It's not the Gov't you should be worried about...
Victor 'the Victim' Velez
Wed Feb 20, 8:20 PM ET
By D. IAN HOPPER, AP Technology Writer
WASHINGTON - Microsoft's new version of its popular Media Player
software is logging the songs and movies that customers play.
The company changed its privacy statement Wednesday to notify
customers about the technology after inquiries from The Associated
Press.
The system creates a list on each computer that could be a treasure
for marketing companies, lawyers or others. Microsoft says it has no
plans to sell the data collected by Media Player 8, which comes free
with the Windows XP (news - web sites) operating system. The company
said last month it had sold more than 17 million copies of Windows XP.
"If you're watching DVDs you don't want your wife to know about, you
might not want to give her your password," said David Caulton,
Microsoft's lead program manager for Windows Media.
The media player has been bundled as a free addition to Windows for
several years and allows users to play music CDs, DVD movies and
digitally stored songs on their computers.
When a CD is played, the player downloads the disc name and titles for
each song from a Web site licensed by Microsoft. That information is
stored on a small file on each computer in the latest version of the
software.
The new version released with Windows XP last fall also added the same
technology for DVD movies.
Microsoft's original privacy statement informed customers that they
were downloading the information about CDs but never stated it was
being stored in a log file on each computer.
The new statement makes clear that information is being downloaded for
both DVDs and CDs, but does not explain how users can eliminate or get
into the log file.
"It definitely could have been clearer and more specific about DVDs,"
Caulton said.
Clearing the list of songs and movie titles would cripple Media
Player. Stopping the program from collecting any more information
would mean changing the software's settings, but that would disable
Internet broadcasts.
As part of downloading the information about songs and movies from the
Web site, the program also transmits an identifier number unique to
each user on the computer. That creates the possibility that user
habits could be tracked and sold for marketing purposes.
Privacy experts said they feared the log file could be used by
investigators, divorce lawyers, snooping family members, marketing
companies or others interested in learning about a person's
entertainment habits. It also could be used to make sure users have
paid for the music or movie, and have not made an illegal copy.
"The big picture might be the owners of intellectual property wanting
to track access to their property," said Peter Swire, a law professor
at Ohio State University.
Microsoft said the program creates the log file so a user does not
have to download repeatedly the same track, album or movie
information. The company said the ID number was created simply to
allow Media Players users to have a personal account on the Web site
dealing with the software.
Neither is sold or shared with others, and no information is collected
on Microsoft's servers that would be personally identifiable,
officials said.
"This is essentially a case where it (the ID) doesn't serve any
purpose and it isn't used," Caulton said.
Jonathan Usher, another Windows Media executive, said Microsoft has no
plans to market aggregate information about its customers' viewing
habits, but would not rule it out.
"If users tell us that they want the ability to get recommendations,
that's something we could look into on the behalf of users," Usher
said.
In a recent memo, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates (news - web sites)
ordered his company to check for privacy and security concerns before
adding new features.
"Users should be in control of how their data is used," Gates wrote.
"Policies for information use should be clear to the user. Users
should be in control of when and if they receive information to make
best use of their time."
Privacy researcher Richard Smith, who researched how Media Player
stored and transmitted the information, questioned why the program has
to give chapter information for DVDs at all because almost all discs
have chapter listings in an interactive menu within the movie.
He said the feature seems to conflict with Gates' directive.
"You can really see the Microsoft culture coming through that Gates
wants to change. These guys are digging in their heels," he said.
___
Ut oh. Microsoft knows the mpeg movies we have all been watching.
Cripes.
It's the CORPORATIONS, people, not our democratically elected
government that's the problem. ;) Hey, didn't Teddy Roosevelt say
something like "The only remedy to Big Buisness is Big Government"?
Close enough for government work in any case.
Victor 'God Bless America" Velez
Sean Alexander (MS)
Windows Media Player and this issue has been mischaracterized. Please let me
make one thing absolutely clear - under NO circumstances is personally
identifying information transferred to Microsoft as a result of DVD
playback.
When the user first inserts a new DVD, the player goes up to
Windowsmedia.com and gets the chapter information, thus enabling users to
easily navigate within the DVD. As is the case with most service and
commerce Web sites, the Windowsmedia.com Web site has a cookie associated
with it to allow it to personalize and improve the user experience. When the
player contacts WindowsMedia.com to get the DVD media information, it sends
a cookie that includes no personal identifying information.
According to Paul Thurrott, News Editor for Windows & .NET Magazine
(independently owned and operated by Penton media):
"In short, MPXP includes a feature that does exactly what most users want,
and it doesn't violate their privacy or security in any way. If you'd like
to disable the feature or learn more about how it works, you can read
Microsoft's in-depth response to the AP security expert on the Web."
- Paul Thurrott, News Editor for Windows & .NET Magazine (independently
owned and operated by Penton Media)
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=24202
If you are still concerned about this feature and wish to prevent DVD
information from being saved on your PC, there are several easy options:
. Choose "Work Offline" from the File menu, which will prevent the player
from connecting to the Internet for DVD lookup. Note this will also turn off
access to the Media Guide and Radio Tuner features.
. Set the privacy level in Internet Explorer to "block all cookies."
. You can also clear the information completely by deleting the media
library. Note: this will remove all of your media information, including
personal playlists. This will not remove any of your audio or video files.
While the WindowsMedia.com privacy statement does discuss cookies in
general, when we added DVD playback to Windows Media Player for Windows XP,
we neglected to mention it as a specific example of a Windowsmedia.com
service in the privacy statement. We have since amended the privacy
statement to specifically include DVD lookup. We also make it clear that the
cookie includes absolutely no personally identifiable information. See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/software/v8/privacy.asp for
the new privacy statement.
I hope this will help clear up any confusion.
Sincerely,
Sean Alexander
"Victor 'the Victim' Velez" <victort...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:2498697b.02022...@posting.google.com...
Victor 'the Victim' Velez
> Sorry but I have to respond to this post. I'm the product manager for
> Windows Media Player and this issue has been mischaracterized.
Oh my god! Not by me! It was the AP story! Honest!
Thank you. Thank you. Please, I was mislead. It was the AP Story's
fault.
I promise never to doubt Microsoft again. You guys are all great, I
love your products. I'll never buy into that type of mass media
misrepresentation again. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Thanks.
Thanks again. I can leave, right? Ok. Thanks.
Larry Lopez
Shuurai
> Windows Media Player and this issue has been mischaracterized. Please let me
> make one thing absolutely clear - under NO circumstances is personally
> identifying information transferred to Microsoft as a result of DVD
> playback.
HA! This post serves only to prove that the evil Empire that is Microsoft
is monitoring the internet... :)
Actually, I looked into this issue right after I saw the initial news story,
and I came to the same conclusion - nothing is being sent to Microsoft. At
least, nothing I can detect with my scanning software.
However, I think the issue a lot of people have is that this information would
be readily available to someone with immediate access to the computer itself.
For example, if Victor watches porn, his wife could view the logs with a simple
file editor.
Since this is a martial arts newsgroup (no, really, it is) I'd better add some
martial arts... Does Bill Gates know any grappling?
Jason Steiner
>
> If you are still concerned about this feature and wish to prevent
> DVD information from being saved on your PC, there are several easy
> options:
>
> . Choose "Work Offline" from the File menu, which will prevent the
> player from connecting to the Internet for DVD lookup. Note this
> will also turn off access to the Media Guide and Radio Tuner
> features.
Yeah, note that.
> . Set the privacy level in Internet Explorer to "block all cookies."
Yeah, note that this will break many other sites.
> . You can also clear the information completely by deleting the
> media library. Note: this will remove all of your media
> information, including personal playlists.
Yeah, note that too.
Note the only way to get the operating system not to do the things you
DIDN'T want it to do is to turn off the things you DID want it to do.
"Sophie's Choice" must be required viewing in Microsoft 101...
jason
--
Alles, was deine Hand zu tun findet, das tue in deiner Kraft!
Denn es gibt weder Tun noch Berechnung, noch Kenntnis, noch
Weisheit im Scheol, in den du gehst.
Prediger 9:10
Robert Low
> "Sophie's Choice" must be required viewing in Microsoft 101...
More like Hobson's choice :-/
---
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Herbert Cannon
OK.
"Victor 'the Victim' Velez" <victort...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:2498697b.02022...@posting.google.com...
I mean George
>"Sean Alexander \(MS\)" <seanalex@microsoft> wrote in message news:<3c757b52$1...@news.microsoft.com>...
>> Sorry but I have to respond to this post. I'm the product manager for
>> Windows Media Player and this issue has been mischaracterized.
>
>Oh my god! Not by me! It was the AP story! Honest!
>
You're a dead man, Vic. You resisted assimilation. You will be
terminated. You can run, but you can't hide. When you least expect
it you will be killed by the latest "undocumented security feature" in
the latest Micro$loth OS release.
RMA won't be the same without you.
>> I hope this will help clear up any confusion.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Sean Alexander
>
>Thank you. Thank you. Please, I was mislead. It was the AP Story's
>fault.
>I promise never to doubt Microsoft again. You guys are all great, I
>love your products. I'll never buy into that type of mass media
>misrepresentation again. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Thanks.
>Thanks again. I can leave, right? Ok. Thanks.
>
>Larry Lopez
That won't help, Vic, they know who you are.
George W. Bush
Pierre Honeyman
> According to Paul Thurrott, News Editor for Windows & .NET Magazine
> (independently owned and operated by Penton media):
>
Haa ha ha ha ha hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha! "Independantly owned"
but completely dependant on Windoze for a livnig....ha ha haaaaa!!!
> If you are still concerned about this feature and wish to prevent DVD
> information from being saved on your PC, there are several easy options:
Note that you have to BREAK the software to do this and that there is
no granularity.
You guys write shitty software that actively invades privacy for
"convenience" (whose convenience is not exactly clear) and can't get
it into your heads to obey the KISS principle.
Bill doesn't know any grappling; he's been studying hard with the TKD
guys. He's managed to take a totally inferior product line and make
it dominant through nothing more than slick marketing. It's the proof
to the biggest lie in Capitalism. It's not the quality of the product
that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
Pierre
Chas
> ......It's not the quality of the product
> that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
In this case, it's the availability and scope of the product.
I couldn't assimilate a computer into my life until it became *very*
user friendly- I'm just about too many things to make computers any
kind of a specialty project.
'Hard business' is necessary in highly competitive environments- hell,
look at martial arts and the rivalries, backstabbing, undercutting and
badmouthing- think how much worse it would be if there was any *money*
in it <g>
I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
with incredibly beneficial results.
The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
it offends the purists-
quelle fromage, uh, domage.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker
http://home.stx.rr.com/n5wrx/castool1.jpg
Mike Goatly
> Sean Alexander \(MS\) <seanalex@microsoft> wrote:
> >
>
> Yeah, note that.
>
> > . Set the privacy level in Internet Explorer to "block all cookies."
>
> Yeah, note that this will break many other sites.
>
Well you don't really have to be that extreme - if you have IE6, you
can explicitly choose which sites are blocked.
This is a martial arts group? Really? ;-)
Mike
Arun Singh
<seanalex@microsoft> wrote:
>Sorry but I have to respond to this post. I'm the product manager for
>Windows Media Player
You forgot to tell us your style, background and experience level. Are
you looking for a club? Practitioners of the same MA as you?
If you are, perhaps I can suggest GCHQ (communications interceptors
and intelligence agents for the British government). Those guys have
hardwired their own black boxes into all private and public ISPs in
the UK.
We could set up a challenge match between Microsoft and GCHQ, to see
who can monitor Internet activity more effectively.
Oh, and BTW:
Windows Media Player
Bill Gates
Windows Media Player
Bill Gates
Windows Media Player
Bill Gates
Windows Media Player
Bill Gates
Windows Media Player
Bill Gates
Bet that got your attention.
-----------------------------------------------------
"When the world is at peace, a gentleman keeps his
sword by his side."
hal
>Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>> ......It's not the quality of the product
>> that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
>
>I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
>with incredibly beneficial results.
Chas, that's just plain nuts. Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
>The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
>it offends the purists-
The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else. Windows
they copied from Apple. IE they copied from Netscape. Even DOS they
bought for a song from someone else. NT just plain sucked.
Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
only interested in exploitation.
Hal
hal
>"Sean Alexander \(MS\)" <seanalex@microsoft> wrote in message news:<3c757b52$1...@news.microsoft.com>...
>
>> According to Paul Thurrott, News Editor for Windows & .NET Magazine
>> (independently owned and operated by Penton media):
>>
>
>Haa ha ha ha ha hhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha! "Independantly owned"
>but completely dependant on Windoze for a livnig....ha ha haaaaa!!!
>
>>
>Bill doesn't know any grappling; he's been studying hard with the TKD
>guys. He's managed to take a totally inferior product line and make
>it dominant through nothing more than slick marketing. It's the proof
>to the biggest lie in Capitalism. It's not the quality of the product
>that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
Now you've gone and done it, Pierre. You're next on the list after
Vic.
Hal
>
>Pierre
Matthew C Weigel
>The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
>ever.
Nope, that's not a fact. And I'm the guy that always gets into
arguments about whether this or that obscure OS is the best, and how
strongly Microsoft products tend to suck.
--
Matthew Weigel
Research Systems Programmer
mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu
Pierre Honeyman
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > ......It's not the quality of the product
> > that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
>
> In this case, it's the availability and scope of the product.
> I couldn't assimilate a computer into my life until it became *very*
> user friendly- I'm just about too many things to make computers any
> kind of a specialty project.
Windoze has never been the best at "user friendly" either.
> 'Hard business' is necessary in highly competitive environments- hell,
> look at martial arts and the rivalries, backstabbing, undercutting and
> badmouthing- think how much worse it would be if there was any *money*
> in it <g>
> I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
> with incredibly beneficial results.
> The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
> it offends the purists-
> quelle fromage, uh, domage.
Well there's plenty of arguments on this front, but IMO Gates is far
from being a hero. And if you truly analyze the benefits of what
Microsoft has done with computing, they really benefit Microsoft first
and everyone else only incidentally.
I personally think that Macintosh has always been a superior platform,
but Apple made some fundamental mistakes which has cost them dearly.
Pierre
Chas
> ........
> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
> >with incredibly beneficial results.
> Chas, that's just plain nuts.
People have done things using his operating system that have benefited
all mankind past any dream could predict.
> Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
What's your point?
Did he take your place at the trough?
The main issue with business computers, as far as the gross public is
concerned, is compatibility- making computers able to furnish
information for one another that is usable by both; making information
in one program available to another program which has a different
basic function. I don't care how good someone's program is if it won't
allow me to be useful to other computers.
> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
> >it offends the purists-
> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
> ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else. Windows
> they copied from Apple. IE they copied from Netscape. Even DOS they
> bought for a song from someone else. NT just plain sucked.
So?
Are you saying that he fucked the original inventors out of their
royalties? If so, it's all about money- and that'll get you screwed
faster than anything else on the planet.
> Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
> willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
> only interested in exploitation.
Gee Whillikers, Beav; that's just *terrible*.
Does his Mom know he's like that?
hal
><hal> wrote:
>
>>The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
>>ever.
>
>Nope, that's not a fact.
OK, name one.
Hal
hal
>hal wrote:
>> ........
>> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
>> >with incredibly beneficial results.
>> Chas, that's just plain nuts.
>
>People have done things using his operating system that have benefited
>all mankind past any dream could predict.
No, people have used computers to benefit mankind, they used Windows
systems because they had to.
>
>> Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
>> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
>> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
>> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
>
>What's your point?
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
>Did he take your place at the trough?
>The main issue with business computers, as far as the gross public is
>concerned, is compatibility- making computers able to furnish
>information for one another that is usable by both; making information
>in one program available to another program which has a different
>basic function. I don't care how good someone's program is if it won't
>allow me to be useful to other computers.
Yep, compatibility is determined by protocol standards, set by groups
that are not a part of MS. MS has fought every standard ever set,
unless it was one of theirs, of course. Theres have lost almost every
time. Want me to name a few?
>
>> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
>> >it offends the purists-
>> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
>> ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else. Windows
>> they copied from Apple. IE they copied from Netscape. Even DOS they
>> bought for a song from someone else. NT just plain sucked.
>
>So?
So stealing others ideas, and making crappy products is OK?
>Are you saying that he fucked the original inventors out of their
>royalties? If so, it's all about money- and that'll get you screwed
>faster than anything else on the planet.
Yep, and Gates is good at screwing people.
>
>> Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
>> willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
>> only interested in exploitation.
>
>Gee Whillikers, Beav; that's just *terrible*.
>Does his Mom know he's like that?
The government does. Do you actually think unfettered monopolies are
good for society?
Hal
.B.
<hal> wrote in message news:3c76ace6....@news.blackfoot.net...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:40:51 GMT, wrote:
>
> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
> >with incredibly beneficial results.
>
> Chas, that's just plain nuts. Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
So? If his biggest and *best* competitors spent more time attending to
their business and less time whining, there'd be valid alternatives to the
mass market.
> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
> >it offends the purists-
>
> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
> ever.
Right. Never. Wanna rethink this one?
>But he isn't willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend.
He is
> only interested in exploitation.
You're right. I feel so cheap.
Batman
<cc9e5c75.02022...@posting.google.com>:
>Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
>news:<dqn45a...@shell.gaydeceiver.com>...
>> Sean Alexander \(MS\) <seanalex@microsoft> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, note that.
>>
>> > . Set the privacy level in Internet Explorer to "block all cookies."
>>
>> Yeah, note that this will break many other sites.
>
>Well you don't really have to be that extreme - if you have IE6, you
>can explicitly choose which sites are blocked.
Yeah, thats cool. I turn off cookies anyway. Any site wont work without
setting a cookie is not (usually) worth my time.
Also, if you have a firewall, it should be able to block windoze media player
from accessing the internet. Zonealarm asks ya if you want to let it go the
first time it tries. Just check the box to 'remember my answer for this
program' and click on the 'hell no i dont want the fuggin thing accessing the
internet' button.
>This is a martial arts group? Really? ;-)
no, its kind of an inside joke. Its a rumor someone tried to start here a few
years ago, the old schoolers just like to bring it up once in a while for a
laugh.
-jeff (FSG)
Batman
<a56dkj$a7t$1...@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>:
><hal> wrote:
>
>>The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
>>ever.
>
>Nope, that's not a fact. And I'm the guy that always gets into
>arguments about whether this or that obscure OS is the best, and how
>strongly Microsoft products tend to suck.
Not that I'm doubting you matthew (and I'm not necesarily agreeing with hal
either BTW), but it would be nice if you gave a few examples of microsoft's
original inventions.
-jeff (FSG)
Shuurai
>
> >Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> >> ......It's not the quality of the product
> >> that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
> >
> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
> >with incredibly beneficial results.
>
> Chas, that's just plain nuts. Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
Gates is a businessman. He's also a brilliant innovator. Without Bill Gates,
the computer industry would likely have remained fragmented for many years,
and as a result we'd now be several years behind where we are now in terms
of information systems.
The reason Microsoft holds the vast majority of the information market is that
nobody else is making anything that can compete. It's quite frankly sad in
my opinion that people are blaming MICROSOFT for the failures of others.
> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
> >it offends the purists-
>
> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
> ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else.
This is simply wrong. While most of the software Microsoft develops is
comparable to products from other companies in terms of functionality, if you
look at things from a development level, Microsoft is a MAJOR player when it
comes to innovation.
> Windows they copied from Apple.
Bullshit. It was a concept that Apple had but never really developed, and
while the general idea (a desktop, icons, etc) might look the same, the
underlying technology is very different. Windows right now is far, far beyond
what Apple has been able to muster.
> IE they copied from Netscape.
They're both based on Mozilla.
> Even DOS they bought for a song from someone else.
So... They bought something, and now they're selling it for a LOT more than
they paid for it... Imagine that happening in a capitalist system!
> NT just plain sucked.
NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level in
stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do you
have ANY idea what you're talking about?
> Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing.
Which is good, considering that he's running a market-driven company. Hmmm...
Guy is good at marketing, company does well... Pattern?
> But he isn't willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend.
Define playing fair. I was under the impression that making something people
want is all part of the plan in capitalism.
> He is only interested in exploitation.
Who is he exploiting? His company makes software. People buy it.
Shuurai
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:08:50 GMT, wrote:
>
> >hal wrote:
> >> ........
> >> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
> >> >with incredibly beneficial results.
> >> Chas, that's just plain nuts.
> >
> >People have done things using his operating system that have benefited
> >all mankind past any dream could predict.
>
> No, people have used computers to benefit mankind, they used Windows
> systems because they had to.
Horseshit. Who says they "had to" use Windows? Anyone can use another OS
if they're so inclined... They just don't get the benefits of compatability
with all the other Windows users. Oh, and they don't get the greater software
selection that Windows users enjoy. Or the ease of use.
> >> Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
> >> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
> >> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
> >> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
> >
> >What's your point?
>
> Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Gates is a guy who knows how to give the public what they want. Take a good
hard look at the "complaints" against Microsoft... The ONLY people complaining
are the companies that have failed to compete in an open market. Oh, and also
folks like you who just like to complain. The fact that people keep buying
Windows is evidence that people like what Windows has to offer when compared
to others.
> >Did he take your place at the trough?
> >The main issue with business computers, as far as the gross public is
> >concerned, is compatibility- making computers able to furnish
> >information for one another that is usable by both; making information
> >in one program available to another program which has a different
> >basic function. I don't care how good someone's program is if it won't
> >allow me to be useful to other computers.
>
> Yep, compatibility is determined by protocol standards, set by groups
> that are not a part of MS. MS has fought every standard ever set,
> unless it was one of theirs, of course. Theres have lost almost every
> time. Want me to name a few?
Name 'em if it'll make you happy. Obviously, from a business perspective, any
company is going to fight to keep the standards it has initiated... But let's
look at the more important point here that is your self-contradiction... If
Microsoft has "absolute power", how are all of their standards being overturned?
Why don't you name some of these standards.
> >> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
> >> >it offends the purists-
> >> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
> >> ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else. Windows
> >> they copied from Apple. IE they copied from Netscape. Even DOS they
> >> bought for a song from someone else. NT just plain sucked.
> >
> >So?
>
> So stealing others ideas, and making crappy products is OK?
You're fucking clueless. None of these things are even remotely "stolen" from
anyone. Windows isn't remotely "copied" from Apple. IE and Netscape are both
based on other companies work. Buying DOS and selling it is perfectly legit
business practice. NT was a major improvement in networking. All of your
points are rediculous, unfounded, and frankly I think you're just pulling them
out of the air based on shit you've heard people who KNOW what they're talking
about say.
> >Are you saying that he fucked the original inventors out of their
> >royalties? If so, it's all about money- and that'll get you screwed
> >faster than anything else on the planet.
>
> Yep, and Gates is good at screwing people.
He paid the price that was asked. It's not his fault they didn't know the
value of what they sold.
> >> Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
> >> willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
> >> only interested in exploitation.
> >
> >Gee Whillikers, Beav; that's just *terrible*.
> >Does his Mom know he's like that?
>
> The government does. Do you actually think unfettered monopolies are
> good for society?
No, just wanna-be do-gooders who think that it's somehow "unfair" for a company
to do well in the face of poor competition. Bascially, the argument is that
since none of these other companies can compete, Microsoft should back off and
limit itself.
What a crock of shit.
Shuurai
> but Apple made some fundamental mistakes which has cost them dearly.
How so? The Mac has always had less available software, is less stable, and
is more bulky. In terms of hardware, Macs are more pricy but LESS powerful.
The top of the line Mac cannot keep up with even a second line P4 or Athelon
system - and is FAR more expensive than either.
The Mac thing should have died off years ago. It's a toy.
Victor 'the Victim' Velez
> On 21 Feb 2002 19:18:24 -0800, wrote:
>
> >"Sean Alexander \(MS\)" <seanalex@microsoft> wrote in message news:<3c757b52$1...@news.microsoft.com>...
> >> Sorry but I have to respond to this post. I'm the product manager for
> >> Windows Media Player and this issue has been mischaracterized.
> >
> >Oh my god! Not by me! It was the AP story! Honest!
> >
>
> You're a dead man, Vic. You resisted assimilation. You will be
> terminated. You can run, but you can't hide. When you least expect
> it you will be killed by the latest "undocumented security feature" in
> the latest Micro$loth OS release.
Shit. Shit. Shit.
>
> RMA won't be the same without you.
Well, you all certainly won't do as well at next year's Ball Room
Dancing Nationals.
> >> I hope this will help clear up any confusion.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Sean Alexander
> >
> >Thank you. Thank you. Please, I was mislead. It was the AP Story's
> >fault.
> >I promise never to doubt Microsoft again. You guys are all great, I
> >love your products. I'll never buy into that type of mass media
> >misrepresentation again. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Thanks.
> >Thanks again. I can leave, right? Ok. Thanks.
> >
> >Larry Lopez
>
> That won't help, Vic, they know who you are.
>
> George W. Bush
Shit. Double shit.
Hey, Enron is bankrupt right? I bet they can't pay people to respond
each time they are mentioned on the internet!
Yeah, Enron, that's the ticket! ENRON is the _real_ problem. Read
this:
=====================
Report: Enron Designed Fake Trading Floor
Former Employee Claims No Trades Transpired
Posted: 1:22 p.m. CST February 22, 2002
Updated: 2:41 p.m. CST February 22, 2002
HOUSTON -- The bankrupt energy giant, Enron Corp., designed and
maintained a fake trading floor at its Houston office.
According to former Enron employees, on the sixth floor of the
company's downtown headquarters was a set, designed to trick analysts
into believing business was booming.
"It was an elaborate Hollywood production that we went through every
year when the analysts were going to be there to be impress them to
make our stock go up," former employee Carol Elkin said.
Elkin worked for Enron for five years as an energy analyst. She was
once even commended by then-Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling.
Elkin said that the phony trading room was staffed by her and other
employees to resemble a real trading operation.
"They would build out the sixth floor of 1000 Smith in what I called a
Hollywood set," Elkin said. "They would build out a set with a big,
36-inch flat panel screens and the teleconference conference rooms."
Elkin said that it was all an act, and that no trades were actually
made there. The people on the phones were talking to each other.
"They would ask us to go alternately, in like hour shifts down to the
sixth floor," Elkin said. "And sit and pretend that we lived and
worked there."
Elkin said that it fit the company's culture that Enron couldn't just
be a good company -- it had to appear at least, to be the best, even
if the truth was all smoke and mirrors.
"It was absurd that we were doing this," Elkin said. "But to me the
most absurd part was that it worked."
Elkin is now one of many employees that are suing Enron, hoping to
recover 401k savings that were lost when the company collapsed.
Enron did not comment about the fake trading room.
=================
Victor 'the Victim' Velez
Chas
> ........
> >People have done things using his operating system that have benefited
> >all mankind past any dream could predict.
> No, people have used computers to benefit mankind, they used Windows
> systems because they had to.
You can't operate the system unless you can operate the system.
> >What's your point?
> Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Power unexercized is power lost.
What's your point?
> >So?
> So stealing others ideas, and making crappy products is OK?
It must be, it's done all the time.
It's the basis for the Japanese economy, the Taiwanese economy, the
Pakistani economy and it's been a pillar of our industrial might since
the word was coined to describe something we do well.
> Yep, and Gates is good at screwing people.
I feel I've gotten my value from him and more.
My own personal life has been transformed due to access to a box and
the stuff that does stuff.
> >Gee Whillikers, Beav; that's just *terrible*.
> >Does his Mom know he's like that?
> The government does. Do you actually think unfettered monopolies are
> good for society?
As opposed to a parliamentary system?
Generally, I vote in favor of leaving people alone; failing that, the
government must demonstrate an overwhelming need, a compelling
interest, to say anything about anything. I don't think that
mollifying their biggest bribers is compelling enough for me. Bill
Gates is responsible for hectobillions, of whatever currency strikes
your fancy, in business done; science done, information disseminated,
personal communications and access.
The guy put zillions in people's pocketses; muzzle not the kine that
treadeth out the corn.
Coldblood
came within arms reach of him.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ go there, read the six serendipities of microsoft
to start with.
andrew
"Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9d0195c.02022...@posting.google.com...
Matthew C Weigel
>Not that I'm doubting you matthew (and I'm not necesarily agreeing with hal
>either BTW), but it would be nice if you gave a few examples of microsoft's
>original inventions.
Wheel mouse. Bob. NTFS is, actually, quite innovative. They have a
sizable R&D budget, and they hire *very* smart people.
Of course, if you look at how they make *money*, it's not through
innovation, or ease of use, or even plodding correctness: it's through
product placement, unethical business practices, and fooling the
consumer.
Matthew C Weigel
>The reason Microsoft holds the vast majority of the information market
>is that nobody else is making anything that can compete.
Lotus 1-2-3. Word Perfect. OS/2. Borland. Exclusive deal with IBM,
the then-biggest purveyor of personal computers.
>It's quite frankly sad in my opinion that people are blaming MICROSOFT
>for the failures of others.
What failure?
>Bullshit. It was a concept that Apple had but never really developed,
Huh? Would you elaborate? On how Apple never really developed the
Desktop interface like MS?
>> IE they copied from Netscape.
>
>They're both based on Mozilla.
You mean Mosaic. Netscape *is* Mozilla.
>NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level in
>stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do you
>have ANY idea what you're talking about?
Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
statement.
>Which is good, considering that he's running a market-driven company.
>Hmmm... Guy is good at marketing, company does well... Pattern?
That is completely unrelated to technology...?
Bah. Another MS fsamewar isn't really interesting. If you have
something interesting to say, I'll respond, but otherwise... :)
Aristeia
through the "dirty tricks" article. At first it looked interesting full of
stuff I wasn't aware of. Then I saw something I was aware of - product
activation (what they call "registration under duress") and the stuff they
have written is inaccurate alarmist claptrap. Which makes think the
increasingly alarmist tone in the other passages are possibly inaccurate
claptrap as well. I mean they're complaining about MS notifying people that
they are leaving their site for frigs sake.
--
Aristeia
"We wouldn't worry so much about what people thought of us if we knew how
seldom they did"
"Coldblood" <dool...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a57pd8$t6h$1...@news3.cadvision.com...
Coldblood
try that :)
andrew
"Aristeia" <brenin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NkKd8.1265$XZ.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Mike
Shuurai
> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The reason Microsoft holds the vast majority of the information market
> >is that nobody else is making anything that can compete.
>
> Lotus 1-2-3. Word Perfect. OS/2. Borland. Exclusive deal with IBM,
> the then-biggest purveyor of personal computers.
Good examples... These are all products that offer no cost/value reason
to use them as opposed to the Microsoft offerings. IBM gained as much as
MS from the exclusive deal - and ALL companies (at least the smart ones) are
going to make these kind of decisions.
> >It's quite frankly sad in my opinion that people are blaming MICROSOFT
> >for the failures of others.
>
> What failure?
The inability to compete in an open market.
> >Bullshit. It was a concept that Apple had but never really developed,
>
> Huh? Would you elaborate? On how Apple never really developed the
> Desktop interface like MS?
Apple let it's gui project slide for years while MS went forward.
> >> IE they copied from Netscape.
> >
> >They're both based on Mozilla.
>
> You mean Mosaic. Netscape *is* Mozilla.
You're right. I was going to say they're both based on other products, and
never finished the point.
> >NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level in
> >stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do you
> >have ANY idea what you're talking about?
>
> Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
> statement.
Well, maybe not when compared side-by-side with unix/linux, but for the vast
majority of businesses out there who were already using Windows, NT was a
major step forward. Windows networking before that was horrid. Security was
even more horrid than it is now.
> >Which is good, considering that he's running a market-driven company.
> >Hmmm... Guy is good at marketing, company does well... Pattern?
>
> That is completely unrelated to technology...?
It is related to technology. Marketing is what determines what technology
is developed. Find out what the people want and then tell them you can give
it to them.
> Bah. Another MS fsamewar isn't really interesting. If you have
> something interesting to say, I'll respond, but otherwise... :)
There is a distinct difference between you and the person I was initially
responding to... I don't support MS persay, and I have no problem with
people being anti-MS if they actually have an argument to stand on.
kenshorin
stop things from logging in your media library? in short, you can't. You
have to manually delete it, and most people don't even know its existence. I
had so much crap in my media library it wasted 10MB. A lot of work to clean
up a shitty feature of a shitty program by a shitty company.
"Sean Alexander (MS)" <seanalex@microsoft> wrote in message
news:3c757b52$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> . Choose "Work Offline" from the File menu, which will prevent the player
> from connecting to the Internet for DVD lookup. Note this will also turn
off
> access to the Media Guide and Radio Tuner features.
>
> . Set the privacy level in Internet Explorer to "block all cookies."
>
> . You can also clear the information completely by deleting the media
> library. Note: this will remove all of your media information, including
> personal playlists. This will not remove any of your audio or video files.
kenshorin
"Matthew C Weigel" <mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:a57rd6$jvs$1...@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level
in
> >stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do
you
> >have ANY idea what you're talking about?
>
> Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
> statement.
To say NT is "stable" and "secure" shows how ignorant you are. Have you
ever USED those products? I doubt it. THE ABILITY TO SHARE DATA? Excuse me,
how long have *nix OSes been far more stable, far more secure, and yes they
share data too? Far longer than M$ existence. Do YOU have ANY idea what
YOURE talking about?
Matthew C Weigel
>> Lotus 1-2-3. Word Perfect. OS/2. Borland. Exclusive deal with IBM,
>> the then-biggest purveyor of personal computers.
>
>Good examples... These are all products that offer no cost/value reason
>to use them as opposed to the Microsoft offerings.
OS/2: it was a whole new level in stability and security - not to
mention the ability to share data.
>IBM gained as much as MS from the exclusive deal - and ALL companies
>(at least the smart ones) are going to make these kind of decisions.
What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that that
deal had much more impact on MS's bottom line than *any* technology
they've produced.
>> What failure?
>
>The inability to compete in an open market.
What open market?
>> Huh? Would you elaborate? On how Apple never really developed the
>> Desktop interface like MS?
>
>Apple let it's gui project slide for years while MS went forward.
That is nothing like 'never really developed.' I disagree with that
statement, too, but it's not the statement that I was asking you to
clarify.
>> Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
>> statement.
>
>Well, maybe not when compared side-by-side with unix/linux, but for
You don't even have to go that far. NT was a total stinker until 4.
Before that point, other systems filled the same roles, doing a much
better job.
>the vast majority of businesses out there who were already using
>Windows, NT was a major step forward.
...for someone who only used MS's products.
>It is related to technology. Marketing is what determines what
>technology is developed. Find out what the people want and then tell
>them you can give it to them.
Yeah, and where does 'giving it to them' fit into that?
>There is a distinct difference between you and the person I was initially
>responding to
Yup. I know more about this than you :)
Cory Pchajek
"kenshorin" <kens...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IgRd8.738$Mp1....@news.shore.net...
Now now.....no need to start getting defamatory.
CoryP
Shuurai
> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Lotus 1-2-3. Word Perfect. OS/2. Borland. Exclusive deal with IBM,
> >> the then-biggest purveyor of personal computers.
> >
> >Good examples... These are all products that offer no cost/value reason
> >to use them as opposed to the Microsoft offerings.
>
> OS/2: it was a whole new level in stability and security - not to
> mention the ability to share data.
Yea, and it died due to lack of any real support from it's creators. It had
the potential to be a wonderful OS, but without that support, it just never
got there. Technology is not the only consideration.
> >IBM gained as much as MS from the exclusive deal - and ALL companies
> >(at least the smart ones) are going to make these kind of decisions.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that that
> deal had much more impact on MS's bottom line than *any* technology
> they've produced.
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the argument Hal was putting forth?
Microsoft and IBM made a business deal, and it benefitted both of them. How
does that translate into dirty business practices?
> >> What failure?
> >
> >The inability to compete in an open market.
>
> What open market?
I don't see any rules against buying non-Microsoft products. There are
alternatives - very good alternatives. There are a whole bunch of Linux
flavors available, and they're all perfectly good - if you're willing to
give up the software selection and ease of use.
> >> Huh? Would you elaborate? On how Apple never really developed the
> >> Desktop interface like MS?
> >
> >Apple let it's gui project slide for years while MS went forward.
>
> That is nothing like 'never really developed.' I disagree with that
> statement, too, but it's not the statement that I was asking you to
> clarify.
The idea for Apple's gui came a long time before they actually got around
to creating one. By this time, Windows was well underway. Further, the
fact that the concept is similar doesn't constitute "copying".
> >> Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
> >> statement.
> >
> >Well, maybe not when compared side-by-side with unix/linux, but for
>
> You don't even have to go that far. NT was a total stinker until 4.
> Before that point, other systems filled the same roles, doing a much
> better job.
Not when the system needs to be accessable to average end-users. None of
the other systems offered the same functionality for non-computer people.
> >the vast majority of businesses out there who were already using
> >Windows, NT was a major step forward.
>
> ...for someone who only used MS's products.
Which is a lot of people, and THAT'S the whole point. Companies use Windows
because Windows is easy to use, easy to train people on, and compatable with
all the other companies that are using Windows. Most don't give a shit about
the very small differences in security and stability when it's compared to the
REAL bottom line, which is "can our people WORK on this system?"
And yea, the differences are small. I've run NT networks at three different
companies, and I've never had any real issues with downtime or security. It's
like any other system - if you know what you're doing, it'll work.
> >It is related to technology. Marketing is what determines what
> >technology is developed. Find out what the people want and then tell
> >them you can give it to them.
>
> Yeah, and where does 'giving it to them' fit into that?
The best example is the IE issue - people bitching that it was packaged free
with Windows. Well no shit - the biggest reason people buy computers these
days is to use the internet, so why in the hell would it not make sense to
have that as part of the operating system? It's what people WANTED. Those
that didn't want it could easily install something else.
> >There is a distinct difference between you and the person I was initially
> >responding to
>
> Yup. I know more about this than you :)
Yea... You know more than everyone about everything. At least, that's what
you keep telling us.
Shuurai
I've administered several NT networks over the years, and I've never had any
real problems with stability or security. I've heard the same thing from other
people who administer NT networks. Frankly, I think a lot of this "stabilty
and security" argument comes from fanboys who just have a personal beef with MS.
Yea, Windows is less stable and secure than Unix or Linux, but the difference
is not nearly as significant as folks like to think. If you can't keep an NT
environment running and secure, it's more likely YOUR fault than the OS.
I just had my Win2000 network audited for security, and it passed with flying
colors. Not a single point against us.
I always hear about Windows stability and security problems from Linux people,
but rarely do I hear it from competent Windows administrators.
Matthew C Weigel
>> OS/2: it was a whole new level in stability and security - not to
>> mention the ability to share data.
>
>Yea, and it died due to lack of any real support from it's creators.
One of those creators was *Microsoft*. The plot thickens...
My point is that almost every time MS came out with something new and
incredible, it was *at most* one of "new" and "incredible."
>it just never got there. Technology is not the only consideration.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. MS's technology is not what got
them where they are.
>Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the argument Hal was
>putting forth? Microsoft and IBM made a business deal, and it
>benefitted both of them. How does that translate into dirty business
>practices?
Please don't ask me to support Hal's arguments. I don't. I addressed
them already.
I was simply saying that that deal had a lot to do with MS's success.
>I don't see any rules against buying non-Microsoft products. There are
>alternatives - very good alternatives. There are a whole bunch of Linux
>flavors available, and they're all perfectly good - if you're willing to
>give up the software selection and ease of use.
>The idea for Apple's gui came a long time before they actually got around
>to creating one.
*I* don't think so. There's plenty to argue about regarding whether
Apple got their interface design from PARC, but the difference in mouse
design alone suggests there were somestrong differences. Certainly
they were the first to market such technology.
> By this time, Windows was well underway. Further, the
You don't know your computer history. Apple started work on the Mac in
'81, released it in '84, and then Microsoft released Windows 1.0 in
'85. At that point, the Mac had the familiar desktop (files and
programs, along with the trash can, as icons on the screen). Windows
got that in *1995*.
>fact that the concept is similar doesn't constitute "copying".
Certainly, but the legal agreements MS got Apple to agree to, that they
*could* copy the Mac interface, are suggestive, as is the fact that
Apple's later suit against MS for doing just that (on, according to
Apple, a broader scale than the agreement permitted) lost not on the
lack of evidence that MS was doing just that, but on the vague nature
of their legal agreement.
>Not when the system needs to be accessable to average end-users. None of
>the other systems offered the same functionality for non-computer people.
Have you ever used NT 3.51? OS/2 3.0? For the pre-NT 4 PC server
market, Unix and Linux are not even a consideration; Novell and OS/2
are. Pre-NT4 is better than one of them, for non-computer people.
>Yea... You know more than everyone about everything. At least, that's what
>you keep telling us.
Nope. I am a computer history buff. I stay very silent on the matter
of the relative quality of different karate styles, because even though
I disagree with your assessment of shotokan, my experience isn't wide
enough that I can intelligently comment on it - you could be right, you
could be wrong, bit I'm not the one to say. Likewise, rather than
compare the different round houses that are being discussed right now,
I discarded the roundhouse a while back; I can't say what works best
for other people, as is a current discussion. Be glad you can post
more intelligently on on-topic threads :)
Matthew C Weigel
>I always hear about Windows stability and security problems from Linux
>people, but rarely do I hear it from competent Windows administrators.
Sadly, as you are so quick to point out, NT administration is not only
for the competent technical professional. For the majority of NT
networks security is a real concern. If it weren't, the volume of Code
Red traffic wouldn't be almost crippling to *non-NT* networks.
Pierre Honeyman
Nah, Macintosh computers had superior hardware and stability and were
forced into niches because Apple made a huge mistake by keeping all
the hardware and software proprietary for too long.
Windows took off because of IBM clones. It was a huge windfall for
the OS. The open architecture of the PC made them cheaper and more
plentiful than Macs.
But what the hell, this is just another flame war. Should be taken to
comp.os.blah blah...
Pierre
Shuurai
> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I always hear about Windows stability and security problems from Linux
> >people, but rarely do I hear it from competent Windows administrators.
>
> Sadly, as you are so quick to point out, NT administration is not only
> for the competent technical professional. For the majority of NT
> networks security is a real concern. If it weren't, the volume of Code
> Red traffic wouldn't be almost crippling to *non-NT* networks.
Code Red is actually quite easy to avoid, even without the patches, if you
have an administrator who knows what the hell he's doing. Further, you can
exploit ANY operation system and get the same results - it just happens that
Windows has the most people looking for those openings.
If a company has a network - any network - and DOESN'T have competent people
running the network, then that's the fault of the company. It's like anything
else - you hire people who can do the job.
If the product works well - is stable and secure - with competent people
running it, and doesn't work well WITHOUT competent people running it, then
the fault lies with the people running it.
Matthew C Weigel
>Code Red is actually quite easy to avoid, even without the patches, if you
>have an administrator who knows what the hell he's doing.
Yup. Kind of sad that Microsoft has such poor security infrastructure
that a) buffer overflows evaded their notice in the first place, and b)
repeated variations on those exploits overcame their security fixes.
>Further, you can exploit ANY operation system and get the same results
>- it just happens that Windows has the most people looking for those
>openings.
I see. So 'nobody is perfect, so everyone is the same.' I thought you
didn't like that kind of PC crap.
Not only does Windows have the most people looking for bugs, it has the
fewest people pro-actively looking to fix bugs. There is a culture
(which *might* have changed recently) of "it's a security problem when
it's front page news, and it's a fix if it fixes the vulnerability to
*that strain* (but not the actual bug if that's too hard)."
>If the product works well - is stable and secure - with competent
>people running it, and doesn't work well WITHOUT competent people
>running it, then the fault lies with the people running it.
Ah. So the ease of use of NT is largely pointless? All those untold
millions who benefited from NT's amazing ease of by thinking they
didn't need to hire a professional like they would have otherwise had
to were really just shooting themselves in the foot?
Matthew C Weigel
>Shuu...@hotmail.com (Shuurai) wrote in message news:<a9d0195c.02022...@posting.google.com>...
>> How so? The Mac has always had less available software, is less
>> stable, and is more bulky. In terms of hardware, Macs are more
>> pricy but LESS powerful. The top of the line Mac cannot keep up with
>> even a second line P4 or Athelon system - and is FAR more expensive
>> than either.
>>
>> The Mac thing should have died off years ago. It's a toy.
Man, I wish I had seen this before Pierre replied to it...
>Nah, Macintosh computers had superior hardware and stability and were
>forced into niches because Apple made a huge mistake by keeping all
>the hardware and software proprietary for too long.
Errr... IBM made that same mistake. It's just that Campaq managed a
clean room reverse engineering of the PC BIOS, and IBM didn't try to
sue their pants off (I'm pretty sure this was during the period that
IBM was severely restricted in their actions by the anti-trust
judgement, but I can't remember). That's what led to the term "IBM
clone," since Apples and IBMs were both considered PCs: the no-name
brands cloned the *IBM* PC.
>But what the hell, this is just another flame war. Should be taken to
>comp.os.blah blah...
*sigh* I know... but it's so hard to stare inaccuracy in the face and
shrug :)
Kirk Lawson
> What's your point?
> Did he take your place at the trough?
> The main issue with business computers, as far as the gross public is
> concerned, is compatibility- making computers able to furnish
> information for one another that is usable by both; making information
> in one program available to another program which has a different
> basic function. I don't care how good someone's program is if it won't
> allow me to be useful to other computers.
One of the favorite tactics of Microsoft is to change the file formats
of their applications just as soon as someone else comes out with a
compatible program (they've done this with nearly every version of Word
and Excel), thus retaining their "monopoly." Another of their favorite
tactics is to take an "open" protocol (designed to be accessible by
everyone) and implement it in an "almost compatible" variation
(Kerberos, JavaScript, etc.). They then claim that their product is
"compatible" with that protocol and when people try to implement the
Microsoft Solution they find that it's "not quite compatible" and that
things will "work best" if they use the whole Microsoft solution rather
then trying to mix-n-match solutions to best fit *their* needs.
Whatever else you can say about Microsoft or think of them, Microsoft
does *NOT* want compatibility. It's not in their best interests as a
company. To heck with what's best for the consumer. To Microsoft, it's
not really about money; it's about *WINNING*. Money is just one of the
ways they keep score.
Peace favor your sword (FSG)
--
As of 8:45 on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I live in a nation united.
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of Rec.Martial-Arts
Pierre Honeyman
> Pierre Honeyman <phon...@telus.net> wrote:
> Errr... IBM made that same mistake. It's just that Campaq managed a
> clean room reverse engineering of the PC BIOS, and IBM didn't try to
> sue their pants off (I'm pretty sure this was during the period that
> IBM was severely restricted in their actions by the anti-trust
> judgement, but I can't remember).
Ahh...ok. I was wondering why IBM didn't sue. I remember the
Pineapple, briefly, but Apple sued for all kinds of infringements and
those kinds of Apple-clones died off.
The irony of the whole thing is that I used to work at an IBM
manufacturing plant and guess who made the hardware that went into a
Compaq? That's right, IBM. Granted, this was after clones were
already well established.
Pierre
Kirk Lawson
> >Not when the system needs to be accessable to average end-users. None of
> >the other systems offered the same functionality for non-computer people.
>
> Have you ever used NT 3.51? OS/2 3.0? For the pre-NT 4 PC server
> market, Unix and Linux are not even a consideration; Novell and OS/2
> are. Pre-NT4 is better than one of them, for non-computer people.
Don't forget Solaris and other *nix's. Ease of Administration is a
different argument though.
Kirk Lawson
>
> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I always hear about Windows stability and security problems from Linux
> >people, but rarely do I hear it from competent Windows administrators.
>
> Sadly, as you are so quick to point out, NT administration is not only
> for the competent technical professional. For the majority of NT
> networks security is a real concern. If it weren't, the volume of Code
> Red traffic wouldn't be almost crippling to *non-NT* networks.
I had to turn off the Code Red warnings coming from my NIDS. We don't
have NT and I was tired of getting dozens of Cod Red attack warnings a
day.
Chas
> One of the favorite tactics of Microsoft is to change the file formats
> of their applications just as soon as someone else comes out with a
> compatible program (they've done this with nearly every version of Word
> and Excel), thus retaining their "monopoly."
I'm talking about compatible to itself mostly; one program will access
the information generated in another program- en suite.
> Whatever else you can say about Microsoft or think of them, Microsoft
> does *NOT* want compatibility. It's not in their best interests as a
> company. To heck with what's best for the consumer. To Microsoft, it's
> not really about money; it's about *WINNING*. Money is just one of the
> ways they keep score.
You can't put Chevy parts on a Ford; and Rolls-Royce parts are almost
entirely out of the question; but all three will roll.
The question kinda boils down to whether information should be 'free'
or not. Is an intellectual concept a marketable product or a natural
evolution of the human condition which is available to all.
As an artist, I became comfortable with my ideas being incorporated
into other peoples' art a long time ago. I think it's funny when
someone thinks of something and then wants to live off the royalties
for the rest of his life. Patents/copyrights on intellectual concepts
should expire in five years, if be granted at all.
Kallini
>Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
>willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
>only interested in exploitation.
>
>Hal
So... When was the last time you donated $30 billion to charity?
Kallini
Ted Bennett
"Kallini" <ch...@kallini.com> wrote in message
news:29sk7uklmi48i2aof...@4ax.com...
Hmm I wonder what kind of tax breaks he got with that?
Ted
--
Evil is such a negative term........
I prefer differently moraled.
\ /
0 0
°
~
Y
Matthew C Weigel
>Don't forget Solaris and other *nix's. Ease of Administration is a
>different argument though.
Looking at samba's history, it was in a pretty ugly state until just a
little bit before NT4. For *PC* serving, samba and PC-NFS are the main
options on Unix; around that time neither was very attractive, IMO.
Kirk Lawson
> > So... When was the last time you donated $30 billion to charity?
>
> Well he did probably find it down the back of the sofa.
> Hmm I wonder what kind of tax breaks he got with that?
Wasn't that "Donation" mostly software? I'm sorry, but that kind of
"donation" isn't the same as money. Just like MS's proposed settlement
is that they "donate" lots of software to schools. Can't you just see
the brains at MS setting around the table brain-storming a way to make
lemonade from this lemon?... "Hey, lets 'donate' lots of our software to
schools and such, that way we get all the kids used to seeing *our*
software and wanting *that* instead of anything else. That way we can
look like we're being punished, look like we're magnanimous, get a
marketing jump on the competition, *and* it won't really cost us
anything!" "Good idea Phil!" [hugs all around]
:P
Matthew C Weigel
>Wasn't that "Donation" mostly software? I'm sorry, but that kind of
He has donated $100 million to vaccinate children in the third world.
Ho has donated $100 million to fund AIDS research.
He has donated $20 million to the Seattle Public Library Foundation.
He has donated a lot more with less fanfare than these received.
These are actual dollars, which are actually going to vaccinate
children, building and improving library branches, and funding
research.
All told, he's probably donated between one and three quarters of a
billion dollars, which is about 1-2% of his net worth.
You gotta respect that, if you don't respect anything else about the
man.
Kallini
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Ted Bennett wrote:
>
>> > So... When was the last time you donated $30 billion to charity?
>>
>> Well he did probably find it down the back of the sofa.
>> Hmm I wonder what kind of tax breaks he got with that?
>
>Wasn't that "Donation" mostly software? I'm sorry, but that kind of
>"donation" isn't the same as money.
Even if only 1/1000 of his donations to date have been cash, it's
still more than all of us here could give to charity combined, even if
we wanted to donate all the money we earned from now to retirement.
Regardless of what people think of Gates' business practices, the fact
remains that he's able to do a lot of good with that money he has. He
doesn't spend it all on booze and whores.
Compare that to the philanthropy of your average movie/rock/sports
star, who are constantly idolized in our society, while Gates is
demonized.
Kallini
Kallini
<weir...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Kallini" <ch...@kallini.com> wrote in message
>news:29sk7uklmi48i2aof...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:46:54 GMT, hal wrote:
>>
>> >Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing. But he isn't
>> >willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend. He is
>> >only interested in exploitation.
>> >
>> >Hal
>>
>> So... When was the last time you donated $30 billion to charity?
> Well he did probably find it down the back of the sofa.
>Hmm I wonder what kind of tax breaks he got with that?
> Ted
Who cares? ::shrugs:: My question still stands.
If someone's gonna complain about how Gates does nothing for society,
I wanna see how the complainer does more. That's all.
Kallini
Kirk Lawson
>
> Kirk Lawson wrote:
> > One of the favorite tactics of Microsoft is to change the file formats
> > of their applications just as soon as someone else comes out with a
> > compatible program (they've done this with nearly every version of Word
> > and Excel), thus retaining their "monopoly."
>
> I'm talking about compatible to itself mostly; one program will access
> the information generated in another program- en suite.
Pretty much everyone does that. It ups the ante of "competition" when
product A is compatible with product B as well. Product B makers don't
like that (they don't want competition - perfectly understandable) and
so will make moves to make their product incompatible with product A
while still trying to stay compatible with their own predecessors. AOL
has been doing this with their IM. Lots of people coming out with IM
clones so AOL changes the protocol ever so slightly or changes the
authentication, or whathaveyou. It's dirty, but it works, is usually
"legal," and perfectly understandable.
>
> > Whatever else you can say about Microsoft or think of them, Microsoft
> > does *NOT* want compatibility. It's not in their best interests as a
> > company. To heck with what's best for the consumer. To Microsoft, it's
> > not really about money; it's about *WINNING*. Money is just one of the
> > ways they keep score.
>
> You can't put Chevy parts on a Ford; and Rolls-Royce parts are almost
> entirely out of the question; but all three will roll.
But I can buy "non-Chevy" compatible parts from NAPPA and AutoZone and
Chevy doesn't hide the design specs, include "hidden" gotchas, or level
law suits on the makers of the aftermarket replacement parts. The most
I ever here about it is "they're inferior, buy *genuine* Chevy parts!"
> The question kinda boils down to whether information should be 'free'
> or not. Is an intellectual concept a marketable product or a natural
> evolution of the human condition which is available to all.
> As an artist, I became comfortable with my ideas being incorporated
> into other peoples' art a long time ago. I think it's funny when
> someone thinks of something and then wants to live off the royalties
> for the rest of his life. Patents/copyrights on intellectual concepts
> should expire in five years, if be granted at all.
As a general concept, I agree.
Kirk Lawson
>
> Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget Solaris and other *nix's. Ease of Administration is a
> >different argument though.
>
> Looking at samba's history, it was in a pretty ugly state until just a
> little bit before NT4. For *PC* serving, samba and PC-NFS are the main
> options on Unix; around that time neither was very attractive, IMO.
Networking, comunications, and file sharing was pretty stable and easy
to use with standard *nix tools such as FTP, etc. Just 'cause you had
to DL a file, edit it locally, then UL it back, didn't mean it was no
good. In fact, there's a lot to be said for not allowing them to edit
the server copy (that was a rule I enforced while admining an NT network
at an AutoCAD shop). The biggest downside was network printing, iirc.
I admit that from a distributed computing, or fat client model, the *nix
tools were not enough, but from the centralized computing model, they
were more then sufficient. Just a side observation: have you noticed
the continued push to return to the centralized computing model? First
it was thin clients, then java-stations, followed by metaframe, now
they've got the NT remote desktop stuff. I find it highly amusing,
actually...
Kirk Lawson
> Even if only 1/1000 of his donations to date have been cash, it's
> still more than all of us here could give to charity combined, even if
> we wanted to donate all the money we earned from now to retirement.
>
> Regardless of what people think of Gates' business practices, the fact
> remains that he's able to do a lot of good with that money he has. He
> doesn't spend it all on booze and whores.
>
> Compare that to the philanthropy of your average movie/rock/sports
> star, who are constantly idolized in our society, while Gates is
> demonized.
While I agree, it's kinda like saying "Gangrene gets a bad rap, look at
how bad Leprosy is!"
'Course, I don't much idolize movie/rock/sports stars (and there are
noted exceptions within those ranks).
Kirk Lawson
> Who cares? ::shrugs:: My question still stands.
>
> If someone's gonna complain about how Gates does nothing for society,
> I wanna see how the complainer does more. That's all.
Comparative to income and personal assets, I give more all the time. So
do most of the people at my church. Ever hear the story of The Widow's
Mite? If Gates (or any other big "Philanthropist" for that matter) were
to give 10%, I'd fall off my chair and you'd have to have someone close
my mouth for fear of catching flies.
(Just for the record, No. I don't tithe, but I do know tons of people
who do.)
hal
>Kirk Lawson wrote:
>> One of the favorite tactics of Microsoft is to change the file formats
>> of their applications just as soon as someone else comes out with a
>> compatible program (they've done this with nearly every version of Word
>> and Excel), thus retaining their "monopoly."
>
>I'm talking about compatible to itself mostly; one program will access
>the information generated in another program- en suite.
Yes, exactly. And their primary goal is to ensure compatibility with
their own products ONLY. As Kirk pointed out, they intentionally
changed file formats, and tweaked protocols intentionally so that they
would not work with others software.
Hal
hal
>hal wrote in message news:<3c76ace6....@news.blackfoot.net>...
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:40:51 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> >Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>> >> ......It's not the quality of the product
>> >> that wins in the marketplace, but the quality of the salesmen.
>> >
>> >I think Gates is a Hero. He's made far-reaching affect in our society
>> >with incredibly beneficial results.
>>
>> Chas, that's just plain nuts. Gates is a megalomaniac obsessed with
>> power and control. His business tactics have been strong arming and
>> threatening. He has made every move possible to gain and retain a
>> complete monopoly in all areas of information systems.
>
>Gates is a businessman. He's also a brilliant innovator.
Gates invented nothing. Only his marketing and ruthlessness was
brilliant.
> Without Bill Gates,
>the computer industry would likely have remained fragmented for many years,
>and as a result we'd now be several years behind where we are now in terms
>of information systems.
Bullshit. Ever heard of IBM? You don't think they could have done
the same thing with OS2?
>
>The reason Microsoft holds the vast majority of the information market is that
>nobody else is making anything that can compete. It's quite frankly sad in
>my opinion that people are blaming MICROSOFT for the failures of others.
No, just unethical business practices and monopolizing.
>
>> >The fact is, he applied business tactics to intellectual property and
>> >it offends the purists-
>>
>> The fact is that Microsoft has not had one single original invention
>> ever. Everything they have they copied from someone else.
>
>This is simply wrong. While most of the software Microsoft develops is
>comparable to products from other companies in terms of functionality, if you
>look at things from a development level, Microsoft is a MAJOR player when it
>comes to innovation.
Name one.
>
>> NT just plain sucked.
>
>NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level in
>stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do you
>have ANY idea what you're talking about?
Actually, I'm a network protocol specialist. I have considerable
experience trying to get customers to successfully integrate Netbios
and an unstable operating system into non-Microsoft standardized
networks. Do you know the joke about what NT stands for? "Not
Tonight, I'm rebooting". I've had Unix systems running for a year
without rebooting. I've never seen an NT system go over a week. Ever
try to get a Microsoft shop to be able to route Netbios over IP? Do
YOU have any idea what you're talking about?
>
>> Agreed, the only thing Gates is good at is marketing.
>
>Which is good, considering that he's running a market-driven company. Hmmm...
>Guy is good at marketing, company does well... Pattern?
Threatening OEMs with withholding software "hooks" if they put a
competitors software on their machines, intentionally tweaking
protocols so others software will fail on Windows machines, changing
file formats every version to make other vendors compatibility more
difficult, changing operating systems every couple of years with poor
downward compatibility so people must upgrade. . . Pattern?
>
>> But he isn't willing to play fair, and he will never be society's friend.
>
>Define playing fair. I was under the impression that making something people
>want is all part of the plan in capitalism.
People want to be able to choose. He has done his best to make it so
people do not have a choice.
>
>> He is only interested in exploitation.
>
>Who is he exploiting? His company makes software. People buy it.
Like lemmings into the sea.
Hal
hal
>Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
>>Wasn't that "Donation" mostly software? I'm sorry, but that kind of
>
>He has donated $100 million to vaccinate children in the third world.
>Ho has donated $100 million to fund AIDS research.
>He has donated $20 million to the Seattle Public Library Foundation.
>He has donated a lot more with less fanfare than these received.
>
>These are actual dollars, which are actually going to vaccinate
>children, building and improving library branches, and funding
>research.
>
>All told, he's probably donated between one and three quarters of a
>billion dollars, which is about 1-2% of his net worth.
>
Until a couple of years ago, Gates had given nothing to charity. It
was pointed publicly out that he was the only
multi-millionaire/billionaire in history that did not set up some sort
of charitable foundation or donated to the needy. When the government
started pressuring him about his business practices, and he started
getting lots of bad press, he suddenly set up the Gates Foundation and
giving away money, which by the way is equivalent to us dropping our
change in the Ronald McDonald House slot when we get a few quarters
back from our Big Mac.
Gates suddenly becoming philantropic is just another one of his
marketing ploys.
Hal
hal
>
>"Matthew C Weigel" <mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:a57rd6$jvs$1...@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
>> Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level
>in
>> >stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do
>you
>> >have ANY idea what you're talking about?
>>
>> Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
>> statement.
>
>To say NT is "stable" and "secure" shows how ignorant you are. Have you
>ever USED those products? I doubt it. THE ABILITY TO SHARE DATA? Excuse me,
>how long have *nix OSes been far more stable, far more secure, and yes they
>share data too? Far longer than M$ existence. Do YOU have ANY idea what
>YOURE talking about?
Don't confuse the lemmings with facts.
Hal
>
>
hal
>"kenshorin" <kens...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<IgRd8.738$Mp1....@news.shore.net>...
>> "Matthew C Weigel" <mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:a57rd6$jvs$1...@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
>> > Shuurai <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >NT revolutionized the networking marketplace. It was a whole new level
>> in
>> > >stability and security - not to mention the ability to share data. Do
>> you
>> > >have ANY idea what you're talking about?
>> >
>> > Yes, I do, and I really think you're off your rocker with that
>> > statement.
>>
>> To say NT is "stable" and "secure" shows how ignorant you are. Have you
>> ever USED those products? I doubt it. THE ABILITY TO SHARE DATA? Excuse me,
>> how long have *nix OSes been far more stable, far more secure, and yes they
>> share data too? Far longer than M$ existence. Do YOU have ANY idea what
>> YOURE talking about?
>
>I've administered several NT networks over the years, and I've never had any
>real problems with stability or security. I've heard the same thing from other
>people who administer NT networks. Frankly, I think a lot of this "stabilty
>and security" argument comes from fanboys who just have a personal beef with MS.
>Yea, Windows is less stable and secure than Unix or Linux, but the difference
>is not nearly as significant as folks like to think. If you can't keep an NT
>environment running and secure, it's more likely YOUR fault than the OS.
What about all the worms that are spreading over the world through
Microsoft Exchange systems because MS OS'es allow an executable mail
attachment to run with systems level privileges? Ever heard of that
happening on a Unix system? Sounds to me like tens of thousands of MS
systems administrators can't keep their systems secured. I think you
just got lucky. Care to post an IP address of one of your servers?
How secure you think you are?
>
>I just had my Win2000 network audited for security, and it passed with flying
>colors. Not a single point against us.
>
>I always hear about Windows stability and security problems from Linux people,
>but rarely do I hear it from competent Windows administrators.
competent Windows administrators? Care to run that one by me again?
; )
Hal
Kallini
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Kallini wrote:
>
>> Even if only 1/1000 of his donations to date have been cash, it's
>> still more than all of us here could give to charity combined, even if
>> we wanted to donate all the money we earned from now to retirement.
>>
>> Regardless of what people think of Gates' business practices, the fact
>> remains that he's able to do a lot of good with that money he has. He
>> doesn't spend it all on booze and whores.
>>
>> Compare that to the philanthropy of your average movie/rock/sports
>> star, who are constantly idolized in our society, while Gates is
>> demonized.
>
>While I agree, it's kinda like saying "Gangrene gets a bad rap, look at
>how bad Leprosy is!"
Not really a perfect analogy... Gates still does good with his money,
It's just his business practices that aren't generally admirable. Far
as I know, Gangrene has no beneficial side effects at all.
If people limit their criticism of Gates to his business dealings, I
generally don't speak up... 'Cause that doesn't really concern me.
>'Course, I don't much idolize movie/rock/sports stars (and there are
>noted exceptions within those ranks).
Didn't figure you would... You don't seem like the type (I don't think
most of the regulars here are the type either). We're in the minority,
though.
Kallini
Kallini
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Kallini wrote:
>
>> Who cares? ::shrugs:: My question still stands.
>>
>> If someone's gonna complain about how Gates does nothing for society,
>> I wanna see how the complainer does more. That's all.
>
>Comparative to income and personal assets, I give more all the time. So
>do most of the people at my church. Ever hear the story of The Widow's
>Mite?
Oh yeah. Many many years ago. I thought of it while writing my
statement, too- and it still stands.
Gates still gives more as a percentage of income than the majority of
people. Hell, most people don't give to charity at all.
>If Gates (or any other big "Philanthropist" for that matter) were
>to give 10%, I'd fall off my chair and you'd have to have someone close
>my mouth for fear of catching flies.
>
>(Just for the record, No. I don't tithe, but I do know tons of people
>who do.)
Gates gives a hell of a lot of his income to charity, as a percentage
of his total income, and he plans on giving away over 90% of his
accumulated wealth eventually.
Sure beats a lot of folks there.
Kallini
Kallini
>On 25 Feb 2002 19:45:15 GMT, wrote:
>
>>Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wasn't that "Donation" mostly software? I'm sorry, but that kind of
>>
>>He has donated $100 million to vaccinate children in the third world.
>>Ho has donated $100 million to fund AIDS research.
>>He has donated $20 million to the Seattle Public Library Foundation.
>>He has donated a lot more with less fanfare than these received.
>>
>>These are actual dollars, which are actually going to vaccinate
>>children, building and improving library branches, and funding
>>research.
>>
>>All told, he's probably donated between one and three quarters of a
>>billion dollars, which is about 1-2% of his net worth.
>>
>
>Until a couple of years ago, Gates had given nothing to charity. It
>was pointed publicly out that he was the only
>multi-millionaire/billionaire in history that did not set up some sort
>of charitable foundation or donated to the needy. When the government
>started pressuring him about his business practices, and he started
>getting lots of bad press, he suddenly set up the Gates Foundation and
>giving away money, which by the way is equivalent to us dropping our
>change in the Ronald McDonald House slot when we get a few quarters
>back from our Big Mac.
>Gates suddenly becoming philantropic is just another one of his
>marketing ploys.
And?
I sure can't donate that kind of money. I'm glad he can- it helps a
hell of a lot more than my quarters. Who cares if he does it for PR-
that doesn't make his money worthless.
And he's certainly not required to do it - it's not like small minded
shmucks stopped insulting him, or playing moral equivalency games
lessening the worth of his donations, for doing it. As a marketing
ploy, it sure is a dismal failure.
Kallini
Kirk Lawson
> >Comparative to income and personal assets, I give more all the time. So
> >do most of the people at my church. Ever hear the story of The Widow's
> >Mite?
>
> Oh yeah. Many many years ago. I thought of it while writing my
> statement, too- and it still stands.
>
> Gates still gives more as a percentage of income than the majority of
> people. Hell, most people don't give to charity at all.
My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
> Gates gives a hell of a lot of his income to charity, as a percentage
> of his total income, and he plans on giving away over 90% of his
> accumulated wealth eventually.
Sounds good. Forgive me if I say that I'll believe it when I see it.
There are others who've done much the same so it can (and sometimes
*does* happen) but until it does happen, it's just vaporware and product
positioning.
>
> Sure beats a lot of folks there.
No doubt.
Matthew C Weigel
>Matthew C Weigel wrote:
>Networking, comunications, and file sharing was pretty stable and easy
>to use with standard *nix tools such as FTP, etc. Just 'cause you had
>to DL a file, edit it locally, then UL it back, didn't mean it was no
>good.
Sure, just that it doesn't fall into the 'what PC users want and by
which will be made happy" :)
Kirk Lawson
> >Until a couple of years ago, Gates had given nothing to charity. It
> >was pointed publicly out that he was the only
> >multi-millionaire/billionaire in history that did not set up some sort
> >of charitable foundation or donated to the needy.
His business if he wants to be a scrooge. I get to think less of him
morally for it, but it's not illegal or anything.
> > When the government
> >started pressuring him about his business practices, and he started
> >getting lots of bad press,
Pressuring people about not being "generous" enough is wrong. It's a
free country. You can be as selfish and greedy as you want. I just get
to think less of you for it.
> > he suddenly set up the Gates Foundation and
> >giving away money,
Which is also wrong, or at least akin to political correctness.
> > which by the way is equivalent to us dropping our
> >change in the Ronald McDonald House slot when we get a few quarters
> >back from our Big Mac.
This is fairly true. Still the money is being used for good purposes.
I kinda think of it like property siezed from criminals: It doesn't
matter what the guy was thinking of doing with it, it's being used for
good now (and "voluntarily" at that).
>
> >Gates suddenly becoming philantropic is just another one of his
> >marketing ploys.
Truth.
>
> And?
It's representative of Gates/MS general mindset and philosophy: It's not
being done because a need was seen and addressed, but rather for
"product placement" purposes (make Gates look good). Now, you can say
that there are lots of people like that, including politicians. True.
But just 'cause other people are doing it doesn't make it "right."
>
> I sure can't donate that kind of money.
It leaves a bad taste in the moutsh of some people who really *do*
donate for humanitarian reasons. It's *buying* a good reputation
instead of earning it or deserving it.
> Who cares if he does it for PR- that doesn't make his money worthless.
True.
>
> And he's certainly not required to do it -
It shouldn't be, but I fear that it is. Public Opinion...
> it's not like small minded
> shmucks stopped insulting him, or playing moral equivalency games
What "moral equivalency games" would those be.
> lessening the worth of his donations, for doing it.
Lessening the "worth" or lessening the "value?" Two different things.
> As a marketing ploy, it sure is a dismal failure.
Nope. It has made a positive impact on Public Opinion for him. Hard
core people or those who've tracked Gates/MS history are unswayed but
giving a bunch of money *does* impact Public Opinion.
.B.
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3C7BBE8D...@heapy.com...
> Kallini wrote:
>
> > >Comparative to income and personal assets, I give more all the time.
So
> > >do most of the people at my church. Ever hear the story of The Widow's
> > >Mite?
> >
> > Oh yeah. Many many years ago. I thought of it while writing my
> > statement, too- and it still stands.
> >
> > Gates still gives more as a percentage of income than the majority of
> > people. Hell, most people don't give to charity at all.
>
> My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
>
Wait. You realize his income (from salary) isn't all that much? Only a
couple of million. The rest is from stock (though the appreciation is a
form of income).
His Foundation (well his and Melinda's) is the largest in the world right
now with assets over $5 BILLION. And given his holdings are worth approx.
50-60 Billion right now, he's pretty close to that 10% figure you were
looking for.
.B.
Kallini
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Kallini wrote:
>
>> >Comparative to income and personal assets, I give more all the time. So
>> >do most of the people at my church. Ever hear the story of The Widow's
>> >Mite?
>>
>> Oh yeah. Many many years ago. I thought of it while writing my
>> statement, too- and it still stands.
>>
>> Gates still gives more as a percentage of income than the majority of
>> people. Hell, most people don't give to charity at all.
>
>My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
Yes, it's true. It is a valid point.
However, good intentions don't help charities as much as money does. I
could give 100% of my income to charity, and it wouldn't help nearly
as much as half of 1% of Gate's income.
Sure, it'll give me more brownie points for St. Peter, but I can't
help fund Cancer research with that.
Kallini
Joao de Souza
Matthew C Weigel wrote:
>
> Looking at samba's history, it was in a pretty ugly state until just a
> little bit before NT4.
As far as I know, samba has always been popular. Heck, 1/2 of modern
jazz has a samba or bossa nova beat to it! ;)
Sorry. The Brazilian Representative just couldn't resist!
Cheers.
Matthew C Weigel
>As far as I know, samba has always been popular. Heck, 1/2 of modern
BANG!
>jazz has a samba or bossa nova beat to it! ;)
BANG!
>Sorry. The Brazilian Representative just couldn't resist!
BANG!
Hey, I wasn't sure before, but I am definitely not going to make it to
the beer tasting. Sorry :(
Matthew C Weigel
>> And he's certainly not required to do it -
>
>It shouldn't be, but I fear that it is. Public Opinion...
I disagree. I think there should be a strong social force encouraging
it. Not by itself, but I can't see how a culture that values charity
(the value, not the organizations) would *not* have some social force
encouraging it. I would like to live in a culture that values charity.
>> As a marketing ploy, it sure is a dismal failure.
>
>Nope. It has made a positive impact on Public Opinion for him. Hard
>core people or those who've tracked Gates/MS history are unswayed but
>giving a bunch of money *does* impact Public Opinion.
The people who thought he was a good guy before use it as evidence.
The people who didn't, still see everything else he continues to do.
Joao de Souza
Matthew C Weigel wrote:
>
> BANG!
>
>>jazz has a samba or bossa nova beat to it! ;)
>
> BANG!
>
>>Sorry. The Brazilian Representative just couldn't resist!
>
> BANG!
Dude! You should be more careful when cleaning that gun! And next
time, point it away from the cat for chrissake!
> Hey, I wasn't sure before, but I am definitely not going to make it to
> the beer tasting. Sorry :(
You're gonna miss having a beer with Michael Jackson? (about 90% of the
people reading this are having some really weird visuals right about now ;)
Well, too bad you can't make it. MJ's beer seminars are usually a lot of fun.
Cheers.
Kallini
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Nope. It has made a positive impact on Public Opinion for him. Hard
>core people or those who've tracked Gates/MS history are unswayed but
>giving a bunch of money *does* impact Public Opinion.
It's entirely mainstream to hate Bill Gates... It's not just a tiny
group of hardcore Microsoft haters who see "the truth". He's a white
guy, involved in big business, who sells a widely available, popular
product. He's the perfect politically correct 21st-century
corporate-sponsored "bad guy".
Heck, he got his head shot off in the South Park movie to the
resounding cheers of movie theaters packed with people who use his
products. If that doesn't show how mainstream it is to dislike the
man, I don't know what does.
I don't like a lot of things Microsoft has done, but I don't have to
pretend Gates is Satan to convince myself that I'm right, either.
Kallini
Batman
<c04f17d7.02022...@posting.google.com>:
>mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu (Matthew C Weigel) wrote in message
>news:<a5ckvd$n69$1...@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>...
>> Pierre Honeyman <phon...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Errr... IBM made that same mistake. It's just that Campaq managed a
>> clean room reverse engineering of the PC BIOS, and IBM didn't try to
>> sue their pants off (I'm pretty sure this was during the period that
>> IBM was severely restricted in their actions by the anti-trust
>> judgement, but I can't remember).
>
>Ahh...ok. I was wondering why IBM didn't sue. I remember the
>Pineapple, briefly, but Apple sued for all kinds of infringements and
>those kinds of Apple-clones died off.
What i always wondered was, why didn't john crapper (or his estate) sue apple
for infringing on his invention, the toilet? Upgrade an apple with a padded
seat, make it a little more reliable, and it could compete with my trusty ole
koehler.
-jeff (FSG)
Batman
>Chas wrote:
>> You can't put Chevy parts on a Ford; and Rolls-Royce parts are almost
>> entirely out of the question; but all three will roll.
Sure ya can. Who told you ya can't? I've seen uncountable old fords running
chevy 350 engines. They make brackets that make it possible to bolt the thing
in. I've seen seats interchanged, wheels (I'm not sure how they did this one,
the bolt patterns on the wheels are different and I don't think they just
drilled more holes), steering wheels, exhaust pipes. In short, the biggest
hindrance to interchanging a lot of chevy and ford parts is the brand loyalty
most car guys have. But when you dont have the cash to buy 'Gin-U-Wine' parts
and your car needs fixin, you make do with what the junk yard has.
>But I can buy "non-Chevy" compatible parts from NAPPA and AutoZone and
>Chevy doesn't hide the design specs, include "hidden" gotchas, or level
>law suits on the makers of the aftermarket replacement parts. The most
>I ever here about it is "they're inferior, buy *genuine* Chevy parts!"
Well, actually, they do sometimes put out bad specs. I once bought a fuel
filter for my dodge dakota. Dodge published specs on it and everything, it
was the same as the one form the year before. Only problem was, my dakota's
fuel filter was in the tank, so all of the official mopar stuff that said it
was a inline filter was BS. The way i found out was by calling a dealership
and asking where the filter was. After talking to about 3 guys, who all read
from the same book, one of em finally said he thought he saw filter on the
pump in the tank. He went and looked at a tank he had dropped to verify it.
-jeff (FSG)
Batman
Ya don't here much from unicorns either. The competent windows admins
probably all ride em in to work.
-jeff (FSG)
Matthew C Weigel
>Dude! You should be more careful when cleaning that gun! And next
>time, point it away from the cat for chrissake!
You're still talking? I'm a bad shot...
>You're gonna miss having a beer with Michael Jackson? (about 90% of
>the people reading this are having some really weird visuals right
>about now ;)
They're welcome to 'em. I've had a friend named Michael Jackson for
most of my life, so I don't even think about it anymore.
>Well, too bad you can't make it. MJ's beer seminars are usually a lot
>of fun.
Next year? Get Don drunk for me...
Grappler240
>
>chevy 350 engines
You can mate chevy trannies to Ford differentials all day long.
Batty's right!
ronnie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke
Kirk Lawson
> I disagree. I think there should be a strong social force encouraging
> it. Not by itself, but I can't see how a culture that values charity
> (the value, not the organizations) would *not* have some social force
> encouraging it. I would like to live in a culture that values charity.
I don't want a society that "pressures" people into charity. There is a
difference in my mind between pressuring and simply encouraging.
> >> As a marketing ploy, it sure is a dismal failure.
> >
> >Nope. It has made a positive impact on Public Opinion for him. Hard
> >core people or those who've tracked Gates/MS history are unswayed but
> >giving a bunch of money *does* impact Public Opinion.
>
> The people who thought he was a good guy before use it as evidence.
> The people who didn't, still see everything else he continues to do.
There are a large number of people who have no opinion on whether or not
Gates/MS is "good" or "bad." They simply make software that we use.
Large charitable donations frequently impact the opinions of these
people.
Kirk Lawson
> It's entirely mainstream to hate Bill Gates... It's not just a tiny
> group of hardcore Microsoft haters who see "the truth". He's a white
> guy, involved in big business, who sells a widely available, popular
> product. He's the perfect politically correct 21st-century
> corporate-sponsored "bad guy".
I've been listening to this debate since it's inception. Gates/MS as
"good" or "bad" is largely irrelevant to most people.
> Heck, he got his head shot off in the South Park movie to the
> resounding cheers of movie theaters packed with people who use his
> products. If that doesn't show how mainstream it is to dislike the
> man, I don't know what does.
This is the same group that laughs every time Kenny gets killed. They
laugh and cheer any time *anyone* gets killed on SouthPark. Somehow I
don't think they're representative of the "main stream."
> I don't like a lot of things Microsoft has done, but I don't have to
> pretend Gates is Satan to convince myself that I'm right, either.
Many of MS/Gates business practices are reprehensible and border on the
illegal if not outright so (as in the anti-trust meetings with NS or the
browser pricing, etc.). Any benefit to the customer or society at large
(and there have been benefits!) is largely ancillary. MS wants to
*win*. MS cares about MS. Period. Making a useful or desirable
product is not done to benefit anyone but MS. Making a useful or
desirable product is simply the only way to *win* against the
competition. MS has proven time and again that their product strategies
center around crushing the competition. As an example, look at MS's IP
stack. It remained practically unchanged for nearly a decade, complete
with flaws and bugs while the IP stack of every "competitor" evolved and
changed, code being made tighter and more efficient. Why didn't MS make
any significant changes to their IP stack? Because their target
customer didn't care if there was any benefits to a better IP stack.
So, Microsoft ignored it. Like Ford and Chevy ignored disk brakes and
seat-belts on the Tucker because their target customers didn't care
regardless of potential benefits. Only with Win2K and a refocusing on a
different target customer who demands an efficient and bug free IP stack
has MS made any significant changes. Don't ever be fooled into thinking
"At Microsoft the Customer is Number One." That's just not the thought
processes there.
Kirk Lawson
> > My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
> >
>
> Wait. You realize his income (from salary) isn't all that much? Only a
> couple of million. The rest is from stock (though the appreciation is a
> form of income).
Fine. Then call it "relative to net worth." The point stands.
Kirk Lawson
> Yes, it's true. It is a valid point.
>
> However, good intentions don't help charities as much as money does. I
> could give 100% of my income to charity, and it wouldn't help nearly
> as much as half of 1% of Gate's income.
>
> Sure, it'll give me more brownie points for St. Peter, but I can't
> help fund Cancer research with that.
Depends on the person at the recieving end. I know of some people
who've gotten charitable donations before and they recall the $10 from
the Fixed Income Widow before the greater sums.
Kirk Lawson
> What i always wondered was, why didn't john crapper (or his estate) sue apple
> for infringing on his invention, the toilet? Upgrade an apple with a padded
> seat, make it a little more reliable, and it could compete with my trusty ole
> koehler.
Because Crapper didn't invent the toilet. He invented the first useable
*Flush* toilet.
hal
>Batman <bat...@batcave.edu> wrote:
>
>>Not that I'm doubting you matthew (and I'm not necesarily agreeing with hal
>>either BTW), but it would be nice if you gave a few examples of microsoft's
>>original inventions.
>
>Wheel mouse.
The Wheel Mouse? OK. I'll give you THAT earth shattering invention.
NTFS? BWAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !
> Bob. NTFS is, actually, quite innovative. They have a
>sizable R&D budget, and they hire *very* smart people.
>
>Of course, if you look at how they make *money*, it's not through
>innovation, or ease of use, or even plodding correctness: it's through
>product placement, unethical business practices, and fooling the
>consumer.
Yep.
Hal
.B.
> ".B." wrote:
>
> > > My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
> > >
> >
> > Wait. You realize his income (from salary) isn't all that much? Only
a
> > couple of million. The rest is from stock (though the appreciation is a
> > form of income).
>
> Fine. Then call it "relative to net worth." The point stands.
>
No, the point doesn't. You said 10% and that he wasn't anywhere near it.
He's actually pretty close.
Badger Jones
and drain deez nuts
>
>> Yes, it's true. It is a valid point.
>>
>> However, good intentions don't help charities as much as money does. I
>> could give 100% of my income to charity, and it wouldn't help nearly
>> as much as half of 1% of Gate's income.
Gates' charities are not exactly about "helping people" and all of that shit.
A great deal of what that foundation does is do heavy blocking for Microsoft.
So does Paul Allen with a lot of his companies.
Gates uses the foundation in some cases to put computers into places and guess
what operating system and software they come with. It's like he's feeding
himself and expanding his market share while taking a tax deduction. Gates and
Allen own some big chunks of defense contractors as well and they exert
influence on the Pentagon and the goverment to purchase Microsoft products
through these ownerships. This is shit they couldn't get away with if it was
just MS doing the monopolizing. But, when it's Paul Allen's companies (Allen
no longer works for MS), he can skirt around the antitrust act. So can Gates's
foundation. It's sort of predation through triangulation on a variety of
fronts. Allen holds probably $30 billion of net worth in a variety of
companies and each and every one is used to exert leverage on competitors and
the business climates they're in to use MS products. Allen's a huge
stockholder of MS and he's feeding himself too.
Trav
Matthew C Weigel
>> > > My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing more.
>> > Wait. You realize his income (from salary) isn't all that much? Only
>>
>> Fine. Then call it "relative to net worth." The point stands.
>>
>
>No, the point doesn't. You said 10% and that he wasn't anywhere near it.
>He's actually pretty close.
First, of course, there's the minor problem that "(from salary)" wasn't
what Kirk was talking about. He makes/made *most* of his money *not*
from salary, so it's disingenuous to then start talking about how much
he gives *relative* to that salary.
He is about $3 *billion* away from giving 10%. Call me cheap, but that
looks like a lot of money to me.
Kallini
nuts) wrote:
>>Kallini wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it's true. It is a valid point.
>>>
>>> However, good intentions don't help charities as much as money does. I
>>> could give 100% of my income to charity, and it wouldn't help nearly
>>> as much as half of 1% of Gate's income.
>
>Gates' charities are not exactly about "helping people" and all of that shit.
Never said Gates was the ultimate humanitarian. But stuff like
donating $100 million to AIDS research does a lot more good than me
dropping a couple quarters in a box at the 7-11.
I think I've made this point about 10 times now in this thread...
Probably time to move onto something else.
Kallini
Kirk Lawson
You realize that the IRS counts "stock" holdings, right?
Joao de Souza
Matthew C Weigel wrote:
>
> You're still talking? I'm a bad shot...
Shot...okan practitioner? ;)
> Get Don drunk for me...
Lots of good beers to be sampled; comparing tasting notes with the
world's top beer expert; in a room filled with professional and amateur
brewers... I don't think I'll need to twist his arm...
Cheers.
Matthew C Weigel
>Lots of good beers to be sampled; comparing tasting notes with the
>world's top beer expert; in a room filled with professional and amateur
>brewers... I don't think I'll need to twist his arm...
*Thhhhbbbttt!*
.B.
> ".B." wrote:
> >
> > "Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C7CEBEB...@heapy.com...
> > > ".B." wrote:
> > >
> > > > > My point was, relative to income, there are lots of people doing
more.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wait. You realize his income (from salary) isn't all that much?
Only
> > a
> > > > couple of million. The rest is from stock (though the appreciation
is a
> > > > form of income).
> > >
> > > Fine. Then call it "relative to net worth." The point stands.
> > >
> >
> > No, the point doesn't. You said 10% and that he wasn't anywhere near
it.
> > He's actually pretty close.
>
> You realize that the IRS counts "stock" holdings, right?
Yeah, I actually covered that in a previous post.
Stock holdings: $55-60 Billion
Foundation: $5-6 Billion