Development

From Techrights

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (14:04, 14 September 2009) (view source)
 
(22 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
* [[Microsoft: developers are a one-night stand]] (Exhibit/transcript VolumeXXV-January52007 -- MISSING)
+
[[Category:Comes v Microsoft]]
 +
[[Category:Antitrust]]
 +
[[Category:Microsoft]]
 +
This index deals with [[Comes vs Microsoft]] court exhibits which offer a glance at the history of Microsoft abuse. For a concise summary of some of the exhibits, see "[[Petition text - overview]]".
 +
 
 +
== Undocumentation ==
 +
 
* [[Microsoft developers used undocumented APIs]] (Exhibit PX01614)
* [[Microsoft developers used undocumented APIs]] (Exhibit PX01614)
* [[Microsoft "undocumentation"]] (Exhibit supp_rpt_andrew_schulman, Iowa)
* [[Microsoft "undocumentation"]] (Exhibit supp_rpt_andrew_schulman, Iowa)
 +
* [[Undocumentated API functions found in WINDOWS.H]] (Exhibit PX05084)
 +
* [[Redacted undocumentated APIs]] (Exhibit PX04600)
 +
* [[Keep the formats closed]] (Exhibit px05035)
-
== style guide biased towards MS apps .. ==
+
== UI ==
-
To: Don Casey
+
* [[Embrace our UI innovations]] (Exhibit px03073)
-
cc: Alex Morror, Frank King, AI-ESC, AI-PSC, AI-TSC, Richard Wolf
+
* [[Style guide biased towards Microsoft apps]] (Exhibit PX00956)
-
From: Richard Wolf
+
-
Date 09/11/91 07:03:09 Pm
+
-
Subject:
+
 +
== Interfaces ==
-
This memo lists and briefly describes items in the draft Microsoft Style Guide for Windows that are biased towards Microsoft applications. Individually, none of the items are major changes. They are a collection of small arbitrary decisions without clear user benefit that taken together give Microsoft an advantage because most of their applications already conform ..
+
* [[The dangers of open Interfaces]] (Exhibit PX02003)
 +
* [[We want OpenDOC to fail]] (Exhibit PX02026)
 +
* [[Most ugly garbage since COM/OLE]] (Exhibit PX02563)
 +
* [[Yet more undocumented API calls]] (Exhibit PX02667)
 +
* [[Winning API wars]] (Exhibit PX02783)
-
..
+
== Negligence ==
 +
* [[Microsoft 'quality control']] (Exhibit PX04141)
-
Second, the style guide provides little or no indication of future object oriented user interface directions that Microsoft is developing, including property sheets, direct manipulation, pop-up menus, and notebook techniques. Essentially, current and somewhat arbitrary GUI practices of Microsoft applications are being set up as detailed standards while Microsoft works on new approaches that obsolete these standards. Microsoft has privately disclosed to Lotus some elements of their intended direction.
+
== Orphaned ==
-
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/0000/PX00956.pdf
+
* [[Microsoft: developers are a one-night stand]] (Exhibit/transcript VolumeXXV-January52007 -- MISSING)
-
 
+
-
--
+
-
court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
== on the dangers of open Interfaces .. ==
+
-
 
+
-
Erik Stevenson
+
-
 
+
-
From: Brad Silverberg
+
-
To: paulma
+
-
Subject: FW: DMTF and what to do with it
+
-
Date: Friday, January 28, 1994 5:36 PM
+
-
 
+
-
what a fucking mess
+
-
 
+
-
From: John Ludwig
+
-
To: Brad Silverberg
+
-
Subject: FW: DMTF and what to do with it
+
-
Date: Thursday, January 27, 1994 3:55 PM
+
-
 
+
-
I thought you should see this. All I can say is "simply amazing" . Below Dan is
+
-
answering my questions to him on this mess.
+
-
 
+
-
If you have thoughts, I could use your help.
+
-
 
+
-
thanks,
+
-
jim
+
-
 
+
-
From: Dan Shelly
+
-
To: Jim Allchin; Jonathan Roberts; Richard Tong
+
-
Cc: Bob Muglia; David Thompson (NT)
+
-
Subject:  RE: DMTF and what to do with it
+
-
Date: Monday, Jaauary 24, 1994 5:52 PM
+
-
 
+
-
Answers embedded below. I was supposed to meet with IBM this Friday to discuss
+
-
our distribution of source code to the DMTF. I backed out based on the fact our
+
-
lawyers are still looking this over and it could take a *LONG* time for them to
+
-
approve.
+
-
 
+
-
What a fucking mess.
+
-
 
+
-
>> A clear analysis of the situation
+
-
 
+
-
0. Is ther anything in writing?
+
-
 
+
-
>> The DMTF bylaws upon which this is based are not clear. The original intent
+
-
of the DMTF was to deliver object level implimentation. Nowhere have we
+
-
committed in *writing* to deliver source code, however, if we don't Intel has
+
-
already stated that they will. Evidentally the verbal agreement for the last
+
-
1.5 years has been that all work done by DMTF will be shared.
+
-
 
+
-
1. What protocol is being used to gather up the Novell stuff?
+
-
 
+
-
>> The idea of the spec is that it is protocol independent, runs on top of
+
-
whatever you use. In Novell's case that could be either IPX/SPX or TCP/IP.
+
-
 
+
-
Having the DMI client interfaces might even be good on OS/2, etc
+
-
>> OS/2 clients with DMI interfaces would be easily managable from Netware.
+
-
 
+
-
2. Are *we* getting any source code from anyone? I don't see people lining up
+
-
to give us code. And you can guess how I feel about giving them source code.
+
-
 
+
-
>> We would get the OS/2 service layer code without encumbrance (per Ken
+
-
edwards, IBM). Hardly a stellar trade for providing access to our install base
+
-
of clients. SunNet will also provide a UNIX implimentation only after DMI is
+
-
adopted as a COSE standard (supposedly very soon).
+
-
 
+
-
The implimentation of the DMI layer will pick up information from random places
+
-
and it could change with new versions of the system so I'm not interested in
+
-
getting into some support problems with Novell and IBM shipping some DMI code
+
-
that doesn't work on the next release. This is a rat hole.
+
-
 
+
-
>> It gets worse. It's obvious that what IBM and Novell want to do is "add
+
-
functionality" hence their request for unencumbered source code. Based on what
+
-
I was hearing and past performance of these 2, their implimentation would work
+
-
with our OS's but then add extra functionality for OS/2, AIX, Dr-DOS, etc. My
+
-
analysis is that we would shortly be positioned as "less manageable" and
+
-
IBM/Novell could legally charge a license fee for their implimentation.
+
-
 
+
-
..
+
-
 
+
-
4. What pisses me off the most is that they didn't define the protocol - the
+
-
most key thing in my opinion .. given the path we're on, it's Novell's protocol
+
-
that will become tha standard.
+
-
 
+
-
>> Should IBM and Novell settle on a single supported implimentation for which
+
-
we then have no further source code rights .. What this does is raise the
+
-
prioroty for us to figure out what the pan for this protocol really should be
+
-
..
+
-
 
+
-
>> Suggestions for how to proceed
+
-
 
+
-
..
+
-
 
+
-
2. The "cooperation option. We provide a license for our implimentation to all
+
-
8 members of DMTF with the source *BUT* Microsoft retains rights to all future
+
-
development based on this code, and royalty rights for any secondary license
+
-
agreements ..
+
-
 
+
-
..
+
-
 
+
-
Of these optins I would suggest that we opt for #2. It will forestall
+
-
IBM/Novell the longest to allow us time to adopt and evengleize a consistent
+
-
protocol-based solution across all our clients ..
+
-
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02003.pdf
+
== Recent Stories ==
-
With no sense of irony or insight, he's just ascribed to IBM/Novell
+
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2009/08/17/bill-gates-vs-open-file-formats/ How Bill Gates Denied Access to Office File Format Documentation to Stifle Competition]
-
Microsofts' own strategy. Co-opt a standard, refuse access to the source,
+
* http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/27/judge-finds-microsoft-undocumentation-unimpressive/
-
accuse the other fella of being "less manageable" and then charge him a license
+
* http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/25/dynamic-ms-standards/
-
fee for their own interfaces. There's also a sense of reality denial where he
+
* http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/11/interoperability-promise-a-scam/
-
see a paranoid projection of his own fears and intentions. The spec is protocol
+
* http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/22/novell-vista-sp1-compatibility/
-
independent. The protocol is only important if you are planning on locking the  
+
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/25/ms-definition-of-embrace-and-extend/ Microsoft on “Embrace and Extend”, the “Windows API Franchise”]
-
others in and then charging them money for the 'open' protocols.
+
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/26/eee-versus-cross-platform/ Nathan Myhrvold/Bill Gates Use “Embrace and Extend” Against “Making it Easy for People to Do Competitive Operating Systems”]
-
--  
+
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2009/09/14/ms-admits-draining-to-destroy-borland/ Comes Antitrust: How Microsoft Schemed to Destroy Borland (Like It Did Yahoo!)]
-
court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.
+

Current revision

This index deals with Comes vs Microsoft court exhibits which offer a glance at the history of Microsoft abuse. For a concise summary of some of the exhibits, see "Petition text - overview".

Contents

Undocumentation

UI

Interfaces

Negligence

Orphaned

Recent Stories

Personal tools
Search entire domain
Stories