This story has been all over the internet, and one can't seem to click a newsite anywhere without seeing it. Seems microsoft has changed it's mind in it's previous announcement of not offering an upgrade/update to it's browser until the release of it's new Windows version in last 2006 or 2007.
"U.S. software producer Microsoft is trying to blackmail Copenhagen by threatening to shut a Danish unit."
Microsoft must be feeling the pressure from competing browsers as they are putting a lot of thought into how to improve Internet Explorer. However, they probably won't have a new version ready until Longhorn goes gold planned for 2006. Eweek is carrying more on this story.
In other news, Bill Gates' trip to Turkey only proved that Linux is cutting into his profits more and more as well. The newer Turkix was found to be quite popular there and is picking up speed as other European nations begin to show interest.
UPDATE: More Passing the Buck from M$.
Mike Nash claims microsoft is safer than Linux stating "Year-to-date for 2005, Microsoft has fixed 15 vulnerabilities affecting Windows Server 2003. In the same time period, for just this year, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 users have had to patch 34 vulnerabilities and SuSE Enterprise Linux 9 users have had to patch over 78 vulnerabilities." Did someone say biased and misleading statistics? Yep, safer huh?
Reuters is reporting that "The federal judge overseeing the landmark Microsoft Corp. antitrust settlement said on Wednesday there was no guarantee the pact will put a dent in the company's Windows computer operating system monopoly." Well, duh!
It's being reported that Microsoft has had to issue more patches for several vulnerabilities. In fact "six of the patches deal with code that was updated in Windows Service Pack 2." I wonder if this has been addressed. This comes on the heels of announcing the purchase of an anti-virus software company and being countersued by ITAC for libel. Here's that story. Makes one really glad they use Linux huh?
Seems Mr. Gates is at it again with saying one thing while trying to cleverly conceal his jabs at Linux. This time speaking of interoperability amongst differing architectures while stating that doesn't mean open source as open source is detrimental to interoperability. Does that seem backwards to anyone else besides me? This is posted all over the net, but here's one reference at Betanews.