Bryant University standardizes on Linux 13390

Why I was a 3.1 beta tester, Ray! Took a lot of paperwork to get accepted. You had to have a real product that was based on Windows and agree to a substantial NDA regarding the software. From Caldera's own filing:

"Microsoft instructions to beta test support group:

For beta testers that report problems W-DR DOS and 3.1

DR DOS is an untested and therefore unsupported operating system. MS-DOS (or OEM versions of it) is required for Windows. Using DR DOS with Microsoft Windows is at the sole risk of the user. We don't support it.

Exhibit 231 (emphasis added). "

Exactly, Ray. Since all of the beta testers were expected to be using MS-DOS, the test could be run to ensure that MS-DOS was never mis-detected. Further the NDA did not allow a tester to reveal any results so any non-compliance with non-MSDOS would be hidden anyway and not affect the market.

Your reference doesn't seem to work, Ray. Have you tried it yourself?

As I remember it, Brad did indeed explain that the intent was to positively detect MS-DOS. After all, that is what MS was interested in knowing about. The obfuscation was pretty common for such things in that era and was intended to make it difficult for anyone trying to unravel the secrets. Have you never unraveled any of those disk protection schemes yourself?

It was not reported as a MS test for detecting non-MS DOS during the beta period. The discovery was made long after the release of Win3.1, which did not display any message at all.

Not very scary at all, Ray.

Cites, then, Ray! I think you made that up.

Find a cite where they decided to do it, Ray. The proof is in the FACT that the release of 3.1 did not provide the warning message.

What do you know about it? Do you think you are smarter than they are?

Because they didn't have a desirable product to sell.

Not damning at all, Ray. MS was a strong compebreastor and it was difficult to beat their deals. They offered lower prices when necessary to win a deal. At the time of these offers, it was patently obvious that MS did not have any monopoly, since DR-DOS and several others were so easy to obtain. None of this was illegal under those circumstances. MS knew what they were doing, certainly, and that was to offer the best deal so as to attract the biggest customers.