Clogwog wrote:
> <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
> news:1193062542.529900.218710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <Quote>
>> [Microsoft will obey, won't appeal...] dropping a challenge of a
>> European Commission order that found it guilty of monopoly abuse three
>> years ago....
>>
>> Ms. Kroes said she regretted that it took so long for Microsoft to
>> comply, because consumers suffered a lack of choice for years as
>> rivals were held back from developing better software.
>>
>> If the software maker does not keep to the terms of the deal,
>> competitors will be able to take the company to a British court to
>> seek damages....
>>
>> The company will now charge a one-time fee of 10,000 euros ($14,310)
>> for companies that want "complete and accurate" technical information
>> to help them make software compatible with Microsoft's Windows desktop
>> operating system.
>>
>> [Right, for $14,000 you get cut-and-paste of the London phone
>> book...]
>>
>> It will also allow that data to go to open source systems such as
>> Linux, and will cut the price it charges for worldwide licenses -
>> including patents - to less than 7 percent of what Microsoft
>> originally claimed.
>>
>> "The agreements will be enforceable before the High Court in London,
>> and will provide for effective remedies, including damages, for third-
>> party developers in the event that Microsoft breaches those
>> agreements," the commission said.
>>
>> The European Union's executive arm said it would soon decide if the
>> software maker violated European law by overcharging for
>> interoperability information....
>>
>> Microsoft lost an appeal at the Court of First Instance on Sept. 17.
>>
>> Ms. Kroes promised that computer users would soon see real benefits.
>>
>> Microsoft controls some 95 percent of the software running on desktop
>> computers in offices and homes and has a 70 percent chunk of work
>> group server software that control how a group desktops access each
>> others and transfer tasks to printers.
>> </Quote>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/22apsoft.html
>>
>
> Nice you agree, you dumbfuck cunt!
> "Microsoft controls some 95 percent of the software running on desktop
How much would they have, had they not done the dirty on so many software
companies, buying those that it could not simply sweep asside by putting in
their own version. So they would buy the company and drop the staff, all
they wanted was the code. Fair enough, except that in the minds of many it
was the programmers that MS should have kept, minds that can create code
that was worthy of these take overs are much more important than a bunch of
functions or classes, MS pissed on their own legs by missing the obvious.
There are doing the same right now, after all these years of MS machines
depending entirely on the third party security vendors, MS are now rolling
their own. Their reverse engineers have finally worked out how it is done.
Go down the list of MS features and you will find very little that MS
invented for themselves, including Windows itself and now what are we
finding? That MS are severely short of high end software engineers. Piss on
your own leg and you end up with wet pants.
> server software that control how a group desktops access each others and
> transfer tasks to printers."
SMB. That is all those controls are, it is the SMB packets. It is a good
packet system and is particularly good for asking other network devices
about capabilities, just as you would ask a sound card or a video card
within your machine to return it's capabilities in your software, you can
talk to the network devices in the same way.
MS forgot one tiny little thing when they came up with SMB, they forgot to
ask the virus people to not use it. So you could scan a network and in a
short time have a list of devices and from all those devices willing to
respond, you also have the capabilities. So what do you want to do, set off
all the printers putting out crap? talk to a few PCs and persuade them to
download a nice virus script perhaps? The choices are endless.
Thank goodness for those third party security vendors, because those are the
only things protecting you from these attacks, MS isn't protecting you.
Vista might, in fact vista's paper sugests that it will be very good at
protecting from this sort of thing, except that to make it work the SMB
packets had to be changed as well as the file format.
I would be happy to praise MS where it is due, but the two points you make
are notworthy of praise.
Things MS did that are worthy of praise:-
1. MS software development kits.
2.
I so wanted to write a list then, but got stuck on number two.
|
|
