ex: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:BcnGlMKOJlYJ:www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/nick-column2.html+curry+microsoft+nt+certification&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

If a particular client (a major client) has very specific requirements, you should be straightforward. Sure, most customers don’t care, but honesty is important.

There is also this side point:
>> As part of the contractual agreements, Microsoft agreed to help market the LSEL diagnostics, and Curry claims Microsoft verbally promised that LSEL would sell millions of copies. However, Microsoft decided not to promote the diagnostics, and Curry went bankrupt.

It’s not what they say or promise or show you elsewhere. It’s the precise EULA you sign, and we know most people don’t read and attempt to analyze a full EULA before accepting.

Something else to point out is that Microsoft sought third party help (Curry) to help make their case. If you provide source code, that is not important because the client can verify for themselves. Microsoft provides limited and distinct source code (that can change at any time) to many different groups. It’s like each person in the room knowing only part of an elephant and then having to try and get together and convince themselves that this thing in the room is actually the elephant. Any particular one can only ever verify a few “trees in the forest”. Microsoft takes advantage of all the misremembered details and assumptions make by third parties defending Microsoft (eg, those wowed in some area while visiting Redmond and then writing about it). I am also reminded of the game “telephone” [ http://www.partygamecentral.com/pgcstandard/gameprintstd.asp?gn=TELEPHONE ]. Bottom line: full source code to the actual product you are using is important so as not to be taken for a ride or allow the vendor to control your system or network as they find a need.

As for codeplex problems, this is what you get when you go with Microsoft, a constant effort to confuse and hide license terms and what applies to what. bait and switch. Expect this from ooxml and from all their software and even license terms: what you think you initially bought is not what gets shoved in over time. For example, people remember, “it was like the GPL,” but, eventually, through one sleigh of hand or other, you end up contributing under different terms.

Here’s one example that is old: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ael&q=curry+microsoft+nt+certification&btnG=Search

Once on the treadmill, you start to get something very different from what you bought into.

Novell is second source/ interoperable .. ha! That’s beyond funny. Silverlight is multiplatform .. ha! MSOffice uses open OOXML …. [Funny thing is that perhaps MSO does use ooxml but likely not as one would expect since ooxml allows you to ignore the (broken) spec and instead substitute in proprietary extensions that are documented nowhere outside Redmond.]

Microsoft would gain to drive Red Hat into the ground even if they took a loss on each sale. That’s actually a very common way for predatory monopolists to function.

Microsoft would gain if their MicroVellLinux was dominant and had “interoperable” hooks into Microsoft’s dominant ecosystem.

The GPL that Novell releases can become useless over a very short period of time with Microsoft updates to their protocols, etc. Of course, MicroVellLinux would always be able to use NDA restricted closed source binaries to perform the communication with WinWare. MicroVellLinux would thus have greater interop with WinWare compared to all other Linux (but be below WinWare to WinWare interop).

Hook em.

HookemVell.