Re: DOJ, Microsoft settle (like dust)

[Milan Zimmermann <mzimmerm@worldchat.com>]

Tod Landis wrote:
> 
> Doesn't look good.  If all that MS is required to do is make
> the EXE hidden and drop the icon it will be a trivial
> matter for MS to tell users how to reinstall it.  A sentence
> or two of instructions will be enough.  The browser is essentially
> bound to the OS.

I think that Microsoft by settling de facto agreed that browser IS 
separable from the OS. I know they can still argue that all browser
DLL's are not separable, only the icon, but it is (hopefully) step 1 of
continuing process.

Milan Zimmermann

> 
> So, it looks like Microsoft wins this battle.  Still, my
> impression is they lost a lot of PR ground.   Had this
> experience at the library last week:  I was tracking down
> some info about something else and asked the reference
> librarian for help.  He turned to his PC and started IE
> to access a library page on the net.  I said,  "Hmmm, you should
> be using Netscape."  and his response was "I know, I know,
> we're all talking about it."
> 
> Talk like that is good...even if this example comes from
> Scotts Valley, where we have just a slight anti-MS bias.
> 
> Tod Landis.
> 
> Glenn T. Livezey wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:07:03 -0500 (EST), PA Petricone wrote:
> > >Well, now - we have movement.
> > >It will only matter if it continues in open forums like this one. I
> > >consider it a privilege to have had the opportunity to share in the
> > >dialog with this group.
> >             In re: John Bryan's post of
> > >>Subject: DOJ, Microsoft settle
> > >>|http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18357,00.html
> > >>|"just in The Justice Department and Microsoft have announced
> > >>|a settlement on a major issue stalling their high-profile
> > >>|antitrust dispute. According to both sides, Microsoft has
> > >>|agreed to immediately provide computer vendors with the
> > >>|most up-to-date version of Windows 95 without the Internet
> > >>|Explorer icon."
> > >>|I guess the smell of Contempt brewing in the kitchen was
> > >>|too much...
> >
> > It remains to be seen what sort of "movement" this represents.
> > As the main issue in this DOJ case is MS's blatant disregard for
> > their previous "agreement", I think we might wait to see what ships
> > before evaluating the progress this "movement" provides. If it
> > follows from past MS behavior, it is most likely to trace its origins to
> > the large bowel.
> >
> > This is Not meant to criticize the previous post. On the contrary,
> > I share in PA Petricone's hope for the significance of this event,
> > the need for continued efforts in forums such as this, and the sense
> > of priviledge that derives from interaction with this group.
> >
> > Best Regards to all
> >
> >
> > Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
> > Director of Perinatal Research
> > Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
> > Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
> > University of Nebraska Medical Center
> > 600 South 42nd Street
> > Omaha, NE 68198-3255
> > Phone- 402-559-8064
> > FAX- 402-559-7126
> > e-mail glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu

-- 
----
Java now and to the next Millennium! - Visit http://www.javalobby.org
----
And one of this Millennium's "freedom fighters" at the end:

"We're giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating
 system. How long can they [Netscape] survive selling it?"
 -Steve Ballmer, Microsoft executive vice president of sales and support
  Forbes, January 1997
-----