You Microsoft-haters make me sick.

Just because Microsoft has screwed its users, its customers, its business partners, American security, and American innovation, that is no reason to dump on them.

No, let me rephrase that - just because Microsoft has screwed its users over and over and over, and screwed its customers over and over and over, and screwed its business partners over and over and over, and screwed American security over and over and over, and screwed American innovation over and over and over - that is no reason to dump on them.

The fact that they lie like dogs, are totally delusional and totally arrogant, and are rumored to kill small puppies at midnight as sacrifice to Baal... now that might be reason to dump on them.

But your petty quibbles about malfunctioning operating systems, security holes you could drive a truck through, nondisclosed lawsuits (approximately $30,000 each) against their own customers and developers and certificate-holders (go ahead, sign that contract with them), breaches of ethics and privacy (spyware), stormtrooper fear tactics against anyone they think is disloyal or critical or *gasp* engaging in piracy (number 1 concern at Microsoft? yep, piracy - not security or quality of product), willingness to steal markets from longterm customers who have relied on Microsoft products to build a business only to have Microsoft smell the money and see them as prey, willingness to steal software (source code!) directly from open source and then turn around and claim the opposite, sucking so badly at innovation and performance that they have not really invented anything new in the last 25 years and have bought almost all the technology they sell (what they haven't stolen), and the fact that Ballmer is reputed to be the latest incarnation of Voldemort... well, I say you are merely quibbling.

Like I said - you Microsoft-haters make me sick.

You say 'there are few problems with this approach.'

Compare with 'there are a few' -- noting that 'a' reverses the meaning.

to 'just sign me': I tend to think of Ballmer more as Lord Sauron, but Voldemort will do.

to Wendell: yes, that was a mistake on my part -- there's an "a" missing from that sentence. nice catch. looking for a job as a copyeditor? (long hours, lousy pay, all the typos you can eat?)

cheers

rxc

Okay, now that makes the second time I've seen the Dan Rachiver story referenced by an URL, allegedly at theregister which is broken. Did theregister pull the article,? Why is everyone referencing a story that doesn't exist?

The URL that should be linked to my name is the Google cache of that article.... while it lasts. No idea why it got pulled from the Register. The original article on out-law.com (The Register carries their stories sometimes) has been updated, but it's still there.

haha haha Sauron thats a good one

you runningdog lackey of the capitalistic imperialist microsoft haters

The premise that one company model is bad is a flawed one. Microsoft does not innovate because it does not have to. It can assimilate a company or its products, and gain the technology it needs. Assimilation is far more efficient than standalone innovation and it gives you the same results for less money.

And while I am not trying to debate the moral implications of either method, I can see the efficiencies of one over the other. Like it or not this is a business model with a proven track record and you will not be able to get rid of it any time soon.

"willingness to steal software (source code!) directly from open source and then turn around and claim the opposite"

That is exactly the point.

"Like it or not this is a business model with a proven track record and you will not be able to get rid of it any time soon."

Where is Captain Janeway when you discover the BORG own earth?

This sounds a lot like when Lotus went after the makers of The Twin back in the good old DOS days. The Twin was a fully capable spreadsheet program with some notable improvements over Lotus 1-2-3 (e.g., screen color choices, mo' better graphics, et al.). However, with its overly-capitalized legal squad, they crushed the makers of The Twin in short order. -sigh-

Exxon has a good business model as well. Does that make their gas better? Doesn't mean we have to drive a Hummer.

But that's not the issue. The issue is MS using FUD. Not sure I'd call that a good business model but whatever works for them.

Then there's ATT vs MS. MS fought to weaken patent laws and WON. Now they want their cake and to eat it too.

We don't hate MS. IMHO they didn't become number 1 because their product was the best choice. For years, it was just the only choice.

But that is changing. Montgomery Ward was once a giant. Now it is gone.

The new PCLinuxOS is out! Mepis 6.5 is cool!

Both were totally upgraded, by small groups of coders who seem to pay attention and got it right!

Didn't take 6 years, isn't bloated, runs live in the CDtray of most computers built since 1998, 350mhz with 256Mb RAM. Runs upto 50X faster!

Install is a painless click of the on-screen icon, and is done in 20-40 minutes, including expanding the applications on disk, all free, using synaptic.

Schools in 40 states are switching, as GNU/Linux is immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions". Linux is 'green', recycling computers!

Sure, M$ is running scared, with flatlined stock prices since 1999, and no innovations not already in Macs or Open Source offerings.

Get http://pclinuxos.com or http://www.mepis.org for your free speed fix.

Interesting. I guess all the Unix code written in
the late 60s and 70s must be in violation of every
patent Microsoft owns. I guess IBM never invented
the general purpose operating system back in the
early 60s. I guess the patent people had their
heads up their collective butts when they allowed
software to be patented after denying such for so
many years because they were "mathematical
algorithms" and, as such, were not patentable.
Personally, I think every software patent should
be declared invalid as 99.99% fail 2 of the 3
criteria, novelty and non-obvious. The third,
being useful is not sufficient to award a patent.
The only reason much of the patented software
wasn't available sooner, was because of
insufficient computing power. Even then, there
was software that made crude, elementary
attempts to perform many of the functions.

When one considers all the millions of lines of
code written before software was ever allowed
to be copyrighted and, even later, to be patented,
then it it would be extremely difficult to imagine
any software being patentable. Also, prior to the
70s, software was given away freely by the
mainframe manufacturers. In fact, the mainframe
operating systems were still given away into the
80s and 90s.

I also imagine if every Technical Disclosure Bulletin
were examined, thousands on patents would be
declared invalid. The problem is akin to rounding
up the millions of illegals and deporting them.
The politicians and the courts don't have the
"nads" to do it.

As we use to say in the "good ole days", "if it
is finite, it can be programmed". Today, it can
be patented, just because it has some redeeming
social value.

Bob C.

BTW, I should have added "long live Ubuntu". I received 7.04 in the mail over the weekend and ran it from the CD. I downloaded some files to my flash drive, plugged it into the USB port and ran Ubuntu from the CD and saved files on my flash drive (I was a little chicken to try to save to my hard drive). I went to Ubuntu.com, clicked on Get Ubuntu, and asked them to ship me the FREE CD. It took about 2 weeks. Now I wonder if we can get AOL to flood the stores with Ubuntu CDs, they have that process down pat.

Bob C.

My apologies. It is quite late (EST) and I should have added to my previous post about Ubuntu, with an AOL type distribution, getting millions of people throughout the world to switch to Ubuntu, would make for an interesting situation for the MS lawyers trying to sue everyone for using an OS that infringes upon all their "patents". Of course, MS would probably pick on a couple of defenseless people to set an example to the rest of the world and "Nifong" them.

re The Reg article on Dan Ravicher: yes, it was at that URL, and now it ain't. But they got it from Out-Law.com, and it can still be found here: http://www.out-law.com/page-8052

thanks to raindog for pointing out the broken link.

rxc

to EZ1:

you're missing the point...

the point is not that Microsoft can choose to buy companies instead of innovating themselves... they're the ones who keep harping on innovation as the reason why we should let them get away with murder... they're the great innovators... or so they keep trying to tell us... that's why we should cut them slack with regard to patents, anti-trust, piracy, monopolistic practices, H1B's, crappy crappy software, lies, stupidity, and the bozo antics of Ballmer *and* Gates...

in fact, they don't innovate... that's the whole point... they're just a hollow business with no real meat... no better than a Computer Associates or Sage or any number of other big dumb congloms

somebody has to innovate... Microsoft goes around stealing (or buying) others innovations and then uses its market presence and capital to try to kill the original innovators... and its expertise at FUD and buying off all the media outlets... and buying off politicians too... and then whines that anyone who tries to stop them will be hurting american innovation... feh

and what is all that talent at Microsoft R&D doing? they must spend billions trying to produce *something* that is new and exciting... let's see... we got Bob (look it up)... we got the talking Paper Clip... we got Longhorn... oh, oops, they couldn't get Longhorn to work... so we got Vista instead... oh, oops... actually we got a very late, very emasculated reroll of Windows yet again... and Vista is new and special in what way? none that i can tell... they are not only producing crap, they keep producing worse and worse crap... the Emperor is not only naked, he's a giant cockroach (see Kafka)

several writers over the years have tried to express the fact that Microsoft stock is an empty shell propped up and inflated by *nothing* substantial... i don't believe that, because a significant portion of Microsoft profits are generated by the sale of Microsoft mouses, which, unlike their software, are actually real and solid and work

so fine... let Microsoft buy their way into markets and innovation, let them choose that particular business model, EZ1... but they should stop whining, stop lying, stop the FUD, stop stealing, stop trying to claim special privilege, and stop claiming they are the great innovators

if microsoft haters are lackey running dogs, as a previous poster suggests, then i say woof

Do not forget that MS is a convicted felon. It is my favorite point to make when some dingbat rep tries to brag that they are a MS partner. I did not like Nixon either. (No, I am not a crook.)