EU is on the loose.
Stig Johansen
I just saw this (Sorry, it in Danish)
<http://www.computerworld.dk/art/43689?cid=10&a=cid&i=10&o=6&pos=7>
It is just initial research about monopoly (MS).
But now it is about abusing bundling, and could end up with a demand of not
bundling .NET with Windows (In EU).
It's just speculating at the moment, and if 'it becomes true' it will take
years.
The Delphi related?
Just be aware of there could come a day where you cannot say 'okay, the .NET
is installed everywhere'.
Another outcome could be '.NET is installed everywhere(incl. Linux)' which
will be a better outcome.
Just some thoughts about planning the future, if one operates in EU.
--
Best regards
Stig Johansen
I.P. Nichols
>
> I just saw this (Sorry, it in Danish)
> <http://www.computerworld.dk/art/43689?cid=10&a=cid&i=10&o=6&pos=7>
The EU is a quirky bunch, last year they were threatening Microsoft over
unique features in Vista. ;-)
> It is just initial research about monopoly (MS).
> But now it is about abusing bundling, and could end up with a demand of
> not
> bundling .NET with Windows (In EU).
How could even those quirky EU commissars consider the .NET framework some
sort of unfair advantage.
> It's just speculating at the moment, and if 'it becomes true' it will take
> years.
> The Delphi related?
> Just be aware of there could come a day where you cannot say 'okay, the
> .NET
> is installed everywhere'.
It's highly doubtful that there will ever come a day that the .NET framework
is installed everywhere.
> Another outcome could be '.NET is installed everywhere(incl. Linux)' which
> will be a better outcome.
I wonder what Paul Nichols will have to say about that being a better
outcome. ;-))
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
news:478d...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> It is just initial research about monopoly (MS).
> But now it is about abusing bundling, and could end up with a demand of
> not
> bundling .NET with Windows (In EU).
There ought to be a law that stops car companies from bundling engines with
their cars - it's so unfair to all the other companies that would like to
build alternative engines. Maybe GM should be forced to bundle Ford engines
instead of their own, or at least they should be required to remove the
ignition key from the dashboard so customers won't automatically just use
the default engine.
Idiots.
--
Wayne Niddery - TeamB (www.teamb.com)
Winwright, Inc. (www.winwright.ca)
GrandmasterB
news:478d1056$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> How could even those quirky EU commissars consider the .NET framework some
> sort of unfair advantage.
Advantage? I thought that was their punishment :-)
DS
news:478d1788
> Idiots.
Agreed.
If it makes /some/ sense to question/prohibit distributing MediaPlayer with
OS, there is no sense in prohibiting .net (or any other) runtimes. Who are
they punishing, shareware authors?
I guess COMCTL× is next?
LP from EU,
Dejan
Henrick Hellström
> How could even those quirky EU commissars consider the .NET framework
> some sort of unfair advantage.
I presume it is the other way around: The .NET Framework gets an unfair
advantage (vs. JAVA and other frameworks) by being bundled with Windows.
FWIW and IMHO I think they are right, but five years too late.
Henrick Hellström
> If it makes /some/ sense to question/prohibit distributing MediaPlayer
> with OS, there is no sense in prohibiting .net (or any other) runtimes.
Of course there is a lot of sense in that. Do you think Borland would
have pushed C#Builder and Delphi8 out of the door as quickly as they
did, if everyone had known that it will *never* be the case that all
future Windows programming will be done in .NET, because EU will never
allow it?
Richard Foersom
The ComputerWorld article is very short on the point of dot-Net, but it seems to be related to lack of available information to write software that can inter-operate with the MS products.
Another article on same subject:
<http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35599/118/>
EU Commission is going to investigate alligation from other companies that MS has withheld information. The commission has not charged MS.
Given MS dominant position in the market, it is important that the commission do check this.
Doei RIF
David Smith
>
> Idiots.
>
Yes, those stupid competition laws started just 2000 years ago and all
those years these idiots have been enforcing them.
I'm glad that you are smarter than all of them and finally saw the light.
David S.
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
That is probably the logic behind it.
I do not know if others (other than Java which MS used to ship with
Windows, before MS violated the license agreements), have asked MS to
ship their VM or not. Perhaps someone from Open Source petitioned some
other VM be shipped with Windows and MS would not comply and therefore
it was seen as an unfair advantage (could even have been a plugin like
Flash or RealPlayer),
I would doubt this was brought up by Sun, since they settled the
lawsuit. But I doubt the EU thought this up all by themselves.
Whether they will win or not, is questionable. However, if they did, NET
is going to become a difficult sale with a 50 meg Runtime, except for
Server based apps.
Personally, I think MS should have a right to ship what they want on
their own OS. It is difficult for them to support others products on
their own OS. I do think they were wrong on Java, since they did ship a
VM by default.But that's water under the bridge.
Henrick Hellström
> I would doubt this was brought up by Sun, since they settled the
> lawsuit. But I doubt the EU thought this up all by themselves.
That depends on if it is the Court or the Commission and/or Parliament
that is behind it. If it is the Court there has to be a complaining
party. If it is the Commission and/or Parliament it might very well be
some junior assistant with roots in the Linux community that wrote a
report that has worked itself up the hierarchy.
> Whether they will win or not, is questionable. However, if they did, NET
> is going to become a difficult sale with a 50 meg Runtime, except for
> Server based apps.
Well, I am not so sure about that.
Firstly, I and all of my neighbors have a bleeding edge 100 Mbit/s cable
connection at home (for which I pay less than the equivalent of
EUR50/month), and all the major ADSL providers offer 24 Mbit/s
connections to the majority of the homes here in Sweden. With such
speeds a 50 MB download via Microsoft Update is not something to whine
about.
Secondly, Microsoft could (and IMHO should have) divide the .NET
Framework into separate modules in a manner that would facilitate
redistribution of only the portions required in order to run a
particular piece of software. (Oh, wait, you can already do that with
VCL Win32. ;))
Stig Johansen
I just saw the information, and i can not verify the validity.
But the essentials in all this i MS _misusing_ their _Monopoly_ by bundling
various things.
The issues is not techniques, but economy.
I think you can compare it with Anti Trust in the US.
If you think of the sum of $ the whole EU pays to MS, i think they are
pretty tired.
MS _has_ been sentenced with succes, so maybe, maybe not there will be an
outcome sometime, but that will probably take years and years with appeal's
and so on.
Personally i don't care - i just do what _my_ customers tells me to do.
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> Paul Nichols [TeamB] wrote:
> That depends on if it is the Court or the Commission and/or Parliament
> that is behind it. If it is the Court there has to be a complaining
> party. If it is the Commission and/or Parliament it might very well be
> some junior assistant with roots in the Linux community that wrote a
> report that has worked itself up the hierarchy.
>
Possibly. I am certainly not versed on EU Law. In the US, of course,
actions against individuals or companies go through the court system.
Therefore, someone would have to bring charges and offer proof.
>
>> Whether they will win or not, is questionable. However, if they did,
>> NET is going to become a difficult sale with a 50 meg Runtime, except
>> for Server based apps.
>
> Well, I am not so sure about that.
>
This was the major impediment in Java applet adoption. Sure, much of the
world has high speed internet today, but a large portion of the world
still does not.
However, it is not only the download itself, but also installation
issues. Even in Enterprises, since the PC is locked down (users cannot
install applications by default), this too made Java Applets less
popular. When MS bundled a VM, Java Applets were quite popular. Since
the removal of the VM, applet popularity waned.
>
> Secondly, Microsoft could (and IMHO should have) divide the .NET
> Framework into separate modules in a manner that would facilitate
> redistribution of only the portions required in order to run a
> particular piece of software. (Oh, wait, you can already do that with
> VCL Win32. ;))
That would be even more problematic for the average user. Of course, you
could bundle applications with packages, now you are back to install and
complexity issues.
Michael Anonymous
> "Stig Johansen" <a...@bbb.com> wrote in message
> news:478d...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> It is just initial research about monopoly (MS).
>> But now it is about abusing bundling, and could end up with a demand
>> of not
>> bundling .NET with Windows (In EU).
>
>
> There ought to be a law that stops car companies from bundling engines
> with their cars
That's not really a fair comparison.
A fair comparison would be saying that MS owns 95% of the car market
( with the car market being the OS market ).
Breaking them up into smaller companies would be the right thing to
do to foster competition - according to our own US anti-trust laws.
The EU is doing the right thing,
we aren't.
I'm not going to support a monopoly in the market place.
Perhaps, you guys would.
But I believe there should been a free market - not a monopoly in it's place.
Abraham
Do you need GM's permission when you are selling your car?
Does GM forbid you to lend your car to the neighbor?
Can you make some copies of your car and give them to your family members?
...
Regards, Abraham
I.P. Nichols
So five years ago the EU commissars should have crippled Microsoft's .NET
thus saving Borland from it's own bad judgement? <RBG>
I.P. Nichols
> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> How could even those quirky EU commissars consider the .NET framework
>> some sort of unfair advantage.
>
> total moron that was promoted up the ladder of political uselessness to
> get rid of her from the politics in the contry she used to live in.
Spooky...
Henrick Hellström
Rather, the market impact of .NET is already done.
Andy Syms
> > Because the "lady" who is on the top of that investigation body is a
> > total moron that was promoted up the ladder of political
> > uselessness to get rid of her from the politics in the contry she
> > used to live in.
>
> Spooky...
Nah... happens all the time... it's called the 'Peter Principle'... in
any hierarchical organisation an individual rises to their own level of
incompetence.
--
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd
I.P. Nichols
She is way beyond her level of incompetence, hence Spooky...
Joachim Römke
"Wayne Niddery (TeamB)" <wnid...@chaffaci.on.ca> schrieb
>> It is just initial research about monopoly (MS).
>> But now it is about abusing bundling, and could end up with a demand of
>> not
>> bundling .NET with Windows (In EU).
> Idiots.
It is a complaint by ECIS.
It seems to me that the 'Idiots' are IBM,SUN,Oracle,....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Committee_for_Interoperable_Systems
Nevertheless,I can't find anything about removing .net
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/19&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Stig Johansen
> Nevertheless,I can't find anything about removing .net
>
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/19&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Sorry for focusing on .NET, I just needed a way to use the word Delphi, so I
was not totally off-topic.
The danish article i a follow up on some other articles, and are more
focused about things to come, and .NET is mentioned as a target for future
investigation.
<from_arcticle>
EU retter samtidig søgelyset mod Microsoft kerneteknologi for
internetbaserede applikationer, .Net.
</from_arcticle>
Approxamately:
At the same time EU are looking at Microsoft core technology for internet
based applications, .NET.
We need to observe, that the article are written by Journalists, so maybe
maybe not.
It could be .NET applications, .NET framework, or maybe a misunderstanding
of the journalist.
The primer is that MS was sentensed(in September), that bundling Media
Player with Windows was _illegal_ (in EU).
And anotherone about documentaion of 'internal things'.
<from_arcticle>
Enden på striden blev, at EU tvang Microsoft til at gøre sine tekniske
specifikationer for work group-servere tilgængelige for konkurrenterne for
at sikre interoperabilitet.
</from_arcticle>
Approxamately:
The end of this 'battle' was that EU forced Microsoft to publish technical
specifications about 'work group-servers' etc..
This was about SMB CIFS, so that 'Samba' can get information about to come
interoperable with Windows file sharing.
The overall message in the article is that finally 'it works' (in EU), and
'they' (EU) (maybe) are becoming more and more 'evil'.
Just in case:
I'm not trying to be for or against anything, I'm just trying to inform
what's going on over here.
As in: 'I'm not sure this is interesting outside of EU, and maybe not will
be mentioned/covered there'.
Stig Johansen
Sorry, forgot to mention.
It's not _only_ about Microsoft.
According to the article Qualcomm, Intel and Google is on the radar as well.
Bob
>
> I'm not going to support a monopoly in the market place.
> Perhaps, you guys would.
> But I believe there should been a free market - not a monopoly in
> it's place.
IMO, ms has the majority share of the market because the users of the
product put them there. There are plenty of choices out their. Some
are even free. Anyone is perfectly able to use other products. No one
forces them to use MS. Sure, MS is agressive in its business, but
thats what a business is supposed to do. There is a free market here.
You do not have to use MS.
If you are in business, do you actively make choices in your work to
give your competitors a chance to take away your customers? I'm
guessing no.
--
Bob
> The primer is that MS was sentensed(in September), that bundling Media
> Player with Windows was illegal (in EU).
ha. And coming soon, the EU will be claiming that the MS is bundling
calculator (wincalc) software illegally with its Windows os giving MS
an unfair advantage. ;)
--
Bob
What advantage? Just because its bundled doesnt give it any advantage
IMO. Do you really think a user will install the opsys and decided to
go with .net over jave just because .net is preinstalled? rubish. If
someone wants java, they will get the free download, if someone wants
.net, they will do the same, or in Vistas case, they can avoid the
download.
--
Markus.Humm
But that would only be rigth if one looks at the definition of OS: a
software which provides the other software the necessary functions to be
able to run on a particular computer. Is WinCalc necessary for any other
software? Show me which other software does use wincalc (automated) for
something! ;-)
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
I'd rather say: MS should be split up into the OS division and the
application division. Then the OS division should be required to
publically provide meaningfull documentation about ALL APIs and
the app. developpers can/must use it. So none of them would get any
information advantage over others.
Greetings
Markus
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
exercise it.
Now that MS actually has valid competition with Mac and Linux (even
though they may still have a Desktop monopoly), it would be even more
difficult to justify this. Linux and Mac Desktop deployments have and
are increasing, and with the new Cheap notebooks and Desktops like the
Asus Eee and the Green PC, which are using Linux by default (XP and
certainly Vista would not run on these anyway), MS could easily point to
this competition. Couple this with the fact that now all major hardware
firms (Dell, HP, Leveno) are offering Linux Desktops, I see no way that
the DOJ could justify splitting MS up.
Chris Rolliston
It's slightly changing the topic of the thread I know, but I don't buy
that line about 'secret APIs', for more than one reason. Firstly, MS
Office (say) has always used far less of the API than it might have -
it has often (always?) used its own toolbar implementation, for
instance. And secondly, things like the internal shell stuff dating
from Win95 that finally got documented on MSDN a few years back is
*horribly* hacky - the fact that it was intended to be internal code is
obvious. Quite frankly, I don't want non-MS programs to use that
stuff, not for the least because it means MS will feel the need to keep
supporting it in new versions of Windows.
Stig Johansen
I know, that the Mediaplayer might be 'laghable' - but the impact, Bob - the
impact.
As you wrote, everybody could download some other player, but when it is
preinstalled, ask how many people _does_ it, or even _know_ they can do it.
This not about locking _in_ the users, it about locking _out_ the
competitors.
The EU is still in yhe process to be a real union, so I think this is a
rather new area.
I see it as a 'Trial in court' sentence to clarify the question: 'Is this
_kind_ of stuff _illigal_'.
I don't know about the mecanics of EU law, but in DK we can rather easy
'reuse' such a sentense, and i think it's the same in EU.
So it can be reused when bundling everything from anybody.
Since you don't have to clarify if it's illegal, only if it happens, things
might go faster than you think.
Opera is after their browser now.
Stig Johansen
> Henrick Hellström wrote:
>> I.P. Nichols wrote:
>>> How could even those quirky EU commissars consider the .NET framework
>>> some sort of unfair advantage.
>>
>> I presume it is the other way around: The .NET Framework gets an unfair
>> advantage (vs. JAVA and other frameworks) by being bundled with Windows.
>>
>> FWIW and IMHO I think they are right, but five years too late.
>
> That is probably the logic behind it.
Another thougt could be, that MS is locking _out_ 'Mono competitors'.
Compatibility is the issue.
Stig Johansen
> IMO, ms has the majority share of the market because the users of the
> product put them there. There are plenty of choices out their.
Theese things are _not_ about the users, but _interoperability_, that's why
OOXML is also coming in the radar. We are very worried about exchanging
documents from the public to the citisens, forcing them to use MS Office,
leaving them with _no_ other choice than MS Office -> Windows -> No other
choice.
Stig Johansen
>> I'd rather say: MS should be split up into the OS division and the
>> application division. Then the OS division should be required to
>> publically provide meaningfull documentation about ALL APIs and the
>> app. developpers can/must use it. So none of them would get any
>> information advantage over others.
The 'Samba' case was exactly a demand of giving _nessecary_ documentation.
But this was about the _protocol_. MS are using their 'own' kind of SMB/CIFS
in their desktop and file servers. Samba has(had?) to reverse engineer the
protocol in order to get MS 'compatibility'.
They will allways be behind, so it is 'easier' to use MS File servers.
I have a customer, who have quite a lot of MS file servers. They could save
quite a few buck by being _able_ to _choose_ a competitors product.
IFIRC, there was a similar case in US in the 80's. IBM used their SNA
monopoly in the same way, leaving competitors to reverse engineering.
> It's slightly changing the topic of the thread I know, but I don't buy
> that line about 'secret APIs', for more than one reason. Firstly, MS
> Office (say) has always used far less of the API than it might have -
> it has often (always?) used its own toolbar implementation, for
> instance.
And by using their _own_[1] protocol in Outlook, you _need_ to buy MS
Exchange Server as well, or vise versa.
So i _could_ be a reality, that MS is forced to document their interface.
[1] I have seen various warnings about using Outlook against 'other' IMAP
servers.
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> > IMO, ms has the majority share of the market because the users of
> > the product put them there. There are plenty of choices out their.
> >
>
> Theese things are not about the users, but interoperability, that's
> why OOXML is also coming in the radar. We are very worried about
> exchanging documents from the public to the citisens, forcing them to
> use MS Office, leaving them with no other choice than MS Office ->
> Windows -> No other choice.
What is the difference between public and citizens? Arent they one in
the same? Regardless, I still contend, they have a choice. People are
not forced to use Word or office. If someone is worried about
proprietory content, use text files or rich text or some other format
or some other product.
Say I created a product and want to sell it in Eur. If my database is a
home grown format, would I be forced to convert it to some "standard"
format?
I'm sure I am missing the big picture, but this doesnt make sense to me.
--
Zoren Lendry
> Regardless, I still contend, they have a choice. People are
> not forced to use Word or office. If someone is worried about
> proprietory content, use text files or rich text or some other format
> or some other product.
Regardless of your position on whether governments should do anything
about it, you cannot argue that being the purveyor of the OS does not
provide at least 3 huge, sometimes unassailable advantages: a) laziness
will dictate that pre-loaded sw almost always guarantees wide adoption,
if quality is not widely different, b) time to market using latest OS
capabilities, and c) technical advantages due to access to proprietary
information about both the technical details of the underlying layer,
and future plans of where it is going.
Any one of these enormous advantages can easily make the difference in
the marketplace.
According to anti-trust law, the OS and the App divisions would probably
end up in separate companies. But as has been mentioned, it is probably
too late to make a difference. And under the monopoly, there have been
huge gains to consumers, as well as huge losses. I'm not sure I can say
which was predominant.
Loren sZendre
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> > Stig Johansen wrote:
> >
> >> The primer is that MS was sentensed(in September), that bundling
> Media >> Player with Windows was illegal (in EU).
> >
> > ha. And coming soon, the EU will be claiming that the MS is
> > bundling calculator (wincalc) software illegally with its Windows
> > os giving MS an unfair advantage. ;)
>
> I know, that the Mediaplayer might be 'laghable' - but the impact,
> Bob - the impact.
>
> As you wrote, everybody could download some other player, but when it
> is preinstalled, ask how many people does it, or even know they can
> do it. This not about locking in the users, it about locking out the
> competitors.
>
> The EU is still in yhe process to be a real union, so I think this is
> a rather new area.
>
> I see it as a 'Trial in court' sentence to clarify the question: 'Is
> this _kind_ of stuff _illigal_'.
>
> I don't know about the mecanics of EU law, but in DK we can rather
> easy 'reuse' such a sentense, and i think it's the same in EU.
>
> So it can be reused when bundling everything from anybody.
>
> Since you don't have to clarify if it's illegal, only if it happens,
> things might go faster than you think.
>
> Opera is after their browser now.
I somewhat see you point. It still doesnt seem logical though.
If something (for example) a media player is important to you, you
would seek out the best one for your needs. That may be something
bundled with something else, or it may be another product that you have
to buy from a competitor. At this point, it is the best one for the
persons needs that will win. No unfair practices here, they choose.
If a media player is not important to you; you may use the free one
that is bundled or you may not. But how does this hurt the competitors
in this case. If it is unimportant, you would not buy a competitor
product anyway. So I see nothing unfair here either.
I'm sure, as I have posted elsewhere, that I am missing something
important. Or at least important to the EU, and I don't mean to
minimize their needs, its just that I don't see the unfairness they are
claiming exist (with MicroSoft in particular-are there other companies
in the cross hairs?)
--
Bob
>
> Regardless of your position on whether governments should do anything
> about it, you cannot argue that being the purveyor of the OS does not
> provide at least 3 huge, sometimes unassailable advantages: a)
> laziness will dictate that pre-loaded sw almost always guarantees
> wide adoption, if quality is not widely different, b) time to market
> using latest OS capabilities, and c) technical advantages due to
> access to proprietary information about both the technical details of
> the underlying layer, and future plans of where it is going.
>
> Any one of these enormous advantages can easily make the difference
> in the marketplace.
>
> According to anti-trust law, the OS and the App divisions would
> probably end up in separate companies. But as has been mentioned, it
> is probably too late to make a difference. And under the monopoly,
> there have been huge gains to consumers, as well as huge losses. I'm
> not sure I can say which was predominant.
>
> Loren sZendre
a) Yes, I agree
b) Maybe. I think if you said "cheapness" dictates... then I would
agree. People want to get the most bang for their buck. If MS only
made an opsys, and everything else had to come from other vendors, the
equivelent system would go WAY up in overall cost. If you had to buy
your car from parts rather than the whole thing at once you would be
amazed at what you would pay.
c) Yes, I agree. But its their product. They have the right to
advantages over their material. Ford had huge technical advantages
when they started out. Now who is the (debatable) leader? Toyota? At
least its not Ford (imo). Build a better product and better pricing
and people will come.
It seems to me that all of this is trying to make everyone "equal".
Which is not and never will be the case. Some people/companies have
what it takes and some dont. You cant legislate that as it will only
bring things down to the lowest denominator. You cant say that MS cant
be beaten either because they have advantages. It just takes someone
to make something that is better and can take customers from MS. Doing
this though laws is not the way. Do it through innovation. Heck, look
at microsoft themselves. They did it. I am sure it can be done again.
Not easily, I will concede, but it can be done.
Look at Word and WordPerfect. WordPerfect owned the market at one
time. The first Word was real cheesy and weak compared to WP. Now Word
owns it. Was that unfair? No, Word became the better product while WP
languished. Lotus 123, same thing. Now they REALLY owned it. Everyone
used this thing (well most :). Now I don't even know if it exists
anywhere. Unfair? nope. Excel became a better product.
I'm sure we will probably agree to disagree here, but I enjoy the
conversation non-the-less.
regards...
--
Stig Johansen
> I somewhat see you point. It still doesnt seem logical though.
Legal stuff isn't logical to me either.
I'm a computer guy, and i am just trying to understand as well.
> If a media player is not important to you; you may use the free one
> that is bundled or you may not. But how does this hurt the competitors
> in this case.
I am not sure, but i think it had somthing to with RealPlayer being unable
to penetrate the market because 'Why should we need that, we're ok wit the
bundled Player'. It has been going on for years, incl. appeal's from
Microsoft, so i can't remember tge starting point.
> I'm sure, as I have posted elsewhere, that I am missing something
> important. Or at least important to the EU, and I don't mean to
> minimize their needs, its just that I don't see the unfairness they are
> claiming exist
I think free marketing/competition is the issue. There will be no real
competitors to the bundled 'things'.
EU is still in process of becoming a Union, i think you can compare it
somehow to the establishing of the United Stated in the past.
But since the starting point in the past was _very_ different
population,economical levels,languages,Kind of money etc.
It is not _that_ long ago (almost) converted to Euro.
I suspect EU are in the process of implemennting _their_ 'version' of
anti-trust.
> (with MicroSoft in particular-are there other companies
> in the cross hairs?)
Yes, Google should be looked upon according to the article.
I think Microsoft was chosen as an initial victim, because it was so
obvious.
But this is my _personal_ interpretation of the 'Game'.
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
Stig Johansen
> Stig Johansen wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> > IMO, ms has the majority share of the market because the users of
>> > the product put them there. There are plenty of choices out their.
>> >
>>
>> Theese things are not about the users, but interoperability, that's
>> why OOXML is also coming in the radar. We are very worried about
>> exchanging documents from the public to the citisens, forcing them to
>> use MS Office, leaving them with no other choice than MS Office ->
>> Windows -> No other choice.
>
> What is the difference between public and citizens? Arent they one in
> the same?
Thank you for clearing up. I didn't _know_ it was the same.
In DK we have 'public' as in 'public buildings' etc. And Borger as everybody
who lives in the country.
And we have 'public sector' as in 'the government'.
OOXML is about giving information to the public(borger). If OOXML would only
be readable in MS Office (or Word) this wil imply that every single
'borger' is forced to buy MS in order to read their information.
Same goes if someone will exchange documents with the 'public sector',
including hospitals etc.
> Regardless, I still contend, they have a choice. People are
> not forced to use Word or office.
That's the issue in some of the EU governments, are they _not_ forced.
If _not_ forced, MS will go free. There has been a lot of testing with
governmental 'pilots' regarding Openoffice. They all say the same, it's not
mature yet.
This goes both for ODF -> OOXML and vice versa.
In OOXML, they have this little binary object, which use it _not_ exposed to
the public.
> proprietory content, use text files or rich text or some other format
> or some other product.
We are, and are using PDF, but that's a readonly. You need to have something
better to send a digitally signed letter to the public sector.
By now, the defacto standard is format Word.
Farshad
> Doubt that. I do not see MONO as challenging Microsoft on NET at all.
Yes, MONO in its current shape is far from being a competitor to .NET.
My personal theory is that .NET VM was an extra layer added to avoid
emulation of Windows apps in other OSs. Microsoft noticed that their Win32
lib can be emulated with WINE and it was a potential danger for furture of
their OS sales. To avoid this they added a VM running on top of the Win32
which makes it very difficult to emulate. It requires you to impelement 100%
of the .NET libraries which MONO failed to achieve. MONO has a nice library
but can you compile something in VS and run it on MONO without any
modification? Even my native Delphi apps are more portable than any
application that I may develope in Delphi.NET or VS.NET. Besides, injecting
a few dose of .NET code into Win32 apps unables you to run them under WINE.
So EU was right with this decision and I congratulate them. They can
recognize a monopolizer from a 3000 miles off. :)
I'm not saying that with this move EU can stop MS from monopolizing the
market. I highly doubt it.
Stig Johansen
> My personal theory is that .NET VM was an extra layer added to avoid
> emulation of Windows apps in other OSs.
Ditto.
> It requires you to impelement
> 100% of the .NET libraries which MONO failed to achieve.
I'm not sure if i express myself correctly, but it is because MS only
released 'partial' .NET info etc. The rest is up to reverse engeniering.
And didn't they make this ROTOR thing, copyrighting it, so it became
unusable?
> MONO has a nice
> library but can you compile something in VS and run it on MONO without any
> modification?
I (think I) am sure, there is some 'secret' in a VS compiled .NET app.
> So EU was right with this decision and I congratulate them. They can
> recognize a monopolizer from a 3000 miles off. :)
Correct, and i have done a little research to get some facts instead of
trusting my volatile ram.
The original sentense was on march 23, 2004.
Of course MS appealed and so on.
In july the _Danish_ EU President of Judge(Bo Vesterdorf) had to take over,
thereby delaying the case.
But 'the other' was becoming to 'soft'.
According to an article: 'Bo Vesterdorf har tidligere været hård overfor
Microsoft' = 'has previous been hard against Microsoft'.
Why do i mention this?
Because it is not some 'lady' as others might believe, there is involved.
Under my googling I stumbled upon the very sentence, which can be reached
(and in english) here:
<http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070063en.pdf>
I've not read it yet, but i think i will, if i get the time, so i can
understand what's going on.
It also contains a referense to 'Article 82 of the EC Treaty' which i also
would like to read - if i ever get the time.
> I'm not saying that with this move EU can stop MS from monopolizing the
> market. I highly doubt it.
The global market - no, absolutely not.
But the EU market?
MS has to balance between making different versions inside the EU and
outside EU.
And they can choose to only make documentation available _inside_ EU (if it
can be done).
I think it will be a MS _cost_ evaluation against potential _gain_ outside
EU.
But that will be entirely MS's decision.
Again, I am not a MS basher, my customers have payed me _very_ well to use
MS products (and of course the _invauable_ Delphi), but i think 'we' have
to consider these 'things' in a long term strategy.
From my POW, it is still like looking in a crystal bowl, anything can
happen, or nothing can happen or in between.
Stig Johansen
> Stig Johansen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Because it is not some 'lady' as others might believe, there is
>> involved.
>
>> Neelie Kroes Eurocommissaresse voor Mededingingen
> She even had some dinner with Steve Ballmer..
>
> While she isn't the judge, she has/had a very big hand in it.
Sorry for not investigating, or reading your post correctly.
It's just that when i see words like the "lady" and political, i somehow
transfer over to Margeret Thatcher in my mind:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher>
I read as a kind of joke ;-)
Bob
>
> Thank you for clearing up. I didn't know it was the same.
> In DK we have 'public' as in 'public buildings' etc. And Borger as
> everybody who lives in the country.
> And we have 'public sector' as in 'the government'.
Interesting. Here, in U.S., public is considered the "citizens" or the
regular people (borger). And we just use 'goverment' as the all the
public funded entities - or if you want to use our slang, government
could be termed "the man" :)
>
> OOXML is about giving information to the public(borger). If OOXML
> would only be readable in MS Office (or Word) this wil imply that
> every single 'borger' is forced to buy MS in order to read their
> information. Same goes if someone will exchange documents with the
> 'public sector', including hospitals etc.
>
> > Regardless, I still contend, they have a choice. People are
> > not forced to use Word or office.
>
> That's the issue in some of the EU governments, are they not forced.
> If not forced, MS will go free. There has been a lot of testing with
> governmental 'pilots' regarding Openoffice. They all say the same,
> it's not mature yet.
> This goes both for ODF -> OOXML and vice versa.
> In OOXML, they have this little binary object, which use it not
> exposed to the public.
>
> > proprietory content, use text files or rich text or some other
> > format or some other product.
>
> We are, and are using PDF, but that's a readonly. You need to have
> something better to send a digitally signed letter to the public
> sector.
>
> By now, the defacto standard is format Word.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand. It seems as if they are
just trying to create an encompassing standard format for all the
people, which I don't have a problem with. Its the "forcing" of a
company to create this standard for them that I have issue with.
--
Stig Johansen
> Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand.
Allmost.
> It seems as if they are
> just trying to create an encompassing standard format for all the
> people, which I don't have a problem with.
In DK, it's not _creating_ a standard, but _choosing_ a standard (format).
'We' have more or less chosen ODF as the national standard, but there are
very strong 'forces' to chose OOXML as well. The government has dictated,
that 'we' only use open standards starting at 1/1-2008. If any part of the
government will chose otherwise, they _must_ document their needs.
And by open standards, it goes all the way including ws* etc.
The 'game' is whether OOXML becomes an ISO standard.
MS has chosen the 'fast ECMA route', and there is some disturbance about
some pro OOXML votes suddenly appearing from nowhere.
I know that we are 'forced' to use OOXML by now, but in the long run?
> Its the "forcing" of a
> company to create this standard for them that I have issue with.
No one is forcing anyone _creating_ a standard, just _comply_ with
standards.
Markus.Humm
btw. XP will run on the Asus EEPC since they will ship a driver cd
along. At least what I've read in a normally trustworthy source.
Greetings
Markus
Jon Springs
of hidden API functions in it's application products.
Windoze 3.11 was a blatant attempt to put DRDOS out of business by putting
up a warning dialog if Win was run on a DRDOS machine.
Very definately, M$ is capable and has proven willing to use such devious
tactics to build and maintian it's monopoly.
-----Jon-----
"Chris Rolliston" <sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:478ea09d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Chris Rolliston
> documentation. But this was about the protocol. MS are using their
> 'own' kind of SMB/CIFS in their desktop and file servers. Samba
> has(had?) to reverse engineer the protocol in order to get MS
> 'compatibility'.
OK. But is such a case so terrible that it requires some government or
supra-governmental agency to force MS to share or 'document' its own
code? Back in the day, MS had to reverse engineer the WordPerfect
document format to get a good importer for Word - were the owners of
WordPerfect at the time committing a terrible misdeed in not being
'open'? My intuition says 'no' to both questions, though others
obviously see the general issue differently.
> [1] I have seen various warnings about using Outlook against 'other'
> IMAP servers.
Boo for Outlook then - why not look for an alternative? Looking at the
matter in general terms, if MS have a general policy of tying their
products so closely together that rejecting one may require rejecting a
bunch, then in the long run this may well turn out to MS' comptetitive
disadvantage.
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
news:478fdafb$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> Back in the early days of Windoze, there were books written about M$'s use
> of hidden API functions in it's application products.
The idea that every function present in the O/S should be public is silly.
That's all that those books were about - tracing through to find that
various API calls made *other* function calls internally. If you provide an
interface (whether API-like or via COM, SOAP, whatever) do you really
believe you are obligated to provide access to every method of every object
in your app - that you should not be allowed to have private functions? The
author of those books decided arbitrarily that some particualr functions he
unearthed were somehow kept secret for nefarious purposes.
> Windoze 3.11 was a blatant attempt to put DRDOS out of business by putting
> up a warning dialog if Win was run on a DRDOS machine.
Amazing how various details get left out over time. Need to put them back
in. That warning was only present in a *beta* version of Win3.1 (or 3.11,
whichever it was), it did not appear in the final public versions. It was
also apparently put there on the initiative of a single developer without
approval - which is of course why it was removed as well.
> Very definately, M$ is capable and has proven willing to use such devious
> tactics to build and maintian it's monopoly.
Besides the Stacker case, which they were indeed guilty of and properly
caught, they've have practically never done such "devious" things. They've
actually been very open about their goals and intent all along. After all,
the success of their O/S - the reason for their dominance - is precisely
because it has been so easy to wriote good software for that O/S, certainly
not for blocking the development of such software.
--
Wayne Niddery - TeamB (www.teamb.com)
Winwright, Inc. (www.winwright.ca)
Bob
> In DK, it's not creating a standard, but choosing a standard (format).
Ok, now I am coming along. I don't have any problem whatsoever with
this. In fact it has a lot of sense to it. I wish we would do
something similar here and adopt metric standard...(but I digress :)
Now if this standard is adopted, and MS does not adhere to it, then I
would say that MS product should not be used. If MS wants those
customers, then they should comply or loose them. Thats reasonable.
But how I have been reading this, there is an attempt to force MS to
adopt. That I dont agree with.
I understand that with this standard coming in late it like the cow is
out of the barn. MS was widely adopted before the standard, and it
would be difficult (if not impossible) to just "not use them" anymore.
So I can see the dilema.
aaah. I guess you and I cannot resolve the worlds problems here ;)
Thanks for your patience with me. I have learned much from your posts.
--
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
>
> Markus
They (MS) are working on a stripped down version. Sure you can run it,
just as you can load Vista on a 1gz. machine. But it will run like a DOG!
Stig Johansen
> But how I have been reading this, there is an attempt to force MS to
> adopt. That I dont agree with.
As a matter of fact it goes two ways,
We are trying to force MS to be compatible _compatible_ with ODF (as in
File save as).
AND if OOXML becomes ISO certified,
we are trying to force Star/Open-office to be _compatible_ with OOXML.
It's the old battle with Wordperfect and MS Word _AGAIN_, where MS succeded
wiping out _the_ program.
Stig Johansen
> OK. But is such a case so terrible that it requires some government or
> supra-governmental agency to force MS to share or 'document' its own
> code?
Not the code but the _protocol_:
<http://www.javvin.com/protocolCIFS.html>
But they have them little extensions as well.
(Or the documentaion is not updated)
It prevents *nix servers to interop _properly_ with MS Servers.
Stig Johansen
> OK. But is such a case so terrible
I don't know _who_ is behind _what_, but Linux is _not_ _only_ desktop:
<http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/hardware/news/article.php/3372451>
Imagine, that 'we' have trouble connecting a Windows clients to this
'thing'?
And Samba runs on Sun/solaris,HP/UX,IBM/AIX and more....
Markus.Humm
afaik there was a deal with Novell basically saying: you get the
neccessary details for being able to build a Netware Windows client if
you stop further work on Novell DOS.
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
> They (MS) are working on a stripped down version. Sure you can run it,
> just as you can load Vista on a 1gz. machine. But it will run like a DOG!
Most dogs will run as fast as you ;-)
(except Chihuahuas)
Some OS which would run even faster than *nix: DOS, also available from
M$ sometime.... ;-)
Greetings
Markus
Chris Rolliston
> <http://www.javvin.com/protocolCIFS.html>
Well, so? I still don't see the need for government or
supra-governmental regulation here (not for the least because
reverse-engineering is, as you report, an option for competitors), but
if you do, then... we just disagree. At least, I can think of much
more important things a regulating state or supra-state could and
perhaps should set about regulating, leaving things like the governance
of internet protocols to the market (perish the thought).