Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×


One (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733528)

is the loneliest number that you'll ever do.

Re:One (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733552)

This week I have mainly be consuming cigarettes and redvines.

DEEZ NUTS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733595)

This post claimed by AC's worldwide...



mobydill (218466) | about 12 years ago | (#3733529)

asdfasdfasd fasdfas dfasdfasdfasd fasdfasdfas df asdf

Roam (-1)

The Lyrics Guy (539223) | about 12 years ago | (#3733535)

I like this song. New Wave.

The B52s - Roam

I near a wind
Whistling air
Whispering in my ear

Boy Mercury shootin' through every degree
OOO girl dancin' down those dirty and dusty trails
Take it hip to hip rocket through the wilderness
Around the world the trip begins with a kiss

Roam if you want to
Roam around the world
Roam if you want to
Without wings, without wheels
Roam if you want to
Without anything but the love we feel

Skip the air-strip for the sunset
Ride the arrow for the target---One
Take it hip to hip rock it through the wilderness
Around the world the trip begins with a kiss


Fly the great big sky
See the great big sea
Kick through continents
Bustin' boundaries
Take it hip to hip rocket through the wilderness
Around the world the trip begins with a kiss


Take it hip to hip
Rocket through the wilderness

Re:Roam (-1)

Metrollica (552191) | about 12 years ago | (#3733648)

I was going to post a song but the fucking lameness filter said not enough characters were on each line. They must have increased it's sensitivity or some shit. Even 31.7 chars/line is not enough. And the song wouldn't even post on Code mode. Fucking Taco.

first post faggots suck my asshole you all lick co (-1)

Shaklee3 (576563) | about 12 years ago | (#3733536)

first post faggots suck my asshole you all lick cock

Re:first post faggots suck my asshole you all lick (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733733)

Piss ass post, CLIT boy. Go attack a cock.

finally (1)

idontneedanickname (570477) | about 12 years ago | (#3733539)

so this is finally over...

Re:finally (2)

Phroggy (441) | about 12 years ago | (#3733560)

so this is finally over...

Uh, no, the judge still has to make a decision. And then it may be appealed. Sorry.

Re:finally (2, Funny)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | about 12 years ago | (#3733578)

Uh, no, the judge still has to make a decision. And then it may be appealed. Sorry.

Appeal? @#$%. I'm not sure I can handle this. Screw the CompSci major, does anyone know where I can get information on becoming a witch doctor to some tribe in Brazil thats never even heard of computers?

Re:finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733640)

You can bet that MS will appeal if the punishment that the judge decides on is the least bit unpleasant. What does MS have to lose but a little bit more money for attorney fees?

Re:finally (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733561)

And nothing will happen to MS as they have probably paid off anyone who matters.

It's never over (2)

Erris (531066) | about 12 years ago | (#3733587)

This will be over when the judgement is made. I look forward to M$ being punished for their misdeeds almost as much as I look forward to the supreme court hearing of arbitrary copyright extentions such as the Bono fiasco.

M$ is more doomed by Wal Mart's promotion of Linux. It will eat M$'s revenue stream and leave them breaking their apps to dominate an OS that no one wants any more. The end is indeed near. Go Mandrake!

Re:It's never over (2, Interesting)

macdaddy357 (582412) | about 12 years ago | (#3733661)

The worst that will happen is that Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine. Compared to the company's net worth, it will be a pittence. Microsoft will then continue business as usual. Anti-trust laws have no teeth. The white collar criminals who violate them never do any time. Taking a million in fines from a billionare is not much punishment.

Re:It's never over (2, Insightful)

duckygator (171704) | about 12 years ago | (#3733672)

WalMart's promotion will not eat into M$'s revenue stream at all. People buy home computers to match what they are familiar with at work. Until businesses implement alternate desktop environments, the common person will be too ignorant and intimidated to purchase anything besides what they use at work.

In America we love our freedom but give it all away to Bill
Guess file compatibility's worth more to us than our free will
"Kick" - Irrational Exuberance

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Unregistered (584479) | about 12 years ago | (#3733544)


Let's stop and reflect (5, Funny)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 12 years ago | (#3733556)

Even all that Microsoft has done that is bad, lets think of the good things that they have also done for us. Where would we be without Microsoft's existance? How easy/hard would computers be to use? I don't think that Linux would even be as mature as it is because alot of people started off on Microsoft products, and turned to Linux as an alternative, but found their love of computers using Dos and Win3.1

Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us. We should think of this before we totally bash (no pun intended, well just a little) them.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (3, Interesting)

big_hairy_mama (79958) | about 12 years ago | (#3733581)

For one, without Microsoft I wouldn't have my beautiful Optical Intellimouse or my Natural Keyboard (can't type on anything else). And my friends wouldn't have their XBoxes, and I would never have played Motocross/Monster Truck Madness with my Sidewinder joystick.

IMHO, Microsoft's gaming/input/hardware development has been the shining jewel of their whole company.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (2, Funny)

ken_mcneil (90642) | about 12 years ago | (#3733610)

Why did you have to go and remind me about Age of Empires 2? Now I'm going to have to go for two weeks without sleep as I get my fix. This will most likely cause me to have to retake all the classes I'm taking this summer. Thus, I wont graduate on time! Good job buddy!

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

themassiah (80330) | about 12 years ago | (#3733627)

Please notice that MS has -VERY- little to do with designing their own hardware. They outsource the design and manufacture, and just slap their name on it.

Typical MS tactics. Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 12 years ago | (#3733655)

Typical MS tactics. Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent.

Forgive me for being naive but isn't that what most businesses call "R&D" ???


Re:Let's stop and reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733667)

"Throw enough money around, you're bound to come up with something decent."

Your parents must have been quite poor, for they obviously didn't get anything decent out of you.

Please, don't claim they've innovated anything. (1)

Tomble (579119) | about 12 years ago | (#3733731)

Don't know much about MS's Optical Intellimouse, but IIRC, one of the selling points was that it had no ball, and went on nearly any surface (unless that was a different MS mouse).

Now, whilst they may have required their own fancy types of mouse-mat, but Sun Microsystems (and maybe several other workstation manufacturers) certainly had optical mice of much that style (IE- no ball, sensors track the surface it is on) a LONG time before MS produced their version.

Microsoft's is probably a lot better, I'd expect, being far more recent and having advantages of selling in bulk- but they certainly didn't make some VAST quantum leap with a new concept, any more than they did with DOS (bought from another company, based on CP/M), Windows (idea copied from Apple and PARC), Direct3D (bought from another company, long after OpenGL had been created), Pre-emptive multitasking (after much of the rest of the computing world), hardware abstraction (about 25 years after Unix), etc, etc.

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733582)

Have you ever heard of the Macintosh? For that matter, the original DOS was hardly made by Microsoft.

Re:Question (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 12 years ago | (#3733604)

Yes in fact, and in addition I think that Apple has done many great things for the industry as well. Although they also have their problems, but they are getting better and so is Microsoft. And truely, is Mac really that great of a Development platform? I like macs mainly for multimedia, not programming OR Networking

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733668)

Sweetheart, I'm a web developer with over 7 years of experience developing on the Unix platform. Since I discovered Mac OS X, I've been hooked!

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733684)

"web developer"

Considering the poor quality of most of the content on the web, I'm not surprized that a web developer would go for OS X.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733584)

AS easy as the Macs?
Mac, XWindows, the list goes on about easy systems, but we ignore them, MS WAS NOT FIRST YOU DAFT FUCKWIT

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

kingkade (584184) | about 12 years ago | (#3733685)

you're right, ms was not the first to introduce a windowing system, neither was apple -- xerox was i believe (with Mosaic or something). Watch your language please. It just weakens your already misled argument.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | about 12 years ago | (#3733601)

Of course they've done good. They've also been convicted of breaking the law. Should we look the other way when Microsoft abuses their monopoly power, just because they've made computers more widespread? Should we look the other way when the county sherrif steals money, just because he's helped protect our community? Should we look the other way when a priest molests a child, just because he's done so much good in the church?

Think about what you're saying, and quit trolling for Microsoft.

Priests (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 12 years ago | (#3733660)

Wow, that Priest compairision was really great, I would have modded you up some if I hadn't already started talking on this topic and had a few points.

Good points too

Not trying to troll just pondering (3, Insightful)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 12 years ago | (#3733710)

I am not really trying to Troll here, but I am just thinking of what Microsoft does for me on a day to day basis. Yes, I can see from other posts here, that other OSes would have probably taken the place of Windows if Microsoft had dissapeared in the 90's. I do know that after Win95, alot more people were starting to buy computers, but for some reason the release of OS/2 didn't fly as well, even though it had a few months up on Win95.

What does Windows do for me?
Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB. OS2, I don't know, but IBM isn't really pushing its updating now are they... Other things also fall into this pit. Alot of hardware is Windows only, while this isn't Microsoft's fault, its certainly nice to have an OS that's 'standard' on most desktops, no it's not the only OS I use, I have 3 linux boxes and 5 windows boxes around the house, all different flavors on all.
Simplcity- While Mac OS offers this as well, which I am grateful for. I know Windows well. I know linux well too. However, there are too few 'standards' around for linux setups and configs. Its hard to troubleshoot. Perhaps thats just me, but it still needs maturing for standard setups, etc...

There are a few other ways that Windows helps me, but I am outta time....

Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do. Anyway, there goes my Karma...

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733761)

You miss the point. Everyone in the world (with the exception of some people here) understands the need for a "standard" PC operating system. So it's perfecty natural, and not illegal, that someone has a monopoly on this market.

What's no good (and illegal) is when that company starts bullying people around about non-Operating system software. Telling ISPs that they won't get listed in the "Connect To the Internet" applet if they happen to ship Netscape. Telling OEMs not to ship RealPlayer (or they will pay higher prices for Windows). That sort of thing.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (3, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 12 years ago | (#3733603)

"...but found their love of computers using Dos and Win3.1"

Funny, when I got into computers back in 1991 I started with DOS and only began the love affair when I discovered OS/2.

Where would we be without MS? Imagine a best of breed OS that evolved from the best aspects of OS/2, BeOS and Linux, all three of which would have had mainstream support and decent marketshares years ago if the OEMs weren't scared shiteless of retaliation from MS.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733613)

I discovered OS/2.

There's always one. No-one but you cares about OS/2

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

mandolin (7248) | about 12 years ago | (#3733681)

Imagine a best of breed OS that evolved from the best aspects of OS/2, BeOS and Linux

I'd like to point out that while you were fantasizing, you neglected to include Amiga and MacOS.

The other possible response from any Apple die-hard would be "you mean OS X?"

Re:Let's stop and reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733770)

OS/2 was Windows Warmed Over. Same shit from an even more monopolitic bunch of assholes than Microsoft. You, sir, are a dupe.

I can't be certain but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733607)

I think this is Bill Gates himself trolling on slashdot in his spare time.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733611)

Actually, without Microsoft there would not have been a Linux. Because of the success of Microsoft there are now hundreds of millions of computers out there that can't run the latest Microsoft bloatware, but are still perfectly good for running Linux. So thank Bill for the inexpensive hardware base we now have for open source!

Re:Let's stop and reflect (-1)

I.T.R.A.R.K. (533627) | about 12 years ago | (#3733630)

Without Microsoft, there would be no Free Software movement or Open Source.
Every religion needs it's God and it's Devil.
Without one, the other would have no reason for being, and would be forgotten.
Look at it this way: If the Open Source hippies had nothing to bitch and moan about, and no one to deem the great evil, they would have had no reason to start the free software movement. And they probably wouldn't have.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (5, Insightful)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | about 12 years ago | (#3733632)

Where would we be without Microsoft's existance? Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us.

Running Netscape on OS/2 Warp? Running Mosaic on MacOS? Despite what they'd like you to believe, Microsoft has not contributed anything particularly vital to the ease of use of computers. The basic concepts can all be found elsewhere(and earlier). Windows at Xerox PARC and on MacOS. The mouse was invented well before Microsoft was founded. DOS was certainly nothing special, and Win95 didn't offer anything OS/2 wasn't doing well before. I fail to see any big favors they've done us.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

echelon13 (584775) | about 12 years ago | (#3733757)

I'm sure my ignorance about OS/2 is showing, but didn't Microsoft play a role in the development of OS/2, at least in the early versions? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Other than that little detail, I completely agree with your post.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (4, Insightful)

0WaitState (231806) | about 12 years ago | (#3733637)

Where would we be without Microsoft's existance?

Well, until I completely swore off developing on Microsoft I was rebooting several times a week ("Mouse movement detected. Reboot now?"), having to reinstall several times a year, spending days scouring bbs, usenet, msdn to see if anyone else had seen my particular microsoft problem before. Always wondering when Microsoft would break existing implementations in their attempts to force upgrade. I still have to help out relatives who think they've broken their system when Microsoft changes an Office format, I still spend much time deleting Outlook worm mail, I've had to spend time telling clueless managers what all that nimda traffic was in the (Netscape) webserver logs.

So all in all, without Microsoft I'd probably have a couple months of my life back, lower stress levels, and a healthier liver.

I think you are trolling. (2)

mindstrm (20013) | about 12 years ago | (#3733649)

That may be how it was for you... but...

Firstly, a MAC is STILL easier to use and more straightforward than windows. So there goes that argument.

Microsoft has NEVER made computers easier to use. Yes, they have become somewhat easier for joe average to use.

And I sure didnt' get my start on DOS or Win3.1.

And as for those that found their 'love of computers' on dos and win3.1, they would have also found it on any other computing system they used at the time.

Re:I think you are trolling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733674)

"Firstly, a MAC is STILL easier to use and more straightforward than windows. So there goes that argument."

What do you expect? They know their market, and their market does not have enough intelligence to use advanced features that would require learning. So, obviously, MACs are easier to use.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

Tomble (579119) | about 12 years ago | (#3733678)

Hmm, funny, I started off on Sinclair ZX81s and Spectrums, then moved to DOS as a teenager (having gained the impression that PCs were really powerful when many of my mates didn't really know about them)...
...But I "found my love of computers" using Linux. OTOH, I did come up with things like implementing sparse arrays with linked lists (which in turn were implemented in arrays :P) whilst using DOS -because Quickbasic could only access 64K of memory (plus a bit more if you started it with some option set).

It is a point that perhaps without MS running almost everything and running it badly, Linux users may not have put as much energy into making it as great as possible (a feat still not quite managed...), but as for MS making computers easier to use? Blurgh.

It is something worth considering that it is probably impossible to make a UI that is "intuitive" to use, because intuitive means "does what you expect it to". And if you expect your computer or program to do something else? How do you know how it is going to behave if you know nothing about it? Well, you learn in time- just like you can learn to use pretty much any software. Anyway, I'm occasionally pleased with the way that my mum consistently has to ask me how to do certain things on her Win98 PC. It may be frustrating to have to explain certain things that are pretty obvious to me, but it shows that it is not universally obvious, or intuitive.

To quote Neal Stephenson... (5, Insightful)

Invictus2.0 (570276) | about 12 years ago | (#3733691)

What good has Microsoft done? Stephenson give us his always insightful take on this in In the Beginning was the Command Line []

"The availability of all this cheap but effective hardware was an unintended consequence of decisions that had been made more than a decade earlier by IBM and Microsoft. When Windows came out, and brought the GUI to a much larger market, the hardware regime changed: the cost of color video cards and high-resolution monitors began to drop, and is dropping still. This free-for-all approach to hardware meant that Windows was unavoidably clunky compared to MacOS. But the GUI brought computing to such a vast audience that volume went way up and prices collapsed. Meanwhile Apple, which so badly wanted a clean, integrated OS with video neatly integrated into processing hardware, had fallen far behind in market share, at least partly because their beautiful hardware cost so much.

But the price that we Mac owners had to pay for superior aesthetics and engineering was not merely a financial one. There was a cultural price too, stemming from the fact that we couldn't open up the hood and mess around with it. Doug Barnes was right. Apple, in spite of its reputation as the machine of choice of scruffy, creative hacker types, had actually created a machine that discouraged hacking, while Microsoft, viewed as a technological laggard and copycat, had created a vast, disorderly parts bazaar--a primordial soup that eventually self-assembled into Linux."

Re:Let's stop and reflect (5, Insightful)

Eryq (313869) | about 12 years ago | (#3733713)

An honorable sentiment, BUT...

...seeing as Microsoft stole their user interface from the Apple Macintosh (which stole it from Xerox PARC's "Altos" system),

...and seeing that Mac had long filenames and REAL plug-and-play (with its pure SCSI architecture) years before MS had a clue that these might be good things,

...and seeing that the loss of Mac's market share to PCs was really due to price and NOT capability or ease of use (in 3 words: cheap PC clones),

...what exactly do you think we owe to Microsoft? Not one innovation in computing or user interfaces has come from Redmond. NOT ONE. And software? Their best products were purchased, not developed by them (Visio, PowerPoint, FrontPage, MSIE nee Spyglass Mosaic, etc., etc...). Even C# is just a Java ripoff.

Let's leave Linux out of the picture for a minute. Sit down with a Mac (if you haven't already). Every good thing MS has given you, they got from Apple or other software vendors. Except the Internet, which was old when I was a pup... and the Web, which came from Tim Berners-Lee and a little NeXT box called :-)

Re:Let's stop and reflect (1)

Agthorr (135998) | about 12 years ago | (#3733724)

Hmm, well, if Microsoft had squashed them with their monopoly, we'd have grown up with PC-DOS, DR-DOS, and/or OS/2. You count this in Microsoft's favor? ;)

-- Agthorr
(hey, wait, I did grow up on PC-DOS and DR-DOS...)

Re:Let's stop and reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733738)

What crap. MS won with DOS and Win 3.1, hardly the paragons of easy-to-use operating systems. You aren't a man until you've installed an isa nic, cd-rom and sound card in a networked DOS box and still had enough memory under 640 to start an app. Apple always had the easier to use OS.

And it's exactly the opposite, Win 2k and XP would be nowhere near the level of stability and performance they are now if it weren't for MS looking over their collective shoulders at, and borrowing code from, the free 'nix's. Prior to that, 95 and NT were their best effort. The latest Windows advances in themes are old hat in Linux too. Sorry, no cigar.

Re:Let's stop and reflect (0, Troll)

siliconwafer (446697) | about 12 years ago | (#3733759)

Whoever modded the parent of this message to troll, you are a fucking idiot.

The post has several legit points. Saying that MS hasn't done anything good is absurd. Microsoft may be a monopoly, they might abuse their size, but they have created some awesome products and I doubt anyone can deny that fact.

Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733562)

is this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?

XP Service Pack 1 (1)

droyad (412569) | about 12 years ago | (#3733564)

Microsoft claimed ages ago that Explorer could not be removed, so what they do? They "Removed" it and allowed 3rd part people to add their stuff. Hopefully they won't oppress us OEMs anymore.

My point is hopefully the judge will see through microsofts vain attempt to the fact that they had a monopoly, not now, but 5 years ago

Re:XP Service Pack 1 (1)

burnsy (563104) | about 12 years ago | (#3733697)

Sorry they are just hiding it, not removing it.

it's actually.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733568)

The 9 States + DC vs. Microsoft, not the other way around

Hello gentlemen ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733569)

I've just poured hot bubble-and-squeak down my trousers!

Re:Hello gentlemen ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733580)

Get your dog to lick it off quick or it will congeal and you'll be picking bits of cold cabbage out of your crevices for ages.


Competitor's Integration... (2, Interesting)

manly_15 (447559) | about 12 years ago | (#3733576)

The 9 states want other companies to be able to replace Internet Explorer / Media Player / etc with their own products. Would the end user be able to do the same? Could I download the Opera display engine and replace the IE engine? Freeamp and Media player? Or would this be only availible to the large software companies (AOL and Real)?

Re:Competitor's Integration... (2)

Sabalon (1684) | about 12 years ago | (#3733608)

Or even worse - MS no longer shipping a version with their stuff in it (yeah right), but could you imagine...

I've got Dell Windows (Opera and RealPlayer)
Oh...I've got Gateway Windows (Netscape and Quicktime)
I've got Compaq/HP Windows (Opera and Quicktime)

I still don't see where a technical solution is needed, just a contractual solution.

Broken Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733577)

Thats the first time i've seen a broken link on slashdot to one of their own stories. It's fixed though. HORRAY!!!

thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733583)

for lone gunmening

Expected Outcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733585)

MS: Extends wrist
Judge: Whacks wrist
People: Don't care
Geeks: Express Horror
MS: Business as usual

Well, times do change. (1)

MarvinMouse (323641) | about 12 years ago | (#3733589)

The two main changes that could be implemented will have such a strange effect on the industry. I really don't know what will happen.

If Modular Windows is required, then I am guessing the windows kernel will remain the standard used by most people since it supports the most software.

but if like the papers say, she chooses the alternative that the data has to be released. One of two things can happen.

1. MS's lawyers will find a loophole and just release enough code to get away with the ruling, but not enough to do anything significant.

2. or (and this is the best of all three) MS will have to release so much code that other OSs can be constructed that will work with MS programs. This is really nice, because then no OS will really be able to monopolize the market again easily.

Just some thoughts.

Re:Well, times do change. (1)

idontneedanickname (570477) | about 12 years ago | (#3733726)

then again...think about it...they DID make that code...i'm not saying that it would be BAD, just saying a little apretiation is due

don't hurt me *cowers*

Disclosing Source (1)

droyad (412569) | about 12 years ago | (#3733592)

Even if microsoft disclosed the source code, It would still be copyrighted. This means that people can't change it and re-distribute. It also means that you can't copy any of their code. I think it would be useless to developers to look at MS source code as they wouldn't be able to use it.

And for those who think about MS releasing the code and being able to use it like GPL code are on crack

Re:Disclosing Source (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 12 years ago | (#3733619)

True, we couldn't just do with it as we please. However, why should we to tell people that they HAVE to give up their rights to something that they put their time and money into? I think that if a person wants to keep their property, than they can, and if they want to share it, then so be it.

I personally don't mind Explorer, Media player, etc... I kinda minded the Microsoft Messanger thing, but that's just because it autolaunched.

Anyway, just my 2c

Re:Disclosing Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733620)

I think the states want MS to document file formats and communication protocols to promote competing products, not open the Windows source code.

Re:Disclosing Source (2)

Disevidence (576586) | about 12 years ago | (#3733622)

Not, people want the code to be released so they can develop native apps for it easier, using the libraries already there, and for things like the linux emulators. Openness of the code and the formats, not GPL'd, is what really should happen.

Here's ZDNet's Article (2, Informative)

grylnsmn (460178) | about 12 years ago | (#3733612)

ZDNet [] is running an article on this as well. It has some interesting comments posted by the readers in their Talkback section.

To Appeal or Not to Appeal (1)

vinn (4370) | about 12 years ago | (#3733614)

IANAL: I am not a lawnmower. I'm also not a lawyer.

Given that someone out there cares more than I do (I did care for the first two years, now I want a decision to stick), could someone please explain what will happen if the judge rules in favor of the states? Can Microsoft appeal? What if Microsoft wins? Can the states appeal?

What about penalties? (2, Interesting)

VultureMN (116540) | about 12 years ago | (#3733618)

Most of the talk about the MS case centers around how to keep Microsoft from unfairly clobbering competition, which is good. But how come we never see anything about penalties for past behavior? How 'bout a nice 10 billion dollar fine (only 1/3 of Microsoft's cash reserve...) that we can then throw at the ISS? Yeah...

Page Blanking Post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733621)

Eye gouging post (-1)

Metrollica (552191) | about 12 years ago | (#3733666)

Eye gouging post []

Immovable object and ? force... (2, Insightful)

Vengie (533896) | about 12 years ago | (#3733628)

Quick exerpt...
For their part, the non-settling states said additional disclosure of the source code that would allow rival software to work with the Windows operating system was their most important demand. "If you forced us to articulate the single highest priority -- that's it," states' attorney Steve Kuney told the judge.


As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.


Hello? Essentially, Microsoft says it's top priority is NOT doing what the states feel is the topmost remedy to the entire situation.

Again, DOJ and MS lock horns head on and it will come down to the Judge.

Dear god let us have a resolution already.

Microsofts attitude (5, Insightful)

fava (513118) | about 12 years ago | (#3733642)

Quote from article:
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said that the company has always maintained that no remedy is in order, and the provisions outlined in the federal settlement
go as far as the company is willing to go.
Why does Microsoft keep acting like this is a negotiation between equals. They LOST, the court has a right to impose any settlement that it deems fit irregardless of what Microsoft wants. Now if both sides could agree on a settlement if would result in a much quicker settlement without the endless appeals, but Microsofts approval of the settlement is NOT necessary or even desirable.

I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial. Take your lumps and move on.

Re:Microsofts attitude (5, Funny)

Eryq (313869) | about 12 years ago | (#3733747)

I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial.

Attitude, hell... I'm getting tired of the fact that the DOJ has been humoring it. In what other court case can you think of where, after the conviction (upheld on appeal) the judge basically says...

"Gee, guys... given that you're guilty and all, umm, you know... would it be okay, if, like, you maybe met with the injured parties and agreed on a sentence that was a little, you know, inconvenient for you? If that's ok with you, of course..."

Re:Microsofts attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733771)

Just for your information, irregardless is not a word []

Micro$oft logic (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733656)

As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.

Microsoft also previously has argued that the states' demands go far beyond addressing the antitrust violations it actually committed and would harm consumers and the entire computer industry.

So, disclosing source would benefit all of Micro$oft's competitors, but harm the entire computer industry??? How can that be, unless Micro$oft considers themselves to be "the entire computer industry"??? What economic textbook teaches them that reining in a monopoly harms consumers?

You've got to give a lot of credit to the M$ lawyers for actually making these claims in court while keeping a straight face, but I suspect the judge is not amused by these insults to our intelligence.

various possible penalties. (2, Interesting)

Alien54 (180860) | about 12 years ago | (#3733663)

keep trying to think of what would be the fairest penalty, and then they go do something that just pisses me off. So I finnally just throw my hands up and say to hell with them

Since they should not have any benefit from any illegal act they have done, and since they were convicted of something, they should probably "dis-intergrate" the connection with the internet, and take anything primarily connected to the internet such as browsers, and MSN, and web server stuff, etc, and spin it all off as a separate company.

things which are not primarily an internet thing (the OS thing, Office, etc) should be retained as another company.

And the two compamnies should not be able to do any business with each other for 5 or 6 years, basically the length of time they have had the benefit of their illegal actions.

nothing much, just my rant.

Final Arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733669)

MS: Here is the money.
Court: Thank you!

The People versus Bill Gates (4, Funny)

sam_handelman (519767) | about 12 years ago | (#3733670)

Okay, I've got the script.

Basically, I've rewriten Bill's uninteresting personal life to be just like Larry Flynt's. Sorry, to be just like the personal life Larry was given in the movie. In Bill's case, we can gloss over the child pornography because it didn't happen.

If someone had asked you before The People vs. Larry Flynt "can Courtney Love act?" you would say "No," but she did. Therefore, Britney Spears will play Mrs. Gates. She will play a heroine addict - she will win an Oscar. If Britney Spears gets an Oscar, it must be God's will. He works in mysterious ways.

Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt, is the hero of the picture. Only one man can make such a part work: Samuel L Jackson. Seth Green ("Scott Evil") spins well among teens - he'll cameo as Ashcroft. We've seen recently that only one man has the radiant malifluousness to play Judge Thomas Penfied Jackson: Christopher Lee. He'll really bring home the senseless brutality of the breakup order. Kevin Costner will produce and direct - he'll also play a fictionalised Gestalt of all of Bill's lawyers. Kevin is the only one who can make this star-bloated, ishtaresque monster expensive enough to actually sink a studio. Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.

At the end of the picture, we roll Bill on in a wheelchair and he dedicates the picture to that mousy wife of his. Oh, yeah, she needs to die.

The only question is - how can we convince Bill Gates to go before the court of appeals wearing a diaper?

Something that sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733676)

When you've been listening to an audiobook for 3 hours and then realize the player has been set to randomize.

no no no, it's more like this... (2, Insightful)

jdbo (35629) | about 12 years ago | (#3733677)

States: Gates is a Poo-Poo Head! And here are thousands of reasons why, though we have neglected to organize and present them a focused and useful manner. Also, Ballmer smells.

BillG + lawyers: Well, I'm rubber and you're glue, your thousands of reasons bounce off of me and stick to you!

States: Uh, uh, uh, wait, that doesn't mean anything! I read in some law book that you actually have to refute our reasons and stuff!

BillG + lawyers: Too late! We already said it! And look, here's our press release declaring that you smell your own farts! Nyah-nyah!

States: Rats! We'd better focus our remaining arguments on declaring that we're not fart-smellers!

Ballmer: Hey! I don't smell my own farts! (dances like a sweaty monkey)


Seriously, does anyone expect anything genuinely more informative than that from their arguments? the DOJ let MS dictate many of the terms of the debate, and wasted too much effort fighting MS on their own semantic turf, focusing insanely on the conceptually murky(-able) browser issues rather than looking at the "smoking gun" issues (such as OEM licensing and dual-booting, DR-DOS "incompatibility", even Apple and MS-Office). The states haven't done much of anything to expand on the DOJs well-supported, but poorly-executed arguments.

Not that MS has come up with any non-philosphical arguments themselves - most of their objections are based on the idea that the law shouldn't apply in their "special case", which is based on "software is different/MS is too economically vital to mess with/Gates is a lovey-sweetums and everyone should just love him back".

For crying out loud, the debates about post-modernism I attended in art school never achieved the bull-headed, pseudo-articulate, self-important levels of idiocy that this trial has.

And now I've added to it..


Anti-Trust Case was always bogus (1, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | about 12 years ago | (#3733683)

The anti-trust suit has been bogus from the beginning. There were four fundamental issues (three Federal, one state-level), and the proposed definitions of the "crime" and remedies for it don't fix them.
  • Microsoft gave away their browser for free! Those bastards! Of course, this complaint was loudly made in Congress by Netscape, who gained their market dominance by giving away their browser for free, which was hypocritical at best. The obvious cure for this problem is to force Microsoft to open-source their browser, i.e. give it away for free.... Oh, wait.... Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their browser into their operating system as an interface tool, perhaps as a defense against the anti-trust attacks, but since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice to make. It would be nice if they'd done it a bit better, and used a bit less non-standards-based content to do it, but it's still the right choice.
  • Microsoft wholesale contracts to PC hardware makers were aggressively obnoxious about "you must pay us for a copy of Windows on every box you ship if you want to get the best wholesale prices", which means that consumers who don't want Windows did end up paying about $30 more per PC than if they could have bought the bare metal. Perhaps this gets into anti-trust territory for the Feds, but Microsoft was backing down on this before the states got into the game.
  • Bill Gates is Obnoxiously Rich and that made lots of people jealous, especially liberals and old-industry conservatives. That's nobody's business, and if the Attorney General wants to regulate Sin, he should be going after Envy as well has his favorite target Lust.
  • The state-related issue: Feeding Frenzy!! The states got a bunch of cash out of the tobacco companies, and a bunch of state attorneys general got themselves re-elected for doing such a great job, and they're trying to do the same here.

I've proposed several remedies for the problems, none of which have a chance of getting adopted :-)

  • Bill Gates *should* have short-circuited the problem by taking $3B of his own money, saying "OK, Atty.Gen. Janet Reno, if you don't like our practices, here are 2 Million Macintoshes for the Federal Government to use, give back all your copies of Win95 for a $100 refund, and go bother Steve Jobs for a couple of years." Given the drop in MSFT stock price that resulted from the anti-trust attack, he'd have been better off personally by doing it :-)
  • Bill Gates still *can* tell the Feds and the States "OK, if you don't like it, we'll refund your purchase price for all your copies of Windows98 and Windows2000, except the ones that you copied illegally, here are 5 million blank CDROMs and a copy of BitTorrent, and go bother Linus for a couple of years."
  • Gates can propose that the if the states and the Feds don't like MS giving away Windows Exploiter for free, that they could pay $29 for each of their copies and require that anybody who's running Windows 95 or newer also pay MS $29 for it.

Special treatment? (2, Interesting)

klui (457783) | about 12 years ago | (#3733689)

Do companies get special treatment when they've been convicted of a crime or is it just Microsoft? According to [] , the judge asked both sides to seek a compromise and "asked the plaintiff states "how could the defendant's proposed remedy be modified to make its terms more acceptable to plaintiffs." She also asked what changes the states would make to their remedy to satisfy issues raised during the court proceeding while still maintaining the remedy's goals."

So if some normal schmoe is convicted of a crime, does this person get to have remedies changed so it's more "acceptable"?

Re:Special treatment? (4, Interesting)

Chris Johnson (580) | about 12 years ago | (#3733774)

If I was a psychotic compulsive bank robber convinced that all banks must be robbed (but not a complete fool), and I was in court having a restraining order thrashed out, then:

-if the judge asked me 'Will you obey the restraining order?' I would likely have sense enough to protest that of course I would, your Honor.

-if the Judge asked me 'What parts of this restraining order are fair and reasonable?', I would likely erupt in wild diatribes about how it's all totally unfair and unreasonable... which would be the truth as I saw it... and would be a far more revealing answer to the first question than you'd get from asking me the first question directly.

Microsoft, in their closing argument, have made it absolutely clear that they will not cooperate with the eventual ruling in any way, and will continue to devote all their resources to evading it and denying it. I think the Judge asked them about it on purpose, to see how they'd react. Now we know. And now she knows.

Microsoft's complaint (4, Insightful)

TheFrood (163934) | about 12 years ago | (#3733690)

Microsoft lead attorney John Warden told Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the states' proposed remedy was punitive...

Yeah, imagine that. Being convicted of a crime and then actually being punished. What a crazy world we live in, huh?

Cheap humor aside, can anyone explain (and IANAL, so I'm asking honestly here) why a company that lost an antitrust suit gets to make arguments about what the punishment should be? If a private citizen is successfully sued, does s/he get to go through another round of hearings arguing that s/he shouldn't be penalized?


Being from Iowa... (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | about 12 years ago | (#3733693)

I don't quite understand Iowa's involvement in this lawsuit. Every Place (save one) that I've worked at since 1995 has been pretty entrenched in win95/NT4.0, placing it firmly in "IE not yet integrated" territory. The last two places I've worked at were just installing Win2k within this last year.

Furthermore, no one here even seems aware that "we" are suing anyone. If this is being done by the people's will, what people? Where are they? I haven't met any.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be sued, but that its pretty unconvincing that anyone besides a few money-grubbing bureaucrats are begind these lawsuits.

Something really wrong here (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about 12 years ago | (#3733695)

Court: Ok, we know you are guilty and you should be punished... so.. any ideas on how we should punish you?


It's like asking ol' Charlie Manson if he thinks our locking him away is ok.

This isn't a trial it's more like a government funded PR circus.


Re:Something really wrong here (3, Insightful)

Chris Johnson (580) | about 12 years ago | (#3733752)

Um, to see how they answer?

Never underestimate the twistiness of a lawyer- and judges are uber-lawyers.

I'd have done the same thing. It's way more effective than asking them, "Are you going to obey the outcome of this proceeding, or laugh at it and scorn it?" You don't ask them directly, 'are you going to obey the law'. You ask, 'how much of this is reasonable and just'. If they take it as an opportunity to grandstand, you know they're gonna ignore the ruling, because they don't believe in it, or in the law.

FWIW, I burst into incredulous, delighted laughter just seeing the subhead about what Microsoft had done for a reply to the question. Forget foot-shooting: they've blown off their f**king leg here. Spectacularly bad judgement. And Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a smart lady :D

Yawn (1)

Erwos (553607) | about 12 years ago | (#3733698)

Microsoft's monopoly is not really only through its evil business tactics. Where it really comes from is their brainwashing of consumers.

MS has consistently lied to consumers about the competition. Open source, Real, everyone and everything. Consumers have been taught to reflexively think "Windows", and nothing is going to change that except the complete dismantling of MS's monopoly with source release.


my penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733705)

is very long
and i have named it!

Re:my penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733722)

and i have named it hahaha

Well, to be honest, you didn't name it, your boyfriends did. "hahaha" is an appropriate name for that quarter inch piece of man steel.

Jusr NAIL "EM to the X86 platform (2)

crovira (10242) | about 12 years ago | (#3733712)

When it dies, they do. Simple, clean and neat.


ANY M$ product appear for ANY other platform and Gates and Balmer sleep in the Big House and they better NOT DROP THE SOAP. (Jobs will just have to push OpenOffice for OS X.)

Total cost of verification and enforcement $0.00

That's IT. That's ALL.

we can only hope... (4, Insightful)

esarjeant (100503) | about 12 years ago | (#3733728)

Remember when railroad companies used different sized track to eliminate competition? They also eliminated any semblance of travel convenience for the consumer.

The commercial software establishment is largely like these now non-existant railroad franchises. People have discovered that it's just software, and they are happier to enjoy a level of compatibility accross a variety of systems.

Of course, once the railroad industries agreed on standards it became possible for mass production of standards-based railway hardware. This eliminated much of the guesswork, tracks were wide enough to support trains of various sizes and shapes. Without these standards, the golden age of travel would have been unachievable.

Software needs to adopt standards, and the open source community has been vital to that process.

Given Microsoft's track record in this area, I think the best outcome now is for the judge to force MS to abide by standards for all present and future networking protocols. If a networked feature of MS software does not employ a documented RFC, W3C recommendation, etc. it must be fixed.

And there should be a federal committee responsible for reviewing and enforcing this. It is not acceptable that standards can be implemented along with a proprietary MS protocol (eg: MS Exchange).

Ultimately, all commercial software should be made to follow these rules, only the open source community will be allowed to innovate networking protocols. Most of the significant protocols came from open source / public domain anyway, let's mandate that tradition and stop companies like Microsoft from meddling with a good thing.

The judge has been favoring MS... (2, Interesting)

burnsy (563104) | about 12 years ago | (#3733745)

If the read the daily trial transcripts (which you can read here [] ), You get the sense that the judge has been leaning towards MS, despite press reports.

It is pretty clear that the states are only representing Sun ('Make MS use Java'), Novell ('Make Windows work with NDS'), Red Hat ('Make MS give us the Office source code'), et al, and don't give one whit about the public interest. The judge has picked up on this and kept telling the states to stop bringing up 'new' transgression and tell her how the states' changes serve the public interest. The states continued to ignore her at their own peril.

Can't wait for the final decision.

Understand Your Options: Purchase by July 31 and S (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733751)

Understand Your Options: Purchase by July 31 and Save

After July 31, 2002, Microsoft's new Volume Licensing program will be fully implemented. Purchasing Licenses, or Licenses and Software Assurance together, will be the way customers obtain rights to future versions of products. However, before that change, many customers may find that a cost-effective way to obtain rights to future versions of Microsoft software is to purchase Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance.

If you intend to upgrade any Microsoft desktop software you are currently licensed to run to any new version during the next three and a half years or licensed server software in the next four years, you could save by purchasing Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance now. Then you can implement any new products that are released on your schedule.

While Microsoft intends to continue to upgrade and enhance its products, Microsoft does not guarantee that a new version of any particular product will be released within any specific period of time. While Microsoft always widely publicizes upgrades, it does not proactively notify all users of a product of an upgrade for a particular product.
How to Realize the Most Savings on Licensing by July 31, 2002

The decision to purchase Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance depends on what software licenses you currently own, and your specific business needs for the future. Like many customers, you may find that the most cost-effective way to obtain rights to future versions of software is to purchase Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance for eligible licenses now.

There are two tools to help you find your current status and determine your options leading up to July 31, 2002:

1. Check your status and options interactively with the Licensing Planner (opens in a new window).
2. For ongoing reference, you may download the following diagram to find your current status and help determine your options leading up to July 31, 2002. You'll notice that after July 31, 2002, your options are different:

matrix.pdf (28 KB / 1 min. @ 28.8 Kbps)

Note: To view this diagram, you need Adobe Acrobat Reader Leaving

Upgrading Steps for Specific Microsoft Products

Find out more about how transitioning to Software Assurance will specifically affect some of the software products you currently use:

* Microsoft® Windows®
* Microsoft Office
* Microsoft Visio®
* Microsoft Project
* Microsoft SQL Server(TM)
* Microsoft Exchange Server
* Microsoft Windows Server
* Microsoft Visual Studio® and Visual tools

For information on other products, contact your reseller or Microsoft Certified Provider. To find a Microsoft reseller near you, call (800) 426-9400 in the United States or (800) 563-9048 in Canada. To find a Microsoft Certified Provider near you, call (800) SOL-PROV (1-800-765-7768). If you are outside the U.S. or Canada, please review worldwide Microsoft Licensing Web sites or contact your local Microsoft subsidiary.
Benefits of Upgrade Advantage

Like Software Assurance, Upgrade Advantage is available under Microsoft Open License and Select License programs during the Launch Transition Period in order to ease the transition from one program to another.

Upgrade Advantage is only available during the Launch Transition Period through July 31, 2002, after which time it will be replaced by License & Software Assurance. Enrolling your licensed products in Upgrade Advantage (i.e., existing licenses with Upgrade Advantage) provides you with the same benefits as License & Software Assurance--namely, the right to run the most recent software version (get current) or any later version made available during the term of coverage (stay current).

If you purchase Upgrade Advantage through July 31, 2002, you will be automatically rolled over to Software Assurance from August 1, 2002. Once your covered period ends, you will be entitled to renew Software Assurance within the renewal period. This time period is 90 days from expiration of coverage for Open License and 90 days from notification for Select 5.0 (or earlier) License and Enterprise 5.0 (or earlier) Agreement.
Eligibility Requirements

During the Launch Transition Period (ending July 31, 2002), you can enroll your eligible existing Licenses in Software Assurance or Upgrade Advantage as follows:

* Software Assurance is available for "current" versions of Microsoft software during the Licensing 6.0 Launch Transition Period. In Licensing 6.0, Software Assurance must be first acquired as part of the license acquisition through License & Software Assurance (L&SA) (exceptions may apply for certain products licensed through the OEM and retail channels; see note that follows). However, in order to ease the transition into the new Software Assurance plan during the Licensing 6.0 Launch Transition Period (through July 31, 2002), it is possible to purchase Software Assurance separately subsequent to the purchase of the underlying license--a potential saving to eligible customers. A complete list of current products is available.
* Microsoft Upgrade Advantage is available for eligible versions of Microsoft products during the Launch Transition Period, such as Windows NT® Server 4.0 and other noncurrent product versions.
* If you have retail and OEM licenses for current products, you may be eligible to purchase Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance before July 31, 2002. After July 31, 2002 you may be eligible to enroll "current" retail and OEM systems and servers licenses in Software Assurance within 90 days of purchase. For eligibility by product see the product links below.

After the transition period ends on July 31, 2002, customers who have not purchased Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance but still wish to have access to our latest software may choose any of the following options: License, License & Software Assurance, or Enterprise Agreement.
Next Steps

During the Licensing 6.0 Launch Transition Period (ending July 31, 2002) choose the option that will provide the most cost effective transition to Licensing 6.0. For further information, please contact your Microsoft representative, Large Account Reseller, or preferred reseller.

To help determine the appropriate course of action, consider the following questions:
Update Frequency Q: Am I likely to upgrade my software that I am currently licensed to run to a newer version during the next 3½ to 4 years? If so, purchasing Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance before July 31, 2002 could be the most cost effective option for you (customers with greater than 250 computers should also consider an Enterprise Agreement).
Preferred Payment Q: Do I prefer to pay for software usage in predictable, annual budgets, or all at once every few years? Both the Enterprise Agreement and Software Assurance and Upgrade Advantage under Select provide the ability to make annual payments reducing your up-front costs and giving you predictable budgeting.
Future Plans Q: Will our company grow due to new lines of business, mergers or joint ventures or do we expect to downsize? Do we know how we will track software asset management? You can rest assured that your software assets can be more easily managed during the covered period with both Software Assurance and Upgrade Advantage coverage.

Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief? (3, Interesting)

Royster (16042) | about 12 years ago | (#3733756)

A report in the NYTimes earlier this week said that six former DOJ Antitrust officials chimed in on the proposed remedies [] . I've looked in several places, but haven't found a copy of the brief. Does anyone know where it can be found?

Summary of Final Arguments... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3733762)

Bill Gates: "I *TOLD* you we should've backed off!"
Paul Allen: "No damn way! We would've made it if the damn product worked!!!"
Bill Gates: "That's why I said - don't try to reinvent a Linux kernel and call it 'NT', just base it on Slackware and take it from there. Hmph...NT...must've stood for No Testing."
Paul Allen: "Hey you pencil-necked numbnuts, I'm not the one who bought a bunch of sand bars in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for tens of millions of dollars..."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account