__/ [ B Gruff ] on Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:32 \__
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:18 Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> This is actually quite interesting.....
>
>>>From Fool.com (Motley Fool)
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft's antitrust woes with the EU are old news by now, as is the
>> EU's pigheaded, danged-if-you-do, danged-if-you-don't stance on
>> non-issues such as uncoupling Windows Media Player from the OS. (Turned
>> out no one wanted that stripped-down version of the OS over there, but
>> why let facts get in the way of protectionist zeal?)
>
> - but is it, or is it not, a fact that in the anti-trust trial re. browsers
> in the U.S., Microsoft stated, in court, under oath, that I.E. was so
> deeply integrated into the OS that it could not be removed?
> Is it, or is it not true, that only as a result of this case did MS finally
> issue a patch to permit certain ICONS (shortcuts) to be removed?
> In short, your author doesn't understand the point of the E.U. ruling.
> It's not that people *want* the OS without the media player, it's that it
> must be demonstrable that the media player can be removed (and therefore
> another one used instead) without detriment to the OS.
> Nobody is trying to "ban" a MS product, merely to ensure that competitors
> are not excluded.
>
>> The Catch-22 for Microsoft is that security is a huge deal to
>> consumers. And, truth be told, the beta versions of its latest security
>> tools for Vista -- such as Windows Defender -- are much better
>> integrated than the patchwork of third-party stuff that used to muck up
>> my machine. But by creating more robust tools to better serve
>> consumers' demand for security, Microsoft may run afoul of European
>> regulators.
>
> Patchwork of third-party stuff, uh?
> Tell me, until a few months ago, who/what exactly was protecting MS users
> from 150,000+ known viruses?
> The author presumably is in favour of MS driving all other vendors of
> security S/W out of the market?
>
>> Alas, it's not the only double standard under which Mr. Softy is forced
>> to labor. A few days ago, I noticed a story about a certain widely used
>> Internet browser that, according to the source, contained "611 defects
>> and 71 potential security vulnerabilities."
>
> It can't be the "not the only double standard", because it isn't a double
> standard!
> Be that as it may, I note that *now* Firfox has become *widely* *used* -
> :-)
>
>> Should have been front-page news, right? Well, it wasn't, and I'm
>> guessing the reason the press didn't pick up on it was that the browser
>> was Firefox.
>
> But the author fails to mention how anybody knew how many "defects" and
> *potential* security vulnerabilities there were in it?
> My guess is that it was by automated analysis of the code?
> Perhaps you, or the author, can tell us what the corresponding numbers are
> for Internet Explorer - and if not, why not?
>
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2006/mft06091210.htm
>
> Registration required, I see.
Motley Fool gives a financial perspective. Don't sweat trying to knock some
sense into Suits whose 'knowledge' is speculation over a glass of red wine.
Also see:
Praising Microsoft - and attacked by wolves
,----[ Snippets ]
| "That you can use the word 'virtue' in the same sentence as 'Microsoft'
| is clear indication that you haven't a clue. Then again, you do write
| for Fortune, so your alliance no doubt leans toward corporations and
| shareholders rather than users," wrote Walter Bazzini, whose Web
| site, perhaps revealingly, is entitled "Misanthrope Manor."
|
| "You sound as if you're suffering from 'Stockholm Syndrome,'" wrote
| Ken Davies. "Microsoft has actually set all of us back by years and
| possibly by decades."
|
| "Your painfully revisionist history makes you sound like one of
| the 20-something journalists who wasn't actually around since the 80s,"
| wrote Norman Gilmore, who really knows how to hurt a guy.
|
| Some of the letters were not only passionate but extremely well written
| and thoughtful. Here's more, for example, from Gilmore, who neatly
| summarizes the objections of quite a few writers:
|
| "Gee, I thought ARPA funded the research leading to TCP/IP, Tim
| Berners-Lee invented the Web, and Marc Andreessen led the creation of
| the graphical browser at [the University of Illinois]. I thought Apple
| started the personal computing revolution, Xerox invented graphical
| interfaces and IBM invented the PC. Microsoft BASIC - oh yeah, a
| language invented at Dartmouth by Kemeny and Kurtz. MS-DOS? Tim
| Patterson wrote what became MS-DOS, itself a CP/M clone.
|
| "And THEN Bill Gates wrote his famous memo, which summarized as -
| 'WHOOPS - THE INTERNET - OH NO! WE'RE BEHIND!' "
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/hftn/060901/090106_fastforward_microsoft_fortune.html?.v=1
ComputerWorld Employs Ignorant Journalists
,----[ Quote ]
| Giving you a brief overview what the article from ComputerWorld says:
| Open Source supporters build fortresses around them that make them
| unapproachable and have infinite animosity toward Microsoft. Yep, that
| about sums it up.
|
| [...]
|
| In closing, I just thought the article wasn't even worth the pixels used
| to display it...but I'm sure its been seen by a wide variety of people.
| So, instead of giving them one side of the story, perhaps my little rant
| will give them the other side of things. Sure we can all get along...as
| long as we speak the truth to one another. And that's something both
| journalists and Microsoft have historically [1] [2] had trouble doing.
`----
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/165-ComputerWorld-Employs-Ignorant-Journalists.html#extended
|
|
