Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board


I'm sure many of you saw this link off of slashdot:

I'm curious to know, is this something that prevades Microsoft culture or is it isolated in the company? It seems like I keep hearing about the same things over and over again.

John Rosenberg
Sunday, August 31, 2003

I think it pervades the companies thinking.  Remember that testimony that Bill G went ballistic and said to Ballmer during a meeting discussing one of the early DOJ settlement proposals "we don't want a level playing field, we can't win on a level playing field."

I believe that is proof that they figure that the ends justify the means at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.  Hell even there address reeks of that thinking.  Guess what Bill, you can't buy Linux.

Sunday, August 31, 2003

What's even more stupider [sic] is that Burst's technology is not rocket science.  Its merely buffer smoothing which has been in use for a long time over networks with high jitter.

Microsoft could have developed their own solution from the start, and had Burst claimed infringement, dealt with it through normal patent negotiation.  You would think that with Microsoft's investments in digital media, they would have their own solutions worked out.

But anyway, this is certainly no surprise.  Redmond is grooming a siege mentality as they watch their empire crumble.  Heads ville roll.

Fiddling with Nero
Sunday, August 31, 2003


How ever did you dream up the thought of buying Linux? Just what article were YOU reading?

Mickey Petersen
Sunday, August 31, 2003

This is one of those cases where their actions were not just Evil, but incredibly Stupid.  They really thought no one would notice 35 weeks of missing messages?

They did similar things in the anti-trust case.  No matter how big the judgement against them might be, MS will have more than earned it.

Jim Rankin
Sunday, August 31, 2003

It seems Microsoft doesn't want to be penalized for being a forward-thinking company that uses email.

The relevant questions are, is this Burst tech at all nontrivial?  And how much did Microsoft violate NDAs?  The US is very litigious, and legal issues are one of the biggest things MSFT has to account for.  After reading this:
I decided that deleting email is a Good Idea.

The Microsoft mindsuck (brainsuck?) is not at all unheard of though.

Monday, September 1, 2003

"Wow, a link from Slashdot to a story by Cringely -- it must be true!"

More seriously, Cringely claimed this was part of a hearing open to the public.  I haven't checked, but highly doubt Cringely would make something up out of whole cloth that's so easy to check.

Jim Rankin
Monday, September 1, 2003

>> I haven't checked, but highly doubt Cringely would make something up out of whole cloth that's so easy to check. <<

You must not be a regularly reader of Cringley.  It seems to be a regular theme of his to make things up.  His recent article mentioning how a friend of his recommended "e-mail safeguards" to Microsoft twelve years ago that would've made MSBlast "impossible" comes to mind as a good example.

Monday, September 1, 2003

"His recent article mentioning how a friend of his recommended "e-mail safeguards" to Microsoft twelve years ago that would've made MSBlast "impossible" comes to mind as a good example."

Just curious, how do you know this isn't true?  I mean, at least the fact that he had a friend that SAID such and such could be true, even if the friend was talking out his elbow.

Jim Rankin
Monday, September 1, 2003


are you actually suggesting you approve of professional "journalists" (I wouldn't call the Cringley team that, but for lack of another word ...) quoting any crackpot that comes along in a fashion that suggests authority on the subject, without even checking up on even the most trivial basic facts?

Here is one for you: "A friend of mine that used to be the CTO of a major defense sector company told me he had warned NASA back in 1943 about a problem in their moon lander radio antenna , that would have prevented the Columbia disaster"

Just me (Sir to you)
Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Well, It is much tougher to make up this...

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Wow!  That's direct from the company doing the suing!  It must be unbiased and accurate! 

I'm not denying that there really is a company named "" that is suing Microsoft or even that the judge ordered Microsoft to turn over email.  The point is that these facts alone are rather boring until you get someone like Cringley with an active (but not particularly creative) imagination and a gullible audience to eat it up. 

Anyway, there is no mention of the mysterious 35 weeks of email (that presumably contain the secrets of JFK's assassination among other things) in the press release.  Given that the 35 weeks of email are the basis for Cringley's rant, I don't see how that press release backs any of it up.

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Ok, Somebody, I think I understand now.  We can't trust Cringely,, or the judge in the case to give us the whole story.  Which leaves:  Microsoft.

So we just need to wait for what Microsoft has to say to get the objective truth.

Glad we cleared that up.

Jim Rankin
Tuesday, September 2, 2003

Huh?  Where did I say anything about trusting Microsoft or not trusting the judge?  As far as I can tell, we haven't heard from either Microsoft or the judge.  Cringley's article and most of the posts on this thread involve jumping to conclusions that aren't merited by the facts we have at hand.  What's controversial about that?

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

For once the Cringely article sounds almost wholly believable.

Technologically advanced companies don't lose email, and they certainly don't delete messages "because the technology wasn't interesting"

Of course, it is still possible that what was said in court bears no relationship to Cringely's article, but if so, then he's certainly come up a few notches in the believable fiction stakes.

Stephen Jones
Friday, September 5, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home