|
|
| Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST
|
While Dark Darl hints that -- despite admittedly having zero proof in hand -- he believes Linux enthusiasts are attacking his company, there are indications that after a 4-year investigation into the facts of the case, a guilty verdict is expected soon from the European Commission in their investigation of Microsoft. The EC reportedly thinks Sir Bill has been a naughty boy and reports are coming in that his company is going to be declared guilty of anticompetitive behavior: While the ruling is still in its draft phase, and details of any final decision are yet to be made public, all the signs are that it won't be going Microsoft's way. The EU's Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, has been touting the draft resolution over the Windows Media Player dispute around various departments in the EC -- which EU commentators believe rarely happens in cases where antitrust cases go in the company's favour. Fines are predicted although it's also possible that continuing negotiations could resolve the matter, according to the Guardian: . . .leaks from the document to various European media suggest the commission may fine Microsoft and force it to make sweeping changes to its Windows software. Microsoft could be fined up to $3bn, although in practice the figure is likely to be lower.
Negotiations between the two parties are still under way, and they could end amicably. "We're doing what we can to come to some amicable settlement," Microsoft founder Bill Gates said last weekend in Davos, Switzerland.
The commission's primary allegation is that Microsoft designed Windows 2000 to function better with the company's own servers in order to squeeze out rivals and that the firm is withholding vital information to prevent competitors remedying the situation.
It also alleges that the group's decision to "bundle" its Media Player software with Windows gives it an advantage over rivals. It is therefore widely expected to demand that the software be "unbundled" and sold separately.
Once the EU decision is final, it will be possible for individual countries to bring their own antitrust suits against Microsoft.
Techworld adds these details: The draft ruling says that the failure to grant rivals access to Windows computer code, which runs on over 95 percent of the world's personal computers, is an abuse of Microsoft's dominant position, and it proposes ordering the company to reveal the code to rivals, said one person on condition of anonymity. The Commission is the European Union's (EU's) executive body.
The source said the draft ruling also finds Microsoft guilty of stifling competition in the media-playing software market. The company's own software, called Media Player, is bundled into Windows, giving it an advantage over rival products such as RealNetworks's Real Player.
However, the EC source said the draft ruling stopped short of demanding the total separation of Media Player from Windows. "The Commission doesn't appear to be pushing for the total unbundling of Media Player from Windows," the source added.
Instead, the person said the Commission will order Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without Media Player included, alongside the bundled version currently on sale.
On the home front, you'll be amazed and shocked to learn that Microsoft's "independent analysts" on its new "Get the Facts About Windows and Linux" page were commissioned by Microsoft, according to this investigative report by Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Microsoft Corp. is touting the results of "independent analyses" in its latest effort to show corporate decision-makers the merits of its Windows operating system vs. Linux, its biggest open-source competitor.
The studies were, in fact, performed by well-known, independent research firms such as IDC, Giga Research and Meta Group. But the reports themselves tell the rest of the story: They were conducted "at the request of Microsoft," "commissioned by Microsoft" or "prepared under contract from Microsoft."
Microsoft, in other words, paid for the studies to be done.
Some analysts say that doesn't meet the definition of "independent." Microsoft says it does. Well, now, if you bump into an aging friend at a restaurant and she introduces you to a man she calls her fiance and he is showering her with attention and compliments all evening, and later you find out she had to pay the man to take her out to dinner and all, how do you feel? That she is pitiful? Obviously. What do you think about her honesty? And how do you take all the praise the man was heaping on her all night? Similarly, if the only way a company can get anyone to say nice things about them is to pay them cold, hard cash, it's just not the same as unsolicited praise. And how much do you trust the "independent" analysis? Here's the detail I like the best: the "Get the Facts on Windows and Linux" site doesn't indicate that the "independent analysts" were commissioned, but if you download the individual reports some reveal it: The Web site itself makes no reference to funding for the eight third-party studies it cites. But several of the studies, available for free download from the site, indicate in their text that Microsoft funded them. The other funny part is that apparently some analysts interviewed thought being paid by the company you are analyzing constitutes "independent analysis". How very 1984 Newspeakish.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST |
| Typical, typical, typical.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:11 PM EST |
3 billion Euros or the proprietry protocols and file formats?
I would hazard that Microsofts negotiations might be to avoid enforced
disclosure of interoperability information, as they undoubtedly know they don't
have a hope in hell of competing in a truly fair market against Open Source
projects.
I for one hope that the EU orders the opening of the file formats and protocols
- mainly because MS would in all likelyhood withdraw from the EU market and
Linux on desktop would explode :)
---
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:18 PM EST |
it's no surprise that microsoft has alot problem on its' hands.
1) nightmare of linux surrounding microsoft
2)alot anti-trust lawsuit
3) users migrate to other OS from microsoft due to lack of
security.
Let me be reasonable with microsoft that their fact is not
accurate... if you want to talk about linux, are you talking
about linux kernel, or any other various of distro? that
analysis lead me to believes it is not accurate enough and
is wrong. comment?
---
Sincerely,
Richard M.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:18 PM EST |
Even if the studies were totally honest and unbiased, there's still a problem:
Since Microsoft paid for them, they get to decide which ones to publish. The
good ones go up on the website, and the not-so-good ones go in a filing
cabinet.
Proper scientific method requires that *all* experimental results be recorded
and published. Being selective in one's reporting is one of the oldest known
kinds of scientific cheating.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:32 PM EST |
Anyone remember the comparison Microsoft did with Win95 and OS/2???
They striped the OS/2 machine down to a bare minimum, and the Win95 machine had
double the system requirements ie; RAM, CPU, etc...
This was nearly 10 years ago, funny how Microsoft hasn't changed...
Well they succeeded in killing OS/2, now IBM is backing Linux...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:35 PM EST |
Ah, Microsoft. The company we love to hate...
BTW, did you know Microsoft applied for patent(s) on their new XML format of
word processing documents in Australia, New Zealand and Europe? Yes, that is
what Microsoft calls "open". If they get those patents (and knowing
the stupdity of Australian patent system, I'm sure they will), they can prevent
you from using your own documents completely. In other words, these document are
in the "open" XML format. Open to Microsoft, that is.
Oh, and BTW, Microsoft is a W3C member. You know, the people that created the
XML specification and all. Now, I'm sure W3C had better interoperability in
mind when they did that. Never mind, Microsoft knows better. After all, Sir Bill
is known as an honest person. We should all trust him, right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License - Authored by: lpletch on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:20 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:30 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:34 AM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:08 PM EST
- Aussie S/W Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:29 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:35 AM EST
- Patenting XML and anti-trust - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:52 AM EST
- Open == closed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST
- Office 2003 XML Schema - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:33 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:39 PM EST |
| This one is Great.
Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove
that multiple Windows Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting
as a Web server consolidator.
Emphasis
Added
---
lpletch@adelphia.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: athelas on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST |
I don't see any reason for an analyst who respects their client to give a fair,
unbiased report. I presume that that is how they stay in business, by telling
people not what they want, but what they need to hear. That's what I would
want if a paid good money for a rewiew.
The problem comes, as admitted in the report, when the results are allowed to be
published. And whether M$ used them honorably? I'm not even going to go
there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:59 PM EST |
Re: EU investigation.
Although a fine is expected, an appeal from MS is also
expected. Does this mean it could be another 5+ years
before they pay any penalties?
Likewise an EU requirement to force MS to offer a 2nd
stripped down version, will just cause MS to call it
something like MS-XP Lite with a warning that has reduced
functionality. What consumer or IT manager would risk
buying a broken OS.
Finally, regarding links to allow greater
interoperability. Thats fine for connecting to a corporate
server, but what if core services had an external
component, say at MS HQ.
Judge Jackson got the penalty right. When a company has
gone this far rogue, the best option is to remove their
ill gotten gains (IE) and cut the company in two. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST |
I must preface this statement with a few facts.
(1) I use Linux on my personal computers.
(2) I have installed numerous (more than 100) Linux servers in my lifetime.
(3) I am in No way supporting the bully-tactics of Microsoft.
That being said, lets all remember ~1980. Remember all the different standards
and interfaces. We were loading programs from tape decks, and each computer was
an entirely different interface.
Unix had little more than a cursory familiarity with any Dos, and each Dos was a
proprietary system designed with the proprietary hardware of the manufacturer.
Then came MSDos. It wasn't from the hard work of Microsoft. They purchased
someone else's software (I wonder if they got the copyrights in that deal...
heh), but they pitched to IBM, and they got the deal.
Remember, good citizens, when there was "IBM Compatible" and
"Everyone Else?" Tandy, aka RadioShack introduced their computer,
and was sued by IBM for copyright infringement? I'm not sure of the specifics,
but I remember the fall-out.
Soon after came IBM allowing their design out, and following a new path to PS/2
hell. Hey, everyone makes mistakes.
But the important part here is the production of "IBM Compatible"
machines, all able to use the MSDos product.
There were so many different versions of Dos, but all but MSDos's efforts were
in vain (with the notable exception of Caldera's Dr. Dos, at least in a way).
This was NOT a bad thing. Suddenly, people were able to produce a single
version of their software, and it could run on more than a single manufactures
machine, and not inside of some language interpreter, like Basic.
Then came the horrible news. Microsoft was going to create a Graphical User
Interface. Previously, Xerox had commissioned a report from the brightest minds
in their respective industries to try to predict the "paperless
office", obviously, from Xerox's perspective, their greatest fear.
The experts created a mouse navigated graphical interface that made the access
and utilization of information much easier. Xerox saw little value to the
system they developed, and were not shy to show Bill Gates AND Steve Jobs their
results. Both had taken note.
Steve jobs went right away to create the Apple computer, again using the old
formula of proprietary hardware + proprietary OS = how it is done.
Bill, perhaps showing his greatest (possibly only) moment of ingenuity, went
after someone else's hardware, similar to how he had purchased (licensed?)
someone else's software, and thus was assured a large market share.
Back to the GUI, Bill hadn't forgotten his visit to Xerox, and he knew that
Steve Jobs was already making such an interface, so he took what he could from
his memory, added a few proprietary (two mouse buttons, anyone?) details, and
released Windows onto the world.
I can hear the boo's and hiss'es from here. But remember, it was THIS point
that has done the most for consolidating and standardizing software AND hardware
in the history of computing.
Windows was accepted, and its dos shell sort of control was at least familiar to
the users, since it did little other than give a pretty way of accessing the
programs they already were using. Also, at this point is when MS began
"Bundling" software with their OS. At the time, people clamored for
more.
I personally had made a few dos-based menu systems, and had even aded the
ability to high-light an option using the directional keys, etc, but the
addition of mouse handling is what made Windows special, and what made Microsoft
the dominant player in the OS game.
IBM later countered with OS2, another graphical mouse-based interface, and,
having been a proponent of it back then, it was and probably remains a superior
OS to just about any Microsoft OS. But it was too late. The market had already
been decided.
In this time, Microsoft created their first "server" software, and
developed the protocols to comunicate with their clients. Again, this is not
unusual. Novell used their proproetary IPX protocol, so Microsoft using
NetBEUI/NetBIOS/Whatever it was back then was pretty much par for the course.
Novell was the big player in server software, other than the main-frame systems,
etc. Microsoft made HUGE concessions to Novell to make sure their new product
would play well with the Novell environment.
Then came Windows for workgroups, aka Win3.1. Now, a small group of people
didn't NEED a server. Sure, there was no security, but those concerns took a
back seat in their attempts to take a larger bite out of the Novell market.
Microsoft released Windows95 on a world waiting with bated breath. Remember
that, folks. the vast majority of people were EXCITED to see the new future of
computers. People were HAPPY to get more "Bundled" software. We
were getting it for free, and that was a good thing. Right?
Their "NT" desktop product was their first attempt to allow for
individual computer security. Remember, this is a new thing. In the
Unix/Mainframe camp, everyone is using a dumb-terminal, so security is at the
"server" level. The other option was Novell, which, although the
individual machines were independant, the security was on the server again.
This is something that is often forgotten. Even though they didn't do it WELL,
Microsoft TRIED to create the first secure autonomous desktop computer for mass
consumption.
Again, Micrsoft had created a standard of programming, using the Dynamicly
Linked Libraries, just like the libraries on a Unix machine, that were universal
for all programs, and had to follow certain convention.
Unfortunately, this is where things turn ugly. Their DLL strucure wasn't
secure. Their "secure" OS wasn't secure, either. And the
underlying attempts to keep the machines easy to connect started to be unravel.
Remember the "Ping of Death"? How about the BSD packet killer?
Thier networking topology was immature when released, and never really became a
hardened protocol.
then things get ugly. Microsoft learns of this "internet thingy",
and decides to become the predominant player. Unfortunately, they really had
never figured out the whole "security" thing, so we end up here.
The point of this rambling recollection is to remember that Microsoft's
dominance in the market has shaped the hardware, software, and operating system
landscape of the world. Their dominance in the world has given us a few
benefits, along with their issues currently. We have Intel and AMD playing well
with each other. We take for granted the standards in hardware, but without a
consolidating force, which WAS Microsoft, even hardware could be proprietary
(winmodems and winprinters excluded).
I'm not a fan of their methods, programming or otherwise, but I do recognise
what the HAVE done for the industry.
Just thought I would remind everyone.
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: athelas on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:27 PM EST
- Innovation - Authored by: dkpatrick on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST
- Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: garbage on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:33 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST
- *Standards* are a good thing - enforced conformity is not - Authored by: SkArcher on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:48 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: seeks2know on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:02 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: lpletch on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:13 PM EST
- IBM alone created the HW standards: PC, XT, AT, and PC/2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:47 PM EST
- Mouse buttons - 1, 2, 3, many.. - Authored by: valdis on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:06 PM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: radix2 on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
- Your memory is somewhat foggy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:42 AM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:28 AM EST
- Remember when standardization was a good thing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:06 PM EST |
Do you think dicussion this is going to far outside what this site strives for?
Independant legal analysis for the good of FOSS.
I have referred multiple parties to groklaw in the hope that a balanced report
on the SCO issue would result. Bashing Microsoft on the site will give it the
flavour of zealots and fringe programmers. This is nothing short of an
excellent resource for legal issues with FOSS.
What is the strategy of this site?
What is appropriate content?
What image is it trying to give the FOSS movement?
Advocacy is a great thing, Microsoft is simply a competitor to FOSS. It is not
intrinsicly evil and it provides reasonable product at a reasonable price. It
uses a marketting department to it's advantage as many companies would given
the same situation.
I appologise for the off topic-ness of this note...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST |
PJ, you can weave a tale, I love the analogy. You aren't related to Eudora
Welty by chance, are you?
But then being a paralegal I guess you've
either heard or read about almost everything imaginable! (Except maybe the
Darlism's that pop up now and then.)
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: photocrimes on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:24 PM EST |
again,
Once again this company is proven to actually be
"guilty" of patent infringements and I don't see anyone telling us how bad the
proprietary method of IP checking is. Wonder why that is? Obviously there is a
big problem here, should we get Darl to draft us a letter about how little
commercial software companies care about IP? Call them a bunch of crooks
maybe?
Research Corporation Technologies Inc. (RCT), based in
Tucson, Arizona, had alleged that Microsoft was using its patented technologies
in its Windows and Office software products.
The technology in
question involve halftones, which are used to display images on computer screens
and to print them without distortion.
Senior U.S. District Judge
William Browning ruled on Tuesday that Microsoft had infringed on four of RCT's
patents, granting a request for summary judgment by RCT, which paves the way for
jury trial. Microsoft had opposed the summary judgment motion.
And
like SCO with the way they handle things they don't like such as the GPL, the
easiest way to work around this little disregard of others rights is to attack
the system that protects them.
"We will continue to contend that
the patents are invalid."
---
//A picture is worth a thousand words// [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:28 PM EST |
"While Dark Darl hints that -- despite admittedly having zero proof in
hand -- he believes Linux enthusiasts are attacking his company,"
The above has *what* to do with the rest of commentary? I missed something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST |
That 95% figure sure gets a lot of mileage. If Dion Cornett is correct, does
that 95% hold up these days?
Where does the figure come from? If it's tied to sales, and Linux is free, I
have my doubts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:56 PM EST |
I just want to mention that, for those who haven't reviewed CNN this evening,
two rather slanted articles which contained the typical mainstream rhetoric "SCO
owns Unix" have been updated from their original content as published this
morning.
One, at CNN/Money titled Of worms and penguins?, authored by Paul R. La Monica, has
been modified to read, "SCO Group claims to own many of the copyrights to the
Unix operating system. The company is claiming that [...]."
The second,
an article titled S
ecurity firm: MyDoom worm fastest yet, by Jeordan Legon, has similarly
been updated to read, "Utah-based SCO, which claims ownership over the UNIX
operating system, alleges some versions of the Linux operating system use its
proprietary code." This article also had the term 'expert' replaced with
'industry firm'.
I sent an angry email to CNN's editors this morning,
as no doubt several other Groklaw readers did, expressing my displeasure with
the manner in which the authors of the articles forwarded SCO's allegations as
fact.
Congratulations folks ... we can change the world![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:51 PM EST |
Enough with Microsoft.
SCO's 2003 10K was made public at SEC
weebsite. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar
/data/1102542/000104746904002142/a2127332z10-k.htm#fb1113_independent_auditors__
report. I have not read it, just peeked through. My favorite line - their
auditors was Arthur Andersen. And they mention Enron-style subsidiaries used as
'Investment write-offs'. One of the companies mentioned is 'Troll Tech' - I
wonder what they do....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST |
Oh please let the EU demand Media Player to be unbundled, let Microsoft take a
"moral" stance on the issue and stop licensing software to the
entire EU. It will be the biggest boost for Linux and Netscape in history.
-pooky
(unrealistic, yes, but what a great thought!)
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST |
... and I apologize if someone already has mentioned this (before I click
Submit).
I'm sure what the Guardian meant to say was that Microsoft's
Office 2000 was designed to work better with their server
software. Unless there's a new division of Microsoft that I haven't heard of
before, they do not sell servers. Heck, from what I hear, Microsoft doesn't make
a profit on any hardware that they're involved with (except, maybe, their
mice).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:39 PM EST |
I recently read two revealing NetworkWorld articles on Microsoft:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0119microsoft2.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0112microsoft1.html?
docid=9258
Microsoft has $51B in cash reserves and a profit of $16B in 2003. The EU
cannot stop them with a single fine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 11:46 PM EST |
| The title of this article made me think of this really silly Flash animation, Badger Badger Badger. Check it
out if you're into weirdness. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AMc on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST |
It leaps out at me just how different Microsoft is handling the EU antitrust
case in comparison to the US ones. No one is pounding the pulpit chastising the
enforced 'breaking' of Windows; no one is threatening to stop selling anything
but a hobbled version of Windows 95. Maybe they've learned and changed. Or
maybe this is just a very sad commentary on the decline of the legal system in
the US? I really wish that the 'spirit' of the law carried as much weight in
court as the 'letter' does most days.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST |
And better than ever.
Rewards, Free Virus Detection and Removal
---
lpletch@adelphia.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:58 AM EST |
"Given the enormous sums paid to Microsoft as licence fees by the
British public and private sector every year," said Curran, "it is doubtful that
he even makes a net contribution, still less an 'outstanding'
one."
http://news.z
dnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39143733,00.htm
Have to laugh!
(Y'know
- when he hears/sees "Sir Bill" everywhere, he'll probably think it's
complimentary...) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:05 AM EST |
If Microsoft (or anyone else) bought a license to use Unix/Linux from SCO is it
possible for them to use some of the Linux code in their own products? (Thus
bypassing the GPL in this way?) I assume this is not the case due to the
Copyrights on the Linux code by the individual authors, but if the
"Derivative Works" Definition is on the table, could this posibility
hold out. I have wondered about this for a while, and I just want to make sure
this is not the case.
A side thought, I understand that the Copyrights in Linux are held by the FSF
(Free Software Foundation), but have these copyrights been registered? Do they
need to be?
I'm only asking these just out of interest, and to eliminate some
posibilities.
Thanks, for everyones comments they have been very insightful.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:08 AM EST |
| Hi,
Just a minor point, but Billy CANNOT call himself Sir
Bill because he is not a British Citizen.
Quote :
Honorary
knighthoods awarded foreign nationals, such as Bob Geldof or various former US
Presidents, do not carry with them the right of the grantee to be called 'Sir',
nor do knighthoods awarded to those in holy orders.
T
his link gives more detail.
Instead, he can use the letters KBE
after his name.
This is a very important point to British People, and Yes,
it does make me sick to my stomach that he got this award. There are far more
deserving people out there.
Cheers,
Greebo [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:50 AM EST |
They're completely missing it all over again. Rather than getting so worked up
over something so trivial as Media Player, focus needs to be directed to the
arangements that have been established between the major computer manufacturers
and Microsoft. The only reason that this company is so dominant in the
marketplace is simply because people generally can NOT buy a computer without
this stuff preinstalled. Granted, I know that the situation is improving latley
with the number of small companies that are popping up who offer greater choice
to their consumers. However, when I consider the major players (IBM, HP, Dell,
Gateway, Compaq, Asus, Toshiba), I realize that we have a long way to go.
Only when hardware vendors are stopped from tying the sale of Microsoft's
products to the sale of their hardware products, will the market have an
opportunity to decide the future of Microsoft's marketshare. At that point, if
Microsoft is still able to maintain these high numbers, at least it will be
because people are consciously choosing to purchase the products.
Adam Kosmin
WindowsRefund.net
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:18 AM EST |
The document that tickles me most is....
"Windows Server 2003 far less expensive than Linux MainFrame"
I would never have thought I could do file & Print cheaper than running a
mainframe. Why didn't someone mention this before I ordered my Big Blue![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Even Cheaper ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:45 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jaydee on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:42 AM EST |
If I was Microsoft I would have commissioned a hundred reports and only released
the eight that supported the case for Windows.
You don't lie, you just weight the evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST |
I'm not personally against Microsoft bundling whatever goodies they want when I
get a Windows CD. I do not beleve that a court should decide that you cannot
include this and that when you sell/license me an OS. After all, when I get a
Redhat distribution, I don't just get the Linux kernel, but KDE, KOffice,
various media players etc. I know the arguments against this (Microsoft is big
and needs careful monitoring yada, yada), but I believe the field should only be
level, and that MS should not have to to playing uphill despite its size
advantage.
But I am coming increasingly to believe that there should be a wall between the
actual division that makes the Operating System itself and any division that
makes individual goodies (Browser, Office, Media Player), and the only
communication through that wall should be by publically accessible documents.
This would allow companies that believe they can do something better than an
included application access to the information they need to build it.
As an alternative suggestion, as many people have indicated trust issues, I'm
wondering whether it should be mandatory for all OS manufacturers to release
source code of what they claim forms the Operating System, and this source code
should be made available some specified period before general release.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Antitrust - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:21 AM EST |
First, the license can be found at
"http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp
".
The sublicense clause, as already noted, is GPL
incompatible. It also claims to control field of use, and
claim that interoperable applications must be licensed.
Hence, if one writes an application that either accesses or
transforms Microsoft XML data, such applications presumably
have to be licensed. If one publishes data on a public web
site in this format, presumably, the claim is that only
licensed clients can then access it.
The terms of the license are not fixed. One that receives
the license is mandated to only include the URL to
reference the terms of what they have received in their
application and documentation. This suggests the terms can
be changed ex post facto, since there is no stated
documentation of under what terms the original license
occurred or accepted on and nothing in the license itself
that states any terms or conditions are perpetual or fixed.
The itself license is in fact a license to nothing. It has
been around for almost a year prior to the patent filing.
It asserts no patents other than claiming some may exist in
the future. It is not clear if such patents can exist and
if they do whether a patent restriction would be sufficient
to disable the right to read or access data except through
a license such as this. It does however force all those
that do agree to this license to abide by it's terms,
whether they were/are ever legally enforcable or not, and
to strip those that do sign of their right to sue. As such,
it is a lot like the SCO license, which is a license for
something they also cannot/have not established a basis to
claim or control. Are licenses for nothing the new thing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:24 AM EST |
You are simply attributing to malice what is in fact a simple typo.
The praise for M$ is contained "In dependant reports" and M$
words" spelling and grammar checker removed the space. Uncle Bill would
never do anything underhand.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST |
He is given a honourary Knighthood. It is equivalent to a Knighthood but does
not give the give the holder the right to use "Sir".
The honour was created to circumvent a restriction in awarding Knighthood, i.e.,
the receipient must be a subject of the Queen. Billy isn't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST |
I found the following story; Germ
an Domain Names get Umlaut
Most significant quote from the
article;
[this is]...supported in Netscape, Mozilla and Opera
browsers. Internet Explorer support will likely be added before
long.
Because of course we all know how fast MS is to update
when security is at issue. So here is a test - if they fix the problems with IE
displaying executables as .txt and the login in URLs security vulnerability
before they fix IE to use Umlauts, then they are obviously acting on
security as a priority. If they fix the problem that will loose them market
share before they fix the security hacks, then it is evident the do not care
about security, only user-base dominance.
I ain't holding my
breath...---
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST |
OK, IANAL, but I have worked for research companies for well over 10 years.
I've seen clients throw out records they did not like, I've seen data weighted
in order to change results, and I've personalty come to the conclusion that any
reports not produced without client input or modification, are just plain
rubbish!!
Believe 1/ of what you see and none of what you hear, and maybe even less than
that!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rocketman56 on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM EST |
I wouldn't say that's a lock yet...
There are a lot of BIOS's available, and if necessary
a new one could be written (look at LinuxBIOS)..
I also don't think M$ could demand it, it would require
legislative approval. (and I'd NEVER sit still for
any attempt to do that.. Just like I have issues
with portions of the Patriot Act, etc.. and have
written and spoke with my "Congressional Representatives" on
these topics before..)
I also am quite capable of building my own hardware to
avoid such issues, if necessary.. Digital design
is fun and fairly easy with the sophistication of today's
parts.. (Lets just say when I started, many computers used
"Discrete" components (transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc.) not
75 million component chips..)
Steve
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST |
Several years ago MS was criticized for not using their own software to run
their business. So the story goes they replace 24 IBM AS/400's with close to
1200 Wintel boxes. After a year, they quietly began to bring the AS/400's
back, as the WinNT boxes could not handle the workload. Like I said, this was a
story I had heard. Not sure if all the AS/400's are back, or just some of
them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST |
Ages ago, when the copper smelters SE of here were being sued for the pollution
they were causing, they threatened to move to a state where the laws were in
their favor
The reply to that threat was "feel free to do so".
Microsoft can't afford to pull out of Europe and leave it to Linux. Tellingly,
they only started to negotiate in earnest when the hearings were practically
over - like a kid trying for one more TV show as its dad is hauling it off to
bed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST |
| PJ:
A nit: It's not "Sir" Bill.
See
"UK knighthoods for
foreigners - what it takes to get one"
at TheRegister.
According to the
article, it's an honorary title, Bill won't be "dubbed" (no chance for the Queen
to swing a bit extra hard), no "Sir" is involved, and it's only '"on the advice
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."'
I find this excerpt
telling:
"And a small snapshot of Gates' impact on the UK
government puts that largest ever UK educational trust fund into perspective.
The UK government alone spends an estimated £100 million a year on Microsoft
licences. Halve that, and we could endow a university every three years or so
with the change."
Those who point out Bill's charity works
need to consider the illegal means he has used for so many years to obtain and
maintain the empire. Tossing out some pocket change after a couple of decades of
exacting ransom for hostage data (among other things) doesn't seem all that
charitable to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST |
I think the only way to do fair tests is to have identical hardware supplied to
two teams, one from each camp. The MS camp is allowed to tweak the operating
system etc to their heart's desire to make it run as well and securely as
possible. The Linux team is allowed to do the same to their box, using their
distribution of choice and whatever tweaks they require. Neither is allowed to
modify the hardware. The tests are then run by a third party doing the same sort
of stuff to each box eg to test webhosting you write the same sort of script in
eg ASP/MSSQL for Windows and eg PHP/MySQL for Linux using the same database
backup and test it under load. You then test it under load for a couple of weeks
and let loose a Windows craker on the Windows network and a Linux cracker on the
Linux network to see what damage they can do. Then measure up the time and money
required for setup and ongoing admin time and required licenses.
If something like this was done *then* I would believe the validity of the
tests. But to have a test sponsered by the apple farmer comparing genetically
enhanced apples with plain old oranges is just plain laughable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kurt Weber on Friday, January 30 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST |
Why is there even a problem in the first place? Windows is Microsoft's
product; therefore, Microsoft has every right to design and build it as it likes
and attach whatever terms it wishes to its distribution.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
