Jeep thing or sheep thing?

What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could service
them ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I just
cannot
: see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel Microsoft
: to make things convenient for you though.
:
: Earle
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news[email protected]...
: > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those functions,
: and
: > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
: > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood,
: sweat,
: > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the
rest
: of
: > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides
that
: it
: > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If you
: want
: > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The Great
: > Satan
: > : in Redmond on his own terms.
: > :
: > : Earle
: > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > :
: > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on
how
: to
: > : use
: > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its there
: > isn't
: > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know what
: the
: > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers
have
: > not
: > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls.
These
: > : facts
: > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a
: better
: > : API.
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : >news:[email protected]...
: > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application
: and
: > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were
taking
: > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
: > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things
: > secret"
: > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience
: should
: > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple
: to
: > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is
: mainly
: > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from
: > anyone.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience
: knows
: > : > that
: > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API
: which
: > is
: > : > : >supported.
: > : > :
: > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
: > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand
: the
: > : > : difference, I presume.
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

"Lon Stowell" wrote ...
> In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck
> canal water and so do all programming and scripting
> languages.

So, how did you manage to get your abacus connected to the internet? <grin>

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 16:21:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>wrote:

>For the same reason you did ?

Hardly.

>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Mind Melt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:03:09 GMT, dodgeboy <[email protected]>wrote:
>:
>: >Isn't it nice when Lloyd has a day off work. So he does not sit at his
>: >work computer all day trashing Chrysler products.
>: >He's the worst kind of Troll!!!!!!!
>: >Barry A. Lee
>:
>: Why do you ****heads cross post this **** to six different groups?
>

It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging station to
service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the refrigerant
conveniently leaked out...

I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto manufacturers
know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part suppliers.
They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are idiots
who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third party
guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth is, they
don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If they made
a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.

The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than ten years
old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the government to
force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for, or the
copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a preferred
operating system for the personal computer, and over and over again they
said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the United
States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..." I never
heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really believe
them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).

I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle shouting
with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,

"What do we think of Novell?"
"Better dead than red!"
"How about IBM?"
"Who needs 'em!"
"What do we want?"
"World domination!"
"What do we want?"
"World domination!"
"What color is my sport coat?"
"PLAID!"

God, it was exhilarating!

Earle
http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could service
> them ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I just
> cannot
> : see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel
Microsoft
> : to make things convenient for you though.
> :
> : Earle
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news[email protected]...
> : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
> : >
> : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : >
> : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
functions,
> : and
> : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
> : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood,
> : sweat,
> : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the
> rest
> : of
> : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides
> that
> : it
> : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If
you
> : want
> : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The
Great
> : > Satan
> : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
> : > :
> : > : Earle
> : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> : > :
> : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : news:[email protected]...
> : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on
> how
> : to
> : > : use
> : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its
there
> : > isn't
> : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know
what
> : the
> : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers
> have
> : > not
> : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls.
> These
> : > : facts
> : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a
> : better
> : > : API.
> : > : >
> : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : >
> : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> : > : > :
> : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
> : > : > : >:
> : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
application
> : and
> : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were
> taking
> : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal.
The
> : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
> : > : > : >:
> : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things
> : > secret"
> : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience
> : should
> : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is
simple
> : to
> : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is
> : mainly
> : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from
> : > anyone.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience
> : knows
> : > : > that
> : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API
> : which
> : > is
> : > : > : >supported.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while
the
> : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do
understand
> : the
> : > : > : difference, I presume.
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

see, you did it again. Proved my point.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mind Melt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 16:21:36 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info>wrote:
:
: >For the same reason you did ?
:
: Hardly.
:
: >
: >Dave Milne, Scotland
: >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: >"Mind Melt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: >news:[email protected]...
: >: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:03:09 GMT, dodgeboy
<[email protected]>wrote:
: >:
: >: >Isn't it nice when Lloyd has a day off work. So he does not sit at his
: >: >work computer all day trashing Chrysler products.
: >: >He's the worst kind of Troll!!!!!!!
: >: >Barry A. Lee
: >:
: >: Why do you ****heads cross post this **** to six different groups?
: >
:

Perhaps were are not talking about the same thing. I want Microsoft to
document all APIs that are used. I don't see any need for every line of
Microsoft code to be in the public domain at all - just the APIs necessary
to use the O/S and integrated ancillaries effectively.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging station to
: service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the refrigerant
: conveniently leaked out...
:
: I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto manufacturers
: know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part suppliers.
: They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are idiots
: who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third party
: guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth is, they
: don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If they
made
: a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.
:
: The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than ten years
: old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the government to
: force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for, or the
: copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a
preferred
: operating system for the personal computer, and over and over again they
: said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the United
: States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..." I
never
: heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really believe
: them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).
:
: I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle shouting
: with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,
:
: "What do we think of Novell?"
: "Better dead than red!"
: "How about IBM?"
: "Who needs 'em!"
: "What do we want?"
: "World domination!"
: "What do we want?"
: "World domination!"
: "What color is my sport coat?"
: "PLAID!"
:
: God, it was exhilarating!
:
: Earle
: http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: > What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could
service
: > them ?
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I just
: > cannot
: > : see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel
: Microsoft
: > : to make things convenient for you though.
: > :
: > : Earle
: > :
: > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : news[email protected]...
: > : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
: > message
: > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
: functions,
: > : and
: > : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and
whipping
: > : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of
blood,
: > : sweat,
: > : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the
: > rest
: > : of
: > : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides
: > that
: > : it
: > : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If
: you
: > : want
: > : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The
: Great
: > : > Satan
: > : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
: > : > :
: > : > : Earle
: > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > : > :
: > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation
on
: > how
: > : to
: > : > : use
: > : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its
: there
: > : > isn't
: > : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know
: what
: > : the
: > : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers
: > have
: > : > not
: > : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls.
: > These
: > : > : facts
: > : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a
: > : better
: > : > : API.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: > : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: > : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
: application
: > : and
: > : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were
: > taking
: > : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal.
: The
: > : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep
things
: > : > secret"
: > : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience
: > : should
: > : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is
: simple
: > : to
: > : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS
is
: > : mainly
: > : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions
from
: > : > anyone.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days
experience
: > : knows
: > : > : > that
: > : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published*
API
: > : which
: > : > is
: > : > : > : >supported.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while
: the
: > : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do
: understand
: > : the
: > : > : > : difference, I presume.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

His abacus was part of the original internet backbone

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Grumman-581" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: "Lon Stowell" wrote ...
: > In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck
: > canal water and so do all programming and scripting
: > languages.
:
: So, how did you manage to get your abacus connected to the internet?
<grin>
:
:

Do you want Microsoft to document all APIs that are used, or do you want
some government entity to force them to do this? There is a difference. In
my humble opinion, Microsoft only has to give you what they want to give
you.

Earle

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps were are not talking about the same thing. I want Microsoft to
> document all APIs that are used. I don't see any need for every line of
> Microsoft code to be in the public domain at all - just the APIs necessary
> to use the O/S and integrated ancillaries effectively.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging station to
> : service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the refrigerant
> : conveniently leaked out...
> :
> : I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto
manufacturers
> : know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part
suppliers.
> : They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are
idiots
> : who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third party
> : guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth is,
they
> : don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If they
> made
> : a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.
> :
> : The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than ten
years
> : old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the government
to
> : force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for, or the
> : copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a
> preferred
> : operating system for the personal computer, and over and over again they
> : said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the United
> : States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..." I
> never
> : heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really
believe
> : them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).
> :
> : I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle
shouting
> : with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,
> :
> : "What do we think of Novell?"
> : "Better dead than red!"
> : "How about IBM?"
> : "Who needs 'em!"
> : "What do we want?"
> : "World domination!"
> : "What do we want?"
> : "World domination!"
> : "What color is my sport coat?"
> : "PLAID!"
> :
> : God, it was exhilarating!
> :
> : Earle
> : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : > What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could
> service
> : > them ?
> : >
> : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : >
> : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I
just
> : > cannot
> : > : see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel
> : Microsoft
> : > : to make things convenient for you though.
> : > :
> : > : Earle
> : > :
> : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : news[email protected]...
> : > : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
> : > : >
> : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : >
> : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> : > message
> : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
> : functions,
> : > : and
> : > : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and
> whipping
> : > : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of
> blood,
> : > : sweat,
> : > : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that
the
> : > rest
> : > : of
> : > : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft
decides
> : > that
> : > : it
> : > : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all.
If
> : you
> : > : want
> : > : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The
> : Great
> : > : > Satan
> : > : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Earle
> : > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> : > : > :
> : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : > : news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation
> on
> : > how
> : > : to
> : > : > : use
> : > : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its
> : there
> : > : > isn't
> : > : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily
know
> : what
> : > : the
> : > : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most
programmers
> : > have
> : > : > not
> : > : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering
dlls.
> : > These
> : > : > : facts
> : > : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing
a
> : > : better
> : > : > : API.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> : > : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> : > : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
> : > : > : > : >:
> : > : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
> : application
> : > : and
> : > : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were
> : > taking
> : > : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also
illegal.
> : The
> : > : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
> : > : > : > : >:
> : > : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep
> things
> : > : > secret"
> : > : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days
experience
> : > : should
> : > : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is
> : simple
> : > : to
> : > : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS
> is
> : > : mainly
> : > : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions
> from
> : > : > anyone.
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days
> experience
> : > : knows
> : > : > : > that
> : > : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published*
> API
> : > : which
> : > : > is
> : > : > : > : >supported.
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices,
while
> : the
> : > : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do
> : understand
> : > : the
> : > : > : > : difference, I presume.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : >
> : > : > :
> : > : > :
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

MS benefits enormously from being the world's favourite operating system.
There is no real alternative to Windows, so if the government forces them to
document it, then that's all part of being successful and I don't care how
upset they are about it. "Microsoft only has to give you what they want to
give you" attitude is not a responsible one in my opinion. You could argue
they are entitled to do as you describe, and you could argue that the
upstream guy owns all the water that goes downstream... in practice a little
bit of common sense goes a long way ...

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Do you want Microsoft to document all APIs that are used, or do you want
: some government entity to force them to do this? There is a difference.
In
: my humble opinion, Microsoft only has to give you what they want to give
: you.
:
: Earle
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: > Perhaps were are not talking about the same thing. I want Microsoft to
: > document all APIs that are used. I don't see any need for every line of
: > Microsoft code to be in the public domain at all - just the APIs
necessary
: > to use the O/S and integrated ancillaries effectively.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging station
to
: > : service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the refrigerant
: > : conveniently leaked out...
: > :
: > : I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto
: manufacturers
: > : know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part
: suppliers.
: > : They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are
: idiots
: > : who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third
party
: > : guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth is,
: they
: > : don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If
they
: > made
: > : a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.
: > :
: > : The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than ten
: years
: > : old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the
government
: to
: > : force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for, or
the
: > : copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a
: > preferred
: > : operating system for the personal computer, and over and over again
they
: > : said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the
United
: > : States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..." I
: > never
: > : heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really
: believe
: > : them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).
: > :
: > : I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle
: shouting
: > : with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,
: > :
: > : "What do we think of Novell?"
: > : "Better dead than red!"
: > : "How about IBM?"
: > : "Who needs 'em!"
: > : "What do we want?"
: > : "World domination!"
: > : "What do we want?"
: > : "World domination!"
: > : "What color is my sport coat?"
: > : "PLAID!"
: > :
: > : God, it was exhilarating!
: > :
: > : Earle
: > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > :
: > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could
: > service
: > : > them ?
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
: > message
: > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I
: just
: > : > cannot
: > : > : see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel
: > : Microsoft
: > : > : to make things convenient for you though.
: > : > :
: > : > : Earle
: > : > :
: > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : news[email protected]...
: > : > : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote
in
: > : > message
: > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
: > : functions,
: > : > : and
: > : > : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and
: > whipping
: > : > : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of
: > blood,
: > : > : sweat,
: > : > : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that
: the
: > : > rest
: > : > : of
: > : > : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft
: decides
: > : > that
: > : > : it
: > : > : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all.
: If
: > : you
: > : > : want
: > : > : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with
The
: > : Great
: > : > : > Satan
: > : > : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Earle
: > : > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has
documentation
: > on
: > : > how
: > : > : to
: > : > : > : use
: > : > : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing
its
: > : there
: > : > : > isn't
: > : > : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily
: know
: > : what
: > : > : the
: > : > : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most
: programmers
: > : > have
: > : > : > not
: > : > : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering
: dlls.
: > : > These
: > : > : > : facts
: > : > : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not
publishing
: a
: > : > : better
: > : > : > : API.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: > : > : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: > : > : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
: > : application
: > : > : and
: > : > : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they
were
: > : > taking
: > : > : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also
: illegal.
: > : The
: > : > : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: > : > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep
: > things
: > : > : > secret"
: > : > : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days
: experience
: > : > : should
: > : > : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It
is
: > : simple
: > : > : to
: > : > : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows
OS
: > is
: > : > : mainly
: > : > : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide"
functions
: > from
: > : > : > anyone.
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days
: > experience
: > : > : knows
: > : > : > : > that
: > : > : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the
*published*
: > API
: > : > : which
: > : > : > is
: > : > : > : > : >supported.
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices,
: while
: > : the
: > : > : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do
: > : understand
: > : > : the
: > : > : > : > : difference, I presume.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

You're not much for Libertarian ideas, are you? ;o)

This stuff is not like "water," which is a natural resource. It is
something which was created by living, breathing, thinking human beings, by
the sweat of our brows Are you arguing that the product of our thinking is
owned by the government? It is not enough to tax us for the earnings of
what we do, I suppose, but you also reserve the right to force us to sell as
much of it as you deem necessary. This is a governmental tactic which might
be appropriate to apportionment of natural resources, but it seems hardly
fair to apply it to thoughts, which were created after all out of nothing.

Your "common sense" is much like Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot
problem. Microsoft has something you want, and they are not ready to give
it to you, or you are not prepared to pay the price. "In the public
interest" you just take it from them. This is one of the flaws of
democracy. When fairness and logic fail, you just use "common sense" and
give the people what they want. Is it right to take things that were
created by another, just because one is powerful enough to do so, or because
there are more takers and their needs somehow count for more?

With regard to water, I do not favor the upstream guy (Colorado) over the
downstream guy (Mexico) at all. I just don't want the midstream guy
(California) to get any. ;o)

Earle
http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MS benefits enormously from being the world's favourite operating system.
> There is no real alternative to Windows, so if the government forces them
to
> document it, then that's all part of being successful and I don't care how
> upset they are about it. "Microsoft only has to give you what they want to
> give you" attitude is not a responsible one in my opinion. You could argue
> they are entitled to do as you describe, and you could argue that the
> upstream guy owns all the water that goes downstream... in practice a
little
> bit of common sense goes a long way ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Do you want Microsoft to document all APIs that are used, or do you want
> : some government entity to force them to do this? There is a difference.
> In
> : my humble opinion, Microsoft only has to give you what they want to give
> : you.
> :
> : Earle
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : > Perhaps were are not talking about the same thing. I want Microsoft to
> : > document all APIs that are used. I don't see any need for every line
of
> : > Microsoft code to be in the public domain at all - just the APIs
> necessary
> : > to use the O/S and integrated ancillaries effectively.
> : >
> : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : >
> : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging station
> to
> : > : service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the refrigerant
> : > : conveniently leaked out...
> : > :
> : > : I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto
> : manufacturers
> : > : know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part
> : suppliers.
> : > : They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are
> : idiots
> : > : who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third
> party
> : > : guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth is,
> : they
> : > : don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If
> they
> : > made
> : > : a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.
> : > :
> : > : The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than ten
> : years
> : > : old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the
> government
> : to
> : > : force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for, or
> the
> : > : copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a
> : > preferred
> : > : operating system for the personal computer, and over and over again
> they
> : > : said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the
> United
> : > : States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..."
I
> : > never
> : > : heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really
> : believe
> : > : them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).
> : > :
> : > : I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle
> : shouting
> : > : with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,
> : > :
> : > : "What do we think of Novell?"
> : > : "Better dead than red!"
> : > : "How about IBM?"
> : > : "Who needs 'em!"
> : > : "What do we want?"
> : > : "World domination!"
> : > : "What do we want?"
> : > : "World domination!"
> : > : "What color is my sport coat?"
> : > : "PLAID!"
> : > :
> : > : God, it was exhilarating!
> : > :
> : > : Earle
> : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> : > :
> : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : news:[email protected]...
> : > : > What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer could
> : > service
> : > : > them ?
> : > : >
> : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : >
> : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> : > message
> : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I
> : just
> : > : > cannot
> : > : > : see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel
> : > : Microsoft
> : > : > : to make things convenient for you though.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Earle
> : > : > :
> : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : > : news[email protected]...
> : > : > : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]>
wrote
> in
> : > : > message
> : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
> : > : functions,
> : > : > : and
> : > : > : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and
> : > whipping
> : > : > : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of
> : > blood,
> : > : > : sweat,
> : > : > : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says
that
> : the
> : > : > rest
> : > : > : of
> : > : > : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft
> : decides
> : > : > that
> : > : > : it
> : > : > : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at
all.
> : If
> : > : you
> : > : > : want
> : > : > : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with
> The
> : > : Great
> : > : > : > Satan
> : > : > : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : Earle
> : > : > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : > : > : > : news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has
> documentation
> : > on
> : > : > how
> : > : > : to
> : > : > : > : use
> : > : > : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing
> its
> : > : there
> : > : > : > isn't
> : > : > : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily
> : know
> : > : what
> : > : > : the
> : > : > : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most
> : programmers
> : > : > have
> : > : > : > not
> : > : > : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering
> : dlls.
> : > : > These
> : > : > : > : facts
> : > : > : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not
> publishing
> : a
> : > : > : better
> : > : > : > : API.
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> : > : > : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> : > : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
> : > : > : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> : > : > : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
> : > : > : > : > : >:
> : > : > : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
> : > : application
> : > : > : and
> : > : > : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they
> were
> : > : > taking
> : > : > : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also
> : illegal.
> : > : The
> : > : > : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
> : > : > : > : > : >:
> : > : > : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to
"keep
> : > things
> : > : > : > secret"
> : > : > : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days
> : experience
> : > : > : should
> : > : > : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It
> is
> : > : simple
> : > : > : to
> : > : > : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the
Windows
> OS
> : > is
> : > : > : mainly
> : > : > : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide"
> functions
> : > from
> : > : > : > anyone.
> : > : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days
> : > experience
> : > : > : knows
> : > : > : > : > that
> : > : > : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the
> *published*
> : > API
> : > : > : which
> : > : > : > is
> : > : > : > : > : >supported.
> : > : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices,
> : while
> : > : the
> : > : > : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do
> : > : understand
> : > : > : the
> : > : > : > : > : difference, I presume.
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : >
> : > : > :
> : > : > :
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

As I have repeatedly said, I am not in favour of taking Microsoft's code and
putting it in the public domain. I'm only in favour of publishing the API so
others can use it. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have done plenty of
sweating myself writing my own code - and I always write documentation on
how to use it.
Every other industry has standards so that different vendors can work
together - why should the software industry be any different ? Would you
expect to buy all your electric appliances from the electricity company ?
Would you expect to buy all your cars from the guys that make the roads ?
Sure you expect to pay the road tolls and the electricity bills.

As for being a Libertarian - nonsense ; I'm a capitalist that likes plenty
of vendors that I can spend my money on.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: You're not much for Libertarian ideas, are you? ;o)
:
: This stuff is not like "water," which is a natural resource. It is
: something which was created by living, breathing, thinking human beings,
by
: the sweat of our brows Are you arguing that the product of our thinking
is
: owned by the government? It is not enough to tax us for the earnings of
: what we do, I suppose, but you also reserve the right to force us to sell
as
: much of it as you deem necessary. This is a governmental tactic which
might
: be appropriate to apportionment of natural resources, but it seems hardly
: fair to apply it to thoughts, which were created after all out of nothing.
:
: Your "common sense" is much like Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot
: problem. Microsoft has something you want, and they are not ready to give
: it to you, or you are not prepared to pay the price. "In the public
: interest" you just take it from them. This is one of the flaws of
: democracy. When fairness and logic fail, you just use "common sense" and
: give the people what they want. Is it right to take things that were
: created by another, just because one is powerful enough to do so, or
because
: there are more takers and their needs somehow count for more?
:
: With regard to water, I do not favor the upstream guy (Colorado) over the
: downstream guy (Mexico) at all. I just don't want the midstream guy
: (California) to get any. ;o)
:
: Earle
: http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: > MS benefits enormously from being the world's favourite operating
system.
: > There is no real alternative to Windows, so if the government forces
them
: to
: > document it, then that's all part of being successful and I don't care
how
: > upset they are about it. "Microsoft only has to give you what they want
to
: > give you" attitude is not a responsible one in my opinion. You could
argue
: > they are entitled to do as you describe, and you could argue that the
: > upstream guy owns all the water that goes downstream... in practice a
: little
: > bit of common sense goes a long way ...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : Do you want Microsoft to document all APIs that are used, or do you
want
: > : some government entity to force them to do this? There is a
difference.
: > In
: > : my humble opinion, Microsoft only has to give you what they want to
give
: > : you.
: > :
: > : Earle
: > :
: > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > Perhaps were are not talking about the same thing. I want Microsoft
to
: > : > document all APIs that are used. I don't see any need for every line
: of
: > : > Microsoft code to be in the public domain at all - just the APIs
: > necessary
: > : > to use the O/S and integrated ancillaries effectively.
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
: > message
: > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : It's getting that way. I would have had to buy a recharging
station
: > to
: > : > : service the AC on my Suburban properly, but instead the
refrigerant
: > : > : conveniently leaked out...
: > : > :
: > : > : I still don't see the need for the law to force this. Auto
: > : manufacturers
: > : > : know that they have to deal with third party mechanics and part
: > : suppliers.
: > : > : They also know that their Certified Five Star Dealer mechanics are
: > : idiots
: > : > : who couldn't make it as an independent. They work with the third
: > party
: > : > : guys, and they get away with what they get away with. The truth
is,
: > : they
: > : > : don't really want the service or replacement parts businesses. If
: > they
: > : > made
: > : > : a car that no one could service, then no one would buy it.
: > : > :
: > : > : The Microsoft code we that are talking about is mostly less than
ten
: > : years
: > : > : old, and intellectual property. It is way too early for the
: > government
: > : to
: > : > : force it into the public domain. How long is a patent good for,
or
: > the
: > : > : copyright on a book? People had plenty of opportunity to choose a
: > : > preferred
: > : > : operating system for the personal computer, and over and over
again
: > they
: > : > : said "We want Microsoft." I never heard anyone say "We want the
: > United
: > : > : States Federal Government to design an operating system for us..."
: I
: > : > never
: > : > : heard anyone say "We want competition." to where you could really
: > : believe
: > : > : them, like with their wallet (except for Mac bigots, that is...).
: > : > :
: > : > : I still remember standing around in the Pacific Northwest drizzle
: > : shouting
: > : > : with the strange bald man with the plaid sport coat,
: > : > :
: > : > : "What do we think of Novell?"
: > : > : "Better dead than red!"
: > : > : "How about IBM?"
: > : > : "Who needs 'em!"
: > : > : "What do we want?"
: > : > : "World domination!"
: > : > : "What do we want?"
: > : > : "World domination!"
: > : > : "What color is my sport coat?"
: > : > : "PLAID!"
: > : > :
: > : > : God, it was exhilarating!
: > : > :
: > : > : Earle
: > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > : > :
: > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > What if cars were so complicated that only the manufacturer
could
: > : > service
: > : > : > them ?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote
in
: > : > message
: > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs.
I
: > : just
: > : > : > cannot
: > : > : > : see the moral justification for using the force of law to
compel
: > : > : Microsoft
: > : > : > : to make things convenient for you though.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Earle
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : > : news[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]>
: wrote
: > in
: > : > : > message
: > : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those
: > : > : functions,
: > : > : > : and
: > : > : > : > : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and
: > : > whipping
: > : > : > : > : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount
of
: > : > blood,
: > : > : > : sweat,
: > : > : > : > : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says
: that
: > : the
: > : > : > rest
: > : > : > : of
: > : > : > : > : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft
: > : decides
: > : > : > that
: > : > : > : it
: > : > : > : > : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at
: all.
: > : If
: > : > : you
: > : > : > : want
: > : > : > : > : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball
with
: > The
: > : > : Great
: > : > : > : > Satan
: > : > : > : > : in Redmond on his own terms.
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : Earle
: > : > : > : > : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > : news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has
: > documentation
: > : > on
: > : > : > how
: > : > : > : to
: > : > : > : > : use
: > : > : > : > : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply
knowing
: > its
: > : > : there
: > : > : > : > isn't
: > : > : > : > : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't
necessarily
: > : know
: > : > : what
: > : > : > : the
: > : > : > : > : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most
: > : programmers
: > : > : > have
: > : > : > : > not
: > : > : > : > : > enough time to go around playing with reverse
engineering
: > : dlls.
: > : > : > These
: > : > : > : > : facts
: > : > : > : > : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not
: > publishing
: > : a
: > : > : > : better
: > : > : > : > : API.
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > : > news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: > : > : > : > : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > : > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : > : >"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > : > : >news:[email protected]...
: > : > : > : > : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: > : > : > : > : > : >: <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : > : > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : > : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the
: > : > : application
: > : > : > : and
: > : > : > : > : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that
they
: > were
: > : > : > taking
: > : > : > : > : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also
: > : illegal.
: > : > : The
: > : > : > : > : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: > : > : > : > : > : >:
: > : > : > : > : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to
: "keep
: > : > things
: > : > : > : > secret"
: > : > : > : > : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days
: > : experience
: > : > : > : should
: > : > : > : > : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL.
It
: > is
: > : > : simple
: > : > : > : to
: > : > : > : > : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the
: Windows
: > OS
: > : > is
: > : > : > : mainly
: > : > : > : > : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide"
: > functions
: > : > from
: > : > : > : > anyone.
: > : > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days
: > : > experience
: > : > : > : knows
: > : > : > : > : > that
: > : > : > : > : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the
: > *published*
: > : > API
: > : > : > : which
: > : > : > : > is
: > : > : > : > : > : >supported.
: > : > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > : > : Different issue. You are talking about best
practices,
: > : while
: > : > : the
: > : > : > : > : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You
do
: > : > : understand
: > : > : > : the
: > : > : > : > : > : difference, I presume.
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

You mispelled arpanet.

Dave Milne wrote:

> His abacus was part of the original internet backbone
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Grumman-581" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : "Lon Stowell" wrote ...
> : > In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck
> : > canal water and so do all programming and scripting
> : > languages.
> :
> : So, how did you manage to get your abacus connected to the internet?
> <grin>
> :
> :
>
>

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:17:20 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>As I have repeatedly said, I am not in favour of taking Microsoft's code and
>putting it in the public domain. I'm only in favour of publishing the API so
>others can use it. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have done plenty of
>sweating myself writing my own code - and I always write documentation on
>how to use it.

They all keep missing the point Dave, so here it is again for
everybody
but you and me: MS owns *both* the operating system and the
applications. Since MS does not document and/or changes the OS's
without letting other companies know - or notifies their application
groups that change is imminent and does not let the other companies
know - their application writers enjoy an unfair advantage. The second
point is that this was only one of several points of anti-trust
actions against MS.

I'm sorry Earle (and others) but this has nothing to do with your
opinion. It has to do with US anti-trust laws that are designed
to foster competition. We don't have a free-market economy in the
USA, we have a capitalistic system which is regulated by law. The
law says that when one company becomes overly dominant in a market
and enjoys an unfair competitive advantage that anti trust laws may
apply. It's up to a court to decide if they do. The law also allows
for remedies such as the splitting of a company to level the field
for other vendors who are shut out or disadvantaged by the
monopoly holder. The court has spoken and if it was not for political
considerations, we would have seen a significant penalty against MS.
You need to go back and read a little US business history if you don't
understand why we have those anti-trust laws.

Bob

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SNIPPY
> You need to go back and read a little US business history if you
> don't understand why we have those anti-trust laws.
>
I know the history, but I am saying that this is different. Plenty of
people had opportunity to write alternate operating systems, and consumers
and government too rejected essentially all competition. Then when there
was only one, government claimed the right to control it. This is a little
like entrapment. Anti-trust laws were written because people and companies
obtained control of steel, manufacturing, coal, raw materials, and the like.
These are natural resources, and it is natural for government to want to get
control of them. In the case of Microsoft however, the government stepped
in and took control of what is essentially one man's vision. I find it
disturbing that they can do that.

Shucks guys, we thought we were going to get to rule the world, all by
ourselves. (

Earle

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:42:03 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>MS benefits enormously from being the world's favourite operating system.
>There is no real alternative to Windows, so if the government forces them to

This is just not true. You can use any number of OS that are
available. Unix, Linux, any number of others.

A monopoly is where there is no choice. Microsoft simply makes a
product that consumers CHOOSE to use. That is not a monopoly. They
can and do choose other OSs.

DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Here is where I take issue. I used to support MS no matter what. No
>>>longer. However, the companies that claim MS is unfair are
>>>complaining because MS is better at producing competitive products.
>>>There is no monopoly, certainly no illegal one, unless you use your
>>>clout in the market to reduce competition AND THEN use the reduced
>>>competition to increase profits. >MS has never done this.
>>
>>I'm not talking about those complaints. MS ordered hardware vendors
>>to sell their OS, and only their OS, on their systems. If you want(ed)
>>to sell Windows on a PC you had to agree to install only windows.
>>That was clearly illegal under US law. Also, although not quite as
>
>Not quite. Microsoft had agreements that required the vendor to pay
>for Windows whether they installed it or not. Yes it was found to be
>illegal. No, it was not clearly so.
>
>Let's assume a fair price for Windows to a vendor is $50, and the
>vendor sells 100 copies a year. They also sell 10 systems with Linux.
>That comes out to $45.45 per system, or $50 per Windows system. If
>Microsoft sells it to that vendor under the agreement that it is based
>on systems sold (regardless of OS) for $40, the vendor wins. That is
>not unfair or illegal, no matter what the sleeping judge found.

That pricing scheme only works if you are a monopoly and does work to
stifle competition.

If MS had 50% of the market and sold Windows to vendors at $50 ea or $40
per system sold, then vendors would pay $50 for every Windows system under
the first or $80 per Windows system under the second. They'd choose the
first.

However, the numbers were more like 95% (plus or minus 5%) for PC systems
coming with Windows on them. This made the scheme you posted work well for
vendor and MS. The problem is that the choice was *removed* for the
customer. They bought and paid for Windows whether they wanted it or not.
Rather than saving $50 ($40 plus the inevitable vendor markup) by dropping
the OS and putting one of their own on, they'd have to pay for the MS OS
and then have to delete a product they paid for to install the one they
wanted. MS wrote the sales rules in a way that worked well to crush OS
competition that only worked because of their extremely high market share.

I do see this as an inhibition to trade caused by a monopoly. This is
clearly illegal, under the laws as I have seen (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Nathan W. Collier" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>> >> Jeep is not a real word, but a made-up one
>>> >
>>> >BUWHAHAHA! what word is _not_ "made up"? do tell me what "natural"
>>> >words exist.
>>>
>>> Ones that are in the dictionary. Ones that are not created by a
>>> manufacturer as a brand name and legally used only as a trademark.
>>>
>>> When "jeep" makes it into the dictionary as a verb, let us know.
>>>
>>Lloyd, if you have ever taken a course in linguistics, or studied a foreign
>>language, or even English (which I doubt) you should know that a language is
>>a kind of living thing like a society. All words are "made up," just as
>>Nathan says. A dictionary is a snapshot of language and not an authority.
>>Language comes first, then the dictionary.
>
>Language becomes accepted when it makes it into the dictionary. Otherwise you
>don't have language; you have anarchy.

Doesn't it have to get accepted to make it in the dictionary? Otherwise,
you have authors of the dictionary making up words.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:42:03 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>
> >MS benefits enormously from being the world's favourite operating system.
> >There is no real alternative to Windows, so if the government forces them
>
> This is just not true. You can use any number of OS that are
> available. Unix, Linux, any number of others.
>
> A monopoly is where there is no choice. Microsoft simply makes a
> product that consumers CHOOSE to use. That is not a monopoly. They
> can and do choose other OSs.

This is my point exactly. Instead of forcing Microsoft to do things,
government should tell people that they have made their beds, now sleep in
them.

Earle

'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a
>>>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one.
>>>
>>>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
>>>allowing eating in the living room.
>>>
>>>You gotta kick back a little more.
>>
>>I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
>>come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.
>>
>>There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is
>>the problem?
>
>No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their
>shoes when entering the house is the first sign.

I live in Alaska. Everyone removes their shoes at the door. I never did
this in Dallas, where I am from.

Hang out in AK for a winter and you'll see why everyone removes their
shoes. In fact, the house I just bought has a bench and shoe storage in
the garage for taking them off before entering the house, so I'm not
alone...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those functions, and
>tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
>programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood, sweat,
>and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the rest of
>the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides that it
>is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If you want
>to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The Great Satan
>in Redmond on his own terms.

There was nothing wrong with writing APIs. There was nothing wrong with
not sharing the APIs with the rest of the world. There is something wrong
(and illegal, according to the courts) to use a monopoly on one piece of
software to give a competitive advantage to another piece of software to
crush competition.

The access to the OS code was not equal among those writing productivity
suites. Because the OS is a monopoly and the OS was not "shared" equally,
it made the sharing part of an illegal monopoly.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"