Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jul 2006 21:08 UTC
Microsoft In a Q&A, Neelie Kroes, who fined MS for not complying with the EC's antitrust ruling, said: "I regret that the Commission has had to take such a step today, but given Microsoft's continued non-compliance to date, I have been left with no alternative. Today's decision reflects my determination to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations.Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterisation - Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then."
Thread beginning with comment 143120
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sat 15th Jul 2006 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Outrageous"
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

"You do know the difference between OPEN APIs and OPEN SOURCE APIs? If not I think you've got quite some reading to do before you make your next comment."
-------------

Do you know the difference between internal functions and public APIs? From what I've read, the Windows network protocol isn't so much a "protocol" as it is a bunch of RPC calls, similar to how a program (say, a spreadsheet program, for example) consists of a bunch of internal function calls rather than some "public protocol". Now let's say you developed a spreadsheet program, then big government demanded that your internal functions be turned into public APis and that a public "protocol" be documented consistent with those functions and the calls made to them. Now do you see how stupid this is?

If you've ever developed a large program, I'm sure you can imagine the difficulty in coming up with a "public protocol" based on your internal functions; functions that were never intended to be public, and therefore aren't documented in a way that would be suitable for public consumption; functions that are called by the program as needed rather than according to some "protocol". That's one reason why Microsoft offered to just gave the source code, because there was no "protocol" per se, to be documented as such.

Oh, and the EU guy is full of crap. If the EU's demands were so clear, how come they issued clarified requests in March 2006 and came up with a new timetable, the final deadline of which is July 18? Which shows that the EU is even more full of crap, in that they come up with a new deadline of July 18, then issue fines 7 days before that deadline.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: Outrageous
by rhavyn on Sat 15th Jul 2006 05:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Outrageous"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

From what I've read, the Windows network protocol isn't so much a "protocol" as it is a bunch of RPC calls

First off, if you don't have any first hand experience you shouldn't comment at all. Second, just because Microsoft chooses a dumb way to implement something doesn't mean they can choose to thumb their nose at a court ruling.

Now do you see how stupid this is?

No, but your explanation of the Windows server protocols that Microsoft were supposed to document is pretty dumb. Here's a little help, if you're sending it across a network it's not "internal."

I'm sure you can imagine the difficulty in coming up with a "public protocol" based on your internal functions; functions that were never intended to be public, and therefore aren't documented in a way that would be suitable for public consumption; functions that are called by the program as needed rather than according to some "protocol".

We're talking about how a Windows client talks to a Windows server. That's the definition of a protocol. You certainly aren't making yourself look smart.

Oh, and the EU guy is full of crap. If the EU's demands were so clear, how come they issued clarified requests in March 2006

Because until then Microsoft hadn't said that they EU's "demands" were unclear. Maybe you should be asking why it took Microsoft two years to decide that the "demands" weren't clear.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Outrageous
by Marcellus on Sat 15th Jul 2006 07:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Outrageous"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Because until then Microsoft hadn't said that they EU's "demands" were unclear. Maybe you should be asking why it took Microsoft two years to decide that the "demands" weren't clear.

If you had bothered to look up stuff you would know that MS have repeatedly requested clarifications since the first time the EU said "this is not enough" and even been refused that for fear that MS would use that in their appeal.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Outrageous
by ma_d on Sat 15th Jul 2006 06:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Outrageous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

They're not asking for how to do the RPC calls, they're asking what the RPC calls are.

If they've developed a large piece of software with no documentation on the internal API's I'm utterly impressed. Sure, maybe it's all in the source code, but if they had any discipline (which would be beneficial) they could write a program (like doxygen) to pull these comments out for documentation.
Of course, they certainly would need to be scanned, by human eyes, to make sure they're not revealing anything you don't want to tell!


They issued clarified requests and a new timetable at Microsoft's request in an attempt to be reasonable and helpful to them. And, I could be wrong, but I believe "this guy" is in fact a "woman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neelie_Kroes.jpg
(Does that look like a woman to anyone else? end sarcasm)

The fines issued are for the failure of compliance between Dec something and June 20th, which is pretty nice considering it's now July 14th (15th here) and not June 20th. They even dropped the initial fine rate by 25%.

What do you want, for them to say "we're sorry Microsoft, we'll let you go cause it's not fashionable to dislike you anymore?"

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Outrageous
by PlatformAgnostic on Sun 16th Jul 2006 06:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Outrageous"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I fail to see why these RPC api's should have already been documented. The way it works is that the server team writes a server and some fake clients for it as tests. The client team then writes the client based on the RPC interface (represented by IDL) and finds some bugs in the server, some of which are fixed and others of which are worked around. There are a couple of feature requests for things that the client needs and that's about it. In the end you have a pretty messy API but it all works and with a bunch of testing, you're golden.

Do this for several versions, all of which have fixes in the clients to interoperate with older servers and vice versa, and you get SMB/CIFS. Can you reimplement this? Yes, but why would you want to? You can write your own client/server system to work seamlessly with windows since all of the relevant parts are pluggable.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Outrageous
by DevL on Sat 15th Jul 2006 13:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Outrageous"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"Do you know the difference between internal functions and public APIs?"

Sure, but explain to me why it is okay for the Excel team to use Windows "internal" functions that no other spreadsheet vendor gets any information about.

Unless you're of the opinion that Excel is in fact part of the Windows operating system, Microsoft has effectively gained an advantage by using function calls only they know about. The only way they could do this without having their 3rd party developers giving them the fingers is simply the fact that Microsoft are in a monopoly position.

And boy, do they abuse it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Outrageous
by ma_d on Sat 15th Jul 2006 17:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Outrageous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Sounds like a fair advantage. You don't document internal API's because:
1.) They change.

I don't need a number 2, that's simply why you don't give public docs on internal calls, because when you change them you'll anger many people who assumed they were stable.

If Microsoft wants to have the Excel team use internal calls to get a constant speed advantage, good for them! They'll be the only ones in industry who'll be able to easily keep up with the changes to these internal functions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sat 15th Jul 2006 19:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Outrageous"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Please provide evidence that Excel uses internal apis, if you can. And if you cant, don't make the charge. You have no evidence that it does. (Oh, and there's a Mac version of Excel too, do you think it uses internal windows funcions as well?)

And again, the EU case has absolutely nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claims that Microsoft's non-OS programs make use of internal functions.

And your post was actually modded up. What a joke.

Reply Parent Score: 1