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 143297
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sat 15th Jul 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outrageous"
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Internal interfaces change all the time. Which is providing public documentation for them is foolish. This is basic Computer Science, people. You guys claim to be "tech-savvy", yet can't understand why there's a difference between internal and public functions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Outrageous
by Shkaba on Sat 15th Jul 2006 19:49 in reply to "RE[6]: Outrageous"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

What do you mean by "change all the time"? Do they change when a new OS is released, or when they release updates? Besides that, statement that "interfaces change all the time" is completely wrong! If they did you would get a useless computer. IMPLEMENTATION of interfaces might change while the INTERFACES themselves are kept unchanged for as long as possible. And this, dear Molly is what is taught in computer science classes which you obviously skipped. But to get back to the topic, this fine is very well deserved. Bravo for the EU. This just goes on to show that there is something wrong with the US system of lobbying, and the influence of big companies on US legislation. MS has had more then ample time to comply with the ruling, thay chose not to. It is a decision. Good or bad, time will tell. Personaly I think it is a bad one.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sun 16th Jul 2006 04:00 in reply to "RE[7]: Outrageous"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I was sloppy with my language. What I meant to say was that internal interfaces are subject to change at any time, and cannot be relied upon by external code. That you're even arguing about this indicates that you are indeed demanding that internal functions be documented for public use, which goes against the very fundamentals of computer programming.

Reply Parent Score: 1