| 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 |
 |
Legal News: Statement on July 12 Fine Announced by European Commission | |
|
||
| Time: 16:03 EST/21:03 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. issued the following statement by General Counsel Brad Smith, following the decision by the European Commission to impose a €280.5 million fine against the company: “We have great respect for the Commission and this process, but we do not believe any fine, let alone a fine of this magnitude, is appropriate given the lack of clarity in the Commission’s original decision and our good-faith efforts over the past two years. We will ask the European courts to determine whether our compliance efforts have been sufficient and whether the Commission’s unprecedented fine is justified. Despite these fines, Microsoft remains totally committed to full compliance with the Commission’s 2004 decision. We will continue to do whatever the Commission asks to comply with its decision as these issues are considered by the courts. Also available: | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:39:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/12/2006 4:37:28 PM |
|
Oh, what utter B.S. MS tried this trick before too during the DoJ antitrust trial if I remember correctly, the "they weren't clear, exact and specific enough" game. Something tells me that nothing will ever be clear enough for MS when they don't want to do it. Yep, as usual it's not MS' fault.
|
| #2 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 7/12/2006 9:17:09 PM |
|
EU - leading the world
how long until the media-player-less version of XP begins to outsell the regular XP? |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/12/2006 10:09:55 PM |
| Extra-Territoriality gone mad! Windows-N is an indirect fine - designed to add additional costs on one hand and the intentional dilution of the Micrsosoft brand on the other. It is even more outrageous that now the EU wants MS to build a network client for Open Source and other competitors - when if they had a clue at all, the EU would know any competitor could and should build its own. I wish so many times MS were a private company again and it would simply pull its products from any market that behaved like this. It's outrageous. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 7/12/2006 10:44:13 PM |
|
#1 There's a good reason for Microsoft to act this way... a very good reason indeed... which they have spelled out many times...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html "Linux can win as long as services/protocols are commodities." Linux can win if services are open and protocols are simple, transparent. Microsoft can only win if services are closed and protocols are complex, opaque. #3 "EU wants MS to build a network client for Open Source and other competitors" Can you point to the ruling which asks for this please? |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/12/2006 11:21:29 PM |
|
"complex, opaque" aren't mentioned in the Halloween document.
What the document does say: "Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols Linux's homebase is currently commodity network and server infrastructure. By folding extended functionality (e.g. Storage+ in file systems, DAV/POD for networking) into today's commodity services, we raise the bar & change the rules of the game." Linux wants to steal enhancements to Microsoft protocols without paying a penny to develop their own. Microsoft, knowing that standing still allows the OSS thieves to prosper, wants to extend the functionality of their protocols. Simply: Linux = Thievery and standing still by using old protocols and doing zero innovation (ie Samba) Microsoft = Innovation and enhanced functionality to make their systems more attractive to customers and thereby offerring added value. I personnally prefer innovation (Microsoft) over stagnation/thievery (Linux). This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 23:26. |
| #6 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/12/2006 11:25:30 PM |
|
Other things that are also true in the Halloween document:
"Linux is unlikely to be a threat on the desktop Linux is unlikely to be a threat in the medium-long term on the desktop for several reasons: Poor end-user apps & focus. OSS development process are far better at solving individual component issues than they are at solving integrative scenarios such as end-to-end ease of use. Switching costs for desktop installed base. Switching desktops is hard and a challenger must be able to prove a significant marginal advantage. Linux's process is more focused on second-mover advantages (e.g. copying what's been proven to work) and is therefore unlikely to provide the first-mover advantage necessary to provide switching impetus. UNIX heritage will slow encroachment. Ease of use must be engineered from the ground up. Linux's hacker orientation will never provide the ease-of-use requirements of the average desktop user." Linux = Copying / stagnation Linux = 1% of the market and holding! This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 23:26. |
| #7 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 7/13/2006 12:07:42 AM |
|
#5 ""complex, opaque" aren't mentioned in the Halloween document."
I never said it was included in the Halloween I document, I quite clearly quoted the text from it and then included the comment so that someone like you could understand what it means. Here I'll repeat it again: "Linux can win as long as services/protocols are commodities." The rest of your blabber is just that.... why didn't you quote the following: "Linux is a real, credible OS + Development process. - Trusted in mission criticial environments - Linux = Best of Breed UNIX - Only Unix OS to gain market share - Linux's process iterates VERY fast" (unlike Microsoft's, e.g. IE, Vista etc.) Or better yet... "Beating Linux - Beat UNIX - Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols" The second point there is right on the money! |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/13/2006 12:27:50 AM |
|
Very simply... OSS, or any competitor should do and be rewarded for "their own" work!
|
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/13/2006 1:15:28 AM |
|
#7 It was dishonest to suggest that anywhere in the Halloween document Microsoft suggested making its protocols complex or opaque.
Microsoft was clearly, very clearly, suggesting enhancing its protocols to add value. As they clearly stated, Linux benefits from locking users into old, outdated versions of Microsoft protocols and trying to force Microsoft to give away those protocols for free. I prefer innovation. Linux doesn't. As for Linux ... even in the server space it now grows barely faster than Microsoft, and since Microsofts share is so much bigger, Linux will never, ever catch up. I'm sure Linux customers are getting tired of wating for even one new innovation from Linux. |
| #10 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 7/13/2006 4:21:00 AM |
|
#8 Did you not understand my question?
#9 There was no dishonesty on my part. Just the usual lack of reading and comprehension skills on your part. We've discussed your inabilities in both these areas in the past and it appears that you've made no effort to improve either of them. I'm not going to dumb down everything simply for your benefit - sorry. "As they clearly stated" What Microsoft made perfectly clear in that particular Halloween document is that: - "Linux can win as long as services/protocols are commodities." - "Beating Linux"..."Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols" Your ramblings are nothing more than your interpretations of said document. That doesn't mean that they are incorrect, it simply means that you cannot speak on behalf of Microsoft and that your interpretations are on level footing with anyone else's interpretations. "I prefer innovation" You prefer a single entity being in control of everything... not innovation. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/13/2006 10:29:45 AM |
|
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060713034234850
|
| #12 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/13/2006 12:46:30 PM |
|
If Microsoft is in favor of "Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols", and Linux is against it, that means:
Linux is against extended functionality. Linux is against new protocols. Eminently logical. Too tough for coffee girl and teaboy to understand. Linux wanted Microsoft to be a static target, stuck with protocols from the Win NT era, unable to change them or add functionality because of court battles. Instead, Microsoft is now larger than Unix in the server space, still totally dominates the desktop, and Linux growth has slowed to the point that all they get is to cherry pick new business by replacing really expensive Unix with less expensive Linux ... and old, less functional protocols than Microsofts. This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 12:49. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/13/2006 2:47:56 PM |
|
#12: And your personal hero, Bill Gates, got his ass spanked by the EU. Ha!
|
| #14 By 50038 (81.243.132.165) at 7/13/2006 3:13:22 PM |
|
#12 Please read this with an open mind and read it till the end before judging my opinion.
I am a professional programmer who has to work on Windows every day, so I'm not a linux fanboy. Linux is not against extended functionality nor new protocols. I don't think you'll find many internet/network protocols that are not available for linux. Linux does not want Microsoft to be a static target. It's about protocols being open, so that everybody can use them transparently. Microsoft tends to take a protocol add their own propriety extensions. Those "improvements" to the protocols usually don't do much to improve things (the protocol worked fine without the "improvements"), but they need to be used in the Microsoft way if you want to interact with a Microsoft operating without running into problems. But of course if you use their propriety extension, you need to sign up for their license, which might or might not be free, and even if it is free now, it might not be in the future. I have several examples where Microsoft made it's own improvements to things (I'm not limiting myself to protocols here) xml-rpc/soap, smb/samba, ntfs (the specifications keep changing, use an old version of partition magic on Windows XP and you'll see what I mean), the media player/itunes/realplayer... each with their own drm, IE/Firefox (especially the CSS and DHTML implementations), Direct X/OpenGL, IIS/Apache (Frontpage extensions), Webdav,.... The main reason this is annoying is that since microsoft keeps changing major things in their OS (yes, you can call those things improvements, just remember what media player used to be like and you'll know what I mean) it even breaks compatibility with the previous version of their own OS. So as a programmer I have to start testing now to know if our software will even work on Vista. Yes, that's an "if", I won't know till after I tested it. And yes I can test it on the beta 2 right now, but the beta is not the final version, so it's not because it works on Beta 2 that it'll work on the final version. This ends up costing us lots of time and expense. Of course if I want to fully benefit from Vista, I'll need Office 2007 and Visual Studio 2007, adding to the expense. If I don't move along and buy all their new stuff, I can usually expect that I'll end up with problems sooner or later. continued in part II |
| #15 By 50038 (81.243.132.165) at 7/13/2006 3:14:08 PM |
|
Part II
Just to give people an idea what sorta problems it causes on the OS level, just try to install a server with a 1Gbit ethernet card and workstations with 100Mbit cards. In certain circumstances it leads to problems with smb. Getting a file from the server works fast as you would expect, but putting a file on the server is extremely slow, as far as I can tell it's to do with different packetsizes being used for gigabit cards as compared to 100Mbit cards, but neither me, not the tech people I've talked to have found anywhere in Microsoft's documentation what would be the exact cause of the problem, what packetsizes are being used, let alone how to solve the problem. The only way we've found to fix it, is to remove the gigabit card and revert to 100Mbit on the server. The problem is always fixed immediately if you do that, so it's obviously not a wrong OS setting on our part. The fact is that I can hardly call that progress. As a final point : Imagine if the internet protocols were allowed to be "improved". The result would be that to go to certain parts of the internet, you would need the software from Microsoft, for other parts it could be Sun's Solaris, or maybe you'd need Redhat for that site, a part would be Mac only. I remember what it used to be like before the internet became as we now know it. You had the internet, but next to it you had Compuserve with their own stuff and AOL with their own stuff, so you needed the right software and subscription to access certain services. Now that everybody is using open internet standard protocols, I'm guaranteed I can go to any place on the net without having to worry about such things. And as a programmer I can guarantee you nobody wants to see Microsoft's source code (copyright issues), but we do need clearly defined and documented API's, so that we can write software that is guaranteed to work fine on the Microsoft operating system, and that interacts fine from other platforms (for instance our webservices on a linux server) with the Microsoft platform. That is why it is important that Microsoft gives us clear documentation for the API's so that we can write software that works the way it should, no matter what platform we use. Yes, this is much bigger than Microsoft versus Linux. It's actually about Microsoft not being allowed to hide API stuff so that no matter what we try as a programmer, our software will always be inferiour to what Microsoft brings to market, because they know about the undocumented features (hidden, secret, whatever you want to call it) in the API. That is what Europe demanded from Microsoft, that it clearly documents the features of its OS, so that it does not gain an unfair advantage from it's near monopoly position. That is the core of the case here. I tried hard to explain it as best as I can, so I hope you can understand what I am trying to say (English is my third language, so it's not that easy). Now a question for you. You keep talking about Linux protocols being "less functional" than Microsofts. Give me a specific example please. I want to know what functionality I'm overlooking, because no matter how hard I try, I cannot think of even one protocol that does not do exactly what I want it to do on any operating system, be it windows, mac os x or linux, other than interacting with the "improved" version in Windows of course. That for me really kills whatever you are trying to say so far. You talk about "less functional", but you don't back it up with anything, so please give us an example. Thanks. |
| #16 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/13/2006 11:18:16 PM |
|
#13 The EU funds Hamas, no wonder they are your heroes.
Coffee, one sweetener, one cream please. |
| #17 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/13/2006 11:21:58 PM |
|
#14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block
"In order to provide a more seamless computing experience by hiding far-sighted and comprehensive complexity behind powerfully simple (and sometimes possibly oversimplified) interlinked interfaces, Microsoft has added several important features to its own SMB implementation that expand on the original concept. For example, NTLM Version 2 was added because NTLM version 1 (which is derived from the original legacy SMB specification's requirement to utilise IBM "LanManager" passwords) utilises DES in a flawed manner. Additionally, the NT 4.0 Domain Logon protocols utilise 40-bit encryption outside of the United States, which is insecure by modern standards." |
| #18 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/13/2006 11:27:47 PM |
|
#15 "That is why it is important that Microsoft gives us clear documentation for the API's so that we can write software that works the way it should, no matter what platform we use."
Why be lazy? Create your own protocols. Prove to the world they are better than Microsofts. Release free client software. For example, instead of Samba just stealing everything Microsoft does by sniffing the wire, create a NEW file sharing server/client protocol. Wouldn't that be great! Wouldn't that make the world a better place? |
| #19 By 37047 (70.25.214.232) at 7/14/2006 7:38:07 PM |
|
Parker: What a wonderful idea! Everyone who wants to communicate between computers can write their own protocols! The windows networking experience would be so much better if no one use SMB, and everyone used a separate, proprietary protocol! No interoprability! Nothing working with anything else! No worriying about being compatible with any other product or service! Standards could simply be chucked out the window once and for all!
Let's put this in terms you can understand. Can I have fries with that? |
| #20 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/14/2006 8:19:32 PM |
|
Well donut boy, another option would be to license the protocols from Microsoft. But the GPL forbids "pacts with the Devil", and would prefer to steal those protocols or go to court to force Microsoft to give them away.
OSS is just a type of parasite. And, to be fair, Novell had no problem coming up with a new protocol. Neither did Digital. Nor Apple. Nor Sun. And I'm sure there are a bunch of others. You see, stealing Microsoft Intellectual Property seems to be more important than actually coming up with a version of NFS that a significant number of people want to use. For a company that OSS fanatics spurn as being non-innovative, its protocols are sure popular. Chocolate, with chocolate sprinkles. This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, July 14, 2006 at 20:20. |
| #21 By 50038 (81.245.248.113) at 7/15/2006 4:09:32 AM |
|
#18
We are not lazy. We wrote our own protocol to be able to connect to our windows server under all circumstances, since smb didn't work the way it should under all circumstances. On top of that, our own protocol (loosely based on webdav) actually works about 10% faster than smb. Even though we are happy with the performance of our own protocol, it cost us about 2 months to program, so it cost us a lot of time and hence money do be able to do what smb should have been doing to begin with. The fact of the matter is that we don't program on linux (i think you overlooked that), we program on Windows, and us having to reinvent the wheel instead of being able to use the framework provided for us by Microsoft, cost us time and money that could have been spent on developing our actual software. Instead we ended up creating a new framework to do what should have been a function of the OS. Of course Microsoft itself doesn't suffer from the same problems, since they know how to call the protocols through hidden/secret/undocumented api's. I would just like to know why you think it's a good idea for Microsoft to give developers documentation through MSDN that when followed to the letter does not perform the way it should, whilst they themselves do not call it the way it is in the MSDN documentation, but in some undocumented way. Your insistance on limiting this to a Linux vs Windows debate, shows that you are not a programmer on the Windows platform that has been bitten by this lack of good documentation of the Windows framework. As a matter of fact I doubt you are a programmer, since instead of posting your own opinion, you have to paste a wikipedia entry. If you were a programmer you'd at least have an own opinion backed by facts, instead of this Microsoft fanboy style you use to tell the "OSS fanatics" (see your #20) how wrong they are, forgetting in the process that I am not an OSS fanatic, but a professional programmer making propriety software on the Windows platform, using Microsoft tools to do our development as well. I fail to see how that makes the things I pointed out a OSS issue. |
| #22 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/16/2006 5:43:19 PM |
|
Not knowing what you could or couldn't do with SMB means I have trouble commenting on your problems. Sometimes even Microsoft has trouble doing what they want with a current protocol, so they invent a new one. BITS is a good example.
I also cringe a bit when people complain about "hidden/secret/undocumented api's" which seem to be used an excuse too often. I don't claim to be a low level Windows programmer, and mucking with api's has been limited to doing stuff with BITS and wininet.dll years ago. |
| #23 By 3339 (72.200.128.183) at 7/18/2006 1:03:08 AM |
| I'm just trying to figure out if Brad thought it was a good idea to mention that they had written every chapter and protocol in a different format and that's the "huge effort" of the last year. Has anyone seen a tech spec with a different format per protocol? Does that need specified? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:39:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
