__/ [ William Poaster ] on Wednesday 22 March 2006 16:00 \__
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:31:02 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Sinister Midget ] on Wednesday 22 March 2006 11:36 \__
>>>> On 2006-03-22, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted
>>>> something concerning:
>>>>> No, it's not intended to open competition and facilitate
>>>>> uninstallation of IE. It is security-driven.
>>>> This has to be a lie. They swore in court, under oath, that it's all
>>> Care to cite or quote?
>> It was the whole basis of their defence against the allegation that they
>> had illegally manipulated the browser market in order to kill netscape,
>> which they did, of course. The argued several things, but two key ones
>> were that there was no browser market anyway (silly, because clearly there
>> was, as Netscape existed - not sure how they got away with that) and
>> more seriously, that it was impossible for them to remove IE from Windows.
>> They even made up some false videos up to prove it which were shown in
>> I think that all the papers are online, but groklaw is the best place to
>> start on this.
> From "New Yorker" January 1998 -
> (In December 1997).. "Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, of the United States
> District Court in Washington, surprised many observers by issuing a
> preliminary injunction in the government's favor. In ordering Microsoft to
> stop bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 95, the judge didn't say the
> firm had violated the consent decree, the language of which he pronounced
> ambiguous, but he declared that Microsoft was indeed a monopolist, and
> suggested that its behavior may have violated the antitrust laws. "The
> probability that Microsoft will not only continue to reinforce its
> operating system monopoly by its licensing practices, but might also
> acquire another monopoly in the Internet browser market, is simply too
> great to tolerate indefinitely until the issue is finally resolved," Judge
> Jackson wrote. Microsoft appealed his ruling, arguing that it was
> virtually impossible to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 95."
> Lessig discusses the development of Internet Explorer, from a standalone
> application that shipped with the first OEM version of Windows 95 to the
> more componentized versions that began with IE 3; these versions replaced
> key system files and enmeshed themselves with the underlying operating
> system, he says. Finally, with Windows 98, Microsoft had combined browsing
> and non-browsing modules so completely that it was impossible to remove
> Internet Explorer from Windows and be left with a functioning operating
> "On Monday, Microsoft said it would appeal Jackson's ruling. The software
> maker contends that the two programs are so tightly linked that Windows
> cannot run without certain parts of Explorer."
>>> Regardless, any programmatic task is reversible. In physical terms, a
>>> demolishion (=Singularity) is often mandatory. Not only that, but
>>> backward compatibility should not be compromised either.
Lo and behold! When Windows's own security is in jeopardy, then *finally*,
the component becomes removable and detachable. This happens so many years
down the line (thus /far/ more code).
I am speechless. Microsoft did not only lie to the court, but also betrayed
Web develops that stuck to Web standards, which IR snubbed, corrupted and
did not support, to this date. Microsoft also humiliated the intelligence of
everyone in the world who was forced to penetrate the Internet with a
toothpick. Yesterday Gates said his company would not re-release the browser
every 9 months. Finally a world awakens to the power *gasp* of tabs.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Nothing to see in this sig, please move along"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:20pm up 14 days 8:57, 8 users, load average: 0.88, 0.69, 0.48
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project