Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles 1023

parking_god writes "MIT prof Stuart Madnick, testifying on MS's behalf, was caught out twice when a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed. Madnick also faltered on several other questions." Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles

Comments Filter:
  • by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:40AM (#3450529) Journal
    I agreem but try to remove that shell. Gnome and Kde you can simply remove if you don't wan't to use them. But all Linux setup engines allow you to install without Kde and Gnome.

    So there are two aspects of shell, removable and not removable. And because IE is so tightly integrated in a shell that makes hard way to be competitive for companies like Netscape. Don't you agree
  • Re:wait a second... (Score:2, Informative)

    by adam613 ( 449819 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:42AM (#3450552)
    KDE makes no requirements about what browser you use with it. I use Galeon in KDE all of the time, because Galeon works and Konqueror doesn't.

    Not only that, KDE has that menu that allows you to PICK BETWEEN DIFFERENT BROWSERS TO VIEW WITH when you copy a URL to the clipboard.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:42AM (#3450555)
    He is affiliated with the Sloan School of Management (Course 15), and not the EECS department (Course 6). Hence, the lack of knowledge about the OS itself. He's probably trying to get some more funding from Microsoft for the i-Campus [] initiative Here's his personal home page [], FYI.
  • by CptLogic ( 207776 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:43AM (#3450563) Homepage
    >>Madnick testified that Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates) probably would not be able to develop and market a workable version of Windows under the terms proposed by the dissenting states. He believes the requirements -- such as building Windows in such a way that computer manufacturers could alter it -- are not technically feasible.

    And he's right, it's not technically feasible because Microsoft will not relinquish control of the necessary source, preferring to keep everything black boxed, the hell away from people who could alter the product that carries their name. It's about controlling how you can use the product that they are associated with, because, "hell, a third party could screw Windows up and Microsoft could get a bad rep."

    We know Microsoft are control freaks, there's no way they'd allow Windows to be opened up like that, and without that unlocking of the black box, it *is* not technically feasible for a computer manufacturer to alter Windows, and the reason for this is "technically" MSFT are not legally bound to release their source, and "technically" could charge for any SDK they may choose to never release that would allow that access.

    "technically" this poor bastard who's been set up to fail, trying to defend the indefensible, is correct. In an "I did not have sexual relations..." kind of way.



  • by Root Down ( 208740 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:47AM (#3450609) Homepage
    Microsoft deliberately designs its products to interfere with technology made by other companies, forcing people to use Microsoft products...

    This is not an uncommon practice. Don't believe me? Try installing Real Player (Real One) and watch the default installation - that which the majority of users would use - take over every media file in your system. This is directly interfering with the use of other media - now requiring extra steps to use anything but the default. Try unassociating - no obvious route exists. This is just one example.

    Counterpoint: You are still able to use these alternative media, even though there is a "performance cost" involved in having to take extra steps. Don't like it? Don't be an idiot and use the default install.

    Both are worth considering in the overall sense of programming specifically to exclude the competition and its prevalence in the computer industry - especially given the foreknowledge that the majority of your users will not consider themselves 'advanced' enough to select options in the non-default setup. It's another question of ethics that really has not been given a great deal of attention - though we've likely got more pressing issues to consider (e.g.: DMCA, etc).
  • by billnapier ( 33763 ) <napier AT pobox DOT com> on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:54AM (#3450672) Homepage

    You can find out all kinds of interesting stuff about him on his Home Page []

    John Norris Maguire Professor of Information Technology and Leaders for Manufacturing Professor of Management Science Sloan School of Management / Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • by Urban Garlic ( 447282 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:55AM (#3450680)
    Oh, go ahead, be polemic.

    In the first place, even though KDE does have an integrated browers, it's not integrated into the operating system -- it can't be, because KDE isn't an operating system, it's a desktop environment. And in the second place, while it is admittedly rather large, the KDE desktop API is open, so a competitor can write a KDE file/web/whatever browser that takes full advantage of the integration also.
  • by oever ( 233119 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @10:58AM (#3450717) Homepage
    Konqueror has many functionalities, all modularized in socalled parts.
    If you want to remove the browser from KDE, you can remove the KHTML part. The rest of the functionality will remain intact.

  • by Rocky ( 56404 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:03AM (#3450759)
    Yeah, but all three degrees of his are from Course 6, so someone there's to blame...

    Of course, they're probably all dead now...
  • by phasic ( 314732 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:08AM (#3450793)
    Trying to associate him with only sloan does no good. Look at his qualifications:

    Dr. Madnick has degrees in Electrical Engineering (B.S. and M.S.), Management (M.S.), and Computer Science (Ph.D.) from MIT. He has been a Visiting Professor at Harvard University, Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), University of Newcastle (England), and Technion (Israel).

    C'mon, a doctorate in comp sci from MIT, with just one management degree compared to the 3 EE/comp sci degrees. He must know something about the subject, if not to the specific degree slashdot would like, but maybe we're not getting the whole story.
  • Apparently, it can be done [] with a 100k zip [] file, for free.
  • by Pachooka-san ( 88633 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:17AM (#3450876) Homepage
    If you check Stuart Madnick's homepage [], he's not a CS professor. He's a professor of management. Need I say more?
  • by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:26AM (#3450937) Journal

    From []:

    Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

    "You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

    From the Register []:

    And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness
    for Microsoft.)

    Back to []:

    Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

    Even Business Week [], in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

    Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
    He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

    Good old [] again:

    During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

    Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

    But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

    Back to the Register []:

    One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

    What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
    Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

    Now from Wired []:

    Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

    "You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

    "Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

    And again from []:

    But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.

    Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
    Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

    He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

    "My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

    As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

  • by Asprin ( 545477 ) <<gsarnold> <at> <>> on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:27AM (#3450952) Homepage Journal
    *** Possible Offtopic Alert ***

    With Windows 3.x (the _old_ days :), it was possible to set any arbitrary program as your Windows shell by editing the SHELL= line in the SYSTEM.INI file. It wasn't used much because when Windows started, your program would run automatically until you closed it, and then it would shut down Windows. However, we experimented with several programs (Usher - anyone remember USHER?, Norton Desktop) as PROGMAN replacements for a couple of years while user interfaces were still in R&D at MS. :)

    My point is that at that time the design and contruction of Win3x led to absolutely amazing amounts of public discourse on USENET and FIDONet about whether Windows should be considered an OS or merely a shell. That is, whether the Windowing API was robust enough to provide OS features without having DOS around to back-end everything.


    So help me GOD, if you little buggers start a war like this over IE, I'm gonna hunt you all down and remove the '/' keys from all your keyboards myself! [grin]
  • by dcgaber ( 473400 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:32AM (#3450992)
    The DoJ has absolutely nothing to do with this phase of the trial, in fact they oppose it. They have a seperate remedy proposal ::cough:: sellout ::cough:: that they are trying to get the judge to aprove. It is far weaker remedies than what the non-settling states are proposing, and most all credible commentators believe it will do absolutely nothing.

    The one to have faith in is the non-settling state AGs who are still pursuing the case. The DoJ has determined they don't care, they got enough of MS $$ to satisfy their needs.
  • by dipfan ( 192591 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:34AM (#3451017) Homepage
    There's a very good reason why Microsoft has withdrawn its witnesses: the states aren't allowed to introduce "new" evidence, and so were hoping to raise some 14 rather embarassing documents from Microsoft with MS employees. So MS withdrew the witnesses, and now the states can't raise the documents (it seems). Great tactic, it has made the states' lawyers look foolish.

    There has been a couple of news items about this, there's one from the FT here [] - it says:

    Lawyers for the nine litigating US states in the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings yesterday appeared to have been comprehensively out-manoeuvered by their counterparts defending the software giant, after the Microsoft legal team decided to halve the number of defence witnesses it would call.

    In particular, Microsoft's decision not to call Richard Fade, its executive in charge of relations with computer manufacturers, means the states' lawyers will probably not be able to enter critical evidence before the court.

    This is the latest blow to the states' case. Earlier in the hearings, their lawyers misunderstood rules about how new witnesses should be called, leaving them without key testimony.

    Great news, huh?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:39AM (#3451059)
    D:\>clip /?
    Clip version 1.1. Copyright 1997 Microsoft Corporation. ...

    For years MS has distributed a bunch of useful command-line tools in the resource kit. Things like clip.exe and shutdown.exe. Sounds like what he was trying to say is that they bought a clue and are going to include this stuff in the actual product.

    It's completely retarded to refer to the NT command interpreter as "DOS", but I'll blame that on the fact that he was speaking to a group of NT admins and had to dumb things down :P
  • by ocelotbob ( 173602 ) <> on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:45AM (#3451118) Homepage
    More importantly, you can change the browser and have no loss of functionality. KDE has well-defined hooks so that one can use whatever browser they choose - you can download kmozilla and have konqueror and the rest of KDE use the Gecko engine to render HTML instead of using KHTML
  • Missed in the hubbub (Score:3, Informative)

    by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <> on Thursday May 02, 2002 @11:58AM (#3451231) Homepage

    It seems to me that one point that's been missed in the hubbub about whether KDE and GNOME are desktop environments or part of the operating system is that the witness was wrong about the web browsers' removability. It's quite possible to pull remove the web browser from either KDE or GNOME. If I decide that Konqueror is taking up valuable space that should be saved for Mozilla, I can just rpm -e kdeaddons-konqueror and it's gone. Similarly I can remove galeon with rpm -e galeon. I'll lose some functionality by doing so, true, but neither one is so deeply entwined into the system that it's unremovable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02, 2002 @12:04PM (#3451282)
    see xclip.
  • The Dead Cow (Score:5, Informative)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <> on Thursday May 02, 2002 @12:08PM (#3451315) Homepage Journal
    You can read the whole transcript [] on the Microsoft web site:

    Q. You mentioned in paragraph 20 TCP/IP. Could you tell us what is TCP/IP?
    A. Well, the initials stand for transmission control protocol slash Internet protocol, and these are the two primary protocols used in the Internet for computers to communicate with each other.
    Q. Is TCP/IP something that is part of the operating system or part of the Web browser?
    A. In... I guess I would say part of the operating system in the sense as this section has illustrated, the functionality of operating systems have constantly increased over the past decades, and I believe almost every operating system, commercial operating system, I know of today provides TCP/IP whether or not, because -- if I can -- there are many other functions, such as FTP and others, that rely upon IP in order to do their job.
    So there are many other functions besides browsing that operating systems rely upon these things, so therefore it would have to be part of the operating system.
    Q. As part of the operating system in Windows 95, is that your testimony?
    A. It was added, as I mentioned, over time. I don't -- I believe it was added into Windows 95. I forgot exactly which version it was added into.
    Q. And in the current version of windows today, it's part of the operating system and not part of the Web browser. Is that your testimony?
    A. As I said, as in many other -- most other commercial operating systems, I believe it is part of the key functions of the operating system.
    Q. Let's turn if we could to paragraph 22 of your testimony, which is at page 11. Professor, at paragraph 22 you mention IBM's OS/2 Warp 3 operating system. Do you see that.
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. And you say that IBM's OS/2 Warp operating system included Web browsing software. Do you see that?
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. Was the OS/2 Web browser removable without impairing the functionality of the IBM operating system?
    A. I do not know that. I did not study that aspect. My point in this section was to illustrate that these functionalities are included in operating systems in various ways.
    Q. Since you don't know about OS/2, is there any other operating system you're aware of in which the Web browsing functionality is commingled with the operating system?
    A. Yes, I do, if we take the view that the Web browsing functionality is also relied upon in other parts of the operating system.
    Q. Which operating systems would those be?
    A. Well, some examples, and there may be many others, would be the KDE user interface or GUI that exists on the Linux operating system.
    Q. Now, KDE is not an operating system; correct?
    A. I think I -- every definition in this court it would be middleware, in which case it would be a platform software.
    Q. KDE is the graphic user interface, graphical user interface, for the Linux operating system; is that correct?
    A. Yes. It's one of the interfaces available.
    Q. It can be removed and replaced; correct?
    A. Well, it can be -- if it is removed, of course, by -- if it's just removed, then the user will not be able to use the system. You could replace it by others and, in fact, most of the others I'm aware of likewise have, as you would call it, commingled Web browsing with their functionality.
    Q. In Windows can you remove the graphical user interface?
    THE COURT: Are you talking about now?
    MR. HODGES: Today, correct.
    A. As I understand -- I believe it's either yes or will soon be. I believe the provision that the Microsoft has agreed to as part of the settlement is that the end user would be able to remove access to the browser, if that was your question.
    Q. My question is: Can the graphical user interface of Windows be removed?
    A. I'm sorry. No, I do not believe so. It would no longer be Windows.
    Q. Has it ever been the case that the graphical user interface of Windows could be removed?
    A. I guess the answer might be yes in the sense, as I said again in this session, at one time operating systems had no graphical interface at all if you go back to essentially the original MS-DOS. So this is the examples of the kinds of functionality that operating systems have increasingly provided to users to enhance their effectiveness. So, yes, there was a point in time where it did not exist and there's a point in time where it was added to the operating system.
    Q. If KDE is removed from the Linux operating system, then its Web browsing functionality is also removed; is that correct?
    A. Well, the Web browsing that's provided through the interface is removed, yes.
    Q. The Web browsing provided through KDE; correct?
    A. That is correct.
    Q. Now, you say that, in paragraph 24 -- it's actually on page 12, paragraph 24. I'll read this to you. "One cannot delete the Web browser from KDE without losing the ability to manage files on the user's own hard disk." Do you see that language?
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. Now, isn't it the case that files can be managed by using standard UNIX command in the shell even if KDE is not installed?
    A. That is correct. The assumption here was we are talking about the user using the system as a modern operating system which requires access to this kind of interface.
    Q. We've talked about Windows and we've talked about the KDE interface, and my question is: Can you name any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
    A. I have not attempted to identify all the others. As I indicate in this whole section, these are examples of the kinds of innovative features that vendors constantly add to the systems. Some have reached that stage of benefiting from the kinds of interactions possible, some have not. These are the ones I've identified as part of the study so far.
    Q. Based on your experience as a computer scientist and as a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that binds the Web browser into the operating system? MR. LACOVARA: I'll object. We have now shifted from commingling to binding without a definition. It may have just been inadvertent on Mr. Hodges' part.
    MR. HODGES: It was inadvertent, and I appreciate that clarification.
    Q. If I change the word from "binding" to "commingling," let me ask you, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
    MR. LACOVARA: I would object to that. I think it's the third time he's asked the question. Asked and answered. THE COURT: I'll let him to proceed. But this is the last time.
    A. Okay. If I recall the question, I think I answered it in terms of identifying KDE and I believe GNOME, which is another interface on Linux, also has the Web browser functionality integrated. So those are two examples. And, once again, this was not an attempt to exhaustively study all the others or systems that are under development today.
    Q. GNOME is a -- it's spelled G-N-O-M-E; correct?
    A. That's correct, yes.
    Q. It's not the way most people would pronounce that word. GNOME is also a graphical user interface for Linux; correct.
    A. That is correct. It provides that kind of functionality.
    Q. And it is also, like KDE, a removable graphical user interface for Linux; correct?
    A. It's removable in the sense if you remove it you no longer have access to a graphical user interface.
    Q. It's not an operating system; correct?
    A. Well, it is part of what we described as middleware under the understanding of the terms being used, and we go from there.
    Q. I'll try to stay in order, but I need to flip back to page 11 and paragraph 23 if I could. You say in the second sentence --
    A. I'm sorry. What page?
    Q. I'm sorry. It's page 11, paragraph 23. I can tell you, Professor, it also appears up there on the monitor in front of you, so whatever is easier for you is fine.
    THE COURT: The small monitor has it, too.
    THE WITNESS: It's sometimes helpful to see the context. That's why I like to look at the documents.
    Q. The second line of paragraph 23 -- the second sentence, I'm sorry -- you say that Windows, like all commercial operating systems of which I am aware, ships with a simple text editor, Notepad in the case of Windows, that is a relatively self-contained block of code that is easily removable. What's the basis for that statement?
    A. It's a long sentence. Is there some particular part of it you're having a question about?
    Q. Yes. I want to know what's the basis for your statement that the Notepad is easily removable?
    A. The fact that there is a file -- I can't remember it's name, but it's probably something like Notepad.exe -- that in theory one could delete without having any other effects upon the operating system.
    Q. Is this based on your review of the Windows XP source code?
    A. Not specifically.
    Q. Professor, have you had an opportunity to review the direct testimony of Robert Short of Microsoft?
    A. I have seen it.
    Q. Mr. Short is the vice president of Windows core
    technologies. Does that sound right to you?
    A. Yes, it does.
    Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short testified that there are
    cross-dependencies between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
    A. After I wrote my report, I believe I remembered hearing
    that mentioned in his report or his testimony. Yes the answer
    Q. Do you disagree with Mr. Short?
    A. I assume he knows much more about the internals of Windows
    than I do. I believe my point may still be true, although I've
    not consulted with him, in that I believe the removable of
    Notepad does not impact any other part of the system.
    I believe in his testimony -- I think he was trying to
    illustrate that other parts -- using my earlier diagram of HTML
    Renderer, for example, or Shell Doc Viewer -- that removal of
    other parts of the middleware that might seem to be unrelated
    might cause Notepad to fail.
    Am I clear on the duality here or the differences? Am
    I clear on the differences that removing Notepad may not cause
    other parts of the system to fail, but that removing other
    parts of the system that may appear to be file removed from
    Notepad might cause Notepad to fail. I think that is two
    different issues.
    Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short used the term
    A. I don't recall what exact term he used.
    Q. If there are cross-dependencies, doesn't that apply that
    Notepad relies on Internet Explorer and Internet Explorer
    relies on Notepad?
    A. I can't speak for him.
    Q. Is that what the term cross-dependencies means to you?
    A. That would be a one interpretation, yes.
    Q. And if there are cross-dependencies, wouldn't it be the
    case that removing Notepad would affect other parts of the
    Windows operating system product?
    A. That might be true. I was only trying to give a simple
    example here. If that one doesn't apply I'll have to find some
    other example.
    Q. I take it you were not aware of any cross-dependency involving the Notepad?
    A. No, I was not.
    Q. Is there any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
    A. As I said, this is not an area that I have studied. If you would like me to speculate or to try to conjure up a reason, I could try to do so, but it would be totally ad hoc thinking.
    Q. I don't want you to speculate. I want to ask if you are aware of any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer? And if you don't know, that's acceptable.
    A. What might be helpful is the realization based upon my many years trying to understand all of the inter-dependencies that go on in a complex product is extremely difficult, and often I've been quite surprised myself to realize that one part of the system was able to make use of another part.
    So, you know, with some careful thought it is possible I might find that there actually is a reason for cross- dependencies. But it was not something that immediately came to mind.
    Q. So you could speculate that, but you don't know. Is that an accurate summary?
    A. As I've said, I have not studied that issue.
    Q. Now, you have reviewed the Windows XP source code; correct?
    A. Yes, I have. Though I will not say I've looked at every 36 million or so lines of code carefully.
    Q. Is it 36 million or 39 million?
    A. As I said, a million here, a million there, it adds up after a while I guess.
    Q. Pretty soon you're talking about real lines of code?
    A. Exactly.
    Q. What exactly have you done?
    A. The main purpose of looking -- once again, given both the limited amount of time and the size, was really to better understand the way in which a system was modularized, the way in which it's broken up into individual routines and the types of interdepencies that exist, so it's more to get a feel for the overall structure of the system.
    Q. Is there any way you can quantify how much effort was involved in your review of the Windows XP source code?
    A. Physical amount of time, probably 8 or 10 hours.
  • by kelzer ( 83087 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @02:06PM (#3452137) Homepage

    Windows and Microsoft shouldn't go out of its way to make it more difficult for non-MS apps to work well.

    They don't, that's just anti-MS FUD.

    Bullshit. You all can mod me down as flamebait, but I just can't let you get away with this lie. All one has to do is go back to the Caldera lawsuit, and read the transcripts. There was email after email between high-ranking MS execs coming up with a strategy to sabotage DR-DOS's perceived interoperability with Windows. They even went so far as to encrypt the code that displayed the "error" to make it harder to see that they were doing.

    It ain't FUD if it's a matter of public record.

  • by Thurn und Taxis ( 411165 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @04:05PM (#3453039) Homepage
    the organization as a whole has done a good job of finding spokespeople (like the professor) who appear "respectable"

    The particularly amusing thing about this statement is that this "computer and software expert" (from the article) is not a professor in the computer science department, but a professor in the business school. I guess Ron Rivest wasn't for sale. :-)
  • by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @01:55AM (#3455629) Journal
    This link was provided by someone who replied to my post. For those of you who haven't notice, CNN pulled the original article and replaced it with a more Microsoft-friendly one. Total bullshit. I am sure MS offered them a chunk of cash to keep this on the down-low.

    Go grab it here: html []

All laws are simulations of reality. -- John C. Lilly