Microsoft Hatred FAQ

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes:

In comp.os.linux.misc Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:
Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful
than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb
mainframe terminals.

Uh - when microsoft produced dos 1.0, or whatever it was,

Just for the record, microsoft didn't "produce" - with the meaning
that they created it - dos 1.0; they "produced" - with the meaning
that they presented it - after buying it from Seattle Computer
Products, where it was known as QDOS, the Quick and Dirty Operating
System. MS bought it after promising IBM that MS had an 8088 OS to
sell IBM, which was a blatant lie.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 16 '05 #105

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:

I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
Microsoft offers.
It has nothing to do with support costs. It has everything to do with
the types of deals that MS offers. In particular, MS won't (wouldn't)
sell a company Windows software at OEM prices unless they payed for a
copy of Windows for *every* computer they sold.
The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it.

If MS weren't effectively a monopoly, you'd be right. That's not the
case. A computer OEM can't hope to survive without offering
Windows. They can't hope to survive if they are paying retail for
Windows while their competition is paying OEM prices. MS was using
their market dominance to coerce consumers who into paying for their
software when they didn't want it.

The latter is problemmatic, unusual and definitely immoral. More to
the point, it's illegal. It's also typical of MS marketing ever since
IBM created a market for MS to dominate.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 16 '05 #106

Greymaus <gr******@cableone.net> writes:

Mike Meyer wrote:
You clearly weren't paying attention to what the rest
of the microcomputer industry was doing while Gates was selling IBM
non-existent software. While IBM was introducing 16-bit processors and
DOS was doing a flat file system, Tandy was selliig systems - for a
fraction of the price of any MS-DOS based system - that were
multitasking, multiuser, had an optional windowing system that came
with a complete (for the time) office suite. Of course, that was while
Tandy still thought they could sell computers by selling better
computers than you could get running MS software.

Was that the Color Computer III running OS9 Level II for an operating
system, that you're talking about? Motorola 6809 processor? HELLUVA
little computer! OS9 was a bit quirky, though, even for a UNIX clone.

Yup. OS9 wasn't really a Unix clone - it was designed as an embedded
OS for instruments, and last time I looked was still around, though
they had moved on to newer processors.

And if you think the Coco was a helluva little computer, you should
have seen what the Japanese weren't exporting.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 16 '05 #107

"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> writes:

IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game
computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have
come
true.

I see. You're a troll.

nope, I'm just sick and tired of trolls like you calling everyone who
doesn't share their hatred of Microsoft a troll.

Nah, I only call people spouting utter bullshit without regard for the
facts in order to piss people off trolls. By the time MS lied to IBM
about having an OS, there were already more than five computers in the
world. Sure, you might be exageratting - but you're doing it to piss
people off. That makes you a troll.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 16 '05 #108

Ten

> Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for

what you say?

A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------

Hang on...

....

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Your "reputation", sir, is of import only to billy-goats who happen to be
debating whether to cross the bridge today.

Thanks for once again polluting the threads with incoherent, unhelpful,
off-topic flamebait.

The extra 9 squillion posts in a thread you clearly had no intention of
participating in must really have made your day.

Downloading them has not, as you might gather, made mine :P

--

Ten

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDUtvVuCgGfnDTEewRAmYuAJ0fAsKU3Bn9yzrVfICoST zlmGz5bACeJO2g
FiG7z82nvdInO/l/YhI8EVQ=
=/leS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Oct 16 '05 #109

On 16 Oct 2005 12:30:06 -0700, ri****@Azonic.co.nz wrote or quoted :

The only reason that Linux/OpenOffice/GIMP/Apachee/MySQL/

The catch is there are SO many SQL engines, even if MS bought up MySQL
and PostGre SQL one of the others would just pop to the fore as the
new free standard bearer.

see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/sqlvendors.html

Here is a field where there is healthy competition.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Oct 17 '05 #110

ri****@Azonic.co.nz wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet.
By giving IE away for free, by ripping off spyglass, by _paying_ OEMs
to not include Netscape. By bundling IE. By abusing standards.

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.
Moreover, Netscape added LiveScript, oh wait, I mean JavaScript, and the
*cough* blink element.
By
contracting with sites to include non-standard IE features to
deliberately break NS.
NS also added features to HTML.

That
you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS
Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.

No. Netscape had announced that they were working on building network
applications that just required a browser. XUL is the latest version
of this.

So, uhm, 8 years later? And what applications do run on the web?

MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then
state it's not significant, and next they are an important player.
This is not limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They
don't miss anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

No. You are wrong again. In edition 1 of "The Way Ahead" there was
_no_ mention of the Internet. MS did not notice it,

IIRC MS was already using the Internet (for email, Usenet, etc).
and when they did they
attempted to replace it with MSN which did not link to the internet
initially. MSN was free with Win95, but most users ignored it and
downloaded Netscape.
Yup, which if it had worked, it would have been an excellent lock in.
Not all plans work, NS is a nice example.

and next they are an important player

Once they notice that there is a revenue stream then they will buy in
a product, rebrand it MS and claim it is the best, and use their
monopoly leverage to drive the other players out of business so that
they can have all the revenue.

So what's new? Can you name all CD burning programs Adaptec has bought?
The only reason that Linux/OpenOffice/GIMP/Apachee/MySQL/.. have
survived this process is that MS haven't worked out how to kill them
off. Natural selection at work. If MS kills off everything that it
can then what is left is what it can't.

That's why they are careful with killing off.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #111

Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:57:19 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
As soon as products can't evolve
much more, the producers will find ways to make them even better
compared to last week.
So once a product can't evolve any more, then it will suddenly
start evolving much more.

Riiiiight.

Yup, maybe you should do some shopping instead of letting others do it for
you. And you will notice that almost every X months the cookies of brand X
are just improved a bit more.
Well, I think that's just demonstrated the quality of John's reasoning
ability.

I am sorry if it's all beyond you.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #112

Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
web based applications that work with any browser make OS irrelevant
-> not true, since for OpenOffice it doesn't matter which Linux
distribution one runs (or even if it's Linux), yet people seem to
make a point of which distribution they use.

You make the point yourself now: if web based applications work with
any browser, people can freely choose their distribution based on
their own preferences.

Yup, and what will they pick?

The one of their choice. Nobody knows which one that will be.

Let me guess: Microsoft.
Maybe MS.
I am quite sure about that one.
But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice.
If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.

I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS is
the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really think
that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work any
different?

- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx,
Links, Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS

I think that we both understand that one browser will be more
compatible then an other. It will only happen if all use exactly the
same render engine, or all web recommendations are frozen.

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call that
perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

And if that happens, people selling stuff will find ways to make
their version just a little better.

It's very well possible to compete without breaking compatibility.
That's what Firefox, Opera, Konqueror etc. are already doing.

Is that why people who design websites use both Firefox and Opera for
testing? IIRC there are ambiguous parts in the CSS working drafts, and
Opera thinks their interpretation is correct, which, (again IIRC)
differs from other developers. Once the render engine is stable (my best
guess, another 5-7 years), there will be (for quite some time) new
things, that will worry developers of sites.

Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD?
Intel? and if you pick a brand, which type?

Depends on my needs, budget and the specs and price of the available
offers. Plus I always have a small, admittedly perhaps unjustified,
preference for the underdog; in the past that was AMD, in the future
that may very well be Intel. But I don't see the point of that
question.

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

As soon as products can't evolve much more, the producers will find
ways to make them even better compared to last week.

As products can't evolve much more, the producers will find ways to
make them evolve?? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say
here.

As soon as the customer thinks the product is finished, the producer
will create new things that should be there. How much more features do
you want in an Office application? An instant message application? Do
you need nudges, winks, voice samples? Wait until MSN Messenger 8 comes
out, and then 9, maybe 10?

Or wait until there comes a solution from a 3rd party. Force doesn't
exists with software unless you can manipulate the law to enforce it.
And I don't believe that everybody at Microsoft was/is that stupid to
think they can make that something they don't controll only works
with their software. Sure they can make it harder, like I said, you
can always add things, especially if you are the major player, but
Firefox is a nice proof that there is no such force, and I doubt that
there are people working at Microsoft in major positions who didn't
see this coming.

Maybe they can force it, maybe not, but that's not the point (again).
The point is what their intentions are, and that is trying to lock
people into using their software.

Can you name big companies that don't do this?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #113

jo*@invalid.address wrote:

Thanks for spelling it out for me. Now could you spell out what this
has to do with Microsoft's intentions?

Making sure that even if there is a move of applications locally to running
on the web, that they are selling 80% of the software that makes it happen.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #114

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they
talk about W3C *recommendations*.

In that sense there are no standards in software. The ISO C++
"standard" and the XML "recommendation" have the same amount of force
behind them.

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation. For some
people that *does* matter. Hence there is ISO HTML and there is a HTML 4.01
recommendation.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #115

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On 15 Oct 2005 22:47:45 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
Opera seems to be making money with it. Also, Firefox gets money from
Google kickback. Maybe MS had a similar idea in mind, but it failed
(remember how they wanted to add ads to keywords in webpages?)

There also had that Passport thing. They probably figured they would
take over Internet commerce and get rich off the user fees.

It seems that Google is making a wallet, so I wouldn't amaze if MS comes
with something similar if they see it works. Or buy PayPal (if such a thing
is possible).

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #116

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On 16 Oct 2005 05:22:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they talk
about W3C *recommendations*.

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs.

Yup, I know. Hence no standards.

Like I said: there is ISO HTML, and there is a w3c HTML 4.01
recommendation. The former is a standard, the latter is a defacto standard.
For some the difference does matter.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #117

John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> writes:

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.
Moreover, Netscape added LiveScript, oh wait, I mean JavaScript, and the
*cough* blink element.
By contracting with sites to include non-standard IE features to
deliberately break NS.

NS also added features to HTML.

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla on they acted like MS, and did
whatever they thought would be best for their bottom line, never mind
ethics, legality, morality, the effect it had on their users, their
business partners, or the web as a whole. People bitched about NS back
then. Some of us predicted what would happen when they tangled with
MS, which had - and has - much more experience at this game.

Now that NS is no longer the 800 lb gorilla, they can see the
advantages of interoperability, and try and implement the same
languages that everyone else does. It would be funny if I didn't have
to live with the aftermath.

"Everybody else does it" is not a defense for criminal behavior. On
the off chance you haven't heard, two wrongs do *not* make a right.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 17 '05 #118

Mike Schilling

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they
talk about W3C *recommendations*.

In that sense there are no standards in software. The ISO C++
"standard" and the XML "recommendation" have the same amount of force
behind them.

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.

Oct 17 '05 #119

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <ja********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uf***********@hotmail.com...

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
How is that better? Nothing in your car depends upon what tires you
have
on. But all of the rest of the software on your computer is dependent
upon
your choice of OS. Which cars let you install another engine as easily as you can install
a new operating system? Admit the analogy sucks, like all car-computer
analogies invariably do.
What? If you install a new operating system, all your existing software
stops working. You would encounter precisely analogous problems if you
replaced your car's engine. The transmission might no longer fit, for
example. I'm not sure why this analogy matters, but it does seem to be
pretty accurate.
I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has
a
lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of
deals
Microsoft offers. Microsoft apologists always assume that training cost for Windows
users are zero, that people "know" Windows from the start. If that was
true, there would not be a multi-million market in Windows user
support.
I neither said nor assumed that. The fact is, they have to support
Windows because it's what most of their users want. So whatever that costs,
they have to pay it. I think it's pretty low, actually, only because their
solution to any problem is to reinstall. Yes, that works, but it does kind
of screw over the user.

On the other hand, supporting Linux is not something they have to do to
stay competitive. The market for Linux desktops is small. It's better served
by niche companies that can grab a larger share of the smaller market.
The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
problemmatic about it. If you don't think the total package is worth the
total package price, buy elsewhere.

But when Microsoft were doing their illegal arm-wringing of dealers,
there was no "elsewhere" to go.

There were always other places to go. There was never a time in this
story when you couldn't buy computer components, without an OS, and put
together your own computer.

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car
without an engine. And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was
because Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly, and the only reason they
were deemed to have a monopoly (well, not the only, but a major reason) was
that the market was defined as "desktop operating systems for x86
computers".

DS

Oct 17 '05 #120

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux
distribution and
still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft
*doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft OSes.
For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS as
possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this Microsoft
vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the browser market
and balkanize Java. And when are we going to see this browser as a target platform?
It may not happen, or it may. The future of computing is not known at
this point.
You can agree or disagree with the rationale and by sympathetic
with or
antagonistic to Microsoft's motive. But these are historical facts.

No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet. That
you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be running NS
Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.
No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the browser
war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the new
operating systems.
MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then state
it's not significant, and next they are an important player. This is not
limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They don't miss
anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to
control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize that
web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes interchangeable?

DS

Oct 17 '05 #121

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:ft********************************@4ax.com...

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:48:18 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Go down to your local car dealer and see if you can buy a new car
without an engine.

Given that that the OS and the hardware come from completely different
companies, I think that a specious analogy.

With many cars, the engine is made by a different manufacturer from the
body. The point is, they're sold as a unit because a car won't run without
an engine and most people in the market want a car with an engine.

DS

Oct 17 '05 #122

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it.
Actually, *any* company with a defacto monopoly pulling such a stunt
would be found in violation of the law. Such companies operate under
different legal rules than other companies. This was true when IBM was
the company that was dancing with the DOJ, and it'll be true long
after MS is nothing more than a memory. I don't know if anyone has
spelled this out to MS, but IBM was told so in no uncertain terms.
And the only reason it was illegal for Microsoft was because
Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly

And that's not at all clear. The thing is, if MS didn't have a
monopoly, their strong-arm tactics wouldn't have worked. If the
companies in question actually had other choices, they would have
laughed at MS's offer. The reality was that if they wanted to stay in
business, they had no choice but to take whatever MS offered them. It
isn't the offer that's illegal; it's the tools used to get the offer
accepted that are illegal. Selling insurance is only illegal if you
hint that someone is going to need it if they don't buy it from you.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 17 '05 #123

Roel Schroeven

John Bokma wrote:

Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice.
If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.

I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS is
the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really think
that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work any
different?

No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady tactics.
Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too strong for
what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for abusing its
monopoly position.

- An application works in IE, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Lynx,
Links, Opera, ... -> users can use it with any browser on any OS

I think that we both understand that one browser will be more
compatible then an other. It will only happen if all use exactly the
same render engine, or all web recommendations are frozen.

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call that
perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide Web.
That's one point where web graphics differ from graphics in press.

Look at processors: which one would you buy at the moment? AMD?
Intel? and if you pick a brand, which type?

Depends on my needs, budget and the specs and price of the available
offers. Plus I always have a small, admittedly perhaps unjustified,
preference for the underdog; in the past that was AMD, in the future
that may very well be Intel. But I don't see the point of that
question.

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

Popularity is not the same as quality.

I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser wars.
Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of
dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on IE.
David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from
becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose
their own OS.

You seem to be saying that that is not their intention, since users will
always prefer Windows as their OS anyhow. Well I don't think so, but
just maybe you're right. But I'm pretty sure MS didn't want to take the
chance, and did what it did for the reason David gave.

--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Roel Schroeven

Oct 17 '05 #124

Steven D'Aprano

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:17:03 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla
When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.
on they acted like MS,

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

If you really wanted to compare apples with apples (no pun intended), IBM
and Microsoft would be the two to compare. IBM had an effective monopoly
once, and they acted like Microsoft, although even they never had the
gall to just ignore the court's rulings as Microsoft has done, and
continues to do. Twenty years ago, Microsoft were the knights in shining
armour going to save Apple Macintosh from the Big Blue evil empire. But
that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet learnt
about karma.

--
Steven.

Oct 17 '05 #125

Tim Tyler

In comp.lang.java.programmer Richard Gration <ri*****@zync.co.uk> wrote or quoted:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:51:16 +0000, Tim Tyler wrote:

Acorn computers. Manufacturers of the best computer I ever owned.

I'm willing to bet that was an Arc ... ? I never used one but everyone
I've ever talked to who used one said it was fantastic. Myself I was
pretty impressed with the BBC B ...

I had a BBC B - and then a couple of Archimedies computers.

The BBC computer was cool. However, the Archimedies had a 32-bit
RISC chip in 1987, was quite affordable, and did rather blow the
socks off its predecessor.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Oct 17 '05 #126

Tim Tyler

In comp.lang.java.programmer Jeroen Wenting <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote or quoted:

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
"Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> writes:
[Microsoft]

no, they got their by clever marketing [snip]

What you call "clever marketing" the DOJ calls "monopolistic
practices". The courts agreed with the DOJ. Having had several large
PC manufacturers refuse to sell me a system without some form of
Windows because MS made it impossible for them to compete if they
didn't agree to do so, I agree with the courts and the DOJ.

And were later forced to rescind. [...]

That is inaccurate.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Oct 17 '05 #127

Tim Tyler

Tim Roberts <ti**@probo.com> wrote or quoted:

[Microsoft]

Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about browser
wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion dollar a year
market. Why would you risk anything to own it?

Power. Minshare. Controlling the planet's gateway to the internet.
That sort of thing.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Oct 17 '05 #128

Tim Tyler

In comp.lang.java.programmer Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote or quoted:

MS has held BACK computer evolution by tying their OS so heavily to
the Pentium architecture. The chip architecture has nowhere near
enough registers. MS refused to believe the Internet was more than a
passing fad. They are still frantically patching security holes in
their OS over a decade later.

Another big problem appears to be sitting on their customers and milking
them - rather than working on improving things. There has been some
progress with their OS - but it seems to be going very slowly.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Oct 17 '05 #129

Alan Balmer

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:31:33 GMT, Roedy Green
<my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On 14 Oct 2005 19:01:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote or
quoted :

Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.

They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not
because they have a large market share.

You've been around long enough to learn to recognize this poster and
ignore him.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

Oct 17 '05 #130

Kenneth McDonald

We all know all of the horrible things about Microsoft, and I suspect
most of us agree they put out cruddy software. But why is this a
topic for the Python list?

Ken

Oct 17 '05 #131

Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> writes:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:17:03 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Starting with the release of Netscape 1.0, until MS decided to take it
away from them. At one time they owned 95%+ of the browser market. It
was standard practice at that time for web sites to be designed for -
and only work properly with - NS; questions asked on the wwww groups
were routinely answered with solutions that only worked in NS;
"cross-platform" testing meant making sure your pages worked in NS on
both the Mac and Windows.
Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.

You're wrong.

on they acted like MS,

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?
When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

As I already stated, Netscape wasn't as good at the game as MS.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 17 '05 #132

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.

If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right. However, as a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to me, and
my customers. Otherwise I can suck on my thumb, write some words on a piece
of paper, and call them standards myself.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #133

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:

You don't get it. The point is, you can pick any Linux
distribution and
still use the same applications. This is exactly what Microsoft
*doesn't* want. They want applications to be locked to Microsoft
OSes. For then to do this, applications have to be as tied to the OS
as possible. The browser as a target platform threatened this
Microsoft vision, so Microsoft reacted by trying to corner the
browser market and balkanize Java.
And when are we going to see this browser as a target platform?

It may not happen, or it may. The future of computing is not known
at
this point.

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?
No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet.
That you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be
running NS Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.

No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the
browser
war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the
new operating systems.

Where can I read that well-documented fact?

MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then
state it's not significant, and next they are an important player.
This is not limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They
don't miss anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to
control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize
that web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes
interchangeable?

And you think MS is so stupid to just jump through hoops because
something that still isn't here, might have been there like 8 years ago?

Can you show me what companies MS bought to justify their fear for a
major move to thin client computing?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #134

Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice.
If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.

I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS
is the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really
think that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work
any different?

No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady
tactics. Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too
strong for what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for
abusing its monopoly position.

If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still
am.

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call
that perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide
Web.

Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for
example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check
their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually
there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking
about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different
versions (e.g. Opera).

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

Popularity is not the same as quality.

Did I state such a thing? Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in
this world. If you think so, wake up. Or do you really consider the
Linux desktop (any of them) quality?

The fact is that a company has no time to work on quality. If they do,
the competition is selling what they hope to release in 2015.
I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser
wars. Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of
dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on
IE. David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from
becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose
their own OS.
*the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't
happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies
MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards
notworking computing?
You seem to be saying that that is not their intention, since users
will always prefer Windows as their OS anyhow. Well I don't think so,
but just maybe you're right. But I'm pretty sure MS didn't want to
take the chance, and did what it did for the reason David gave.

Again, I doubt it. MS just wants that every user who doesn't care if
there are better products just knows one and one name only: Microsoft.

So: Internet = Microsoft, Music = Microsoft, Videos = Microsoft,
Blogging = Microsoft. Multimedia = Microsoft. Your keyboard = Microsoft,
your mouse = Microsoft. Your computer has a sticker on it: Designed for
Microsoft Windows.

Microsoft is (creating) a meme.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #135

Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:17:03 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla
When was this? When did Netscape have a monopoly in any market?

Netscape was never the 800 lb gorilla.
on they acted like MS,

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

They got killed too soon.
that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet learnt
about karma.

Which is a good thing, since MS is not a human being. It's a company, a
thing to make money, so it can make more money.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #136

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On 16 Oct 2005 00:47:09 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
Ok, let me spell it out for you: If all your applications are web based,
and the OS shouldn't matter, why do Linux distributions matter?
The point is you make your choice based on quality of the OS and
distribution, not whether it can run a given piece of software.

But some clients will work better with web based software, or make the
users believe so. If this idea was correct, why aren't all browsers equal
in usage and performance? Instead of quality, people seem to pick a browser
based on zealotism, look and feel, how well it can be extended, or if a
major player is behind it.
Web apps, Java and other multiplatform tools force OSes to compete on
quality, not on proprietary lockin.

Nah, they compete on gadgets, and the ignorance of the majority of users.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 17 '05 #137

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?
Yep. Why do you think Microsoft tried to balkanize Java?

No: the historical fact is that MS whiped Netscape of the planet.
That you come up with "They were afraid that everybody would be
running NS Office online using Netscape" is just a guess.

No, it's well-documented fact that Microsoft's entry into the
browser
war was precisely because they feared that browsers would become the
new operating systems. Where can I read that well-documented fact?
Pretty much in any history of the browser wars. For example, the DOJ
writes, in their appeal brief:

In May 1995, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer William Gates wrote that
Netscape was "pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API
into the client [Web browser] to commoditize the underlying operating
system."

There are many, many other sources. This was never a secret and was
never in dispute. You are welcome to keep your head in the sand, but it's
just you.

MS just seems to ignore a certain development for some time, then
state it's not significant, and next they are an important player.
This is not limited to "MS missed the Internet, almost...". They
don't miss anything, they just don't jump on every hype.

What is your explanation for why MS decided it was so important to
control the browser market? You think MS was too stupid to realize
that web-based applications threatened to make desktop OSes
interchangeable?

And you think MS is so stupid to just jump through hoops because
something that still isn't here, might have been there like 8 years ago?
I can only surmise that you are completely unfamiliar with the history
of the browser wars.
Can you show me what companies MS bought to justify their fear for a
major move to thin client computing?

They explicitly said that this was their fear. You don't need to read
tea leaves, you can read memos and speeches. It is very clear that MS was
(and to some extent still is) afraid that thin clients and web-based
applications will commoditize the OS.

DS

Oct 17 '05 #138

Mike Schilling

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.

If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right. However, as
a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to me, and
my customers.

That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a recommendation,
while files claiming to contain C++ are all ISO-conformant, because that's a
standard?

If so, you've got things precisely backwards. C++ compilers that contain
extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML parsers that
accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.

Oct 17 '05 #139

Mike Schilling

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 16 Oct 2005 05:22:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they talk
about W3C *recommendations*.

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs.

Yup, I know. Hence no standards.

Like I said: there is ISO HTML, and there is a w3c HTML 4.01
recommendation. The former is a standard, the latter is a defacto
standard.
For some the difference does matter.

What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.

Oct 17 '05 #140

Roel Schroeven

John Bokma wrote:

Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Roel Schroeven <rs****************@fastmail.fm> wrote:

But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice.
If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.
I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS
is the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really
think that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work
any different?
No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady
tactics. Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too
strong for what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for
abusing its monopoly position.

If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still
am.

I'm not going to answer this one anymore. Other companies use shady
tactics too, I already said that, but we're talking about MS now.

Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
aforementioned websites right now.

Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the
Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example
Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call
that perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.

Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide
Web.

Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for
example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check
their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually
there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking
about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different
versions (e.g. Opera).

I know what the ACID test is. I also know that we're talking about the
browser wars and that those date from long before the ACID tests were
created.

Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe
"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's
good.

Popularity is not the same as quality.

Did I state such a thing?

That's what I gathered from "People just buy MS, ... . MS, so it's
good." Maybe I misunderstood, in which case I apologize. Still, doesn't
matter since it also is completely besides the point.
Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in
this world. If you think so, wake up.
I'm very well aware of that.
Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality?

Actually yes. Are they better than MS's desktop? Depends on one's needs.
If I didn't need MS for my job, there's a very big chance I would only
use Linux. Or MacOS X.

I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser
wars. Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of
dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on
IE. David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from
becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose
their own OS.

*the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't
happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies
MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards
notworking computing?

I read that other reply of yours, and David's reply to it. He replied
much better than I could have done, but I agree with what he said so
I'll just refer to his reply.

--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Roel Schroeven

Oct 17 '05 #141

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:

What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.

Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser. In which
case standards and recommendations are the only things that are
relevant.

Pages on the internet written for a specific browser are part of the
harm that NS did the community when the ignored the standards process
in favor of proprietary extensions.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Oct 17 '05 #142

Steven D'Aprano

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:42:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement? Theft
of code?

They got killed too soon.

Neither the Netscape executives nor Netscape the company have been killed.

that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet learnt
about karma.

Which is a good thing, since MS is not a human being. It's a company, a
thing to make money, so it can make more money.

Microsoft is a collection of human beings. They don't get to excuse
anti-social behaviour on the basis that they're only trying to make money.

--
Steven.

Oct 17 '05 #143

Terry Hancock

On Monday 17 October 2005 05:27 pm, Roel Schroeven wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality?

Actually yes. Are they better than MS's desktop? Depends on one's needs.
If I didn't need MS for my job, there's a very big chance I would only
use Linux. Or MacOS X.

Duh. Yeah of course they're better than Windows' desktop. Trying
to get anything done with an XP box is somewhere between the
frustration level of dealing with the IRS and trying to work your
way out of a well while hanging upside down from the bucket by
your feet with your arms tied behind your back.

For example, on Linux I don't have:

* pop-up ads

* applications that only do half the job, then offer to sell
me the other half

* the "zero click" interface -- there is NOTHING more frustrating
than having the desktop constantly second guessing you, and
pushing buttons because it thinks you waited too long (i.e.
you actually stopped to read the dialog text).

but I do have:

* multiple virtual desktops

* one click pasting between windows

Now, I'm sure, that under some theoretical, fully-tricked-out
Windows platform, with all the possible bells and whistles
installed, and all the stupid OEM modifications removed (including
all that adware), this might not be so. But frankly, I've never
SEEN a Windows box like that, much less used one.

What I have seen is a factory-direct Dell laptop with a
pre-installed Windows XP which had all of the problems I
described above.

OTOH, the Linux environment I describe is run-of-the-mill
Debian Sarge with KDE.

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Oct 18 '05 #144

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?

By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of
post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all concerned
and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well,
perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this
money on it.

It is still a realistic possibility that operating systems will be
commoditized and something other than the end-user's OS will be the target
for most software development. It could be the language (like Java), the
server (like the guts of web-based applications), or the browser (like the
UI of web-base applications).

Microsoft's current stance is to prevent this from happening if they
can. If they can't, then they'll try to make sure that whatever they can't
stop has Microsoft at the heart of it whether that's by "Microsoft
thin-client OS" or "Microsoft Java" or whatever.

By the way, if you read my other posts, you can see that I have no
anti-Microsoft bias. They have every right to have their vision of the
future of computing and to put their resources behind it. And it's hard to
find a company whose future vision doesn't include their products in some
important place. ;)

DS

Oct 18 '05 #145

On 17 Oct 2005 03:17:16 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.

What does it take in your book for a standards organisation to be
"official" -- a Swiss head office, a room at the UN, a branch on the
US government tree?

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Oct 18 '05 #146

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:17:03 -0400, Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote
or quoted :

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla on they acted like MS,

I think you would need to give some examples. They gave away a free
browser. What other evil thing did they do?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Oct 18 '05 #147

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:36 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of
post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all concerned
and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well,
perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this
money on it.

The worry was that the work would not be completed in time. The work
had to be done or the programs would simply stop working. There was
no way to avoid the expense.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Oct 18 '05 #148

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:36:53 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car
without an engine.

But that is not what was happening. It was not Microsoft selling
computers with MS OSs. MS was arm-twisting retailers like me to
bundle a copy of Windows with every sale whether the customer wanted
it or not. I think some imagine a computer is worthless without
Windows.

That gave their OS a grossly unfair price advantage.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

Oct 18 '05 #149