It's great! Bill Gates really sounds like some kind of whiny Borg. Nothing he says is on topic, and he walks into a trap by saying 'Windows regularly incorporates new features, such as...'. After a pause, he says, "a graphical interface, and internet features built into the operating system!"
And yeah, the strange, incessant typing sounds in the background. Is he typing and talking at the same time?
I read all the comments w/ ratings>2 (54) and noticed they all left out 1 thing: MS's actions. We're all used to speculating on the industry and saying if MS is a monopoly by whether it's in a good position. What Judge Jackson says here is that MS commited criminal acts to prevent competition and stifle development of threatening software. (He shows a good amount of technical knowledge in the process, too.) I'm not a lawyer, but does MS need to be proven to have too big a slice of the pie, or do they need to be proven guilty of committing anticompetitive acts (manipulating Apple, etc.). I think that the actions MS is capable of committing is a much more accurate indicator of their monopoly than whether Linux is a fringe operating sys, or whether small OSs have the capacity to dethrone Win. What Jackson says is that he thinks even if they could, MS would actively prevent them, and nothing threatens the source of power that MS draws on to do that. If companies bundled another OS with their machines in significant amounts, Windows would be free to the consumer.
Yeah, but the breakup of ma bells was purely regional. The product was not affected. With an MS breakup, the different products would have to be developed separately by different companies. The secret API backdoors that MS uses to make its software perform better than anyone else's could not be used by the MS Office Company. It would be easy to check for use of backdoors with a programming utility. I'm not a lawyer, but I figure if a backdoor is being used that's similar to price fixing - it's anticompetitive conspiring between companies. So, while the Baby MS's would have better resources (assuming MS's stock doesn't totally crash between now and the verdict, which it probably will) they would be limited by a breakup. It would be much easier for third parties to get competitive software out.
--you better sell your stock fast!--
no unbiased benchmarks
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
Don't think Intel + AMD don't rig their benchmarks too. There are no unbiased benchmarks, because anyone who is going through the trouble (or even has enough knowledge of the processor) will be biased. (though with Photoshop marks, PowerPC processors have long been leaders) How about the/.mark?
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of find it strange that no one mentions financial news from the Be world...
Last week, their stock dropped from the 8-range to the low-6 range. Just today, it rebounded completely. Does anyone know why?
It's great! Bill Gates really sounds like some kind of whiny Borg. Nothing he says is on topic, and he walks into a trap by saying 'Windows regularly incorporates new features, such as...'. After a pause, he says, "a graphical interface, and internet features built into the operating system!"
And yeah, the strange, incessant typing sounds in the background. Is he typing and talking at the same time?
I read all the comments w/ ratings>2 (54) and noticed they all left out 1 thing: MS's actions. We're all used to speculating on the industry and saying if MS is a monopoly by whether it's in a good position. What Judge Jackson says here is that MS commited criminal acts to prevent competition and stifle development of threatening software. (He shows a good amount of technical knowledge in the process, too.) I'm not a lawyer, but does MS need to be proven to have too big a slice of the pie, or do they need to be proven guilty of committing anticompetitive acts (manipulating Apple, etc.). I think that the actions MS is capable of committing is a much more accurate indicator of their monopoly than whether Linux is a fringe operating sys, or whether small OSs have the capacity to dethrone Win. What Jackson says is that he thinks even if they could, MS would actively prevent them, and nothing threatens the source of power that MS draws on to do that. If companies bundled another OS with their machines in significant amounts, Windows would be free to the consumer.
Yeah, but the breakup of ma bells was purely regional. The product was not affected.
With an MS breakup, the different products would have to be developed separately by different companies. The secret API backdoors that MS uses to make its software perform better than anyone else's could not be used by the MS Office Company. It would be easy to check for use of backdoors with a programming utility. I'm not a lawyer, but I figure if a backdoor is being used that's similar to price fixing - it's anticompetitive conspiring between companies.
So, while the Baby MS's would have better resources (assuming MS's stock doesn't totally crash between now and the verdict, which it probably will) they would be limited by a breakup. It would be much easier for third parties to get competitive software out.
--you better sell your stock fast!--
Don't think Intel + AMD don't rig their benchmarks too. There are no unbiased benchmarks, because anyone who is going through the trouble (or even has enough knowledge of the processor) will be biased. (though with Photoshop marks, PowerPC processors have long been leaders) How about the /.mark?