| 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 |
 |
The Microsoft penalty that isn't | |
|
||
| Time: 17:38 EST/22:38 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
In its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine states, Microsoft promised to publish technology that would allow competing products to interoperate with Windows. But Microsoft has sidestepped the penalty by crafting a technology license that excludes the company's only viable competitor. Linux, which was described by Windows Division Vice President Brian Valentine as the long-term threat against Microsoft's core business, is banned from interoperating with its common Internet file system, otherwise known as Windows File and Printer Sharing. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:24:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1658 (128.255.174.11) at 4/15/2002 6:06:54 PM |
|
Oh boy, the phrase 'having a hard time beating Samba' just begs to be stomped on. Managing 35,000 PC's at a University is a lovely task that I get to perform everyday of my life and I can tell you first hand that Samba interop problems are the #1 most time consuming issue group that we encounter day in and day out.
Since we've started implementing Windows 2k Advanced Server with Interix and the .NET server platforms, we've seen nothing but smooth sailing. As we eliminate samba from our inner workings daily, things only get better. In fact, staff has gone from 215 full time admins under a mixed HP-UX, AIX, IRIX, Solaris, and Windows 95/98/NT4/2000 environment to 125 full timers operating a 95% Windows based network. 'But MS likes open standards...yea right. ' Any examples you wish to throw out here? Granted that MS is known for tinkering with standards and yes, sometimes not conforming to their published RFC verbatim, however, MS's protocols typically make drastic improvements over the core protocol. And yes, this does come at the expense sometimes of lack of full interop with other platforms. However, I'd prefer to have both ease of use, smooth implementation, and swift performance rather than a 100% verbatim protocol stack. Smack me if you must but I certainly don't mind proprietary technologies when it comes to Microsoft. So what if they make their products work better with their own? That's business folks, like it or not! Why some people can't get that through their heads is amazing. You don't see GE selling their new Stage 4 jet engine technology to Pratt & Whitney do you just to give a little competitive assistance? How about making repairs amongst engines easier by stanardizing all parts? No, doesn't happen to the extent many think it should especially in terms of the IT industry. Microsoft rules, samba sucks, end game. And ya know what??? So does Linux, now I'm really ready for the recoil! |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.230.230) at 4/15/2002 6:35:22 PM |
| Who cares if they are shutting out the competition? Competitors do that. You don't see Oracle giving its source code to Microsoft, so that Microsoft can write a better OLE DB provider do you? Didn't Sun shut Microsoft out of Java? Xerox sued Palm over grafiti. Were they trying to shut Palm out? Compeitors compete. It's a reality. Deal with it. |
| #3 By 665 (208.188.113.19) at 4/15/2002 8:25:47 PM |
| Lets not start calling names everyone... we are all mature adults around here... I think. Your right, #8, that there are restrictions that need to be in place against a monopoly, but where do those start and stop? I'm glad that’s not for us to decide (directly, anyway). I don't think that just because MS has a monopoly with their OS means that they must not do anything that will hamper the growth of a competition. The truth is they have 95% of desktops, and they need to retain that for stock reasons. Microsoft's stock is held afloat by two things: Windows, and Office. If they loose their dominance in either of these markets their stock will slide big time. And that is how these decisions are made. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/15/2002 8:53:53 PM |
|
Actually it'd be quite nice if Oracle and Microsoft would together to build better OleDB providers. :)
Personally I understand Microsoft's reluctance to not want their source code being used in GPL'ed products. I'm the same way, and while I intend to release the source to a number of things I've been working on at home(like my old netrek client), I do intend to release them under a license that reads nearly word for word with Microsoft's Shared Source license. Why? Because about two years ago some of the people involved in the netrek project threatened to rerelease everything under the GPL, despite the objections of myself and several other contributors. Fortunately they are lazy and didn't do anything with it, but still the issue bothers me that someone would try to do that. I don't trust Richard Stallman or the other GPL proponents. It's not that my code is special or great, but it is my code and I think I should have some say in it's license. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/15/2002 8:54:30 PM |
|
BTW, #8... that argument is lame... It was lame the first time I heard it, and it just gets lamer and lamer the more I hear it.
|
| #6 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/15/2002 10:40:00 PM |
| btw, Bob, soda... Oracle opened its code to Apple, they worked together to develop better OLEDB drivers, Ellison 100% certified Mac OS X as an oracle client; Apple's improvements to Java WebStart were so substantial that SWING is usable and Sun is working on getting the optimizations back into Java; Palm has released its syncing technology for OS X, but Microsoft still hasn't built an Office conduit to X... No big thing--just wanted to point out what can happen when you aren't the most reviled company in tech history. |
| #7 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/15/2002 10:43:33 PM |
|
Ok folks, can we just clear up something here?
First, CNet is hopelessly biased and a moutpiece for the Linux community. At the expense of the truth, good judgement, and fairness, they run crap like this. Secondly, to further the truth, the CIFS spec released prevents anyone who IMPLEMENTS THAT SPEC FROM THAT DOCUMENT to use the GPL. That doesn't mean that anyone who reverse engineers (or engineered) it can't use GPL. In fact, MS can't ban anyone from doing that. It's a matter of law that they CAN. Samba and consequently Linux have implemented the CIFS as they reverse engineered it, so as long as the Samba team can prevent their developers from tainting themselves by looking at the published spec, they'll be fine. If they decide to implement the spec, then they will have to change to another, less viral license. This is most unlikely to happen, so I think status quo is the M.O. for today. |
| #8 By 2 (24.54.153.167) at 4/15/2002 10:51:38 PM |
| #5, What university do you work with? One of the Big 10? |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/16/2002 1:25:33 PM |
|
I don't pretend to understand everything involved here, but it sure sounds to me like this writer has uncovered quite a clever little plan by Microsoft, and it certainly isn't good for anyone BUT Microsoft.
At this point, it looks to be a hell of a catch. BTW... I read the Microsoft 'release' on MSDN he linked. Question: Why is it that whenever Microsoft changes something to alleviate "Confusion", we all need to hide our Wallets ? TL |
| #10 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/16/2002 1:31:34 PM |
|
"Didn't Sun shut Microsoft out of Java?"
Um, no. Sun stopped MS from MODIFYING Java to a Windows-Only iteration. MS is just as free to use Java just like everyone else does. But, they can't have it THIER way (modified, Windows-Only) so they decided not to use it at all. In short, Microsoft tried to Hi-Jack Java, and they didn't succeed. TL |
| #11 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/16/2002 1:34:58 PM |
|
Here we go again...
"First, CNet is hopelessly biased and a moutpiece for the Linux community. At the expense of the truth, good judgement, and fairness, they run crap like this." First it's the Register. Now it's CNET, one of the largest news entities in the world. Why is it that every news site that takes Microsoft to task is automatically "Biased" and a "Mouthpiece for the Linux Community" ? I think I'll make this determination for myself, but thanks :) TL |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/16/2002 2:35:02 PM |
|
peipas/RANT - Actually no, it's not the law. That is why I find the argument so lame.
While the law puts certain constrants upon a monopoly, the purpose is for the company to play nice with others. The purpose is to not destroy the company, or even necessarily to destroy the monopoly. Thus why I find your arguments lame, because you try to use this perversion of your misunderstanding of the law to justify some pretty bizarre and extreme remedies which have nothing at all to do with the court case, the monopoly, or even the behavior of Microsoft. Or basically the point is, your arguments would not stand up in a court of law. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/16/2002 10:26:59 PM |
|
RANT,
No it's not an accurate statement under the law within the context it was made. Sorry, but being a monopoly does not mean you have to give away all of your intellectual property to the public domain for free, and no court is going to uphold such a claim. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:24:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
