Ah the tired old monopoly thing.
It is what it is.


(psst, you have claimed to be in touch with the developers of direct competition to Internet Explorer)

It's funny when anyone disses Microsoft's methods or software, people are automatically labeled anti-Microsoft everything.  It's usually their parting blow as they run away.


funny, when I see anyone disrespect microsoft there is often an entire crowd of people jumping on the boat chanting about the evil empire. They usualy cannot form well reasoned arguments, are quick to introduce strawmen, feel entitled to a hand out, and often misrepresent what facts are available.

I am a web developer.  I mod a web developer forum.  The lead developer for IE, Chris Wilson, and I have had online conversations and many leading web developers know me.  Chris Wells, from Opera, and I email each other regularly.  Boris Z., from Mozilla, asked me to become a developer on Firefox.


..and that validates your opinion because...?

If you follow them closely enough, then you know that any memory leaks still existing on FF2 and greater will not likely affect you.


"likely" and "me" being key requirements of this arguement. The FireFox team does not have to deal with the financial consequences of a multi-million dollar per year client experiencing something "unlikely" to "them." We are talking about corporations with tens of thousands of computers of various hardware and software configurations, who rely on these computers performing their current function while they perform upgrades to expand the functional scope of these machines.

I disagree with that connection though a browser is an important selling point here.


iphone commercials shows 30 seconds or 1 minute of tape of somebody doing something "cool" with safari via multi-touch. It is THE selling point (surely you dont think its because it plays music too, like every other phone?)

I don't understand what you mean by this.  Being a monopoly changes everything.  If you want to use public access channels, you have to play well with others.


I believe your arguement about public access channels revolves around the E.U. ruling against Microsoft over interoperability licensing fees, correct?

In that ruling, non-commercial development gets a discount on licensing fees from Microsoft.

..what does that have to do with this?


This "Straw Man" thing has to go down as the phrase of the year 2007.  The reply to everything.


Certainly the 2007 reply to strawmen.

I'll bet its the 2008 reply too.

Thats how to reply to strawmen, by pointing out that your opponent is using a fallacy to support his arguement.


Should have done it right in the first place?? Who exactly was doing it right? Who exactly IS doing it right?
Every browser vendor is 10 years ahead of IE.  I think you read that here somewhere.


Please answer the question. Who is doing it right?


Who exactly is compliant?
I answered this question already, too.


No, you gave some information on relative compliance. None of the browsers you listed are compliant.

I am going to ask one more time. Who exactly is compliant?


..and a legal responsibility to their share holders to not simply waste it. Have you ever managed a publicly traded company in America?
I buy/sell stocks on my own.  If there was no legal responsibility outside of their stockholders, the US and the EU would not be suing them over this.


..says who? Thats the nice thing about Civil Torts..

Do you know the difference between being sued and being prosecuted? I am not aware that you are, since you seem to have equated them.


Address the issue exactly as Microsoft must address it, as a financial decision.
You are changing the point.  The point is Microsoft is performing illegal activities as a monopoly. 


You are claiming that NOT writing software is an illegal activity, correct?


These are the sort of early decisions that sink many companies.  Other companies then come around and overtake them due to their inability to change.


...like Opera.



Bad decisions are not illegal.

..snip..

I have been buying/selling stocks for 10 years and own my own company that does $2 million in sales right now.  I know how it works; maybe more than you.


You own your own company? Good.

Now get a bunch of lawyers and go public here in America. Its not your company any more.

Quoting West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

"Directors' fiduciary duties fall under three broad categories: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and duties imposed by statute. Generally, a fiduciary duty is the duty to act for the benefit of another — here, the corporation— while subordinating personal interests. A fiduciary occupies a position of trust for another and owes the other a high degree of fidelity and loyalty.

A director owes the corporation the duty to manage the corporation's business with due care. Statutes typically define using due care as acting in good faith, using the care an ordinarily prudent person would use in a similar position and situation, and acting in a manner the director reasonably thinks is in the corporation's best interests."

Bad Decisions arent illegal. Knowing they are bad and making them anyways, however, is.
Posted on 2008-01-05 04:45:30 by Rockoon

..and that validates your opinion because...?
I am more intimately knowledge in this area than you.

If you follow them closely enough, then you know that any memory leaks still existing on FF2 and greater will not likely affect you.


"likely" and "me" being key requirements of this arguement. The FireFox team does not have to deal with the financial consequences
Then say the same of Microsoft.  IE had a discussion, elsewhere, of the problems caused by memory leaks in IE7.
iphone commercials shows 30 seconds or 1 minute of tape of somebody doing something "cool" with safari via multi-touch. It is THE selling point (surely you dont think its because it plays music too, like every other phone?)
Other phone vendors do.  And iPhone pushes the fact that you can surf.  They don't even mention Safari.

I believe your arguement about public access channels revolves around the E.U. ruling against Microsoft over interoperability licensing fees, correct?
I may have lost track of this but no.  There is a current complaint against Microsoft that is ongoing and not settled.

Thats how to reply to strawmen, by pointing out that your opponent is using a fallacy to support his arguement.
Point out the fallacy. 


Should have done it right in the first place?? Who exactly was doing it right? Who exactly IS doing it right?
Every browser vendor is 10 years ahead of IE.  I think you read that here somewhere.


Please answer the question. Who is doing it right?
Every other browser vendor is 10 years ahead of IE.

I am going to ask one more time. Who exactly is compliant?
I didn't look back to see if I said it here but standards compliance is an ongoing development.  A race with a forward moving end of the line.  No browser is 100% compliant  and no browser can ever be 100% compliant for this reason.  This in no way forgive Microsoft for being 10 years behind every other browser.
  In addition to not supporting items in the standard at all.  In fact, Chris Wilson from MS stated they are now trying to determine "which standards we will follow" while, out of the other side of his mouth saying "We support the W3C".  Chris Wilson and Microsoft are members of the W3C.

..says who? Thats the nice thing about Civil Torts..
You were the one stating it was illegal, not me.  Businesses go bankrupt all the time due to mishandling of funds and bad investments.  It's not illegal.

You are claiming that NOT writing software is an illegal activity, correct?
You don't get it.  If your phone company told all other cities they couldn't connect to you unless they bought and used some invention of theirs, would you say "that's fine, it's their hardware/software?"


These are the sort of early decisions that sink many companies.  Other companies then come around and overtake them due to their inability to change.


...like Opera.
Opera is one of the best browsers on the 'net.  Talk about a "way out there" statement.


Now get a bunch of lawyers and go public here in America. Its not your company any more.
Of course not.  That's the purpose of selling stocks.  You are selling parts of your company.  Did you not know that?

Bad Decisions arent illegal. Knowing they are bad and making them anyways, however, is.
That is what I said.
Posted on 2008-01-05 13:47:28 by drhowarddrfine
btw, I am a corporation.  But I own 51% of the stock and my wife owns the other 49%
Posted on 2008-01-05 13:50:21 by drhowarddrfine


..and that validates your opinion because...?
I am more intimately knowledge in this area than you.


An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy..

..and its even more laughable when the person making the appeal and the authority itself are one and the same, and has been caught making things up mre than once.

Then say the same of Microsoft.  IE had a discussion, elsewhere, of the problems caused by memory leaks in IE7.


Microsoft's browser is already being leveraged and by definition its memory leaks do not prevent the existing leverage of that technology. The financial consequences Microsoft deals with is when they produce a new version.

You have continued to ignore the point. FireFox does not deal with the financial consequences of changing their software.

iphone commercials shows 30 seconds or 1 minute of tape of somebody doing something "cool" with safari via multi-touch. It is THE selling point (surely you dont think its because it plays music too, like every other phone?)
Other phone vendors do.  And iPhone pushes the fact that you can surf.  They don't even mention Safari.


Why is it that I keep having to ask you what your reply has to do with what I said?


Thats how to reply to strawmen, by pointing out that your opponent is using a fallacy to support his arguement.
Point out the fallacy. 


I did several posts ago. You didnt want to address it at the time, instead prefering to reply with something that didn't address the point (yet again) and instead went on about how strawman were somehow special in 2007.

I will repeat..

Nobody said anything about having pity on Microsoft, except for you.

You introduced the idea as the strawman, instead of actualy replying to the point.


I am going to ask one more time. Who exactly is compliant?
I didn't look back to see if I said it here but standards compliance is an ongoing development.  A race with a forward moving end of the line.  No browser is 100% compliant  and no browser can ever be 100% compliant for this reason.


Then I ask again why Microsoft, and only Microsoft, should be fined for not being W3C compliant.

..says who? Thats the nice thing about Civil Torts..
You were the one stating it was illegal, not me.


You kept refering to civil torts in reply to my points about criminal torts.

Do you know the difference?

True or false: The E.U. litigations against Microsoft are Criminal Torts.

(psst: the answer is False)

Businesses go bankrupt all the time due to mishandling of funds and bad investments.  It's not illegal.


It is not illegal to go bankrupt. It is illegal for a public company to knowingly mishandle funds and knowingly make bad investments.

Why do you keep ignoring the point?

If your phone company told all other cities they couldn't connect to you unless they bought and used some invention of theirs, would you say "that's fine, it's their hardware/software?"


Dear Mr Strawman, who is claiming this?

..and for the record, most of the phone companies in the United States continue to pay a service charge to AT&T for using its extensive network of hardlines which cover the country. So yes, apparently it IS fine. We broke up a monopoly, but we did not steal from it.

Now get a bunch of lawyers and go public here in America. Its not your company any more.
Of course not.  That's the purpose of selling stocks.  You are selling parts of your company.  Did you not know that?


You clearly did not.

I have explained it to you several times and your best reply to date was that /you/ owned a company, as if that somehow applied to Microsoft, a publically traded company owned by its shareholders who cannot do what you imagined they can do.

You imagined that because Microsoft has lots of money and manpower they can do whatever they want with it.

Do you now finally concede that they cannot do whatever they want with it, and that infact they have to make informed financial decisions that are expected to lead the company towards greater profit?


Bad Decisions arent illegal. Knowing they are bad and making them anyways, however, is.
That is what I said.


No, it isn't what you said.

Anyways, now that you admit that Microsoft cannot knowingly make a bad decision..

Please explain why striving for W3C compliance is not a bad decision.

It will cost money and manpower to upgrade a product which they do not sell, creating a compatability divide in the process. What rewards justify that loss?

Do not change the subject. Answer the question.
Posted on 2008-01-13 05:57:32 by Rockoon

Then I ask again why Microsoft, and only Microsoft, should be fined for not being W3C compliant.

Because they're (deliberately?) 10 years behind, and it seems like they're not even trying to catch up?
Posted on 2008-01-13 06:14:43 by f0dder


Then I ask again why Microsoft, and only Microsoft, should be fined for not being W3C compliant.

Because they're (deliberately?) 10 years behind, and it seems like they're not even trying to catch up?



By what logic is Microsoft forced to write made-to-order software for free, and must also keep it feature-compatible with people who don't have the same responsibilities as them, and in several cases have absolutely no responsibilities at all?

Your question seems to rely on Microsoft having a duty to try to catch up with people, who themselves are not standards compliant. Please substantiate the theory that they have a duty to you, that you are infact entitled to this service for free.


Opera isn't upset that their product is better than their competition, yet that is the pretence that has been given. I am amazed that so many programmers buy into it.
Posted on 2008-01-13 07:28:56 by Rockoon

By what logic is Microsoft forced to write made-to-order software for free, and must also keep it feature-compatible with people who don't have the same responsibilities as them, and in several cases have absolutely no responsibilities at all?

They have a de-facto OS monopoly, and they bundle their webbrowser with the OS (and thanks for that!, without a bundled IE it'd be much more bother grabbing a copy of FireFox...). MS is also part of the w3c. While neither of those things probably give them a legal obligation to at least try and do things right, imho they have a moral obligation to do so.


Your question seems to rely on Microsoft having a duty to try to catch up with people, who themselves are not standards compliant. Please substantiate the theory that they have a duty to you, that you are infact entitled to this service for free.

You're really clutching at "the other browsers aren't standards compliant either" issue, aren't you? Fact is that other browsers are much, much, much closer, while IE is more or less unusable for some AJAX/WEB2/whatever tasks (this could be deliberate from MS because they're scared of the web, but that's a different issue).

And "service for free" - I think you're forgetting that we pay for Windows?

Posted on 2008-01-13 07:44:24 by f0dder

MS is also part of the w3c. While neither of those things probably give them a legal obligation to at least try and do things right, imho they have a moral obligation to do so.


Voluntarilly handing over (donating) their intelectual property to W3C wasnt enough for you?


You're really clutching at "the other browsers aren't standards compliant either" issue, aren't you? Fact is that other browsers are much, much, much closer, while IE is more or less unusable for some AJAX/WEB2/whatever tasks (this could be deliberate from MS because they're scared of the web, but that's a different issue).


Any line in the sand that isnt at compliance is an arbitrary one.

What assurance do you give that this line (which has yet to be defined) hasnt been specialy crafted to be ahead of I.E. but behind Opera?

Where is the line, and why is it there?


And "service for free" - I think you're forgetting that we pay for Windows?


If you paid for windows then you presumably have your copy of it.

You seem to want MORE than what you paid for.
Posted on 2008-01-13 08:31:30 by Rockoon

Voluntarilly handing over (donating) their intelectual property to W3C wasnt enough for you?
Voluntarily?  You have to pay a substantial fee to join plus pay your own way to travel to the meetings.  Remember, HTML, CSS, et al, was created by the W3C, not Microsoft.

Any line in the sand that isnt at compliance is an arbitrary one.

What assurance do you give that this line (which has yet to be defined) hasnt been specialy crafted to be ahead of I.E. but behind Opera?
Probably because Microsoft has to sign off on the standard just like all the other member companies do.
Posted on 2008-01-13 21:54:03 by drhowarddrfine
drhowarddrfine, you have ignored my last post in this thread to you.

Until otherwise noted, I will take that to mean that you now finally concede that every point I have made is true and accurate, and that your repeated claims to the contrary are now understood by you to have been uninformed and/or biased and that you could not formulate a reply that didnt do as I requested (my request for you not to change the subject.)

In regards to Microsoft handing over intellectual property to the W3C. Microsoft has done so before and is going to do so again. I hope that it doesnt upset you that Microsoft isn't handing over everything, or that you didnt know that Microsoft has infact handed over some things.

For instance, in regards to SOAP:

Microsoft further agrees that, upon adoption of this contribution as a
Standard, Microsoft will grant to any party a royalty-free license on other
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms under applicable Microsoft intellectual
property rights to implement and use the technology proposed in this
contribution in products that comply with the Standard but only for the purpose
of complying with the Standard.

Posted on 2008-01-15 07:24:41 by Rockoon

drhowarddrfine, you have ignored my last post in this thread to you.
Did I now?

Until otherwise noted, I will take that to mean that you now finally concede that every point I have made is true and accurate, and that your repeated claims to the contrary are now understood by you to have been uninformed and/or biased and that you could not formulate a reply that didnt do as I requested (my request for you not to change the subject.)
What kind of nonsense statement is that?  I did respond to you!  What's funny is you only rant but offer nothing but rhetoric in response while I offer links and data.  In addition, you say I didn't respond, but you replied to my response!

For instance, in regards to SOAP:
Pfft!  So you are going to pick single instances out of thin air to justify this?!  What about XHTML?  NO support, did not invent.  What about CSS?  Poor support, did not invent.  What about SVG?  NO support, did not invent.  What about Javascript?  Poor support, did not invent.  What about HTML?  Did not invent.  What about Flash?  Did not invent, trying to circumvent.  What about internet browsers?  Did not invent, tried to destroy Netscape.  What about the internet?  Did not invent did not support until recently.

It works both ways buddy.  And there are a lot of technologies other companies contribute that Microsoft uses now and are freely available.  Don't try and turn MS into some superstar contributor/inventor when they are not.
Posted on 2008-01-15 10:04:18 by drhowarddrfine


drhowarddrfine, you have ignored my last post in this thread to you.
Did I now?


Yes.


What kind of nonsense statement is that?  I did respond to you! 


No, you responded to my response to someone else but ignored my response to you.

I just looked - its still there - it didnt magically get deleted.


What's funny is you only rant but offer nothing but rhetoric in response while I offer links and data. 


You should revisit your original claims that you justified with your frabrications, and attempt to actualy support those claims without fabricating. Your "links" and "data" do not support your frabrications.

Microsoft cannot do "whatever it wants" with its money, so the claim you made which used this as support, is still unsupported.
You being an "expert" on web development is just an appeal to authority, so the claim you made which used this as support, is still unsupported.

You havent supported your claims at all. You have fabricated quite a bit, however, and you have presented numerous starwman arguements when your original support was challenged. Several of those strawmen were themselves unsupported, such as your subject change to telephone companies.


In addition, you say I didn't respond, but you replied to my response!


Because you didn't.


For instance, in regards to SOAP:
Pfft!  So you are going to pick single instances out of thin air to justify this?! 


To justify what?

Microsoft has handed over some of their property to the W3C.

I wont bother naming the other instances, because after all, you are an expert in the field of web development and know of the many instances where Microsoft has handed over their property to the W3C. Experts know that stuff.

Essentialy, you appear to want to forcefully, through court action, benefit from the fruits of their labor without paying the costs of that labor.

Thats stealing in my book. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be faced with such a situation directed at your work.


What about XHTML?  NO support, did not invent.  What about CSS?  Poor support, did not invent.  What about SVG?  NO support, did not invent.  What about Javascript?  Poor support, did not invent.  What about HTML?  Did not invent.  What about Flash?  Did not invent, trying to circumvent.  What about internet browsers?  Did not invent, tried to destroy Netscape.  What about the internet?  Did not invent did not support until recently.


What about it? You dont seem to have a point yet again. Are you suggesting that Microsoft should have invented all that stuff?

heres an idea:

A) PICK a theory.
B) STATE said theory, so people know what you are talking about.
C) SUPPORT said theory without fabrication or logical fallacies.
D) DRAW a conclusion.


Don't try and turn MS into some superstar contributor/inventor when they are not.


Yet another strawman.

Nobody, especialy me, said what you are proclaiming.

Stop making things up.
Posted on 2008-01-18 01:30:38 by Rockoon
Again you rant about my statements but offer nothing contradictory.  You say my links, which are considered by web developers some of the best on the web, are bad.  One of them is even referenced by Microsoft.  I'm sure you want proof of that but some things, in the web world, are considered common knowledge.

With all your nonsense spouting off, I've lost track of what you are wanting proof of.  Ask what you want shown as bullet points and I will give you proof.

If you want to say I am wrong, or your "strawman" theory, show proof yourself that I am wrong.  Don't lead us around that I am wrong based on your word alone.  If you want to say I am wrong, you prove it.

If you can't prove I'm wrong, then it is you that is making things up.
Posted on 2008-01-18 07:48:50 by drhowarddrfine