Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Engineering => Topic started by: Nemesis on January 18, 2007, 08:02:17 pm
-
First I wish to make clear that this is just my personal speculation based on the information presented below.
The facts:
Link to article (http://news.com.com/Vista+testers+get+unexpected+holiday+gift+No+TV/2100-1016_3-6147259.html?tag=st.rc.targ_mb)
However, for those running the "release candidate 1" version of the software--the most broadly distributed of the Vista test versions--the TV feature stopped working on December 31.
Microsoft blamed the issue on the fact that it has a paid license for the video decoder and Dolby sound technology, and it only licensed those through December 31. The overall RC1 software is not scheduled to expire until June.
When I first read this it seemed reasonable to me but it bugged me and I kept thinking about it. Here is what bugged me. When a company licenses something to put in their product the standard is that they can produce and sell a product with the licensed material for a set time, when that time runs out the product already sold does not have the functions deactivated. Microsoft broke that behavior.
Now apply Microsofts newly demonstrated licensing of 3rd party components to the production copy of Vista, once Vista II is ready for market will those components in Vista begin to deactivate? Will you be told that you must upgrade to Vista II to be able to continue using those functions? If so then Microsoft will have converted Windows into the subscription model that they have long wanted anytime Microsoft wants they can force a new upgrade cycle on the Windows using world.
Is this the plan or am I reading something that isn't there into Microsofts actions? Only Microsoft knows currently, you and I may guess but not know until it happens or (hopefully) doesn't.
-
Beyond that, there are dozens of free audio and video codecs out there. If one stops working, windows media should just automatically download another.
-
I personally think you're on to something. Microsoft has implemented a number of new conditions and such for Vista. It may be the most advanced OS Microsoft has ever made, supposedly, but it's also one of the most restricted. Personally, I'm trying to find a way to get myself a VLK for XP Pro, so I don't have to activate XP each time I install it, but getting such a key is difficult, and expensive.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a new round of lawsuits are filed against Microsoft after Vista is released, and that Vista sales are hurt big time.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
-
Beyond that, there are dozens of free audio and video codecs out there. If one stops working, windows media should just automatically download another.
Initially I thought the same but I was wrong.
Some enthusiasts have installed their own third-party video decoders. But that won't solve the TV issue, as many have discovered. ([url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter&tid=8a5ff7ac-c446-4f54-8d77-7cf533b7ff53&cat=&lang=en&cr=US&sloc=en-us&m=1&p=1[/url])
If you go to the link in that quote from the article it is to a discussion on Microsofts own site.
The quote below is from one of the posts there. Several others say the same thing.
I am fully aware of the timebomb within the MPEG 2 decoder and to fix this several months ago purchased and installed the NVidia decoder so I am certain that this is not the issue (i.e. you can discount this from the equation).
It appears that Microsoft disables the subsystem not just the codec.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
For Apple sales to surge they would need more production capacity. Clones would supply that but after the way clone producers were burned by Jobs last time he might find them reluctant to try agains without irrevocable contracts to produce them.
I'd like to see Apple take about 30% of the market and Linux (and BSD) take another 30% as it would make a viable competitive market place unlike the current situation where Microsoft thinks it can do whatever it wants (and is almost right).
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
the current version does work on clone PCs. You just need to hack your BIOS to make it think it's a Mac.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
the current version does work on clone PCs. You just need to hack your BIOS to make it think it's a Mac.
Which unfortunately means no pre installs, no tech support and any patches may or may not toast your system and if buying a machine from a major company (Dell for example) you will still be paying for Windows.
I'd really like to see the Mac OS sold for generic machines. Competition in the market place is needed and the Mac OS could provide it on the desktop. How quickly do you think Microsoft would drop MS Office on Mac though?
Unfortunately I suspect that Apple would work just as hard as Microsoft to tie you to their software and OS. Apple seems quite happy to use DRM techniques.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
the current version does work on clone PCs. You just need to hack your BIOS to make it think it's a Mac.
Which unfortunately means no pre installs, no tech support and any patches may or may not toast your system and if buying a machine from a major company (Dell for example) you will still be paying for Windows.
I'd really like to see the Mac OS sold for generic machines. Competition in the market place is needed and the Mac OS could provide it on the desktop. How quickly do you think Microsoft would drop MS Office on Mac though?
Unfortunately I suspect that Apple would work just as hard as Microsoft to tie you to their software and OS. Apple seems quite happy to use DRM techniques.
Actually, I think Apple is even MORE into DRM and various vender-lock techniques than Microsoft. Everything from Apples attitude about people trying to use Macintosh on non-Apple systems to the DRM mess that permeates through iPods, iTunes, and such to their "no third-party apps" stance on their new iPhone tells me that they want to have as tight of a grip on consumers as possible. In my opinion, the only thing that is really keeping them in check is the fact that they're still being overshadowed by Microsoft.
-
Actually, I think Apple is even MORE into DRM and various vender-lock techniques than Microsoft. Everything from Apples attitude about people trying to use Macintosh on non-Apple systems to the DRM mess that permeates through iPods, iTunes, and such to their "no third-party apps" stance on their new iPhone tells me that they want to have as tight of a grip on consumers as possible. In my opinion, the only thing that is really keeping them in check is the fact that they're still being overshadowed by Microsoft.
I'm not so sure of that.
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
Peter Gutmann, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
[url]http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html[/url]
Last updated 19 January 2007
Distributed under the Creative Commons license (see Appendix)
(A note to readers: The reaction to what started out as an obscure technical post to a security mailing list has been rather unexpected and overwhelming, so I'm totally buried in Vista email at the moment. Please be patient when expecting replies, and apologies if I can't reply to all messages).
(I'm aware of Microsoft's recently-posted response to this writeup, I'll be posting an analysis when I get time over the next few days).
Executive Summary
Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
Executive Executive Summary
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history [Note A].
The whole article linked to is much longer but the summary does get the point across..
-
so out of curiosity, has any of you actually tried vista... i mean there was an open beta.
Heck i'm posting this from vista...
-
You know, at least in the gaming world, a standardized Linux core should be agreed upon, called Gameux, and the development studios jump onboard whole-hog.
Gaming drives the hardware development and I'll wager it could at least scare the hell out of Microsoft on the OS side.
-
You know, at least in the gaming world, a standardized Linux core should be agreed upon, called Gameux, and the development studios jump onboard whole-hog.
Gaming drives the hardware development and I'll wager it could at least scare the hell out of Microsoft on the OS side.
Problem is that more then just that. Microsoft has itself embedded with over 85% of all PC's. Not a lot of people want to take the time to duel-boot. That doesn't even take into account that game makers don't want to spend time and money to make a game for a OS that may or may not take off as a gaming platform. I don't think this has as much to do with game makers not being able to make games work on the different Linux flavors. Game makers have been making programs to run Linux servers for some time. I don't buy that game makers can make their servers work but not the entire game. If Linux people can port games over to Linux than it should be possible for game makers to make the game run on Linux right out of the box. Neverwinter Nights anyone??!? It may take a lot of extra work however which goes back to market share, time, money, and maybe even some security issues.
While I think it would be easier for game makers to some extent to make games on one Linux standard. It is not so much that it would be a lot easier for game makers if they had one Linux standard to work with as it would eliminate the multiple Linux excuse companies have to bash Linux over the head with. Frankly Linux has been around more then long enough to have it's act together in this respect. There is no reason not to have a unified Linux by now, IMHO Linux's continued survival depends on it. Regardless the ball is in Linux's court to get its house in order and have all the excuses on Linux's side eliminated before we see anything from the game makers or any other developer for that matter.
-
so out of curiosity, has any of you actually tried vista... i mean there was an open beta.
Heck i'm posting this from vista...
Yep, I have. I have RC1. After using it for a couple months, I found that, aside from the new look, it doesn't really offer much more than XP does. Love the graphics, but it's not very important. I like the games though, and that built in security feature asking if you want to allow actions to continue, while useful, gets annoying after a while.
-
so out of curiosity, has any of you actually tried vista... i mean there was an open beta.
Heck i'm posting this from vista...
I stopped "upgrading" Windows version with 2000Pro, XPs activation was the last straw for me. If and when Microsoft allows me to use the software I bought with all the rights the law allows I might consider another Microsoft OS otherwise I'll continue my migration to Linux.
Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.
-
You know, at least in the gaming world, a standardized Linux core should be agreed upon, called Gameux, and the development studios jump onboard whole-hog.
The main problems are the video and sound card companies that keep their drivers totally proprietary so they can't be kept up to date along with the other drivers in the kernel. That restricts what cards you can use and how high the performance gets.
Intel has begun to release source for their devices, hopefully that will put pressure on nVidea, ATi and Creative to do the same or cede the Linux market to Intel.
The Doom and Quake games all work on Linux so it shows that the gaming companies can support Linux if they want to.
Gaming drives the hardware development and I'll wager it could at least scare the hell out of Microsoft on the OS side.
Microsoft is scared already, though not everyone sees it. Companies are making sure that Microsoft sales people see their Linux efforts so Microsoft cuts them a deal to make Windows more attractive. It doesn't even matter if you would use Linux all that is needed is the perception from Microsoft that you might. Microsoft wouldn't cut deals that way if they didn't think the customers could migrate to Linux. If Microsoft thinks their customers could migrate to Linux and away from Windows who am I to disagree (as I continue my own Linux migration)?
Microsoft waged an ad campaign called "Get the Facts (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx)" against Linux (and was nailed for false advertising in England and South Africa). Microsoft spends huge amounts fighting Linux and they wouldn't bother if Linux were not viewed as a threat. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have both spoken out about Linux in attempts to tarnish it but Linux just keeps growing, slowly yes but inexorably.
-
so out of curiosity, has any of you actually tried vista... i mean there was an open beta.
Heck i'm posting this from vista...
I stopped "upgrading" Windows version with 2000Pro, XPs activation was the last straw for me. If and when Microsoft allows me to use the software I bought with all the rights the law allows I might consider another Microsoft OS otherwise I'll continue my migration to Linux.
Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.
And where exactly is the bad part in all of this? I know my mom sometimes feels like probably punching out Bill Gates. Who knows, when Vista comes out, I might be able to talk her into buying a Mac. :-p
-
Tell her to get a Mini. That way she doesn't have to throw out her monitor, keyboard and mouse.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
I don't think Apple will do that. Right now they have an extremely advanced OS that is very stable. I mean, my XP system is on the fritz and I have hardly used it over the last 18 months, whereas my iBook runs most of the time while I am awake and works nearly flawlessly. Put that same OS in a generic PC and it may sound great, but putting OS X on random machines like that makes things very difficult as far as tech support from Apple goes, and seriously detract from the stability of the OS. I’m thinking that is why Apple is such a PITA over it’s OS- they are proud of their product and want it to remain high quality, and the best way to do that is make sure that they know what will be working inside of it. Through in all these generic drivers from random computer companies and things get very messy.
I can’t speak to the clones thing, been a long time since I have read anything on that subject.
As for Apple and DRM, AFAIK, Apple had to agree to most, if nto all of that crap in order to get the deals they neded to make iPods and iTunes and whatnot to work. Otherwise, no record company deals, no TV shows sold on iTunes, etc etc. I personally expect the DRM issue to get a lot worse after what M$ did with their Zune player (pay royalties to record companies for every Zune sold). I’m betting it was a bad move over all and will start the ball swinging to take power away from Apple and make DRM far more pervasive on computing in general.
-
Apple sales are going to go through the roof. Jack, you might want to make a note of it!
I"d kind of like Apple to make a version of their OS that would work on all the IBM clone type machines.
Apples run great because they run great hardwars. XP runs great on Apples with the Intel chips. Install OS X on a $400 Walmart-special PC and let me know how well it runs.
-
Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.
And where exactly is the bad part in all of this?
The jail time?
-
Everything I've read says that Vista is loaded down with enough DRM that if I used it I'd be tempted to go postal at the nearest Microsoft office.
And where exactly is the bad part in all of this?
The jail time?
Nope. Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.
-
The jail time?
Nope. Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.
The U.S. Federal government? The same one that had the DOJ hand Microsoft a defacto victory when convicted of being an illegal and abusive monopoly? That federal government? Can't agree on that.
Besides its the U.S. Federal Government and I'm Canadian.
-
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection ([url]http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html[/url])
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
To be fair a rebuttal (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx) from Microsoft though they don't actually refer directly to this article.
A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video. I've since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper's assertions are accurate. The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers. Leave us a comment to let us know what you think. -- Nick
-
The jail time?
Nope. Chances are you might get a commendation from the federal government.
The U.S. Federal government? The same one that had the DOJ hand Microsoft a defacto victory when convicted of being an illegal and abusive monopoly? That federal government? Can't agree on that.
Besides its the U.S. Federal Government and I'm Canadian.
Ok, the federal government, bad example. In fact it's pretty much a bad example for just about everything. How about this. If you were to beat up Bill Gates, or at the very least tear down the nearest Microsoft office, if you were convicted, you'd have millions and millions of people ready to break you out. :-D
-
and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.
-
and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.
Didn't they try that with ME?
-
and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.
Didn't they try that with ME?
Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed. :-D
-
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection ([url]http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html[/url])
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
To be fair a rebuttal ([url]http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx[/url]) from Microsoft though they don't actually refer directly to this article.
A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video. I've since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper's assertions are accurate. The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers. Leave us a comment to let us know what you think. -- Nick
The next stage (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#response) from Gutmann against Microsoft.
In mid-January 2007, Microsoft responded to some of the points in this writeup. Some of the material was new and interesting (for example clarifying just what actually gets revoked when a driver revocation occurs), other parts seem more likely to have come from Waggener Edstrom (Microsoft's PR firm) than Program Manager Dave Marsh (The Inquirer wasn't too impressed by it either. I'll be updating the body text based on some of the clarifications, but for things that aren't directly relevant to the main text (which means the PR-spin items) I'll comment on them here. The important technical clarifications that affect the main body of the writeup are (1) exactly what happens when a driver is revoked, (2) what happens when a tilt bit triggers, and (3) which portions of the output are affected when content degradation takes place. The content- protection specifications were previously somewhat unclear about these various consequences of the protection mechanisms, so it's good to have this clarification on exactly what occurs.
Since the portions that I'll comment on here are PR-related rather than technical content, the following section is an attempt to respond directly and try and unravel the PR spin. The technical comments have been integrated into the main body of the writeup.
-
Yeah. I already read that.
-
and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.
Didn't they try that with ME?
Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed. :-D
XP and Vista don't have the "crash on boot" feature either.
-
and it seems like they are spinning the answers to try and make what Vista does seem not nearly as bad as what it really is. Or at least seems to be.
Didn't they try that with ME?
Windows ME did have one advantage that XP and now Vista doesn't have, no activation needed. :-D
XP and Vista don't have the "crash on boot" feature either.
This is true.
-
In further news:
Rivals attack Vista as illegal under EU rules (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2007-01-26T133803Z_01_L26793682_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-VISTA-MICROSOFT-EU-DC.XML&WTmodLoc=Home-C4-Business-ousiv-7&from=business)
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A coalition of rivals charged on Friday that Microsoft Corp.'s new Vista operating system coming out next week will perpetuate practices found illegal in the European Union nearly three years ago.
The group, which includes IBM, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Oracle and Red Hat, said its complaints made last year are yet to be addressed just days before Vista is due for release.
"We are in the process of examining this complaint," a Commission spokesman said. ECIS disclosed on Friday that the latest additions to its complaint were made only last month, after it studied Vista.
-
I hesitated over posting this one, but here it is
Link to full article (http://news.com.com/2100-1014-6153904.html?tag=tb)
Barely a week after a U.S. judge approved a landmark antitrust agreement with Microsoft, company executives were swapping e-mails suggesting Dell deserved a beating for its growing interest in Linux, according to documents filed with a state court.
But Redmond representatives said Friday that the 2002 exchange, made public this week as part of an antitrust suit unfolding in Iowa state court, only tells part of the story. They said it omits evidence that Microsoft executives were simultaneously seeking legal advice on how to ensure they were responding to such competitive threats without shirking their antitrust responsibilities.
Link to full pdf of E-Mails (http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09280.pdf)
Very limited quote from the PDF
Sigh... Yes. I can disagree with your statement that Dell's behaviour won't change. If it won't change, the we should just throw in the towel and settle for 50% market share at best. We will change Dell's behaviour by thinking through their motivations and opportunities and being very creative.
We should whack them, we should make sure they understand our value, we should do all the things you and Brian suggest.
Notice how it is stated that they will lose 50% market share if they didn't act. They didn't lose the market share so what acts did they perform to maintain it? Were they legal and ethical?
-
That quotes in your last post Nemesis is subject to interpretation IMHO. The way I see it is that they are trying to promote Microsoft as much as possible without violating the court order. I fail to see the problem with that, any company will try and promote their company as much as they can without violating the law. Microsoft should be no different.
I don't read the second quote as Microsoft will lose 50% market share but will settle for 50% market share, quite a difference. Note that Microsoft doesn't have 100% market share now. The second quote also sounds like the writer is being sarcastic, and nothing in the second quote says that what they plan on doing will violate the court order. Now if the writer said that they would do something that would violate the court order and Microsoft had actually followed through on that then I would agree. As it is there is nothing substantial about that quote in of itself.
Now the third quote if there is something that goes beyond Microsoft legally protecting their companies interest then Microsoft needs to be sent back to court. When I read the PDF I didn't really see anything that was suggested which would violate the court order. "Whack" Dell is a little to vague for any court here in the U.S unless it is stated exactly what that whacking consisted of.
-
I take into account the other famous lines from the DOJ trial. "Knife the baby" where they tried to get Apple to kill off their media playback software and leave that market exclusively to Microsoft. "Cut off their air supply" where they blocked Netscape from being preinstalled on computers. They were in the habit of using violent metaphors for destroying competitors. That makes "Whack Dell" seem more significant than otherwise.
Consider how well Microsoft has complied with the order to stop bundling Internet Explorer. They were after alll convicted of using the bundling as an illegal (because of the Windows monopoly) method of competing with Netscape. Can you buy a machine without IE? Can you uninstall IE? If you don't configure IE does it remain inactive and inert? Consider how long Internet Explorer was at version 6 until Firefox came along and began (and continues) to erode their market share. Then it didn't take long for them to start talking up version 7 and cancel plans to make it Vista only.
One thing I noticed is that they claimed further E-Mails made it clear they consulted legal before doing anything - but they don't seem to have actually presented those conversations as well. Why not? If those E-Mail discussions cleared them why not present them as well? The only reason I can think not to present them is if there were other things in those "supporting" E-Mails that were bad for them. As a what if, perhaps those E-Mails supported the very negative version of "Whack Dell" and the lawyers blocked the action.
Remember that they were convicted of being an illegal abusive monopoly and ordered broken up. The appeal still found them guilty but reduced the sentence. They were given 5 years to document certain things for competitors. They are now past that point and have been given a further 2 years. In the EU they have also been convicted and heavily fined and ordered to document things once again and still have not been judged as being in compliance and been fined for being late. They have also very harshly criticized the adviser who reviews what they have done in the EU even though they chose him. Does this show that they have learned to comply with the law and court orders? I don't think so.
Depending what market they are in they have up to nearly 95%. The Home and Office Desktop is where they seem highest. Right now the Web Browser market share is being eroded by Firefox to a significant degree, mainly because Firefox is immune to Microsofts methods.
I find it significant that Dell has always made it hard to buy a non Microsoft system and made the prices equal or higher than the Windows option. I think it unlikely they wouldn't pass on at least some of the savings to increase their profit margins by reducing payments to Microsoft. I think that Dell needs to subpoenaed on this to provide information on how Microsoft has tried (or not) to affect how they sell non Microsoft PCs. Specifically the prices charged by Microsoft before during and after each time Dell has "flirted" with Linux.
Read up on Microsofts anti Linux "Get the facts" campaign. Pay attention to those who debunk the facts in the campaign. Look up the ad campaign they had in England where they quoted a "study" as saying that Linux cost 10 times as much to use as Windows (ignoring that they were comparing an obsolete Windows/Intel PC versus Linux on a Mainframe). Look up their history of trying to claim Linux is "Anti-American", "Communist" and "viral".
Another one to look up is the current furor over how Microsoft has been trying to hire editors to change entries on Wikipedia that Microsoft claims are in error. Considering how fast and loose they have played with the law and the facts do you trust them to only correct errors and not include new ones that are pro Microsoft? I don't trust them that far.
Things like these are why I take the "Whack Dell" from a very negative perspective. Microsoft has always demonstrated the willingness to do anything in the market to succeed and to heck with the law and ethics.
-
Another one to look up is the current furor over how Microsoft has been trying to hire editors to change entries on Wikipedia that Microsoft claims are in error. Considering how fast and loose they have played with the law and the facts do you trust them to only correct errors and not include new ones that are pro Microsoft? I don't trust them that far.
While I pretty much agree with you on most of the above statement, I do have a small disagreement with this one. First of all, I do agree that whoever at MS came up with the idea to pay some guy to change the wiki entries was a complete idiot, even the guy who they approached said that he was to take a fair look at the posts and find any inaccuracies and change them. Nothing else.
-
While I pretty much agree with you on most of the above statement, I do have a small disagreement with this one. First of all, I do agree that whoever at MS came up with the idea to pay some guy to change the wiki entries was a complete idiot, even the guy who they approached said that he was to take a fair look at the posts and find any inaccuracies and change them. Nothing else.
That is what was said by the one who came forward (http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html). Was he the only one approached? We don't actually know. Remember we know of it because he chose to be public with this. Microsoft was silent about the idea. If more were approached (as seems likely to me) who were they and what instructions were they given? Why the sudden interest in "correcting" Wikipedia and why only on the OOXML vs ODF topic?
Given Microsofts various deceptive comments about ODF (Open Document Format) such as it's designed for integration only with OpenOffice/StarOffice and therefore they can't be compatible (but they later sponsored a plugin that gives ODF compatibility). Microsofts whole behaviour towards Mass. adopting ODF and creating their own competing "standard" (all 7000 pages of it). Given all this can we trust that he is the only such editor. If not can we tust that the instructions he was given are shared by the (hypothetical) others?
Microsoft is attempting to get OOXML on the ISO fast track to becoming a standard (approval or not to be decided by early Feb). That could be derailed if conflicts within the OOXML proposal are brought forth. The timing of this combined with attempts to get the Wiki entry changed by a "friendly" editor makes it appear that they want to cover something up. Do they? I don't know, only Microsoft actually does. It appears very suspicious to me. Only time will tell though.
-
I think I will be sticking with XP for the foreseeable future despite the fact I’ve had my fair share of problems and gripes with XP. From what I’ve read and heard I have no desire to upgrade to Vista.
-
That is what was said by the one who came forward ([url]http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html[/url]). Was he the only one approached? We don't actually know. Remember we know of it because he chose to be public with this. Microsoft was silent about the idea. If more were approached (as seems likely to me) who were they and what instructions were they given? Why the sudden interest in "correcting" Wikipedia and why only on the OOXML vs ODF topic?
and sometimes nem there ain't not conspiracy besides the ones that you want to believe.
-
That is what was said by the one who came forward ([url]http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html[/url]). Was he the only one approached? We don't actually know. Remember we know of it because he chose to be public with this. Microsoft was silent about the idea. If more were approached (as seems likely to me) who were they and what instructions were they given? Why the sudden interest in "correcting" Wikipedia and why only on the OOXML vs ODF topic?
and sometimes nem there ain't not conspiracy besides the ones that you want to believe.
In this case I am unsure what Microsofts actual intentions, they could be benign. But even if they started benign could we be sure they would stay that way?
However in the past I have been told that Microsoft doesn't force companies to pay them per machine sold rather than per copy of their software, it was proven in court that it was per machine (and illegal). I was told that various "independent studies" were done without Microsoft involvement only to have the facts come out that Microsoft was involved and the whole study was as twisted as the tobacco company cancer "studies". There have been many that times Microsoft has attempted to decieve the public and cheat the system. I can only judge their current actions in light of their past actions. If they want people to trust them they must be trustworthy, so far they haven't earned that trust. Therefore I must doubt them and look for the hidden knife that they have always held before while hoping that there is in deed a new and trustworthy Microsoft growing.
Its rather like the serial criminal who is insisting that they have reformed and are innocent of the current accusation, they may be telling the truth but they have lied about reforming many times before and people are going to doubt them. Microsoft has gone so far as to manufacture evidence to present to the U.S. court system (and admited it when caught) so how can I trust them now when they have perjured themselves in the past?