You know what's scary about the way Linux and Microsoft fight?
Steve Chaney
Microsoft has to keep Linux bound with one flipper tied behind its back,
just to survive.
They have to make proprietary data formats (wmv, wma, etc.), use the DMCA
and the Big Gubmint (I thought these people were anti-big government?) to
prevent reverse-engineering, and bully hardware manufacturers into almost
*ensuring* Linux won't be able to use them.
EVERY TIME Linux gets its grubby little penguinflippers on something, they
make it work better than in Windows, with the exception of 3d video drivers
(and each revision of X seems to make that exception an ever thinner
margin).
From petty little things like not having to reboot every time you move your
chair, to the way Linux's memory model works (do YOU see Linux crashing
with low-GDI related crap just because you have 10 or so GUI apps running
in the foreground, and x00 things in the background, as long as you've got
the straight up RAM to support it all?), to the Amiga-smooth multitasking,
Windows is to Linux what a crack whore is to a gangsta pimp mastah in a rap
video. (*smacksmacksmack* onyerdirtykneesbill *smacksmacksmack*
dontyoudarespititbackout *smacksmacksmack*)
So it is natural that Microsoft would do anything they can to do stuff like
poison their MS Word document format so Linux based word processors can't
work perfectly with it. Patent and lock down their media formats so you
can't legally view them in Linux. Encourage the production of Windows-only
hardware that manufacturers wouldn't dare produce Linux drivers for. And,
of course, intimidate any computer manufacturer away from including options
for Linux in their systems. (And other stuff that is, ostensibly, now
illegal thanks to antitrust lawsuits.)
Lindows sales are stone cold proof (if in prototype) that if everything
that came out, had Linux drivers, and automatically worked with Linux,
Microsoft would have been driven out of business IN THE DESKTOP MARKET long
ago.
Microsoft can hear the nails being hammered just as loudly as anyone.
Lindows here. Star Office there. Cinelerra to the left. Ximian Evolution to
the right. And Wine to wash it all down. All fiercely superior diamonds
which are currently in the rough.
In all, Windows is hopelessly beaten in the performance, reliability,
design integrity, and stability arena, so their best bet in containing the
extinctionlevelthreat to their existence, is to force other companies into
helping M$ hobble Linux as far as application and peripheral support is
concerned.
-- Steve
=======
Steve Chaney
gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net
Remove "Vegetus." to get my real email address
Erik Funkenbusch
> Microsoft has to keep Linux bound with one flipper tied behind its
> back, just to survive.
You jump to a lot of conclusions here.
> They have to make proprietary data formats (wmv, wma, etc.), use the
> DMCA and the Big Gubmint (I thought these people were anti-big
> government?) to prevent reverse-engineering, and bully hardware
> manufacturers into almost *ensuring* Linux won't be able to use them.
Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them over a
patent infringement.
> EVERY TIME Linux gets its grubby little penguinflippers on something,
> they make it work better than in Windows, with the exception of 3d
> video drivers (and each revision of X seems to make that exception an
> ever thinner margin).
Uh huh. Name *ONE* Linux driver that supports all the features of the
hardware and works better than it's Windows equivelent.
> From petty little things like not having to reboot every time you
> move your chair, to the way Linux's memory model works (do YOU see
> Linux crashing with low-GDI related crap just because you have 10 or
> so GUI apps running in the foreground, and x00 things in the
> background, as long as you've got the straight up RAM to support it
> all?), to the Amiga-smooth multitasking, Windows is to Linux what a
> crack whore is to a gangsta pimp mastah in a rap video.
> (*smacksmacksmack* onyerdirtykneesbill *smacksmacksmack*
> dontyoudarespititbackout *smacksmacksmack*)
You're comparing Linux to Windows 9x, something which was never intended to
have a long lifespan. NT based Windows is Microsofts only major OS now.
Why do YOU insist on tying one of Microsofts hands behind it's back by only
comparing against Windows 9x?
BTW, XFree86 isn't the pillar of stability either. It'll crash hard given
the right stimulus. Sure, it might not always crash the machine when it
does, but does it really matter when all of your GUI apps died with it?
> So it is natural that Microsoft would do anything they can to do
> stuff like poison their MS Word document format so Linux based word
> processors can't work perfectly with it. Patent and lock down their
> media formats so you can't legally view them in Linux. Encourage the
> production of Windows-only hardware that manufacturers wouldn't dare
> produce Linux drivers for. And, of course, intimidate any computer
> manufacturer away from including options for Linux in their systems.
> (And other stuff that is, ostensibly, now illegal thanks to antitrust
> lawsuits.)
Poison their MS Word document format? It's funny, Microsoft has been
changing their word processing format for more years than Linux has been in
existence, yet suddenly Microsoft does this simply to prevent Linux from
achieving parity. Uh huh. Perhaps you should look at a more realistic
explanation.
Word is based on legacy code, and uses an outdated binary file format which
doesn't extend easily. BTW, the same is true of Wordperfect and Lotus's
wordprocessor formats as well, but of course Microsoft must be behind that
as well.
BTW, Microsoft is moving to an XML format.
> Lindows sales are stone cold proof (if in prototype) that if
> everything that came out, had Linux drivers, and automatically worked
> with Linux, Microsoft would have been driven out of business IN THE
> DESKTOP MARKET long ago.
Could there possibly be another explanation for why the Walmart Lindows
machines are selling well?
Suppose you were a Windows user, and you wanted a cheap second machine. You
could buy a $199 computer with Lindows, format the disk and install your
existing copy of Windows on it, saving yourself a little cash. Yes, they
also sell a computer without OS for 86 cents less, but hey.. for 86 cents
why not get the one with Linux whether you're going to use it or not...
> Microsoft can hear the nails being hammered just as loudly as anyone.
> Lindows here. Star Office there. Cinelerra to the left. Ximian
> Evolution to the right. And Wine to wash it all down. All fiercely
> superior diamonds which are currently in the rough.
Wine is "superior" to Windows? How exactly is that possible? Star Office
superior ot Office? Not even close. The only thing these products provide
is a cheaper price, at greatly reduced functionality
All this is fine for many people who have few needs and don't want to pay
the extra money. But to claim that these products are "superior" to the
Windows technologies they are copying is either naive or intentionally
dishonest.
> In all, Windows is hopelessly beaten in the performance, reliability,
> design integrity, and stability arena, so their best bet in
> containing the extinctionlevelthreat to their existence, is to force
> other companies into helping M$ hobble Linux as far as application
> and peripheral support is concerned.
Go on believing that your being oppressed. If that were true, Linux would
not be growing and improving. The fact that it is doing so, and at a pretty
good rate seems to contradict your argument.
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that perhaps, just perhaps, most
of Linux's problems are it's own fault?
flacco
> poison their MS Word document format so Linux based word processors can't
> work perfectly with it.
This is why MS sees it as so important to dissuade office defections for
as long as possible. If *any* critical mass of OpenOffice users emerges,
if the Word format stops working, these users will start to request that
the people they do business with download a free office package to read
*their* documents, rather than those people expecting Openoffice users to
spend money just to get document compatibility with their format.
> Patent and lock down their media formats so you
> can't legally view them in Linux.
I think the patent situation, and other legal strategies, are is the most
significant threat. Far beyond any technical or marketplace threats.
> Lindows sales are stone cold proof (if in prototype) that if everything
> that came out, had Linux drivers, and automatically worked with Linux,
> Microsoft would have been driven out of business IN THE DESKTOP MARKET long
> ago.
Linux is not going to prevail in the home market. Walmart's Lindows is a
nice proof-of-concept, but the defections will happen on the corporate
desktop. Home end-users are just too fucking oblivious and weak-willed to
make a difference there.
sqr
--
Sqr
Old Moderator alt.os.windows-xp
"Steve Chaney" <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3df67b38...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
flatfish+++
> So you are saying that MS picked MS WORKS as a product name was wrong.
>
> --
> Sqr
> Old Moderator alt.os.windows-xp
Actually MS Works was one of their better products.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Plato
>
> Actually MS Works was one of their better products.
MS Works was a pain in the arse for me. It seemed that every time a
customer upgraded his/her OS he/she would have to buy the newest version
of Works.
Angerthas.Daeron
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
>Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them over a
>patent infringement.
>
As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
Microsoft sues Slashdot
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
<quote>
From: "J.K. Weston"
To: "'dns_...@andover.net'"
"'dns_...@andover.net'"
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digitial
Millennium Copyright Act
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:08:49 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)
<end quote>
".. THIS NOTICE IS BEING SENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS, AND FOLLOWING THE
GUIDELINES OF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 (DMCA) .."
".. We request immediate action to remove the cited violations from
Andover's servers, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 .."
......
"Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Inc." -
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet
Microsoft sues Bandai
http://www.microsuck.com/humor/lawsuit.html
Microsoft Sues MacOpinion Columnist
http://ads.applelinks.com:8081/servlet/adj/?Pool=applelinks
".. Harvard law professor .. There's nothing to the case," he said.
"This is just another attempt by a huge corporation to stop an
individual from expressing his opinions."
MICROSOFT SUES IRS FOR EXPORT TAX BENEFITS
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd
".. Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue
Service, in an effort to recoup about $19 million .."
<snip>
>Poison their MS Word document format? It's funny, Microsoft has been
>changing their word processing format for more years than Linux has been in
>existence, yet suddenly Microsoft does this simply to prevent Linux from
>achieving parity. Uh huh. Perhaps you should look at a more realistic
>explanation.
>
It's been a msStratigy too keep changing the formats in order to
leaverage msProduct. As his billness once said - making windows a
moving target.
In other words making it impossible for any third party application to
function properly on the msPlatform.
Anyone trying to write to these secret formats has to resort to
reverse engineering the format. No doubt by the time they have
sucessfully cracked version 1.1111 of what ever it is, version 1.1112
is out the door at Microsoft with all new "features" that
co-incidentally make it unable to read the old format.
Isn't curious how a lot of msProducts couldn't even read documents
made on older versions of themselves ?? The FUDGE team must have been
particularly over enthusiastic.
>Word is based on legacy code, and uses an outdated binary file format which
>doesn't extend easily. BTW, the same is true of Wordperfect and Lotus's
>wordprocessor formats as well, but of course Microsoft must be behind that
>as well.
>
".. Word is based on legacy code .." What does this mean ? What's
your point ? Is the file format outdated because the word executable
is "based on legacy code". What has the file format to do with the
code base of the application.
With full access to the source code and full control of where any new
version of the file format is going - why IS it difficult to
"extend"
Is the difficulty in moving quick enough to wrongfoot their partners
whilst at the same time trying to keep the msApplications from not
crashing ?
<snip>
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:53:06 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
>> Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them
>> over a patent infringement.
>>
>
> As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
>
> Microsoft sues Slashdot
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
Try again. Microsoft did not sue slashdot. Microsoft *ASKS* Slashdot to do
something. In fact, the words "sue" "suit" "legal action" or anything like
that don't appear in the message, it's simply a request.
> "Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Inc." -
> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet
Trademark infringement, not DMCA. A trademark holder is required by law to
enforce their trademarks or they risk losing them.
> Microsoft sues Bandai
> http://www.microsuck.com/humor/lawsuit.html
That's *HUMOR*. It's not true.
> Microsoft Sues MacOpinion Columnist
> http://ads.applelinks.com:8081/servlet/adj/?Pool=applelinks
Uhh.. that's just a link to a banner ad.
> ".. Harvard law professor .. There's nothing to the case," he said.
> "This is just another attempt by a huge corporation to stop an
> individual from expressing his opinions."
Again, this appears to be a trademark infringement suit.
> MICROSOFT SUES IRS FOR EXPORT TAX BENEFITS
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd
Ummm. this is the lindows suit again.
> ".. Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue
> Service, in an effort to recoup about $19 million .."
And how could this possibly be related to the DMCA?
>> Poison their MS Word document format? It's funny, Microsoft has been
>> changing their word processing format for more years than Linux has
>> been in existence, yet suddenly Microsoft does this simply to
>> prevent Linux from achieving parity. Uh huh. Perhaps you should
>> look at a more realistic explanation.
>
> It's been a msStratigy too keep changing the formats in order to
> leaverage msProduct. As his billness once said - making windows a
> moving target.
>
> In other words making it impossible for any third party application to
> function properly on the msPlatform.
>
> Anyone trying to write to these secret formats has to resort to
> reverse engineering the format. No doubt by the time they have
> sucessfully cracked version 1.1111 of what ever it is, version 1.1112
> is out the door at Microsoft with all new "features" that
> co-incidentally make it unable to read the old format.
Word can always read it's old formats. You apparently don't know what
you're talking about.
> Isn't curious how a lot of msProducts couldn't even read documents
> made on older versions of themselves ?? The FUDGE team must have been
> particularly over enthusiastic.
This has never happened, that i'm aware of. Care to back it up?
>> Word is based on legacy code, and uses an outdated binary file
>> format which doesn't extend easily. BTW, the same is true of
>> Wordperfect and Lotus's wordprocessor formats as well, but of course
>> Microsoft must be behind that as well.
>>
> ".. Word is based on legacy code .." What does this mean ? What's
> your point ? Is the file format outdated because the word executable
> is "based on legacy code". What has the file format to do with the
> code base of the application.
The file format is created by the code. Or did you think it magically
appears?
> With full access to the source code and full control of where any new
> version of the file format is going - why IS it difficult to
> "extend"
because it's a binary memory dump format, placed in an OLE Compound document
stream.
When Microsoft, or hell.. most companies update their products, they try to
make as few changes to existing working code as possible, because code that
is changed needs to be retested. Their serialization routines are quite
old, and probably largely untouched. They simply change the structures that
are saved to disk rather than rewriting the serialization code itself.
They are, however, slowly doing away with it.
paul cooke
comp.os.linux.advocacy to propose the following:
> Angerthas.Daeron <dae...@demon.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:53:06 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
>>> Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them
>>> over a patent infringement.
>>>
>>
>> As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
>>
>> Microsoft sues Slashdot
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
>
> Try again. Microsoft did not sue slashdot. Microsoft *ASKS* Slashdot
> to do
> something. In fact, the words "sue" "suit" "legal action" or anything
> like that don't appear in the message, it's simply a request.
>
that's NOT simply a request... it's the first step to take in starting
legal action and is letting the recipient know that the DMCA is being
used as the basis of that action. They are actually taking legal action
there and then in that letter as it's marking a "moment in time" as
being that moment that Microsoft's lawyers served the recipient with
"due notice" in the form of that legal form of words.
|Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly
|notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will
|remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our
|complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.
|
|This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury
|that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that
|we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as
|part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material
|without express written permission.
|
|We request immediate action to remove the cited violations from
|Andover's servers, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital
|Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
--
Paul Cooke
Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/
Steve Chaney
<flac...@spambadTwilight-systems.com> posted:
>> So it is natural that Microsoft would do anything they can to do stuff like
>> poison their MS Word document format so Linux based word processors can't
>> work perfectly with it.
>
>This is why MS sees it as so important to dissuade office defections for
>as long as possible. If *any* critical mass of OpenOffice users emerges,
>if the Word format stops working, these users will start to request that
>the people they do business with download a free office package to read
>*their* documents, rather than those people expecting Openoffice users to
>spend money just to get document compatibility with their format.
>
>
>> Patent and lock down their media formats so you
>> can't legally view them in Linux.
>
>I think the patent situation, and other legal strategies, are is the most
>significant threat. Far beyond any technical or marketplace threats.
>
>
>> Lindows sales are stone cold proof (if in prototype) that if everything
>> that came out, had Linux drivers, and automatically worked with Linux,
>> Microsoft would have been driven out of business IN THE DESKTOP MARKET long
>> ago.
>
>Linux is not going to prevail in the home market.
Always never it is with you padawans, mmmm-hmmmmmm.
:)
>Walmart's Lindows is a
>nice proof-of-concept,
Termites. Wood foundation. Sufficient time.
Guess what comes next.
>but the defections will happen on the corporate
>desktop. Home end-users are just too fucking oblivious and weak-willed to
>make a difference there.
Beeeeee patient. The penguin will prevail.. it just needs time.
Home end-users will turn. Remember how they turned to the PC from the old
Commodores and Atari's?
Angerthas.Daeron
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>Angerthas.Daeron <dae...@demon.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:53:06 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
>>> Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them
>>> over a patent infringement.
>>>
>>
>> As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
>>
>> Microsoft sues Slashdot
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
>
>Try again. Microsoft did not sue slashdot. Microsoft *ASKS* Slashdot to do
>something. In fact, the words "sue" "suit" "legal action" or anything like
>that don't appear in the message, it's simply a request.
>
There were two points in the statement :-
1) Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
Paul Cooke has refuted this one - nothing to add.
The second :-
2) Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively
The following demonstrates the falicy of your second arguament
>> "Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Inc." -
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet
>
>Trademark infringement, not DMCA. A trademark holder is required by law to
>enforce their trademarks or they risk losing them.
>
>> Microsoft sues Bandai
>> http://www.microsuck.com/humor/lawsuit.html
>
>That's *HUMOR*. It's not true.
>
Mea culpa !
>> Microsoft Sues MacOpinion Columnist
>> http://ads.applelinks.com:8081/servlet/adj/?Pool=applelinks
>
>Uhh.. that's just a link to a banner ad.
>
>> ".. Harvard law professor .. There's nothing to the case," he said.
>> "This is just another attempt by a huge corporation to stop an
>> individual from expressing his opinions."
>
This is also a humor link the page hangs on the banner add,
if you click on "stop" the rest of tha page does load.
.
The following are not humor links ...............
>Again, this appears to be a trademark infringement suit.
>
>> MICROSOFT SUES IRS FOR EXPORT TAX BENEFITS
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd
Correct url
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/Edupage/1996/08/08-08-1996.html
See also
http://news.com.com/2102-1001-228357.html?legacy=cnet
Microsoft sues software developer Timeline
http://www.educause.edu/pub/edupage/archives/93/edupage-08.12.93.html
".. MICROSOFT SUES OVER PATENT. Microsoft Corp. has sued Stac
Electronics, seeking to prohibit sales of Stac's data compression
product used to increase the storage capacity of various computer
operating systems. (Wall Street Journal 8/10/93) .."
This is good, Microsoft steals code from Stac and then sues them for
patent violation. Have these people no integrity ?
See also http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
for more on Stac
...........
.
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/11/09/story1.html
Microsoft sues for book notes, tapes
This one about Microsoft sueing two authors for their research notes,
to be used as evidence against Netscape.
Again this has nothing to do with patent protection.
The original point of your post.
>
>Ummm. this is the lindows suit again.
>
>> ".. Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue
>> Service, in an effort to recoup about $19 million .."
>
>And how could this possibly be related to the DMCA?
It's not it just shows that the beast is never shy in suing other
people, not just sueing -defensively- as per your original post.
>
>>> Poison their MS Word document format? It's funny, Microsoft has been
>>> changing their word processing format for more years than Linux has
>>> been in existence, yet suddenly Microsoft does this simply to
>>> prevent Linux from achieving parity. Uh huh. Perhaps you should
>>> look at a more realistic explanation.
>>
>> It's been a msStratigy too keep changing the formats in order to
>> leaverage msProduct. As his billness once said - making windows a
>> moving target.
>>
>> In other words making it impossible for any third party application to
>> function properly on the msPlatform.
>>
>> Anyone trying to write to these secret formats has to resort to
>> reverse engineering the format. No doubt by the time they have
>> sucessfully cracked version 1.1111 of what ever it is, version 1.1112
>> is out the door at Microsoft with all new "features" that
>> co-incidentally make it unable to read the old format.
>
>Word can always read it's old formats. You apparently don't know what
>you're talking about.
>
I do know that when I save to rich text format in word 2000 and send
it to someone - they can't read it. Apparently there are different
RTF versions.
>> Isn't curious how a lot of msProducts couldn't even read documents
>> made on older versions of themselves ?? The FUDGE team must have been
>> particularly over enthusiastic.
>
>This has never happened, that i'm aware of. Care to back it up?
>
A quick look on google ( the search engine ) found this one :-
From: Gary Wicks (gwi...@hotmail.com)
Message 1 in thread
Subject: Opening Previous Version's Files in XP
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.publisher
Date: 2002-08-19 04:06:28 PST
I Can't open files created in older versions in my nice
new version, it says "publisher cannot open files from a
different version". I know MS can be stupid, but that's
got to be a mistake!!
Suggestions??
>>> Word is based on legacy code, and uses an outdated binary file
>>> format which doesn't extend easily. BTW, the same is true of
>>> Wordperfect and Lotus's wordprocessor formats as well, but of course
>>> Microsoft must be behind that as well.
>>>
>> ".. Word is based on legacy code .." What does this mean ? What's
>> your point ? Is the file format outdated because the word executable
>> is "based on legacy code". What has the file format to do with the
>> code base of the application.
>
>The file format is created by the code. Or did you think it magically
>appears?
>
The file format is devised by the programmers. Usually before a single
line of code is written. Then the codesters got to work. It's trivial
to check for version number and allow for backwards compatibility.
>> With full access to the source code and full control of where any new
>> version of the file format is going - why IS it difficult to
>> "extend"
>
>because it's a binary memory dump format, placed in an OLE Compound document
>stream.
>
NO - They have full access to the code base they know exactly how to
extend it. Knowing this then how difficult can it be to devise a new
format that includes ther old format as a sub set ?
>When Microsoft, or hell.. most companies update their products, they try to
>make as few changes to existing working code as possible, because code that
>is changed needs to be retested. Their serialization routines are quite
>old, and probably largely untouched. They simply change the structures that
>are saved to disk rather than rewriting the serialization code itself.
>
>They are, however, slowly doing away with it.
>
>
Again Eric can read the minds of msDevelopers in the past.
What's this called - retrospective clairvoyance ?
Oh, contraire, mon ami - It is you who knows nothing at all :)
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:12:03 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>> Angerthas.Daeron <dae...@demon.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:53:06 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>>> <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
>>>> Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues
>>>> them over a patent infringement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
>>>
>>> Microsoft sues Slashdot
>>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
>>
>> Try again. Microsoft did not sue slashdot. Microsoft *ASKS*
>> Slashdot to do something. In fact, the words "sue" "suit" "legal
>> action" or anything like that don't appear in the message, it's
>> simply a request.
>>
>
> There were two points in the statement :-
> 1) Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
> Paul Cooke has refuted this one - nothing to add.
Paul didn't refute anything. It's not a lawsuit.
> The second :-
> 2) Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively
> The following demonstrates the falicy of your second arguament
That's not what I said, I said:
"Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them over a
patent infringement."
>>> "Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Inc." -
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet
>>
>> Trademark infringement, not DMCA. A trademark holder is required by
>> law to enforce their trademarks or they risk losing them.
No comment?
>> Again, this appears to be a trademark infringement suit.
>>
>>> MICROSOFT SUES IRS FOR EXPORT TAX BENEFITS
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd
>
> Correct url
> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/Edupage/1996/08/08-08-1996.html
There is nothing DMCA or Patent related in that link.
> See also
>
> http://news.com.com/2102-1001-228357.html?legacy=cnet
> Microsoft sues software developer Timeline
You really didn't read that, did you? That's a contract dispute. It's not
a microsoft patent, but a contract Timeline signed that gives MS the right
to use Timeline's patent.
> http://www.educause.edu/pub/edupage/archives/93/edupage-08.12.93.html
> ".. MICROSOFT SUES OVER PATENT. Microsoft Corp. has sued Stac
> Electronics, seeking to prohibit sales of Stac's data compression
> product used to increase the storage capacity of various computer
> operating systems. (Wall Street Journal 8/10/93) .."
>
> This is good, Microsoft steals code from Stac and then sues them for
> patent violation. Have these people no integrity ?
You still don't know how to read. *STAC* sued Microsoft for patent
infringement, Microsoft coutersued Stac over copyright infringement. Both
won.
> See also http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
> for more on Stac
> ...........
You should read these yourself.
> http://dallas.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/11/09/story1.html
> Microsoft sues for book notes, tapes
>
> This one about Microsoft sueing two authors for their research notes,
> to be used as evidence against Netscape.
>
> Again this has nothing to do with patent protection.
> The original point of your post.
Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, this suit is to obtain evidence for
their trial, otherwise known as a subpeona.
>> Ummm. this is the lindows suit again.
>>
>>> ".. Microsoft has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue
>>> Service, in an effort to recoup about $19 million .."
>>
>> And how could this possibly be related to the DMCA?
>
> It's not it just shows that the beast is never shy in suing other
> people, not just sueing -defensively- as per your original post.
Trademark infringement *IS* a defensive suit. It's defending your
trademark. Still, it's funny that you point this out after ignoring it up
above.
>>>> Poison their MS Word document format? It's funny, Microsoft has
>>>> been changing their word processing format for more years than
>>>> Linux has been in existence, yet suddenly Microsoft does this
>>>> simply to prevent Linux from achieving parity. Uh huh. Perhaps
>>>> you should look at a more realistic explanation.
>>>
>>> It's been a msStratigy too keep changing the formats in order to
>>> leaverage msProduct. As his billness once said - making windows a
>>> moving target.
>>>
>>> In other words making it impossible for any third party application
>>> to function properly on the msPlatform.
>>>
>>> Anyone trying to write to these secret formats has to resort to
>>> reverse engineering the format. No doubt by the time they have
>>> sucessfully cracked version 1.1111 of what ever it is, version
>>> 1.1112 is out the door at Microsoft with all new "features" that
>>> co-incidentally make it unable to read the old format.
>>
>> Word can always read it's old formats. You apparently don't know
>> what you're talking about.
>>
> I do know that when I save to rich text format in word 2000 and send
> it to someone - they can't read it. Apparently there are different
> RTF versions.
You're talking about the opposite. You claimed that Word couldn't read
older versions of it's own document format. That's not the same as saying
older versions of word can't read new versions of the document format.
In any event, I've never seen a case of Word not being able to read RTF
produced by any version.
>>> Isn't curious how a lot of msProducts couldn't even read documents
>>> made on older versions of themselves ?? The FUDGE team must have
>>> been particularly over enthusiastic.
>>
>> This has never happened, that i'm aware of. Care to back it up?
>
> A quick look on google ( the search engine ) found this one :-
>
> From: Gary Wicks (gwi...@hotmail.com)
> Message 1 in thread
> Subject: Opening Previous Version's Files in XP
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.publisher
>
> Date: 2002-08-19 04:06:28 PST
>
> I Can't open files created in older versions in my nice
> new version, it says "publisher cannot open files from a
> different version". I know MS can be stupid, but that's
> got to be a mistake!!
> Suggestions??
Looks like it was a bug. You forgot to include the responses which point
out how he can fix the problem:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ox2XNg7RCHA.2776%40tkmsftngp12
"Also make sure that you download the latest service pack for Publisher 2002
as this has addressed some problems opening older version of Publisher,
which give the exact same error message that you have received."
>>>> Word is based on legacy code, and uses an outdated binary file
>>>> format which doesn't extend easily. BTW, the same is true of
>>>> Wordperfect and Lotus's wordprocessor formats as well, but of
>>>> course Microsoft must be behind that as well.
>>>>
>>> ".. Word is based on legacy code .." What does this mean ? What's
>>> your point ? Is the file format outdated because the word executable
>>> is "based on legacy code". What has the file format to do with the
>>> code base of the application.
>>
>> The file format is created by the code. Or did you think it
>> magically appears?
>
> The file format is devised by the programmers. Usually before a single
> line of code is written. Then the codesters got to work. It's trivial
> to check for version number and allow for backwards compatibility.
There is backwards compatibility, there's not *FORWARD* comaptibility, which
is the ability for older versions to read newer formats.
>>> With full access to the source code and full control of where any
>>> new version of the file format is going - why IS it difficult to
>>> "extend"
>>
>> because it's a binary memory dump format, placed in an OLE Compound
>> document stream.
>
> NO - They have full access to the code base they know exactly how to
> extend it. Knowing this then how difficult can it be to devise a new
> format that includes ther old format as a sub set ?
You're working off the faulty premise that you can't read old versions of
the documents, you can, unless there's a bug as in the Publisher bug you
posted (which was fixed in a service pack).
>> When Microsoft, or hell.. most companies update their products, they
>> try to make as few changes to existing working code as possible,
>> because code that is changed needs to be retested. Their
>> serialization routines are quite old, and probably largely
>> untouched. They simply change the structures that are saved to disk
>> rather than rewriting the serialization code itself.
>>
>> They are, however, slowly doing away with it.
>
> Again Eric can read the minds of msDevelopers in the past.
> What's this called - retrospective clairvoyance ?
>
> Oh, contraire, mon ami - It is you who knows nothing at all :)
You have repeatedly shown you haven't a clue about how things work. Hell,
you don't even read your own links.
Dave Leigh
<pan.2002.12.08....@spambadTwilight-systems.com>:
>> So it is natural that Microsoft would do anything they can to do stuff
>> like poison their MS Word document format so Linux based word processors
>> can't work perfectly with it.
>
> This is why MS sees it as so important to dissuade office defections for
> as long as possible. If *any* critical mass of OpenOffice users emerges,
> if the Word format stops working, these users will start to request that
> the people they do business with download a free office package to read
> *their* documents, rather than those people expecting Openoffice users to
> spend money just to get document compatibility with their format.
Hmm. Here's an interesting thought. Microsoft is going to revise its Office
products and convert all of its file formats to XML. But you don't have to
wait for Microsoft to play catch-up with Open Source. OpenOffice formats
are XML RIGHT NOW. The formats are published. No lines, no waiting.
>> Patent and lock down their media formats so you
>> can't legally view them in Linux.
>
> I think the patent situation, and other legal strategies, are is the most
> significant threat. Far beyond any technical or marketplace threats.
This is certainly a threat. But more than anything, enforcing software
patents simply tends to drive people away from your product. Enforce GIF
and up pops PNG. Enforce MP3 and you push people to OGG Vorbis. IOW, a
strategy based on patent enforcement is temporary at best. Use it and you
practically guarantee that your technology's status will be downgraded from
"essential" to "also-ran".
I suspect that legal strategies based on restricting fair use alre likely
to fail in the long term as well. Such laws are nearly exclusive to the
U.S., and as such they're nearly unenforceable. Attempts at enforcement
will likely move technical innovation off-shore.
>> Lindows sales are stone cold proof (if in prototype) that if everything
>> that came out, had Linux drivers, and automatically worked with Linux,
>> Microsoft would have been driven out of business IN THE DESKTOP MARKET
>> long ago.
>
> Linux is not going to prevail in the home market. Walmart's Lindows is a
> nice proof-of-concept, but the defections will happen on the corporate
> desktop. Home end-users are just too fucking oblivious and weak-willed to
> make a difference there.
It's too early to make that assessment. We have a couple of years to go
before Linux even starts making a play for the home market in earnest.
Right now it's the playing field to watch is the corporate desktop.
--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org
cfswestern
"Steve Chaney" <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3df67b38...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>
Steve Chaney
Jim Lascola
> Angerthas.Daeron <dae...@demon.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:53:06 GMT, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Since when has Microsoft *EVER* sued anyone over a DMCA violation?
> >> Microsoft only uses it's patents defensively, when someone sues them
> >> over a patent infringement.
> >>
> >
> > As usual FudMeister is talking through his other orifice !
> >
> > Microsoft sues Slashdot
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
>
> Try again. Microsoft did not sue slashdot. Microsoft *ASKS* Slashdot to do
> something. In fact, the words "sue" "suit" "legal action" or anything like
> that don't appear in the message, it's simply a request.
>
> > "Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Inc." -
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-277314.html?legacy=cnet
>
> Trademark infringement, not DMCA. A trademark holder is required by law to
> enforce their trademarks or they risk losing them.
>
BULLSHIT No Trade,mark was infringed upon just ask the judge whom told
your employers the same thing
Jim
Jim Lascola
> >
> Again Eric can read the minds of msDevelopers in the past.
> What's this called - retrospective clairvoyance ?
No its called working for M$ and having total access to their secret
knowledge and code
Jim
billwg
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:53:29 GMT, "flacco"
>
> Commodores and Atari's?
>
users. The current computer owner is an application user.
Conor Turton
bil...@twcf.rr.com says...
no matter how basic, or input them froma listing. They knew how to use
command lines as there were only rudimentary GUIs but only later on.
Those who you could compare to modern Windows users had Atari 2600's
and later on Sega Master systems.
--
_________________________
Conor Turton
conor_...@hotmail.com
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
Dave Leigh
<36ovvusit54jlap0c...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:48:12 -0000, Conor Turton
> <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <j0PL9.399881$fa.82...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>bil...@twcf.rr.com says...
>>>
>>> "Steve Chaney" <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:3e00e0ac...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>>> > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:53:29 GMT, "flacco"
>>> >
>>> > Home end-users will turn. Remember how they turned to the PC from the
>>> > old Commodores and Atari's?
>>> >
>>> Not the same crowd, I'm afraid. The Commodore and Atari crowd were
>>> computer
>>> users. The current computer owner is an application user.
>>>
>>Amen to that. All 8bit computer users could write their own programs,
>>no matter how basic, or input them froma listing. They knew how to use
>>command lines as there were only rudimentary GUIs but only later on.
>>Those who you could compare to modern Windows users had Atari 2600's
>>and later on Sega Master systems.
>
> This is very true, but they (we) didn't have to deal with the immense
> amount of information that is out there today.
begin "in my day..." rant
Yeah, but the information we have today is accessible. You can usually take
it for granted that it will be there when you need it, and don't need to do
a lot of research in advance. The information we had to deal then with was
terribly inaccessible, and not at all indexed (unless you did it yourself.
I've got a shelf full of black composition books). Today we have Google,
and 9 out of 10 times you can find what you need with a few keystrokes.
Back then we had a few magazines (notably COMPUTE! and Computer Shopper)
and sometimes what you wanted would show up in there. But a lot of the time
it was trial and error.
[Notable exception. I called Texas Instruments regarding the TI-99/4a and
merely mentioned that I wanted to take advantage of some of the advanced
features of the Terminal Emulator II cartridge (the docs said it could
transmit sound, graphics, and synthesized speech in addition to text, but
didn't tell you how to do it). They sent me the TEII Programmer's Reference
Guide as well as the Editor/Assembler and TI-LOGO gratis. Sure enough, it
worked, even on a 300baud modem. Nice people at TI. This was in 1984, and I
still remember the phone number... 1-800-TI-CARES]
end