No, you are wrong on this, it is actually a status in competition law you are awarded.
Not like in a criminal court, more like in "He is an alcoholic".
And of course there is a political aspect and a bit of history. You get pardoned one time, administration plays nice. You behaved like an idiot and went ballistic against them, used any ruthless method available. They will never let you get away that easy again. Microsoft has to change its attitude, change its compliance with the law and get real.
Or European Institutions will go and slaughter them. And if Opera says, put him in jail, he stole my chewing gum, administration will say, thanks for the complaint, let's do that with the thief.
In Brussels Microsoft negotiated far too hard. Now they get the bill.
Well, it works like that: The EU ordered them to remove it and Microsoft negotiated the most riddiculous method of compliance and the Commission didn't go further.
Instead of accepting the great deal as it was Microsoft continued to get ballistic against the European Commission and sue the Commissionn because of the deal before the ECJ.
The deal you make fun of is an expression that the Commission played nice with Microsoft. They will never do that again.
Funny. If your operating system Windows isn't shipped only with IE your OEM ships it e.g. with Chrome or with Firefox and Opera.
Problem solved. Equal conditions for everyone including IE. Monopoly abuse is when you abuse one monopolistic market situation, e.g. Windows to get another monopoly, i.e. IE at the expense of competitors.
Well, actually there is enough burned soil in Europe. The more Microsoft plays against the rules and escalates the more the Commission will take action. Microsoft cannot win this. You just cannot behave like the American company did in Brussels. They probably didn't even notice what their lobby guns did there to undermine their reputation.
In Brussels Microsoft has the reputation of beeing the tobacco of ICT.
Look in this case it is more like they have their criminal and have a reason, a formal reason to imprison him. It is like Al Capone and the tax authorities.
Microsoft went ballistic against EU institutions and opted for a burned soil scenario. If you negotiate that hard and fool administration it will fight back and they will stab you in the back without mercy. This is exactly what is happening now.
The Opera complaint was cheap but fun. So they make some fuzz. Note that the Commission is in the lame duck period so they actually do what they always wanted to do and slap ruthless lobbyists in the face. In the end playing evil could pay off, this time for the Commission.
Suum cuique.
Look what Commissioner Reding is doing now with the Telcos, fixed price for roaming. The Telco lobbyists slaughtered her Telcom directive package and the content mafia also took advantage of it. Now the leaving Commissioner places some bomb traps for them.
Because administration needs to educate companies that just don't behave. Microsoft, Exxon and Tobacco lobbying is about to crater. They crossed the line.
Well in this case it is more a minister who is not in charge and had a bad but populistic idea. Others had the idea before. And indeed her objective is to save the children. The objective for tehcnologists is to fight back with technological means, for instance freifunk. The reason why it took 15 years until we got these laws is that recently the content mafia rallied behind the filters and the internet network providers are still too weak and dumb in lobbying the legislator. Further the lead of the internet technologist elites is slipping away as the internet gets business as usual and is not the hypergeeky thing anymore.
The netbooks run XP. A cool device with a old operating system that happens to be more reliable than Vista. XP which they wanted to abandon customer support for. XP which is good enough for most users.
Linux based netbook systems will beat windows xp because they will look better and be more modern. It is just a matter of time when hardware manufacturers will realize that Xandros was a poor choice and you need to focus on performance.
It is less useless than it used to be. Now you can simply always add the latest version to your repositories. Progress is beeing made and bugs happen to get resolved over time.
All that is needed basically is more Wine development. Wine development does not scale very well. The future will be probably dedicated development. E.g. a team that will just work on getting a popular application X work and is funded to make sure the application does not break under wine and all bugs get smashed. I guess many users would be willing to pay 20$ to fund a stable running of MS Office 2003 under Wine. Some software manufacturers can find it useful to make their applications run unter Wine or issue bounties.
I also believe that governments should find ways to crossfinance Wine as to get more flexibility and reduce exit-costs for Windows infrastrutures of their markets and pressure Microsoft to fully lay open application interface documentation.
Hacks should not be required at all. It is necessary to make Windows applications run out of the box.
It is the year of "Desktop Indifference". It doesn't matter anymore which operating system you run for the desktop of the future. Exit costs are getting lower. It is natural now for new software to support Mac and Linux users as it is coded platform independent.
We will see new Linux desktops as LXDE or XFCE gain ground that focus on key functionality and simplicity. 2009 is also the year when KDE4 gets usable.
You have to ask for preferential treatment of open source in public procurement policies and linux migration and you will get open standard support and discounts offered for free by the Microsoft lobby. Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.
Microsoft will escalate and burn when you come up with these proposals but the fuzz they make to combat your policies would trigger a domino effect. So they have to compromise.
Well, ask a public institution to finance a minor research project on Office Productivity and use it to finance OpenOffice development and you get 50 fresh engineers to work on the code. Novell is in the hands of Microsoft now.
We spent billions on tanks and rockets and the liberation of nations, why can't we invest minor money to overcome MS Office dependencies? The dependency on Office is more dangerous as the dependency on oil.
It is a battle the government needs to take on. Office software should be a commodity. Individuals cannot beat the "standard" and have to pay overpriced license fees. A more powerful institution needs to solve the problem and overcome the lock-in.
In this case it is a matter of competition law and if the school is a public institution it has to comply with those requirements. The school gets a problem, the teacher get more trouble. This would teach him a lesson about vendor neutrality!
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are wrong on this, it is actually a status in competition law you are awarded.
Not like in a criminal court, more like in "He is an alcoholic".
And of course there is a political aspect and a bit of history. You get pardoned one time, administration plays nice. You behaved like an idiot and went ballistic against them, used any ruthless method available. They will never let you get away that easy again. Microsoft has to change its attitude, change its compliance with the law and get real.
Or European Institutions will go and slaughter them. And if Opera says, put him in jail, he stole my chewing gum, administration will say, thanks for the complaint, let's do that with the thief.
In Brussels Microsoft negotiated far too hard. Now they get the bill.
Well, it works like that:
The EU ordered them to remove it and Microsoft negotiated the most riddiculous method of compliance and the Commission didn't go further.
Instead of accepting the great deal as it was Microsoft continued to get ballistic against the European Commission and sue the Commissionn because of the deal before the ECJ.
The deal you make fun of is an expression that the Commission played nice with Microsoft. They will never do that again.
Firefox is no monopoly. The issues at hand is cascading monopolies, abuse of a monopolist position.
Windows is a convicted monopoly and bundling of a product as IE limits the business for Opera. Very simple.
Or: What market share would you expect for IE if users would be able to chose between firefox and IE and IE didn't come preinstalled on most machines?
Funny. If your operating system Windows isn't shipped only with IE your OEM ships it e.g. with Chrome or with Firefox and Opera.
Problem solved. Equal conditions for everyone including IE. Monopoly abuse is when you abuse one monopolistic market situation, e.g. Windows to get another monopoly, i.e. IE at the expense of competitors.
You can't really remove IE from Windows unless you code a 100% compatible (not 99.9999%) replacement library which will seamlessly work.
This is not about the libraries but the applications you run as a user.
Well actually it is not that way. If Microsoft lobbyists continue to act on the Brussels stage like idiots things will only get worse.
Microsoft breaks the European rules of dealing with administrations. Fine. But it should not be surprised to run into trouble.
Well, actually there is enough burned soil in Europe. The more Microsoft plays against the rules and escalates the more the Commission will take action. Microsoft cannot win this. You just cannot behave like the American company did in Brussels. They probably didn't even notice what their lobby guns did there to undermine their reputation.
In Brussels Microsoft has the reputation of beeing the tobacco of ICT.
Look in this case it is more like they have their criminal and have a reason, a formal reason to imprison him. It is like Al Capone and the tax authorities.
Microsoft went ballistic against EU institutions and opted for a burned soil scenario. If you negotiate that hard and fool administration it will fight back and they will stab you in the back without mercy. This is exactly what is happening now.
The Opera complaint was cheap but fun. So they make some fuzz. Note that the Commission is in the lame duck period so they actually do what they always wanted to do and slap ruthless lobbyists in the face. In the end playing evil could pay off, this time for the Commission.
Suum cuique.
Look what Commissioner Reding is doing now with the Telcos, fixed price for roaming. The Telco lobbyists slaughtered her Telcom directive package and the content mafia also took advantage of it. Now the leaving Commissioner places some bomb traps for them.
Because administration needs to educate companies that just don't behave. Microsoft, Exxon and Tobacco lobbying is about to crater. They crossed the line.
KBasic is VB compatible, a German product and it is GPL3
*fish*
Well in this case it is more a minister who is not in charge and had a bad but populistic idea. Others had the idea before. And indeed her objective is to save the children. The objective for tehcnologists is to fight back with technological means, for instance freifunk. The reason why it took 15 years until we got these laws is that recently the content mafia rallied behind the filters and the internet network providers are still too weak and dumb in lobbying the legislator. Further the lead of the internet technologist elites is slipping away as the internet gets business as usual and is not the hypergeeky thing anymore.
Yes, a court case, where you get precedence decision. I wonder if some competitors may be interested to finance the case.
proof me wrong.
The netbooks run XP. A cool device with a old operating system that happens to be more reliable than Vista. XP which they wanted to abandon customer support for. XP which is good enough for most users.
Linux based netbook systems will beat windows xp because they will look better and be more modern. It is just a matter of time when hardware manufacturers will realize that Xandros was a poor choice and you need to focus on performance.
It is less useless than it used to be. Now you can simply always add the latest version to your repositories. Progress is beeing made and bugs happen to get resolved over time.
All that is needed basically is more Wine development. Wine development does not scale very well. The future will be probably dedicated development. E.g. a team that will just work on getting a popular application X work and is funded to make sure the application does not break under wine and all bugs get smashed. I guess many users would be willing to pay 20$ to fund a stable running of MS Office 2003 under Wine. Some software manufacturers can find it useful to make their applications run unter Wine or issue bounties.
I also believe that governments should find ways to crossfinance Wine as to get more flexibility and reduce exit-costs for Windows infrastrutures of their markets and pressure Microsoft to fully lay open application interface documentation.
Hacks should not be required at all. It is necessary to make Windows applications run out of the box.
Asus ist looking to switch to LXDE as Mandriva has done. However, they contracted MS-Xandros for the operating system.
US == Economy by Ponzi? Show me your evidence.
It is the year of "Desktop Indifference". It doesn't matter anymore which operating system you run for the desktop of the future. Exit costs are getting lower. It is natural now for new software to support Mac and Linux users as it is coded platform independent.
We will see new Linux desktops as LXDE or XFCE gain ground that focus on key functionality and simplicity. 2009 is also the year when KDE4 gets usable.
You have to ask for preferential treatment of open source in public procurement policies and linux migration and you will get open standard support and discounts offered for free by the Microsoft lobby. Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.
Microsoft will escalate and burn when you come up with these proposals but the fuzz they make to combat your policies would trigger a domino effect. So they have to compromise.
Have you tried Adobe buzzword? It is beta quality software but features real innovation and a better user experience.
Well, ask a public institution to finance a minor research project on Office Productivity and use it to finance OpenOffice development and you get 50 fresh engineers to work on the code. Novell is in the hands of Microsoft now.
We spent billions on tanks and rockets and the liberation of nations, why can't we invest minor money to overcome MS Office dependencies? The dependency on Office is more dangerous as the dependency on oil.
DocX? The one and only Open XML.
It is a battle the government needs to take on. Office software should be a commodity. Individuals cannot beat the "standard" and have to pay overpriced license fees. A more powerful institution needs to solve the problem and overcome the lock-in.
In this case it is a matter of competition law and if the school is a public institution it has to comply with those requirements. The school gets a problem, the teacher get more trouble. This would teach him a lesson about vendor neutrality!