Anyone else think that IE8 is crap

judderman62

Old_Sherlock wrote: »

Defend against what... it`s own success or the fact that it is a corporation that profits from selling operating systems ?

This has also been answered several times over in the thread - you can find the answers yourself by reading back in the thread.

marleyboy

anewhope wrote: »

Why should Microsoft distribute their source code in the same fashion that Open Source software does?

To make it more "cross platform"? akin to Ubuntu or Linux and Opera.

[Deleted User]

marleyboy wrote: »

To make it more "cross platform"? akin to Ubuntu or Linux and Opera.

Opera isn't Open Source, a better example for you to use would be FireFox.

Do you really think that having the source code for Microsoft products in the ether would be a good thing for anyone?

aliEnRIK

PROLIANT wrote: »

Can you please explain what you mean Rik.

Theres so much Microsoft has blatantly lied about, its WAY beyond what I could come up with in a few paragraphs
But to start the egg rolling ~
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

sk3

Old_Sherlock wrote: »

Defend against what... it`s own success or the fact that it is a corporation that profits from selling operating systems ?

:rolleyes: As I've had to explain about ten times already, I am refering to their malpractices. Did you just not bother to read anything else posted here?

sk3

just that I can't get in the mud slinging contest against Microsoft.

Says the poster engaged in hurling baseless negative assertions against open source software. Hypocrisy at its finest. I guess your view of standards reflect those of MS. And let me guess, the US and European courts were all "mud slinging" too, right?

You don't have to use the API's that Microsoft provide to you

Yes, much like you don't have to use a screwdriver to use screws for screwing. Besides, in one court ruling, MS was found guilty of withholding api information (not source code) necessary for networking software to interact with windows (read the links I provided).

it just saves you having to re-invent the wheel every time you want to do something that has already been done.

Except no one charges obscene royalties (deemed illegal by the courts themselves!) every time someone builds something with a wheel in it. How far back would that have put progress?

Why should Microsoft distribute their source code in the same fashion that Open Source software does?

The courts did not order MS to divulge actual source code, but just the api information necessary for companies to develop software on windows. Which was the very thing you first asked me about!

Why should MS block and sabotage so many attempts at competing with it? Why do you think the upper courts in several different continents have repeatedly fined MS for damages? Why should MS be above international laws? MS was found guilty of blocking access to apis to security companies, so that they couldn't compete with MS (link). They wanted to force a security software monopoly! This is not unusual behaviour for MS.

Now, do you understand this or shall I explain it another ten times? And you wonder about going round in circles...

judderman62

sk3 wrote: »

Says the poster engaged in hurling baseless negative assertions against open source software. Hypocrisy at its finest. I guess your view of standards reflect that of MS. And let me guess, the US and European courts were all "mud slinging" too, right?

Yes, much like you don't have to use a screwdriver to unscrew 900 screws. Besides, in one court ruling, MS was found guilty of withholding api information (not source code) necessary for networking software to interact with windows (read the links I provided).

Except no one charges obscene royalties (deemed illegal by the courts themselves!) every time someone builds something with a wheel in it. How far back would that have put progress?

The courts did not order MS to divulge actual source code, but just the api information necessary for companies to develop software on windows. Which was the very thing you first asked me about!

Why should MS block and sabotage so many attempts at competing with it? Why do you think the upper courts in several different continents have repeatedly fined MS for colossal damages? Why should MS be above international laws? MS was found guilty of blocking access to apis to security companies, so that they couldn't compete with MS (link). They wanted to force a security software monopoly! This is not unusual behaviour for MS.

Now, do you understand this or shall I explain it another ten times? And you wonder about going round in circles...

are we back to the wheel analogy here

[Deleted User]

You two make quite the double act

sk3

anewhope wrote: »

You two make quite the double act

Ah, yes the final ad hominem flame bait to round up your feeble attempts at debating. Does humble pie really taste that bitter?

But, don't feel lonely, there are plenty of ignorant and gullible microsoft worshippers out there. The church of Gates is open to every one (pending a fee and acceptance of a license agreement of course). And then there's always your pal proliant, although he can say rather embarrassing stuff. It can't be any worse than defending George Lucas though...

[Deleted User]

sk3 wrote: »

Ah, yes the final ad hominem flame bait to round up your feeble attempts at debating. Does humble pie really taste that bitter?

I am curious as to why you've got such a bee in your bonnet over the whole matter and why you've stormed in with such an abrasive attitude, flame baiting was actually one of my initial thoughts, but let him who is without sin cast the first stone ey?

But, don't feel lonely, there are plenty of ignorant and gullible microsoft worshippers out there. The church of Gates is open to every one (pending a fee and acceptance of a license agreement of course).

Sigh, why does everyone have to be ignorant and gullible. Could it be that Microsoft products get things done in a way they like and maybe they just don't care about what goes on behind the scenes.

And then there's always your pal proliant, although he can say rather embarrassing stuff. It can't be any worse than defending George Lucas though...

I happen to have a lot of respect for Proliant, along with the other regular posters. It's a shame you never got to meet Conor, I think you two would have gotten on quite well.

And for your information, it's not a star wars reference