[XCSSA] Fwd: Microsoft Settlement

[Peter M Anderson]

I would never permanently crosspost. I had thought we had a couple of Satluggers in the XCSSA/Linuxcrew grouping, but after Mondays meeting I think I'm probably wrong about that..

The DOJ link is for the K12 case... So I guess I'm published- grammar errors and all.

I thought it was interesting when AOL finally got off the pot and filed suit against MS this past week (Even though I'm no big fan of AOL) Now, if AOL would distribute an Alternate OS (read- Linux. RH, Perhaps?)  along with their own piece o'offal software, think how many potential new users might be found...

As for the MS FUD- I was referring more to what I have read online about responses to date- the community has (reportedly) been remarkably silent on the issue. I don't have to be convinced of MS's motives and behaviour, I've experienced it firsthand- even recently.
--

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:24:35  
 tweeks wrote:
>Peter M Anderson wrote:
>> 
>>  Tom-
>> 
>> I would like to suggest that whatever final form it takes, that it be submitted to thte DOJ, either 
>> as your own brainchild or representative of the group- any Satluggers, etc out there please cross 
>> post this discussion. 
>
>I'm not on the SATLUG list...  
>
>While you're free to cross post manually.. please do not permanently
>cross-link our lists. 
>
>
>
>> From what I have been reading comments submitted thusfar have been either MS FUD or from SUN.
>
>Much of the info you've read on this list (regarding this subject) is
>factual.
>
>I know as R&D/T&I engineer at Brooks AFB.. I witnessed several MS protocol
>leveraging efforts that succeeded in stealing market share of non-MS
>vendors.
>
>-Lotus
>-Netscape
>-Word Perfect
>etc...
>
>
> 
>> It would be nice, IMHO, to be able to put "Published in the Federal Register" on a resume, also..
>
>If you submitted to the K12 web petition.. you are.
>
>
>Tweeks
>
> 
>> Oh- and the deadline, I think, is tomorrow...
> 
>> Pete A.
>> --
>> 
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:47:54
>>  tweeks wrote:
>> >Interesting discussion guys.
>> >
>> >Anyone else have any experience with the way in which MS extends their
>> >monopoly?  I know that I do.
>> >
>> >I'm thinking about taking some of the group comments and filtering them
>> >down into a coherent "piece" on some of our group's thoughts on the
>> >subject.
>> >
>> >If anyone else has any input.. post it (and give me permission to use it
>> >(with full credit of course)).
>> >
>> >Tweeks
>> >
>> >Kent Polk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter M Anderson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 2)Microsoft be required to publish their Application Programming
>> >> > Interfaces (API's) to ALL interested parties (including those in
>> >> > the Open Source community) and not just those parties which Microsoft
>> >> > recognizes as business entities. Note this is not the same as
>> >> > requiring them to publish their source code- only the links to
>> >> > programs to aid competitors in developing new and innovative
>> >> > products.
>> >>
>> >> You forgot the most important one:
>> >>
>> >> MS be required to publish their file formats and techniques for
>> >> reproducing documents in non-Windows environments, for all government
>> >> projects.
>> >>
>> >> Until MS convinced the US government otherwise, ALL US government
>> >> contracts required that projects use publically documented file
>> >> formats for data storage and that the technology to recover data
>> >> be available for 20 years after the contract was let.
>> >>
>> >> MS uses proprietary file formats to leverage their competitors out
>> >> of business and to force their own users to update versions of
>> >> Windows. This has cost *you*, just through government contracts,
>> >> billions of dollars. That is the primary thing you need to break.
>> >>
>> >> > 3)Microsoft  be regulated. Due to its pervasiveness in the computer
>> >> > marketplace, it can legitimately be argued that Microsoft now
>> >> > functions more as a Utility than as a software provider. Even in
>> >>
>> >> Government regulation virtually never works for what you intend.
>> >> It simply provides vast new government powers that will likely be
>> >> used against small companies and *for* MS and other large ones.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> XCSSA mailing list
>> >> XCSSA@xcssa.org
>> >> http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >XCSSA mailing list
>> >XCSSA@xcssa.org
>> >http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> XCSSA mailing list
>> XCSSA@xcssa.org
>> http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>_______________________________________________
>XCSSA mailing list
>XCSSA@xcssa.org
>http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>