Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online 159
An anonymous reader writes "PJ of Groklaw is working on putting the documents from Comes v. Microsoft online, to make them searchable and accessible to everyone. If you don't remember their history, the plaintiffs got these documents from Microsoft during discovery after fighting the lawyers tooth and nail. After realizing how embarrassing the documents were to Microsoft, they put them online and later got a very large settlement from Microsoft by agreeing to take their website down. The web being what it is, these documents had already been mirrored and were later (legally) made available on the Pirate Bay. Now Groklaw has put them online and is looking for people to help transcribe them, so that documents like the infamous Evangelism is War presentation will not be forgotten."
Thankful for the Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm quite grateful for the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org]. If not for that, then normally someone who sells out or is (legally) bribed like this removes everyone's access to such information. Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide."
Note to potential "cavers":
You can certainly sanitize the information you plan to agree to keep secret, give it to reliable third parties, then take the money.
It isn't honest, but there is no reason to be honest with your enemies. We are past the point of moral obligation to such people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide."
Note to potential "cavers": You can certainly sanitize the information you plan to agree to keep secret, give it to reliable third parties, then take the money.
It isn't honest, but there is no reason to be honest with your enemies. We are past the point of moral obligation to such people.
Doesn't look like they turned it over to anybody. It was mirrored by others and Microsoft made a bad deal. Someone on their team should have known this could happen and advised, like the OP mentions, to ignore it rather than drawing more attention.
It may have been a Slashdotter who mirrored it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Submitter here.
Yes, it was mirrored by others (thankfully people had the foresight to mirror this stuff right away). In fact, one person who had all the files asked what to do with them (either here or on Groklaw, I don't recall), and I was the one who suggested it be put on the Pirate Bay. I don't know for sure that he took my advice, but I do know that a Comes collection appeared there shortly thereafter.
Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
"Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide."
Note to potential "cavers": You can certainly sanitize the information you plan to agree to keep secret, give it to reliable third parties, then take the money.
It isn't honest, but there is no reason to be honest with your enemies. We are past the point of moral obligation to such people.
I don't know why you were modded Troll because what you say is strategically correct. As Sun Tzu advised, all warfare (physical or PR) is based on deception. The use of deception against an aggressor whom you have done nothing to provoke is the only legitimate, morally correct usage of it that I recognize. Whether this case fits that description is the only debatable point.
Having said that, if you sign a contract stating that you will not disclose information, and you disclose that information, then it's not just dishonest; it's also illegal (or at least, a tort). This is unwise, especially when Microsoft can afford the best lawyers and you cannot. There are times when you have concerns other than how much you can justify without violating your morality, and this is probably one of them. For that reason, I'd strongly advise against actually doing this, making this a bad example of the otherwise sound concepts you mention.
Re: (Score:1)
If I didn't read your Slashdot User# I would think you were new to Slashdot
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
If I didn't read your Slashdot User# I would think you were new to Slashdot
In the technical sense, I can think of several reasons for it that are all plausible explanations. None of them speak favorably of that moderator. Since there are multiple possible explanations, I can accurately say I don't know which was the motivation. That's not the same thing as being unable to understand how such things happen. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because people assume that anything they don't like must be trolling or an instance of flamebait, but that's just a guess. I don't claim to
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mind causality, he's all 6's and 7's.
oh, I made a funny!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying they're Fair Game [wikipedia.org]? Nice role models you have there.
Re: (Score:2)
Caved?
Microsoft got blackmailed here, since THEY were the ones to cough up the money. At least according to TFS.
Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Good old Streisand effect. I just downloaded a copy of the evangelism presentation (oh noes, did I infringe MS's copyright?) and read through it. For some reason, learning that something is censored makes me take a lot of effort to find it and read through it carefully, much more than if nothing happened to it. It's probably partly "if it gets censored, it must be interesting" and partly sticking it to the man. Doesn't matter, whatever gets uploaded is out there and will be forever out there and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just the Streisand effect. There have been a lot of people involved in Microsoft's dirty tricks campaigns over the years and now that the company's on a downhill slide, many of them are looking at their past roles with a bit of regret. The whole dirty house of cards isn't far from tumbling down.
Even James Plamendon, who created Microsoft's Evangelism program, authored that evangelism presentation and is responsible for much of Microsoft's brutal MSOOXML campaign has re
Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure he's been wringing his hands all the way to the bank.
A fit of ethics doesn't do much good after the fact, particularly from someone who profited so mightily from it all.
Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
One might imagine his handwashing will be as enthusiastic as his evangelism was. In order to extract the maximum marketability from his confession it's necessary that he embellish it until it was even more diabolical than it actually was.
I'm not giving him a pass here - the man promoted the evil prevention of progress in a most effective way. I'm just pointing out that much like his efforts then were, his efforts to promote his book will be equally self-serving.
Re:Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need an "insider's account" to know how the OOXML scam went down. No one, least of all Microsoft, was being very secretive about it. That was really the most amazing thing about the process. Everyone knows Microsoft loathes and fears open standards, but it was that they pulled off the whole thing with such arrogance and lack of concern. They knew damned well there would be no consequences, that everyone would shrug, and that loyal vile little toadies like Icaza would go around trumpeting their shitty, still partially proprietary "standard".
That's why I'm rooting for Google. I'm sure they're already well on the way to Evil Empire status, but as governments seem utterly unwilling to imprison guys like Ballmer and fine the companies substantially fractions of their net worth so that the investors can directly feel the agonies of the company's misdeeds, about the only thing we can hope for is some other bunch of vile immoral septic-tanks-for-souls can do the current lot in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In my world the prevention of progress is evil. To profit from the prevention of progress is corporate evil. The prevention of interopability through obfuscation of interfaces is the epitome of evil.
Man will move forward or he will not. Any institutional prevention of progress is an effort to prevent the survival of Man, as a species. We have been distracted by the profit motives of this Redmond, WA corporation long enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the demons and devils in the Great Blood War of the D&D cosmology.
As long as they keep each other in check, the rest of the multiverse is safe from invasion, even though both groups would very much enjoy just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to go with a book which main theme is about questioning and stand up against unfair authorities.
Hmm. Maybe it is because the very gate keepers are uncomfortable with material that talks about not falling in line. After all, they are a very powerful controlling interest in our society. I doubt they welcome any kind of real rebellion against authority, as their authority is very profitable for them.
Or, maybe it is because the two fringes of American society (far right and far left) both have agendas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Streisand Effect is just an observation that cover-ups make for great gossip, and that gossip can spread rapidly over the Internet, so that the fact that a well known person (or entity) tries to suppress the dissemination of information can achieve greater circulation amongst the population than the information itself would have.
I doubt the terms of the settlement actually did anything to further the spread of these documents, so there is not need to mention the so-called 'Streisand Effect'. Again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It might not have done anything to further their propagation (although the fact that MS paid to have them removed at least indicated that they might have been worth a look), but I still find it very puzzling that in this day and age, someone actually thought "oh noes, our sekret filez are on the intarweb, I'll just pay to have them removed" (duh). Maybe he was from sales, or marketing.
Removing stuff that's on the network works fine for the media publishers after all, so Microsoft shouldn't have any problems
Re: (Score:2)
Define: Internet Troll [wikipedia.org]
There is no "point" that any sane person would accept.
Now, the history behind it is not something I am familiar with, however.
online communications (Score:2)
Not that bad really (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Judge granted Plaintiffs authority to personally watchdog Microsoft [justice.gov].
The watchdogs are granted, first among other things,
"The whole document" is the evidence that got the Judge to do that.
Thousands of pages. Gigabytes of video.
Somehow, I think the Judge's response to that evidence is a bit ... h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe I worked for Oracle for too long :)
Working for Oracle for any non-zero length of time is too long
Re:Not that bad really (Score:4, Insightful)
What precisely is healthy about stacking panels and planting stories? I think you've been working for Satan too long.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, of course, good aggressive competition is illegal when you use it to extend one monopoly into others.
Talking to one of those who worked on the case... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had one of the people working on the case come talk to my college class. The documents provided to the law office were on paper. The office had an impressive cluster of computers used to do optical code recognition on all the documents so that they could be indexed and searched. There were tons of documents. It was not easy technically, and they worked a lot of hours.
The person I talked to always hoped someone would take this on. They couldn't give up their work for public domain, but there was a ton of computer history contained in those files.
Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. (Score:5, Interesting)
there was a ton of computer history contained in those files.
Indeed! There're many interesting bits in these emails that explain quite well some of the things we suffer every day.
"One things I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific. It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this" - Bill Gates [tinyurl.com]
"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" - Bill Gates [tinyurl.com]
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" -Bill Gates
Music to Google's ears.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
You're joking, right?
Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. (Score:5, Informative)
Can we have an example of an open format that Microsoft can't implement? And no, the GPL does not prevent a proprietary software maker from making a compatible application.
An open format Microsoft can't implement? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's start with ISO/IEC 29500. This is Microsoft's own bought-and-paid-for International Standards Organization format that includes such rigorous definitions as "whitespace like Office 95 does it". Microsoft managed to destroy the credibility of a 60 year old standards organization devoted to international cooperation [wikipedia.org] in order to get their "standard" accepted but can't be bothered to implement it [wikipedia.org]:
Microsoft, which currently has no products which are compatible with ISO/IEC 29500,[45][46][47][48] has voiced commitment to using the ISO/IEC 29500 standard in their future products.[49]
Re: (Score:2)
OGG, CSS, OASIS, OOXML... although the last one isn't really 'open'. I'm sure there's like a gazillion others. They're just completely unable to do it.
Show me. (Score:2)
To be fair
.. that word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
it's not like the other side go out of their way to make their 'standards' easy for Microsoft to implement.
Since "the other side" in this case are proponents of Open Source or Open Standards, please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.
Re:Show me. (Score:5, Insightful)
please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.
Keep in mind who we're discussing here. When your goal is to leverage your monopoly -- to lock your customers in and your competitors out -- then open standards are deliberately obstructive! :)
Re:Show me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely!
More people need to understand this. It's clear MS does - but on our side most people still seem to be under the illusion that it is somehow possible to play fair and get along with MS. It isnt. It never was. From their point of view you are either helping them develop lock-in and total control of each and every PC in the world, or you are against them and they will stop at nothing to destroy you.
Re: (Score:2)
Since "the other side" in this case are proponents of Open Source or Open Standards, please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.
I can't think of any actual cases off the top of my head, but it would not be hard to do...
Get a software patent on an encoder or decoder that is gplv3 licensed. Never license the patent other than to the gplv3 source code. The only way MS could then implement software to work with the data format would be to use the gplv3 source code which would require that the entire application be gplv3'd.
Re:Show me. (Score:4, Informative)
While patents are clearly BS protectionism, what you describe is an extra layer of BS. Patents do not work that way at all. You can only patent a method, not an implementation. You cannot selectively license a patent (0|+inf). You are intentionally mixing ideas from copyright and patent to create bullshit.
If it "would not be hard to do...", please do. Otherwise, being shamed as a bullshitting shill will lose you your $241 bonus.
I think you're more confused than the OP (Score:3, Informative)
Of c
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, patents do work that way, which is why even "legitimate" patents obstruct progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents do not work that way at all.
Hello, McFly?
You cannot selectively license a patent (0|+inf).
What you talkin 'bout Willis?
Of course you can selectively license a patent, that's precisely the way they work.
If anyone here is mixing ideas from copyright and patents, it is you with your bullshit. The most well-known example being compulsory licensing of nondramatic musical works. [cornell.edu]
I see you got modded at least +1 informative based solely on your bluster, that moderator ought to be ashamed of his own ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can legally license a patent to only one party. AFAIK, you are legally obliged to allow any party to license the patent according to similar, reasonable terms.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only way MS could then implement software to work with the data format would be to use the gplv3 source code which would require that the entire application be gplv3'd.
Wrong, only the decoder need be GPLv3. An application is only required to be GPL'd if it has GPL dependencies; WiMP could continue to be closed-source, while the decoder went GPLv3, because WiMP still functions without the decoder. Nice try, though.
Never has RTFA been more appropriate. (Score:2)
Seriously - ready the Comes documents and listen to Bill Gates in his own words describe portability and open formats as anathema to his plans for a Windows world - listen to him instruct his minions on the destruction of interopability. You seriously can't make this stuff up as well as he tells it. The man is a genius. There are ogg video and audio as well. It's beautiful in the way that volcano video [youtube.com] is when you live far away from the lava flow.
Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be fair and accurate. You totally mischaracterized Bill Gates' position. The email doesn't say lets not go out of our way to make the stuff easier for others to implement, it says we should go out of our way to make it so others cannot implement it . The two are completely different, and worlds apart.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To be fair it's not like the other side go out of their way to make their 'standards' easy for Microsoft to implement.
Others have focused on the fact that there is a big difference between not making standards easy to implement, and deliberately making them more difficult. However, there is another issue here: you are a liar. The "other side" does in fact make their standards easy for Microsoft to implement them. As if publishing RFCs which describe the protocols wasn't enough, the source code is Open. That means that Microsoft can look right into the code and see precisely how the system is implemented — a benefit n
Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I wish the internet would become a development platform for application (GUI driven in this case). If this was the case the platform wars (to borrow Microsoft terminology) would be over and developers would code for the internet. Google, with chrome os etc, seems to be an ally in this, not that they are benevolent benefactors, just that their business aims and the open source community desires align.
What would it take to code in any number of languages (in the way we can now code in javascript) for the web.
Well, no... (Score:1, Insightful)
If Google wins it would be far, far worse than anything Microsoft could do. It would mean that desktop computers would be hobbled based on a low level baseline of common functionality, that, applications would be subject to be found only based on what Google likes or dislike, and that users data will not even belong to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, no... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you see the Google Chrome OS as something Google is trying to use to take over every computer, which is certainly not true. Google wants to use it to create a new class of computer, a netbook that only does internet and nothing else.
Well you miss the point. First off, the question was really, what would the world be like if Google dominated computing as much as Microsoft did, and therefor, my "dystopian fantasy" was a viable answer. Google's business model envisions everyone accessing their data on third party computers with dumb internet only appliances. Therefor, to be a host, you have to get Google's permission, and, consumers will never own their data. That's what this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no... (Score:2, Informative)
If Google wins then there will be available numerous facilities available in the Google cloud that are attractive alternatives to doing things the hard way, for every case where excellent cloud apps make sense.
Google's not trying to take your personal workstation away. If you want to host your own data and crunch your own numbers your way that's up to you. But if you don't, they want to be the easiest and best way to assemble and reference information online. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the rest, I don't understand your argument: Google strives for making sure users can get their data and move it away any time they like, and also strives for implementing open standards and publishing APIs fully
These days, open API's are more complex than closed API's were in the past. To wit, there's way more complexity in an open XML format and all the ins and outs of representing a document than there was in figuring out some undocumented DOS call or learning about some undocumented register o
Re: (Score:2)
And your answer means what, exactly ? Comparing apples to apples, do you believe it's easier to reverse engineer MS Word format (and do it flawlessly) than implement an open standard ?
Well first off lets eject the phrase "do it flawlessly", because, that's probably impossible in both cases. Two of the most successful standards of software are C++ and HTML/CSS and we are just getting close to flawless implementations of those. When standards are forward thinking, and set a roadmap for vendors to implement
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, downloading a zip file containing all your documents that you can read in, for instance, OpenOffice, and doing so in 1 click is really a complex API for you to figure out. Not to mention the fact that open APIs drive down costs and multiple implementation
do something with the big crap that you downloaded. And, you just admitted that the people are locked into openoffice. What's the big difference.
Why can't you fricking zealots ever tell the truth? Open source is just another kind of vendor lock in.
Re:Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online (Score:4, Funny)
Right, just what I want: aircraft flight control systems as PHP code on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was the case the platform wars (to borrow Microsoft terminology) would be over and developers would code for the internet.
And the resulting applications would suck. Developers should develop for the user. "The internet" is not a sentient being, not the end-user of software. So, why would humans want want software developed for the internet? We should want software developed for humans.
The Colossal Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that right around the same time Microsoft started thinking about using its bulk and business practices to achieve marketing ends, is right around the same time its innovation, risk taking, and other admirable traits about the company slacked off. I mean, yeah, it might have been hurtful to Borland for Microsoft to buy the superior Fox and use it to crush dBase, but at least the market did get a better product. And it might have been wrong to use Windows money to fund the development of Visual Studio to propel it past Turbo C++, but, again, the consumer got a better product. Even IE4 was better than Netscape.
But this email is from 1997, when MS had won the OS wars, the browser wars, and since then, what has happened? MS has lost its focus on computing entirely. Folding the Windows NT core into the Windows 95 shell to get first Windows NT 4.0 and then Windows 2000 were the best things the company did, and since then, we've had really not much to write home about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Microsoft's defense, they are not alone. Windows 2000 (and it's UI improvement XP) did deliver. They threw a rock-solid OS with acceptable performance out there, and satisfied everyone from businesses to gamers. The famous 20% of work to get 80% of the result were done. Delivering again is hard, because now customers expect to get 160% at the same price. That's how things like Vista and DNF happen.
But as I said, they are not alone. Apple had their 2000/XP moments with Puma and Jaguar. They handled their
Time, perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you had enjoyed the benefit of playing with SVR2 through a 30" high def graphical terminal in 1984 as I did, Microsoft's "innovations" in Windows 2000 some 15 years later might seem a bit less amazing. In 1984 we had aerial photos on LaserDisc overlaid with terrain data that we could draw on, and real-time position data in a distributed database with mesh networking for geotracking important operational assets. You could take a bomb to all but one node in the system, and that last node would stay up and have the latest propagated data. Yes, it took three or four seconds to redraw when you shifted scale or moved the map, but it was 1984. We had csh, ksh, X-Windows with widgets that looked better than W2k's. Networking was assumed. It was a multiuser system with an evolved system of managing user security that persists to this day. This was about nine months after Microsoft had invented the remarkable "subdirectory" concept with DOS 2.0, and 14 years before they included an IP stack by default. </sarcasm>.
Back then it took about 12 minutes to draft a professional one page letter using a CPT dedicated word processing station with full-page WYSYWIG and a SCSI daisy wheel printer. Today you can do a Google maps mashup of your own Cell GPS geolocation data in real time, and it takes about 25 minutes to craft a one-page letter. So the advantage of 25 years of progress is that technolgies are cheaper and more common and individuals are less effective.
A default install of SVR2 included development tools - grep, lex, yacc, awk, sed, an assembler, compiler, and cross-compiler for new hardware architectures, the source for the OS and all the tools, an ip stack including email. It was a multiuser environment. The processor performance graph, to give an example, included an animated graph of the pen writing the data on the scrolling log - an unnecessary but artful use of screen space that I miss to this day.
Rock solid? Windows 2000? Give me a break! If you think W2k was rock solid you have low standards [wikipedia.org].
Microsoft marketed Windows 2000 as the most secure Windows version ever,[15] but it became the target of a number of high-profile virus attacks such as Code Red and Nimda.[16] Over nine years after its release, it continues to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month.
Windows 2000 was a remarkable advance in the scope of "Microsoft operating systems". People who know better found nothing special in it. It wasn't as good as eight year old Jolix [wikipedia.org] then, and it still isn't [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The term "rock solid" never had anything to do with being secure. It was about stability and Windows 2000 was the first NT kernel based OS that was targeted to consumers. It was a great improvement over the real-mode based win9x versions.
Ironically, in Slashdot fashion, the summary of note 15 in wikipedia.org is misleading. The quote about security was in the context of Kerberos, it wasn't about talking about viruses. Although arguably Windows 2000 was the most secure Windows version, it wasn't actually mar
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I think the "30" high def graphical terminal" was SVR2's most innovative feature.
Re: (Score:2)
I reject the notion that there was any "dislocation", just a different approach. You ignore both the historical context of these OSs and their target audience.
Re: (Score:2)
The part you left out is that SVR-anything cost something like $5,000 per machine.
Also the entire UNIX workstation environment rolled over and died when Windows NT hit the market. Essentially nothing was done for a decade until Linux started taking hold. Sun couldn't even be arsed to change the color scheme from the vintage Reagan-era pastels until a couple years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The part you left out is that SVR-anything cost something like $5,000 per machine.
So? We're talking about a time when a top-end PC cost $3500.
Re: (Score:2)
So? We're talking about a time when a top-end PC cost $3500.
And a top-end UNIX workstation cost $20,000. Gee, I can't imagine why the $3500 PC with the $300 Windows NT sold. Especially after the Pentium Pro almost closed the performance gap.
(Not to mention that if you wanted UNIX with that PC, you had to go to SCO.)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something to think about: Things have changed a bit in 20 years [eeeuser.com] (classic ad, passed around more than... you get the idea)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is more difficult to mold into that schematic by its very nature. Different projects that integrate into one distribution release at different times.
I don't see why. Pick the set of component to look at the ones that are installed by default from the $distribution of your choice. Just pick what was available on the same date as the release of the Microsoft or Apple products.
That would be the comparable set of diffs you would want to look at. What happened in $version to $version+1 timeframe on linux?
This could be interesting, as each competitor would capture a different moment in time to diff.
Perhaps also, Linux could then be used as a sort of default
Sorry, no. (Score:2, Informative)
This behaviour is in Microsoft's DNA from the first dealings with Gary Kildall [wikipedia.org] to the current i4i [groklaw.net] debacle. It didn't mysteriously originate at the moment that Microsoft turned the corner from logarithmic growth to slow decline in January of 2000. For that radical course correction we need look no further than the appointment of Steve Ballmer to the helm on that day.
Obviously Ballmer isn't responsible for the culture that established these behaviours - he inherited that. We should just be thankful he's n
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates recommended Gary Kildall's CP/M to IBM and Kildall was unable or unwilling to close the deal. Both MS and IBM were acting in good faith.
You pays your money and you takes your chances (Score:2)
Well, the only reason Kildall is part of the IBM PC story is that Bill Gates referred IBM to him.
Most people would be grateful for a business referral to the largest computer company in the world, but perhaps you don't "read" it that way.
None of the players in the creation of the PC knew at the time that it would be such a big success. IBM, Intel and Gates took the chance and Kildall didn't.
Opposition is the only way (Score:2)
Surely the Evangeline* is War email is pure and simple evidence that they are evil and we should do everything in our power to oppose them. A company as big as that should be scrupulously decent and honest and try to avoid any embarrassment --- but apparently they no longer feel embarrassed about their own actions --- a bit like a friend of mine who gets high and then acts like a c**ck but really doesn't seem to feel ashamed of his own behaviour --- so he keeps on doing stupid things until I hit him. Faceb
Re: (Score:2)
And then I realized how cleverly you turn the discussion to acceptance of your hero.
Oh yes; especially this bit about "boycott Novell" and "boycott Gnome" must be some extremely clever in this context.
When taking part in a discussion, it's worth not having a witch-hunt mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to be polite to De Icaza :) but by suggesting we boycott Gnome (in the same damn sentance) I had hoped that would indicate where I stand on his whole surreal Microsoft love affair (to make it clear - I HATE IT)
Also, Novell, for literally going to bed with Microsoft (I HATE IT)
Also Jono Bacon, for giving the Boycott Novell guy a hard time on FOSS Weekly (I HATE HIM FOR THAT)
And finally Microsoft, for all the crappy software, every changing interfaces, having had a part in inventing web services
Embarrased? (Score:2)
After realizing how embarrassing the documents were to Microsoft
I find this hard to beleive. After all, they did release Vista.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Rest assured that any information that isn't negative to Microsoft will be posted last if at all.
Microsoft already does all they can to trumpet everything that goes to their favour, there's no need to repeat these pieces.
GL/PJ isn't exactly know for being an unbiased source - she will say/do anything to keep the hits/money coming in.
This is a war, and the other side fights hard for themselves. We're not supposed to help them.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"This is a war, and the other side fights hard for themselves. We're not supposed to help them."
this is more than a war, its a way of life. on the microsoft side are the baby boomers cars and elecricity for all and tons of crappy junk. on the other side is a hope that community can hold eachother together so that there is food and sustainability. community broke down when the so called atomic age allowed most americans to live outside of poverty, with cars and suburbs. community is everything, it is the on
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Rest assured that any information that isn't negative to Microsoft will be posted last if at all. GL/PJ isn't exactly know for being an unbiased source - she will say/do anything to keep the hits/money coming in.
That's a great balance against the marketing and PR that Microsoft spends a great deal of money producing. All of their marketing and PR is completely biased, of course. It would be reasonable to complain about GL being biased the moment Microsoft's marketing fully discloses, with equal emphasis and prominence, all disadvantages and downsides of all of their products in addition to their advantages and benefits. Until then, such a balance that PJ is providing is a welcome and useful thing.
Re:Unbiased this will not be. (Score:5, Informative)
I somewhat doubt microsoft fought and bribed to suppress anything complimentary. I like the way you smear PJ, btw. Wouldn't PJ's best source of income be getting a microsoft bribe to keep the records obscure?
Being a shill is bad enough, but is anybody even paying you to post this shit, or is this some sort of public service? Groglaw is also a sort of public service, but somehow they have credibility.
Bill Gates is sharing his fortune! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Dear Friends,
Please do not take this for a junk letter. Bill Gates is sharing his fortune. If you ignore this you will repent later. In an effort to make sure that Internet Explorer 6 remains the most widely used browser, Microsoft is running an Shill beta test.
For the first favorable posting you make to Slashdot, Microsoft will pay you $245.00, for every second posting, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third posting, you will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for you
Re: (Score:1)
HELLO, DEAR SIR
I AM A COMPUTER HACKER IN NIGERIA. I HAVE PROGRAMMED A BOTNET WITCH WILL MAKE PRO-MICROSOFT POSTS ON SLASHDOT AND GENERATE MONEY UP TO $9.5 MILLION DOLLARS. IF YOU GIVE ME AN ADVANCE FE OF $5000 DOLLAR I WILL SET UP THE BOTNET AND GIVE U 15% OF THE MONEY.
MAY RMS BE WITH YOU,
OKONWA NIAWA
Re: (Score:2)
I think PJ has got a pretty thick skin, particularly after the SCO scamsters went after her with everything they had. Some retarded little puke shilling for Microsft ain't a speck of shit on the floor compared to the unholy trinity of Lyons, Enderle and O'Gara. It's like comparing some Nigerian scammer to Bernie Madoff.
Re: (Score:2)
She had O'Gara stalking her, for fuck's sake. I don't know whether you're a shill or not, but you are a worthless asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up, a twitter account proclaims water is wet and another mighty ACer proclaims TWITTER!
Re:Unbiased this will not be. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like Groklaw, debunk what is presented there.
Re: (Score:2)
Maureeen O'Gara, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
GL/PJ isn't exactly know for being an unbiased source
As opposed to the "unbiased" generic computing press I suppose ?
Re: (Score:2)
Rob Enderle, please stand up!
He is such an obnoxious twit.
Re:B.b.b..but, M$.... (Score:5, Informative)
When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail, but for now, what you did there is called a "false dichotomy", arguing from the premise that only two alternatives are possible.
It works very well to trap the unwary, because the dishonest part is unspoken.
If this post is making you angry, perhaps you'd like to put more effort into detecting false premises in your own.
Re:B.b.b..but, M$.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they won't. It sure would be nice, though.
If the (government-owned, government-operated) public schools actually taught logic, argumentation, and critical thinking, thoroughly and exhaustively, it would remove a lot of individuals and interests from power. Imagine if we never had any laws or policies except those that could stand up to rigorous examination. Imagine that clearly enough and you'll see why no one who could arrange that is inclined to let it happen.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Imagine that clearly enough and you'll see why no one who could arrange that is inclined to let it happen.
Said no one who could arrange that being the electorate of your county/state/country?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine that clearly enough and you'll see why no one who could arrange that is inclined to let it happen.
Said no one who could arrange that being the electorate of your county/state/country?
Right. The electorate who lack the critical thinking skills and knowledge of logical fallacies to understand what's wrong with the status quo are unlikely to demand leaders who institute policies that stand up to critical thinking and are free of logical fallacies. This suits our current leaders just fine. Those leaders are not stupid. They know how to play the game of politics to their advantage. They are aware of the situation and its implications, they know what's wrong with their laws and policies,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Those of us who actually paid attention in school DID learn those skills. Can't say the same for students who had their heads up their asses thinking they were better than everyone else though...
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
You got your low tax states y'all so now you've got an education level to match it. There's still the high achievers from Texas but they'll get as rare as high achievers
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a bad feeling that the above was read as "blah blah Texas blah blah Nigeria" and suggest you read that sentence again, you've responded as if I'd written something completely different to what is there.
The USA has some of the best postgraduate education but
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that: a) everyone is capable of complex critical thinking; and b) that incompetent politicos could arrange would be able to stop all teachers from teaching such things; and c) that people can't learn those things themselves.