Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13003; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190327.WAA13003@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #12 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jan 98 22:27:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Leonard Erickson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Ranck) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Roston) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (dmeldazis@focal.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (timc@aminal.blarg.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Julian Thomas) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Elaine Poncelet) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tom Watson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Natale) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Orin Eman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steven J. Haworth) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (morgan@datingconnection.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:50:47 PST Organization: Shadownet Telecom Digest Editor writes: > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end > products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to > do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds > and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that > Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated > in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both > browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you > don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program > making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while > leaving alone files which service various programs in common. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Pat, You are apparently unaware of some of the tricks Microsoft has pulled. For example, deliberately putting code in Win 3.1 to prevent it from working with DR-DOS. Or the more recent "upgrade" to Win 95 that was purported to give better font renderings (fewer "jaggies" on large characters). Only thing is, someone noticed that when he installed it, Netscape started doing *worse*. Upon digging into the new DLLs, he found that they specifically *checked* for Netscape and *disabled* the anti-jaggies code if the requesting process was Netscape. MS has a *long* history of this sort of thing, and also of things like not documenting features of the OS, so that MS products could run faster by using the undocumented features, while everyone else had to stick to the documented ones or risk crashes by trying to *guess* how the undocumented features worked. There are *several* lawsuits pending against Micrsoft for this sort of thing. > What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The fact that MS *will* do what they did when someone tried that stunt with DOS. Write MS apps to not run on the new OS. Which will restrict the hell out of the market for it. And want to bet that there wouldn't be a "look and feel" lawsuit? Of course, now we *do* have folks like Caldersa making their DOS (formerly NovellDOS, formerly DR-DOS) free for home use. But MS is now trying to "kill" the DOS market. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than But when one party has as overwhelming a market share as MS *and* has it in both OS *and* applications software, they can make competition next to impossible. If MS was split into OS and applications divisions *and* the only communication between said divisions was via *published* specs, I think that 90% of the complaints would go away. And MS would *still* make money hand over fist. But they'd have to do it by *competing*, not by underhanded tricks in their code. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 13:57:57 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Political satire cartoon seen in today's {Boston Globe} (and undoubtedly others): Picture two lawyers in a jail cell talking to Ted Kaczynski (of Unabomber fame), the title of the cartoon reads 'The Justice Department Solves Two Problems at Once.' One of the lawyers is speaking to Kaczynski: "We can offer you lifetime employment at Microsoft." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:32:59 -0600 (CST) From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] If he is going to take advantage of them, then yes. And I mean take advantage NOT in a "take advantage of a business opportunity" sense, but in the "take advantage of a mentally deprived individual" sense. Derek J. Balling | J:"You ARE aware that Elvis is dead, dude?" dredd@megacity.org | K:"Elvis isn't dead, son, he's just gone http://www.megacity.org/ | back home!" - W.Smith, T.L.Jones, MiB ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 15:25:20 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Christopher Wolf (@micro.ti.com) wrote: > The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the > OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office > in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including > Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out > of business quickly, and then start charging for it. I'm not 100% sure which side of this issue I'm on, but your examples don't hold up in my opinion. Take car sales as an example. When was the last time you could buy a family sedan without a radio already installed from the factory? Is the radio necessary to the operation of the car? No. Are there other vendors who want to sell you car radios with better/nicer features? Yes. Do those aftermarket vendors complain about the car makers putting in radios by default? You bet! Is it really an anti-competitive monopoly situation? The government isn't taking GM, Ford, or Chrysler to court over it. > Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look > at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're > given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also > lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the > alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. Well, the aftermarket car audio business seems to be doing OK. It's been about 20 years since (I think Chrysler was first) some cars came with a radio by default, with no choice to leave it out. > There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can > set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and > it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other > interfaces. Maybe my analogy is flawed, but you will have to show me where. A car radio is not required for the car to operate, it just lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use the car. Much like a Web browser lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use your computer. If Microsoft wants to include it in the operating system, how is that different from car companies including a radio in your new car whether you want it or not? Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: David Roston Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:35:24 -0600 To say that this (a browser) or that (a wordprocessor) is or is not part of an operating system is not for customers or the government to say. Neither a consumer nor the government goes to the manufacturer of products and tells them what is or what is not part of a product, except in unusual circumstances where Congress has given government agencies specific power in an area, e.g. food, drugs, and automobiles. If the critics are right, there is a market for a stripped down, Windows compatible operating system. It may be about the same size as the market for Intel compatible CPUs. If the market is there, someone will step into it. If it is not there, the Department of Justice has no business telling Microsoft how to go about encouraging the development of the market. The same people who are worried about having to buy Microsoft Explorer may want to look at/criticize the other programs that Microsoft has built into Windows, a word processor, a calculator, a painting drawing program, a communications program, backup/restore programs etc. What's the problem with them? Is the reason that there are no complaints about them the fact that they aren't as good of quality as Explorer? It seems as though the fact that the internet is an important communication medium (see Marshall McLuhan) is what makes the difference here. If it were merely an economic problem capitalism and the market would solve it. ------------------------------ From: dmeldazis@focal.com Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:53:10 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt "Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue." Incredible. Microsoft, by providing it's browser for free, prevents any other software company from marketing it's own product or setting up deals with PC manufacturers. I did not think that Microsoft was that strong. Let's hope that the Justice Dept. gets it right this time so only a few million of our tax dollars will be wasted. Dan ------------------------------ From: timc@animal.blarg.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 08:49:22 -0800 Derek Balling writes: >> If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with >> Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL >> and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser >> as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my >> AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my >> eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, >> but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the > operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, > etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your > machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of >your customer base demands installed". 94%? You wouldn't want to substantiate that would you? Silly argument anyway. MS doens't have a monopoly. You DO have a choice. There are still several operating systems to choose from. lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. > You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it > or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no > choice. This is completly and totally untrue. You can buy a pc with many varieties of Linux on it, you can buy a Mac, you can buy an Amiga, You have a very clear choice. > Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false > guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will > prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. That doesn't seem to be happening. browserwatch.com lists over 50 browsers for more than five platforms. Where's the monopoly? > IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. Then don't buy M$ products. > I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its > Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with > its operating system. Why should the government decide what features M$ should include in it's software? If you don't like the features, simply don't buy the product. > Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through > government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased > "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the > opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software > products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for > the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for > IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the > marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable > systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 98 12:05:17 -0500 Organization: epix Internet Services In , on 01/14/98 at 01:17 PM, Fred Farzanegan said: > You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As > part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. > You cannot do this with your PC. I did. There are a few vendors who sell machines with no OS or with OS2 (for example) preloaded. Heck, by now, there are probably even some who will preload Linux. Julian Thomas jt@epix.net http://www.epix.net/~jt In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:29:52 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and > then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing > history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of > Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring > OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a > condition of selling IE. > ... > They don't allow > Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard > drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't > "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full > price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call > it tying. Here's a quote from the OSR2 "OEM Preinstallation Guide": "Since the release of Windows 95, Microsoft has become aware of instances in which OEMs are modifying the product as a method of differentiating their hardware. This has caused considerable confusion with our end user customers. As a result, Microsoft is taking this opportunity to define the requirements and restrictions of the preinstallation process, so that all of our end users have a consistent experience with our products." This is followed by about four pages of requirements, such as not modifying the "favorites" page for IE, not deleting anything (say, the IE icon?) from the desktop, etc. In fact, an OEM is prohibited from even setting up a screen saver or desktop wallpaper! (Obviously, the big guys can negotiate out of this; witness Compaq's "Tabworks", whatever that thing is that Packard Bell puts on their machines, etc.) This completely precludes a small OEM from delivering a turnkey system; according to Microsoft an OEM must require the _end user_ to complete the installation of applications, entering registration numbers, and so on. The requirement to include IE is buried in all this as a side-effect of the fact that Microsoft chose to include it in the pre-install (from which the OEM can delete nothing). Sure, if there's no browser then some aspects of the system don't work, such as double-clicking on an HTML file. But that's not really the problem. I can't bundle up a corporate intranet solution, using Windows 95 and Netscape, without violating Microsoft's licensing agreements! I must provide half of a solution, let the customers spend an hour or so having their "End-User Experience", and _then_ I can come back and customize what is now an already-installed system. Stupid! I think it's important to loosen these restrictions, and I suppose busting the IE requirement is a Good Start. But it's not enough. Anyway, the real problem is not actually a software issue, it's just an issue involving the language and intent of Microsoft's OEM licensing agreement. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:26:03 -0500 From: Steve Bagdon Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but > either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and > install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll > have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a > 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] Not at all. I was trying to communicate that all users should start on equal ground, and be forced to download browsers (and not be spoon-fed any particular brand). Right now, whether through design or accident, IE is the default for Win95. Make all users pick a browser, don't give them one - if Microsoft wins more power to them. Steve B. ------------------------------ From: witchy@zianet.com (Elaine Poncelet) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:32:32 GMT Organization: Southwest Cyberport On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400, bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) wrote: > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I started using the "net" before there was IE or Netscape. I had just moved on from bbsing into the whole world. I got a lot of help from all of the friends that I made through the years of bbsing because I was not that computer literate. I, personally, enjoyed being able to pick and choose and update and everything else that came with learning new computer habits. I also personally beleive that most people would be better off if they would get a more rounded computer education, but I also like the fact that just about anyone can use a computer and get information at their fingertips. I really do beleive that in the end all will be worked out by the consumers themselves. Elaine ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:16:30 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. This is a very interesting discussion. You have an (alleged) operating system, i.e. Windows 95 that "requires" Internet Explorer to run. Then you have another system (Mac OS) that (funny about that) doesn't need the SAME hunk of software (Internet Explorer) to run. According to the nice people in Redmond Washington, in one case it is an "integral part", and in the other it isn't. Now which is it?? I heard that some internal memo said that the only way Microsoft can compete in the browser market (which translates to the BIG money server market) was to require the installation of IE on machines. I don't know how substantiated that rumor is, but it sounds pretty close. Today we have Internet Explorer as an "integral" part of the system, the logical conslusion is that tommorow Microsoft Word is "integral", or Microsoft Excel is "integral". Well, everyone needs to edit files, and make spreadsheets, don't they?? Simple excercise for the "unbelivers": The next time you order a computer, ask if there is a discount for NOT having Windows 95 (or whatever the next piece of stuff is) installed on the machine. I can see the dialog now: Me: "How much is Windows 95?" Mfr: "Oh, its included." Me: "No, how much is it, I need to know for accounting purposes?" Mfr: "Oh, I'll ask" ...time passes... Mfr: "Our agreement says that we pay Microsoft (enter figure here) for the installation of Windows 95 on the computer." Me: "I don't want it installed, will you deduct that cost from my invoice?" Mfr: "But you NEED an operating system!" Me: "I'm going to use another one, please deduct the cost, and don't install it" Mfr: "But we have to pay Microsoft for every one, even if we don't install it!" Me: "But I don't want it!!" Mfr: "And our procedures always put it on the disk drives!!" Me: "But I don't want it!!!" Mfr: "OK, we'll take it off. To do that, will cost an additional ($$$) of 'special' installation." Me: "You mean it is going to cost MORE to not have Windows 95??" Mfr: "That seems to be it." Me: "Never mind......" You get the picture.... ObTelecom: The phone company doesn't make you buy telephones from it, but some do provide the service. That was what the Carterfone decision was all about. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:26:16 -0500 From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Bruce Wilson ) and others wrote: This comment (made by Bruce and several others on this thread)... > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. ... may be true in general, but is incorrect when applied to IE in particular. The explanation for Microsoft's chosen course of action in this matter lies mostly in the fact that IE (or browser-like functionality) *will* no longer exist as an application distinct from the OS. This is an inevitable change, tied to the nature of the Internet/www phenomenon, and will ultimately affect many, many interfaces beyond those for computing devices. To oppose this evolution is somewhat Neanderthal, at this time. I believe the foregoing is a factual observation. In terms of opinion, I admit I lean far more toward Pat's view of the matter than that of his critics. The words and actions of the Justice Dept lawyers, Judge Jackson, and "Special Master" Lessig really fail to impress me, thus far. Indeed, I suspect that the apparent PR bonanza for NetScape and Sun in this matter, fueled for now by mostly hordes of jealous weenies, will soon wither on the vine. At least I for one sure hope it does. Yep, some of what MS does as a corporate giant is less than wonderful (but definitely not uncommon). However, what they are doing that's positive is raising the bar across the board ... eventually, someone--maybe you, maybe me (I know I've been working on my high jump) -- will hurdle it and then MS'll have to play catch up themselves. This too is inevitable. I'd much rather have to whip myself into shape for the challenge than have some lawyer/judge/ special_master hit team chop off the defending champ's legs at the knees for me. BobN ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 19:50:16 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) writes: > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. It's not that simple. Consider help files which are in some Microsoft format. Someone says: "Why not use html and dump the special format." Great idea. No special format required, we can use the browser, no need for a special viewer any more. Can you say this is bad? Well maybe with some such files which seem less capable than the help files they replace, but as a long term solution? I don't think so. Do this for OS help files and it does become a requirement to ship a browser with the OS. BTW, I do NOT use IE and usually delete it and use Netscape instead. Why? For the most trivial of reasons. I can't configure its stupid toolbar buttons to be text only like I can with Netscape and it uses too much screen real estate. Orin ------------------------------ From: sjh@idm.com (Steven J Haworth) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 20:13:10 GMT Organization: Information Data Management Fred Farzanegan (fredf@nortel.ca) wrote: > However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as > important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an > interface between applications and system resources -- applications > are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) > would love to be able to write application software that would run on > any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry > standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen > for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to > run the same application. The question on purchasing software will > not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' I've been reading this Digest for a while now, and this really needs a response (if you haven't already gotten a boat full, Pat). The new computer language Java does exactly what Fred describes above, namely allowing a vendor to write an application once and have it run on multiple operating systems w/o any changes. Everyone in the software industry is rapidly endorsing it as a new standard. Except (no suprise) Microsoft. They have 'enhanced' Java with some of their own features, so that anyone writing software w/Microsoft's brand will be forced to use Microsoft products to run it -- thus breaking the most attractive nature of Java. No it's not portable at all, except on Microsoft products. Sun (who owns the standard) is suing Microsoft over this very issue. It's yet another instance of Microsoft trying to own and control a market for their own profit. And borrowing yet another innovation developed elsewhere, but that's another story ... Steven Haworth (sjh@idm.com) Software Quality Assurance Specialist Information Data Mgmt, Inc Rosemont, IL USA My opinions are just mine ... ------------------------------ From: Morgan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:03:23 -0500 Organization: @Home Network Everybody has an opinion on the Microsoft vs. USA case, so here's mine: Do not forget how Microsoft got itself into this position! They agreed to not require OEMs to bundle applications software ONLY because the feds were threatening to investigage Microsoft's onerous and possibly illegal licensing arrangements. Microsoft thought at the time that it would be better to give a little (no bundling of apps) than have them investigate other monopolistic practices involved with licensing the basic operating systems themselves. Being cocky, Microsoft conveniently forgot that it had made a deal with the devil. They deserve to pay the price. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #12 *****************************