this on for size: Before Mac OS Tiger was released, the following could have been uttered by a malcontent such as yourself: "Tiger is not based on new code, but is a glorified Panther. Also, Panther is not old, it's not 5 years of age, it's brand new, it's the newest Mac OS currently available so you can't really compare it with an old linux kernel. SO THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR APPLE NOT TO BACKPORT SPOTLIGHT AND GADGETS TO PANTHER!! APPLE IS FORCING UPGRADES!!"
The above is true, but you guys ejaculated over the Tiger specs, without any demands that Apple backport Spotlight and Gadgets to Panther, which could've been done quite easily.
The point is, 90% of new features in a new OS could be backported to the previous version of the OS, be that OS WIndows, Mac, Linux, or whatever. So why are you bitching that Microsoft isn't backporting everything to XP when you give Apple, et al, a free pass? And actually, Microsoft is backporting more of Vista's features to XP than Apple, et al, has ever done regarding their OSes.
Let me know when Apple backports Spotlight to OSX 10.3 and earlier. That would be *much* easier than backporting DirectX10 to XP, yet you didn't bitch about Apple not supporting its Panther users, did you?
Why don't MSFT simple submit a proposal to extend OpenGL in a open way?
Why *should* they? And don't answer with some ideological doctrine, give a *practical* reason why Microsoft should do what you propose. DirectX has been wildly successful without any submissions to extend OpenGL.
What's really "funny" is that people (slashdotters and their ilk) criticize Microsoft when they backport tech from Vista to XP, saying, "Well, there's no reason to buy Vista then". Yet when Microsoft doesn't backport tech from Vista to XP (like DirectX 10), you guys still bitch.
Which is it? Do you want Vista tech backported to XP or do you want Microsoft to keep Vista tech exclusive to Vista?
"Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted."
Microsoft has never been convicted of a "crime", and so are not "criminals", and you have no evidence of "paying huge bribes". I didn't bother reading the rest of your drivel. And what buffoon modded your garbage as "insightful"? Please...
Or, perhaps their is no "proper documentation" that would satisfy the EU. They don't *want* to be satisfied because they want their payday.
Why does the EU refuse to say what's wrong with the documentation that's been provided so far? Documentation of APIs is an interactive process. An entity provides documentation, developers give feedback as to its shortcomings, the entity responds by updating the documentation accordingly, and so on. I've seen both Apple's and Microsoft's api documentation evolve over the years, as they're updated/corrected to make things clearer, in response to feedback from the devs.
The EU refused to provide such feedback, so there's no clear way for Microsoft to know what the problem is. Here's what's happened so far: MS: Here's the documentation you asked for. EU: It sucks. MS: What's wrong with it? EU: That's for us to know and for you to find out. MS: Whatever... Here, we'll provide 500 free hours of tech support for any dev that doesn't understand the documentation. EU: Not good enough. MS: OK, we'll here's the source code too. EU: Not good enough. MS: If you tell us what's wrong with the original documentation, we'll address the problems. EU: Not good enough, prepare to be fined, suckers!!
It's sad that slashdot, generally speaking, supports such government shakedowns. Be careful what you wish for; you think that the EU isn't salivating over Google's cash? Or Red Hat's? Or Apple's? Or that of any of the companies that you guys have wet dreams about? Once you open the door to government shakedowns with no clear way for the persecuted company to comply, you open the door for everyone.
And why is WMP still an issue? Microsoft already complied with the WMP ruling, by providing XP N (which consumers soundly rejected). And Microsoft already settled its differences with Real, so why is the EU still pushing that issue? Oh, that's right, the chance to get fat off of levying hefty fines.
"I agree with some laws and disagree with others. There is no hypocrisy in that."
The hypocrisy is that in one case, your side uses the "They broke the law" argument as used as a final, end of discussion tactic, yet fail to allow such a tactic when it comes to anti-piracy laws and the like.
"If you have an argument as to why you think the antitrust laws being enforced are unethical, lets here it... "
There are many problems with anti-trust law. For one thing, the European version outright sucks. In the US, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect the consumer" (by providing healthy environment for competition). Before a company can be punished, it must be shown that the *consumer* has been harmed, not just that a competitor has been. But in Europe, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect competitors", regardless of whether consumers have been hurt. Indeed, if punishing a company helps a competitor but actually hurts consumers, the EU will still go through with the punishment. That is stupid.
The other problem with antitrust law is the ex-post-facto nature of it, whereby you can be accused of abusing your monopoly by actions that took place years before you were actually declared to have a monopoly. This means that before you're declared to have a monopoly in a certain market, you have to second-guess everything you do, for fear that a single person in a black robe *might* at some point in the future declare that you had a monopoly at some time in the past. You can't run a business that way, sorry.
Lastly, the EC itself is screwed up, as they provide no due process when coming to their decisions. You're not allowed to face your accusers and secret evidence is employed (that you can't refute, what with the being "secret" and all). (The EC refuses to provide the documentation on why their "expert" has found that the provided documentation, 500 hours of free support, and the actual source code are insufficient,so Microsoft has no way to cross-examine the "expert" nor any guidance on how to address the "expert"'s problems.) The EC has no proper court proceedings, no nothing. Kafka would be proud. Once the decision is made, you can appeal to a real court, but by then, the damage has been done.
"The problem is, MS doesn't want their illegal actions stopped in any way so they keep providing solutions that either don't do that or which are completely different from what is asked and seem to address similar concerns, but without having any real impact on the problem."
What, exactly, is the "illegal action" in this case? Creating a non-open network protocol between windows clients and windows servers? Thats it? That doesn't exactly rate high on the "evil" scale. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill; you guys act like Microsoft is using slave-wage labor in sweatshops, polluting the Mississippi River, slaughtering baby seals, or some such. Get some perspective.
I don't think that Microsoft is going to "call their bluff" (whatever that might mean in this case), but if the "the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.", there's no way in HELL that the Bush administration would not retaliate by doing the same with regard to European properties in the US. If the EU really wants to start a trade war, their going to be in some difficulty, their economy is in much worse shape than the US's.
I also question whether even the WTO would allow the EU to take the action that you prescribe.
Lastly, such action would be the death knell of Linux.
"Ok...and who knows the personal hell that Bill Gates brought forth into the lives of ex-employees who worked for the MANY companies (and products) that Microsoft bought, and promptly killed."
Please enumerate the companies that Microsoft "bought, and promptly killed". That's not Microsoft's MO, that's Oracle's.
"Or how about being one of the people working at Apple, Corel, Fox Pro, IBM, Lotus etc. who lost their jobs after the MS monopoly illegally (check your facts) pushed their products (in most cases SUPERIOR products) out of the market."
Please enumerate the products that the "Microsoft monopoly illegally pushed out of the market". Note that the government is still allowing IE to be shipped with Windows, so it's clearly not illegal. So you'll have to come up with something besides Netscape. Besides IE and WMP, the apps bundled with Microsoft's "monopoly" product are low-end applets, not competitors of full-featured apps. What, are you worried about the "Calculator" market?
Even among the companies you list, what products of theirs were "illegally pushed out of the market"? No product of Apple's was pushed out. (And don't suggest Mac OS, because Judge Jackson ruled that Mac OS is in a different market altogether.) IBM? What product of theirs was illegally pushed out by a monopoly? OS/2? Windows wasn't a monpoly back then. Lotus? Microsoft's Lotus-competitors aren't bundled with Microsoft's monopoly product, so you can't count them. Corel? Microsoft did nothing regardign Corel's main product, their Draw apps. WordPerfect was run into the ground by Novel before Corel bought them, and Word isn't bundled with Microsoft's monopoly product anyway, so WordPerferct wasn't pushed out by monopoly tactics either. Fox Pro? Microsoft bought Fox Pro and still sells it.
And where did you get the idea that the competitors had "in most cases SUPERIOR products"? I remember Microsoft winning the review comparisons regarding Excel vs Lotus, Word vs WordPerfect, Office vs Lotus Smart Suite, etc, from about 1992 onward.
"Please...if destroying peoples lives isn't evil, what is?"
Somehow, I really doubt that God will come down on Gates for bundling a browser in an OS. Get some perspective. If you want to see examples of real corporate "evil", check out I.G. Farben, Enron, polluters, corporations that use Asian sweatshops, corporations that get fat off of free labor, etc.
"The way I see it, it's only a matter of time before they get sick of feeling stupid, realize that a lot of problems they live with are the fault of the OS or application and not their own. I give it five years or a major MS screwup, whichever comes first. Either way, the ill will toward MS is simmering and will eventually boil over.
It's only a matter of time."
LOL Slashdot - where wishful thinking passes as objective analysis.
BTW, saying "It's only a matter of time" is a huge cop out. You can say that about almost anything.
"I'm not at all sure that I trust the B&MG Foundation to spend their money in a way that would be selected by the masses."
You don't "trust" the Gates Foundation to spend their money as you would see fit? Well, whoop-dee-doo!
Wow, I knew that slashdotters were an arrogant lot (you know, the whole "I know everything there is to know about tech, I'm God's gift to the tech industry, I look down upon anyone that accepts money for programming, blah blah blah" mindset), but to question how others go about their own charitable work? That is the height of arrogance. Look, I know it's very painful for you Gates haters to hear about his charitable work, but grow up. I really doubt that Gates gives a damn whether you "trust" they way he donates money to various causes. If you haven't contributed to the foundation, then it's not your place to "trust" the way it's spent, as it's none of your business. You don't like the causes that Gates contributes to? Then don't contribute to his foundation, simple. Good grief.
Let's make the question more concrete. According to one of the above posters, "The Gates Foundation is already saving the lives of thousands of children a year though throwing millions at the "low hanging fruit" of easily preventable deaths from things like diarrhea". How many lives of children has the CEOs of RedHat, et al, saved from disease? (Let's see if you're so quick to come back with a meaningless pithy answer this time.)
Is the average Linux advocate really this pathetic and sad?
No. The average Linux *fanboy* (not advocate) is really this pathetic and sad. And sadly, we've got a lot of such fanboys running around on this web site, so slashdot naturally has to play up this pathetic story. CNN called it right when they declared Slashdot as irrelevant.
Those Microsoft network products have been discontinued. Those web pages now only serve the purpose of providing support for those that purchased the products in the past. As the products have been continued, Microsoft wouldn't use them to build a wireless LAN.
Microsoft stopped selling the MS network gear a few years ago. A shame, since it was better than DLink's stuff and the like. I don't know if those old MS routers ran XP Embedded or not (highly doubtful), but today, there are no routers available that run any form of Windows.
I'd guess that Apple's Airport BaseStations don't run OSX either.
MSN used to return "jibber-jabber" because they didn't have their own search engine. I think the engine they used was licensed from Yahoo, but I'm not sure. Only in the last two years, did MSN search start using a Microsoft-developed search engine.
Opera (which seems to be above criticism on/.) does the same thing. And it's because by convention, the "default" action (i.e. the left-click action) should be on top. Right-click on almost any icon in Windows Explorer, and you'll see the left-click action on top and in bold.
I think if IE was a decent standards compliant browser with good features like Firefox, most people wouldn't care about it being bundled in with MS Windows or having a large user share.
Complete bullshit. At the time of the DOJ trial, IE was *more* standards compliant than Netscape, had *more* features, and was just better, period. This is widely acknowledged. That didn't stop people of your ilk from whining about IE being bundled with Windows, so just stop the revisionism.
I imagine people will have a copy itunes installed on their machine along with whatever Microsoft has.
I agree that people with have iTunes on their machine, even if they don't care about playing/organizing digital music. The reason many people have iTunes is that Apple has tied QuickTime player to iTunes. There's a lot of QuickTime movies on the web, and in order to watch those movies, you need QuickTime player (Apple refuses to provide a DirectShow QuickTime codec which would allow WMP (and other DirectShow compliant players) to play QT movies). The thing is, you can't install QT Player without installing iTunes. QT Player and iTunes come in one bundle (the iTunes bundle), and there's no way to get QT player separately from iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the MS Office team rolls its own UI, just as any other dev is free to do. They don't sit around waiting for the Windows team to provide no UI widgets, and other devs can do likewise.
Office hasn't even used "real" (i.e. OS-provided) menus starting with Office97.
Good post.
You're right, this is not a PayPal competitor. PayPal's real competitors are StormPay, iKobo, and the like.
(Yahoo has, or used to to have, a "Yahoo Payments" service that was like PayPal, but I don't know if that service still exists (payments.yahoo.com gives DNS errors, though the old help page still exists: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/payments/ ).)
"I'm happy google's here, because it makes everyone else have to try harder. Let's hope the same happens to E-Bay. They haven't changed their interface since their inception."
Competition is good, but regarding ebay's interface, I think it's fine, myself. Do we really need ebay to change its UI to some ajax/web 2.0 thingamajig?
"Vista is not based on the new longhorn code but is a glorified XP, a lot of business apps and features get implemented in XP but not the ones for consumers. Also XP is not old, its not 5 years of age, its brand new, its the newest Windows currently available so you can't really compare it with an old linux kernel and the Mac OS. In fact its more comparable with WMA, QT, Quickdraw, OpenGL, ..."
First, Vista is based on Windows Server 2003, not XP.
Second, try this on for size:
Before Mac OS Tiger was released, the following could have been uttered by a malcontent such as yourself:
"Tiger is not based on new code, but is a glorified Panther. Also, Panther is not old, it's not 5 years of age, it's brand new, it's the newest Mac OS currently available so you can't really compare it with an old linux kernel. SO THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR APPLE NOT TO BACKPORT SPOTLIGHT AND GADGETS TO PANTHER!! APPLE IS FORCING UPGRADES!!"
The above is true, but you guys ejaculated over the Tiger specs, without any demands that Apple backport Spotlight and Gadgets to Panther, which could've been done quite easily.
The point is, 90% of new features in a new OS could be backported to the previous version of the OS, be that OS WIndows, Mac, Linux, or whatever. So why are you bitching that Microsoft isn't backporting everything to XP when you give Apple, et al, a free pass? And actually, Microsoft is backporting more of Vista's features to XP than Apple, et al, has ever done regarding their OSes.
Let me know when Apple backports Spotlight to OSX 10.3 and earlier. That would be *much* easier than backporting DirectX10 to XP, yet you didn't bitch about Apple not supporting its Panther users, did you?
Why don't MSFT simple submit a proposal to extend OpenGL in a open way?
Why *should* they? And don't answer with some ideological doctrine, give a *practical* reason why Microsoft should do what you propose. DirectX has been wildly successful without any submissions to extend OpenGL.
What's really "funny" is that people (slashdotters and their ilk) criticize Microsoft when they backport tech from Vista to XP, saying, "Well, there's no reason to buy Vista then". Yet when Microsoft doesn't backport tech from Vista to XP (like DirectX 10), you guys still bitch.
Which is it? Do you want Vista tech backported to XP or do you want Microsoft to keep Vista tech exclusive to Vista?
"Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted."
Microsoft has never been convicted of a "crime", and so are not "criminals", and you have no evidence of "paying huge bribes". I didn't bother reading the rest of your drivel. And what buffoon modded your garbage as "insightful"? Please...
Or, perhaps their is no "proper documentation" that would satisfy the EU. They don't *want* to be satisfied because they want their payday.
Why does the EU refuse to say what's wrong with the documentation that's been provided so far? Documentation of APIs is an interactive process. An entity provides documentation, developers give feedback as to its shortcomings, the entity responds by updating the documentation accordingly, and so on. I've seen both Apple's and Microsoft's api documentation evolve over the years, as they're updated/corrected to make things clearer, in response to feedback from the devs.
The EU refused to provide such feedback, so there's no clear way for Microsoft to know what the problem is.
Here's what's happened so far:
MS: Here's the documentation you asked for.
EU: It sucks.
MS: What's wrong with it?
EU: That's for us to know and for you to find out.
MS: Whatever... Here, we'll provide 500 free hours of tech support for any dev that doesn't understand the documentation.
EU: Not good enough.
MS: OK, we'll here's the source code too.
EU: Not good enough.
MS: If you tell us what's wrong with the original documentation, we'll address the problems.
EU: Not good enough, prepare to be fined, suckers!!
It's sad that slashdot, generally speaking, supports such government shakedowns. Be careful what you wish for; you think that the EU isn't salivating over Google's cash? Or Red Hat's? Or Apple's? Or that of any of the companies that you guys have wet dreams about? Once you open the door to government shakedowns with no clear way for the persecuted company to comply, you open the door for everyone.
And why is WMP still an issue? Microsoft already complied with the WMP ruling, by providing XP N (which consumers soundly rejected). And Microsoft already settled its differences with Real, so why is the EU still pushing that issue? Oh, that's right, the chance to get fat off of levying hefty fines.
"I agree with some laws and disagree with others. There is no hypocrisy in that."
The hypocrisy is that in one case, your side uses the "They broke the law" argument as used as a final, end of discussion tactic, yet fail to allow such a tactic when it comes to anti-piracy laws and the like.
"If you have an argument as to why you think the antitrust laws being enforced are unethical, lets here it... "
There are many problems with anti-trust law. For one thing, the European version outright sucks. In the US, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect the consumer" (by providing healthy environment for competition). Before a company can be punished, it must be shown that the *consumer* has been harmed, not just that a competitor has been. But in Europe, the antitrust laws are meant to "protect competitors", regardless of whether consumers have been hurt. Indeed, if punishing a company helps a competitor but actually hurts consumers, the EU will still go through with the punishment. That is stupid.
The other problem with antitrust law is the ex-post-facto nature of it, whereby you can be accused of abusing your monopoly by actions that took place years before you were actually declared to have a monopoly. This means that before you're declared to have a monopoly in a certain market, you have to second-guess everything you do, for fear that a single person in a black robe *might* at some point in the future declare that you had a monopoly at some time in the past. You can't run a business that way, sorry.
Lastly, the EC itself is screwed up, as they provide no due process when coming to their decisions. You're not allowed to face your accusers and secret evidence is employed (that you can't refute, what with the being "secret" and all). (The EC refuses to provide the documentation on why their "expert" has found that the provided documentation, 500 hours of free support, and the actual source code are insufficient,so Microsoft has no way to cross-examine the "expert" nor any guidance on how to address the "expert"'s problems.) The EC has no proper court proceedings, no nothing. Kafka would be proud. Once the decision is made, you can appeal to a real court, but by then, the damage has been done.
"The problem is, MS doesn't want their illegal actions stopped in any way so they keep providing solutions that either don't do that or which are completely different from what is asked and seem to address similar concerns, but without having any real impact on the problem."
What, exactly, is the "illegal action" in this case? Creating a non-open network protocol between windows clients and windows servers? Thats it? That doesn't exactly rate high on the "evil" scale. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill; you guys act like Microsoft is using slave-wage labor in sweatshops, polluting the Mississippi River, slaughtering baby seals, or some such. Get some perspective.
I don't think that Microsoft is going to "call their bluff" (whatever that might mean in this case), but if the "the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.", there's no way in HELL that the Bush administration would not retaliate by doing the same with regard to European properties in the US. If the EU really wants to start a trade war, their going to be in some difficulty, their economy is in much worse shape than the US's.
I also question whether even the WTO would allow the EU to take the action that you prescribe.
Lastly, such action would be the death knell of Linux.
"Ok...and who knows the personal hell that Bill Gates brought forth into the lives of ex-employees who worked for the MANY companies (and products) that Microsoft bought, and promptly killed."
Please enumerate the companies that Microsoft "bought, and promptly killed". That's not Microsoft's MO, that's Oracle's.
"Or how about being one of the people working at Apple, Corel, Fox Pro, IBM, Lotus etc. who lost their jobs after the MS monopoly illegally (check your facts) pushed their products (in most cases SUPERIOR products) out of the market."
Please enumerate the products that the "Microsoft monopoly illegally pushed out of the market". Note that the government is still allowing IE to be shipped with Windows, so it's clearly not illegal. So you'll have to come up with something besides Netscape. Besides IE and WMP, the apps bundled with Microsoft's "monopoly" product are low-end applets, not competitors of full-featured apps. What, are you worried about the "Calculator" market?
Even among the companies you list, what products of theirs were "illegally pushed out of the market"?
No product of Apple's was pushed out. (And don't suggest Mac OS, because Judge Jackson ruled that Mac OS is in a different market altogether.)
IBM? What product of theirs was illegally pushed out by a monopoly? OS/2? Windows wasn't a monpoly back then.
Lotus? Microsoft's Lotus-competitors aren't bundled with Microsoft's monopoly product, so you can't count them.
Corel? Microsoft did nothing regardign Corel's main product, their Draw apps. WordPerfect was run into the ground by Novel before Corel bought them, and Word isn't bundled with Microsoft's monopoly product anyway, so WordPerferct wasn't pushed out by monopoly tactics either.
Fox Pro? Microsoft bought Fox Pro and still sells it.
And where did you get the idea that the competitors had "in most cases SUPERIOR products"? I remember Microsoft winning the review comparisons regarding Excel vs Lotus, Word vs WordPerfect, Office vs Lotus Smart Suite, etc, from about 1992 onward.
"Please...if destroying peoples lives isn't evil, what is?"
Somehow, I really doubt that God will come down on Gates for bundling a browser in an OS. Get some perspective. If you want to see examples of real corporate "evil", check out I.G. Farben, Enron, polluters, corporations that use Asian sweatshops, corporations that get fat off of free labor, etc.
"The way I see it, it's only a matter of time before they get sick of feeling stupid, realize that a lot of problems they live with are the fault of the OS or application and not their own. I give it five years or a major MS screwup, whichever comes first. Either way, the ill will toward MS is simmering and will eventually boil over.
It's only a matter of time."
LOL
Slashdot - where wishful thinking passes as objective analysis.
BTW, saying "It's only a matter of time" is a huge cop out. You can say that about almost anything.
"I'm not at all sure that I trust the B&MG Foundation to spend their money in a way that would be selected by the masses."
You don't "trust" the Gates Foundation to spend their money as you would see fit? Well, whoop-dee-doo!
Wow, I knew that slashdotters were an arrogant lot (you know, the whole "I know everything there is to know about tech, I'm God's gift to the tech industry, I look down upon anyone that accepts money for programming, blah blah blah" mindset), but to question how others go about their own charitable work? That is the height of arrogance. Look, I know it's very painful for you Gates haters to hear about his charitable work, but grow up. I really doubt that Gates gives a damn whether you "trust" they way he donates money to various causes. If you haven't contributed to the foundation, then it's not your place to "trust" the way it's spent, as it's none of your business. You don't like the causes that Gates contributes to? Then don't contribute to his foundation, simple. Good grief.
Very evil people quite often do a lot of good things at the same time.
Wow, if you think that Bill Gates qualifies as "very evil", they you really need to get out more and get some perspective.
Huh?
Let's make the question more concrete. According to one of the above posters, "The Gates Foundation is already saving the lives of thousands of children a year though throwing millions at the "low hanging fruit" of easily preventable deaths from things like diarrhea". How many lives of children has the CEOs of RedHat, et al, saved from disease? (Let's see if you're so quick to come back with a meaningless pithy answer this time.)
Is the average Linux advocate really this pathetic and sad?
No.
The average Linux *fanboy* (not advocate) is really this pathetic and sad. And sadly, we've got a lot of such fanboys running around on this web site, so slashdot naturally has to play up this pathetic story. CNN called it right when they declared Slashdot as irrelevant.
Those Microsoft network products have been discontinued. Those web pages now only serve the purpose of providing support for those that purchased the products in the past. As the products have been continued, Microsoft wouldn't use them to build a wireless LAN.
Microsoft stopped selling the MS network gear a few years ago. A shame, since it was better than DLink's stuff and the like. I don't know if those old MS routers ran XP Embedded or not (highly doubtful), but today, there are no routers available that run any form of Windows.
I'd guess that Apple's Airport BaseStations don't run OSX either.
MSN used to return "jibber-jabber" because they didn't have their own search engine. I think the engine they used was licensed from Yahoo, but I'm not sure. Only in the last two years, did MSN search start using a Microsoft-developed search engine.
Opera (which seems to be above criticism on /.) does the same thing. And it's because by convention, the "default" action (i.e. the left-click action) should be on top. Right-click on almost any icon in Windows Explorer, and you'll see the left-click action on top and in bold.
A video regarding the "Microsoft Robotics Studio" was released at Channel 9 today.5 74
http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=206
I think if IE was a decent standards compliant browser with good features like Firefox, most people wouldn't care about it being bundled in with MS Windows or having a large user share.
Complete bullshit.
At the time of the DOJ trial, IE was *more* standards compliant than Netscape, had *more* features, and was just better, period. This is widely acknowledged. That didn't stop people of your ilk from whining about IE being bundled with Windows, so just stop the revisionism.
I imagine people will have a copy itunes installed on their machine along with whatever Microsoft has.
I agree that people with have iTunes on their machine, even if they don't care about playing/organizing digital music. The reason many people have iTunes is that Apple has tied QuickTime player to iTunes. There's a lot of QuickTime movies on the web, and in order to watch those movies, you need QuickTime player (Apple refuses to provide a DirectShow QuickTime codec which would allow WMP (and other DirectShow compliant players) to play QT movies). The thing is, you can't install QT Player without installing iTunes. QT Player and iTunes come in one bundle (the iTunes bundle), and there's no way to get QT player separately from iTunes.