[News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux ; "Tom Shelton" wrote in message news:P-2dncggBruN6EfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > On 2008-09-23, Rex Ballard wrote: >> On Sep 23, 11:58 pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out this bit o' wisdom: >> >>> > I don't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98

Thread: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

  1. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Tom Shelton" wrote in message
    news:P-2dncggBruN6EfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
    > On 2008-09-23, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >> On Sep 23, 11:58 pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >>
    >>> > I don't doubt that MS and others still try to attack and subvert
    >>> > standards, but they are having a lot less success with that strategy
    >>> > nowadays.

    >>
    >> Sure they have. When they couldn't kill off ODF by getting standards
    >> bodies and corporate directives mandating OOXML instead of ODF, they
    >> just shoveled it into their MS-Office 2007 suite, and made it the
    >> "default" save format. Furthermore, attempting to save in the .doc
    >> format resulted in warnings of loss of information.
    >>
    >> This was an attempt to "force upgrade" into OOXML and Office 2007.
    >> When acceptance of Office 2007 was still slow, Microsoft offered a
    >> patch that converted OOXML for use on Office XP and Office 2003, but
    >> didn't do it well.
    >>
    >> The bigger problem is that OOXML documents are triggering virus
    >> warnings when the attachments are sent via e-mail, because the trusted
    >> antivirus software fires of a warning when there are over 25 embedded
    >> binary files in a zip file. It turns out this is a very legitimate
    >> warning, because many OOXML documents can be trivially infected with
    >> viral agents (code that pulls in the virus and gives it administrator
    >> rights).
    >>
    >>> It's often the developers themselves that subvert their own code.

    >>
    >> In Microsoft's case, subverting standards is a key business strategy.
    >> This has been going on since the days when MS-DOS decided to continue
    >> the practice of putting the carriage-return and line-feed at the end
    >> of each line instead of just using a line-feed as a record delimiter.
    >> I assume it was because Microsoft was too lazy to put line-feed to CR-
    >> LF filters in their print or editor programs.
    >>
    >> It's a minor alteration, but has frequently corrupted files
    >> transferred via FTP when the user forgot to specify a "binary" copy.
    >> Nothing more frustrating than finding out after you've lost the
    >> original, that you can't restore valid copies of the files because the
    >> file transfer has inserted or deleted carriage returns and corrupted
    >> your archive.
    >>
    >> But then again, Microsoft doesn't WANT you using anything other than
    >> their products. This includes attempting to view Unix generated files
    >> with Notepad.
    >>

    >
    > This rant about cr/lf and ftp is lame, Rex. If you specify an ascii
    > transfer,
    > then the cr/lf sequence is translated to that of the recieving system. If
    > you
    > specify binary it is not. So, the answer is when transfering text files,
    > always specify an ascii transfer. The problem with corrupted files, is
    > that
    > many ftp clients default to binary - which makes some sense, because you
    > know
    > what happens to say an image file that was transfered in ascii mode?
    >
    > I think that the reason MS used CR/LF was that DOS did, and DOS did
    > because it
    > was written as a clone of CPM. And CPM, I believe used a CR/LF - because
    > that
    > was was used by old teletype machines. This isn't a conspiracy by MS,
    > this is
    > a result of the lineage of DOS/Windows. And by the way, apple for a long
    > time
    > used to use a different terminator (not sure about now). I can't remember
    > what
    > it was exactly, but I seem to remember it as just being a CR. So, I guess
    > they
    > are just as guilty.


    CR/LF was also used by OS2 and some DEC operating systems. You are correct -
    CR/LF was definitely used by CP/M.

    Lotsa rant about nothing.


    > --
    > Tom Shelton




  2. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> | Whatever his success with words, he was less fortunate in
    >>>>> business. Microsoft | essentially won the battle for the hearts and
    >>>>> minds of the developer | community, and Borland became something of
    >>>>> a lost soul, wandering the fringes | of computing, trying to find
    >>>>> something to do in the shadow of Big Bill and an | even bigger
    >>>>> Microsoft. | | One of the people at Microsoft tasked with
    >>>>> destroying Borland was Todd | Nielsen, who was general manager for
    >>>>> Microsoft's developer relations and | platform marketing. `----
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...4&entryid=1293
    >>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>> programming languages. There was a similar attack on standards
    >>>> through non-standard language features and extensions, the desired
    >>>> effect being to lock developers in to their compilers. The guy who
    >>> What standards? And you think anything has changed? The great majority
    >>> of code out there is not "standard".

    >>
    >> Most code is non-portable. Does that make you happy? Maybe you

    >
    > No. You just parrotted what I said.
    >
    >> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    >> use the DOS interface consistently. They would go directly to the

    >
    > No. But it was not me condemning Borland.
    >
    >> hardware, so that a program written for the IBM PC wouldn't work on
    >> e.g. the Texas Instruments PC even though both ran DOS. Nonstandard
    >> compilers contribute to the generation of nonstandard code, so your
    >> reasoning is circular.

    >
    > Huh? All I said is that the great majority of code out there is not
    > "standard".
    >
    > Nothing more. Nothing less.
    >
    >>
    >>> You wish death on gcc too?

    >>
    >> The way gcc has at times introduced non-standard constructs has caused
    >> me to distrust Stallman. I don't know that they even included a

    >
    > Stallman????



    Yeah, the originator of Emacs, Bison, and gcc. Heard of him?


    >> compiler option to warn of use of non-standard features. Lockin is
    >> lockin no matter who does it. But I have a feeling the gcc developers
    >> work with the standards bodies for sensible extensions.

    >
    > A feeling?
    >
    > If its not standard its not standard period. No one else needs to
    > provide or support those extensions.
    >
    >>
    >>>> built Turbo Pascal for Borland is now at MS, being the designer of C#.
    >>>> Borland was very good about pricing though, at least in the mid 80's,
    >>>> selling Turbo for $50 while MS compilers cost hundreds. They didn't
    >>>> do much about unlicensed copies because they wanted people to use
    >>>> their compilers. I think there was substantial affection for Borland
    >>>> among programmers back in the day. Philippe Kahn used to tell a
    >>> Because the built a cheap quality innovative product.

    >>
    >> I guess you mean it was high quality and cheap, not that the quality
    >> was cheap. That part is great, but I was not so happy about the
    >> "innovation". One nonstandard feature I did use though was the
    >> ability to insert machine code right inline in a Pascal program.
    >>
    >>
    >>> And yet you are
    >>> happy they failed?

    >>
    >> Only to the extent that they put non-standard stuff in the language.
    >> I was actually one of the many who were enthusiastic about Borland.

    >
    > Which makes me surprised you are gloating over their demise.



    Okay, I don't mean to gloat. I think you are saying Borland was mostly
    standards-compliant. I didn't have all that much experience with their
    compilers, but I did have some---I wrote some thousands of lines of
    Turbo Pascal, and I remember some non-standard stuff.


    > "Standard" is one thing. But if that standard is "sub standard" then
    > innovation is a good thing. Borland pushed things.



    Can you say whether any features they originated made it into the
    language standards? That would be a sign of leadership rather than a
    sign of a desire to lock in their customers.


    > And they had a target
    > audience - the PC. They were not interested in the same code compiling
    > on a Cray. And why should they?



    Gosh, what a stupid question, especially asked of me, COLA's biggest
    cross-platform axe-grinder.

    But maybe you should ask Borland why they should care: as I said, Turbo
    Pascal ran on both CP/M and DOS. And I did use TP to write programs
    that ran on both CP/M and VAX. I guess that means I didn't use any
    extensions that TP might have had.


    >> Maybe the greatest blame should be reserved for Visual C++ for failing
    >> to implement standard for-loop syntax and semantics until maybe 5 or
    >> 10 years after it was ANSI/ISO standard. It wasn't even that they
    >> tried to lock you in stealthily by nonstandard extension, but that
    >> they refused to implement a very commonly-used language feature. This
    >> was not because the standard syntax was in any way difficult to
    >> implement. It was an outright insult to the C++ language and to the
    >> concept of high-level-language itself.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Borland C++ 2.0 was a wonderful product.
    >>>
    >>>> remarkable story about the launch of Turbo, at which time he was newly
    >>>> arrived from Austria and almost broke. I believe by the way that Turbo
    >>>> Pascal was available for CP/M before it ran on DOS.
    >>>>
    >>>> Borland came late to the game and so didn't have a chance to compete
    >>>> in the OS domain.


  3. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Matt writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Matt writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> | Whatever his success with words, he was less fortunate in
    >>>>>> business. Microsoft | essentially won the battle for the hearts and
    >>>>>> minds of the developer | community, and Borland became something of
    >>>>>> a lost soul, wandering the fringes | of computing, trying to find
    >>>>>> something to do in the shadow of Big Bill and an | even bigger
    >>>>>> Microsoft. | | One of the people at Microsoft tasked with
    >>>>>> destroying Borland was Todd | Nielsen, who was general manager for
    >>>>>> Microsoft's developer relations and | platform marketing. `----
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...4&entryid=1293
    >>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>> programming languages. There was a similar attack on standards
    >>>>> through non-standard language features and extensions, the desired
    >>>>> effect being to lock developers in to their compilers. The guy who
    >>>> What standards? And you think anything has changed? The great majority
    >>>> of code out there is not "standard".
    >>>
    >>> Most code is non-portable. Does that make you happy? Maybe you

    >>
    >> No. You just parrotted what I said.
    >>
    >>> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    >>> use the DOS interface consistently. They would go directly to the

    >>
    >> No. But it was not me condemning Borland.
    >>
    >>> hardware, so that a program written for the IBM PC wouldn't work on
    >>> e.g. the Texas Instruments PC even though both ran DOS. Nonstandard
    >>> compilers contribute to the generation of nonstandard code, so your
    >>> reasoning is circular.

    >>
    >> Huh? All I said is that the great majority of code out there is not
    >> "standard".
    >>
    >> Nothing more. Nothing less.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> You wish death on gcc too?
    >>>
    >>> The way gcc has at times introduced non-standard constructs has caused
    >>> me to distrust Stallman. I don't know that they even included a

    >>
    >> Stallman????

    >
    >
    > Yeah, the originator of Emacs, Bison, and gcc. Heard of him?


    Err, yeah. As a emacs and gnus junkie you can be pretty sure I have. You
    missed my point. Why would you distrust Stallman? gcc has grown well
    beyond Stallman at this stage afaik.

  4. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
    > Hadron wrote:


    >> And they had a target audience - the PC. They were not interested
    >> in the same code compiling on a Cray. And why should they?

    >
    > Gosh, what a stupid question, especially asked of me, COLA's biggest
    > cross-platform axe-grinder.


    In that respect I suppose I should support your cause, since (if you
    research my posting history) you'll find that one the biggest axes I
    grind is the need for a more diverse market, reversing the trends of
    consolidation that produced Microsoft's current monopoly, and killed
    off the Golden Age of computing. First and foremost I am an advocate
    of choice. Consolidation destroys that Freedom.

    However I have a much bigger axe to grind with Microsoft's unethical
    behaviour, so although I'm more than happy to see many platforms all
    thriving together with relative parity, Windows is not one of them.

    Unlike Microsoft, I don't want any one platform to utterly dominate,
    or even mostly dominate the market, including Linux, and I certainly
    wouldn't advocate sabotaging the "competition" using bribery for the
    sake of market share. But it seems that Microsoft does not share the
    same moral principles; they're quite happy to behave like a bunch of
    gangsters to achieve their goals, and our governments are apparently
    quite happy to let them.

    So as much as I advocate choice through diversity, Microsoft doesn't
    deserve equal consideration. They forfeited that right long ago when
    they perverted the software market into a racketeering operation, to
    produce the monopoly they currently abuse to sabotage the struggling
    remains of any choice that exists.

    Please don't confuse my hatred of Microsoft for some quest for Linux
    domination. I simply want freedom of choice, and parity for all, but
    Microsoft will not allow it, which is why I hate them.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    19:42:47 up 41 days, 16:55, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.07, 0.03

  5. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>>> | Whatever his success with words, he was less fortunate in
    >>>>>>> business. Microsoft | essentially won the battle for the hearts and
    >>>>>>> minds of the developer | community, and Borland became something of
    >>>>>>> a lost soul, wandering the fringes | of computing, trying to find
    >>>>>>> something to do in the shadow of Big Bill and an | even bigger
    >>>>>>> Microsoft. | | One of the people at Microsoft tasked with
    >>>>>>> destroying Borland was Todd | Nielsen, who was general manager for
    >>>>>>> Microsoft's developer relations and | platform marketing. `----
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...4&entryid=1293
    >>>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>>> programming languages. There was a similar attack on standards
    >>>>>> through non-standard language features and extensions, the desired
    >>>>>> effect being to lock developers in to their compilers. The guy who
    >>>>> What standards? And you think anything has changed? The great majority
    >>>>> of code out there is not "standard".
    >>>> Most code is non-portable. Does that make you happy? Maybe you
    >>> No. You just parrotted what I said.
    >>>
    >>>> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    >>>> use the DOS interface consistently. They would go directly to the
    >>> No. But it was not me condemning Borland.
    >>>
    >>>> hardware, so that a program written for the IBM PC wouldn't work on
    >>>> e.g. the Texas Instruments PC even though both ran DOS. Nonstandard
    >>>> compilers contribute to the generation of nonstandard code, so your
    >>>> reasoning is circular.
    >>> Huh? All I said is that the great majority of code out there is not
    >>> "standard".
    >>>
    >>> Nothing more. Nothing less.
    >>>
    >>>>> You wish death on gcc too?
    >>>> The way gcc has at times introduced non-standard constructs has caused
    >>>> me to distrust Stallman. I don't know that they even included a
    >>> Stallman????

    >>
    >> Yeah, the originator of Emacs, Bison, and gcc. Heard of him?

    >
    > Err, yeah. As a emacs and gnus junkie you can be pretty sure I have. You
    > missed my point. Why would you distrust Stallman? gcc has grown well
    > beyond Stallman at this stage afaik.



    "at times"

    I seem to recall non-standard stuff in gcc in the mid 90's. I believe I
    also read notices from GNU foundation---presumably or explicitly
    originating from RMS---recruiting people to work on gcc. AFAIK gcc is
    rather firmly in the control of gnu.org, and I find it hard to believe
    RMS doesn't retain considerable control over it.

  6. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> | Whatever his success with words, he was less fortunate in
    >>>>> business. Microsoft | essentially won the battle for the hearts and
    >>>>> minds of the developer | community, and Borland became something of
    >>>>> a lost soul, wandering the fringes | of computing, trying to find
    >>>>> something to do in the shadow of Big Bill and an | even bigger
    >>>>> Microsoft. | | One of the people at Microsoft tasked with
    >>>>> destroying Borland was Todd | Nielsen, who was general manager for
    >>>>> Microsoft's developer relations and | platform marketing. `----
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...4&entryid=1293
    >>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>> programming languages. There was a similar attack on standards
    >>>> through non-standard language features and extensions, the desired
    >>>> effect being to lock developers in to their compilers. The guy who
    >>> What standards? And you think anything has changed? The great majority
    >>> of code out there is not "standard".

    >>
    >> Most code is non-portable. Does that make you happy? Maybe you

    >
    > No. You just parrotted what I said.
    >
    >> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    >> use the DOS interface consistently. They would go directly to the

    >
    > No. But it was not me condemning Borland.
    >
    >> hardware, so that a program written for the IBM PC wouldn't work on
    >> e.g. the Texas Instruments PC even though both ran DOS. Nonstandard
    >> compilers contribute to the generation of nonstandard code, so your
    >> reasoning is circular.

    >
    > Huh? All I said is that the great majority of code out there is not
    > "standard".
    >
    > Nothing more. Nothing less.



    You should have seen something more.

    The existence of non-standard usage in code comes from the use of
    non-standard compilers.

    Now you complete the logic to explain why your argument was circular.

  7. Re: [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Matt writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Matt writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> | Whatever his success with words, he was less fortunate in
    >>>>>> business. Microsoft | essentially won the battle for the hearts and
    >>>>>> minds of the developer | community, and Borland became something of
    >>>>>> a lost soul, wandering the fringes | of computing, trying to find
    >>>>>> something to do in the shadow of Big Bill and an | even bigger
    >>>>>> Microsoft. | | One of the people at Microsoft tasked with
    >>>>>> destroying Borland was Todd | Nielsen, who was general manager for
    >>>>>> Microsoft's developer relations and | platform marketing. `----
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...4&entryid=1293
    >>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>> programming languages. There was a similar attack on standards
    >>>>> through non-standard language features and extensions, the desired
    >>>>> effect being to lock developers in to their compilers. The guy who
    >>>> What standards? And you think anything has changed? The great majority
    >>>> of code out there is not "standard".
    >>>
    >>> Most code is non-portable. Does that make you happy? Maybe you

    >>
    >> No. You just parrotted what I said.
    >>
    >>> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    >>> use the DOS interface consistently. They would go directly to the

    >>
    >> No. But it was not me condemning Borland.
    >>
    >>> hardware, so that a program written for the IBM PC wouldn't work on
    >>> e.g. the Texas Instruments PC even though both ran DOS. Nonstandard
    >>> compilers contribute to the generation of nonstandard code, so your
    >>> reasoning is circular.

    >>
    >> Huh? All I said is that the great majority of code out there is not
    >> "standard".
    >>
    >> Nothing more. Nothing less.

    >
    >
    > You should have seen something more.
    >
    > The existence of non-standard usage in code comes from the use of
    > non-standard compilers.


    Wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. Of course it CAN if you use a compiler
    specific extension however ...

    You can write C which compiles under an ANSI/89/99 compiler which can
    cause undefined behaviour on other compilers.

    Please do not go further here until you read up about undefined and
    unspecified behaviour.

    Really.

    >
    > Now you complete the logic to explain why your argument was circular.


    --
    "I really think XP is going to be a flop. Between the glut of hardware out
    there (and slowing down of purchasing), and the fact that W2K is
    sufficient for so many casual users.... I just don't see it taking off."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  8. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    On Sep 27, 9:09*am, Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >> Matt writes:


    > >>> Most code is non-portable. *Does that make you happy? * Maybe you


    No, but it makes Bill Gates VERY HAPPY. One of the main reasons
    Microsoft went after Borland was because Borland was trying to provide
    source code compatibility with UNIX for Windows. Microsoft wanted all
    code written for Windows to work on ONLY Windows.

    Borland provided source code compatibility in C and C++, and binary
    code compatibility with Java and JBuilder.

    Borland even offered Kylix on both Windows and Linux.

    All of this caused Bill Gates to focus a create deal more effort to
    "Destroy Borland".

    Microsoft also targeted Corel for the same reason, eventually getting
    the CEO - who pushed for compatibility with Linux - fired.

    Microsoft has not been able to shut down projects like Cygwin, but has
    made deals with Red Hat that has stopped them from developing Cygwin
    as a more robust alteranative to the Microsoft APIs. You can run
    Linux applications on Windows, but you can't get the full "Linux
    Experience" with Cygwin.

    > >>> would like to go back to the early 80's when programmers didn't even
    > >>> use the DOS interface consistently. *They would go directly to the


    Back when DOS programmers were still trying to use peeks and pokes and
    jump into undocumented BASIC routines to do simple functions, UNIX had
    a fully standardized interfaces for nearly every function, including
    functionality that wouldn't be available from Microsoft until Windows
    NT 4.0 or Windows 2000.

    Microsoft **Could** have adopted the standards which had already been
    established by BSD Unix, but opted to re-invent the wheel at every
    level. But they decided to make the wheels octagonal, because it was
    "simpler".


  9. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    So how do we destroy Microsoft?

    "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    news:ff879f6d-d228-40f7-bd8d-c4f08ee91dd9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
    On Sep 27, 9:09 am, Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >> Matt writes:


    All of this caused Bill Gates to focus a create deal more effort to
    "Destroy Borland".



  10. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Rex Ballard writes:

    > On Sep 27, 9:09*am, Hadron wrote:
    >> Matt writes:
    >> > Hadron wrote:
    >> >> Matt writes:

    >
    >> >>> Most code is non-portable. *Does that make you happy? * Maybe you

    >
    > No, but it makes Bill Gates VERY HAPPY. One of the main reasons


    I dont think you know what you are talking about.

    > Microsoft went after Borland was because Borland was trying to provide
    > source code compatibility with UNIX for Windows. Microsoft wanted all
    > code written for Windows to work on ONLY Windows.


    Were they? So how was the win32 API represented on Unix? You dont have
    talk some **** Rexx.

    >
    > Borland provided source code compatibility in C and C++, and binary
    > code compatibility with Java and JBuilder.
    >
    > Borland even offered Kylix on both Windows and Linux.
    >
    > All of this caused Bill Gates to focus a create deal more effort to
    > "Destroy Borland".


    They destroyed themselves.

    >
    > Microsoft also targeted Corel for the same reason, eventually getting
    > the CEO - who pushed for compatibility with Linux - fired.
    >
    > Microsoft has not been able to shut down projects like Cygwin, but has
    > made deals with Red Hat that has stopped them from developing Cygwin
    > as a more robust alteranative to the Microsoft APIs. You can run
    > Linux applications on Windows, but you can't get the full "Linux
    > Experience" with Cygwin.


    So we can add Cygwin to the list of things you know nothing about but
    bluster on and on about.

    Cygwin is a Linux API emulator which calls underlying Windows
    functions. Cygwin was never an "alternative to the MS APIs".

    Stop telling lies.

  11. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:22 GMT, Ralph Edwards wrote:
    >So how do we destroy Microsoft?


    Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own weight.

  12. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Rex Ballard wrote:


    > Microsoft has not been able to shut down projects like Cygwin,


    Why not?

    Left side of cola idiots' mouths: MS gets CEOs fired, is above the law,
    threaten lives, responsible for Hans Reiser murdering his wife, criminals,
    terrorists, blah blah blah

    Right side of cola idiots' mouths: MS can't stop Cygwin or Wine.





    > You can run
    > Linux applications on Windows, but you can't get the full "Linux
    > Experience" with Cygwin.


    Thank God for that.






  13. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:22 GMT, Ralph Edwards
    > wrote:
    >> So how do we destroy Microsoft?

    >
    > Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own
    > weight.


    I've noticed everything you post is wrong or stupid or a lie.





  14. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    "DFS" writes:

    > AZ Nomad wrote:
    >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:22 GMT, Ralph Edwards
    >> wrote:
    >>> So how do we destroy Microsoft?

    >>
    >> Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own
    >> weight.

    >
    > I've noticed everything you post is wrong or stupid or a lie.
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Yup another AZ Gonad for the .sig file there.

    --
    "If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
    *less* than Win 98 by a factor of two."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy

  15. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:54:44 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:22 GMT, Ralph Edwards
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> So how do we destroy Microsoft?
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own
    >>> weight.

    >>
    >> I've noticed everything you post is wrong or stupid or a lie.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yup another AZ Gonad for the .sig file there.


    He never did post any proof of his millions of Vista tmp files problem.

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

  16. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Joe Potter wrote:
    > "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    > news:d79e36fd-02b6-45e9-972d-60aece0a354f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    > On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...s/index.cfm?bl...
    >>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>> programming languages.

    >> Actually, that was one of Microsoft's biggest concerns about Borland.
    >> Borland not only made sure that they were source code compatible with
    >> BSD UNIX (Linux wasn't out until later),

    >
    > Nonsense. It's not your "compiler" that is "source code compaitble" with
    > Unix. If cross-platform code is needed (re: runs on Windows and Unix and
    > ....) then it's the developers job to make sure the code they write is
    > source code compatible across platforms. It's the code being written, NOT
    > the compiler that is source code compatible.
    >
    >
    >
    >> This was probably one of the reasons that Microsoft targeted Borland,
    >> because Microsoft wanted total control of the desktop. Borland
    >> offering developers the ability to take UNIX code and compile it on
    >> Turbo C or Turbo C++, left the door wide open for MS-DOS and Windows
    >> applications that ran as well, or better, on UNIX.

    >
    > Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on Unix. Turbo C++
    > was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.



    You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write a
    C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some other
    machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect the code
    to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a Unix
    machine and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to think that
    there are many programmers that limited in their thinking.

    I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he is
    dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if it had
    been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely right, and
    there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.

    The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    cross-platform development tools and applications.


    >> Microsoft really couldn't have that, so they decided to challenge
    >> Borland directly with their own compiler (actually a compiler the got
    >> by acquiring another company), and they created a whole new set of
    >> APIs designed to be completely incompatible with UNIX.

    >
    > More complete ****. What you're saying is that the MS-DOS and Windows API's
    > aren't the same as the Unix APIs. The two API's have *NEVER* been the same
    > and MS never "created a whole new set" of APIs break Unix compatibility
    > which never existed in the first place.
    >
    >
    >
    >> When that didn't work, Microsoft started making changes to Windows,
    >> designed to break applications created using Borland's compiler.
    >> Eventually, the developers just had no choice but to "give up" on
    >> Borland, because they couldn't afford the lost of millions of
    >> customers every time Microsoft fired another torpedo.

    >
    > What changes are these exactly? Be specific and make sure to provide a URL -
    > not some crap of "I heard someone tell me 20 years ago."
    >
    >
    >
    >> For those who don't know, a torpedo is a deliberate change in low
    >> level code designed to sabotage a product that calls that low level
    >> code.

    >
    > For those who don't know, this blowhard is making up a bunch of nonsense
    > that has no basis in the real world.
    >
    >
    >> Microsoft has used torpedoes against Stacker, Borland,
    >> Netscape, Word Perfect, DR-DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Notes, OS/2, and
    >> numerous other competitors to Microsoft products or shovel-ware.

    >
    > Great. So where's the proof of this? Links and URL required if you're going
    > to make ridiculous claims like this.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Eventually, Microsoft's settlement and contract tactics became a model
    >> for other companies, including banks, mortgage companies, and other
    >> important businesses - along with some of Microsoft's other bad
    >> habits.

    >
    > More nonsense. Companies have been using aggressive business tactics since
    > the beginning of time. Are you too dense to remember Standard Oil, Ma-Bell
    > or IBM?
    >
    >
    >
    >> I hear that Microsoft is trying to hire away all of the key adobe

    >
    > If you're hearing voices in your head then this explains the complete
    > nonsense you just wrote.
    >
    >
    >> Microsoft's C++ compiler, even Visual C++, were very cheap until they
    >> had crippled Borland. Then they were able to jump the price from $49
    >> to $199, then to $299, and so on. Most serious Microsoft developers
    >> get the MSDN subscription which goes for what? About 1500/year? And
    >> MSDN developers also have to pay Microsoft royalties for run-time
    >> rights once the product gets to market.

    >
    > More complete and utter nonsense. I've worked at companies that get MSDN
    > licenses for developers and we never, ever paid a single penny of "run-time
    > royalties" to Microsoft. You are clearly a habitual liar or completely
    > stupid. Which is it?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Because the built a cheap quality innovative product. And yet you are
    >>> happy they failed? Borland C++ 2.0 was a wonderful product.

    >> Very true. I loved Turbo C++. I also liked Turbo Pascal, Turbo
    >> Prolog was really interesting (write a complex database in 2 lines of
    >> code).

    >
    > Let's see this "complex database" app that you could write in 2 lines of
    > code.


  17. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:4fwEk.246$qg5.187@fe101.usenetserver.com...
    > Joe Potter wrote:
    >> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >> news:d79e36fd-02b6-45e9-972d-60aece0a354f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...s/index.cfm?bl...
    >>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>> programming languages.
    >>> Actually, that was one of Microsoft's biggest concerns about Borland.
    >>> Borland not only made sure that they were source code compatible with
    >>> BSD UNIX (Linux wasn't out until later),

    >>
    >> Nonsense. It's not your "compiler" that is "source code compaitble" with
    >> Unix. If cross-platform code is needed (re: runs on Windows and Unix and
    >> ....) then it's the developers job to make sure the code they write is
    >> source code compatible across platforms. It's the code being written, NOT
    >> the compiler that is source code compatible.
    >>


    You clearly don't program for a living and your ignorance in this subject
    shows. You write a bunch of nonsense that might sound good to you and to
    someone who is equally unfamiliar with the subject but it's still a bunch of
    nonsense.

    >>
    >>> This was probably one of the reasons that Microsoft targeted Borland,
    >>> because Microsoft wanted total control of the desktop. Borland
    >>> offering developers the ability to take UNIX code and compile it on
    >>> Turbo C or Turbo C++, left the door wide open for MS-DOS and Windows
    >>> applications that ran as well, or better, on UNIX.

    >>
    >> Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on Unix. Turbo C++
    >> was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.

    >
    >
    > You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write a
    > C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some other
    > machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect the code
    > to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a Unix machine
    > and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to think that there are
    > many programmers that limited in their thinking.


    If this is all they want to do then it would work just as well with the
    compiler from Microsoft, Watcom or any other compiler that existed at the
    time. All of these compilers supported that ANSI standard for C and C++ so
    there's no reason your imaginary program wouldn't work.

    The problem is that your imaginary little program that you FTP across
    platforms is useless. C (and eventually C++) has often been called a
    "portable assembler" because the language itself supports very little. If
    your imaginary program is nothing more than some command line app that let's
    people enter some text and displays some text on the screen then there's no
    problem using any compiler.

    But that's not what a real program does. Programs do things like create
    threads, run in graphical mode, process mouse input, output data to a
    printer, connect to a database and all sorts of other things that are NOT
    supported by C/C++.

    It's not a matter of being limited in "thinking" - it's a matter of the
    *DEVELOPER* (not the compiler) making sure the code is cross platform. Even
    today, unless someone uses a cross-platform toolkit (and doesn't go outside
    of the toolkit) you can't write a meaningful C/C++ program that you can run
    on different platforms by simply FTP-ing the source to another machine and
    compiling it. It just doesn't work that way unless you're talking about
    "hello world" applications.





    > I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he is
    > dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if it had
    > been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely right, and
    > there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.


    You simply don't have a clue about software development. Even today you
    can't write cross platform apps in C/C++ without a toolkit or framework.
    Unless it's some useless "hello world" application.



    > The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of cross-platform
    > development tools and applications.


    It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross platform
    tools have existed for decades.



    >>> Microsoft really couldn't have that, so they decided to challenge
    >>> Borland directly with their own compiler (actually a compiler the got
    >>> by acquiring another company), and they created a whole new set of
    >>> APIs designed to be completely incompatible with UNIX.

    >>
    >> More complete ****. What you're saying is that the MS-DOS and Windows
    >> API's aren't the same as the Unix APIs. The two API's have *NEVER* been
    >> the same and MS never "created a whole new set" of APIs break Unix
    >> compatibility which never existed in the first place.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> When that didn't work, Microsoft started making changes to Windows,
    >>> designed to break applications created using Borland's compiler.
    >>> Eventually, the developers just had no choice but to "give up" on
    >>> Borland, because they couldn't afford the lost of millions of
    >>> customers every time Microsoft fired another torpedo.

    >>
    >> What changes are these exactly? Be specific and make sure to provide a
    >> URL - not some crap of "I heard someone tell me 20 years ago."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> For those who don't know, a torpedo is a deliberate change in low
    >>> level code designed to sabotage a product that calls that low level
    >>> code.

    >>
    >> For those who don't know, this blowhard is making up a bunch of nonsense
    >> that has no basis in the real world.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Microsoft has used torpedoes against Stacker, Borland,
    >>> Netscape, Word Perfect, DR-DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Notes, OS/2, and
    >>> numerous other competitors to Microsoft products or shovel-ware.

    >>
    >> Great. So where's the proof of this? Links and URL required if you're
    >> going to make ridiculous claims like this.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Eventually, Microsoft's settlement and contract tactics became a model
    >>> for other companies, including banks, mortgage companies, and other
    >>> important businesses - along with some of Microsoft's other bad
    >>> habits.

    >>
    >> More nonsense. Companies have been using aggressive business tactics
    >> since the beginning of time. Are you too dense to remember Standard Oil,
    >> Ma-Bell or IBM?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> I hear that Microsoft is trying to hire away all of the key adobe

    >>
    >> If you're hearing voices in your head then this explains the complete
    >> nonsense you just wrote.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Microsoft's C++ compiler, even Visual C++, were very cheap until they
    >>> had crippled Borland. Then they were able to jump the price from $49
    >>> to $199, then to $299, and so on. Most serious Microsoft developers
    >>> get the MSDN subscription which goes for what? About 1500/year? And
    >>> MSDN developers also have to pay Microsoft royalties for run-time
    >>> rights once the product gets to market.

    >>
    >> More complete and utter nonsense. I've worked at companies that get MSDN
    >> licenses for developers and we never, ever paid a single penny of
    >> "run-time royalties" to Microsoft. You are clearly a habitual liar or
    >> completely stupid. Which is it?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Because the built a cheap quality innovative product. And yet you are
    >>>> happy they failed? Borland C++ 2.0 was a wonderful product.
    >>> Very true. I loved Turbo C++. I also liked Turbo Pascal, Turbo
    >>> Prolog was really interesting (write a complex database in 2 lines of
    >>> code).

    >>
    >> Let's see this "complex database" app that you could write in 2 lines of
    >> code.


    So you believe the rantings of someone who claims to have written a "complex
    database" in 2 lines of code.





  18. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:46:55 -0500, Matt wrote:

    > Joe Potter wrote:


    >> Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on Unix. Turbo
    >> C++ was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.

    >
    >
    > You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write a
    > C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some other
    > machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect the code
    > to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a Unix
    > machine and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to think that
    > there are many programmers that limited in their thinking.
    >
    > I don't know whether all the history Rex presents is correct, but he is
    > dead on that Microsoft couldn't have gotten a desktop monopoly if it had
    > been easy to build cross-platform apps. That is absolutely right, and
    > there is no more important way to understand the monopoly.
    >
    > The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of
    > cross-platform development tools and applications.


    The earlier Turbo Pascal didn't run on UNIX but it was pretty
    cross-platform for those days. From Wikipedia:

    "The Turbo Pascal compiler is based on the Blue Label Pascal
    compiler originally produced for the NasSys cassette-based
    operating system of the Nascom microcomputer in 1981 by Anders
    Hejlsberg. This was first rewritten as the Compas Pascal
    compiler for the CP/M operating system and then as the Turbo
    Pascal compiler for DOS and CP/M. A version of Turbo Pascal
    was available for the Apple Macintosh from about 1986 but was
    eventually discontinued around 1992. Another version was
    available for CP/M machines like the DEC Rainbow through
    several releases."


  19. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Joe Potter wrote:

    >
    > "Matt" wrote in message
    > news:4fwEk.246$qg5.187@fe101.usenetserver.com...
    >> Joe Potter wrote:
    >>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >>>

    news:d79e36fd-02b6-45e9-972d-60aece0a354f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    >>> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>> Two Views of Enterprise Open Source
    >>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>>>

    http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...s/index.cfm?bl...
    >>>>>> I don't know if I can be very broken up about the demise of Borland.
    >>>>>> I think they really played the same game as MS in regard to
    >>>>>> programming languages.
    >>>> Actually, that was one of Microsoft's biggest concerns about Borland.
    >>>> Borland not only made sure that they were source code compatible with
    >>>> BSD UNIX (Linux wasn't out until later),
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense. It's not your "compiler" that is "source code compaitble" with
    >>> Unix. If cross-platform code is needed (re: runs on Windows and Unix and
    >>> ....) then it's the developers job to make sure the code they write is
    >>> source code compatible across platforms. It's the code being written,
    >>> NOT the compiler that is source code compatible.
    >>>

    >
    > You clearly don't program for a living and your ignorance in this subject
    > shows. You write a bunch of nonsense that might sound good to you and to
    > someone who is equally unfamiliar with the subject but it's still a bunch
    > of nonsense.
    >


    Actually, no, it isn't. You could write crossplatform code with it. You had
    to avoid several things non-portable, but it was possible

    >>>
    >>>> This was probably one of the reasons that Microsoft targeted Borland,
    >>>> because Microsoft wanted total control of the desktop. Borland
    >>>> offering developers the ability to take UNIX code and compile it on
    >>>> Turbo C or Turbo C++, left the door wide open for MS-DOS and Windows
    >>>> applications that ran as well, or better, on UNIX.
    >>>
    >>> Complete rubish. Turbo C++ **NEVER** supported or ran on Unix. Turbo
    >>> C++ was a DOS (then later Windows) ONLY product.

    >>
    >>
    >> You can't conceive that somebody would want to use Turbo C++ to write a
    >> C++ program and run it on DOS, then ftp the source code to some other
    >> machine with a different OS and a different compiler and expect the code
    >> to run---or that somebody would want to take C++ code from a Unix machine
    >> and use it with Turbo on a DOS box. I don't like to think that there are
    >> many programmers that limited in their thinking.

    >
    > If this is all they want to do then it would work just as well with the
    > compiler from Microsoft, Watcom or any other compiler that existed at the
    > time. All of these compilers supported that ANSI standard for C and C++ so
    > there's no reason your imaginary program wouldn't work.
    >
    > The problem is that your imaginary little program that you FTP across
    > platforms is useless. C (and eventually C++) has often been called a
    > "portable assembler" because the language itself supports very little. If
    > your imaginary program is nothing more than some command line app that
    > let's people enter some text and displays some text on the screen then
    > there's no problem using any compiler.
    >
    > But that's not what a real program does. Programs do things like create
    > threads, run in graphical mode, process mouse input, output data to a
    > printer, connect to a database and all sorts of other things that are NOT
    > supported by C/C++.


    And you keep forgetting about the time frame this is about.
    At that time, there were no threads. There also was no "graphical mode".
    It was DOS times, for crying out loud.
    It was quite simple then to write crossplatform code, and your foot stomping
    will not change any of that


    < snip more rubbish >
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  20. Re: Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    Joe Potter wrote:

    >> The monopoly is finally being dismantled by the arrival of cross-platform
    >> development tools and applications.

    >
    > It has nothing to do with cross platform development tools. Cross platform
    > tools have existed for decades.



    Ah, well it is good to have an expert here, so tell us how one would in
    1995 write a GUI program to run on Windows and Linux and Unix and Apple.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast