Invisible wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that one was Kerberos. And the point was they made it so 
> their Kerberos implementation wouldn't work with anybody else's.

But the standard allowed for that, is my point. Why have a "reserved for use 
by vendors" field if you're going to break when vendors use it.

> leaves the issue of these fields being reversed for future use, and when 

It wasn't "reserved for future use" as I understand it. It was "reserved for 
relaying hidden information we failed to account for in the standard that 
your OS needs".

>> What other standards have they done this with.
> 
> *cough* The web?

Sorry? In what sense? That the web browser doesn't follow standards set 
after the browser was written doesn't really mean they intentionally broke 
the web.

>> What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at 
>> Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with 
>> programs they give away for free. Say what?
> 
> Before Internet Explorer, web browsers used to cost money. 

No they didn't. Netscape at one point *tried* to charge for their browser 
for *corporate* use, but since they'd cloned it from a free browser to start 
with, nobody ever paid for it.

> So yeah, the products they give away for free compete with other 
> products which are free *now*... because you can't sell them for money 
> any more.

People are *still* complaining about it, tho. Google is suing Microsoft for 
bundling IE right now. The EU is suing MS for bundling Media Player, in 
spite of every other operating system coming with the manufacturers media 
player and in spite of there being half a dozen highly capable free media 
players available.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message