Damn this thread grew faster then I realized, I just remember this post.
I kind of agree with Tob on this one. I've actually brought this issue up and everyone just kind of skirts the real subject. I remember thinking that what other companies wanted was similiar to what would happen if Sony suddenly deciding that all car companies should have to install their speakers and decks. Though I dislike Microsoft I always found some of the issues kind of iffy.

Sounds like an interesting topic to look into, if kind of irrelevent.

That's a lame simile. Coke never agreed to include Pepsi in every future twelve-pack during some hypothetical time when it was to their advantage to do so.

MSFT's bad-faith dealings with the Java licence created a situation where the market for Java support was structured around support being included in the OS platforms. MSFT even signed up to "implement the reference platform" for Java on their OS....which they actually did do, for a while.

When they finally twigged that Java would actually achieve a reasonable level of platform independance--something they undoubtedly thought impossible--they panicked and started looking for ways to poison the well--including that whole charade over at ECMA. They couldn't find one that worked well enough without completely violating their original contract, which they proceeded to go ahead and do figurung "Neener, neener, neener, we're MSFT and we can afford more lawyers than you can, by the time we're done in court we'll have crushed you like evrybody else."

I think Sun is perfectly right to insist on the remedy bringing them closest to "specific performance" of what MSFT originaly agreed to: develop a JVM to Javasoft's spec and distribute it with their OS platform, along with very specific compatibility requirements (which forbade extensions except in certain highly controlled ways, which MSFT flauted completely). and they are now throwing a tantrum and sulking because they haven't gotten their way. Since they can't be trusted to develop anything for Java without poisoning the well, Sun will develop for Windows and MSFT can bloody well distribute it as they agreed to.

Nope. Your opinions are no more or less important to the legality of the legal system than mine is. :)

It's always an interesting exercise to try to figure out what needs to be cut from the budget. There's a summary of it here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/bud34.pdf
and more here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/maindown.html.

And I'll look for that book. It sounds interesting.

Maggie, it's a bizarre world - we agree on something. :)

(final comment of the night)


2 TRILLION dollar budget......and they couldn't keep 4 planes from being used at weapons. Maybe 5 trillion will do the trick. Or 7......or 12.....or 20..........

slang, Schiff's book is a good text for understanding that no matter how much we think we understand the law, ultimately it's the judges who interpret the law. And thusly, I've just heard that an old LP acquaintance of mine was raided. He felt he was following Schiff to the letter. Now he faces years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

It scarcely matters what Schiff thinks if the judges disagree on the loopholes that Schiff believes he's found. The judges are, for better or worse, the final arbiters. That's how the system works.

(falling asleep)

The book isnt about loopholes UT, it's about legal foundation. Read the book, it's entertaining. There is no doubt that if you stop paying the IRS will imprison or kill you, the question is, how could this be with the existance of the US BOR.

I dont disagree in regards to the judges, but I think we've been hoodwinked.

Imprison i can understand. Kill? Do please back that one up.

We should make a cellar silly quotes of shame board. I'm sure i'd have a few on there too. Although i'd be pushed off pretty quickly by Radar and Cairo at this rate.

Here's a tissue, Radar...you might want to clean off those rose-colored glasses of yours.

Stability is a pretty subjective issue. I have never had Linux crash to the point where I had to reboot the server. Ever. In fact, the only time a reboot is required is when you upgrade the kernel. That's what I call stability; I'd be interested in hearing your definition. (That's not sarcasm.. I am really interested by what measure you find Win2k more stable than Linux.)

I never said pop3, now did I? I admit, "handling of email" is pretty vague. So how about their <B>NTLM authentication scheme</B> for starters? Could you please show me an RFC where that is documented?

And what about that horrible Rich Text Format that Outlook uses? Granted, it's a published standard, but it's still something Microsoft created, with minimal support elsewhere. Care to revise your earlier statement, "Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too."?

OK, I'm admittedly fuzzy on all of the history leading up to now.. what do you mean when you say Microsoft "signed up" to implement Java in their OS, and how does that mean they should be forced to include it today?

That all depends on the wording of the contract now doesn't it. :)

Actually, that's exactly my point. And I'm not familiar with the contract, or whatever else they may have signed, so I'd be interested in how it binds them to supporting a competitor's product.

You want proof that Bill Gates has given about 3 billion dollars to charity? That won't be too tough to provide.

http://www.glf.org

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_707992.html?menu=

No, he goes to India personally and gives them $400,000,000 for AIDS research. And it's paid for with the best operating system on earth, Windows 2000.


I will. You're an asshole.


Wrong! If someone robs me and says they're going to use the money to feed their starving kids and give medicine to their elderly mother, it doesn't make it any less robbery. And the money that's stolen from us does not benefit everyone or anyone. Welfare doesn't help people, it keeps them in a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. Public education doesn't help people. It makes Americans less educated than most other countries when private education costs half of what is spent per student in public schools and provide a superior education. Medicare and Social security don't help people. If someone put the same money into a savings account over their working career as they do into social security they'd have more than a million dollars to retire on, have more money each month, and be able to leave it to their family. You can't name a single government program that has done it's job. Welfare was created to end poverty. Has it? Social security was made to provide a retirement that people can live on in their autumn years. Does it?

The answer on all these is NO!!!

Bullshit. Private non-profit charities RARELY keep more than 20% of money collected for overhead while the government keeps 85% of every dollar stolen. There are also hundreds if not thousands of these non-profits that aren't related in any way to any religious organization. The Red Cross, The United Way, and hundreds of charities to fund research for AIDS, Cancer, Abused Children, food banks, and other such things.

I see you're still talking shit even though I've backed up everything I've said with actual numbers and indisputable facts.

I've been in IT for 17 years and you're a complete idiot if you think any of those OS's provide more security, are more user friendly, or are more stable than Win2k. I can talk about anything you want in the computer realm and put you and most others to shame. Now sit down little boy, you've been schooled.

I'm not extreme in any sense of the word. Let me help you out. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. They say that anything not specifically listed in the constitution is a right of the people or a power of the states. And that the fed may not take part in anything not enumerated (specifically listed) in the constitution. Government funded charity, education, healthcare, retirement, etc. ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THUS ILLEGAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE PART IN!

Yes the constitution can be changed, but only with a constitutional amendment. Not an act declaring a change of government powers like the war powers act, or the homeland security act. Only an actual amendment can change the powers of government or add new parts to government. Nothing less is acceptable or legal. The constitution doesn't require "interpretation". It's written in simple English and it means what it says; nothing more and nothing less.

It's a metaphore. And it's legitimate. Microsoft never agreed to sell their product with anyone else's product included. Especially a competing browser or even Java. Microsoft did break their license agreement not to change Java. But they didn't make any promises to distribute Java. They merely got a license to use it.

Exactly. The military budget is FAAAR to big. Every single American military base outside our own borders should be shut down immediately. The constitution provides for a DEFENSIVE military not an OFFENSIVE show of force spread out all over the globe like the Roman empire.

It's from personal experience. I am a consultant that literally sees thousands upon thousands of machines of all operating sytems. And don't get me wrong I really like Linux. But I've had 1 or 2 linux machines crash on me. But have never seen a Win2k machine crash. I will give Linux this, it almost never has to be rebooted. And while win2k rarely has to be rebooted, it still does on occasion when you install software packages. Win2k has a lot of features Linux doesn't have such as R.I.S. and other stuff included as part of the operating sytem.

I never said everything they do is based on standards, but nearly everything is. I am sure I can name a dozen things Microsoft does by standards that have RFC's you can look up for every one you can provide that doesn't have one. And I'd look for that RFC but I've got to get to bed. As it is I'll get 4 hours of sleep before work if I leave right this second and immediately fall asleep.

Radar, he wasnt asking for proof about bills charitable giving. he was asking for proof regarding all the other bullshit youve spewed since arriving here.

1. you say the libertarian party is bigger than ever. undertoad calls you out on that statement. you challenge the veracity of his numbers and when he does, you choose to ignore them for the sake of your fragile ego. whos been schooled?

2. you start this little flamewar about how win2k is better than any other os on the planet. maybe it is, but i have yet to see you back that up other than taking someone elses statement, turning it into a question, and disagreeing with it.

3. the only facts you *have* thrown out are irrelevant. nobody cares how much bills given. what everyone cares about is this:

bill has given a percentage of his wealth to charity, lets say 3 bil, for your sake. mother theresa and gandhi gave 100% of their lives to charity. you said, and i quote: so what youve essentially done is put a value on not one but two human lives. and its less than 3 billion.

i may be an asshole. but at least i can turn that on and off. youll always be an idiot.

~james

p.s. ive just remembered that i can turn *you* on and off. congratulations on the dubious honour of being the first person on my ignore list.