alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:26:31 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 28 February 2008 16:05 : \____
>>
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Now we know another reason Microsoft rolled out with great fanfare
>>>>> last week its interoperability principles. Not only was it hoping for
>>>>> one more chance to claim openness around its Office Open XML document
>>>>> format, but it was also hoping to head off another hefty antitrust
>>>>> fine from the European Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> On February 27, it became clear that Microsoft's effort on the EC
>>>>> front was in vain: The EC announced it planned to charge Microsoft
>>>>> $1.3 billion for failing to comply with terms from EC's 2004
>>>>> antitrust case. The EC said the new fine (on top of the $1.2 billion
>>>>> it had already charged Microsoft) was for failing to provide
>>>>> competitors access to its protocols at a reasonable price, enabling
>>>>> them to build compatible solutions."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If Microsoft have not put in the anti-free software provisions, then
>>> ^^^^->had
>>>> it's just possible that they might've done enough. Clearly, they were
>>>> hoping that they could get away with attempting to isolate foss with
>>>> the EU's backing, but thankfully that was unsuccessful. I wonder how
>>>> much more money Microsoft will be willing to gamble on this?
>>
>> I suppose you know this already, but the 'openness' (last Thursday) was
>> more harm than good. it's about turning Free software to Free [sic]
>> Software (using patents).
>>
>> Microsoft should be slammed, not praised for it.
>
> Well, we should continue to NOT trust Microsoft. It's pretty obvious that
> they have no interest in true interoperability.
>
> What we should be doing is writing our own software stacks for Windows
> instead of relying on them to open their protocols.
>
Off you go then. Post your first "SW stack" here for review by your
fellow COLA peers.
|
|
