In markets where product functionality is not yet good enough,companies must compete by making better products. This typically means making products whose architecture is interdependent and proprietary, because competitive pressure compels engineers to fit the pieces of their systems together in ever more efficient ways in order to wring the best performance possible out of the available technology. Standardization of interfaces (meaning fewer degrees of design freedom) forces them to back away from the frontier of what is technologically possible ?which spells competitive trouble when functionality is inadequate. This helps explain why IBM, General Motors, Apple Computer, RCA, Xerox and AT&T, as the most integrated firms during the not-good-enough era of their industries? histories, became dominant competitors. Intel and Microsoft (raps about the latter?s supposed lack of innovation aside) have also dominated their pieces of the computer industry ?compared to less integrated companies such as WordPerfect (now owned by Corel)?because their products have employed the sorts of proprietary, interdependent architectures that are necessary when pushing the frontier of what is possible.This also helps us understand why NTT DoCoMo,with its integrated strategy,has been so much more successful in providing mobile access to the Internet than nonintegrated American and European competitors who have sought to interface with each other through negotiated standards.
Originally posted by: SammySon
What the hell are you talking about?Bullsh!t. Stop thinking you're so much better than everyone else, and that the average citizen NEEDS people like you to look out for them. The stab wasn't weak, it goes to the heart of modern liberalism in America today.
I don't need to make decisions for anybody. I don't give a sh!t what you do! Use whatever software you want. Do whatever you will.
Just don't harm may family or I.
The larger a monopoly gets the less choices the consumer has.
Why do you attack the person who posts the message? How do you know what my feelings are through 5 lines of text?
![]()
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: flavio
This thread reminds me of Texmaster.....R.I.P.
I think it's the theme that you make something mundane that doesn't go well into a political matter and then blame liberals.
Example-> If the guy at Burger King forgets the pickles on my Quarter Pounder. I would then have to assume that he is in fact a liberal and had shorted me the pickles because of a larger liberal Burger King conspiracy.
arent quarter pounders from mcdonalds not burger king?
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Well, Microsoft isn't exactly known for its love of open standards, but what does that have to with the Intel modem?
i'll quote Russ:
"Really, Give me an example."
How about their non-standard implementation of Kerberos?
Linky.
And yet, they didn't use the exact standard, which proves my point. Thank you very much.
Oh yeah, you gotta love it when they tried to censor Slashdot with the DMCA. Good thing they failed![]()
Our Kerberos adds onto the standard we fully support interoping with and RFC 1510 compliant implemenation of kerb in fact we have succesfully interoped with MIT Kerb. Try again.
and if you have a problem with DCMA contact your congressman dont bitch at microsoft for trying to have the law enforced.
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: flavio
This thread reminds me of Texmaster.....R.I.P.
I think it's the theme that you make something mundane that doesn't go well into a political matter and then blame liberals.
Example-> If the guy at Burger King forgets the pickles on my Quarter Pounder. I would then have to assume that he is in fact a liberal and had shorted me the pickles because of a larger liberal Burger King conspiracy.
arent quarter pounders from mcdonalds not burger king?
All because of them meddling liberals.
Originally posted by: baffled2
LOL,Russ starts World War III and exits stage left !!!![]()
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: flavio
This thread reminds me of Texmaster.....R.I.P.
I think it's the theme that you make something mundane that doesn't go well into a political matter and then blame liberals.
Example-> If the guy at Burger King forgets the pickles on my Quarter Pounder. I would then have to assume that he is in fact a liberal and had shorted me the pickles because of a larger liberal Burger King conspiracy.
arent quarter pounders from mcdonalds not burger king?
All because of them meddling liberals.
i prefer to blame it on black people.
You'd have loved this guy. If he had his way, you'd be working for free.
Originally posted by: Ameesh
marty you didnt post anything
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Let's keep something straight about liberals: they are pro big business. They need companies like MS because in order for wealth distribution (aka. legalized theft) to work they need someone to take from. They're just very shy about revealing this fact because they don't want to hurt anyone's self-esteem.
Originally posted by: gopunk
everybody read my earlier post and praise me for my insight.
Originally posted by: Ferocious
You'd have loved this guy. If he had his way, you'd be working for free.
It's usually "conservative" polices that end up lowering wages of the middle class.
I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm confident neither do you.im sorry that you are poor but thats hardly microsofts fault.
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Ameesh
marty you didnt post anything
lol, thanks for pointing it out, I wonder where it went?
Anyway, what I said was:
1. They still didn't implement the standard spec
2. They are under investigation by the EU for these kinds of things
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
It seems to me that MS is an successful example of capitalism.
I used to dislike MS, because my apps were crashing left and right. Then I realized some things.
1. My PSU sucked. Getting a good one fixed the problems
2. Some programs are rushed, and not all professional programmers are that good.
3. People make mistakes. There are bugs in Windows, but there are bugs in other things too.
I use GNU software, and I use Microsoft software (and hardware). Everything's cool. MS programmers have to live, why should we get their stuff for free?
BTW, do you work for MS Ameesh?
Originally posted by: Ameesh
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Ameesh
marty you didnt post anything
lol, thanks for pointing it out, I wonder where it went?
Anyway, what I said was:
1. They still didn't implement the standard spec
2. They are under investigation by the EU for these kinds of things
1) we did embrace and extend there is nothing wrong with that. we will interop with other RFC compliant versions.
2) Sun sued us for a billion dollars for putting our JVM into windows after they sued us for not having it, its probably just as valid.
As proof of its interoperability, Shanen Boettcher, lead product manager for Windows 2000 Server, cites customers such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter that installed Windows 2000 desktops in a network running an existing Kerberos implementation by a company called CyberSafe in Issaquah, Wash. According to Microsoft, the successful installation of its Kerberos implementation alongside CyberSafe's "validates the interoperability of Kerberos in the Windows 2000 operating system."
But this validity depends on the definition of "interoperable." In Microsoft's view, Kerberos interoperability covers only the authentication process (the password system that validates a user's identity), which is defined in the open part of the spec. That interoperability does not, however, extend to the authorization process (the system that decides if a particular user has access to resources on the network), which is the part Microsoft addressed in that carefully guarded undefined field.
Microsoft is treating the authorization process as totally proprietary because authorization to use a Microsoft application requires a Windows 2000 Server. "If you want access rights to applications on Windows, it has to process its own authorization," says Boettcher.
Customers, like Morgan Stanley, that want to access basic functions such as file and print services from Windows 2000 desktops must purchase and run a Microsoft Windows 2000 Kerberos Server, even if they already have another Kerberos implementation in use.
Originally posted by: gopunk
everybody read my earlier post and praise me for my insight.