Yes, Bill Gates is indeed mental. One of my favorite illustrations is the stunt he pulled when he had a XBOX wrapped in mother of pearl and presented it to the president of South Korea as a "symbol of peace." Only an utter moron would claim there was no advertising involved in that stunt, which was downright bizarre. As a former teacher turned political activist in Bill Gates' home town, I've become one of his biggest critics. I'm running for public office (Washington State Governor) and am attacking Gates as part of my campaign. Please check out my campaign website at http://2012.seattle-mafia.org. ------------------------------- March of 1969, Allen went over to the University of Washington and began using a Xerox computer by pretending he was a graduate student. Gates soon followed and they used the UofW computer until an intolerant professor caught them at it and they were barred. ----------------------------- Microsoft would find a company that had a product that they wanted. That company had two options. Sell to Microsoft, or get destroyed. Sometimes it meant Microsoft finding a similar company, or developing in house. But either way, the masses would get a free product from Microsoft that sort of did the same thing, or pay for one that they don't realize is better. One prime example is Netscape. Microsoft bought Mosaic, called it IE, and gave it away for free. Bill Gates was renowned for "declaring war" on small companies. He is absolutely ruthless when someone says no to him, and lashes out like Stalin on steroids. ---------------- Throw out every piece of software that you currently operate that isn't made by Microsoft and exchange it for equivalent Microsoft products. After that everyting will inter-operate just fine so long as you don't stray form the yellow brick Microsoft road." ----------------- There was a technology, called OpenDoc, which tried to compete with OLE. It was considered by interested companies (competitors of Microsoft) to be both easier to use and more robust than OLE. However, OpenDoc does have some known problems. OpenDoc allowed users to view and edit information across applications, directly in competition with Microsoft's proprietary OLE standard. A consortium called the Component Integration Laboratories ("CIL") was established in 1993 by some Microsoft competitors to create OpenDoc as an "open-source" standard for cross-platform linking and embedding.[1][2] Microsoft announced that its OLE proprietary technology would be incorporated directly into MS Windows operating system. Microsoft then required OLE compatibility as a condition of Microsoft's certification of an application's compatibility with Windows 95. ---------------------------------- http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=364 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_for_Software_Choice "Let's remember that Microsoft was forced to publish its own API so everybody could "clone" them for interoperability reasons - what's SAMBA if not a clone of several Windows API under *nix?" Of course, I do want to point out... a) Samba was out WAAAAY before Microsoft released anything. (Samba was actually originally developed to communication with DEC's implementation of SMB, not Microsoft's.) In the early 1990s, well before Microsoft released anything. It was a clean-room reimplementation of the protocol. b) Microsoft did not release their APIs in the way an ordinary programmer would use this term. When the DOJ ordered them to release their APIs in 2002, they released APIs for cash payment only, under NDA, under terms that intentionally made use of them impossible in any open source project. I.e. this was not "here's our APIs, have fun!". It took Samba until 2007 to get a copy of the APIs they wanted to implement the more modern parts of SMB, it cost them 10,000 euros, was still under NDA, and this was after Microsoft loosened their terms to make this API release useable at all. (Then by 2008, Microsoft changed their stance and released all these APIs publicly, as they should have done to begin with if the DOJ were doing their job.) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/07/kildall_unforensic_ieee_smear/ warn folks that McGraw Hill is unfair to Linux users. Consumer Watchdog is actually a PR/lobbying firm hired by MS. Ford sync (designed by microsoft) is crashed by iphone ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft shouldn't be complaining so much when they block or use non-standard protocols on their devices, in particular WP ones: - Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD; - The hardware search button in Windows Phone is tied to bing, and users can't change it; - Windows Phone doesn't support standard protocols (standard MTP, USB file access) to access its filesystem, so it doesn't play well with Linux or BSD; - Windows RT and Windows Phone specify a locked bootloader, so that users can't install anything else on their devices; I could go on and on here, but these 4 examples should be enough... They really should fix their act before complaining that others aren't playing fair. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms is not copying Apple, they are not making hardware but rather trying to tie hardware makers up.. Requiring a Switch to allow developer and alternate Operating systems use seems pretty reasonable.. This is a pure power grab trying to lock out alternative while MS still has enough market clout to try to get away with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The bottom line is that underneath Microsoft's vast and complex network of anti-piracy verbiage lies the (to all intents and purposes achieved) objective of taxing every single piece of tin that goes out the door $30-$50, or more, whilst choking off as many opportunities for potential rival OSes as possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I removed the boot disk from the dead system and plopped it into another, then booted that Linux instance on the target computer. Problem solved! Windows won't let you do this. Its hardware-bound Registry, authentication procedures, and licensing all specifically prevent it. They're designed to. Why? So you don't steal Microsoft's software. Microsoft places its needs to protect its ownership of Windows software above your need to solve your crisis. (Remember, you do not own the copy of Windows you "bought," Microsoft owns it. You only licensed it.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft's indirect lobbying against OpenDocument Format (ODF) back in 2008, in Malaysia and the Phillipines. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the change began about the time Win95 debuted. For one thing, honest debate and sincere conversation began to decline with the arrival of Arnold Krueger. Whatever it is that brought him to Canopus, or keeps him there, it is definitely not honest discourse. Arnold is a one-man propaganda machine, boosting Win95 and dis'ing everything else --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corel later cancelled all Linux-related projects after Microsoft made major investments in Corel, stopping their Wine effort. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As others have pointed out, "All the roads lead to Microsoft, but none lead out". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MS sneaked in the Genuine something or another (that's what I get for being zealous about keeping my system up to date and continuously checking that my selection or unselection for the Genuine whatever STAYED uncbecked) and it still said it was OK. then one day for some reason, the Genuine fucker decided that NOW my license is illegitimate? WTF, MS?! - I get the pop-up and whatnot but I ignore it - fuck'em. ------------------------------------------------------------ If I want to buy a Windows lockin computer to run Windows, that doesn't keep anyone from producing a product that can run any free os. That is correct, but playing devil's advocate here... the market for such a product would be relatively small, and it would need to be purpose built for that market, and purpose bought. The days of taking home a used PC from the office that had been retired and popping linux on it to play around would be over. The days of dropping a live distro in would be over. The days of buying a PC and dual booting linux would be over. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've worked for several Fortune 500 companies. Support has nothing to do with the decision: Exclusionary contracts do. Microsoft offers huge discounts to businesses that agree not to use a competitor's product. They also regularily check for compliance and there are large fines for any company caught using open source software. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Robert X. Cringely has an article on the Technology Evangelist web site where he claims that Microsoft destroyed evidence in the Burst vs Microsoft case. Specifically Burst's lawyers had asked for certain emails, Microsoft claimed that they couldn't find the backup tapes the emails would be on, and while this was happening the tapes were in a vault at Microsoft ? until they mysteriously disappeared. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Software is worth what it costs. Otherwise, Government procurement policies would be called into doubt. You are right: there are no essential features lacked by Open or Libre Office. By essential, I mean stuff needed to present information. Therefore, Government departments could easily mandate that only that feature set is used. But the Microsoft argument is that if "free" means it only does 99% of what expensive does, free is worthless (even if the 1% is unnecessary.) Take presentations. Almost all presentations would be precisely as meaningful if the slides were done in Wordpad with additional images. But, like medieval scribes, Microsoft has persuaded people that unless every page is an illuminated manuscript, the content is worthless. The arms race in manuscript production continued right up until Gutenberg, when people suddenly realised that movable type was easier to read. I await the day when some unknown 5-star general suddenly realises that Powerpoint is a waste of resources, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ His disclosure unleashed a heated debate about the ethics of a company paying someone to edit Wikipedia entries, and the effect such payment has on the credibility of the site. "From now on we should take the Wikipedia entry on OpenDocument with a grain of salt," wrote Daniel Carrera, an ODF developer, in an e-mail. Other comments on Jelliffe's blog posting weren't so kind. "Since you openly admit being paid by Microsoft you immediately destroy any credibility as a neutral commentator. End of story," one person wrote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, while PC duffers were futzing with 16 bit Computer Innovations C, Lattice C, Microsoft C 1.0 in 1983, which was pretty much just a ripoff of Lattice C, then through the 80s with Microsoft C 2.0 through 6.0, with the first hesitant entry to 32 bits in 5.0 near the end of that period (even though there was no proper Microsoft 32 bit OS available yet at that time), REAL embedded programmers were working with 32 bit 68000, 68010, and 68020 using Green Hills C and compact deterministic real-time multi-tasking kernels such as VRTX. Green Hills C was a significant improvement on the Portable C Compiler that came with SunOS and other BSD based unixes in those days. When gcc finally matured, it was an ENORMOUS boon. The action nowadays is moving to Clang/LLVM though. With Clang, you don't have to compile a separate version for every cross-compile target. Every Clang executable is capable of producing code for any of the supported targets just by using the right run-time options. Of course, this doesn't address the point that you still need appropriate assemblers, linkers,libraries, startup code etc for each target. But they are trying to get a handle even on that with the Clang Universal Driver Project. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gates' claim that they wanted to clean up 95 and that meant leaving out file naming stuff that WP relied upon, though, is disingenuous and a lie. The same APIs were used heavily by Novell for their NetWare client in W4W, and that was a target - MS was dedicated to crushing the NetWare client. Novell kept coming back, but finally succumbed. And discussion about Gates' requirement to make APIs available to all is a lie also - it may have been a legal requirement, but it was ignored, and the Word team took full advantage of their insider access to Windows APIs. Isn't this settled fact, and one of the foundations of the now dying Justice consent decree/antitrust judgement? Really? We still discuss this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh please, Microsoft is every bit a patent troll as Apple is. What the hell do you think this attack on Android is ? Party time ? No one wants WP, no one cares a fuck about WP. So what does Microsoft do, instead of competing by improving WP they extort the competition in such a way as to make that shit of WP less costly than Android. Microsoft is a criminal enterprise. They have been convicted in the past and it seems time has not changed their modus operandi. They need to be striked down and if the US won't do it then maybe the EU will be up to the task. Mobile phone makers don't want the same situation of the pc space where Microsoft made all the profits and left mere cents to everybody else. They all learned (except Nokia). And since the market doesn't want WP what to do, what to do ? Sue everybody into submission. Way to go Microsoft, a shit company. Always was, always will be; Bill Gates or not Bill Gates at the helm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stealing PDP-10 computer time from Computer Center Corporation to write BASIC --------------------------------------- Let me start by saying every time you boot your system on Windows 7, data is sent to Microsoft to check whether your are online and for internet connectivity. --------------------------------------- You are being MICROattacked, from various angles in a SOFT manner. Microsoft repeatedly changed agreements with developers. At one point, they required developers to pay thousands of dollars for a two-year membership, and then less than a year later simply discontinued that program and replaced it with a similar program that required new payment. Microsoft sold Microsoft Money, claiming that it could import Quicken data. In fact, the box was empty but they promised a download in less than 60 days, which was repeatedly delayed. By then, it was too late to legally return the empty box to the retailer. And, finally, it did not import Quicken data. The entire product was a fraud. Microsoft sold versions of Office, at the same time, which were different. We needed to standardize, and complained to Microsoft. We were told that ?the version in each box was the version we purchased,? and that ?version control was not part of the product.? In fact, Microsoft has admitted that they have no idea what versions they produce or ship and are not able to replicate builds. ------------------------- For example, if Microsoft can convince the idiots running most big bureaucracies that their network isn't safe from hackers unless there's an end-to-end DRM on everything, then this will effectively lock out their smaller competitiors from having any hope of even physically talking to any other machine on such a network. It probably won't do anything to increase safety from hackers, but it will certainly make Microsoft safe from their competition! This of course will increase costs for bureaucracies, which come out of your taxes. You think I'm joking? Microsoft already tried this, it's called Active Directory Rights Management Services Role [microsoft.com]. Sounds innocent, right? It's horrifying! It's pure evil, the ultimate lock-in: using military grade cryptography to ensure that their customers stay locked in forever, and cannot possibly get their own data out of the walled garden of Microsoft software. They even tried to change low-level network protocols to prevent their competitors from competing on the 'corporate network' with their offerings by implementing open protocols: Network Access Protection [microsoft.com]. If you don't know what NAP is, it's a system that does nothing a firewall couldn't, except that to gain access, you must have a DRM-enabled computer running an OS kernel that's digitally signed by... a trusted authority. Microsoft is pushing hard to have this technology become mandatory in some scenarios, like health data. Can you imagine if you couldn't obtain your own health records if you had one of those filthy 'untrusted' Linux computers? It's a very real possibility, and Microsoft wants it, bad. --------------------------------------------------------- a book called "Programmers at Work" quotes Gates: "Programmers at Work: Interviews" By Susan M. Lammers, Published 1986, Microsoft Press, 392 pages. ISBN 0914845713 Interviewer: Is studying computer science the best way to prepare to be a programmer? Bill Gates: No. the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system. You got to be willing to read other people's code, then write your own, then have other people review your code. You've got to want to be in this incredible feedback loop where you get the world-class people to tell you what you're doing wrong. --------------------------------------------------------- Right. If the submitter had actually read the article, this would have jumped out at him: "The counterfeits were also discovered through customs seizures" The fact that *after* they had seized the software, WGA was capable of detecting it when installed is just pr for WGA and not an indication that WGA is sending personal information to MS. It may or may not being doing that, but you couldn't prove it by this article. If you really want to see what WGA is sending to Microsoft, just capture the packets on their way to the internet and see what's being sent. Has anyone done that and found anything of real interest? ------------------ Foxconn has no obligation to support They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system. This moved beyond "not supporting", to "breaking" hardware that should have functioned without any effort at all on foxconns part, using what was probably considerable effort on their part to detect what kernel was booting, then developing a fake ACPI table to show only when it detected linux. The interesting part is that a year or so back, there was an article here about how Microsoft floated a letter around manufacturers asking how to make ACPI harder for Linux to implement. Everyone asserted that we were just paranoid and the only reason ACPI was hard for Linux was because "Linux developers suck", but now it seems we know. -------------------- 'Imagine if Bill Gates and Microsoft said, "hey you need to get a special token from us..." Imaging the uproar..' They already do this. There was no uproar. Drivers for Windows Vista 64-bit must be cryptographically signed, approved by MS, or not loaded (unless you specifically tell the OS to run in a development mode). To quote MS : - "Components in the Windows Vista Protected Media Path (PMP) must be signed for PMP, and all other kernel-mode components must be signed by Microsoft for the Windows Logo Program (formerly "WHQL signature") or Kernel Mode Code Signing, in order to ensure access to premium content." The signing certificate can be revoked by any Windows update, so if you write any kernel-mode software that MS (or anyone with their ear) doesn't like, they can stop it loading. This would include things like virtual soundcards (perfect recording with no analogue loss), video drivers that record video instead of displaying them, etc. The thin end of the wedge - it's only a small leap to needing to sign other programs for the OS to load them at all. Then the only code running on Windows would be code that Microsoft approved of. What would it take to get their approval? You can bet it would involve a fat wallet, and a promise not to contribute to open source projects. ------------ Can I improve Windows? Unlikely. Not without getting a job there and spending several years moving up the ranks to be in a position where I can fix* things. Can I improve Linux? Yes* Why? Because the source code is there for me to play with and fix the bugs* in the software. I can't do this with Windows. I can file a bug report and perhaps they might fix it in a service pack or just write back and say it's intentional. ------------ MS-DOS: bought (from Tim Paterson). PC1 BIOS code: stolen (almost bit-for-bit from Gary Kildall's CP/M BIOS). The Windows interface: copied (incompetently, from Apple). On-the-fly disk compression: stolen (from Stac Electronics). Internet Explorer: bought or stolen, depending on who you believe (from Spyglass). And the list only starts with these. ------------ Why did Bill Gates become fabulously wealthy? Because he produces a great product? I think not. Because he produces (and markets) an ok product that he can reproduce for pennies and sell for hundreds of dollars each. And he has managed to lock people into using his products. ------------ Or are they doing all this for show, and there is no real substance in OOXML? The reason MS is bothering with ISO is because a few places have started to require that documents be stored in an ISO defined format. The problem is that having a true ISO defined format means that you open yourself up to competition, so MS wants to get their format defined as ISO certified without allowing any competition. ------------- In case you forgot why you must resist Microsoft at every opportunity possible, there was a great post today on (of course) Slashdot that explains it perfectly. It's in response to the news that Be settled with Microsoft for only $24 million dollars: Now that's justice... (Score:5, Interesting) by fork420 (452102) * on 06:33 AM -- Saturday September 06 2003 (#6885615) To put this in perspective, consider the following math: $8,072,000,000 net income for MSFT during the 9 months ended 3/31/03 divided by the (roughly) 270 days during the 9 months ended 3/31/03 ...yields $29,000,000 net income per day for MSFT so basically they destroyed Be, Inc., and it cost them roughly 18 *hours* of income. just lovely :-/ ------------- Cross platform for Microsoft means it will work on Windows, Xbox, and mobile devices that run Windows. It's just another word to ignore when Microsoft says it versus say Samsung when their printers are cross platform which means Linux/Mac/Windows. ------------- There is over 20 years of Microsoft's lawyers striking up 'deals' with 'partners' only to find out that what the 'partner' thought the contract/license/deal/scam ment was something entirely different from what Microsoft planned all along. In 1996 I was shocked that Sun Microsystems could even THINK that Microsoft would work with Java and play the good Java citizen but their lawyers thought they trust Microsoft even then and once again, we know what the result was. And that was 1996. Here we are over 10 years later and Novell lawyers and executives are surprised that what they thought they signed is different from what Microsoft knows it signed? Somebody is REALLY flunking law school or maybe their just too 'full' of themselves to realized Microsoft is not a trustworthy partner. Either way, these people have not learned a single thing from over two decades of Microsoft double-speak. IMO. ------------- Aside from convincing people that windos is computing, using every trick in the book to contain them to their own small world (MSN comes to mind, a huge failure in the market that would certainly be dead if IE wouldn't force you there every chance it gets ------------- Microsoft does have various conspiracies against linux. See the recent news on Bill Gates asking how to make an open ACPI spec that would be difficult for linux to implement. ------------- It's not that Microsoft's "standard" is horrible (which it is), it's that having competing "standards" will detract from the whole idea of having the standard: interoperability. Microsoft is attempting to subvert the standards process to be able to claim that MS Word complies with open standards while still making it nearly impossible for others to do so, which maintains Microsoft's lock on the word processor market. IBM is opposed to that as it will impede the ability for anyone relying on these open standards to reduce lock-in to actually meet their requirements. (Of course, it also impedes Lotus' ability to penetrate those markets, as well as OOo, AbiWord, KWord, and lots of others.) ------------- The central thesis, that M$ uses vaporware to it's advantage, is clearly true. The similarity between Cairo an Longhorn mostly exist because Microsoft has yet to deliver on the feature promisses they made for Cairo. As the author pointed out, those features were available in competing products of the day and many are still not implemented in the new 10 Gigabyte sized Windoze. ------------- "Like NetBIOS, the Server Message Block protocol originated a long time ago at IBM. Microsoft embraced it, extended it, and in 1996 gave it a marketing upgrade by renaming it "CIFS"." ------------- Let's see - the socket layer? Berkeley sockets! Kerberos? Oh yeah, they screwed that one - their version doesn't play nice with MIT's. How about open standard like CIFS/SMB? Yeah MS used that, then mutated it as well. DNS? Berkeley! And the list goes on and on... I'll have to admit, MS do a god job of taking open source and open standards and Microsoftizing them. ------------- Any kind of big media company ... want to actively encourage other people to release their creative works under very free licenses. Preferably, BSD-style The old, "What's ours is ours and what yours is ours, thanks for giving" license. Microsoft and others love that and this tool reflects that love. The choices are restricted and the defaults are just what M$ would like: * "Allow commercial use of your work" is first with a default of "yes". * "Allow modification of your work" is the ONLY other option, with a default of "Yes" Attribution choices are missing which would make this a 2.5 license only. Indeed, OO2 shows a link to the 2.5 license page defined by the author. The defaults are very similar to earlier BSD licenses, which Microsoft loves and encourages. Cnet's description, "This window allows people to set restrictions on use," is amazing because the defaults do everything to strip away all control and allow maximum exploitation. -- Friends don't help friends install MS junk. ----------- Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997 ----------- Section headings from the downloadable PDF include: # Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its # Monopoly Power # Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat # Quicktime # Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia # Playback Market to Microsoft # to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions # The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair # Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete # Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from # Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes ----------- That "special hardware" is also known as ANY VISTA-COMPATIBLE NEW COMPUTER. In fact, if you have reasonably new hardware, you're probably already infected with it. That's why this is scary -- because Microsoft has the ability to leverage its monopoly to force the "special hardware" on the public, and the RIAA/MPAA/BSA have the political power to outlaw "non-Trusted" machines (which of course would only be used for "piracy" anyway, you know)! ------------ One thing I remember from back then was how MS screwed over IBM. They sold IBM Windows at a higher price because they had a competing operating system, OS/2, and strongarmed them into trying to not let them let out the secret that there were other OSes besides Windows. Also, they double screwed IBM by delaying their OEM licenses until after the "back to school" sales rush. ------------ Get back under your rock troll. Had you RTFA, you would know that the complaints which are not yet resolved relate to MS publishing specs for MS protocols. From TFA: "In addition to fining the company 497 million euros, the commission ordered Microsoft to disclose technical documentation that rival makers of server software need to develop programs that work properly with the Windows operating system." This was the 'meat' of the ruling and MS has yet to produce said documentation in any usable form. In fact the arbitrator [wsj.com] for the EU (who, incidentally, was chosen by MS) even commented to the EU officials that the documentation they(MS) had produced was useless. -- Beware of he who denies you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. ------------ Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu. ------------ There will be plenty of people that are tired XP and its constant security problems by now. They will upgrade the day Vista is out, thinking it will be the solution to all their problems. The advertising for Vista will be *very good*. You can bet on that. Microsoft will make sure that people using XP will not be able to easily communicate with the new applications on Vista. Companies will be scared of having some computers running XP and newer ones running Vista. Companies loving standardising things. People will upgrade before too long. If not voluntarily, they will be forced to. The only thing Microsoft need to do to almost guarantee success is to get the thing released soon before Mac + Linux start getting too popular! ------------ The behavior of Microsoft executives during the United States v. Microsoft case – for example, Bill Gates quibbling over the meaning of simple words, and a Microsoft vice president insisting the judge had told him to ship a version of Windows which did not work - earned astonishment, amusement, and ridicule in the press. ------------ All large computer vendors in the USA (with the exception of Apple Computer), and the majority in other countries, bundle Microsoft Windows with their personal computers. Some free software advocates speculate that this bundling has occurred because of undisclosed agreements between Microsoft and the large computer vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) where the best discounts are given only when Windows is shipped on every single computer from that vendor. ------------ Remember the Stacker fiasco where Microsoft misappropriated Stacker code, and stabbed Stac Electronics in the back? ------------ Heck, I've even got a few legit copies of Office98 still in their shrink wrap around here somewhere (along with copies of Win95 sr2, NT4, and Win2000 ... you'd be amazed at how many shrinkwraped packages people never open and just discard). Maybe I can offer them on eBey? :) Microsoft would likely classify this as an illegimate sale on the basis of some sort of logic. Remember just because you paid for them doesn't mean you own them, not at all... At least according to Microsoft. ------------ Having TPM hardware in the machine at all is bad enough... if you move to Vista there will (quite literally) be no escape. The computer you purchase will not belong to you and will be deliberately designed to be secure against you, rather than for you. Vista will be the software component of this lockdown. Now look at IBM -- for them to base their business around Vista would make them *completely* under the control of Microsoft. Their desktops could be secretly backdoored, their data locked down and only accessible with the permission of Microsoft. 100% Bill's bitch. Why submit to that when you can (and are) pay off Red Hat to work on a Trusted Computing version of the Linux kernel (google for the project)... and have that kind of control yourself? Smaller companies and normal consumers though... that's a different matter. They are going to be screwed royally with the introduction of Vista. They just don't realise it yet, and won't until they've paid over their cash to Dell or HP. DRM throughout the system (apps and data), and all under the control of Uncle Bill and his Rights Management Servers. ------------------ The historical context is simple. At the time, code was shared freely, to the profit of everyone involved. Everyone stood tall, until Gates and his ilk arrived, standing on the shoulders of giants and proclaiming they were the tallest motherfuckers around. The whole idea of someone "owning" a chunk of computing is bunk. It always has been. It hurts us all. Do you think Microsoft would be where they are today without freely-available code? If so, take back Altair BASIC, take back the TCP stack in MS-Windows (taken from BSD TCP), take back MS Internet Explorer and MS HTTP. Take it all away, and see where Microsoft stands. ------ Odd how Bill Gates doesn't really like to tell the side of the story where he stole PDP-10 time from a Seattle company (which went out of business), one of the Universities in Seattle (which kicked him and Paul Allen out when they found out about it), and even Harvard University. Yes, the PDP-10 time used to run 8080 simulators. Used to write that initial Basic interpreter ... stolen. Pot. Kettle. Black -------- With this decision to uphold the patents, the USPTO reversed its October 2005 decisions against the patents. PUBPAT had strived for over two years to strike down the FAT patents (5,579,517 and 5,758,352), on the grounds that they contained "prior art." The New Party Line Now let's review what Microsoft is doing. Huw gives us five bullet points: 1. Claim that linux isn't free. 2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source 3. Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux 4. Use the Forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure 5. Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux Dear Microsoft Apologist, Did you tried to format a bigger than 32Gb drive under windows with FAT ? Why doesn't Microsoft open up NTFS? Because they don't believe in interoperability. "The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000." That line is just classic Gates, the computer time may have been worth $40,000 but Gates never paid for it. Gates and Allen did not even have authorization to be using the university machines in question, something Gates himself would probably liken to "theft". I don't think Gates has changed at all, he's still a liar. As for Microsoft, they still market vapourware and I believe the next product will be called "Vista". A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help information" [local] trapdoor into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software systems had been deliberately crippled. Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. Microsoft employed lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff ($1,100,000) and Grover Norquist (>$280,000) whose practices are now being scrutinized. Quote from Microsoft's former OEM chieftain Joachim Kempin to Bill Gates: "I'm thinking of hitting the OEMs harder than in the past with anti-Linux. ... They should do a delicate dance." If you don't maintain a clear separation between data and procedure, you are going to end up with a system that is impossible to maintain or improve without breaking compatibility, among other problems. It seems to me that Microsoft has been violating this basic principle of computing for at least 10 years now. MS likes to tightly cross-couple its data with its programming, apparently for marketing reasons (there certainly is no engineering benefit to this practice). Whether you look at Microsoft office products through historical practice or through the rosey lenses of computing theory, you see that they are deficient in providing for long term compatibility. Digital Research DOS: Superior to MS DOS but was sabotaged by Microsoft via bogus error messages Read "World War 3.0" by Ken Auletta then read "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside" 1. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - Fact. 2. Microsoft has written software and spent billions - specifically to crush competition and reduce the user experience - FACT. 3. Microsoft fudged a demo during trial - under OATH - Fact. X-Box: Microsoft sells you a product and threaten to sue you for using it to its full. "I guess I've made it very clear that we view an Intel investment in Go as an anti-Microsoft move, both because Go competes with our systems software and because we think it will weaken the 386 PC standard. . . I'm asking you not to make any investment in Go Corporation" - Bill Gates Microsoft has been rapped over the knuckles over an anti-Lunix advertising campaign. The Advertising Standards Association in the UK has ruled that the ad makes "misleading" claims, and has told the company change the copy on the advertisement forthwith. Commentary: Like many readers, I find Microsoft's Get the Facts (GtF) ads repugnant, especially when they appear on sites dedicated to Linux and open source software. I understand that such organizations' editorial and ad sales staffs operate independently, meaning neither side tells the other what content it is or isn't allowed to carry, but I still don't like it. Happily, however, the bogus GtF ads may not be around much longer. The ads are part of an evolving strategy for Microsoft. Its reputation became so tainted during the '90s that it became impossible for the company's own spokespeople -- from Chairman Bill Gates on down -- to speak with any credibility. That's why they began to disguise their identity and to outsource their marketing to paid shills in the press and elsewhere to deliver their lies. Finding folks with more credibility than they have has never been a problem for Microsoft. Microsoft claims that its software is more secure than a bank vault have not impressed South Africa's advertising standards authority Microsoft claimed in an advertisement that its software is so secure, it will make hackers extinct. As it turned out, it was the ad which bit the dust. "Windows ain't done til Lotus won't run" filtering out ecards from Blue Mountain Arts Making WinNT incompatible with SAMBA Making Windows incompatible with DR DOS Subsuming Kerberos and making it incompatible with original OEM's forced to pay MS per CPU they shipped whether it had Windows on it or not Using propaganda to scare users Using misleading advertising The BSD TCP/IP network stack was openly "pirated" by Microsoft Manufacturers forced to sell blank computers for the same price as computers with windows A better analogy would be like Microsoft purposely sabotoging their own document format to make it impossible for other word processors to legally interoperate with it. Wait no, A better analogy would be like Microsoft serving up broken web pages to the browsers of competitors. No, wait. A better analogy would be like suggesting Microsoft would break Windows so that it would refuse to run under a competitor's version of DOS. Maybe it's like Microsoft shipping a browser that has the option to uninstall other software vendor's browsers. Or Microsoft forcing OEM's to pay them a fee for every computer they ship, with or without Windows installed. Perhaps it's like Microsoft hiding crucial API's from everyone but themselves, and when forced to expose them for all to see defining "all" as anyone who can pony up 50 thousand dollars plus additional fees. Or Microsoft attempting to ship broken versions of Java to destroy the standard. Or forcing OEM vendors to carry Microsoft ads, and only Microsoft ads, on all desktops sold. Or negotiating with another company for a year only to steal their technology. And then refusing a court order to turn over all e-mails from that period. Microsoft having Office 95 ask for a memory address at the 2GB limit, even though no desktop machine at the time came with even 512MB. The sole purpose of this exercise? To have Office not be able to run on OS/2, whose VM had a limit of 512MB (the shame!!!). Or about making Office 95 docs incompatible with all previous versions of Office (again, a direct stab at forcing everyone to upgrade, and leaving OS/2 out in the cold. It wasn't so much about other word processors, since none of them could accurately deal with the ever changing screwed up word markup, and they were always months and months behind at the time.) Or, how about Microsoft selling an "OS" to IBM before they actually owned the rights to it? At the end of 2003 Microsoft decided to require licensing fees for the use of its FAT filesystem on consumer electronics devices and solid state media. Every USB storage device, digital camera, portable audio player, memory card, printer and television manufactured to use FAT would add $0.25 to Microsoft's pockets, with a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per manufacturer. Yes, it's absurd, but FAT is no longer free. Get the world hooked on an inferior technology and then start collecting royalties – be prepared for more of these tactics. More recently, Microsoft had to pay InterTrust $440 million to settle matters related to Microsoft's misuse of InterTrust's DRM (digital rights management) patents. Spyglass was "taken" by agreeing to a contract in which they received a portion of the revenue which Microsoft was going to recieve by "selling" Internet Explorer. Microsoft set the price at $0.00, so of course, the Spyglass share was nothing. Setting a price of $0.00 effectively killed Netscape at the same time, by criminally extending their OS monopoly to destroy the market for Internet Browsers) . Netscape couldn't compete with a "free" competitor which was subsidized by monopolistic profits "earned" on the OS. Per the famous famous Microsoft phrase, the zero dollar cost of IE "cut off their air supply". I agree that you don't want to meet those criminals on a bridge in the dark. Spyglass, which licensed its browser to Microsoft in return for a percentage of each sale; Microsoft turned the browser into Internet Explorer and bundled it with Windows, giving it away to gain market share but effectively destroying any chance of Spyglass making money from the deal they had signed with Microsoft; Spyglass sued for deception and won a $8 million settlement.