Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium - Linux ; http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history Contents * 1 A History of MS' Standards 'Dirty Tricks' o 1.1 Standards Bodies and Windows APIs o 1.2 Standards covered * 2 MS OfficeOpenXML o 2.1 Licensing o 2.2 (In-)Compatibility with other standards o 2.3 Office2007 implementation o ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

  1. Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

    Contents

    * 1 A History of MS' Standards 'Dirty Tricks'
    o 1.1 Standards Bodies and Windows APIs
    o 1.2 Standards covered
    * 2 MS OfficeOpenXML
    o 2.1 Licensing
    o 2.2 (In-)Compatibility with other standards
    o 2.3 Office2007 implementation
    o 2.4 Alternative Implementations
    o 2.5 Summary and epilogue
    * 3 MPEG
    * 4 OpenDoc
    * 5 HTML and WWW
    * 6 Kerberos standard with proprietary extension
    * 7 The Sender ID flap
    * 8 Ecmascript
    * 9 RTF
    * 10 LDAP
    * 11 CIFS
    * 12 OpenGL
    * 13 C#/CLI
    * 14 .NET
    * 15 Java
    * 16 ODBC API
    * 17 ActiveX standardization
    * 18 NTP, the Network Time Protocol
    * 19 RIFF (WAV)
    * 20 VFAT
    * 21 C++
    * 22 RC4 encryption
    * 23 Rdesktop
    * 24 Boot sector pain
    * 25 PNG

    Not sure if it is truly comprehensive, though. For instance, I see nothing in
    the above list about

    * Violating non-disclosure agreements
    * Buying out the competition and killing them
    * Using brain-drain on the competition
    * Slinging mud, astroturfing, channel-stuffing, stove-piping, and
    legal threats (direct, via press release, and by proxy)
    * Strong-arming vendors
    * Cooking their accounting numbers (pretty standard for all business,
    I suppose)

    But, I suppose Grok's list is a technical list. So here's another:

    http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653

    Microsoft Litigation.

    Teach me Billy! Teach me!

    --
    Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and
    motivating them, the teacher is the most important.
    -- Bill Gates

  2. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On Sat, 24 May 2008 10:26:50 -0400, Linonut wrote:


    > Teach me Billy! Teach me!


    You misspelled Roy Schestowitz.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    --
    Clue for flatfish: /m.* goldfarb/i

    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: IBM "linux champion" Illegal Dirty Tricks Compendium

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    --
    Clue for flatfish: /m.* goldfarb/i

    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Linonut on Saturday 24 May 2008 15:26 : \____

    > http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
    >
    > Contents
    >
    > * 1 A History of MS' Standards 'Dirty Tricks'
    > o 1.1 Standards Bodies and Windows APIs
    > o 1.2 Standards covered
    > * 2 MS OfficeOpenXML
    > o 2.1 Licensing
    > o 2.2 (In-)Compatibility with other standards
    > o 2.3 Office2007 implementation
    > o 2.4 Alternative Implementations
    > o 2.5 Summary and epilogue
    > * 3 MPEG
    > * 4 OpenDoc
    > * 5 HTML and WWW
    > * 6 Kerberos standard with proprietary extension
    > * 7 The Sender ID flap
    > * 8 Ecmascript
    > * 9 RTF
    > * 10 LDAP
    > * 11 CIFS
    > * 12 OpenGL
    > * 13 C#/CLI
    > * 14 .NET
    > * 15 Java
    > * 16 ODBC API
    > * 17 ActiveX standardization
    > * 18 NTP, the Network Time Protocol
    > * 19 RIFF (WAV)
    > * 20 VFAT
    > * 21 C++
    > * 22 RC4 encryption
    > * 23 Rdesktop
    > * 24 Boot sector pain
    > * 25 PNG
    >
    > Not sure if it is truly comprehensive, though. For instance, I see nothing
    > in the above list about
    >
    > * Violating non-disclosure agreements
    > * Buying out the competition and killing them
    > * Using brain-drain on the competition
    > * Slinging mud, astroturfing, channel-stuffing, stove-piping, and
    > legal threats (direct, via press release, and by proxy)
    > * Strong-arming vendors
    > * Cooking their accounting numbers (pretty standard for all business,
    > I suppose)
    >
    > But, I suppose Grok's list is a technical list. So here's another:
    >
    > http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653
    >
    > Microsoft Litigation.
    >
    > Teach me Billy! Teach me!


    How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's doing it."

    Accused Microsoft of AstroTurfing. Microsoft's response? Diversion. Accuse
    someone, spread more libel.

    I'm glad the resources above show so well what 'company' we're dealing with.
    It's a serial killer. At the moment I'm compiling a list of OOXML corruptions.
    So far today I've covered nations from A to C (still over 20 letters to go). I
    got about 200 links for just 3 letters! Microsoft left quite a trail of
    corruption, with OOXML /alone/. It left us with another world-wide treasure
    trove of corruption -- of ammunition against its behaviour.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for Win32/Linux: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 24.4%us, 3.6%sy, 1.0%ni, 66.5%id, 4.1%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIOGoWU4xAY3RXLo4RAgNFAJ4kdmwZl1+r5gX+EKJDBK Sv8rUDuQCfTk9L
    GJmjk8hLV+aLJ/H7i5kq0vY=
    =VbKg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  6. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:

    > http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history


    Wow, I'm impressed. Some of those were actually reported correctly and
    accurately.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

    >
    > Wow, I'm impressed. Some of those were actually reported correctly and
    > accurately.


    Of course they were, Tim.

    The source is at least as reliable as you.

    --
    It's a business I don't know anything about, but I admire Bill Gates
    enormously. I know him individually, and I think he's incredible in business.
    -- Warren Buffett, in lecture at Kenan-Flagler Business School, University
    of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (1994)

  8. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:43:49 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

    >
    > Wow, I'm impressed. Some of those were actually reported correctly and
    > accurately.


    Roy Schestowitz is like a retard trying to feed himself, Every now and
    then he gets the spoon in his mouth instead of his ear.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On Sat, 24 May 2008 20:18:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's doing
    > it."


    Tu Quoque is not a valid argument. It insinuates that two wrongs make a
    right (they don't).

    If the best Microsoft can do is a Tu Quoque argument, then they have lost
    already.

  11. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    In article <5T_Zj.19790$255.6444@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > In article ,
    > > Linonut wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

    > >
    > > Wow, I'm impressed. Some of those were actually reported correctly and
    > > accurately.

    >
    > Of course they were, Tim.


    Unfortunately, many of them also were completely wrong. Can you tell
    which is which?

    If Microsoft is as bad as you say, why do people have to make up stuff
    about it? Why can't they stick to the things that are actually true?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ alt on Sunday 25 May 2008 01:11 : \____

    > On Sat, 24 May 2008 20:18:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's doing
    >> it."

    >
    > Tu Quoque is not a valid argument. It insinuates that two wrongs make a
    > right (they don't).
    >
    > If the best Microsoft can do is a Tu Quoque argument, then they have lost
    > already.


    A couple of hours ago I had an argument where Novell's weakness was countered
    by a certain weakness in Red Hat. It's important to pay attention to these
    things because it means that there's no counter argument to the original claim
    (in this case, that Microsoft is corrupt). The same goes for attacks (libel)
    on me that say that I spam, that I get paid and so forth. If anything, this
    means that the trolls are Microsoft Munchkins on some form of payroll. They
    fabricate stuff to attack me and take the heat off themselves.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Hack to learn, don't learn to hack"
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.17 0.43 0.73 3/178 12006
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIOPpKU4xAY3RXLo4RAjbJAJ403YF9CpQzHnooaOAqhd b0D4BziQCfQMQm
    pFSaPyUVuda4hQUoWfmX42I=
    =v2+m
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  13. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On Sun, 25 May 2008 06:33:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > ____/ alt on Sunday 25 May 2008 01:11 : \____
    >
    >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 20:18:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's doing
    >>> it."

    >>
    >> Tu Quoque is not a valid argument. It insinuates that two wrongs make a
    >> right (they don't).
    >>
    >> If the best Microsoft can do is a Tu Quoque argument, then they have lost
    >> already.

    >
    > A couple of hours ago I had an argument where Novell's weakness was countered
    > by a certain weakness in Red Hat. It's important to pay attention to these
    > things because it means that there's no counter argument to the original claim
    > (in this case, that Microsoft is corrupt). The same goes for attacks (libel)
    > on me that say that I spam, that I get paid and so forth. If anything, this
    > means that the trolls are Microsoft Munchkins on some form of payroll. They
    > fabricate stuff to attack me and take the heat off themselves.
    >


    Haha.
    The truth hurts Roy Schestowitz and you just can't deal with it.

    Sounds like someone pulled the old distribution switcheroo on you.

    Serves you right you ignoramus.

    And anyone who doesn't think you are being compensated for your efforts is
    an idiot.

    It's obvious you are on the take.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  15. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <5T_Zj.19790$255.6444@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >> > In article ,
    >> > Linonut wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
    >> >
    >> > Wow, I'm impressed. Some of those were actually reported correctly and
    >> > accurately.

    >>
    >> Of course they were, Tim.

    >
    > Unfortunately, many of them also were completely wrong. Can you tell
    > which is which?
    >
    > If Microsoft is as bad as you say, why do people have to make up stuff
    > about it? Why can't they stick to the things that are actually true?


    I don't know, Tim. Why don't you post a point-by-point commentary of
    each item in the list, and tell us how each is wrong (or right),
    instead of trying to tar the whole bunch of them with unspecified
    accusations of inaccuracy?

    That is your method, I'm afraid. Here's a rough algorithm:

    1. Read something you don't like.
    2. If you can find an easy inaccuracy, you post a countering
    response.
    3. If you cannot find an easy inaccuracy:
    a. Simply allude to inaccuracy, hoping the reader will totally
    reject the post.
    b. Float a bogus challenge to lend an air of plausibility to the
    claims of inaccuracy.
    4. If the story is absolutely unassailable, say nothing.

    Unfortunately, Tim, even if that whole URL were absolutely wrong,
    there is still plenty of accurate anti-Microsoft material posted out
    there.

    By the way, you've been pretty quiet about OOXML lately. Why is that?
    Microsoft is getting /hammered/ about it, yet you post /nothing/!

    Surely, if these posts were obviously inaccurate you would have
    implemented step 2 in your algorithm. And, if not, then
    surely you would have implemented step 3 in the algorithm above.

    You seem enjoy finding bones to pick, and, when you find an especially
    juicy one, you run with it, sometimes to an insulting degree. Because
    of this habit, I tend to believe other sources, even an anonymous poster
    working with Groklaw, before I believe you.

    --
    The best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to
    study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to
    the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of
    their operating system.
    -- Bill Gates

  16. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > Unfortunately, many of them also were completely wrong. Can you tell
    > > which is which?
    > >
    > > If Microsoft is as bad as you say, why do people have to make up stuff
    > > about it? Why can't they stick to the things that are actually true?

    >
    > I don't know, Tim. Why don't you post a point-by-point commentary of
    > each item in the list, and tell us how each is wrong (or right),
    > instead of trying to tar the whole bunch of them with unspecified
    > accusations of inaccuracy?


    Sections with major errors:

    * Licensing. Complains about things in OOXML licensing that are
    identical to the corresponding things in ODF licensing.

    * MPEG. Incoherent and self-contradictory.

    * OpenDoc. At odds with pretty much every other history of OpenDoc. Go
    read the wikipedia article on OpenDoc for a much more accurate history.
    Or talk to people who worked on OpenDoc.

    * ECMAScript. Essence of complaint: Microsoft, just like everyone else,
    has extensions to DOM. Evidently, it is bad when Microsoft does it, but
    fine when everyone else does it.

    * C#/CLI. Claims only Microsoft can legally implement CLI. Claims C#
    and CLI are tied to Windows. Misunderstanding of sub-licensing.

    * ODBC. An anonymous comment telling a version of history that doesn't
    seem to be backed up by any other sources. Very convincing.

    * RIFF. Storing data in little endian byte order on a system that uses
    a little endian CPU is a dirty trick? Really? Also, note that RIFF was
    developed by IBM and Microsoft. How come Groklaw doesn't mention IBM?

    * VFAT. Their complaint is that it is covered by patents. So having
    patents is now a dirty trick?

    * C++. What's actually happening:







    >
    > That is your method, I'm afraid. Here's a rough algorithm:
    >
    > 1. Read something you don't like.
    > 2. If you can find an easy inaccuracy, you post a countering
    > response.
    > 3. If you cannot find an easy inaccuracy:
    > a. Simply allude to inaccuracy, hoping the reader will totally
    > reject the post.
    > b. Float a bogus challenge to lend an air of plausibility to the
    > claims of inaccuracy.
    > 4. If the story is absolutely unassailable, say nothing.
    >
    > Unfortunately, Tim, even if that whole URL were absolutely wrong,
    > there is still plenty of accurate anti-Microsoft material posted out
    > there.
    >
    > By the way, you've been pretty quiet about OOXML lately. Why is that?
    > Microsoft is getting /hammered/ about it, yet you post /nothing/!
    >
    > Surely, if these posts were obviously inaccurate you would have
    > implemented step 2 in your algorithm. And, if not, then
    > surely you would have implemented step 3 in the algorithm above.
    >
    > You seem enjoy finding bones to pick, and, when you find an especially
    > juicy one, you run with it, sometimes to an insulting degree. Because
    > of this habit, I tend to believe other sources, even an anonymous poster
    > working with Groklaw, before I believe you.





    --
    --Tim Smith

  17. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On Sun, 25 May 2008 10:19:19 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>> Unfortunately, many of them also were completely wrong. Can you tell
    >>> which is which?
    >>>
    >>> If Microsoft is as bad as you say, why do people have to make up stuff
    >>> about it? Why can't they stick to the things that are actually true?

    >>
    >> I don't know, Tim. Why don't you post a point-by-point commentary of
    >> each item in the list, and tell us how each is wrong (or right),
    >> instead of trying to tar the whole bunch of them with unspecified
    >> accusations of inaccuracy?

    >
    > Sections with major errors:
    >
    > * Licensing. Complains about things in OOXML licensing that are
    > identical to the corresponding things in ODF licensing.
    >
    > * MPEG. Incoherent and self-contradictory.
    >
    > * OpenDoc. At odds with pretty much every other history of OpenDoc. Go
    > read the wikipedia article on OpenDoc for a much more accurate history.
    > Or talk to people who worked on OpenDoc.
    >
    > * ECMAScript. Essence of complaint: Microsoft, just like everyone else,
    > has extensions to DOM. Evidently, it is bad when Microsoft does it, but
    > fine when everyone else does it.
    >
    > * C#/CLI. Claims only Microsoft can legally implement CLI. Claims C#
    > and CLI are tied to Windows. Misunderstanding of sub-licensing.
    >
    > * ODBC. An anonymous comment telling a version of history that doesn't
    > seem to be backed up by any other sources. Very convincing.
    >
    > * RIFF. Storing data in little endian byte order on a system that uses
    > a little endian CPU is a dirty trick? Really? Also, note that RIFF was
    > developed by IBM and Microsoft. How come Groklaw doesn't mention IBM?
    >
    > * VFAT. Their complaint is that it is covered by patents. So having
    > patents is now a dirty trick?
    >
    > * C++. What's actually happening:
    >
    >


    Good work Tim.

    I take a different approach.

    I see Roy Schestowit'z name on a post and I assume that there is at least
    one incorrect statement or outright lie in it.

    So far my method seems to be quite accurate, unlike Roy Schestowitz's
    posts.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  18. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    Moshe Goldfarb (flatfish) in real life Gary Stewart

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  19. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    On May 24, 5:11 pm, alt wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 May 2008 20:18:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > > How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's doing
    > > it."

    >
    > Tu Quoque is not a valid argument. It insinuates that two wrongs make a
    > right (they don't).
    >
    > If the best Microsoft can do is a Tu Quoque argument, then they have lost
    > already.


    Except everyone's *not* doing it, at least not with the same disregard
    for ethics as Microsoft.

  20. Re: Microsoft Dirty Tricks Compendium

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    > On May 24, 5:11 pm, alt wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 20:18:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> How can Microsoft defend itself? Oh, well... say that "everyone's
    >>> doing it."

    >>
    >> Tu Quoque is not a valid argument. It insinuates that two wrongs
    >> make a right (they don't).
    >>
    >> If the best Microsoft can do is a Tu Quoque argument, then they have
    >> lost already.

    >
    > Except everyone's *not* doing it, at least not with the same disregard
    > for ethics as Microsoft.



    Here's a total lack of ethics in action: "We will give them the free
    software so your non-free software will fail"

    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osr...le.php/3737586




+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast