In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:22:32 +0000
<5188319.rzOVDAooJg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Friday 09 November 2007 01:36 : \____
>
>> Once again Microsoft is dictating where we all want to
>> go today. Thank you Microsoft for mucking up what should
>> have been a very straightforward problem. (And this is
>> *after* deprecating the <APPLET> tag, but that's another
>> rant for another day.)
>
>
> $Employer hopefully does not require you to do a lot of JS.
> Microsoft has similar plans for JS.
We do a *lot* of Javscript.
>
> Mozilla, Microsoft drawing sabers over next JavaScript
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Eich charged in turn that Microsoft's arguments are self-serving. "At best,
> | we have a fundamental conflict of visions and technical values between the
> | majority and the minority," he wrote. "However, the obvious conflict of
> | interest between the standards-based web and proprietary platforms advanced
> | by Microsoft, and the rationales for keeping the web's client-side
> | programming language small while the proprietary platforms rapidly evolve
> | support for large languages, does not help maintain the fiction that only
> | clashing high-level philosophies are involved here."
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;554904782;fp;2;fpid;1
>
> I have some better references that explain the severity of this dispute,
> but it would take a while to fetch them. And it's not just JavaScript.
> XAML is on its way too, along with a whole fat stack that's indended
> to hijack the Web in the server room and the desktop.
>
> ECIS Accuses Microsoft of Plotting HTML Hijack
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | An industry coalition that has represented competitors of Microsoft
> | in European markets before the European Commission stepped up its
> | public relations offensive this morning, this time accusing
> | Microsoft of scheming to upset HTML's place in the fabric of
> | the Internet with XAML, an XML-based layout lexicon forn
> | etwork applications.
> `----
>
> http://www.betanews.com/article/ECIS_Accuses_Microsoft_of_Plotting_HTML_Hijack/1169824569
Well, Microsoft clearly has a need here. Not only do they
want to continue their desktop monopoly (it's a good source
of income), but they need to get into the mobile space and
the server room as well -- as that's where the money is.
To get into the server room, they'll need to establish
a need -- and that need might best be done by giving
people additional value for their Microsoft desktops,
and Microsoft desktops *only*.
This might be construed as "restraint of trade" but I
can't say for sure at the moment.
>
> Remember that Microsoft admitted sabotaging and
> ignoring Web standard.
They have that option. It's a dangerous road, to be sure.
> Also recall memos where they said that they should ignore
> standards body because they are big enough to go proprietary
> (how can one also forget Ballmer's "we ARE the standard").
But they *are* the standard -- a de facto one. To ignore
this issue runs the risk of running into the elephant
in the room that everyone is trying to ignore.
>
> What the world needs is not a W3Consortium, but a W3Police.
> The US government is being bribed by Microsoft to police
> nothing, so someone's got to make a first step (or foreign
> countries truly realise what Microsoft is doing).
>
The police enforce the law. Is there a law here? Which?
There's no requirement for the hypothetical W3Police to
do anything, unless one can bring up specific allegations
like the aforemention restraint of trade, or allegations
of unfair monopolization.
Personally, I'd welcome such a prospect, but one must have
one's ducks in place.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
