whine whine whine ... the shit's patched aint it? All you linux fags can do is whine that M$ has a monopoly, that it doesn't allow progress to take place. Whatever ... open source companies don't advance because the product is not as good.

Who cares if Microsoft bought it's way into the contract, I'd rather see microsoft in the position instead of some open source "script kiddie" company.

Oh well, you'll probably just delete this comment anyways ... free speach indeed/

The government never ceases to amaze me either. The irony seeping through every crevice throughout the many institutions we have been bred to believe that constitute our federal government, compromises our very belief that our government(s) are in the position to protect and serve the people of this country. Another example (your passage).

Sun would have been a much wiser choice for obvious reasons but, once again, beauracracy wins the battle (perhaps not the war, however). I'm not surprised by the decision of Homeland Security but am in hopes that one day we have intelligence permeatting the government as much or more so than greed, as it stands today.

Of course, Microsoft "bought" their position.

I honestly don't mean for this to be flame bait ... by why exactly would Sun be a better choice for this contract?

Sure, I'm with you that the government is nothing but an infested heap of rabbit droppings when it comes to ethics, but were it different, why would it have changed the choice for the homeland security contract?

This just sounds to me like the tantrums of a school child who did not get their way. "That mean old microsoft beat out sun again". They are successful so automatically they are corrupt.

I use Microsoft products EVERY day. As I have said in the past: I don't hate Microsoft; I hate Microsoft's business practices. How is it possible that I use Microsoft technology every day but don't use Windows? It's simple: I use Mac OS X from Apple.

Microsoft's excellent products for Mac OS X combined with Apple's robust and secure operating system are simply the best choice.

What is a "Linux fag?"

a "Linux Fag" is merely a term that I brand people with the open source mentality. a linux fag (with apologies for my homo buddies) is a derogatory term that encompasses more than just linux users. There's people from all trades who fault the successful companies for being successful.

I don't think that "software should be free", I don't fault Microsoft for their business practices. So what they buy up companies for their own gain ... if these companies were so great and idealistic, they wouldn't sell out. And if they are that great but sell out anyways, chances are the company wasn't going to survive much longer anyways.

So what if they ship their own damn browser on their own damn OS ... If I really wanted to use another browser, I'd download it, aside from that, I appreciate the benefits that come from having the browser embedded in the OS.

If I've got something critical up on a windows server, I back it up ... that way, even if a virus gets in, I don't lose anything but time. If I used linux servers, chances are I'd mess it up anyways because I put some wrong value in some obscure ini file while trying to send an email.

What I'm trying to say is that you are being hypocritical by saying that you love microsoft, but hate it's business practices. Please give me ONE situation where their business practices are shady ... again, this is not flame bait, I certainly wouldn't want to be talking all this trash out of ignorance.

All this said, don't think that I'm bashing you ... I'm merely taking advantage of the cowardly anonymity of the internet to push my own views upon the world. I've been a reader since about 2000 and plan to keep on reading.

I think As the Apple Turns had the funniest take on this one:

www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=4083

My complaints about Microsoft go way beyond the browser. Actually I think IE isn't that bad of a browser, though the Mozilla-based ones are much better now.

Shady business practices:

• Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
• Microsoft Pulls Support for Java
• Microsoft breaks Mime specification
• Microsoft's ridiculous attack on the GPL
• Microsoft's Kerberos Shuck and Jive

Please give me ONE situation where their business practices are shady ... again, this is not flame bait, I certainly wouldn't want to be talking all this trash out of ignorance.

Schulman, DR Dos and Microsoft and the AARD code. Stacker vs. Microsoft. I fondly recall those days. Those were the days.

-Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
Funny thing about contracts, they usually require both parties to agree on the content. I don't see anything wrong with this. If the OEM's don't want to be "bullied" into only distributing windows, then why do they sign the contract.

-Microsoft Pulls Support for Java
Your point is? At the end of the day, Java is a competitor's technology. Microsoft included it out of their good graces, under no obligation. They have every right to pull it if they wish.

-Microsoft breaks Mime specification
It's going to be fixed isn't it? what more can you ask for. And don't say they did this on purpose, you have no proof. It's a bug, they have acknowledged it, and it just happens that the fix will come post sp1 ... tough titty.

-Microsoft's ridiculous attack on the GPL
Ok, this is hillarious. The article criticizes microsoft for having "best of breed" software, and for their executives being "astute businesspeople".

-Microsoft's Kerberos Shuck and Jive
Quoted directly from that article. "The version of Kerberos in every Windows 2000 PC formally complies with the standard specification". If it wasn't in the spec, then why is everyone bitching about it? because they haven't released the proprietary bits?? that is an utterly absurd complaint. Why in the name of crap would microsoft want to give away it's extensions so that others may profit. It makes no business sense. If someone doesn't want to be locked into windows, then don't use those extensions.
---

All of these are nothing more than people bitching about things they shouldn't be bitching about. I like to think I'm a good, upstanding citizen ... and I can honestly say that I would be doing the exact same in their position.

1. ...If the OEM's don't want to be "bullied" into only distributing windows, then why do they sign the contract.

Compare: if you decide to cancel your internet account, do you expect a bunch of henchmen at your door that threaten you not to cancel the account?

See Findings of Facts.

...Java...Microsoft included it out of their good graces, under no obligation. They have every right to pull it if they wish.

In 1996 Microsoft and Sun signed an agreement so Microsoft could distribute its own version of Java. Naturally, Microsoft decided to alter its Java Runtime making it impossible to conform to Java's 'write once, run on many platforms' ideal. Therefore, Microsoft blatantly violated the agreement they signed with Sun. Now earlier you said this:

Funny thing about contracts, they usually require both parties to agree on the content.

Step back and read above again. Ad nauseam.

See (ance again) Findings of Facts.

These are facts that still hold true (read the findings of Kollar-Kotelly where she basically agreed with Penfield that Microsoft used monopoly like strategies and allowed companies to file their own lawsuits [which eventually happened in Sun's case]). It's too bad that the Bush administration gave it all away. That's hindsight now, of course.

I like to think I'm a good, upstanding citizen

I bet you are!

joehoser:

You really need to do some homework. 'Linux fags' can, and do, get carried away. But Microsoft has not only engaged in unethical behaviour, they have been tried and *convicted* of violating anti-trust laws in the US court system. Remember, the only thing overturned was the punishment, not the conviction. So while many may just be whining, there is very solid ground to complain that the playing field is not level. You may disagree, but the law is not on your side here.

It is quite possible that the most viable software for this contract was MS. The original post just seemed to be musing, 'how did they decide?' Seems like a pretty legit. question.

In the end it always comes down to the API doesn't it? As a software company it pays to be the only platform for which software developers can write their applications. As a comic geek, I think of it like owning the X-Men's Danger Room. You can make it a walk in the park for yourself, and when a competitor decides they want to enter the arena. Bam! Out come the death-rays. "Oops, the API is changing so your features will need to be re-coded for the next release meanwhile our competing app is ready to go." Should anyone have that kind of control over the market? Not just in desktops, but in palm-tops? TV Set-top boxes? Home gaming systems? It's seems like anything that you might want to write an application for, Microsoft has stuck their big monopoly nose into and they have their death-rays blazing. I use their products, as well as Apple's and a few flavors of linux. It is good to be to be informed, and regardless of my sexual orientation I will state unequivocably: MIcrosoft has a monopoly, they mis-use it, and I do not trust them. Do I own stock in them? Damn right I do! It makes sense to bet on the bully in a fight whether you like him or not.

I don't see anything wrong with this. If the OEM's don't want to be "bullied" into only distributing windows, then why do they sign the contract.

*Seems* to me, but I've not heard any views on this, that once Dell and Compaq (for example) started to OEM Windows, they were kinda stuck. You KNOW that they'd want to discuss some of their deal with compeititors, but can't. Either their contract would prevent it, or they'd be accused of 'collusion'. They're essentially locked in to doing the same thing year after year, and can't get out.