Skip to main content

Press Release Of The Day

Building on a one-line LXer comment from “salparadise”, “number6x” came up with this little gem:

Attention all investors! Microsoft admits it can no longer compete on technical merits.

Microsoft has admitted that it is incapable of implementing the open document standards freely published by the OASIS group. These standards have been implemented by other software companies like Sun, and even by unpaid volunteer amateurs in the free software community.

Microsoft claims that adoption of Open Document standards that are published and free for all software companies to implement could lock it out of important business opportunities. This would be like an accounting firm claiming that requiring them to be able to add columns of numbers together could jeopardize future business prospects.

This admission of inability to implement simple technical standards comes on the heels of several years of disastrous stumbles by the once great software giant.

Microsoft was never able to produce an OS that ran on the Intel 64-bit Itanium architecture, even though Intel made all of the technical specifications available and provided an emulator before the chip was even produced. Compare this to the fact that The GNU/Linux OS, an OS developed by the efforts of volunteers across the internet, and available for free, was ported to the Itanium before the chips even started coming off the assembly line!

In a recent Wall Street Journal article Microsoft has admitted that its entire software development system was so badly broken that they had to scrap the long awaited "Longhorn" upgrade to their Windows XP Operating System, and completely redesign their development methods from the ground up. Many of the features promised originally have been dropped in order to meet deadlines that are years later than the original expected ship date.

Microsoft has been incapable of delivering the kind of stability and security that enterprise users demand in operating systems, despite spending millions of dollars and decades in development. Compare this to the BSD family of Unix operating systems, that was developed by a bunch of college students. BSD was so capable that it became the basis for AT&T's UNIX, and Sun's Solaris operating systems. BSD is renowned for its stability and security.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...