Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[John Bokma]

"John Bokma" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[ w3c "standard" v.s. ISO ]

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?

That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.

 

[Mike Meyer]

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

I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.

Since a compliant browser has hooks that let users change their
behavior, well-written HTML will degrade gracefully in the face of a
browser that's had features turned off or had their behavior
changed. Dealing with browser bugs isnt any harder than that.

<mike

 

[Roedy Green]

That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.

Because ... what are the consequences?

 

[Roedy Green]

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.

I avoid MS products whenever possible. Surely others feel the same
way because we have had it up to the teeth with MS dirty tactics. That
has to be factored into profitability as well.

 

[John Bokma]

Because ... what are the consequences?

If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <[email protected]> spake unto us, saying:

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.

We were talking sunOS. At least I was!

Peter

 

[Roedy Green]

If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.

No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.

 

[Eike Preuss]

John Bokma wrote:
[snip]

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.

And if companies are allowed to behave this way (because of your
'nice,fatalistic' argument), this will never change.
Showing companies that you don't excuse such behavior would include not
buying there products, using other products, whatever. To say that they
are just playing the evil part that somebody *has* to play, is to excuse
their behavior, IMO.

++ Eike

 

[Mike Schilling]

I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.

I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.

When we've had similar issues with C++ compilers, patches have usually been
forthcoming, or perhaps optimization has to be turned off on a few source
files. In a few areas, though, the solution has been "Don't do that", and
again, the fact that the standard supports it is irrelevant.

 

[John Wingate]

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,


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.

You snipped the bits that provide the context showing that here Peter and I
were talking about versions of SunOS, not MS-DOS.

I too don't recall an MS-DOS 3.4. The Victor/Sirius version I mentioned
was definitely 3.10 (three point ten)--the version byte was hex 030A.
Perhaps the gap in sequencing was introduced to separate the versions
for IBM-compatible machines from the versions for non-IBM-compatible
machines.

 

[Mike Meyer]

I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.

Been there, done that, threw out the T-shirt as to ugly to wear.

Yes, you have to work around bugs in the popular browsers. That hasn't
changed since the first published specs showed up. That doesn't mean
you throw out the standards and only support a trivial set of
browsers. That means you restrict yourself to a subset of the
standard, or - better - detect the deficiency and fail soft, the same
as you would do when you get a visit from someone who's disabled some
feature you want to use. In extreme cases, you wind up implementing
something twice: once for busted-but-popular browsers, and once for
people using browsers written by developers who read specifications.

<mike

 

[Aragorn]

:/

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,


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.

There wàs indeed a version 3.4, but I don't know whether this was
MS-DOS. IBM did have a PC-DOS 3.4 at one stage, where it offered the
purchaser of the PS/2 series computers the choice between DOS 3.4 and
DOS 4.00.

However, Peter was of course not talking of DOS. ;-)

 

[John W. Kennedy]

Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!

No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he was.

 

[joe]

No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he
was.

Well, what he said was

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

What you say he did is what he actually did, but what he said gives a
different impression. I don't think he's careless or stupid, so I
think he said that in order to create the impression in the minds of
the people listening to the interview that he's responsible for the
internet.

That's just what politicians do, regardless of party affiliation.

joe

 

[David Schwartz]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"

I avoid MS products whenever possible. Surely others feel the same
way because we have had it up to the teeth with MS dirty tactics. That
has to be factored into profitability as well.

Definitely. Sometimes you have to make nice if you want to make money.

I have no complaints with people who choose to avoid a particular
company's products because they don't like that company's tactics. And I
have no problem with them spreading their views and sharing their beliefs.

Heck, I work for a company that probably has made quite a few sales
because people were looking for a product by "anyone but Microsoft".

That said, I do agree there were some "dirty tactics" in the sense that
they were pure hardball and could have resulted in inferior products getting
greater market share. However, I don't think they came anywhere near force
or fraud, with very few exceptions.

Notable exceptions included cases where Microsoft told companies they
had no intention of releasing a competing product to get technical details
and later turned around and released competing products or cases where
Microsoft threatened legal action they knew they had no chance of winning at
a fair hearing. These did border on force/fraud and in some cases, Microsoft
did get spanked for these tactics.

DS

 

[John Bokma]

No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.

ISO HTML and HTML 4.01 differ. If you were asked to write a validating
parser for the HTML standard, (as in ISO), and you wrote one for HTML 4.01
(as in recommendation), you made quite a mistake.

 

[John Bokma]

John Bokma wrote:
[snip]

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.

And if companies are allowed to behave this way (because of your
'nice,fatalistic' argument), this will never change.
Showing companies that you don't excuse such behavior would include
not buying there products, using other products, whatever. To say that
they are just playing the evil part that somebody *has* to play, is to
excuse their behavior, IMO.

If you think you can direct the development of human behaviour by not
buying a Microsoft product, be my guest. I rather waste my time on other
things. I think your "this will never change" is wrong, but it certainly
will not change in my lifetime, and I doubt if this kind of human behaviour
is going to change in many centuries to come.

 

[John W. Kennedy]

Well, what he said was

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

What you say he did is what he actually did, but what he said gives a
different impression. I don't think he's careless or stupid, so I
think he said that in order to create the impression in the minds of
the people listening to the interview that he's responsible for the
internet.

For "the Internet" as 99% of the American people comprehend it, he /was/
largely responsible, on the political end. The fact that the
"Information Superhighway" turned out to be implemented as a massive
explosion of the former ARPANet was an unforeseeable accident of
history, resulting from the coincidental timing of the "Information
Superhighway" initiative, the introduction of the Web, and (to some
degree) the ARPANet worm.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

 

[joe]

For "the Internet" as 99% of the American people comprehend it, he
/was/ largely responsible, on the political end. The fact that the
"Information Superhighway" turned out to be implemented as a massive
explosion of the former ARPANet was an unforeseeable accident of
history, resulting from the coincidental timing of the "Information
Superhighway" initiative, the introduction of the Web, and (to some
degree) the ARPANet worm.

This was said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer in 1999. By that
time the Internet was quite a bit more than ARPANet, and my guess is
that 99% of the American people thought of it as it was in 1999. His
comment created the impression that he was responsible for what
existed then.

Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a
false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false
impression, there would not have been any jokes about him. If all he
said was what he actually did, this would never have been an issue.

Joe

 

[Michael Heiming]

We were talking sunOS. At least I was!

Sure, but someone mentioned doze, so people can jump onto the
bandwagon. ;-)

Honestly, even in colm it gets difficult to find a thread not
mentioning doze in one or another way. Linux desktop market share
seems to raise, slow but continuously. Unimportant if someone
likes it or not, it just happens.