How the monopoly works.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #29,275

by bepatient

2/21/02 2:57:47 PM

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]

Judge order MS to hand over source code - (JayMehaffey) - (149) - Feb. 16, 2002, 12:07:30 PM EST

Re: Judge order MS to hand over source code - (Yendor) - Feb. 16, 2002, 02:29:50 PM EST

What a precedent! - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 16, 2002, 03:12:07 PM EST

If it's true, CKK certainly has guts - (tonytib) - Feb. 16, 2002, 06:08:05 PM EST

Holy mother of pearl! - (Silverlock) - Feb. 17, 2002, 02:23:18 AM EST

Interesting (?) vote percentages - (Ashton) - (1) - Feb. 17, 2002, 05:57:24 PM EST

I'm wondering about the size of the fine - (Silverlock) - Feb. 17, 2002, 06:43:18 PM EST

How to test it? - (Brandioch) - (4) - Feb. 18, 2002, 07:56:49 PM EST

General idea - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - Feb. 18, 2002, 10:28:31 PM EST

Obfuscation. - (static) - (2) - Feb. 18, 2002, 10:46:34 PM EST

Re: Obfuscation (I guess you're against it...) - (jb4) - (1) - Feb. 19, 2002, 09:33:22 AM EST

OT: I am getting *so* many comments about by my icon! :-) -NT - (static) - Feb. 20, 2002, 12:51:23 AM EST

Nuttiness - (Squidley) - (137) - Feb. 19, 2002, 02:37:11 PM EST

Semantics - (wharris2) - (136) - Feb. 19, 2002, 03:00:52 PM EST

Re: Semantics - (Squidley) - (135) - Feb. 19, 2002, 03:16:37 PM EST

But it's not modular. - (wharris2) - (122) - Feb. 19, 2002, 04:45:48 PM EST

No? - (Squidley) - (121) - Feb. 19, 2002, 05:38:52 PM EST

No. - (Another Scott) - (7) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:15:49 PM EST

I Respectfully Disagree - (Squidley) - (6) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:41:42 PM EST

Your questions are answered in news stories. - (Another Scott) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:29:50 PM EST

If it >IS< "modular"............. - (Brandioch) - (4) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:44:32 PM EST

Re: If it >IS< "modular"............. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:30:08 PM EST

Definitions vs. designs. - (Brandioch) - (2) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:55:17 PM EST

Re: Definitions vs. designs. - (Squidley) - (1) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:56:05 AM EST

So, now we look at history. - (Brandioch) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:23:18 PM EST

What? - (pwhysall) - (1) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:20:15 PM EST

Oops, You're Right! - (Squidley) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:49:22 PM EST

Modules that cannot be replaced or removed - (imric) - (76) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:51:44 PM EST

Re: Modules that cannot be replaced or removed - (Squidley) - (75) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:20:13 PM EST

No. - (imric) - (74) - Feb. 20, 2002, 06:06:09 AM EST

APIs & Modularity - (Squidley) - (73) - Feb. 20, 2002, 11:25:42 AM EST

Re: APIs & Modularity - (drewk) - (71) - Feb. 20, 2002, 12:02:56 PM EST

Re: APIs & Modularity - (Squidley) - (69) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:33:12 PM EST

This is really funny. - (Andrew Grygus) - (23) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:55:47 PM EST

Re: This is really funny. - (Squidley) - (22) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:18:25 AM EST

MS should control PC configuration? - (warmachine) - (6) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:54:20 AM EST

Re: MS should control PC configuration? - (Squidley) - (5) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:06:02 PM EST

you are absolutely right - (boxley) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:22:13 PM EST

I haven't met one that wouldn't. - (Brandioch) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:33:22 PM EST

A natural monopoly would be leverage into a free market. - (warmachine) - Feb. 21, 2002, 01:55:51 PM EST

How the monopoly works. - (bepatient) - Feb. 21, 2002, 02:57:47 PM EST

Homogenity over all. - (imric) - Feb. 21, 2002, 05:30:40 PM EST

Re: This is really funny. - (Steven A S) - (2) - Feb. 27, 2002, 06:49:22 PM EST

Have to have a command processor? - (wharris2) - (1) - Feb. 27, 2002, 10:52:09 PM EST

On Win9X - (Steven A S) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:52:39 AM EST

Re: This is really funny. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 03:29:58 AM EST

Architectures - (Squidley) - Feb. 28, 2002, 07:06:04 PM EST

Re: This is really funny. - (pwhysall) - (9) - Feb. 28, 2002, 07:43:08 AM EST

Re: This is really funny. - (Squidley) - (8) - Feb. 28, 2002, 02:13:21 PM EST

And just exactly how long would it take . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (6) - Feb. 28, 2002, 03:44:32 PM EST

Thank you... - (bepatient) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:24:18 PM EST

Besides which ... - (drewk) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:29:29 PM EST

Re: And just exactly how long would it take . . - (Squidley) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:36:06 PM EST

But would it work? - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:39:47 PM EST

Kinda like coding around non-standard behaviour in IE? :) -NT - (Meerkat) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:19:30 PM EST

Oh shock non-standard IE behavior? (me quivers) - (wharris2) - March 1, 2002, 06:13:03 AM EST

OK - (pwhysall) - March 1, 2002, 02:22:44 AM EST

You ARE Michel Le Moron! - (jb4) - (44) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:17:39 PM EST

Dont accuse - (boxley) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:59:47 PM EST

Naah, just went to the same . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (41) - Feb. 20, 2002, 05:31:12 PM EST

Re: Naah, just went to the same . . . - (Squidley) - (40) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:23:48 AM EST

Cosmic-proportion delusions of grandeur from a bad $hilling - (CRConrad) - (39) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:57:31 AM EST

Nah. - (imric) - (38) - Feb. 26, 2002, 06:18:46 AM EST

No, I'm fairly sure he's serious; he's $hilling for real. - (CRConrad) - (37) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:02:02 AM EST

Squidley-Diddley; - (imric) - (36) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:41:19 AM EST

Yeah, but if you're stupid enough, why let that stop you? - (CRConrad) - (35) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:08:05 AM EST

I can't believe you didn't catch this - (Silverlock) - (6) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:48:05 AM EST

Yeah, I know - but how the heck could I... - (CRConrad) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:02:40 PM EST

I used my usual spell checker . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:32:16 PM EST

Just tried your spell checker - (Silverlock) - (2) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:46:46 PM EST

Hmmm . . no such message from Google here . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:18:31 PM EST

Those damn bats. They're everywhere. - (Silverlock) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:26:07 PM EST

So much for those right-wing "think tank" innaleckchuls, eh? -NT - (CRConrad) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:42:10 PM EST

I always have to laugh... - (admin) - (16) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:51:30 AM EST

Well if Squidley is not... - (ben_tilly) - (15) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:17:06 AM EST

Re: Well if Squidley is not... - (Squidley) - (14) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:45:34 AM EST

And what makes you think you look any different here? -NT - (CRConrad) - (13) - Feb. 26, 2002, 11:57:16 AM EST

Why, your presence, of course! - (Squidley) - (12) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:38:10 PM EST

I guess MSFT is expecting to lose, then... -NT - (jake123) - (11) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:43:39 PM EST

Sure! Just like they always do :-) -NT - (Squidley) - (10) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:56:14 PM EST

It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. - (Ashton) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 03:45:46 PM EST

Re: It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:07:31 PM EST

My what colorful intellekchul epithets you have - (Ashton) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:18:48 PM EST

Yes, but over at Petrele's VarLinux forum . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 11:02:27 PM EST

Re: Yes, but over at Petrele(y)'s VarLinux forum . . - (Ashton) - Feb. 28, 2002, 01:43:13 AM EST

I think they're going to lose badly this time. - (jake123) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:13:03 PM EST

I think you're way optimistic - (wharris2) - (3) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:28:51 PM EST

I don't. - (jake123) - (2) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:55:13 PM EST

Gates, Ballmer scared? - (wharris2) - (1) - Feb. 27, 2002, 03:44:39 AM EST

Yeah... you're right. - (jake123) - Feb. 27, 2002, 10:40:12 AM EST

Hey! - (imric) - (10) - Feb. 26, 2002, 09:01:32 AM EST

*Snort* - (Silverlock) - Feb. 26, 2002, 09:17:34 AM EST

"Training ground"? Dunno... Let's hope it's more like... - (CRConrad) - (8) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:00:17 PM EST

I noticed (possibly coincidence...possibly not) - (bepatient) - (7) - Feb. 26, 2002, 05:03:56 PM EST

Really.. - (Ashton) - (6) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:27:10 PM EST

Karsten gave me the archives... - (bepatient) - (5) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:33:38 PM EST

True - the roster was larger (and heavier?) - (Ashton) - (4) - Feb. 28, 2002, 01:59:42 AM EST

If you are nice - (imric) - (3) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:01:37 AM EST

Would have to be ftp... - (bepatient) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2002, 10:48:33 AM EST

Legal - (kmself) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 08:00:59 PM EST

Thats essentially my thinking. - (bepatient) - March 1, 2002, 10:27:25 AM EST

You ARE too kind! - (Squidley) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:31:13 AM EST

Intent - (Andrew Grygus) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:47:36 PM EST

No. - (imric) - Feb. 20, 2002, 06:42:06 PM EST

Are you for real?!? - (jb4) - (33) - Feb. 20, 2002, 09:11:57 AM EST

Hey, is that a trick question? - (Squidley) - (32) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:21:22 AM EST

No tricks, just treats - (jb4) - (30) - Feb. 22, 2002, 10:01:59 AM EST

No, gems! - (Squidley) - (29) - Feb. 22, 2002, 01:55:25 PM EST

Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! - (Silverlock) - (1) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:20:38 PM EST

Re: Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! - (Squidley) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:44:06 PM EST

Are you REALLY that dense (or do they pay for stupidity?) - (jb4) - (4) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:42:48 PM EST

There you go again with the trick questions. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 23, 2002, 04:51:45 PM EST

NTFS != HTML - (jb4) - (2) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:40:11 AM EST

Re: NTFS != HTML - (Squidley) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:23:49 PM EST

Don't bogart tht joint, my friend... - (jb4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:03:02 PM EST

Why did you drop the other threads? - (Brandioch) - (6) - Feb. 22, 2002, 06:30:27 PM EST

Need... some... WD-40... - (Squidley) - (5) - Feb. 23, 2002, 05:56:18 PM EST

Ummm . . aren't you working overtime? - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 23, 2002, 09:33:09 PM EST

I could shill 18/7..........if...........the price was right - (Brandioch) - Feb. 24, 2002, 12:15:15 AM EST

A kinder, gentler, Microsoft at work... - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:47:07 AM EST

Be aware that this new policy . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 25, 2002, 10:56:33 AM EST

I have a remedy, then: - (Ashton) - Feb. 25, 2002, 10:25:57 PM EST

Wow... - (bepatient) - (14) - Feb. 22, 2002, 07:17:39 PM EST

Now, now... - (Squidley) - (13) - Feb. 23, 2002, 05:43:05 PM EST

I could almost grant such a Pollyanna view of it all.. - (Ashton) - (10) - Feb. 23, 2002, 07:20:53 PM EST

As I have been saying for years . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - Feb. 23, 2002, 09:29:41 PM EST

Do you mean that *recently* the CRM folks spilled their guts - (Ashton) - (6) - Feb. 24, 2002, 03:20:05 AM EST

Siebel is the main victim here. - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Feb. 24, 2002, 01:24:24 PM EST

Speaking of Accounting software . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 24, 2002, 02:02:55 PM EST

Scary.. 7 years to find all the important glitches - (Ashton) - Feb. 24, 2002, 06:07:44 PM EST

Andrew, care to update the current status? -NT - (drewk) - (2) - Nov. 5, 2004, 10:21:05 AM EST

Update - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Nov. 6, 2004, 06:06:36 PM EST

And Thank God for that. -NT - (folkert) - Nov. 6, 2004, 09:16:48 PM EST

Quick question: - (jb4) - (1) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:44:02 AM EST

'a' as in the Sinclair Lewis book, "Babbitt" Still: :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:57:20 PM EST

*chuckle* - (bepatient) - (1) - Feb. 24, 2002, 12:15:05 AM EST

Re: *chuckle* - (Squidley) - Feb. 26, 2002, 03:27:57 PM EST

I guess you didn't read the MS memos from the trial. - (Another Scott) - Feb. 22, 2002, 11:07:55 PM EST

*sigh* Again? - (ben_tilly) - (9) - Feb. 19, 2002, 04:56:05 PM EST

Re: *sigh* Again? - (Squidley) - (8) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:00:26 PM EST

But they don't have to be non-working. - (Brandioch) - (7) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:34:56 PM EST

Re: But they don't have to be non-working. - (Squidley) - (6) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:45:00 PM EST

Now that would be stupid. - (Brandioch) - (5) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:44:40 PM EST

Re: Now that would be stupid. - (Squidley) - (4) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:33:41 PM EST

Pick one - (drewk) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:40:04 PM EST

Purpose - (Steve Lowe) - Feb. 20, 2002, 03:22:58 PM EST

Bzzzzzt! - (Brandioch) - Feb. 20, 2002, 03:49:59 PM EST

And another thing ... - (drewk) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:34:00 PM EST

I believe the anti-trust trial showed IE wasn't modular - (warmachine) - (1) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:37:03 AM EST

+5 Informative. - (static) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:52:40 AM EST

iwethey.org

And by "malware" he means his browsing history.
255 ms