Nuttiness

Post #28,951 by Squidley 2/19/02 2:37:11 PM Reply	Nuttiness What exactly are the states trying to prove\ufffd- that it's possible to release a version of Windows without IE? Isn't that a bit dumb? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft's argument is that removing IE is damaging to the product, not that it's impossible.
Post #28,956 by wharris2 2/19/02 3:00:52 PM Reply	Semantics I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft's argument is that removing IE is damaging to the product, not that it's impossible. They're saying it's impossible to do without damaging the product, therefore they can't do it without hurting consumers. Well, duh. That's what happens when you write incestuous operating system components that can't be separated from each other. Not to mentiont that poor modularity makes it hard to find and fix problems. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
Post #28,957 by Squidley 2/19/02 3:16:37 PM Reply	Re: Semantics They're saying it's impossible to do without damaging the product, therefore they can't do it without hurting consumers. Wouldn't you agree that there's no need to see the source code in order to evaluate the validity of that claim? Well, duh. That's what happens when you write incestuous operating system components that can't be separated from each other. Not to mentiont that poor modularity makes it hard to find and fix problems. One man's "incestuous OS components" are another man's "clever code reuse". IE is modularized to an almost ridiculous extent, and its modules are reused by everything from the desktop to the file manager to the help viewer to the Web browser to the administration console. Is this really a bad thing? Isn't this the new direction taken by things like KDE and GNOME?
Post #28,968 by wharris2 2/19/02 4:45:48 PM Reply	But it's not modular. Take a look at your windows\\system (or windows\\system32) directory and look at the sizes of some of those DLL's. Except for really stretching the term, the largest aren't modular; they're packed full of all kinds of stuff. If it was modular, Microsoft wouldn't be so insistent that Internet Explorer can't possibly be removed. They'd be able to, say, remove Explorer while keeping the HTML components needed for a display window in Outlook. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
Post #28,976 by Squidley 2/19/02 5:38:52 PM Reply	No? Take a look at your windows\\system (or windows\\system32) directory and look at the sizes of some of those DLL's. Except for really stretching the term, the largest aren't modular; they're packed full of all kinds of stuff. Is that how you're evaluating modularity? File size? What would you say is the maximum size of a DLL below which it's modular and above which it isn't? By the way, did you not know that in the COM world a single DLL may host any number of independent components? I consider IE modular because I can reuse portions of its functionality in many different ways. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently\ufffd- the HTML engine, the GUI widget, etc. If it was modular, Microsoft wouldn't be so insistent that Internet Explorer can't possibly be removed. They'd be able to, say, remove Explorer while keeping the HTML components needed for a display window in Outlook. You can do that. Windows XP even has an option to remove IE. That doesn't do Netscape much good however, since Windows' standard file manager (EXPLORER.EXE) also exposes the Web browsing capability. When you remove IE, all you're removing is the tiny IEXPLORE.EXE container application.
Post #28,982 by Another Scott 2/19/02 6:15:49 PM Reply	No. Hey, Trolling again, eh? Oh well, welcome back. Is that how you're evaluating modularity? File size? What would you say is the maximum size of a DLL below which it's modular and above which it isn't? [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=modular\|Modular] has a recognized meaning. In this case, meaning 2 fits best: * Designed with standardized units or dimensions, as for easy assembly and repair or flexible arrangement and use: modular furniture; modular homes. Modular programs have units which are restricted to single logical tasks. By the way, did you not know that in the COM world a single DLL may host any number of independent components? Is that relevant? One still has to load the entire DLL in memory to use any of those independent components, doesn't one? I consider IE modular because I can reuse portions of its functionality in many different ways. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently - the HTML engine, the GUI widget, etc. I guess you'd consider [link\|http://www.ikea.com\|IKEA] to be a modular store because they sell modular furniture, too. I hope you can see the connection. Having a huge DLL made up of interconnected and intertwined functions and modules that can be called separately isn't modular programming. Windows XP even has an option to remove IE. That doesn't do Netscape much good however, since Windows' standard file manager (EXPLORER.EXE) also exposes the Web browsing capability. When you remove IE, all you're removing is the tiny IEXPLORE.EXE container application. Squidley: You can remove IE's stub but you can't remove IE because it's not modular. Thanks for proving our point. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #28,987 by Squidley 2/19/02 6:41:42 PM Reply	I Respectfully Disagree Trolling again, eh? Oh well, welcome back. Nah, just discussing. I'd really like to know what the states expect to prove with the code. Some people here seem delighted with this latest courtroom development. Perhaps they could answer? Modular programs have units which are restricted to single logical tasks. You mean tasks like HTML parsing, HTML rendering, interactive browsing, etc.? Looks like IE fits the bill. One still has to load the entire DLL in memory to use any of those independent components, doesn't one? Logically speaking, yes, but of course paged virtual memory systems typically load individual pages on demand. In any case, this is irrelevant as DLL boundaries don't map to module or component boundaries, and IE consists of many DLLs anyway. I guess you'd consider IKEA to be a modular store because they sell modular furniture, too. I hope you can see the connection. No, sorry, I'm missing your point here. Could you elaborate? Having a huge DLL made up of interconnected and intertwined functions and modules that can be called separately isn't modular programming. Well, thanks for telling me what modular programming isn't. Now could you tell me what it is, and why IE doesn't qualify? You can remove IE's stub but you can't remove IE because it's not modular. Umm, no, you can't remove IE because its multiple independent modules (which are of course the result of modular programming) are reused by dozens of applications vital to the product. Thanks for proving our point. Forgive me if I don't yield just yet :-)
Post #28,991 by Another Scott 2/19/02 7:29:50 PM Reply	Your questions are answered in news stories. Hi, I'd really like to know what the states expect to prove with the code. Some people here seem delighted with this latest courtroom development. Perhaps they could answer? If you'd read the [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/02/16/microsoft.code.reut/index.html\|CNN] story at the head of this thread about CKK's ruling, and a [link\|http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/15173-1.html\|Washtech] story about the request, you'dl see the states' arguments. Washtech: "Microsoft cannot base its defense on the design of its source code and simultaneously deny the litigating states the opportunity to test those arguments by interrogating the code," the states said in their filing. CNN: Nine state attorneys general had argued that they needed to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim it could not offer a simpler version of the Windows personal computer operating system, stripped of features like the Internet Explorer browser. "It seems to me that if your side has access to it, then the other side, frankly, should have access to it," United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly told Microsoft's lawyers in a conference call with attorneys from both sides. [...] An appeals court in June agreed with a lower court that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly in personal computer operating systems, but rejected splitting the company in two to prevent future violations. Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of the Windows source code with add-on programs. Seems emminently reasonable to me. Cheers, Scott.
Post #28,994 by Brandioch 2/19/02 7:44:32 PM Reply	If it >IS< "modular"............. then, if I wasn't using it, it wouldn't be loaded into memory, right? I will use NetWare as an example. If I'm not using a certain function (say a specific network card driver) then that MODULE is NOT loaded into memory. Now, can you say that the same is true of Windows and IE? If I'm not browsing a directory or the Internet or the network or anything. Just playing minesweeper. If it were modular, those chunks of code would NOT be loaded into memory. If it is NOT modular, they ARE loaded.
Post #29,011 by Squidley 2/19/02 11:30:08 PM Reply	Re: If it >IS< "modular"............. then, if I wasn't using it, it wouldn't be loaded into memory, right? I wouldn't say that modules by definition must reside in separate files, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree. Now, can you say that the same is true of Windows and IE? Yes. If I'm not browsing a directory or the Internet or the network or anything. Just playing minesweeper. ... the none of IE's components are loaded... with a caveat. Windows' login program loads the designated shell when a user first logs in, and respawns it if it dies. The default shell is EXPLORER.EXE, which uses many of IE's components. But you can change it to something else, like CMD.EXE. I haven't tried this in Windows XP, but it worked just fine in Windows 2000.
Post #29,086 by Brandioch 2/20/02 1:55:17 PM Reply	Definitions vs. designs. True, they >COULD< be designed as modular BUT be REQUIRED to be loaded all the time. In which case, we have MS building in un-needed dependencies. If it is "modular" but it is required to be loaded all the time, what is the difference (to the end user) of that design over a monolithic design? Now, MS's past "defense" has been that they're doing these things for the end user. And remember that there aren't specific .dll's that can be removed that would remove just that functionality without removing other, required, functionality. Which would be another reason to dis-believe the "modular" claims. ... the none of IE's components are loaded... with a caveat. Windows' login program loads the designated shell when a user first logs in, and respawns it if it dies. The default shell is EXPLORER.EXE, which uses many of IE's components. But this is the core of the issue. Components that are NOT needed ARE loaded. And they cannot (by design) be removed without killing Windows. Therefore, MS did illegally tie IE to Windows. Remember, this case was about Win9x. Not Win2K or WinXP.
Post #29,188 by Squidley 2/21/02 9:56:05 AM Reply	Re: Definitions vs. designs. If it is "modular" but it is required to be loaded all the time, what is the difference (to the end user) of that design over a monolithic design? Very few. I'd say that most of the advantages of modular design benefit programmers rather than the end user. Better maintainability for Microsoft, and a more compelling platform for ISVs. Now, MS's past "defense" has been that they're doing these things for the end user. One potential end user benefit is that modular systems are more easily reused, and deeper reuse leads to greater efficiency, which leads to a better overall user experience, at least in theory. But this is the core of the issue. Components that are NOT needed ARE loaded. But they are needed. The standard shell (EXPLORER.EXE) uses IE's HTML parsing and display engines to render many of its views. Therefore, MS did illegally tie IE to Windows. Whoa, could you go over that proof again?
Post #29,239 by Brandioch 2/21/02 12:23:18 PM Reply	So, now we look at history. I'd say that most of the advantages of modular design benefit programmers rather than the end user. Better maintainability for Microsoft, and a more compelling platform for ISVs. Ahhh, but the benefit to programmers SHOULD be seen as a more stable product (yes/no), a more secure product (yes/no), and so on. Yet Windows is well known for its instability and non-existant immune system (loveletter and so on). So, if it were "modular", we >STILL< aren't seeing any of the benefits. Check out the >SIZE< of the service packs MS has. Compare that to the patches for Linux (Debian in particular). And before you ask, no, size by itself does NOT determine modularity. But when when the service pack is larger than the applications, you cannot argue "modularity". One potential end user benefit is that modular systems are more easily reused, and deeper reuse leads to greater efficiency, which leads to a better overall user experience, at least in theory. But in MS's history we haven't seen this. We've seen each release being MORE buggy than the release before it. Win98 was less stable than Win95c. If it were modular, the modules would have been stabilized over the 3 years between Win95 and Win98. Code re-use of stable modules would have the core system rock solid by then. But that wasn't what happened. But they are needed. The standard shell (EXPLORER.EXE) uses IE's HTML parsing and display engines to render many of its views. No. That's "monolithic". If I'm not displaying HTML and don't have a background and I'm not browsing anything, then I shouldn't have anything that reads HTML loaded. But it is loaded. Whoa, could you go over that proof again? Simple. Since all your arguments as to why MS might design their system with modularity don't result in real-world improvements (Win98 was more buggy than Win95 at the time) then there must have been another reason for them doing so. Which gets back to the internal emails about cutting off Netscape's air supply and making the use of any other browser a "jolting" experience.
Post #28,984 by pwhysall 2/19/02 6:20:15 PM Reply	What? Windows XP even has an option to remove IE Bollocks. It has an option to remove it from the Start menu. That's a world away from actually removing it. Keep to the facts, thanks. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #28,990 by Squidley 2/19/02 6:49:22 PM Reply	Oops, You're Right! Bollocks. It has an option to remove it from the Start menu. That's a world away from actually removing it. I just checked it, and you're right! Thanks for correcting me. I'd only seen the option, but never used it. I bet they need to keep the executable around because too much third-party stuff assumes its there and tries to launch it. So Peter, what do you think about this whole thing with the source code?
Post #28,996 by imric 2/19/02 7:51:44 PM Reply	Modules that cannot be replaced or removed because they are spread out through the OS? Those are modules? I consider IE modular because I can reuse portions of its functionality in many different ways. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently - the HTML engine, the GUI widget, etc. Ah - so DOS is modular. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently, after all - in fact, with your definition, modularity is achieved by any product that has more than one function, automatically! Can you see that a 'module' that cannot be replaced is not mudular? That what you call a module is really an API? After all, what MS got slapped for originally was denying OEMs (the real Windows customers, after all - they are the ones paying for Windows) the ability to install Netscape on machines with Windows installations that they had PAID FOR, not for providing an API for developers. They denied OEMs a signifigant way to differentiate thier products, specifically for the purpose of 'cutting off Netscape's air-supply'. This was at a time when even though MS was giving thier product away, they could not compete with Netscape, who was selling thiers. The only way to grab marketshare from Netscape was to force installation of thier own product, and prevent OEMs from installing competing products. That doesn't do Netscape much good however, since Windows' standard file manager (EXPLORER.EXE) also exposes the Web browsing capability. If IE was a module, it could be replaced by another. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? Can it be replaced by, say, Netscape? No - Microsoft will not permit OEMs to do so, even though it is those same OEMs that would be obligated to support it. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,009 by Squidley 2/19/02 11:20:13 PM Reply	Re: Modules that cannot be replaced or removed because they are spread out through the OS? Those are modules? I'd say these particular ones can't be removed because too many applications that are vital parts of the product depend on them. Ah - so DOS is modular. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently, after all - in fact, with your definition, modularity is achieved by any product that has more than one function, automatically! I wouldn't say modularity is a systemwide yes-or-no kind of thing. Most Unix-like systems are very modular while many of their individual components are not. Modular design can be applied at any level, and so can non-modular design. Wouldn't you agree? As for DOS, my opinion is as follows. DOS systems are extremely primitive, but certainly show crude signs of modular design. The core of the system consists of a very small number of modules, each of which may be totally monolithic for all we know, but the system as a whole certainly isn't a monolith. The command processor, the command-line utilities, and the device drivers are all separate from the "kernel". Can you see that a 'module' that cannot be replaced is not mudular? What makes you think it can't be replaced? Microsoft's argument isn't that it can't be replaced, is it? Isn't it that it can't be replaced without damaging the product? Or are you arguing that modules that are heavily reused are not modules? If IE was a module, it could be replaced by another. Which IE are you talking about here\ufffd- IE the collection of reusable components, or IE the executable program (IEXPLORE.EXE)? Either way, it certainly can be replaced. None of these things are tied into the kernel. But you can't just remove it without damaging the product. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? It's just a thin executable container for the IE ActiveX control, which is reusable and resides in a DLL.
Post #29,033 by imric 2/20/02 6:06:09 AM Reply	No. What makes you think it can't be replaced? Microsoft's argument isn't that it can't be replaced, is it? Isn't it that it can't be replaced without damaging the product? Or are you arguing that modules that are heavily reused are not modules? It can't be replaced without damaging the product - but it's modular, huh? As I said before, what YOU describe is an API, not modularity. "it can't be replaced without damaging the product" argues against "it's" modularity, BTW. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? It's just a thin executable container for the IE ActiveX control, which is reusable and resides in a DLL. sigh You miss the point. MS provided an explicit browser through that 'stub'. They prevented thier customers (OEMS) from replacing it (that explicit browser), or even installing any competing product - thus using thier OS monopoly to destroy, then capture the (then thriving) market in internet browsers - and damaging OEMs ability to differentiate/add value to thier own products. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,053 by Squidley 2/20/02 11:25:42 AM Reply	APIs & Modularity It can't be replaced without damaging the product - but it's modular, huh? Sorry, I misspoke, but you seemed to get my point anyway; I meant to say it can't be removed without damaging the product. And no, I don't see why something that's vital to the product it's part of cannot possibly be modular. I see no connection there whatsoever. "it can't be replaced without damaging the product" argues against "it's" modularity, BTW. Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". If that assumption is correct, then I totally disagree with your claim here. Removing, say, the X Server from a Mandrake package does a great deal of damage to the Mandrake product. But what does that say about whether the X Server itself is modular? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell. They prevented thier customers (OEMS) from replacing it (that explicit browser), or even installing any competing product - thus using thier OS monopoly to destroy, then capture the (then thriving) market in internet browsers - and damaging OEMs ability to differentiate/add value to thier own products. Two things. First, I totally agree that Microsoft was wrong to prevent OEMs from preinstalling Navigator (although somehow that pile of crap managed to find its way onto the last three PCs I bought). Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE, especially considering that it would have done no good since the shell (EXPLORER.EXE) is equally adept at Web browsing.
Post #29,068 by drewk 2/20/02 12:02:56 PM Reply	Re: APIs & Modularity Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". No, I believe he meant "replaced." The two are different. Here, I'll show you how. Removing, say, the X Server from a Mandrake package does a great deal of damage to the Mandrake product. But the X Server can be completely replaced by another product that does the same thing. See [link\|http://www.tridiavnc.com/list-mailist/2001-01/0611.html\|here] for an example of how trivially this can be done. Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE, especially considering that it would have done no good since the shell (EXPLORER.EXE) is equally adept at Web browsing. Really? So why is IEXPLORE.EXE included at all? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #29,082 by Squidley 2/20/02 1:33:12 PM Reply	Re: APIs & Modularity No, I believe he meant "replaced." In that case, I would ask him why he thinks IE couldn't be replaced. I believe Microsoft's objection is to having IE removed. But the X Server can be completely replaced by another product that does the same thing. See here for an example of how trivially this can be done. What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. Really? So why is IEXPLORE.EXE included at all? My guess is that it's for backward compatibility. Third party software may assume it's there and try to launch it. It's kind of like cc and gcc. If you use Linux, your compiler is probably gcc, but you have to keep the cc stub around for backward compatibility.
Post #29,087 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 1:55:47 PM Reply	This is really funny. Replace: Step1: remove existing item. Step2: insert replacement item. Looks to me like an objection to "remove" also counts as an objection to "replace". What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. Where does Microsoft's "kernel" stop and something else begin? Microsoft says the whole thing is inextricable, and will negatively impact performance, so it must effectively be "part of the kernel" in their definition. What they're saying is that you'd have to pick apart the whole system to insert even a 100% workalike. Probably not true, but when has Microsoft ever told the truth about anything? It's all just obfuscation and "comingling". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,177 by Squidley 2/21/02 9:18:25 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. Looks to me like an objection to "remove" also counts as an objection to "replace". I thought we were talking about technical barriers rather than contractual ones. Technically, IE is both removeable and replaceable. But simply removing it would cause lots of important stuff in the product to stop functioning, and expecting Microsoft to let third parties replace it is also totally absurd. On the other hand, I think Microsoft should allow OEMs to add any third-party products they want, at least as long as those products are compliant with some minimum standards. Do you disagree? Where does Microsoft's "kernel" stop and something else begin? Are you that unfamiliar with Windows architecture? I think you'd find it very similar to that of [insert your favorite modern general-purpose OS]. Microsoft says the whole thing is inextricable, and will negatively impact performance, so it must effectively be "part of the kernel" in their definition. I disagree with your interpretation of Microsoft's argument. If you remove IE, you don't break the kernel; you break things like the desktop, the help system, the administration console, etc. Doesn't that sound like a negative impact on performance? Sure, some things will continue to work, but the product as a whole is greatly damaged. The standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it.
Post #29,209 by warmachine 2/21/02 10:54:20 AM Reply	MS should control PC configuration? ...expecting Microsoft to let third parties replace it[IE component in Windows] is also totally absurd. Why? You state that IE is removable and replaceable and that OEMs should be allowed to add third party products, provided they comply with a minimum standard. In the case of an IE replacement, that standard would be the same component interface that the IE and shell development teams have declared to each other. If an IE replacement correctly complied with that, there would be no problem. If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? If so, that stifles innovation or market adaption by the OEMs themselves. For example, suppose there's a locked-down browser that blocks children from seeing banned sites. An OEM could market a child-locked PC to concerned parents, if they were allowed to replace IE. Or some software company might develop a browser that supports micro-payments of pay-per-view content and sell an integrated version to OEMs. A PC is a generic, adaptable machine and is in a competitive market. Choice from a variety of packages would be a good thing. Why should MS be allowed to control a product that they don't supply? Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,231 by Squidley 2/21/02 12:06:02 PM Reply	Re: MS should control PC configuration? If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component. Many of the interfaces it exposes are nontrivial. There's a ton of other nontrivial stuff in Windows that reuses various IE components. Microsoft has poured tons of time and money into testing all that stuff with IE. And here's the key point. Microsoft also knows that no two independent implementations of a nontrivial software specification will ever be 100% compatible. If you don't believe that last part, you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs, or taken a good long look at what GNU autoconf does. The bottom line is that if nobody ever tested, say, the Windows file manager on top of someone else's HTML component, there's a good chance it won't work correctly in that configuration. There's a chance it will, of course, but it's a risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. It's still too risky for Microsoft. Think about it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- we're talking about the desktop, the file manager, the administration console, the help system (!), etc.\ufffd- who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? I realize that many people here will scoff at the notion of confidence in the Microsoft brand, but let's try to be serious here. Do you think that attitude applies to the majority of Microsoft's user base? Heck, forget Microsoft and look around. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? No, that's not my argument at all.
Post #29,237 by boxley 2/21/02 12:22:13 PM Reply	you are absolutely right Since Microsoft demanded all 3rd party software to have hooks directly into IE or lose MS branding they have gobbled the browser market. Why does quicken circa 1997 REQUIRE IE to be installed for an ACCOUNTING package? Becuase MS forced them to require it under their licensing scheme. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,242 by Brandioch 2/21/02 12:33:22 PM Reply	I haven't met one that wouldn't. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Every single one of them, in my experience. Sure, they might charge a lot more if I want something weird. But they'll put whatever wheels I want on it. They'll put whatever tires I want on it. They'll have it where ever I want to pick it up at. You want different seats? No problem. Tinted windowss? Can do. A chain-link steering wheel and dingle balls? It will take a week extra and they'll charge you for installation. They are only TOO willing to sell you a car and charge you for their mechanic's time. Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Yep. 'Cause there's competition for your money. If they don't do it, some one else will. Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Nope. Give the customer what the customer wants. But, then again, if the car spontaniously bursts into flame, you can sue the manufacturer. Who do you complain to when your computer crashes?
Post #29,266 by warmachine 2/21/02 1:55:51 PM Reply	A natural monopoly would be leverage into a free market. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them[MS and third parties] to take it[risk of browser-OS incompatibility]. Your thoughts? If Microsoft sold Windows as a complete, non-extensible application suite, avoidance of risk would make sense. But Microsoft sell an operating system which is a platform for separate applications. MS own a natural monopoly in the PC desktop operating system but don't own the PC application market. If MS is not required to publish application interfaces beyond their application divisions, this allows them to use their monopoly as leverage into an application market. This is leverage no third party can hope to counter; a free market is no longer free. Unless we want to turn the web browser market into a monopoly, MS has to live with incompatibility risk. The third-party developers take most of the risk anyway. If MS weren't being anti-competitive, they'd publish the browser interface and expect third parties to adhere to that. If a program doesn't work and it isn't a problem with the OS, then the third party has to fix it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- ... - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? So, Microsoft should be allowed to dictate OEM configuration because they might mess it up, even though the OEM has to support it? Because a PC uses their operating system, their brand extends to all hardware and software that use it? The OEM is not a brand in itself? If, for some reason, MS does not bounce a support call to the OEM, they can demonstrate to the end user that the configuration isn't theirs, get IE installed and get it working. The end user would then understand whose software was at fault and reassign the blame. In short, Microsoft should maintain the proverbial Chinese Wall between the OS and other divisions for competitive practices. Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,275 by bepatient 2/21/02 2:57:47 PM Reply	How the monopoly works. IE integration. IE is >now< a "non-trivial" component of the operating system. Interesting..that an application such as web browsing be so tied to an OS...Win95 didn't even install a browser initially...is 98 or ME that far removed from those earlier versions? Really? So...how do you convince someone that your actions are "in the consumers best interest" when your intention is to drive your competition into extinction. Take a trivial component...a web browser...and weave it so deeply into your product that it becomes "non-trivial". Then...you can't remove it...things will break...you can't modify it...things will break. Honest, your Honor...it >has< to be there to insure a "uniform customer experience". Please. Now you seem to be supporting further extension of that monopoly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,287 by imric 2/21/02 5:11:34 PM 2/21/02 5:30:40 PM Reply	Homogenity over all. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component So - only trivial 'components' are permissible to replace. And - who judges? Microsoft's legal and marketing departments, no? After all, MS declared that IE was integrated before MS developers smeared it across so many .dlls and forced explorer to depend on it. you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs I've run ide's across different jvms (and platforms) with little or no problems - does the definition of 'nontrivial' mean that it didn't work when you tried it? risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? Require? Funny, nobody asked MS to replace it's own product with competing ones (unless as a punishment for breaking the law as egregiously as they have been shown to). This is not the same thing as allowing OEM's to customize products that they pay for. More - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? Hmmm. Let's see. Let's say a Compaq product has a problem, and user A can't run his programs. He calls Compaq for support, and still can't get his stuff to run. Then he calls MS for support, and MS has him reload Windows (not far-fetched, it's a common enough response from MS). Suddenly, his 'pure' MS system runs! In this scenario, we are to believe that User A will blame Microsft, not Compaq? Let's try this - neither MS support OR Compaq can get things to run... The user will of course ignore the brand name on the desktop in front of him as the cause, as well, right? Of course they wouldn't curse 'that Compaq piece of sht'. Now, let's look at Compaq support fixing the problem. Yeah, they might blame Windows. Do you think they won't blame Windows now? OK - now the case that a value-add from Compaq increases performance or makes the interface more appealing - this is bad for MS how? Only bad if they DON'T actually have the best product, and can't compete on quality with the OEM's value-add. Bottom line: Right now, the OEMs bear the responsibility for support, anyway. Saying that allowing OEMs to customize systems in any way that they want is 'bad' is denying that OEM value-adds bear importance to OEM sales. Even if the OEMs botched the job, that would simply make a 'pure' Microsoft system a selling point. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? If I buy a car and modify it extensively, then sell it - no problem. It's been modified, the 'stock' auto mfg. is no longer required to 'support' it (though I'm required to, and may offer an extended service plan if I wish) - and has nothing more to do with it. If I do this with 50, a hundred, a thousand a day, it doesn't matter. The auto manufacturers can't stop me. If I were to do this with Microsoft products, I'd be put out of business. Your arguments seem to be a tired rehash of the MS-apologian practice of blaming 'third party' software for every quirk and instability that end-users experience (often without investigating the problem thoroughly). Imric's Tips for Living* Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric Feb. 21, 2002, 05:30:40 PM EST Expand All History
Post #30,067 by Steven A S 2/27/02 6:49:22 PM Reply	Re: This is really funny. The standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it. First off, which command processor are you talking about? BASH? CShell? ZShell? etc? that's actually the perfect example of modularity. you can easily swap in whichever shell you prefer. Second you HAVE to have a command processor, otherwise you can't execute commands! On the other hand, you can execute commands without an HTML parser. We've done it for many years before MS decided it was simply too important to leave as meerly an add-on program. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #30,097 by wharris2 2/27/02 10:52:09 PM Reply	Have to have a command processor? Second you HAVE to have a command processor, otherwise you can't execute commands! Are you calling the command prompt of Winblows a command processor? Or are you calling the "click on stuff" style of Mac and Windows a command processor? I wouldn't dignify either with such a label. They are interfaces to programs, and I still gag on the time I first tried to write a Windows program, but it's a stretch to call the Windows or Mac API a command processor. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,130 by Steven A S 2/28/02 6:52:39 AM Reply	On Win9X it was the DOS COMMAND.COM even if MS said that DOS no longer existed. And no, I didn't say it had to be a good command processor, just that it exist. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #30,121 by pwhysall 2/28/02 3:29:58 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. Are you that unfamiliar with Windows architecture? I think you'd find it very similar to that of [insert your favorite modern general-purpose OS] Doubt it. Linux and most other modern UNIX-like operating systems are monolithic kernels. Windows is (don't laugh now) a microkernel design with a hardware abstraction layer. Chalk and cheese. Windows and Linux (for example) are very different architectures. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #30,246 by Squidley 2/28/02 7:06:04 PM Reply	Architectures Linux and most other modern UNIX-like operating systems are monolithic kernels. I don't think Linux is nearly as monolithic as it (and Unix) used to be. Kernel modules that can be loaded and unloaded at any time are implemented beautifully in Linux, and it appears that more and more optional kernel components support module packaging. Windows is (don't laugh now) a microkernel design with a hardware abstraction layer. Bah, I don't see what the big deal is with the HAL. Linux has no HAL yet has no problem running on more hardware platforms than Windows ever did. Windows and Linux (for example) are very different architectures. The implementations are different but the capabilities are very similar. Both provide "flat" memory address spaces, preemptively scheduled processes and threads, paged virtual memory, full robustness, kernel-level security, similar IPC mechanisms, shared libraries, etc. For some real architectural differences, look at Linux compared to Windows 3.x or the 16-bit OS/2 1.x.
Post #30,131 by pwhysall 2/28/02 7:43:08 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. he standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it. What zillion things? Please do tell. Most any non-interactive process can run without a controlling tty, ya know. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #30,182 by Squidley 2/28/02 2:13:21 PM Reply	Re: This is really funny. What zillion things? Please do tell. Please see below. Most any non-interactive process can run without a controlling tty, ya know. I know. I'm not talking about things that require a controlling tty; I'm talking about things that require the command processor itself. Below are the results of a very rough search for Bash scripts on a very lightly loaded Red Hat 7.1 system. Note the heavy script presence in /etc. Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that\ufffdthe relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed. /etc/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/mail-files:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/mailshar:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/url_handler.sh:#! /bin/bash /bin/igawk:#! /bin/sh /bin/vimtutor:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/catchsegv:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/glibcbug:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/ldd:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/memusage:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/tzselect:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/xtrace:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/batch:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/gettextize:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/mailstat:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/loadunimap:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/mapscrn:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/saveunimap:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/setfont:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/card:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/fixps:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/pdiff:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/psmandup:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/psset:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/vboxmail:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/vboxplay:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/pdf2dsc:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2html:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2rtf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2html:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2man:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2rtf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2tex:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2texi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2txt:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/jw:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/rcs-checkin:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoconf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoheader:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoreconf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoupdate:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/ifnames:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/cvsbug:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/libtool:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/libtoolize:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/python1.5/plat-linux-i386/regen:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/python1.5/config/makesetup:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/config.guess:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/config.sub:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/mkinstalldirs:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypinit:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perday:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perhour:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_2perday:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/vcdiff:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvs2vendor:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvscheck:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs-to-cvs:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh
Post #30,191 by Andrew Grygus 2/28/02 3:44:32 PM Reply	And just exactly how long would it take . . . . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #30,204 by bepatient 2/28/02 4:24:18 PM Reply	Thank you... ...I was just getting ready to post the same thing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,205 by drewk 2/28/02 4:29:29 PM Reply	Besides which ... And correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you really wanted to I'm sure you could modify the scripts to look up what your default shell is and just point it to that. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,206 by Squidley 2/28/02 4:36:06 PM Reply	Re: And just exactly how long would it take . . . . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? Even if you did have another suitable Bourne-compatible shell, would it really take you just 45 seconds to retest all those scripts? Just 45 seconds to figure out which ones relied on Bash-specific extensions and port them over to the new shell? What if some lawyers were demanding that you ship a version of your Linux package without a shell? Would it still take you just 45 seconds to respin a fully configured, tested, and working product? What if the component you were being forced to remove did not have any readily available workalikes?
Post #30,210 by ben_tilly 2/28/02 4:39:47 PM Reply	But would it work? You could make the substitution, sure. But bash does not always work exactly like csh or ksh and there is a chance of breakage in some complex shell script. Even so, the replacement of the shell would be relatively simple. But not necessarily utterly trivial. Cheers, Ben
Post #30,235 by Meerkat 2/28/02 6:19:30 PM Reply	Kinda like coding around non-standard behaviour in IE? :) On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #30,293 by wharris2 3/1/02 6:13:03 AM Reply	Oh shock non-standard IE behavior? (me quivers) More proof that squid is a shill. Or a bloody drooling MS "I can't hear anything else (covering ears)" advocate. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,283 by pwhysall 3/1/02 2:22:44 AM Reply	OK Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that the relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed. I don't think that it's fair to equate bash with IE - the one is a shell, which has been a OS component since the year dot, and the other, is a web browser. Well, it was. No-one's "extended" bash to the point where things like Apache won't run without it. Hence my comment about running without a controlling tty. Yet I can't install IIS4 on NT4 without installing IE? Wassup with that? And yes, it would require testing and maybe some tweaks to replace bash with the shell of your choice. The point is that it can be done. You cannot replace IE in the same way, because core OS functionality now depends on it. My file browsers don't depend on Mozilla - sure, Nautilus can use Moz to display HTML content, but it critically doesn't stop working if Moz isn't present. I believe that there are moves afoot to enable Nautilus to use the gtkhtml widget to display HTML content. (Sans scripting and net connectivity, natch :-)) Explorer is now basically an IE window with files in it. This need not be the case. I present Windows 95 as evidence. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #29,092 by jb4 2/20/02 2:17:39 PM Reply	You ARE Michel Le Moron! What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. [emphasis mine] Revisionist history at tis best (or worst).... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,100 by boxley 2/20/02 2:59:47 PM Reply	Dont accuse even if he is, let squidly stand or fall on his own petard thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,122 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 5:31:12 PM Reply	Naah, just went to the same . . . shill school. It's held in a secluded hunting lodge outside Redmond. Graduates of the .SHILL program all sound pretty much the same. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,179 by Squidley 2/21/02 9:23:48 AM Reply	Re: Naah, just went to the same . . . shill school. It's held in a secluded hunting lodge outside Redmond. Well, I see you've done your homework, Mr. Grygus. Excellent. But you know, there's really no need to be jealous. With a lot of hard work, mental preparation, a strict diet, and some intense combat training, who knows? Maybe you could get in too. Graduates of the .SHILL program all sound pretty much the same. We aim to please. Besides, our master wouldn't have it any other way. Make no mistake, Mr. Grygus, we are conditioned to be nothing less than perfect shilling machines, effortlessly making mincemeat out of graduates of the nutcase-0.01-prealpha.tar.gz program.
Post #29,722 by CRConrad 2/26/02 4:57:31 AM Reply	Cosmic-proportion delusions of grandeur from a bad $hilling The Squidster warbles: Make no mistake, Mr. Grygus, we are conditioned to be nothing less than perfect shilling machines, effortlessly making mincemeat out of graduates of the nutcase-0.01-prealpha.tar.gz program. Your record here -- even back when you posted that (though you've been even more conclusively finished off since then) -- has been so far from "perfect" that this post by you is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read on these fora. I think this execrable performance, effortlessly getting yourself chopped into mincemeat, would mean you'd have to refund your thirty pieces of silver to the Dark Tower at Redmond if they ever found out about it. Now shut up and piss off, or we'll tell Billy and his Bally-rog on you. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,730 by imric 2/26/02 6:18:46 AM Reply	Nah. I got the impression that Squidley (named for the Hanna-Barbera cartoon, perhaps?) was just messing with us... And he sure stirred a reponse! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,732 by CRConrad 2/26/02 7:02:02 AM Reply	No, I'm fairly sure he's serious; he's $hilling for real. He might try to change his tune after the fact, "Ha ha only kidding!"-style, but I don't buy it. He's never trolled on anything else but this exact subject (AFAICR); he's $hilled on this one often before; and he's just not funny enough¹ for this to be kidding -- his posts, if they were trolls, would just be bad trolls. Sorry, can't remember any H-B cartoon of that name; perhaps they never aired it in Scandahoovia. Why, is there anything in that to indicate that he'd be trolling in stead of $hilling? 1: Unless he has an extremely poor sense of humour. Hmm, that's of course a possibility not to be discounted... Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,735 by imric 2/26/02 7:41:19 AM Reply	Squidley-Diddley; I'm pretty sure that was the character name - not sure if that was the cartoon title. Along the same lines of Peter Patamuus (the hippo in the time-travelling hot-air balloon) as far as the 'look' of the 'toon. Why, is there anything in that to indicate that he'd be trolling in stead of $hilling? IIRC, Squidley was always scheming, sort of a con-man with tentacles... So, no, nothing that I can see grin. I guess that I just can't believe that anyone would shill here for very long (unless they are playing some sort of game) - let's face it, anyone trying convince this group that MS is justified in/by thier actions to date (against all reason and experience) has an uphill row to hoe... Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,736 by CRConrad 2/26/02 8:08:05 AM Reply	Yeah, but if you're stupid enough, why let that stop you? Skip averts his red eye from the Dragon: I guess that I just can't believe that anyone would shill here for very long (unless they are playing some sort of game) - let's face it, anyone trying convince this group that MS is justified in/by thier actions to date (against all reason and experience) has an uphill row to hoe... Hey, the Squid has only just started spraying his slimy ink here -- how long did Michel go on and on (and on and on and on...) before he gave it up and ignominously slunk away[]? And AFAICS, it was just as idiotic and hopeless then as now. I think $hills are just more persistent than you give them credit (if that's the right word?) for. Heck, maybe the pay is a lot better than we've been thinking... []: He may try to pass that off as an "act of principle" after having been temporarily banned, but I ain't buying that either. He jumped at the excuse to retreat without admitting defeat -- come to think of it, fuck knows if he didn't provoke it intentionally, for precisely that purpose. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,739 by Silverlock 2/26/02 8:48:05 AM Reply	I can't believe you didn't catch this Isn't it spelled "prima facie"? With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,777 by CRConrad 2/26/02 12:02:40 PM Reply	Yeah, I know - but how the heck could I... ...have picked that nit, in a quote I was simultaneously asking to appropriate for my .sig??? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,783 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 12:32:16 PM Reply	I used my usual spell checker . . . . a Google search, and found plenty of evidence for facia, including the Cato institute and the government of Manitoba, so I went with it (though I did notice one document that used both spellings). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,793 by Silverlock 2/26/02 12:46:46 PM Reply	Just tried your spell checker Prima facia. ~3,000 matches Prima facie. ~186,000 matches Plus, with Prima facia as the search term, I get the "Did you mean" reminder that usually indicates I mispelled it. Don Richards- Pedants R Us. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,803 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 1:18:31 PM Reply	Hmmm . . no such message from Google here . . . . which is a major reason why I didn't look any farther. I watch for that message. Are you using the same Google I am? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,806 by Silverlock 2/26/02 1:26:07 PM Reply	Those damn bats. They're everywhere. I must have hallucinated the "did you mean" bit. Could've sworn I saw it the first time I did the search. Must not be doing enough drugs. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,836 by CRConrad 2/26/02 2:42:10 PM Reply	So much for those right-wing "think tank" innaleckchuls, eh?
Post #29,740 by admin 2/26/02 8:51:30 AM Reply	I always have to laugh... ... when I see people so seriously (and quickly) condemning anyone with a MS opinion as a shill. :-) Come on, people, not everything is a conspiracy. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #29,754 by ben_tilly 2/26/02 10:17:06 AM Reply	Well if Squidley is not... then I would expect to see a few posts occasionally in some other forum on some other topic. Cheers, Ben
Post #29,763 by Squidley 2/26/02 10:45:34 AM Reply	Re: Well if Squidley is not... then I would expect to see a few posts occasionally in some other forum on some other topic. Nah. Although I have some very strong opinions about politics, current events, the war on terrorism, etc., I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough in these areas to comment. I've thought about commenting anyway\ufffd- you know, a few psychotic rants here, a few accusations of paid participation there\ufffd- but decided that would make me look too much like an immature ignoramus :-)
Post #29,774 by CRConrad 2/26/02 11:57:16 AM Reply	And what makes you think you look any different here?
Post #29,810 by Squidley 2/26/02 1:38:10 PM Reply	Why, your presence, of course! When the nutcases send in their loudest and dumbest, you know they're in trouble :-)
Post #29,838 by jake123 2/26/02 2:43:39 PM Reply	I guess MSFT is expecting to lose, then...
Post #29,845 by Squidley 2/26/02 2:56:14 PM Reply	Sure! Just like they always do :-)
Post #29,862 by Ashton 2/26/02 3:45:46 PM Reply	It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. And I hope she's checking out the Thesaurus for some suitable legalese synonyms for.. slimy, unprincipled, sociopathic greed. And practicing her scales - especially that high C# which clashes with any melody (like the Other one). Meanwhile.. tell us again about the misunderstood, magnanimous just-plain-folks what gave you yer epaulets and sent you out on a suicide mission. Ashton just-plain-folk too. Need a couple bucks for rehab? A little sodium pentothal, perhaps?
Post #29,871 by Squidley 2/26/02 4:07:31 PM Reply	Re: It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. Meanwhile.. tell us again about the misunderstood, magnanimous just-plain-folks what gave you yer epaulets and sent you out on a suicide mission. Ah, it's not so bad. Wading through this cesspool is a dirty job, but it's hardly suicide :-)
Post #29,912 by Ashton 2/26/02 7:18:48 PM Reply	My what colorful intellekchul epithets you have Are these suggested by the Astroturf manual - or just as you remember them from grammar school? So it's cut & dried then.. all those e-mails, all those court proceedings - were no real reflection of the mindsets, the dialogue and actions of your Alma Pater. It's all been 10+ years of a horrible misunderstanding, a folie a milliones - all uniformly Wrong about the facts, the motives, the activities and - the consequences for any semblance of 'competition' in the industry. Let me guess: I'll bet you'll stake your reputation! upon this all having been a massive error, falsified testimony by envious competitors and the sour grapes badmouthing of legions of folks too stupid to recognize - the greatest software inna world - industriously crafted by a quite ethical corporation. Those threats to the OEMs, the preloading or ya get zippo, the DRDOS (settled with nondisclosure), Stacker, etc. - just Never Happened\ufffd Izzat it, close enough? How could we have been so blind? Ashton never mind.
Post #29,931 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 11:02:27 PM Reply	Yes, but over at Petrele's VarLinux forum . . . . we've got a real UberShill, [link\|http://www.varlinux.org/article.php?sid=755&mode=&order=0&thold=0\|Alex Tabarrok], who, through his The Independent Institute, has collected well over a quarter of a million $$ for his shilling - a shill so powerful he posts under his own name (and publishes "independently researched" books by members of Microsoft's defense team). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #30,115 by Ashton 2/28/02 1:43:13 AM Reply	Re: Yes, but over at Petrele(y)'s VarLinux forum . . {sigh} Well, he can't be a First String Shill.. After dropping his boilerplate - he faded as the ripostes went for the jugular. The usual tactic is to insert a non-sequitur, like ..but what about dropping the 'tieing' issue? (Kinda like the famous guy who'd show up at Nixon rallies with his sign, What About the Hughes Loan? IIRC that was Dick Tuck.) Imagine what it would be like to be an intelligent (and throw in too, 'informed'?) person.. taking money to go around and try nothing less than fucking.. dissembling - overt lying via omission, obfuscation and patently false semantic tricks. How is it that Murican bizness seems to turn out such critters wholesale? daleross comes to mind, Mr. If it's legal it's ethical Hisself. Screw it. The execrable ones are the unimaginitive clones - saw how M$ did it and.. adapted. 'Whore' is an insult to honorable sex-workers who keep unstable assholes from running amok, hurting innocents - 'cause no one Would screw them (except for cash). That's not even dishonorable. Lying creeps are. Ashton
Post #29,874 by jake123 2/26/02 4:13:03 PM Reply	I think they're going to lose badly this time. It's pretty simple, really. They tried to tell the judge what she was and was not qualified to comment on. They tried the same stunt with the other guy too... which didn't work out too well for them. Simply put, you don't get what you want out of the justice system by trying to tell the judge they're not allowed to do something, esp. when it clearly is within her purview... Finally, you're forgetting that they've already lost... they're guilty. The only question is the punishment. Personally, I think that KK is going to rip Ashcroft's DoJ a new one for the anemic agreement they came up with. There's one other issue to consider as well... the marketplace. Between 09/11 and Enron, people are feeling a lot less tolerant of the kinds of shenanigans that MSFT (and many others) have been getting up to over the last fifteen years or so. I think you (and the marketing mavens at MSFT) are about to get very surprised by the paradigm shift that's occurring right now in the zeitgeist of the marketplace. While we're on the subject... you might to well to consider the damage that MSFT and its behaviour has done to US competitiveness in the global marketplace. A lot of countries are trying very hard to get away from MSFT, because they don't trust them and they don't trust their products. The free ride that MSFT seems to be getting from the regime (not the justice system, the regime) only emphasizes those trust issues in their minds... and extends those trust issues to the US as a whole. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,879 by wharris2 2/26/02 4:28:51 PM Reply	I think you're way optimistic While she may remand the remedies back to the Justice Department for reconsideration, I think they'll just roll over again. I don't think the nine dissenting states will be enough to tilt the balance. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,919 by jake123 2/26/02 8:55:13 PM Reply	I don't. Personally, I think she's going to slap them silly. The judiciary is one of the three branches, and has a responsibility to reign in the other two when they don't do their job properly. I think that this is one of those times... and, if I read the signs aright, I think that the judiciary is beginning to think that this is one of those times. The RIAA just got slapped, Enron is there as an object example of what will be coming much more often if the slapping doesn't start (let's face it, while their and their accountant's actions are hardly ethical, moral, nor even necessarily legal, they're depressingly common), and the rot appears to be spreading pretty quickly... while we haven't heard a lot about it, there are some other big bankruptcies going on right now, all with the whiff of crooked accounting attached to them. Here's another factor to consider: K-K ordered them to turn their source over, and there hasn't been a peep from anyone on the subject, least of all MSFT. This would seem to imply that they just handed it over. A lot of the posturing seems to be gone from them. If they've succeeded in convincing her that they're conmen and scam artists (and I can think of a few stunts they've pulled over the last few months that would tend to that interpretation of their characters), she has the power to crush them... esp. if she believes that the DoJ isn't going to do it... and considering some of the tales about the settlement (back room negotiation between the one political guy on the team and MSFT, other DoJ lawyers excluded, and sudden capitulation) she may be coming around to believing just that. You gotta read between the lines with judges, esp. careful ones... and K-K comes across as a careful one. However, if you read judge speak, she's already slapped them around severely a few times... I bet their lawyers are beginning to feel a little bruised, and that some of the top executives are beginning to feel a little scared. Their only problem is... they can't afford to show that fear, which is leading them into further problems. I mean, how do you think K-K is going to take the news that MSFT is using the settlement as a way of pushing their way into their customer's IP? Do you think that she's going to believe that they've figured out that they need to behave like a good monopoly now? -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,939 by wharris2 2/27/02 3:44:39 AM Reply	Gates, Ballmer scared? By their actions, you shall know them. They aren't scared at all, they're still going full-tilt. Even using the terms of the proposed settlement to put the squeeze on OEM's (what a surprise). Not the actions of a company in fear of anything. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,960 by jake123 2/27/02 10:40:12 AM Reply	Yeah... you're right. Those two are too dumb to be scared. In all seriousness... I think that those actions are going to turn out to be the last gasps of a dying yet still powerful entity. Have you heard about the new lawsuit? I read that they're being sued by a large group of their customer base... HP, Compaq, et. al. The only big player not in on it is Dell (gee, I wonder why). Sony is coming after them too... I suspect that MSFT may find that Sony is something beyond their bullying power... Sony has other resources; they're not a one-trick pony with a sole supplier problem like the big US OEMs. Nope... the vultures are circling, because they are all intelligent enough to see the signs. They're just waiting for K-K to deliver the coup-de-grace before moving in to tear at the carcass... -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,741 by imric 2/26/02 8:59:13 AM 2/26/02 9:01:32 AM Reply	Hey! Everyone know that you don't look dragons in the eye (though maybe it's 'cause that means you would be close enough to the beast to make a tempting snack)! Hmmm. Is shilling for dollar$ that common, then? Or are we 'targeted' as a training ground, perhaps? I hope not. grin Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric Feb. 26, 2002, 09:01:32 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,745 by Silverlock 2/26/02 9:17:34 AM Reply	Snort "training ground" just gave me a mental picture of a chorus line of shills singing "If I can make it there I can make it anywhere". With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,776 by CRConrad 2/26/02 12:00:17 PM Reply	"Training ground"? Dunno... Let's hope it's more like... ...Final proving ground. Should we feel somehow perversely honoured if we are, in effect, their graduation exam? :-) Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,891 by bepatient 2/26/02 5:03:56 PM Reply	I noticed (possibly coincidence...possibly not) ...that on a couple of occasions back at IW we hammered through some aspects of the case...after which it would appear in DOJ documents related to the case worded damn near exactly the same as this group had left it. So I would lean with CRC on the final proving ground more than the training ground. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,913 by Ashton 2/26/02 7:27:10 PM Reply	Really.. Sure wish you'd copied and matched up a few of those. I mean.. if the DOJ needed IWE to fill in its blanks (no disrespect to the talent here) - that is Scary! Would that also imply that.. there aren't very many other places on the web ~ cogitating, mulling and eviscerating in similar fashion? Maybe InfoWorld was taken a Lot more seriously than it ever deserved (not unthinkable, that) but THIS seriously ?? Shocking thought. Got data? Ashton
Post #29,929 by bepatient 2/26/02 10:33:38 PM Reply	Karsten gave me the archives... maybe I can find something I don't think I was the only one to notice either. Not that I think they needed IWE to do the job...but if you recall we did alot of fine tuning of analogies...and a fair amount of technical shredding of the MS defense documents. As I said...could have very well been coincidence. And at the time..there really wasn't anyplace on the web like IWE for well reasoned technical discussions. At least not that I'd found. There were some pretty heavy hitters signed in over at IWE. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,116 by Ashton 2/28/02 1:59:42 AM Reply	True - the roster was larger (and heavier?) Sad part - that those IWE archives are inaccessible.. there were some textbook grade explanations of lots of things - worth preserving. They've been through at least 3 Rent-a-Site morphs since then. I thought that Ben and others downloaded a bunch; some CDs were made. Missed opportunity #103 [??] Dear DOJ, Here are some distilled exchanges re Topics 12, 15, 54A ...n involving persons with the listed credentials. These appear to relate to your present concerns - as to the technical effects of various actions by the MS Corp. Refs. included for the entire threads, of which these are excerpts. Well.. something like that. Ashton
Post #30,128 by imric 2/28/02 6:01:37 AM Reply	If you are nice I'm sure Bepatient would email you the archives.. grin -or- Beep, maybe you could put them on the web? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #30,143 by bepatient 2/28/02 10:43:19 AM 2/28/02 10:48:33 AM Reply	Would have to be ftp... ...the files are actually rather large in the state I have them. The gzipped archive is 200mb or thereabouts, IIRC...maybe a little smaller. As for posting them to the web...I think we discussed that and decided that we would need everyone to agree to repost...including the IW management...and decided that would be a mondo pain in the ass. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 28, 2002, 10:48:33 AM EST Expand All History
Post #30,253 by kmself 2/28/02 8:00:59 PM Reply	Legal My sense is that the only source likely to cause trouble would be IWE, and that there's a combination of implied license by individual contributors and relatively low legal risk, to repost comments by others. This is one of the reasons I did a "posts by author" correspondence. This could be used to weed out the IWE-authored posts. Essentially, column text, posts by the various columnists, and the forum editor's comments. All else should be largely in the clear. IANAL, TINLA, YADA. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #30,312 by bepatient 3/1/02 10:27:25 AM Reply	Thats essentially my thinking. But I too am not a lawyer. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,201 by Squidley 2/21/02 10:31:13 AM Reply	You ARE too kind! Revisionist history at tis best (or worst).... Huh? Could you please elaborate?
Post #29,084 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 1:47:36 PM Reply	Intent Mr. Squidley is simply trying to bury the discussion under definitions and details - a standard lawyer trick when defending someone who's guilt is so obvious there's no other course of action. Didn't we have a recent high profile political case where the definition of "is" was being debated? The question here is Microsoft's intent, and the states want to find evidence of that intent. As any competent auditor can tell you, an inexplicable degree of sloppiness is often evidence for fraud. It prepares the ground for the "Jeez, obviously that was just a mistake, this whole thing is a mess, so it must have been just a mistake." defense. We all know exactly what Microsoft's intent was, the difficulty is in assembling evidence against a company that knew full well it was engaging in illegal activity and covering its tracks. If the states can show unreasonable sloppiness, they can make a point of evidence for "comingling". Of course, if Microsoft's code is as bad as it's reputed to be, it may be difficult to show deliberate sloppiness at any particular point. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,125 by imric 2/20/02 6:42:06 PM Reply	No. Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". Don't assume. The problem was not that MS provided IE - but that MS used it's monopoly to prevent it's customers from installing a competing product. (although somehow that pile of crap managed to find its way onto the last three PCs I bought). Perhaps because IE3, the browser that MS forced on everyone to the exclusion of others, wasn't as good as Navigator - and IE in general is a security risk. The poor quality of MS code apparently made Netscape attractive enough to overcome the artificial barriers to entry that Microsoft created, at least in those cases... Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE Fine. As long as Netscape was an option for OEMs, well and good. It wasn't an option, though, due to heavy-handed licensing, not any spurious technical reasoning. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,040 by jb4 2/20/02 9:04:47 AM 2/20/02 9:11:57 AM Reply	Are you for real?!? Or did Michel Le Moron finally learn to speak English? You can do that. Windows XP even has an option to remove IE. Welcome back from under your rock in into the light of day. IE's "removal" has been shown (and, indeed, has even been admitted to by Micros~1 itself) to do nothing more than merely remove the IE icon from the desktop and start menu. IE itself, that pile of security breaches and virus portals, remains untouched by its "removal" But you already knew that, didn't you... quotejb4 (Resistance is not futile...) Edited by jb4 Feb. 20, 2002, 09:11:57 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,197 by Squidley 2/21/02 10:21:22 AM Reply	Hey, is that a trick question? Welcome back from under your rock in into the light of day. Why thank you! And a happy, joyous, good day to you too! IE itself [...] remains untouched by its "removal". But you already knew that, didn't you... Yes, thank you, Mr. Whysall was kind enough to correct me. By the way, what purpose do you think it serves Microsoft to keep IE around even after removing user-level access to it? Do they just want to needlessly waste the user's disk space? Or could it really be that removing it would break a load of stuff, both theirs and ISVs'?
Post #29,357 by jb4 2/22/02 10:01:59 AM Reply	No tricks, just treats By the way, what purpose do you think it serves Microsoft to keep IE around even after removing user-level access to it? Do they just want to needlessly waste the user's disk space? Or could it really be that removing it would break a load of stuff, both theirs and ISVs'? Whoa..slow down there, cowpoke...one question at a time: 1) It serves their marketing purpose, exclusively. Technically, it serves no purpose. But then, Micros~1 ceased being a tech company over a decade ago. Next question... 2) It does serve Micros~1's purpose to "needlessly waste the user's disk space". If a user's disk is "needlessly wasted", the user is under pressure to upgrade his/her disk. Many (l)users are not willing to open the cover to replace or add another disk. Besides, with the concommittant degradation in performance that a full disk causes Windows, such a (l)user will notice that his/her machine "isn't running right". Perhaps a full upgrade of the machine is in order. New machine == new Windows license == another Micros~1 "tax" levied on the populace. Next question... 3) If properly "engineered" using the Micros~1 definition of "engineering" not then English definition actually removing Insecure Exposer could be made to break Micros~1's shit^H^H^Htuff, which would "degrade the user experience...yadda...yadda...yadda...bullshit...bullshit...bullshit..." Micros~1 could actually not give a shit as to whether they break ISV's stuff. Hell, they've been making a career of breaking ISV's stuff for well over a decade (ref. Borland Turbo C++ et al, Netscape Communicator, Word Perfect, DR-DOS, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and...!) However Felten (it was Felten, wasn't it?) and his Win98lite proved conclusively that, with proper Engineering (the English language definition, this time) one could indeed actually remove Insecure Exposer from Windows without breaking anything (except Micros~1's monopoly). Next question... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,404 by Squidley 2/22/02 1:55:25 PM Reply	No, gems! Technically, [leaving IE's reusable components on the disk] serves no purpose." So all the things I mentioned before\ufffd- the desktop, the file manager, the help system, the administration console, etc.\ufffd- do not rely on IE's reusable components? Riiight. But then, Micros~1 ceased being a tech company over a decade ago. Umm, yeah, okey dokey. And don't forget, if you make the supreme sacrifice, Linus will provide you with 70 virgin penguins in the afterlife. However Felten (it was Felten, wasn't it?) and his Win98lite proved conclusively that, with proper Engineering (the English language definition, this time) one could indeed actually remove Insecure Exposer from Windows without breaking anything (except Micros~1's monopoly). I see. So deep code reuse resulting in greater efficiency and consistency is "proper engineering" only when it's done by someone other than Microsoft. When Microsoft does it, it's baaad. On the other hand, replacing Microsoft's programs with old versions that don't rely on IE (which is what 98lite does) is an example of "proper engineering". Got it. By the way, great work coming up with super catchy phrases like "Insecure Exposer" and "Micros~1"! Perhaps you should consider letting other people use them in other forums to really drive those points home. I mean, who could argue with logic like that? Ooh, have you ever thought about an alternate spelling for "Windows"?
Post #29,411 by Silverlock 2/22/02 2:20:38 PM Reply	Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! The tentacular one uses the word "logic". It is to laugh. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,416 by Squidley 2/22/02 2:44:06 PM Reply	Re: Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! The tentacular one uses the word "logic". Why not? It's in my vernacular. It is to laugh. Like I said before, we aim to please. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere. ... or just a bunch of shitheads.
Post #29,415 by jb4 2/22/02 2:42:48 PM Reply	Are you REALLY that dense (or do they pay for stupidity?) Technically, [leaving IE's reusable components on the disk] serves no purpose." So all the things I mentioned before - the desktop, the file manager, the help system, the administration console, etc. - do not rely on IE's reusable components? Riiight. Riiiight! They do not. That functionality these "components" need that is in no way related to browsing the World Wide Web is interleaved with the DLLs (note the plural) that are used by Insecure Exposer serves no technical purpose. To do it this way serves only one purpose: Marketing. Remember, a web browser is uset to...browse the web! (surprise!) Not to perform a dir command... I see. So deep code reuse resulting in greater efficiency and consistency is "proper engineering" only when it's done by someone other than Microsoft. When Microsoft does it, it's baaad. To paraphrase: I knew deep code reuse resulting in greater efficiency and consistency. Deep code reuse resulting in greater efficiency and consistency a friend of mine. Micros~1, you're no deep code reuse resulting in greater efficiency and consistency. There's no efficiency in welding components that have nothing to do with browsing the web to a web browser. Get it? By the way, great work coming up with super catchy phrases like "Insecure Exposer" and "Micros~1"! Perhaps you should consider letting other people use them in other forums to really drive those points home. Thanks! Of course anyone else in these fora can use them. In fact, I hereby grant non-exclusive license to any registered member of the IWETHEY family to use the phrases "Insecure Exposer\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd" and "Micros~1\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd" in any way they see fit, on as many machines as is humanly or cybernetically possible, so long as the use of such phrases does not in any way praise, agrandize or otherwise compliment the products of Microsoft Corporation, its subsidiaries, franchises or agents; nor in any way make said products appear to be viable, reasonable, competent, or suited to any purpose whatsoever, without the express written permission of the Commissioner of Baseball, is prohibited. Ooh, have you ever thought about an alternate spelling for "Windows"? Workin' on it... Stay tuned! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,486 by Squidley 2/23/02 4:51:45 PM Reply	There you go again with the trick questions. That functionality these "components" need that is in no way related to browsing the World Wide Web That's funny, I see them all as being nearly the same thing. It's all about viewing structured information\ufffd- Web pages, documentation, administration settings, directory hierarchies, etc. The only thing that's different is the mechanism by which the information is retrieved. Once the raw data is in, the process of rendering and browsing it is pretty much the same for all the things I've mentioned, the differences being supeficial UI tweaks. Perhaps you're simply not very familiar with the way IE's functionality is partitioned and reused? Come on now, admit it. Remember, a web browser is used to... browse the web! [...] There's no efficiency in welding components that have nothing to do with browsing the web to a web browser. Get it? Think, man. The thing that makes that web browser different from a help viewer is the built-in HTTP client, which amounts to about 20K of code. The rest of it is just begging to be reused in about a zillion other places. Web browsers, help viewers, file managers, etc. all turn out to be special cases of a completely generic and reusable set of services for rendering and browsing information. Are you sure you're not just pissed off that Microsoft realized this first, and that now the Navigator, KDE, and GNOME teams are playing catch-up?
Post #29,604 by jb4 2/25/02 9:40:11 AM Reply	NTFS != HTML Web browsers, help viewers, file managers, etc. all turn out to be special cases of a completely generic and reusable set of services for rendering and browsing information. So here's your fallacy: You think that under the hood, all of Windows is a web page! That's a stitch. Now for today's lession. Micros~1's stated reason for bundling IE into the operating system (aside from the bullshit marketspeak about "convenience for the customer") is to centralize HTML rendering (or, more accurately, their specific, non-standard flavor of HTML rendering) into a single place so that their ISVs can have HTML rendering as a system service; sorta like reading a directory or getting the system time. (We pause while the rest of you regain your composure...) Now, I don't need HTML rendering (which is also about 20K of code) integrated into my file manager, or my file system, or into timer services, or into any one of the rediculous number of things that Micros~1 has "integrated" HTML rendering into. And I certainly don't need HTTP protocol handling, or FTP, or E-mail, or ActiveX activation, or viral back-doors, in any of those things. Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job (e.g. a Micros~1-flavor HTML renderer (Ghod knows we wouldn't want an IETF-compliant HTML renderer available on Windows!), an HTTP protocol handler, an FTP protocol handler, etc.) In fact, If you read the trial stuff, Micros~1's own engineers (you know, the guys who actually know something) complained on the record that piling all the crap into a single DLL was making their life more difficult, and causing yet another of Micros~1 constant, interminable schedule slips. But NOOOOOooooo... Engineering was overruled by Marketing, and the result, as they say, is history (and, of course, illegal). jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,827 by Squidley 2/26/02 2:23:49 PM Reply	Re: NTFS != HTML You think that under the hood, all of Windows is a web page! Umm, no I don't, but I have to admit, that's a nice strawman! Now for today's lession. Oh, for the love of... What kind of a smug posturing shithead talks like that? Now, I don't need HTML rendering (which is also about 20K of code) You really think HTML layout and rendering\ufffd- including CSS, tables, DOM, JavaScript, etc.\ufffd- is that simple? I wonder why it's taking the Mozilla team so long. integrated into my file manager, or my file system, or into timer services, or into any one of the rediculous number of things that Micros~1 has "integrated" HTML rendering into. Huh? Microsoft hasn't integrated HTML layout and rendering into any of that except the file manager, where they use it for... layout and rendering. What's wrong with that? And I certainly don't need HTTP protocol handling, or FTP, or E-mail, or ActiveX activation [...] in any of those things. Why not? Don't you think it's useful for an application to be able to download files by calling a simple API instead of implementing network protocols? Don't you think it's useful for an application to be able to integrate third-party components with ease? Why do you think open-source people are working so feverishly on things like KParts, Bonobo, Mono, etc.? Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job. But that's exactly what they did! Are you sure it isn't time to admit that you just don't know what you're talking about here? Micros~1's own engineers [..] complained on the record that piling all the crap into a single DLL was making their life more difficult, and causing yet another of Micros~1 constant, interminable schedule slips. I'd like you to show me where they mentioned a single DLL approach. They certainly didn't end up taking it, and I bet they never even considered it, given the stupidity of such a strategy. As far as I can tell, the engineers complained only about the schedule, not about the direction they were taking with the integration. the result, as they say, is history (and, of course, illegal). Then why was the tying claim remanded?
Post #29,909 by jb4 2/26/02 7:03:02 PM Reply	Don't bogart tht joint, my friend... Now, if Micros~1 were, in truth, a tech company, they'd have created several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job. But that's exactly what they did! Are you sure it isn't time to admit that you just don't know what you're talking about here? No, but it would be nice if you did. What they actually did was take those nice small DLLs, and cut their APIs into several, non-orthoganal parts, and pack them into a couple of system DLLs. This is not "several small, replaceable DLLs, each of which would have contained a single, tightly integrated, loosely coupled, function set that did a single job." (I assume you can read at the 6th grade level...if not, I'll dummy it down for you, if you'll promise you'll try to keep up....) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,445 by Brandioch 2/22/02 6:30:27 PM Reply	Why did you drop the other threads? Hmmmmmmm?
Post #29,495 by Squidley 2/23/02 5:56:18 PM Reply	Need... some... WD-40... Look, even perfect shilling machines must be taken down for service once in a while. Besides, if the territory is especially hostile, one perfect shilling machine may just not be enough to block the nutcase ambush :-)
Post #29,514 by Andrew Grygus 2/23/02 9:33:09 PM Reply	Ummm . . aren't you working overtime? Most semi-coherent shills are off evenings and weekends - or has the situation become so serious B&B are willing to pay extra for 24/7 shilling? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,531 by Brandioch 2/24/02 12:15:15 AM Reply	I could shill 18/7..........if...........the price was right I figure about 6 hours away from the keyboard would be sufficient. It's not a bad job. You get to work from home so you don't really mind the hours. :)
Post #29,607 by ben_tilly 2/25/02 9:47:07 AM Reply	A kinder, gentler, Microsoft at work... They actually think about applying lubricant before starting in on their next batch of victims. No thanks. I'd rather skip this. Not tonight. I have a headache... Cheers, Ben
Post #29,616 by Andrew Grygus 2/25/02 10:56:33 AM Reply	Be aware that this new policy . . . . is due to discovery of signs of wear, and due to expected increase in use, not due to any consideration for the victims. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,692 by Ashton 2/25/02 10:25:57 PM Reply	I have a remedy, then: Mandatory saltpeter in all snacks at the asylum ^h^h^h campus. A less randy M$ = healthier fundaments in.. the objects of their affection. (We have to allow some time for abraded tissue to heal, too) Alas, the link to penis-locking vaginal insert\ufffd^-literally!, formerly on an IBM website - has been bounced to delphion.com, who seem to have lost this masterpiece. Idiots. Surely innovative minds can next mass-produce a penis-locking anal insert\ufffd and distribute these to anyone who must deal directly with the Beast.. whose &*$%&$ penis SHOULD be LOCKED. Glad to be of 'Service', Ashton
Post #29,448 by bepatient 2/22/02 7:17:39 PM Reply	Wow... ..you actually seem to believe that Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system to benefit consumers and to improve the "uniform windows experience". Thats incredible. Next you'll be telling us how elegant the programming is surrounding Minesweeper and its bundling (oh...excuse me) integration into the OS. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,493 by Squidley 2/23/02 5:43:05 PM Reply	Now, now... ..you actually seem to believe that Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system to benefit consumers and to improve the "uniform windows experience". Certainly, the memos on record indicate that some very powerful people at Microsoft wanted IE in Windows primarily to shut out Netscape. The thing is, they could have done that without completely rewriting IE. Remember, IE 1.x and 2.x were standalone monolithic applications\ufffd- not much more than a rebranding of the Mosaic-derived Spyglass browser. But by the time IE 4.x came out, the whole thing had been completely redesigned as a set of reusable services. And that's the version they integrated. I find it all very interesting. My best guess is that it went something like this. Microsoft's top brass wanted IE in Windows to shut out Netscape, period. But someone at some level at some point must have said, "Whoa, wait a minute guys, this is a clear violation of the consent agreement. If we really want to do this, we must integrate IE instead of just bundling it." That's when the technical people started thinking about how to do that. And in my opinion, by wisdom or dumb luck they came up with something that is truly compelling, and does indeed improve the platform. In fact, in hindsight, it's totally obvious, which I strongly suspect is why it's now being mimicked by so many others. I don't know if this is how it really happened, but it does explain why Microsoft bothered with the huge task of reimplementing IE as a set of reusable services. Thats incredible. Need I say again that we aim to please? :-)
Post #29,504 by Ashton 2/23/02 7:20:53 PM Reply	I could almost grant such a Pollyanna view of it all.. except that you are speaking of a Corporation with a uniquely controlling Owner - a person who is demonstrably handicapped by autism and who has repeatedly - one might say incessantly - followed one sociopathic action with a sequence of others. He is untempered by any sham 'BOD', we have seen. In such a milieu - where in fact (if we are to believe the documents) this One Ego micromanages (or used to) virtually every aspect of this Corporation's illegally amassed wealth / power, it is clear that Nothing of their activities happens 'inadvertently'. Thus it is not cynical but merely sensible to extrapolate such a clear pattern forward - where the same prime mover umm moves. Is your naivete genetic? Even were the Happy Accident you postulate to have been ~ how IE got integrated ?! the damage to this entire field is palpable and, I believe to most informed people - M$ has become an utterly untrustworthy extension of Bill Gates's ego + Ballmer's Babbitt-persona marketing. Untrustworthy on any scale - between speech and performance. In brief - whatever kewl talents may also be incorporated into the mix - the Package is malevolent to the core. The occasional clever hacks amidst the massive security and stability problems as appear to be insoluble - cannot in any sane way atone for the liabilities. These are starkly evident in the roots of .NET, of Passport, Hail Storm (!) and all the related ominous TLAs. Extermination soon.. may be unlikely, but the record of the fates of past 'partners' ought to provide some temperance for any present and future wannabes. The significance of this Corporation is no longer much about the competence / incompetence of its software 'design' IMhO: it is about the designs to maintain and extend its monopoly exponentially - in as many fields as it is allowed to leverage into. Argue about DLLs and 'reuse of code' all you want. That's just technobabble smoke and mirrors, to deflect attention from a sociopathic organism. Only question I see that remains now, is: how near-to extermination (or forced mutation towards less malignancy?) can society achieve next, in self-defense? Ashton who believes that M$' Largest crime has been to murder language, in the course of killing-off most chances for this industry ever to 'mature'. Just read the babble about the non-existent .NET [link\|http://www.gotdotnet.com/featured_site/partners.aspx\|Here] to grok the style of inane, empty promises and idiotic 'partnering fantasies' - with Godzilla - as if none of the past ten years had actually happened (!) Shit - maybe Murica deserves this Scourge! ..for present dumbth and for all past idiocies committed? {ugh}
Post #29,513 by Andrew Grygus 2/23/02 9:29:41 PM Reply	As I have been saying for years . . . . "A Microsoft partner is a victim they haven't gotten to yet". The latest victims are the CRM (Customer Relationship Management) "partners". Microsoft has just announced Microsoft CRM, integrated with Microsoft Great Plains Accounting and .NET. Microsoft's CRM "partners" say they are still waiting for a statement of intent from Microsoft. Ha! Ha! Of course, Microsoft can only capture the lower end of enterprise CRM, because their "solution" (problem) runs only on Intel servers, but they'll soon convince the PHBs that Intel servers are more than adequate. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,538 by Ashton 2/24/02 3:20:05 AM Reply	Do you mean that recently the CRM folks spilled their guts to Billy - in some "partnership" deal? Like.. in last couple / three years ?? Expecting - like Ed Curry - to umm share in the profit$ of the co-developed Insanely Great NEW PRODUCT??? Is that what you mean - happened? {Sheesh!} It's kinda hard to sympathize with freshly-sheared little lambs, after you know that they saw their mamas and papas converted into McNuggets.. And the rhetoric at the .NET link above, indicates that the enthusiasm for self-Nuggetizing is undiminished. So then - nothing has changed in the suited mentation.. after All This Court Activity !! The dialogue re .NET reminds me of the spiel the used-car salesman gave me, when I was looking at a Honda Prelude (and off-handedly mentioned an Acura Vigor) - this at a place that sells new Acuras BTW. He riposted, "I know a local mechanic who thinks quite poorly of the V." yada yada. (In fact I'd done my homework - 'poorly' would be the word chosen by maybe 1%, re that particular model..) My 'negotiation expert' friend and I just looked at each other, and then marked down further, what our final offer for the Prelude would be. This was followed by the now traditional Ballmer-style dance as we collected our printouts and prepared to leave... what if we just called it $x,yyy.yy over-the-curb.. hmmm? {heavy sigh} We walked. Sounds like the CRM folk stayed. For the abattoir. Screw 'em then. Though I don't know shit about the magnitude of a CRM database, I can guess it's gonna stress toy software a lot: won't make no difference ay-tall to the PHBs presented with M$CRM Deluxe-Professional Gold-Version -- over that golf game. My guess re you Andy: nullo illegitimiti carborundum (??) I'll bet this crap doesn't ever get to you because you see the daily humor of the sheep passively grazing enroute to the shearing. As in, Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Am I right, Sir? (Last words of the dying "Great Memorizer", on stage.. in The Thiry-Nine Steps) Ashton CRM eh? Is that an acronym for CReaMed..?
Post #29,555 by Andrew Grygus 2/24/02 1:24:24 PM Reply	Siebel is the main victim here. Siebel "partnered" with Microsoft Great Plains, allowing Microsoft to inexpensively learn just how one would integrate CRM with Great Plains, so now it's time to eat Siebel's lunch. At last report Siebel was still waiting to hear from Microsoft about the current status of their "partnership" (victimhood). Of course, MS CRM is still in beta, but the impact on Siebel's product should be immediate. "Why go with Siebel now, when Microsoft will have their product ready "real soon now", and then Siebel will start having inexplicable problems. Lets wait." It does amuse me to watch one technology company after another walk eagerly through the feedlot gate, oblivious to the door on the other side clearly marked "Slaughterhouse.NET", and to the fact that the feedlot fence is built of the bones of previous feeders. "Our long range plan? Yes we're already working on where to have lunch!" Microsoft Great Plains is currently being recoded in C# for .Net compatibility. Release of the .NET version will be an excellent point at which to break Siebel's compatibility. "We gave them all the help we could to transition to .NET, but they just didn't try hard enough." Meeting the projected future revenue figures for the Great Plains group will require the demise of practically every other publisher of accounting software for Windows, and expansion into other sources of revenue. I'm sure they have compensated in their market figures for that fact that a number of software publishers will not, in the future, require accounting software of any kind. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,557 by Andrew Grygus 2/24/02 2:02:55 PM Reply	Speaking of Accounting software . . I just finished a 3-day dealer certification and training class for Vigilant's PoS (Point of Sale) and Distribution software. I have been long familiar with the DOS version (most PoS systems still run on DOS) and knew they were porting to Windows. Here's the story. They've finally, after 7 years of programming around Windows deficiencies and bugs (some causes of seemingly random file corruption took three years to pin down), they've finally done a first release of the product. They recommend the product be deployed with caution and only in small stores. The certification class was not, however, on the new Windows product. In the mean time, they were having trouble with the multi-store polling system in the DOS version. It wasn't the system itself, similar to what is used in large store chains, but due to the small business customers. These customers didn't have IS staff that understood the polling process and they often screwed it up totally when a modem connection failed. Since polling was also secheduled for the Windows version, this was considered serious. Marketing asked programming "what can we do". Programming responded "Well, we can try running the DOS version over Linux with DOS emu and have the stores work from a central host". It was so decreed. It worked, so it was next decreed to port to 32-bit native Linux. This was done in a matter of a few months. But the customers said, "What if the host connection goes down? Aren't we out of business until it cames back up?" Weeeeeellll, yes, sort of. So the remote workstations were also set up on Linux, and if the host connection goes down for more than 20 seconds, the workstation continues in "local mode" (even if you were in the middle of an invoice, that invoice is not lost). When the link comes back up for more than 20 seconds, a queued resync is performed. Cool. The net result: the multi-store Linux product is now the flagship product. The painfully developed Windows product (an absolutely outstanding Windows product, by the way) has been relegated to "Mom & Pop store" status. Vigilant runs on Caldera Linux 3.1x, since Red Hat's product was found messy, inconsistent and lacking some needed products in the distribution. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,570 by Ashton 2/24/02 6:07:44 PM Reply	Scary.. 7 years to find all the important glitches and then maybe - not see any significant revenue. :( You (Everyone in IT) Poor Bastards! BTW: Slaughterhouse.NET Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Kurt V would approve and open-source the title.. As to the impending demise of the collaborator: tough. I recommend a WW-II stigma for collaborators with Nazis (well, Billy's the obvious reincarnation of G\ufffdbbels) - shave head. Oh.. that's Fashionable now? never mind Ashton Abattoirs R'Us Redmond Div.
Post #183,043 by drewk 11/5/04 10:21:05 AM Reply	Andrew, care to update the current status? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #183,257 by Andrew Grygus 11/6/04 6:06:36 PM Reply	Update Vigilant is junking the SQL database in favor of a unified system where the Windows and Linux versions will run against the same database engine (Postgres, I believe) and will have similar though not identical graphic front ends. Caldera Linux was, of course, dropped. The business side wanted SuSE but the programmers insisted on Red Hat, a decision they may be regretting now that SuSE is Novell (Dell has just signed with SuSE/Novell for servers). Not a big deal to support both though. On the Microsoft front, everything is bogging down from failure to perform - particularly failure of the Longhorn group to produce the product everything else was supposed to leverage. The Unified File System won't be out now until at least 2008 and is ulikely to be widely deployed until 2013 if ever. By then the window of opportunity may be closed. Microsoft CRM is still a significant threat, but without "total integration" vs. "total incompatibility" as a selling point, it won't be moving fast, and it's now becoming a victim of "buzzword incompatibility" as CRM fades in favor of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) Nobody seems to know exactly what that is except that it's hard to achieve. Without Longhorn, MS Great Plains / Navision have been as hard to sell as any other accounting systems and are waaaaay behind plan for world domination. IF MS CRM continues to hit heavy going I wouldn't be surprised to see the CRM/accounting products divested as a separate company to keep them from dragging down reported results. It's just too much work for too little return. The problem with total integration is it is totally vulnerable to failure of any part, and Longhorn / Shorthorn / Foghorn / Hornswaggle is filling that role. Microsoft's ability to manage product development has fallen way behind their ambition. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #183,279 by folkert 11/6/04 9:16:48 PM Reply	And Thank God for that. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #29,606 by jb4 2/25/02 9:44:02 AM Reply	Quick question: [...] + Ballmer's Babbitt-persona marketing. Just making sure: Is that "Babbitt" or "Bobbitt"? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,690 by Ashton 2/25/02 9:57:20 PM Reply	'a' as in the Sinclair Lewis book, "Babbitt" Still: :-\ufffd
Post #29,530 by bepatient 2/24/02 12:15:05 AM Reply	chuckle Ah...so all of the top brass wanted to include IE...but they couldn't do it without breaking the law...so instead they rewrite the application including alot of the applications basic functions in OS libraries. So...now IE is already installed for you...essentially. And just for show...lets use these components for a couple of other minor areas...help files...display... And this makes it >legal<??? Exactly how? Microsoft took an >application<. An application that had its own separate marketplace. Even MS itself tracked >marketshare< of IE separately from that of Windows. It then bundled that application into its monopoly OS. There is a bevy of case law in antitrust that says you're not allowed to do that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,858 by Squidley 2/26/02 3:27:57 PM Reply	Re: chuckle Ah...so all of the top brass wanted to include IE...but they couldn't do it without breaking the law... Right.. At least in the form it was in (a standalone application). so instead they rewrite the application including alot of the applications basic functions in OS libraries. Yes, making the platform more compelling for ISVs, and the overall product more compelling for users, at least in theory. And this makes it >legal<??? I'd say so, yes, since the consent agreement explicitly permitted integrated products. There is a bevy of case law in antitrust that says you're not allowed to do that. Then why was the tying claim thrown back?
Post #29,466 by Another Scott 2/22/02 11:07:55 PM Reply	I guess you didn't read the MS memos from the trial. Mr. Squidley asks: Do they just want to needlessly waste the user's disk space? Why yes, as a matter of record, MS does intend to waste user's disk space and their CPU cycles. They want to shorten the time that a PC is a viable tool so that users must buy new machines frequently and thus buy a new Windows license. I guess you haven't read the [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm\|exhibits] in the antitrust trial. You might find file 384.pdf interesting. It's a memo by Tandy Trower about the problems with IE4 and the reasons why it shouldn't be used to "integrate" web and desktop functions. It's from April 1997. I see no reason to force the proposed dramatic UI changes to the desktop, particularly when so much more work is needed. As a result, I strongly recommend that you consider redefining IE4, focusing only on the browser's enhancements and its associated applications and deferring the web integration until Memphis. This will allow the IE team to do a better job on both aspects and provide a better rationale for the relationship between IE and Memphis. A big NO in the margin gives the reaction to those comments. It apparently was more important to crush Netscape quickly via IE's ties to Windows than improve the software. You also might find 365.pdf interesting. It's Kempin's memo to Gates about their OEM pricing strategy. It's from December 1997. OEM division revenue growth over the last 8 years has depended heavily on volume increases and a trend to higher priced OS. During that time ASPs have stayed stable or gone up which made it easier to ride the wave and get the value we deserve. We have shown larger then [sic] 40% growth rates annually and expect in the future that OEMs will take a very hard look in [sic] how to avoid paying us more $$ per system in order to hit most aggressive price points. Will this lead to significant higher volumes and thus allow us to relax some prices while gaining share where we need it? The danger does exist that more PCs might get shipped without an OS and we should not take this lightly! While reasons for volume increases are too early to analyze (US data still sketchy and ASIA.LATIN data really convoluted) we expect the following to happen: 1. Moderately more volume by finding new buyers who can now afford to buy PCs (This should be true for consumers as well as small biz) 2. Accaleration [sic] of replacement cycles (Knowing that 80M PCs cannot run NTW or WIN98) 3. Shortening of PC "life time" in general The only counter argument to make here is that current PC technology is totally sufficient for most office tasks and consumer desires and that any performance bottleneck is not in today's PCs but in today's COM pipes. This in itself might slow down replacement cycles and life time shortening until we find true MIPS eating applications - a priority not only INTEL should subscribe to. Other side effects of the <1k PCs are less need for NCs, NetPCs and WIN terminals as long as we deliver on the well managed aspect of the PC environment within 12 months. If not customers might not wait for us and pilot more alternative solutions. I do not have to say what this means for NT 5.0 delivery. [...] Emphasis added. Kempin wants to find MIPS-eating applications to force people to buy new machines and new licenses. He admits that 1997-vintage machines were adequate. Does this sound to you like the comments of of an officer of a software firm that's worried about programming efficiency? You might find Kempin's discussion on the next page of "Pricing options" to be interesting in light of XP. In short, while you say you disagree with MS's illegal conduct WRT to Netscape, you seem to take at face value MS's explanation of its reasons for making IE so difficult to remove without, apparently, having understood MS's motivations. MS's motivations for its actions are clear if you read the evidence from the antitrust trial. IE was deeply tied to Windows to kill Netscape, among other anti-competitive reasons. I hope this helps. Cheers, Scott.
Post #28,970 by ben_tilly 2/19/02 4:56:05 PM Reply	sigh Again? First of all I agree that there is no need to see the source code to Windows to evaluate the truth of Microsoft's claim. They are lying through their teeth. There, evaluated. But to come up with a good court case for that, access to the code sure helps. As for the rest of it, Microsoft's "integration" has been wonderful for virus authors. Take, for instance, the wonderful integration that gave us a Messenger worm about a week ago. The only thing that limited that was that the website on which the exploit was hosted crashed from the load. However I really don't see a point in discussing this with you. Unlike me, you are paid to carry on this discussion at length. Therefore it is a waste of time to have this discussion (again) when you are impervious to logic, and nobody else present needs me to convince them of what they already know through experience. Regards, Ben
Post #28,979 by Squidley 2/19/02 6:00:26 PM Reply	Re: sigh Again? First of all I agree that there is no need to see the source code to Windows to evaluate the truth of Microsoft's claim. They are lying through their teeth. About what, exactly? Is Windows with a non-working file manager, help system, administration console, etc., not a damaged product? There, evaluated. Amazing! Perhaps the district court should retain your services. As for the rest of it, Microsoft's "integration" has been wonderful for virus authors. Take, for instance, the wonderful integration that gave us a Messenger worm about a week ago. The only thing that limited that was that the website on which the exploit was hosted crashed from the load. What does this have to do with what we're discussing? Did you just feel the need to cough up a random rant? Shall I make my next post a Google dump of Linux crash horror stories? However I really don't see a point in discussing this with you. Doubtful, given that you're doing just that. Unlike me, you are paid to carry on this discussion at length. Why would you say that? Is it inconceivable that we could simply disagree?
Post #28,992 by Brandioch 2/19/02 7:34:56 PM Reply	But they don't have to be non-working. You see, MS claims that such would be the result. Yet MS has lied in the past. Examples include the faked video "proof" that Dr. Felton's (was that him?) removal of ertain components (still available as 98lite) resulted in a slower OS on the Internet. A test that MS was NOT able to replicate. A test that, given the problems MS claimed, would have been INVALID (you can't test the speed of a box by hitting OUTSIDE websites, you have to hit CONTROLLED sites on a CONTROLLED network). So, MS has lied, in court, about their technical issues. So why believe them on this issue? Or do you care to defend MS's video tape "evidence" now?
Post #29,013 by Squidley 2/19/02 11:45:00 PM Reply	Re: But they don't have to be non-working. So, MS has lied, in court, about their technical issues. So why believe them on this issue? That's an interesting point. But whether or not a bunch of programs truly depend on a given module is pretty easy to determine, isn't it? I suppose that Microsoft could have set up an artificial dependency; i.e., the HTMLHelp program doesn't actually need IE's HTML module, but checks for its presence just to be nasty. Yes, I can see why you'd want the source code to get to the bottom of that. But if that's really the question the states are trying to answer, I'm pretty sure they'll be disappointed with what they find. What I'm afraid of is that they'll do something idiotic, like point at Embedded Windows or something and say, "See? We told you IE wasn't really required!"
Post #29,083 by Brandioch 2/20/02 1:44:40 PM Reply	Now that would be stupid. And if the states are GOING to be stupid, why worry about it? More to the point would be >IF< they can show that MS has setup un-needed dependencies or just cobbled together unrelated functions into bloated .dll's in order to leverage their OS monopoly (and control) to hinder Netscape (or advantage IE). This should be clear once the states get the source code. Well, more likely it will come down to OPINIONS as to whether one way is better than the other. Particularly if the states (and their experts) can correct some of the source code and produce a version of Windows with the .dll's split up into a more modular design. And a more easily replaced design. But this is just speculation until the states have the source code (the correct, complete source code). The only part that is NOT speculation is that MS has, previously, LIED in court and submitted FALSIFIED "evidence". Therefore, there is NO reason to believe ANYTHING MS says about the limitations of their code or design.
Post #29,094 by Squidley 2/20/02 2:33:41 PM Reply	Re: Now that would be stupid. And if the states are GOING to be stupid, why worry about it? Because the court may not recognize the stupidity of such an argument. Heck, even some smart technical people like Mr. Grygus don't recognize it ("That Windows XP Embedded thing is going to hurt, bad."). Particularly if the states (and their experts) can correct some of the source code and produce a version of Windows with the .dll's split up into a more modular design. And a more easily replaced design. Hmmm, perhaps you're right. As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. And for what purpose? Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled?
Post #29,096 by drewk 2/20/02 2:40:04 PM Reply	Pick one Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? Either the OEM's are buying Windows or the end users are. Since Microsoft got a whole set of lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that the end users weren't the actual purchasers of their product, and thus had no standing to file a lawsuit, Microsoft has obviously taken the position that the OEM's are their customers. Once the OEM's have taken delivery of the product, they are free to modify it's specific configuration as much as an end user. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #29,104 by Steve Lowe 2/20/02 3:22:58 PM Reply	Purpose As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. And for what purpose? Square one: The point is, the states and the DoJ say Microsoft abused its market power by illegally forcing Netscape out of the browser market; Microsoft is trying to say they didn't. The purpose is in trying to PROVE that. I don't the Judge, the Jury, the DoJ, the States, or most people here want to tell M$ how to design their software. It's how they do business that's gotten them in trouble. Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? Maybe not, maybe so. If the Windows API were open, perhaps that could happen sanely. Heck, we have all kinds of hardware that interacts directly with the kernel with its own software... However, isn't it my problem if I do? Still, that's not the point. Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? Shouldn't I have the right to purchase a PC with or without whatever I damn well please on it? Hell, >I'M< the one >PAYING< for it! I don't particularly care how deeply M$ comingles stuff. Reusing IE code for things like explorer and help could be a good idea from both a programming perspective and UI perspective. However, in Microsoft's market position, INTENT matters. If the intent was to kill Netscape (I don't like it either, but again, that's not the point) then they are violating anti-trust laws. If the intent was to streamline the codebase and provide a more consistent UI over multiple applications, then there's probably not a problem. It's part of the game when your grow to Microsoft's size and power. The lawyers involved have to prove that either way. I believe it has been shown that M$ has internal documents that prove the intent to harm Nutscrape. This coupled with the asinine licensing to OEMs denying them the right to install anything else pretty much seals the intent to harm. M$ has claimed that it is a necessary part of the operating system, thereby begging the question of "how necessary?" Especially since M$ had viable products in the separate products of Win95 and IE3. All M$ needs to prove, in my mind, was this was done with the intent of streamlining code and enriching UI, nothing more, which I don't think they can. If Microsoft were actually competing, the issue of comingling the IE and WinX code would never be an issue. In fact, then this whole discussion about replace/remove/to DLL or not to DLL/comingle yadda yadda and whatever might actually MEAN something because then we'd be discussing the technical merits of one platform versus another. Again, this case is not about how Microsoft designs its software, its about how Microsoft does business. Oh, and the purpose of forcing M$ to turn over the source code to Windows is simply a legal act of disclosure, eg giving each side the same set information to prepare its case. Disclosure happens in every legal case in the land. ----- Steve
Post #29,113 by Brandioch 2/20/02 3:49:59 PM Reply	Bzzzzzt! Thanks for playing. >IF< the states are going to be that stupid -AND- >IF< the court doesn't realize how stupid it is....... Sorry, you're getting too far off on what-may-happen-if....... We can sit and discuss fairy tales all day. Well, you can. I won't. I'm going to limit myself to ONE "if" per subject. As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products. They don't have to be told what steps to take. All that has to be shown is that what MS was "impossible" is not only possible, but has been done. And for what purpose? Ummm, because MS is on trial for anti-competitive activities? Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components? You mean like allowing Netscape to have the same access as IE? Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products? If MS is going to SELL to the end-users, then "yes". But MS doesn't sell to end-users in that manner. MS sells to Dell and then tells Dell that Dell cannot setup the ssytem the way the end-user wants that system setup. Again, since MS's original "defense" was based upon doing what the end-user wanted...... How do you get that to mesh with the end-user having to accept what MS wants them to have? I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled? You're damn straight you should have that right. And, with Red Hat, you DO!
Post #29,118 by drewk 2/20/02 4:34:00 PM Reply	And another thing ... I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled? I won't belabour my first point except to mention how ridiculous it is to describe "custom configuration" as "genarlly mess up the system." My real issue with this is that the legitimate point you actually have is with the vendor then making claims as to what is installed. Microsoft in fact got into this trouble by shipping a JVM that didn't actually conform to Sun's Java standards, and they were told they couldn't then claim it was Java(tm). Assuming you are right about vendors not being allowed to "mess up" the system and still make claims as to what is inside, all that would be required is accurate disclosure that the software installed has been configured/modified from it's default configuration. At most this would allow Microsoft to disclaim responsibility for tech support, but they generally do that anyway if you buy a system with Windows pre-installed. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #29,029 by warmachine 2/20/02 4:37:03 AM Reply	I believe the anti-trust trial showed IE wasn't modular One man's "incestuous OS components" are another man's "clever code reuse". IE is modularized to an almost ridiculous extent, and its modules are reused by everything from the desktop to the file manager to the help viewer to the Web browser to the administration console. Is this really a bad thing? Isn't this the new direction taken by things like KDE and GNOME? IIRC, the DoJ used a memo from Microsoft's engineers as evidence, which pleaded for unrelated IE and OS functionality to be unmerged back into separate DLLs. Apparantly, too many groups were trying to check out the same DLL. The operative word being 'unrelated'. Unrelated code was being merged together, so IE code could not be substituted, which defeats the purpose of modularity. Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,031 by static 2/20/02 4:52:40 AM Reply	+5 Informative. That's a really good example of why allowing politics to control code structure is A Bad Thing! Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!