After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> __/ [ Richard Rasker ] on Friday 18 May 2007 10:44 \__
>
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070422083715451
>>>
>> The conclusion with respect to lock-in was a bit premature, though. It
>> turns out that LFS simply /is/ UDF (even though Microsoft calls LFS "a new
>> media format ... compatible only with Windows XP or later Windows
>> versions" - very confusing)...
Now why would Microsoft want to give an industry standard a name of its
own? Hmmmmmm?
Are they trying to lie to people to make them think that the new format
is yet another Microsoft innovation?
And Microsoft wonders why so many people hate them.
Incredible.
>> I sent an update to the story with these details to Groklaw, and I expect
>> it to be published any day now.
>
> I did indeed notice that the item got updated (showed up again in the
> feedreader) and read quickly. at least it proves that Groklaw (and yourself)
> are willing to correct mistakes or inaccuracies, which is commendable.
>
> The majority of the report was about GUI complexity. That still stands and
> it's very valid, vile, and valuable (to developers who need to mend it and
> clueless users who need to reject that DRM'ed dogpile).
What is vile about it is that Microsoft is obfuscating the technology to
make the naive users think that they are
1. Getting something new and innovate from Microsoft.
2. Dependent on Microsoft operating systems for this "new"
technology.
It is too bad the only forums for exposing this posing are not generally
known to naive users.
Maybe it is time to write short letters to the news outlets,
politicians, and Better Business Bureau.
--
Microsoft -- We offer you the next new dev environment d'jeur.
|
|
