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

This is a discussion on [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns - Linux ; -----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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

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

  1. [News] Microsoft's "Destroy Borland" Story Returns

    -----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


    Recent:

    Adobe staff under Microsoft lens

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Head hunters may like to call this intelligence gathering. Microsoft is in
    | the process of engaging several executive search firms to conduct extensive
    | talent mapping exercises focused on Adobe's development centers in Bangalore
    | and Noida. These two centers collectively employ close to 700 people
    | primarily constituting product development specialists at various levels of
    | seniority.
    `----

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3276228.cms

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjYKvUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6xrwCeOLqYfxHsXd xMYiGf6kaqAJBV
    8SgAniVDGbU9X/6IPbK+EUCXIizh5r/W
    =jjEF
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

    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 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 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:

    > 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". You wish death on gcc too?

    > 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. And yet you are
    happy they failed? 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.


    --
    "Poor fishfarb! Pissed because s/h/it doesn't get all the attention
    s/h/it craves due to wise use of filtering."
    -- Sinister Midget trying to
    impress Willy Filters in comp.os.linux.advocacy

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

    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


    Borland destroyed themselves. They were too quick to ditch support for
    their platforms for the next big thing, going from one bright idea to
    another with wild abandon, leaving a massive trail of disenfranchised
    developers stuck on an obsolete platform in their wake. Shame really,
    because in the days around the launch of win 3.1 Borland were a great
    company with great minds producing great stuff.

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

    On Sep 22, 10:52 pm, Matt wrote:
    > 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...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. 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 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.


    I bought Microsoft C for DOS some time in the '80's. First time I
    used it I hit a bug.

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

    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 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 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.


    > 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
    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.


    >> 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.

    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.


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

    On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:52:17 -0500, Matt wrote:


    > 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 built Turbo Pascal for
    > Borland is now at MS, being the designer of C#.



    If you have three or more companies playing that game it's healthy
    competition. When there's just one only that company benefits to
    the detriment of everyone else.


    -Thufir

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

    Matt wrote:
    > 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?



    ANSI/ISO, etc. of course.


    >> And you think anything has changed?



    Visual C++ has become pretty much standards-compliant. Nowadays it is
    easy to build a C++ program to run on Linux, Windows, and Mac with very
    little need for conditional compilation. I believe that that came true
    only about five years ago, about the time MS started giving away their
    compiler.

    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.

    Today there are many workable approaches to cross-platform development,
    despite the efforts of some. Compare that to the situation in 1995.

    You must be able to recognize the change I describe, although it is far
    from having had much outgrowth in availability of cross-platform apps.


    >> The great majority
    >> of code out there is not "standard".



    Largely because yesterday's compilers were not standardized.

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

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Matt belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > 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.


    I wonder if people are still grousing over at comp.lang.c++ about
    Microsoft's C++/CLI being confused with standard C++.

    --
    Not responsible for lost or stolen articles.

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

    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.


    It's often the developers themselves that subvert their own code.

    Getting a team to stop using things like OpenFile(), for example, is
    amazingly difficult.

    --
    I lately lost a preposition;
    It hid, I thought, beneath my chair
    And angrily I cried, "Perdition!
    Up from out of under there." -- Morris Bishop

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

    On 2008-09-23, thufir wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:52:17 -0500, Matt wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 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 built Turbo Pascal for
    >> Borland is now at MS, being the designer of C#.

    >
    >
    > If you have three or more companies playing that game it's healthy
    > competition. When there's just one only that company benefits to
    > the detriment of everyone else.


    G'day Hawat...

    Nice to see you again... Have you been on a Sapho Juice bender?

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

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

    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), but they even provided source
    to any modules that were "unique" to Borland. This was especially
    true with C, C++, and Java.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. 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. I
    wouldn't be surprised to hear that Microsoft was using torpedoes
    against McAffee, Nortan, and Symantic Anti-virus and Anti-Spy-ware to
    drive them out of the Vista market.

    Microsoft has often been caught and judges often rule that these
    torpedoes are a form of sabotage of the competitor's products, at
    which point, Microsoft usually offers a carefully worded settlement
    that involves a small amount of cash (relative to the $billions at
    stake if Microsoft loses it's monopoly power and monopoly extending
    power), and gives Microsoft permission to continue the practice, but
    the settlement is so well crafted by Microsoft's brilliant lawyers,
    that the plaintiff usually doesn't know that they've just signed a
    settlement that will drive them into bankruptcy.

    A bit like what the DOJ did in the Antitrust Lawsuit.

    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.

    > >*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". You wish death on gcc too?


    Actually, Borland made it their goal to be compliant with standards of
    BSD Unix. They also used an API that was compatible with the Athena
    Widget set.
    Later they adopted the TK toolkit, which hid the Windows vs X11
    interface. The library code was proprietary, but it was API
    compatible.

    > > The guy who
    > > built Turbo Pascal for Borland is now at MS, being the designer of C#.


    I hear that Microsoft is trying to hire away all of the key adobe
    developers as well. If Microsoft can't get the company's product for
    a cheap price, and they can't get the company for a cheap price, then
    they can hire away the top talent and have them form a company, who
    can sell it to Microsoft for a cheap price. IIRC, there was a thread
    in COLA a few years ago about the Microsoft interview questions, and
    several of the questions were related to integrity. If you had too
    much integrity, you didn't get hired.

    > > Borland was very good about pricing though, at least in the mid 80's,
    > > selling Turbo for $50 while MS compilers cost hundreds.


    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.

    > 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). I also liked JBuilder. I was using CORBA when it came out,
    and the Borland toolkit made CORBA development very easy. Later, they
    offered J2EE with CORBA compatibility, which meant you could call C or
    C++ services from Java clients, and vice versa. And again, the price
    for all that functionality was very reasonable.

    Borland actually did get some traction in the Linux community with
    it's Kylix product, which again let you write one source code package,
    and compile versions for both Linux and Windows.

    > > Borland came late to the game and so didn't have a chance to compete
    > > in the OS domain.


    Very true. Borland's products did work very well with DR-DOS,
    as well as MS-DOS and OS/2. But CP/M was pretty much extinct by the
    time
    Borland entered the market.


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

    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.

    On the other hand, some of Microsoft's little "deviations" have had
    much more serious consequences. DHCP is a deviation of RARP, that
    thwarts attempts by law enforcement investigators to track computer
    trespassers.

    Trespassing into a computer is a federal crime punishable by 5 years
    in federal prison (per entry), but law enforcement has to have a
    reliable and verifiable path from the perpetrator to the victim.

    DCOM, COM+, and ActiveX were deviations of CORBA, but the Microsoft
    version leaves open a huge door through which perpetrators can trick
    client programs such as Internet Explorer and Outlook into pulling in
    viral agents (programs that download, install, and launch a virus),
    that have the ability to give hackers complete control of the
    computer.

    There are dozens of other little "deviations" that have resulted in
    vulnerabilities, incompatibilities, and even put national security and
    global financial security at stake.

    > Getting a team to stop using things like OpenFile(), for example, is
    > amazingly difficult.


    Just look at how long it has taken to get people to stop using gets()
    and switch to fgets(stdin, buffsize)


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

    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????

    > 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.

    "Standard" is one thing. But if that standard is "sub standard" then
    innovation is a good thing. Borland pushed things. And they had a target
    audience - the PC. They were not interested in the same code compiling
    on a Cray. And why should they?

    >
    > 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.


    --
    XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
    aren't all taken in with the MS hype.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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


    "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.



    >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.






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

    "Joe Potter" writes:

    > "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >>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?


    No one is quite sure. Rexx "Kingmaker" Ballard invented tcp/ip and java
    too apparently. He also invented rain and can hold his breath for 9
    days.

    --
    "Asshole - you just started this thread to give you a few more opportunities
    to show off what an unmitigated prick you are."
    -- Tattoo Vampire in comp.os.linux.advocacy

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


    "Hadron" wrote in message
    news:gbdi8g$8k4$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    > "Joe Potter" writes:
    >
    >> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >>>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?

    >
    > No one is quite sure. Rexx "Kingmaker" Ballard invented tcp/ip and java
    > too apparently. He also invented rain and can hold his breath for 9
    > days.


    I know from reading posts that there are developers/programmers who post
    here. I know from reading posts that several of them use Microsoft
    compilers. If any developer here uses a Micrsoft compiler at work then they
    would know that there are zero runtime royalties. I challenge them to step
    up to the plate and tell Rexx that he is making up BS and stating it as if
    it were fact.




    > --
    > "Asshole - you just started this thread to give you a few more
    > opportunities
    > to show off what an unmitigated prick you are."
    > -- Tattoo Vampire in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy




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

    "Joe Potter" writes:

    > "Hadron" wrote in message
    > news:gbdi8g$8k4$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    >> "Joe Potter" writes:
    >>
    >>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >>>>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?

    >>
    >> No one is quite sure. Rexx "Kingmaker" Ballard invented tcp/ip and java
    >> too apparently. He also invented rain and can hold his breath for 9
    >> days.

    >
    > I know from reading posts that there are developers/programmers who post
    > here. I know from reading posts that several of them use Microsoft
    > compilers. If any developer here uses a Micrsoft compiler at work then they
    > would know that there are zero runtime royalties. I challenge them to step
    > up to the plate and tell Rexx that he is making up BS and stating it as if
    > it were fact.


    Liarnut uses the MS stuff. Lets see if he will. Unlike Rexx though, if
    you hold your breath you will probably die.

    --
    "Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
    chrisv, COLA.

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


    "Hadron" wrote in message
    news:gbdlqa$fob$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > "Joe Potter" writes:
    >
    >> "Hadron" wrote in message
    >> news:gbdi8g$8k4$2@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>> "Joe Potter" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    >>>>>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?
    >>>
    >>> No one is quite sure. Rexx "Kingmaker" Ballard invented tcp/ip and java
    >>> too apparently. He also invented rain and can hold his breath for 9
    >>> days.

    >>
    >> I know from reading posts that there are developers/programmers who post
    >> here. I know from reading posts that several of them use Microsoft
    >> compilers. If any developer here uses a Micrsoft compiler at work then
    >> they
    >> would know that there are zero runtime royalties. I challenge them to
    >> step
    >> up to the plate and tell Rexx that he is making up BS and stating it as
    >> if
    >> it were fact.

    >
    > Liarnut uses the MS stuff. Lets see if he will.


    My newsreader search doesn't show any posts from Liarnut. Perhaps they're
    too old enough to be on my news server. I don't know what the retention is.

    However he is let's see if he'll take a stance of it's going to be Democrat
    vs Republican style politics here in this newsgroup.


    > Unlike Rexx though, if
    > you hold your breath you will probably die.


    I'm sure that I couldn't hold my breath long enough to read Rexx's entire
    post. Man dude... make your point an move on. Nobody goes to usenet to read
    some manifesto.



    > --
    > "Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the
    > *REAL* chrisv!"
    > chrisv, COLA.




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

    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.

    --
    Tom Shelton

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