No tricks, just treats

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?

Welcome to IWETHEY!