“Attention! Nature Reserve! Threatened Software Giant!”
As you know I am no software developer.
This is why I have to rely on others judgement regarding these
technical issues. And because I am critical I am in doubt quite
often. E.g. Microsoft: A lot of software developers I know speak
really bad about their stuff (To be honest they slip into the fecal
language. So unfortunately I cannot quote them verbatim here.) And me
– as you imagine correctly – I have been in doubt (at least to
the middle of this week): “How can Microsoft's software quality be
that poor if the the company is that successful with them?”
This article does not make demands on
clarifying all the myths in the world but it seems at least one thing
can be taken for sure now: The above mentioned software developers
seem to be right and the language they use appears to be justified.
You want to know what happened? Have a look: This week Microsoft's
deadline ended to comply with European authorities. In Europe's so
far most important antitrust suit Microsoft has been asked to publish
protocols and interface information of their workgroup server.
So what did MS? They are claiming the
Commission would have ignored these efforts:
“Hundreds of Microsoft employees and
contractors have worked for more than 30,000 hours to create over
12,000 pages of detailed technical documents that are available for
license today. In addition Microsoft has offered to provide licensees
with 500 hours of technical support and has made its source code
related to all the relevant technologies available under a reference
license,” the company said in a 75-page response filed Wednesday.
By the end I think this has to be read like: “We are unable
to give you more than this - Accept it or forget it!”
Wow. Didn't really expect it to be that awful: The software does
not only attract bugs and viruses magnetically – It actually seems
to be impossible to document it, even if there are any financial
means of this world available! I am sure this would have frightened
even legendary Hercules – and he after all had to clean the Augean
stables in one day! German radio station NDR
asked Microsoft why they couldn't publish the documents in question
and - didn't get an answer. I suppose they are just embarrassed about
washing their dirty linen in public. But as ever most probably I am just too
naive and credulous and NDR is right to say that MS doesn't want to
comply basically 'cause it really takes it out of them? So which is
the claim they wanna make? Should we maybe put signs in front of
their offices: “Attention! Nature Reserve! Threatened Software
Giant!”??
Since the last press review we again had a number of articles explaining FSFE's successful role
in this game.
But I would like to point you to an article of Austrian
Computerworld and our letter to their editor (in the same document) specifically:
Microsoft obviously still loves to play their “Fear, Uncertainty &
Doubt” (FUD) policy (e.g. claiming that we want gratis copies of
their source code or want them to give up their copyright). If you
should find an one of these funny examples to confuse journalists,
customers or politicians, please send me a note.
Reports in
English:
TechSpot,
indymedia.org,
COMPUTER
BUSINESS review online, AxcessNews.com,
commentwire,
Bloomberg,
Macworld,
PC
Adviser, CIO,
IT World,
MSN BC, MSN
Money, The
Guardian, ZD
Net UK, EU
Business, IT
World Canada, Mail
& Guardian online, DW-World,
TurkishPress.com,
Macworld
Daily News,
Reports in
German:
Pro-Linux.de,
Clickmall,
DerStandard.at,
OÖNachrichten,
Salzburger
Nachrichten, Wiener
Zeitung,
Reports in Swedish:
IDG
Please note: This review is not exhaustive!
