Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

U.S. v. Microsoft Arguments - Streaming Audio 117

Posted by Hemos from the the-case-that-won't-die dept.
Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. v. Microsoft Arguments - Sreaming Audio More

U.S. v. Microsoft Arguments - Sreaming Audio

Comments Filter:
  • Ying and yang here really. In one half we have Microsoft in deep do-do, and the other we have Napster. Well, hopefully things will stay balanced and if we have to lose Napster, we'll at least lose Microsoft as well.

    If you see Billy G. on the streets begging for money, please, show your sympathy, and offer him a Linux CD.

    ---

  • How to set up PPP in Linux Mandrake:
    Click on Internet Dialer, userid and password. Go to Setup and enter the phone number of your ISP. Return to the main dialer window and click Connect. Wow, what a nightmare. I suppose I'd better return to Windows. Good troll though.
  • No, non-technical people with computers really are idiots. Bless my mom and dad, but they can't do crap on their computer. My mom did not know you have to be on the Internet to update software!! I know a girl who thought Netscape was the Internet!! Besides, if everyone ends up learning Linux and Unix, how are we gonna get paid the big bucks?
  • Not forgetting the userid and password, d'oh :-)
  • Err... Hate to say it, but I think netscrape made their own demise. They created a crappy browser that ahdered to their own standard, instead of accepted standards. Once netscape 4 came out, I was disgusted and switched to IE. Granted -- Netscape 6 is quite a bit better than the 4.x versions of netscape.

    ---
  • Borland did databases

    They still do - Paradox and dbase still are used by programmers for small db applications. Iterbase which is now multi-platform and open source is just as good and possibly better then MS SQL. But Borland has and will be a development tools company. And their new concepts for their programming environment will help distance them from platform dependence.

    Lotus did spreadsheets

    Lotus Notes (or whomever owns it now) still exsists and is in use in allot of companies since it is cheaper than exchange.

    Oracle is gradually being squeezed out of the database on Intel market

    Oracle is still going pretty strong, since it runs on Windows, Novell, Unix, Linux and Solaris. Most database developers who have worked with both Oracle and MS SQL will chose Oracle for database server. Oracle is a better and faster product than MS Sql. MS SQL has only done as well as it has because it was bundled in Back office. "Why buy a new SQL server when we have one." Thats the concept I've herd many times.

    Sybase is already a victim of "embrace and extend"

    And if I am not mistaken (which is possible) MS SQL is built on Sybase, or is Sybase, I forget which, but yes it has a new name.

    to force its "me too" products on its customers.

    Don't I know it. I think the point of splitting them up is so Office and other M$ applications will not be able to Modify and change the OS. Since I cannot easily get away with making my own version of a M$ dll and add my own functionality to it, why should office be allowed to? This also makes it harder on other programmers write software for windows since the underlying dll's can change depending on the current version of Office and IE. M$ hasn't killed off all thier competition in particular fields, but since they are competing with all of us programmers out there it is just a matter of time before they either buy out or "render incompatable" other smaller products.

    I personally don't want to work for M$. But if something is not done to fix their current business practices and strong arm techniques then that may be the only place left to do commercial programming for windows.
  • I'm listening to it in school right now - comp sci class, actually (and being constantly disconnected). Trust me, you're not missing much - it's very difficult to make out what's going on during the trial.

    Not that I don't appreciate being able to say I listened - hope you had as much luck as I did.

  • You obviously have no clue about any of this. Do the letters "OS/2" mean anything to you?

    A far superior desktop OS (still is), killed by microsloth's unfair abuse of monopoly power tactics.

    I know, I was an OS/2 marketing droid for IBM at the time.

  • Just a thought but would netscape have been so bad if they had continued to make money off thier browser. If M$ had not started giving away thier browser to all and had charged people the same way that netscape was would netscape have continued to improve?

    Its very hard to contunue to upgrade software when there is no salery in it for the programmers. I agree that Netscape 4 just sucked. I use IE...but if IE wasn't pushed so hard by M$ and people got used to netscape would they have switched to IE? I know people now who still use netscape because it is the browser they know.

    If netscape would have had a large corporation backing them with billions to blow on a free browser I bet netscape would have been as good or better than IE today.
  • I do not understand the government's insistence on focussing on the Explorer vs. Netscape issue. This is trivial compared to what happened to Wordperfect. By bundling Office with virtually every new PC sold, MS basically put Corel under. When are they going to get the main point: having the code for the OS gives MS an unfair advantage.
  • Ooops, I just heard the MS lawyer say that the reason Internet Explorer was unremovable in OSR2 was so developers would be able to just see check the version of the OS and know what was there for them to exploit. (Not his exact words.) But the Microsoft Developer Network GetVersionEx() page [microsoft.com] says otherwise:
    Identifying the current operating system is usually not the best way to determine whether a particular operating system feature is present. This is because the operating system may have had new features added in a redistributable DLL. Rather than using GetVersionEx to determine the operating system platform or version number, test for the presence of the feature itself. For more information, see Operating System Version.
    Must be tough being MS's lawyer - you have to keep so may lies straight in your head.
  • Considering MS has affects its competitors too. I think that some kind of _retalliation_ might be good for the industry as whole.

    Why should MS be punished for the incompetence of its competitors? E.g. apple trying to make a quick profit rather than build a user base or Netscape trying to sell a browser when they had a better product, then complaining when someone gave away a better browsers for free.

    Monopoly power should be the prize for companies that produce a good product and market it well, we shouldn't be punishing them.

  • Good job embedding the "The monopoly line has been bullshit from the start" quote. And the "jealousy" keyword was genius.

    For those that don't know what I'm talking about, see my (current) sig.
    --
    Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
  • 1-202-737-0001 East coast/Central
    1-202-737-0002 Mtn./Pacific

    Call back five or six times, and you'll be able to get on the air.

    So far, the calls have been dominated by a fine collection knowledge-free pro-M$-types.

    Tell people the other side of the story!
  • As I listen, at 9:20 Mountain Time, it sounds like the government prosecutor is having trouble defending himself and NS and Java.

    He got nailed with the proposal that essentially, the people behind his case, simply want someone else to become the monopoly. The prosecutor is equating "standard" to "monopoly." So, therefore, if java were to become a standard... it's middleware - the JVM - would be a monopoly.

    DeBois needs to hurry up and point out that, yeah, that *might* be a valid point - the middleware monpolized by one company. BUT he needs to point out this would increase competition in regards to this: everyone would have to compete on a level playing field insofar as they'd all be developing on one platform. (this of course, begs you to assume that all JVMs are qual, blah blah blah....)

    you know that. i know that. debois wasn't so quick to it.

    it sounds like he's really gettin' battered on this and web standards.... the judge & co. doesn't realize that web standards aren't a monipoly... they're like highway speeds and yellow lines... they're the rules of the game the developers and software cos need to play to. and the one that plays the best, or plays the worst (but the best tin marketing and such) wins.

    these lawyers are morons.
  • Yes, ideal.
  • Why aren't they streaming this with Windows Media Player? =)
  • Hi, I am a MS-defender and I'm here to flame you.

    Powerpoint ships with Standard, Professional and Premium.

    It does not ship with Small Business edition, but then they ship you Publisher instead which is likely of more use to a small business.

    So it appears you are wrong.

    On the other hand if Powerpoint was included in every bundle, I would argue that I'm wasting my money because I have no use for it.

    It's a zero sum argument, neither side really has a good point that doesn't have an opposite counterpoint equally as good.
  • Umm, dBase was already dead by the time Access was introduced.

    Borland was pushing Paradox.

    The dBase III users who were disgruntled by dBase IV(for good reason) moved to FoxPro.

    Clipper was extremely popular because it would compile your resulting app into a redistributable executable.

    Access's secret to success at the time was that it was relational and it had wonderful report generation facilities.

    I still hate it to this day, but admit that it is useful.
  • Microsoft forced Netscape out of business by marketing work-alikes for each of Netscape's products, throwing near-infinite money and manpower at them until they were suitable replacements for Netscape's software, and giving them away for free. (I don't buy the arguments that say Netscape's death was all its own fault -- YOU try playing chess against an opponent who can bring in more pieces at will.)

    They were slapped with a consent decree. They ignored it. The only stopped their predation when the full weight of the Department of Justice came down on them, and not even completely then.

    Microsoft's tactics throughout the trial were to look like total buffoons, to lie to the judge (remember the faked videotape?), and to make statements which flew in the face of truth. Their tactics worked. They managed to get a reaction from the judge (in the form of annoyed comments made outside the courtroom), and now they're using that to claim that the entire verdict should be thrown out.

    In other recent news [wsj.com], Microsoft ran misleading advertisements about WebTV, and got zinged for it by the FTC... and then they ran misleading advertisements about Windows CE, and is being charged with it again.

    Microsoft has learned how to break the law: (1) keep flagrantly ignoring the law until slapped with a court order to change its business practices; (2) pay lip service to the court order by making superficial attempts to show compliance; then (3) attack the validity of the court proceedings which resulted in the court order, and seek to have the whole thing overturned.

    Hey, it's worked so far!

  • I have been listening to the internet broadcast of the Microsoft appeal. During the lunch break and coffee break C-Span has invited comments from telephone callers.

    A number of them have said. "I have been using computers for N years. I know what I like. I tried Netscape. It doesn't support all the web-pages I go too. I went back to Internet Explorer by choice. Therefore Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong."

    They seem unaware that Microsoft's browser and its web-page generation tools support the same non-standard extensions. These callers seem unaware that their support of Microsoft reinforces the DOJ's argument that Microsoft used predatory tactics to suppress fair competition.

  • Undeniably Microsoft is a monopoly, whatever the $600/hour lawyers can say in the court about it is not going to change the fact. However, is braking up this software giant going to do any good? Well, I do not think so. First of all, anyone thinking that two companies, one producing the OS, and the other applications for that OS must be blind. If 90% of all computers run Windows, and the remaining 5% run MacOS, it is unlikely that there would ever be an Office version for UNIX or Linux. Why, because that already covers 95%. Secondly, what would be the nature of the competition? Those companies would have to work very closely anyway, making products for the Windows platform. Finally, one can only imagine the turmoil caused by the breakup decision. The stock market would go down, thousands of people get fired, and more lose on Microsoft shares. Isn't it better to impose certain restrictions on Microsoft, which would disable anti-competitive actions on their part? Perhaps it would be a good idea to require Microsoft to open the source code to all their free products (such as IE, Media Player, Outlook), or force them to charge money for them if they choose not to? (Of course that could be difficult to do since MS could charge some ridiculous amount like $0.10, but such law with additional restrictions is not impossible. When it comes to MS ignorance, I believe that their late moves are indented to lower their market share. The new software activation model (currently used by Citrix), which requires a 30-day activation based on an algorithm, is nothing but a rope on MS neck. In the short term it may give them more money, but in the long run (few years) the use of other operating systems will increase. But again, maybe that is what MS wants? I have been using Windows for 6 years. But I will never purchase anything from MS after the new activation is in place. I just do not like the model where I purchase a piece of software that I do not fully own. I will likely find it difficult, since I work for an IT dept. in a mid-size corporation, but we have been actively researching other options like FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux, and already lobotomized a few Wintel servers and workstations. I hope that the UNIX-like OSes will get better on the workstations some time soon, so we could introduce it to more staff. Keep up the good work!
  • Uhm...yes they can. Lucent has, IIRC, released Winmodem drivers for Linux.

    Surely you can't serious believe that an average Mom & Dad will be able to successfully install these drivers in Linux?
  • Why is he not representing the government? Did Bush decide to get rid of him?
    ___
  • The main fireworks are going to happen tommorow when Jackson gets panned. Having insulted the Appeals court judges in print the question is how severe the criticism will be, not whether he will be criticised. I would expect at least one Appelate judge to make a coded invitation to resign. The case was sunk from the moment they went after the Internet Explorer case. Netscape drove its competitors (Spyglass, OpenMarket, Spry) from the market by giving away the product - in all but the most legalistic sense. Microsoft did the same to Netscape, tough luck. Marc Andressen must also bear a lot of the blame. He blabbed his mouth off everywhere about replacing Microsoft and generally made it impossible for Gates to ignore him. Happily Bill squished Marc like a bug. Serve the @#(@#^%(& right.
  • Don't all laws have to be tried before a judge sooner or later?

    According to your analysis it should be legal for corporations to hire death squads to assinate competitors. If they were simply allowed to kill anybody they wanted they would not worry about the uncertainty of trying to make a profit.

    You gotta draw the line somewhere and the society has done exactly that. No matter where you draw the line someone will object and it will end up in front of a judge. This is how our system works.
  • They are not idiots trust me. MS bought the president they wanted, they got the Attorney General they wanted installed and now the DOJ is going to throw the case for them.

    Even if the circuit court sees through this kabuki dance the republican supreme court is going to give Bill Gates what he want's anyway.

    At this time this nothing but a waste of our tax dollars.

  • For me the irony is... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...using Konquerer (just got kde 2.1), I cant view any of the clips on the provided links, I cant even figure what plugin or whatever I need.

    Seems I have to use MS software to view MS people pleading that you are not forced to use MS software.

  • Strange but when I installed Mandrake it asked me if I wanted to configure my Lucent Winmodem. I didn't at the time because I've got cable, but maybe I should try it just to see what happens.
  • The split up do? Will it help the consumer not really it still will only give them a microsoft specific solution. It does not give people a choice. What should be done is the opening up of the windows api that is more important than anything else. It will allow everyone easier access to createing windows alternative on the desktop.
  • "
    Now help your mom download, apply, configure, compile and install a source code patch!
    "

    Mum,

    can you dial the internet please?

    $ ssh mumsbox.herisp.net
    $ login :

    .....

  • Yes but the question is why should someone learn
    a new interface? For a computer game it makes
    sense, but Linux is no faster, no more stable (than
    NT/W2K), has less hardware support and less
    software. In short the 'sheeple' are perfectly
    well aware of what they want in an OS and
    Linux isn't it.
  • > I'm not interested in court proceedings, and
    > probably will not watch, but it would be
    > interesting to see the courts used yet again as
    > a tool to appease jealousy.

    It is strange to see how people who have too little interest in the case to actually read the judgement (even though it is easily available and written in plain English), somehow feel able to firmly state that the judges decission is in error.

    The Microsoft spin doctors must have done an incredibly good job.

  • Help! (Score:3)

    by mwalker ( 66677 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @07:30AM (#403142) Homepage
    Good God! Is anyone listening to this? The government (prosecution) counsel is being beaten up by the Court on the following argument:

    "The Netscape-Java middleware merger would simply replace the Microsoft monopoly and its' application barrier to entry with a new monopoly, the Netscape-Java middleware monopoly with the Netscape-Java application barrier to entry"

    Will someone please tell the idiot attorney for the U.S. who is representing us that the difference is OPEN STANDARDS. THE DIFFERENCE IS OPEN STANDARDS. The difference is that anyone can implement the middleware layer because it has an open API, but NO ONE is allowed to create a parallel implementation of the windows API.

    Will someone in D.C. please paint THE DIFFERENCE IS OPEN STANDARDS on your naked body and run screaming into the courtroom with your hair on fire!

    God these judges are stupid. I can't believe our fate rests with them.
  • "It is strange to see how people who have too little interest in the case to actually read the judgement (even though it is easily available and written in plain English), somehow feel able to firmly state that the judges decission is in error"

    You always get that! We (in england) regularly have criminal cases going through the courts, and at the end people often say `oh, thats wrong, they should have done that`.

    If people think that you can judge a persons guilt (or otherwise) and recommend a sentence, without having any sort of a legal background, and from reading only a few lines about it in a newspaper, then perhaps they should be petitioning the government with their amazingly well thought out replacement for the current legal system. It would certainly save a lot of money!

  • Re:Microsoft does have a point (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "If there are half a dozen different types of system, each with their own way of doing things, then people are either going to have to be trained for each one"

    Yeah, kind of like a car. I hate having to be trained just to drive a rental car. Why can?t we just have one brand of car, I mean why do we need all the different makes and models anyway? And VCRs too, I just learned how to program my clock and now I have to do it all over again. Why can?t everything be like OSes? Think of how easy it would be to shop! I hate choices.

    "Microsoft got to where they are today through two things - a comination of ruthless business tactics and complete incompetance on the part of potential competitors."

    You know I hear this over and over. It makes me think of a 100 yard dash where all of the runners except for one falls. I mean, it could happen. But wouldn?t you think there was something fishy going on?

  • That doesn't count (although it does present an argument for why it's better to set up Mom with an OS that supports remote administration). Let's pretend you're calling in from a payphone from a noisy nightclub in Berlin because you got voicemail from Mom that her Linux box won't work anymore, or some new software which she did correctly install won't work until a patch is applied to some OS component.

    Now talk her through it over the phone with no feeback from her machine but what Mom reads you over the phone - I used to help people configure and link Microport System V/AT [mport.com] kernels over the phone all the time when I worked in their tech support department [goingware.com].

    The command line does have its advantages over GUI in purely voice tech support but it's no substitute for just having nothing ever go wrong at all.

    While difficult to achieve, complete reliability and ease of use are technical possibilities.


    Mike [goingware.com]

  • Is anyone else getting constant rebuffers/signal drops? I think we're taking down C-SPAN!
  • How does the MSDN subscription thing work into getting developers on board with not only MS OS, but MS development tools, as well as all the other software they produce? I have seen developers recommend MS products in situations where they may or may not have been ideal, simply because they had either warezed versions or already had access via this MSDN thing.

  • Corel's Wordperfect is most popular among the legal community... I wonder if M$'s legal team is using it? ;-)

  • I'm listening to it right now, after the break. Throughout the arguements I repeatedly found myself screaming at my computer, wishing I could be in the court room to slap the DOJ when the say something stupid (not helping our cause) and help the "Your Honors" understand something they don't quite get. It's very frustrating. Now they're talking about Quicken and how IE is such an intregral part of it. These people are fucking idiots! ARGH!!

    --

  • Re:Help! (Score:2)

    by VP ( 32928 )
    It's getting worse! The judge(s) just stated that they didn't see anything wrong with MS providing an incompatible JVM, since they were entitled to provide Java without the cross-platform compatibility "features" in order to compete with Java. And the prosecution agreed! Aren't they alowed to have expert consultants there? Doesn't the prosecution know that there was a court order to fix the JVM in Win'98, and that MS had to include CDs in the their distribution to bring the JVM up to date?

    It almost sounds like the government is trying to throw the case - they sound so unprepared in incompetent!
  • I agree. It is BS. OMG. If only I could lie
    like that and get those speeding tickets to
    go away :)
    -CrackElf
  • I found the DOJ lawyer disappointingly weak too. He does not seem to understand key underlying issues.

    I find the Microsoft lawyer's speaking style very annoying. Anyone else suspect that his very slow, deliberate speaking style is intended to waste time? The more he stretches out his replies, the fewer actual issues the court will be able to address?

  • Its funny how analysts complain about potential stock losses from investing in Microsoft...

    You may find this funny, but there is actually a good argument why regulation should be avoided due to its effect on investors. The argument goes likes this: more regulation leads to more uncertainty about profits. The greater the uncertainty about profits, the greater is the risk of investing in the company. As the risk of investing in the company increases, investors will demand a higher return on there investment. This will mean that fewer investment projects are profitable, so there will be less investment, and so less innovation.

    Less innovation by M$ makes everyone worse off. Of course, the linux user will object that it does not affect them: they are wrong. If it weren't for M$ continually developing software requiring ever more powerful hardware, they wouldn't have cheap, fast processors for their linux boxes. Furthermore, if it weren't for the spread of cheap PCs, the commercialisation of the internet would not have occurred. There would be less demand for programmers, so their wages would be lower.

    I know most people on slashdot hate M$, but on the balance of probabilities, M$ has benefited them indirectly.

  • Lies, Lies, Tell me sweet little lies.

    -CrackElf
  • Gee whiz, Sherrif, ya caught me... I didn't realize they still had a "standard" version; most of big computer companies (Gateway, DELL, Micron) sell either Small Business (even for Home systems) or Professional (add at least $200 bucks if you want Professional). Since very few people, go out and buy Office since it is bundled with their computer and since they are unlikely to spend an extra $200 on Office, for all intents and purposes PowerPoint is not available for "free" for the average user who needs to occassionally make a presentation for his or her boss. In fact, many users were probably suprised as surprised as I was that Powerpoint didn't come with their computer since it was in thier versions of Office 95 and Office 97.

    However, Bwanna, you are correct that of four potential office bundles, three do include PowerPoint. The fact that the most common version no longer includes it, and that it only stopped including it once the competition had been destroyed, is, I am sure, not your concern.

    I have been utterly defeated, I must conceed... however I would be even more defeated if someone could point to a web site that shows that even 10% of the copies of Office sold or bundled in that last two years were Standard, Professional, or Premium and not the Small Business version.

  • Yes, I agree that Netscape was pretty evil as a
    corporation, but they never had the opportunity
    to do what m$ did.
    (since they did not have a corner on another
    part of the market, they did not have the
    opportunity to use that clout to support their
    inferior product, which is what m$ did.)
    -CrackElf
  • MS should not be punished for the foolish actions of their competitors.

    But they should be punished for illegal abuses of an existing monopoly in order to acquire another one. (in fact, a third monopoly)

    Monopoly power may be considered as a reward for very successful companies. But it's dangerous. Remember kids, we have capitalism because it produces highly efficent markets as a side effect. Ideally. In reality, it produces markets that become efficient, then become inefficient as firms monopolize it and kill off competition. If you want to be a monopoly around here, it means that you're subject to special attention and rules.

    MS has broken those rules, time and again, and harmed the marketplace for its own benefit. That is why there are legal actions against them, and in fact, those actions are not intended to punish, but to restore competition to the marketplace so that we can continue getting benefits from it.
  • Who bets the court will be using a Microsoft program to stream the audio?
  • FIrt of all Gore won the election (he got more votes aways). Second of all go check the contributions MS made to bush, republican party and the so called think tanks which are nothing but fund raising arms of the republican party.
    Thirds MS had hired ashcroft before he became the AG. That's right the AG of the United States used to work for MS go scratch your head on that one for a while.
  • the progress and freedom foundation completely dissed linux as a viable desktop operating system. infact one of the speakers that was presenting the interview said linux was like any other of those free stuff.. you download it.. play with them and throw them away .. my opinion is that microsoft is really going to play the linux game.. they DOJ really has to face the facts that linux is a desktop operating system not just a server operating system.

    Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead.
  • While its true Microsoft do take a lot of their ideas from elsewhere, I don't think anyone could deny that MS Office, IE, and perhaps even VB are the best products available of their class. Sure, VB is not the most beautiful language out there, but if you want to get the job done quickly and have little experience, it is probably the best tool available.

    Well, first off, I disagree. Ask anyone who's worked with Delphi and VB which is better. I strongly prefer WordPerfect to Word; I find I have to fight with it a LOT less to get anything written. And yes, while IE crashes less then Netscape 4.x on Windows, from a user perspective, what's the difference between the two? Opera's the closest thing around to an actually innovative browser.

    Second, you weren't responding to my point. You still haven't said anything about Microsoft's alleged innovations. Please enlighten me?

    If Microsoft doesn't innovate, then restricting Microsoft cannot decrease innovation in the software industry. It can only increase it, by allowing companies who do innovate to compete with Microsoft.

    I am saying that there should be clear-cut laws and penalties for dealing with anticompetitive behaviour. I.e. it should not be left to the discretion of whichever judge happens to be sitting when the case comes to court. This reduces uncertainty and the related problems mentioned in my post above. If this means less regulation, so be it!

    I'll agree with that; Sherman is definitely unconstitutionally vague. As long as laws are in place to prevent corporations from acting anticompetitively, and as long as those laws are actively enforced, I've got no problem with it.

    --
  • Microsoft's very own @Home service will no doubt be streaming video of their demise to thousands of households.

    Except, nobody will watch. Why? Because nobody cares, and why should they? Most people are happy with Microsoft products, but a little disgruntled by their size and wealth. Net effect - a cancellation of interests.

    It's unfortunate that Oracle and Sun were able to potentially destroy a company that in most respects is no worse than they, and whose product is much more appreciated by most consumers. The monopoly line has been bullshit from the start. There are plenty of competitors to Microsoft and always have been. However, none of these competitors have been as good at meeting customer's needs.

    I'm not interested in court proceedings, and probably will not watch, but it would be interesting to see the courts used yet again as a tool to appease jealousy.

    - qpt
  • I'll be in School. Perhaps I could convince my teachers its a "Learning Experience".
    Or, does anyone know any programs I would be able to use to record the one tommorow?
  • This is really great. There is really a good way to stay "live" on one of the trials of the century, well you know what I mean, without the trial turning into an "O.J. Simpson" TV catastrophy. At least the trial isn't going to be broadcast in Windows Streaming Media only :-)

  • Judge Jackson & Me on Cross-Platform API's (Score:3)

    by goingware ( 85213 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @01:51AM (#403165) Homepage
    Please read what U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has to say about why Microsoft felt it was important to break the law to put an end to cross-platform API's [sourceforge.net].

    Scroll up to the top of the page and read about why I feel cross-platform development is essential to the developer and the public [sourceforge.net].

    Thank you for your attention.

    Regards,


    Mike [goingware.com]

  • Okay, I realize that this article is now in the dustbin, but I gotta rant for a little bit about the apparent blindness of the appeals court. According to a number of news sources today, the judges believe Judge Jackson didn't make it clear what the browser market is and therefore this case is likely to be sent back down for clarification. And of course, the M$-friendly icing on the cake is that Jackson probably won't be allowed near the case. (More on this later)

    Now, I've been looking at this page [yahoo.com] of the Findings Of Fact, and I think it's pretty clear that the market for Web Browsers is the market for products that provide "the ability for the end user to select, retrieve, and perceive resources on the Web." The fact that M$ integrated this into their OS doesn't mean it can't be separated from the OS experience. This is made quite clear in the FoF, but the appellate judges seem to be ignoring it. The FoF should be nearly unassailable, but instead we're starting from the (unconventional, to say the least) assumption that the FoF are wrong.

    This pisses me off. Judge Jackson turned out to be the most clueful government employee I have ever seen and I want to defend him. This man does not deserve to be the target of M$ character assassination because he's honest. For some reason, these proceedings started with the assumption that Jackson was biased and that the FoF are tainted as a result. Play along with me for a moment as I think this through.

    Imagine, for a moment, that you're a reasonably bright judge who has a big case in front of him. After months of listening to the defendant plead innocence and attempt to prove it using ethically (and legally) questionable tactics, a star witness for the defense admits that the defendant is guilty as sin. From this, you determine the defendant is full of shit and from that conclusion, you are suddenly able to examine the facts with perfect clarity. While things are so clear to you, it also becomes apparent that the defense was doing everything it could to prevent you from achieving this kind of clarity, because confusion works in their best interest.

    I believe it was from this perspective that Judge Jackson wrote the FoF. From the moment of their release, M$ questioned him and screamed to every reporter who would listen that Jackson was 'clearly erroneous'. Now, given his enlightened perspective, and the barely hidden contempt for Judge Jackson, is anyone going to fault him for being angry with M$? That he spoke out was unfortunate, but given the context (post-M$ trial antics), what he said drew upon a rich history of dealing with the company in court.

    Judge Jackson is worthy of our defense, and if the Government isn't capable of defending one of their own, what can we do to protect him? What can we do to influence the future of this important case?

    Aside from rant on /., of course...

  • Put it on Napster!!! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    [/irony]

  • As much as Microsoft have abused the position they currently occupy in the software market, they do have several points worth considering. Of course, this isn't to say that they shouldn't be broken up, but it's not the black and white issue that it is often presented as in the more Linux friendly media.

    Microsoft got to where they are today through two things - a comination of ruthless business tactics and complete incompetance on the part of potential competitors. Without both of these, Microsoft wouldn't have their current near-monopoly and we'd see several competing commercial desktop operating systems being popular.

    But would this be a good thing?

    For the server market competition is all for the better - servers need to be robust platforms from which to run network services, and the fact that all the important protocols are open means that they can live side by side without problems. We've seen how having Linux and BSD have forced Microsoft to improve their code or be left behind.

    But is this true for the desktop? At this end the majority of users aren't technically accomplished and simply want to get things done. If there are half a dozen different types of system, each with their own way of doing things, then people are either going to have to be trained for each one, or lose out on potential employment at offices using an OS they don't know. This all adds to employer's costs, and cuts down on profitability. The effects will be subtle, but in the long-run it'll damage the economy, which has become increasingly reliant on companies utilising technology.

    So maybe Microsoft should be split instead into desktop and server divisions. Linux isn't really competing with Microsoft on the desktop anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. Then Microsoft's server OS can stand or fall on it's own merits, or lack of.

  • Re:How very ironic (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Most people are happy with Microsoft products ... The monopoly line has been bullshit from the start...

    Maybe it's time for you to get educated [kmfms.com].

  • Investors... (Score:4)

    by Znork ( 31774 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @01:57AM (#403170)
    Its funny how analysts complain about potential stock losses from investing in Microsoft...

    Perhaps the stock holders should tell the company leadership that violating the law isnt part of their mandate for maximizing profits?

    And perhaps investors should think twice about investing in companies known throughout the industry for their blatant disregard for the differences between legal or illegal competetive practices.

  • Re:Investors... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You're new to investing, aren't you?
  • and BeOS is here to stay!!
    but seriously... I remember Microsoft actually bringing Be into the arguments during the original case about a year ago when they lost the first time! Of course they also said their were as many Mac users as their are Win 95 users (yeah, good job not bringing up win 98 (and now ME) or NT into it))
    &lt whiny voice&gt NO NO WHAT ABOUT PLAN 9??&lt /whiny voice &gt


  • May I start this reply with the cry of "Astroturf"

    While it would be immature or plain silly to accuse you of being a microsoft plant or even a troll the thought does linger in my mind.

    Most people are not happy with Microsoft products. They just don't realise there is an alternative. Many people know that Windows isn't reliable, Office is expensive and bloated and Microsoft hates poor people (why else would their software not work on slower machines).

    Oracle and Sun are not in a position to destroy Microsoft. Oracle aims at one small market sector and Sun, well they're just Sun. In the Office and home market Microsoft has no real competitors. There's Apple and *nix, *BSD and BeOS. Apple appeals to the marketwhore in us, Linux appeals to the Geek in us and BeOS appeals to people who want an OS that boots in 30 seconds but doesn't do much.

    So Microsoft are a monopoly that also supports organisations like the MPAA. Due to Microsofts incompetence an entire market based on it's flaws (anti virus software and people called Tim who set up DUN). We're up to Win2K and they still haven't got it up to the same standard as people enjoyed in the early 80's with Unix.

    Of course I'm jealous of Microsofts wealth, but I couldn't be like them. I support free software and speech.
  • I remember AmiPro, and it seems superior to Word2000, and Improve was very interesting and I would want to use it instead of Excel, but I do not have that choice!
    A lot or superior software was bought, or forced out of business by semi-legal practices, and yes, MS has used things forbidden by anti-monopoly laws.
    To be considered a monopoly, company does not need to have 99% market share. It is enough to use monoploist tactics, like forbidding its partners to have contracts with competitors, exclusive licenses, and so on.
    Free market does a lot of things great, but as soon monopolistic practices start, the free market turns into a corporate serfdom.
  • Mum, could you dial up the internet please?
    Now, please type
    apt-get update brokenpackagethatneedsapatch
  • But is this true for the desktop? At this end the majority of users aren't technically accomplished and simply want to get things done. If there are half a dozen different types of system, each with their own way of doing things, then people are either going to have to be trained for each one, or lose out on potential employment at offices using an OS they don't know. This all adds to employer's costs, and cuts down on profitability. The effects will be subtle, but in the long-run it'll damage the economy, which has become increasingly reliant on companies utilising technology.

    I think this argument is completely invalid for many reasons:

    1. You could apply it to most consumer devices and tools. There are many different brands of cars, yet there are not different driver licenses. Why? because they share a set of common interface and concepts.
      All the desktop system use the same metaphors to some extent (the only difference between folders between plateforms is their color). Pretending that having only one company insulates you from changes between brands ignores the fact that Microsoft is not very consistent with itself: compare DOS/ Windows 3.1 and Windows 95/98/etc... People had to be retrained anyway and will have to be again once Whistler/XP comes out.
    2. Companies and users don't care so much about the OS than about application. Ask a basic user if his machine run NT or 95. A office worker is trained to use Office. The rest is absolutely irrelevant. This would be like standardizing car engines to simply driving. Nobody mentionned breaking up Office.
    3. The argument that it will affect economy implies that breaking up the Microsoft monopoly might disturb the stability of the desktop computer and hence make companies loose money. There is no such stability. If there where, people would not need to buy new computer and be retrainned every two months.
    4. Finally, there is the ideological question. Indeed a monopoly can bring stability. While I would like a lot of thing to be standardized in the computer world, I certainly would prefer it to be done by some international organisation, and certainly not by an american corporation.
      This is the most ironic part of it all. Having a corporation being defended by the arguments of socialists (better integration, stability).
  • THE DIFFERENCE IS OPEN STANDARDS

    You people keep using that term with respect to Java. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Tell me, how "open" is a standard that MS can't adapt and optimize for use with their products without being sued into oblivion?
  • I was listening... and shouting in agony.

    Microsoft could also still compete with win32 of course, no easy risk of a monopoly there.

  • Ahh yes, it will, at least on the ABC site, be broadcast in Real Audio. How ideal.

  • Re:Help! (Score:1)

    by VP ( 32928 )
    But wait. It's OK for Sun to stop people from creating incompatible JVMs, even though they have a virtual monopoly on Internet VM technology...


    Sounds like you are qualified to be one of the judges on the trial... What virtual monopoly are you talking about? Ever heard of the IBM JVM? Or about Kaffe? The specs for the JVM are available to anyone who wants to write one, and some companies have even written modified JVMs (like HP's Chai). What Microsoft did was to wrtie a JVM, drop the RMI part of the spec ind replace it with a Windows specific piece. This meant that java classes compiled on windows would not work with any other JVM, and Java classes compiled on other platforms would not work on Windows. Had Microsoft called it C# then, no one would mind (just like HP has it's Chai), but they still called it Java...

  • Similarly, notice how "bundled" software no longer is bundled once the competition is destroyed. It seems to me Access used to be a standard part of Office and now you have to pay through the nose to get a copy, but PowerPoint is the first example that springs to my mind.

    I used to work for a Service Bureau that produced slides from PowerPoint, Persuasion, Harvard Graphics, etc.. At the time of greatest competition ('93 to '95), PowerPoint was bundled with the standard version of Office. Now that Persuasion, HG, and the others are nearly extinct ("PowerPoint" has basically entered the English language as the generic term for computer slides) PowerPoint must be purchased separately.

    Now, I don't keep up with every possible Office bundle that MS sells so I'm sure that some MS-defender will flame me for forgetting that MS-OFFice 2000(B) Sub-19 For Macintosh 8 still has PowerPoint bundled for free... but I still think the point is valid as a real-life example of MS tactics.

  • Considering MS has affects its competitors too. I think that some kind of _retalliation_ might be good for the industry as whole.
    --
    when everyone gives everything,

  • Re:Help! (Score:2)

    by VP ( 32928 )
    Tell me, how "open" is a standard that MS can't adapt and optimize for use with their products without being sued into oblivion?

    Adapt and optimize? The whole idea of a standard is that when it is followed independantly by diferent entities, the results will be compatible, or interoperable. If I want to adapt and optimize the the TCP protocol by changing the packet header to add the features I really need, my implementation will not work with anything else, and I can't really call it a TCP implementation.

    The same with the JVM and the Java specifications - they are published and available to anyone to implement. If you want to change it in a way that contradicts the specification, call it something else (like D-Flat for example). If you claim that it is still Java, then you are a liar.
  • The MSDN tries to do what OpenSource does. Make the development platform and tools available to the developers at a minimal cost.

    The term minimal is relative of course. I only ended up with a nice and legal copy of MSVC++ 6.0 because a friend had accidentally gotten an extra copy, and gifted it to me. Otherwise I would be trying to get GCC and MING running on MS. Heaven forbid I would use an illegal copy of MS's software. Of course if you are doing serious developement work, then MSDN might be nice to subscribe to (free tools/test platforms), but for my minimal effort the coast just doesn't pay. :)

    Now that I have it though, I am using it to produce code that uses OpenSource libraries and tools. My goal is to put out a game or two (in my spare time, hence it being a goal and not a Project Plan or a Buisness Model ::grin::), learn a bit about cross-platform coding, and brush up on my C/C++ along the way.

    Why not just use Linux?
    My main machine is dual boot Linux/Windows.

    I've found for me, that working on one platform consistently is the easiest thing for developement. Otherwise I spend half my time just re-orienting myself within my environment. For my Perl development, I use Linux... almost exclusively for the major developement. For my C/C++, at least for now, I use windows because some of the people I'm working with are on Windows also, so its easier to swap around files if we all use a consistent platform, and for me to be able to send them Binaries to look at (and they are non-techie graphic people, not programmers, so Linux isn't as much of an option for them... yet).

  • My recollection is that Microsoft settled before it went to trial. Yes, I believe that really damning evidence that would have been useful in this case was dug up in the preparation of that case. But the private, pre-trial settlement makes the bulk of that evidence unavailable.

    Interestingly some commentators pointed out that Gates stepped down and Ballmer took over within days of the DR-DOS settlement. They suggested that his resignation was one of the clauses of this settlement.

    The settlement was about thirteen months ago.

  • The further I get in the book "Pride Before the Fall" [slashdot.org], by John Heilemann, the more I laugh at all the mistakes Microsoft and Bill Gates made. My favorite quote from the book has to be "the only thing I'd rather own than Windows is English...because then I could charge you $249 for the right to speak English, and I could charge you an upgrad fee when I add new letters--like N and T." (Pride Before the Fall, p. 84). It was said by McNealy, of Sun Microsystems, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
    If the appeal is anything like the trial (and the events leading up to the trial), then you can count on some funny quotes.
    • Borland did not own DBaseII, which was a dominant application. Borland bought DBaseIV many years later after it had already started losing market chare to FoxPro and Paradox.
    • The Micros~1 unpublished APIs were never very useful. And they were always eventually published by someone else. Micros~1 even released the tools to scan their binaries for unpublished APIs in their SDKs.
    • Micros~1 access is worth $0 so "free" is the right price; I'm always disappointed when I find people using it. Paradox and DBase and StarSomething and Delphi are all available still and mostly cheaper.
    • I had access to a working Windows 95 installation over a year before the general public and NT 3.51 over two years before release. And I'm jsut a run of the mill developer with no special relationship with MS. I just paid my US$300 to US$800 a year for my developer previews, multiplatform licenses, C++ updates and such. Borland or Ashton-Tate did too.

    -Brian@move.zag.for.US.Surpeme.Court.election.ju st ice

  • Yeah, there was an excellent little scene in Charles Dicken's "Great Expectations" railing against that that kind of "I've heard he did it so he must be guilty" stupidity. It's by no means a new phenomenon.

  • I am curious where you ever got the idea that Powerpoint should ship for free.

  • That was cute, microsoft just quoted piracy
    as a potential (price) competitor for IE if
    netscape droped of the face of the planet.
    Does this mean that they condone piracy? ;)
    - CrackElf
  • They could adopt is and optimize it for use with their products. What they couldn't do (according to their contract with Sun, as interpreted by the courts) is drop the part of the implimentation that allowed the code to remain portable, and then still call it Java.

    If they had just optimized it for Win32, then no Sun and MS wouldn't have been in court. When they made it so that code compiled for "Java" (as MS implimented it) couldn't run on any other JVM, then they deserved to find themselves in court.

  • I am curious where you ever got the idea that Powerpoint should ship for free.

    PowerPoint was bundled with all versions of Office when there was (past tense) competition in the market for business presentation software.

    Now that there is no (or very little) competition in the market for business presentation software PowerPoint is no longer bundled with the most common versions of Office. Microsoft now gets two payments from the user for the same functionality that used to be one payment. A great business plan if you can get away with it.

    My point has never been that PowerPoint should be free, but that choosing to bundle software with Office (as in the earlier versions of Office) is another tool of the monopoly to crush competition just as bundling software with the OS is a tool to crush competition. Do you see this?

    If the above paragraphs were too complicated here is the step-by-step on how to monopolize a market the MS way:

    1. Build OS and gain monopoly.
    2. Use monopoly power to force OEM's to bundle office suite with your OS.
    3. Where there is competition in the marketplace, bundle your own versions of the software with the office suite (PowerPoint and Access).
    4. When competition has been destroyed, gently remove your products from the office suite over the next couple of versions so that they have to be bought seperately.

  • It's the PC makers that decide to bundle Office with their machines, not MS. If you look at computers at COMPUSA, you'll find that most of them don't come with Office.

    Also, Corel is the third owner of Wordperfect which was in trouble long before Corel bought it.

    At the time that Windows 3.0 was released, Wordperfect was the dominant PC word processor. I remember reading comments by the president of WordPerfect corp. saying how reluctant they were to make a version of WP for Windows. When a windows version was finally released, they refused to use the standard Windows printer drivers and instead used their DOS based drivers. I remember I crashed the program in the 1/2 hr of use.

    So WordPerfect has a smaller market share than the old days because they did too little, too late for Windows.

  • lets not. then we have all those 12 year old aolers on slashdot talking about insink. its bad enough already, lets not make it worse.
  • OK. Question. How does If it weren't for M$ continually developing software requiring ever more powerful hardware, they wouldn't have cheap, fast processors for their linux boxes. constitute innovation? And the point of Linux users isn't that a lack of innovation on Microsoft's part won't affect them, it's that Microsoft doesn't innovate. Period. Dominance of the market by Microsoft has done far more to reduce innovation in the software industry than any government intervention.

    Also, are you saying we should let companies get away with violating the law in order to prevent investors from realizing that investment is simply gambling by another name? Or are you saying we should simply change the laws so that companies and investors don't have to worry that unethical behavior is against the law anymore?

    --
  • Moderators?! Insightful!!??!!

    More like half-thought out bullshit.

    Microsoft got to where they are today through two things - a comination of ruthless business tactics and complete incompetance on the part of potential competitors.

    How about adding in network effects? Where did blind luck fall in your analysis? BTW, a small competitor forced out of business by a monopoly's misleading marketing (ie, bald-face lying) and blackballing those who wish to do business with him can not be considered incompetent.

    If there are half a dozen different types of system, each with their own way of doing things, then people are either going to have to be trained for each one, or lose out on potential employment at offices using an OS they don't know.

    Or, OSs will standardize on a set of fairly standard widgets. You would not need training on Jack's OS, because it would look just like Jane's OS. Most of the GUI 'innovation' in the last 20 years has consisted almost exclusively of adding more buttons that are 'prettier'. Adding a new 'feature' in a multi-OS world would mean that you would have to make its purpose obvious and simple, else no one would use it. Compare this to the current situation of adding buttons for buttons sake.

    There is also another scenario that you ignore. In a multi-OS world, the use of the OS would be considered before the purchase. No more 'nobody ever got fired for buying $$$$'. Each purchase would require thought, and the OS would fit the purpose. Why does there need to be a graphical interface in the kernel of a mail server which has remote administration? Nobody knows and nobody cares, becasue 'nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.'

    Furthermore, single vendors will not be able to leech off of the economy by forcing unnecessary upgrade cycles. A multi-OS world would force open data formats (remember what forced ASCII on the world), which would allow companies to keep there profits instead of re-investing in software to do the same thing as their current software, except in a different data format.

    So, in sum, a multi-OS situation will not 'damage the economy'? It would enhance the economy. It will allow true innovation and force an openess of formats that will slow leeches like Microsoft from sucking the life-blood from nearly every company in the western world.

  • The idea that consistency really matters is flawed.

    First, people arent the idiots that interface 'designers' want to make them appear. Everyone from my mom to a secretary can learn a new UI for playing a game or using some program they want to use in a short time. And games have some of the absolutely worst user interfaces ever designed. Anyone who should be using a computer can learn a new interface. If they cant, I doubt they can handle the job they need the computer for.

    And, the fact is, you dont have any choice either way. Microsoft changed the interface between dos and windows 3. And between 3 and 95. And between 95 and 98. Etc. And they're gonna change it again and again and again. So you might just as well switch to Linux where you can at least choose for yourself what you want the interface to look like.
  • Or, does anyone know any programs I would be able to use to record the one tommorow?

    How about a VCR? It will be on C-SPAN tomorrow at that time.
    --
  • Why do I get the feeling that if the judgment doesn't go M$'s way, there's only one way we'll REALly hear it...
  • ...it's all an illusion...
  • Errr, I mean, it will be on today at that time. Damn night job throws me off schedule.
    --

  • Love the Slashdot front page... (Score:4)

    by davejhiggins ( 188370 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @02:33AM (#403202) Homepage
    "U.S. v. Microsoft arguments"

    "Cool case"

    :-)


  • The proposed remedy, the one that MS is fighting so furiously with all its legal muscle, is not so structurally damaging to their business model as you might guess based solely on the spectacle of blood and fur that you see in the press.

    Real competition would be better served if the company were not simply broken into an OS maker with an effective monopoly and an office product maker with an effective monopoly. Rather, the public's interest would be better served if at least 2 companies of each variety and comparable size were created.

    Some might argue with me that the inside pipe between Office and OS is an incredibly lucrative lever the current company possesses - I don't know for sure, given all the arguments that a Chinese Wall separates the two developer teams. Such a wall may only be for show and may not prevent the upper level management from coordinating efforts with a view to both sides of the wall.

    However, I don't see consumer choices and the competitive landscape improving much simply by creating MS-OS vendor with 90% of the desktop OS market and an MS-Office vendor with 90% of the desktop productivity suite market.

    At least the appeals process takes time. To the extent that such time permits the current situation to prevail, their currently successful business model can thrive.

  • Interesting, but I've already pointed out you were wrong in claiming Powerpoint is no longer bundled.

    Your entire argument is based off of points 2 and 4 which remain unsupported by evidence.

    It's not that your argument is complicated, it's just well... wrong. I don't know how one can get any simpler than that.


  • The monopoly line has been bullshit from the start.


    Funny, even Microsoft isn't fighting that they are a monopoly. They are fighting the punishment of illegally using said postion as monopoly. The Government, the Courts, and even Microsoft knows that the monopoly line is not bullshit, why can't you accept it?


    none of these competitors have been as good at meeting customer's needs.


    I personally do not believe that Microsoft has done a good job a meeting customer needs. I believe that Microsoft has done a very impressive job of locking in customers through the use of illegal business practices. The numbers over the past couple of years support my belief. Macs came back from 1% of the market up to ~7% of the total market over the past couple of years, Linux is nearly 5% and continues to grow exponentially. Sun continues to beat estimates of growth every year. Palm OS has dominance is the hand helds, and that doesn't seem to be faltering.

    Although MS has complete control over the office market, I only know one person who uses the office assistant, and I hear people complain constantly about how big it is and how expensive it is. People ask me all the time if there are alternatives to MS Office that can perfectly convert Office files.

    Most people are happy with Microsoft products, but a little disgruntled by their size and wealth.


    I think it would be more accurate to say that most people are happy with a unified user interface. Most of the people that I talk to are not happy with Mircosoft, even the simplist of users, because it seems to get slower and more expensive with each release, and the fact that it is still unreliable.

    My experience is that so long as they recongnize the interface they don't care what runs behind it. When I set up user accounts on my Linux partition for people, and configure the account to look similar to the Win95 interface people plod along contently, and are in general happier because the thing doesn't crash on them. The funniest thing that I have found is that when my keyboard goes haywire (hardware issue with my motherboard, don't want to go into it) and stops working people sware at Microsoft, even when they KNOW that they aren't using Microsoft, it has become a habit.

    People are NOT happy with Microsoft, it does not meet customer needs, and it is a monopoly. The problem is that they use their position as a monopoly to prevent alternatives from becoming viable options.

  • Let's Make Linux Useful for My Mom and Dad (Score:3)

    by goingware ( 85213 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @02:51AM (#403222) Homepage
    Ever helped your mom fix her PPP connection on Windows or Mac OS? Did you do it in person, or over the phone?

    Now help your mom download, apply, configure, compile and install a source code patch!

    I know people who are blessed with parents who know how to program, but my mom wanted to go back to CompuServe after Dad fixed her up with Earthlink because earthlink gave them netscape on the installation CD to read her email with.

    She didn't know, until I came to visit, downloaded and tested every email client available for the Mac OS, and set her up with Sono Software's Musashi [sonosoft.com] that everyone's email wasn't hardwired to their ISP. I tried to explain to her before I visited that she could get a different mail program, but didn't understand - she didn't know she was running Netscape to read her email, she thought she was reading her email in Earthlink.

    My dad knows a little programming - FORTRAN IV on an IBM 360 via punchcards.

    If something breaks on their little Mac (and they manage to do it somehow), it stays broken until their son the software consultant [goingware.com] flies home to visit.

    Please contribute articles [sunsite.dk] to the Linux Quality Database [sunsite.dk] on how to write quality software, test it, or send in links [mailto] to quality information and resources that I can link to from the page or write articles about.

    Especially important are articles that are accessible to ordinary users or inexperienced programers on how they can contribute in a meaningful way to QA testing of the Free Software product of their choice. An example is my article (still in progress) Using Test Suites to Validate the Linux Kernel [sunsite.dk].

    Planning for the kernel testing database that I have in mind is still in a vaporware phase. If you know about designing database schemas I could really use your help in architecting this thing. I could write the database access code myself but I don't want to plan the schema because I'm sure I'd make a mess of it. I've never designed a real schema before.

    I'd like to use Enhydra [enhydra.org] as the application server - it's pretty good and open source. You can integrate it with Apache or the Netscape server, or it comes with its own Java HTTP server built-in that you can use either for testing or production.

    When you use the Enhydra multiserver in development the whole enhydra system can run in one Java VM process. I echoed out the java command line from the startup script to find out what all the parameters were then put the command line into NetComputing's [netcomputing.de] AnyJ [netcomputing.de] debugger (free as in beer for Linux) to run a whole web application in a source debugger. Much nicer and more effective than printing "here I am" to the console.

    I believe they have Enhydra running under Kaffe [kaffe.org] now. It didn't when I tried it but the startup scripts now support it as an option. I reported the problem to the Kaffe folks quite a while ago and I guess they fixed it.


    Mike [goingware.com]

  • Re:Microsoft does have a point (Score:3)

    by cyber-vandal ( 148830 ) on Monday February 26, 2001 @02:59AM (#403223) Homepage
    Speaking as a mainframe programmer, there are many thousands of people that have had to deal with different UIs, all ugly 24x80 4 colour screens and have managed fine. To say that these people would then not be able to manage KDE2 is utter rubbish. Mandrake Linux requires you to use the command line about as much as Win9x does (i.e. occasionally). I'm going to show it to my (slightly) computer-phobic dad and I bet he stops using Windows for everything except games.

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Close