Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by anonymous
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Novell appears to be attempting to cut off SCO's lifeline to its cash reserves. By not focusing on the arguments over who owns what in Unix but instead hammering on the far more simple matter of SCO not living up to its business contract, Novell hopes to put a quick end to SCO and its seemingly endless Linux litigation.
Thread beginning with comment 168087
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Title has it backwards
by atsureki on Wed 4th Oct 2006 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Title has it backwards"
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

Economically impossible. Netscape was a company built on web browser sales. Microsoft decided to pull that market out from under them by making web browsers free (by licensing Mosaic and then giving it away). They paid for this ability with money from their profit ventures and introduced a vector where they could exert some influence over how the Web was read and written, thus creating dependence on a $200 product instead of a $30 one if you wanted a browser with working plug-ins. I was trying to watch some music videos on Logo's website. They don't work in anything but Windows (WMDRM only, lousy Viacom). The site author knows this and doesn't care. I guess I have you to thank for that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The site author knows this and doesn't care. I guess I have you to thank for that."

Huh? Any web page I write is w3c compliant and validated. So, I guess you have the site author to thank for that. I have not slammed anyone, so don't attack me without cause..fair enough?

Reply Parent Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"They paid for this ability with money from their profit ventures and introduced a vector where they could exert some influence over how the Web was read and written, thus creating dependence on a $200 product instead of a $30 one if you wanted a browser with working plug-ins."

Actually Netscape had working plugins as well. In fact, the exact same ones MS had. The difference was MS gave them away, and they were about $29.99 for the ones that worked with Netscape. In that effect yes, MS did play hard ball. As well, between Netscape and MS they each had browsers that were no where near standards compliant and had their own tags and such, not readable by any other browsers. Stupid on both parts IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Title has it backwards
by kaiwai on Wed 4th Oct 2006 08:31 in reply to "RE[7]: Title has it backwards"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Incorrect, Netscape introduced the proprietary tags first along with javascript extensions - no one caught onto them because they were of no real benefit to web developers.

Microsoft then turned around and added their own extensions, the extensions they developed were actually useful for developers; webdevelopment IDEs embraced these extensions.

There is nothing wrong with these extensions, the fact is, these standards move way to slow to keep up with the demands of what end users expect; what Microsoft need to do is work with the likes of Mozilla and Opera and say, "hey, here is a really cool feature, here is the documentation" and work together on implementing better features.

The simple fact is, the browser doesn't matter any more; Microsoft is going to make money off applications whether the application is being accessed via Firefox or Opera, whether on Windows, Mac or Linux should be immaterial to the fact that as long as the end user is paying their subscription, that's all Microsoft should be concerned about.

Reply Parent Score: 1