| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft must give states Windows code, says judge | |
|
||
| Time: 12:28 EST/17:28 GMT | News Source: CNN | Posted By: William Sossamon | ||
|
Thanks Mark. Microsoft Corp. will have to supply the computer code for its Windows program to a group of states seeking stiffer antitrust sanctions against the software giant, a federal judge ruled Friday. Nine state attorneys general had argued that they needed to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim it could not offer a simpler version of the Windows personal computer operating system, stripped of features like the Internet Explorer browser. "It seems to me that if your side has access to it, then the other side, frankly, should have access to it," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly told Microsoft's lawyers in a conference call with attorneys from both sides. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 213 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 2/16/2002 1:01:23 PM |
|
I fail to see how the Windows XP Embedded source code is going to help either side. From my understanding, it's a different animal than the Windows XP you can buy in stores, since it's intended for embedded systems. It may be built from the same binaries, but it seems that, if it's as componentized as MS claims, it is fundamentally different in the way it operates.
I can just see the technical lackies for the states saying "Microsoft was lying, all you have to do is remove package X from this XP Embedded thing. Microsoft: "You're talking about a fundamentally different product. It's not the same thing at all. You're rather stupid, and I think you should be killed." Lackies: "Oh, yeah..." |
| #2 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 2/16/2002 1:04:16 PM |
| #3: I'm fairly certain that Microsoft isn't just going to send the code out in a big manilla envelope labeled "Windows Source Code - Top Secret!" I would imagine that they technical lackies for the states will have to travel to a secure location to view the code. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.163.49) at 2/16/2002 2:53:40 PM |
|
"Under the judge's order, Microsoft would provide access to the latest code for Windows, including Windows XP embedded.."
#5 The order doesn't talk about the code to Windows XP Embedded only. Windows XP Professional's code is also included here. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/16/2002 3:02:19 PM |
|
The slashdot crowd is making a huge deal of this, which is kind of funny.
This isn't that huge of a win for the States, nor is it a loss for Microsoft. Who cares? IE is not embedded into the kernel, it is embedded into the OS. It's a reusable component which provides rich formatting. It can't be extracted from the OS without reduplicating all of the inherent functionality into each subsystem that uses it. What the states should be asking for is Microsoft to document the APIs that this IE component publishes in such a way that a competitor could make a replacement plug-in. I think the fact that Netscape, et al haven't suggested this is because they aren't smart enough to figure out how to do it and know they'd just get egg on their face from not being able to deliver. |
| #5 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 2/16/2002 3:36:14 PM |
|
BobSmith: I realize that it isn't just the XP Embedded code, but it's the inclusion of the XP Embedded code that bothers me. The morons that the states are going to have interpret the code for them will see the embedded code and wonder "if they can remove it from this one, why can't they remove it from the other one."... assuming that IE can be removed from the embedded version, or is included to begin with. Does anyone know? This post was edited by mikekol on Saturday, February 16, 2002 at 15:36. |
| #6 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 2/16/2002 6:15:36 PM |
| Gee #12, you're so smart. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/16/2002 7:25:00 PM |
|
I think Larry Ellison get's to determine what "easy" means, or maybe Scott McNealy.
Yeah, this case has turned into a circus of Microsoft competitors. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/16/2002 9:07:57 PM |
|
BTW. CNN.com has been running one of their Quick Vote polls on this issue. The poll has been advertised all over the Linux news sites so that they can "stuff" the poll. So to be fair I mention it here. :)
|
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/17/2002 11:47:28 AM |
|
#25 - You are saying someone is making money selling Linux? Wow.
|
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/17/2002 8:43:48 PM |
|
#32 - I said making money. None of those companies are profitable.
#29 - You seem surprised that so many people are happy with Microsoft software. You also don't seem to quite understand that the comments are not pro-Microsoft so much as anti-Whiner. As far as your suggestion to install Linux. Been there, done that, sent home postcards. I've probably used Linux much more so than yourself(Installed it for the first time back in '92). I've also rejected it completely in recent years because I find it completely unsuitable to my particular needs. I have a better idea. Why don't you go out and buy a copy of Windows XP and install it? I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised and happy with it and quickly begin to question why you waste so much time configuring your Linux boxes and how much more work you can get done with XP. My best friend who I introduced to Linux back in '93 recently installed WinXP on his computer, and after working with it for a week wiped out his Linux partition. He's a Unix admin, but he deals with real systems running AIX not toy Linux boxes. Computers are not a religion, they are a tool. They are about getting stuff done. |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/17/2002 10:25:15 PM |
|
In response to #29 and others:
I defend Microsoft when they deserve defending. I think I, and many others in these forums, have been driven to extremes by anti-Microsoft zealotry. I've been using Microsoft products for many years, and for the most part, I've been either satisfied or very happy with my experience. I've found their software to do what it advertised, and often do it better than the competing products. So you can imagine I would get angry when people fling insults my way, saying I'm a moron or fool for using "The Great Satan's" products. They cite business practices and buggy software as the reason I must be a fool for supporting such an obviously horrible company. What they ignore is all the good Microsoft has done, and all the excellent products they have released. They refuse to give credit where credit is due. Of course it's true that many of Microsoft contributions have been built on the work of others, but how does that nullify the fact that it was Microsoft that brought to innovations to so many people? Microsoft has made the world (yes, the entire world) a better place with their products, original or not, buggy or not. For that, they deserve credit. Credit which is rarely given. There is also the fact that those that criticize Microsoft would be crushed in the position Microsoft is in. Microsoft has to deal with delivering reliable products to hundreds of millions of people. Does anybody in here honestly think that Redhat could do the same? At any rate, I don't blindly believe in anything. I do my best to ensure that my beliefs are grounded in evidence and logic, not rhetoric. The evidence shows Microsoft in a mixed light. On one hand, they have completed their primary mission statement... a computer on every desk and in every home... on the other; they have used their position to compete extremely well, to the point some would say they are competing unfairly. That's not the light zealots would have Microsoft be shown in, and while I would be happy to settle for a middle ground, I'm forced to extremes by people without reason or logic. I defend Microsoft because I believe they are worth defending. By the way, I've mentioned this before, but if you really want to know how it would be possible for me to defend Microsoft so vehemently, check out "Breaking Windows" by David Bank. It's an extremely balanced analysis of Microsoft during the 90's. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 213 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:54:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
