Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: The E.U. Response to MS

  • Subject: Re: The E.U. Response to MS
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:53:59 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <45kgupF727ucU1@individual.net> <P0aJf.261727$pv5.7899183@phobos.telenet-ops.be>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [B Gruff] on Thursday 16 February 2006 23:42 \__

> My word - why do I get the impression that somebody is *still* saying No to
> MS:-
> "It is of course the European Commission that will decide whether Microsoft
> is compliant with the March 2004 Decision, and not Microsoft"
>        --------------
> "Source code could at best complement the provision of complete and
> accurate specifications, in line with the Commission 2004 Decision. The
> onus is on Microsoft to explain in their reply to the Statement of
> Objections precisely how and why the source code offer is relevant to
> ensuring their compliance with the March 2004 Decision"
>       ----------------
> " In the case of continued non-compliance, the Commission may then take
> further steps such as increasing the level of the daily fine"

This whole sage could carry on for weeks or months. Microsoft are unwilling
to reach the stage where their O/S is open to collaboration with rival
appliances. That could serve as a precedence to any company that has
suffered from the "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy, which makes
this a key decision.

Microsoft's offering of hundreds of millions of LOC's and plenty of re-used
text is somewhat analogous to a person exposing his entire house for the
police to find key fingerprints rather than pointing at some evidence. It's
a matter of laziness and obscurity through /scale/ and complexity.

__/ [Aragorn] on Friday 17 February 2006 01:53 \__

> On Friday 17 February 2006 00:42, B Gruff stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>> [...]
>> What is it with MS?
>> - are they not coming up with the right back-handers?
>> - are threats not working?
>> - haven't they bought the right people?
>> - are they losing their touch?
>> - or is it just a case of "This is not politics as we know it, Bill"?
> The latter. ;-)  Microsoft may largely own the US government and they
> may also own a few souls even over here in Europe - rumor has it that
> Tony Blair has received a beautiful mansion somewhere, paid for by Bill
> Gates in exchange for letting Microsoft manage the UK Government
> websites, but I cannot corroborate this, of course - but they sure as
> Hell don't own Europe.
> It is also my belief - although I may be wrong - that the EU is being
> especially strict with Microsoft given Microsoft's reputation, and as a
> signal that companies don't rule governments over here.

Microsoft serves the American economy inasmuch as the ownership of the Web
serves the Government. Then comes Google's censorship move, which is adverse
to democracy, so the Government steps in and calls for testimonies.

Maybe Open Source needs to clearly explain its advantages to bureaucrats.
Fundamental factors like non-proprietary voting booth systems and security


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "Double your drive space - delete Windows"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  2:40am  up 30 days 21:41,  14 users,  load average: 0.77, 0.53, 0.43
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index