Security Hole Striptease

I am tied to Microsoft, but I have never been coerced into a Microsoft only solution.

No, you they bought off.

It's the people who refused to be bought off by MS that get coerced.

It's funny. For years, people outside MS's cloud have been telling MS workers that MS's behavior is criminal. Ya'll refused to agree, said MS just used "tough business tactics". Now the court has made it clear -- that kind of behavior is illegal. Anti-capitalistic. MS has attacked the free market.

I don't expect you to quit your job. But I am amazed ya'll can't even admit the truth, even after a conviction. I am amazed that ya'll seem completely unwilling to criticize MS for their illegal behavior, completely unwilling to try and change the company you seem to "love".

But even without the conviction, it's still a mystery how ya'll seem completely unconcerned about the unethical methods used by MS. Beyond f the legal questions, ya'll e heard for years complaints about MS using coercion, fraud, threats, force and purposeful breach of contract against other companies.

This is illegal behavior. I can't even imagine what goes thru Mr. Gate's mind when he decides to start threatening Apple because they're considering using Netscape, or start threatening Dell into dropping BeOS or Linux.

He must know that behavior is illegal, and is not 'business'. He must just not care about the law or business. As long as he makes his money, he'd cheat every rule in the books, destroy as many honest businesses as it takes to pave his road to success. Crime pays.

But the biggest mystery of all is, why does the average MS worker ignores this behavior by Mr. Gates?

When they pointed that out, I agreed that the behavior was wrong and that CSC should be punished.

Of course, that hasn't stopped you from reaping the benefits of a paycheck from them. Funny how

It's very interesting how the people tied to MS react -- deny everything, ignore the conviction, continue to support the crime and the criminals.

Whose ignoring the conviction? We know the facts. MS was found guilty by Not-Biased-But-What-the-Hell-Talk-to-Reporters-During-the-Trial Jackson. But that doesn't mean we have to agree with the conviction. Antitrust law applied to software is about as useful as buggy whips applied to automobiles. It's obsolete and needs to be rewritten to reflect the economy of scale involved in shipping bits.

Point blank -- ya'll don't care that your corporate sugar daddy is not an honest business. As long as they have money, they can pay you to ignore the law, the ethics and normal common sense. You're no different than James Carville, Paul Begala, etc.

Substitute CSC and look in the mirror. Then quit your job. Let's see how courageous you are in leaving your "sugar daddy".

You'd defend Osama Bin Laden, if he paid you. Disgusting, but it *is* a free country, even for the criminals.

Wrong. Bin Laden is a murderer. And if you equate software licensing and backroom maneuvering with killing people, you're on another planet.

No, they bought you off.

Substitute CSC and Sun. Look in the mirror.

It's the people who refused to be bought off by MS that get coerced.

They were too busy filing lawsuits to innovate.

It's funny. For years, people outside MS's cloud have been telling MS workers that MS's behavior is criminal. Ya'll refused to agree, said MS just used "tough business tactics". Now the court has made it clear -- that kind of behavior is illegal. Anti-capitalistic. MS has attacked the free market.

Rrrrrrrright, sure, whatever. This trial is 4 years old now. The principal claim of tying has been essentially thrown out. Most of the plaintiffs have settled and, on balance, it's a fair settlement. But as for the states, they're finished. Stick a fork in this trial: It's done.

I don't expect you to quit your job. But I am amazed ya'll can't even admit the truth, even after a conviction. I am amazed that ya'll seem completely unwilling to criticize MS for their illegal behavior, completely unwilling to try and change the company you seem to "love".

OMG, they included a .... (the horror) ... web browser with the operating system! They provided incentives to OEMs that helped them and disincentives for those that didn't. They tried to give choices to Java developers to let them take advantage of platform-specific APIs! They tried to make their browser the preferred browser on the Mac! It's horrible, absolutely horrible! I don't know how the average person can stand to even live in this world with such atrocities occurring. Meanwhile, while Sun says that middleware = bad, it's busily bundling its own middleware with Solaris. What a joke, Harr. You need far more than a clue: You need a life. /SARCASM

But even without the conviction, it's still a mystery how ya'll seem completely unconcerned about the unethical methods used by MS. Beyond f the legal questions, ya'll e heard for years complaints about MS using coercion, fraud, threats, force and purposeful breach of contract against other companies.

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that a company would try to use underhanded tactics against its rivals.

This is illegal behavior. I can't even imagine what goes thru Mr. Gate's mind when he decides to start threatening Apple because they're considering using Netscape, or start threatening Dell into dropping BeOS or Linux.

LMFAO. There you go again: Dragging out your nonsensical and unsubstantiated accusation that MS threatened Dell over BeOS or Linux. And in a predictable turn, I ask you to prove it, you point at the FoF and CoL, and are incapable of providing a cite. Typical.

He must know that behavior is illegal, and is not 'business'. He must just not care about the law or business. As long as he makes his money, he'd cheat every rule in the books, destroy as many honest businesses as it takes to pave his road to success. Crime pays.

Funny, you don't seem concerned about CSC at all. Why the hypocrisy?

But the biggest mystery of all is, why does the average MS worker ignores this behavior by Mr. Gates?

Why don't you write a letter to their company asking for a response.

Funny, you don't seem concerned about CSC at all.

You're dying on the vine here.

One more time:

I'm critical of CSC when they break the law. You're not critical of MS when they break the law.

In fact, you refuse to even mention the substance of the conviction -- coercion and fraud. You change the subject and pretend it was just 'browser issues' and the like. Which is interesting because that behavior proves you know how bad MS's conviction is, and feel the need to lie about it.

That makes you the 'James Carville' of the MS world. You blindly defend a convicted entity.

Look deep, and consider. Is the only thing that matters to you cash, no matter how ill-gained? Even if that cash was gathered by attacking the free market and keeping choices away from consumers? What limits *do* you have, if any? Would you defend just about any socialists with money? What about Hillary Clinton?

This MS story is indeed ready to stick a fork in it. It's about done -- and MS lost. The only question remaining is what punishments and restrictions will be put on them.

So the only interesting part of the story left now is the blind MS defenders. Like Clintonistas, who were to me the most interesting part of the Clinton story, the question has become, "how can anyone defend such obvious, bold, criminal unethical behavior?"

Like porn queens who have sex with animals for pay, it's fascinating to learn just what some folks are willing to do for money.

Can you prove that or is that just the words of a silly grumpy boy making anti-Microsoft insults?

You're financially tied to them. You've taken the Danegeld, so to speak. You already use their junky software, because you're paid to.

MS only threatens the folks who refuse to take their money, who refuse to be bought off, insist on keeping their independence. It's always odd to hear MS folks say that MS never forced them to do anything. Of course not, because you're already doing what they want you to do. You're already on their plantation. They're already lining your pockets. They don't have to threaten you to use their software, you already do, it's what you get paid for. It's the "independent" thinkers and businesses -- the ones that wish to use the best solutions, regardless of company -- on whom MS unleashes it's illegal antics.

Just like the Clinton's never had to "force" James Carville to say that the Clinton's did nothing wrong.

I'm critical of CSC when they break the law.

But obviously, you could care less because you're still working for them.

You're not critical of MS when they break the law.

Sherman is outdated. It needs to be changed. I'm sure there are people breaking sodomy laws in the South. Do you wanna haul people in for breaking them? Quite obviously, those laws have outlived their usefulness.

In fact, you refuse to even mention the substance of the conviction -- coercion and fraud.

OEMs and MS received mutual considerations. And considering that no consumer was ever harmed on balance, you pissing on the wrong tree.

You change the subject and pretend it was just 'browser issues' and the like. Which is interesting because that behavior proves you know how bad MS's conviction is, and feel the need to lie about it.

Dominic Harr ... Department of Sodomy Law Enforcement ...

That makes you the 'James Carville' of the MS world. You blindly defend a convicted entity.

And you're the Ken Starr -- the effete, useless, and toothless prosecutor -- of the ABM antitrust wannabe crowd.

Is the only thing that matters to you cash, no matter how ill-gained?

The only thing that matters to me are consumers. And the fact of the matter is that consumers do not choose Linux or Java or any of your crapware alternatives, even absent MS behavior. We never heard one consumer complaint at the trial. It's all ranting competitors.

This MS story is indeed ready to stick a fork in it. It's about done -- and MS lost. The only question remaining is what punishments and restrictions will be put on them.

I'll buy you a beer when it's over so you can cry in it. You're not gonna get what you want, Harr. The breakup is off the table and this judge has made it clear that she thinks that the states' proposals are "odd" and "unusual".

So the only interesting part of the story left now is the blind MS defenders. Like Clintonistas, who were to me the most interesting part of the Clinton story, the question has become, "how can anyone defend such obvious, bold, criminal unethical behavior?"

Because the so-called "obvious, bold, criminal, unethical behavior" is defined by antitrust laws that are obsolete, useless, and not applicable to the modern world.

Like porn queens who have sex with animals for pay, it's fascinating to learn just what some folks are willing to do for money.

Let's keep your personal tastes out of this, okay?

"You already use their junky software, because you're paid to."

I use it because my customers ask for it. Are they paid off, too? Do you really believe that no one really wants Microsoft products, but that they are all forced somehow by Microsoft to do so? When I walk into CompUSA and see the hundreds of Windows products on the shelves, are the producing companies forced to produce Windows products? When millions of people use Windows, are they are all somehow forced to do so? When the Defense Department buys and asks for Microsoft based solutions, are they are too weak to defend themselves against Microsoft?

Is Microsoft so crappy that leading networks who use their products, including Microsoft, somehow defying the odds? I wonder how they do it??

I suggest that it is not the products that have failed you, but that you have failed to understand and properly use the products. I am not trying to get personal here, but usually that is the case. You may not have succeeded at using Microsoft products, but I have, and millions of others have, too.

I have never worked on or managed a solution that failed because a Microsoft product failed to perform, and I have produced a variety of large and small systems, mostly using Microsoft products and technologies. (UNIX, MVS, and VMS, too, but don't tell my friends. ;>)

You once before claimed to have built a .NET system that no one else has, and refused to give any details then. I didn't believe you then, either.

You do realize that by far the majority of developers will *NOT* use MS products for real work?

The statement that you've never had an MS product fail you means you've not built any serious systems with MS products -- period. MS products have created so many problems for us even when set up by MS people directly. I've lost so many hours to dealing with problems with MS pieces of systems . . . and you've never had one problem, you claim.

Sounds like a sales pitch to me. Quite a tall tale.

SQLServer and IIS alone account for so many problems it's professional incompetence to use them for serious work, for goodness sake!

You've never had IIS crash? Or SQLServer migration problems? Or MSProject problems -- which are so numerous there's not space to list them?

Most developers don't use MS solutions. Most web servers are NOT IIS. Only very few developers use MS solutions, relatively. And those developers seem to use MS solutions for one of two reasons -- they're paid to, or they simply don't know better solutions are available.

You claim to never have had MS solutions crap out on you? How much actual work have done?

But obviously, you could care less because you're still working for them.

When CSC breaks the law, I am critical of them. When MS breaks the law, you change the subject and say that the laws are bad when applied to MS.

I'd say that about explains your rep around here!

MS is not above the law. Anti-trust laws are to protect the capitalist free market, which MS wants to destroy. So I'm sure you don't like the laws that actually try and defend capitalism!

Looter corps and their stooges are not free-market friendly. So you'd remove the laws that protect the free market.

Man, some day you (and James Carville and Paul Begala and Johnny Cochran) and going to wake up and realize who you've been defending.

It never ceases to amaze me to see what some people will do for money. It's amazing that in America there are people who will take money to help a company like MS try and destoy the free market.

But then again, I suppose that socialist leanings aren't exactly uncommon. As you said, I'm as silly as Ken Starr, another fella who was stupid enough to try and go after a collectivist lawbreaker. No doubt you're happy to be on the side of the collectivists, as long as they keep paying you.

America. What a country.

The statement that you've never had an MS product fail you means you've not built any serious systems with MS products -- period. MS products have created so many problems for us even when set up by MS people directly. I've lost so many hours to dealing with problems with MS pieces of systems . . . and you've never had one problem, you claim.

Don't lay your failures at everyone else's door, Harr. Just because you can't get your sh*t together doesn't mean that everyone can't do it, either. Maybe you should consider changing careers. I hear that McDonald's is hiring...

SQLServer and IIS alone account for so many problems it's professional incompetence to use them for serious work, for goodness sake!

I will grant you IIS; however, you're grossly exaggerating about SQL Server.

Most developers don't use MS solutions. Most web servers are NOT IIS. Only very few developers use MS solutions, relatively. And those developers seem to use MS solutions for one of two reasons -- they're paid to, or they simply don't know better solutions are available.

I guess MS must have been paid $1B in play money then ... because that's how much SQL Server earned over the past year.

"You do realize that by far the majority of developers will *NOT* use MS products for real work?"

The vast majority of your friends, but not developers. Are you saying that Microsoft, a $40+ billion company, is suceeding far beyond that failure of a company, Sun, whose stock is, what, $6, and that is because "the vast majority of developers" are using Java? Get real.

“The statement that you've never had an MS product fail you means you've not built any serious systems with MS products – period”

Harr, that comment suggests that you are sticking your head in the sand and just hoping like Hell that you are right. The fact is, Microsoft TecEd itself has 10,000 attendees. What, is that 10,000 non-serious developers?

Your problem is that you do nothing serious with Java, and, therefore, you haven’t experienced problems, yourself. Horror story after horror story comes from the Java field. Microsoft has its problems, but it work more than well enough for me to provide serious solutions without failure.

Again, I have NEVER had a failure of a Microsoft product that prevented or serious impaired my ability to deliver the solution as promised. Never. Java has. Oracle and UNIX, never. The fact is Java is the most problematic environment, period, and your fear and ignorance keeps you from looking at Microsoft as anything but a competitor you wish to stomp out of existence. Get used to .NET being around. It works and damned well.

SQL Server doesn't work?

Rank	Company	System	tpmC	Price/tpmC	System Availability	Database	Operating System	TP Monitor	Date Submitted	Cluster
1		ProLiant DL760-900-256P	709,220	14.96 US $	10/15/01	Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition	Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server	Microsoft COM+	09/19/01	Y
2		IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s	688,220	22.58 US $	05/31/01	Microsoft SQL Server 2000	Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server	Microsoft COM+	04/10/01	Y
3		ProLiant DL760-900-192P	567,882	14.04 US $	10/15/01	Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition	Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server	Microsoft COM+	09/19/01	Y
4		PRIMEPOWER 2000 c/s w 66 Front-Ends	455,818	28.58 US $	02/28/02	SymfoWARE Server Enterp. Ed. VLM 3.0	Sun Solaris 8	BEA Tuxedo 6.5 CFS	08/28/01	N
5		IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s	440,879	19.35 US $	12/07/00	IBM DB2 UDB 7.1	Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server	Microsoft COM+	04/11/01	Y
6		ProLiant DL760-900-128P	410,769	13.02 US $	10/15/01	Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition	Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server	Microsoft COM+	09/19/01	Y
7		IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo 7040-681	403,255	19.51 US $	11/22/02	Oracle 9i R2 Enterprise Edition	IBM AIX 5L V5.2	Webshpere App. Server Ent. Edition V.3.0	05/22/02	N
8		HP 9000 Superdome Enterprise Server	389,434	21.24 US $	05/15/02	Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition	HP UX 11.i 64-bit	BEA Tuxedo 6.4	12/21/01	N
9		IBM e(logo) xSeries 370 c/s	363,129	21.80 US $	05/31/01	Microsoft SQL Server 2000	Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server	Microsoft COM+	04/10/01	Y
10		Compaq AlphaServer GS320	230,533	44.62 US $	07/30/01	Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition	Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1	Compaq DB Web Connector V1.1	06/18/01	N

When CSC breaks the law, I am critical of them.

LOL. Yeah, rrrrright. Again, you don't mind collecting a paycheck from somebody who's been alleged of wrongdoing. Criticize all you want. As long as nobody halts your income stream, you'll bury your head in the sand.

When MS breaks the law, you change the subject and say that the laws are bad when applied to MS.

Funny, you won't address the sodomy law issue. I'm stunned to find that you don't think that laws become obsolete over time.

MS is not above the law. Anti-trust laws are to protect the capitalist free market, which MS wants to destroy. So I'm sure you don't like the laws that actually try and defend capitalism!

Sherman dates back to 1890. To the math-challenged, that was 112 years ago. People were still riding horses and carriages as primary transportation. The Wright brothers wouldn't fly the first rudimentary aircraft for another 10 years after Sherman was signed. Sherman couldn't have predicted the economy of scale of shipping bits. It is obsolete. The DOJ brought the Sherman suit originally on the issue of Tying. It did not prevail. The appeals court slapped it down to the district level. As far as the other so-called "broken laws" go, not a single consumer was harmed or testified at the trial. But plenty of whiny competitors did. That about summarizes everything that the rational, thinking person needs to know. The rest, as told by you, is a bunch of anti-business, pro-government-intervention hate speech.

Looter corps and their stooges are not free-market friendly. So you'd remove the laws that protect the free market.

Neither are stooges that want to ram Java down peoples' throats over their own objections.

Man, some day you (and James Carville and Paul Begala and Johnny Cochran) and going to wake up and realize who you've been defending.

I've never defended Clinton. Don't even try that sophistry, clown. You're not remotely clever enough.

It never ceases to amaze me to see what some people will do for money. It's amazing that in America there are people who will take money to help a company like MS try and destoy the free market.

I know, I know. I've been wondering when you were going to resign from CSC.

But then again, I suppose that socialist leanings aren't exactly uncommon. As you said, I'm as silly as Ken Starr, another fella who was stupid enough to try and go after a collectivist lawbreaker. No doubt you're happy to be on the side of the collectivists, as long as they keep paying you.

I have to wonder what you're going to do when this thing's all over and you have no one left to whine about. Maybe you and Ken Starr can get together and camp out at your local Catholic rectory to keep track of the sexual antics of the clergy.

And the landscape is littered with companies that bet against Microsoft.

That was back when MS could use coercion as a 'marketing' tactic. They didn't sell products to consumers, they went to retailers and leaned on them to offer only MS products or else suffer retaliation. This is no longer possible.

MS has never won a capitlist 'free-market' competition. Their products are always also-rans. They've always used clout to leverage their products -- the contract with IBM, Windows with Word, Excel, IE, etc.

When forced to compete, they don't win.

In my experience. Then again, this opinion was worth exactly what you just paid for it. Time will tell. MS certainly will not vanish. They'll remain a big company. But their control and monopolization of the tech industry is a thing of the past. And that's a good thing for capitalists.

Again, I have NEVER had a failure of a Microsoft product that prevented or serious impaired my ability to deliver the solution as promised.

Okay, as I tried before -- then a few details about just *one* successful implementation should be easy. If you've never had this happen, and I know for certain that this happens regularly, then you must not have delivered any solutions.

Because this is a *radically* impossible claim. Like claiming you've already built and deployed a production .NET 3-tiered system. Which you also did.

Your use of those statistics regarding SQLServer is even more enlightening. Did you somehow miss the original thread where the other MS salemsman, Bush2k, first posted those? They were so completely debunked that it's become a running joke around here. MS salesmen kill me with the bogus use of statistics. Do you also use that little pamphlet MS salesmen use that has the chart "proving" MS is in the 'innovator' quandrant and IBM, Sun, etc, as following MS?

Yeesh. Well, you sell it as best you can. If fraud is the only way to sell MS products (now that coercion is out), do your best. But I don't know how you can live with yourself.

SQLServer, as an enterprise DB? Never had an MS product fail? Man, even Bush2k can admit the truth about IIS. But a good salesman is not one who refuses to admit obvious product flaws -- that's a shyster.

You're clearly not a developer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.