Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Roedy Green]

Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.

What does it take in your book for a standards organisation to be
"official" -- a Swiss head office, a room at the UN, a branch on the
US government tree?

 

[Roedy Green]

Yup. When NS was the 800 lb gorilla on they acted like MS,

I think you would need to give some examples. They gave away a free
browser. What other evil thing did they do?

 

[Roedy Green]

By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of
post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all concerned
and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well,
perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this
money on it.

The worry was that the work would not be completed in time. The work
had to be done or the programs would simply stop working. There was
no way to avoid the expense.

 

[Roedy Green]

As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car
without an engine.

But that is not what was happening. It was not Microsoft selling
computers with MS OSs. MS was arm-twisting retailers like me to
bundle a copy of Windows with every sale whether the customer wanted
it or not. I think some imagine a computer is worthless without
Windows.

That gave their OS a grossly unfair price advantage.

 

[Roedy Green]

Actually, *any* company with a defacto monopoly pulling such a stunt
would be found in violation of the law. Such companies operate under
different legal rules than other companies. This was true when IBM was
the company that was dancing with the DOJ, and it'll be true long
after MS is nothing more than a memory. I don't know if anyone has
spelled this out to MS, but IBM was told so in no uncertain terms.

MS would still be dancing with the DOJ hand Gates not bribed Bush to
pull the plug on the prosecution.

 

[Roedy Green]

You've been around long enough to learn to recognize this poster and
ignore him.

Sounds like your plonk filter is on the fritz then.

 

[John Bokma]

That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a
recommendation, while files claiming to contain C++ are all
ISO-conformant, because that's a standard?

If so, you've got things precisely backwards. C++ compilers that
contain extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML
parsers that accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.

My goodness, re read that again please, and rethink what you really want
to say. I mean "claiming to contain C++". Is that like: all files
claiming to contain HTML are automatically conforming to the ISO HTML
standard?

 

[John Bokma]

Neither the Netscape executives nor Netscape the company have been
killed.

They were in one race, and they lost it.

Microsoft is a collection of human beings. They don't get to excuse
anti-social behaviour on the basis that they're only trying to make
money.

I see little difference with other big companies. You're right that there
is no excuse for such behaviour, but if MS isn't doing it, another company
will take their place.

 

[John Bokma]

What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
and what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
irrelevant.

So how do you develop a browser? I assume you have some experience with
programming, or is that trial and error programming? Hack until it
works?

 

[John Bokma]

What does it take in your book for a standards organisation to be
"official" -- a Swiss head office, a room at the UN, a branch on the
US government tree?

Being recognized as one by other standards organizations? Otherwise I can
start my own tomorrow.

 

[David Schwartz]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:36 -0700, "David Schwartz"

The worry was that the work would not be completed in time. The work
had to be done or the programs would simply stop working. There was
no way to avoid the expense.

I understand why the argument is invalid. I'm presenting it as an
example of a similar invalid argument.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:36:53 -0700, "David Schwartz"

But that is not what was happening. It was not Microsoft selling
computers with MS OSs. MS was arm-twisting retailers like me to
bundle a copy of Windows with every sale whether the customer wanted
it or not. I think some imagine a computer is worthless without
Windows.

It is Microsoft's view that a computer is worthless without Windows.
They are fully entitled to have that view.

That gave their OS a grossly unfair price advantage.

It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.

DS

 

[Richard Steiner]

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,

Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.

MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.

 

[Mike Meyer]

It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.

Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
That obligation has nothing to do with computing - it's to make a
profit. It's MS's habit of doing things in pursuit of profit that,
while short of force, are borderline fraud, and are illegal, immoral,
unethical, bad for their business partners, bad for their customers,
bad for the industry and bad for society that causes people to
characterize them as "evil".

<mike

 

[Roedy Green]

I understand why the argument is invalid. I'm presenting it as an
example of a similar invalid argument.

Not every post is meant to contradict or inform the OP.

 

[Roedy Green]

It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.

I think that what they did borders on force/fraud.

 

[David Schwartz]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:44:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"

I think that what they did borders on force/fraud.

I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their
obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders
on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud. However, the use of things
too close to force/fraud often backfires. Microsoft has an obligation to be
strategic and look nice where those things beneficially impact the bottom
line.

It's Bill Gates' job to make his company worth as much as possible.

DS

 

[Mike Schilling]

My goodness, re read that again please, and rethink what you really want
to say. I mean "claiming to contain C++". Is that like: all files
claiming to contain HTML are automatically conforming to the ISO HTML
standard?

You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be
observed, so what is the reason?

 

[Mike Schilling]

Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.

Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free), that's
not a feasible goal.
..

 

[Mike Schilling]

So how do you develop a browser? I assume you have some experience with
programming, or is that trial and error programming? Hack until it
works?

A browser that's perfectly compliant but can't render the pages actually
found would be of only academic interest. So, yes, the standards (and
recommendations) are one source of requirements, but the actual contents of
the internet is another.