Slashdot Mirror

Cheers,

Cheers,

So they think their voters are stupid sheeps:
"It's obviously a dirty trick late in the campaign by the Democrats," Yu said. on cnet
What kind of crap is that?
--------

In a transparent ploy to boost the Green vote, hackers defaced the GOP's RNC website today, according to cNet.

However, no schoolchildren noticed, since their censorware doesn't allow them to view the site, nor did anyone see the defaced site at public libraries.

From http://www.networkengines.com/st ora gengine.htm


Highest density Internet storage available!
With the Voyager(TM), you get up to 144 GB of data in 1U (1.75 inches), and an additional 288 GB of storage in a 1U optional disk array called StorageArray(TM), for a total of 432 GB in 2U.


I'm not sure how 432 GB in 2U is equal to 640 GB in 1U. The press release for the StorageEngine again only mentions the 144 GB in 1U/432 GB in 2U.

VA Linux and IBM both have a partnership with Network Engines for their 1U server box. This article has more info.

Like many of you, I seethe each time I open my mailbox and see FREE XXX/Make $10,000 per week from home/lost 3 inches guaranteed crap.

Hunting/identifying/shutting down spammers' freemail address and geocities/angelfire sites is not that satisfying - you know the jerks are just going to start another one.

Fight fire with fire!
I've been having fun saving the 800 numbers in my Palm V and calling them from public phones - and leaving the 800 number of other spammers in their voicemail. Call 800-555-1219: "Hi, this is Mark Miller, and I'd love to make $10,000 from home each week. My number is 800-555-4492. Look forward to hearing from you!"
Call 800-555-4492: "Hi, this is David Logan, I'd be very interested to talk! 800-555-1219"

Alternatively, I've left messages pointing to my home fax line. And I KNOW those thieving motherfuckers call back - there's always a few call-and-hangups after each phony voicemail I leave.

The idea of jamming up hopeful get-rich-quick idiots gives me warm fuzzies at night. Sure, it's a cheap thrill, but they are gratifying nonetheless. That 800-number "duck quack" meme cost the company over $10,000 in long distance charges per day. Don't just ignore spam - run up their telephone charges and drive them out of business. Your country is counting on you.


- The Mischief Commitee
(a wholly owned subsidiary of Project Mayhem. Member FDIC)
-------------------------------------------------

-- If the blues don't kill you, brother, they'll make you a mighty, might man.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-10 03- 200-3337272.html

From another cnet story on the asci white...

The Nighthawk 2 will be the first commercially released computer to use IBM new Power3-III processor

power three three processor?
sounds like the win2k startup screen

built on n(ew)t(echnology) Technology

hmm..

Really, all this Salon article says is that making consoles is a money-losing business in the short term (which we all knew already) and a whole bunch of speculation about Sega and Microsoft and whatnot. I'm waiting for facts, not what ifs.

I haven't had a lot of time to study the UDDI spec, but I have been pondering the topic of Open Services for quite some time and my feeling is they will. I like the term Open Services, as Tim O'Reilly calls them, over Web services because this concept is applicable beyond HTML and just the Web.

I think the biggest hurdle at the moment for this concept, is the perception that Microsoft invented this concept (therefore there must be something sinister and evil behind it!) and its tied to just their technology which is just plain off.

The idea of open services where around before SOAP. I haven't done an in-depth genealogy of the concept, but I can tell you Dave Winer at Userland has been evangelizing it for a couple of year now. There is also Allaire's WDDX and in a looser sense RSS and ICE.

Microsoft did initiate the SOAP spec, but have put they have opened it up and submitted to the W3C. They incorporated IBM's feedback which garnered IBM whole-hearted support. IBM released their Java implementation on AlphaWorks and then donated the code to Apache. Even Sun conceded it was a good idea and gave as much of an endorsement as they could stomach for something Microsoft had initiated.

I would even argue that IBM is excelling beyond Microsoft. Well... at least in the developer community. They've yet to release anything commercially or articulated a product strategy that utilizes it. (Typical them.) Microsoft does seem to be betting quite a bit on SOAP/Open Services and going from there.

What I love about this concept (and why I think it will succeed) is that its fairly easy and straight forward to work with. It also is a more concrete way to get all of these different platforms that are deployed to talk to each other. It will just makes developing easier, better and smarter.

The way I read it, UDDI is just a progression in making solutions built on this concept more robust.

For all of those interested in this topic, here are some good background links on the topic that aren't so Microsoft-rah-rah.

• The Network Really Is The Computer
• XML: A Disruptive Technology
• AGENCY.CO M's Flexitecture Methodology
• Meerkat: An Open Wire Service
• XMethods: Web Service Listing
• SOAP::Lite (A lightweight SOAP server written in Perl)
• xml-rpc.com
• soap.weblogs.com
• Apache SOAP

The cNet version of the story is here.

I notice it mentions that Lawson currently has Windows computers that let customers buy concert tickets and reserve airline tickets.

End result - Bill G loses, Linux wins.

It's Very challenging. I do it as a hobby, and currently have some amazing scores for it. Currently, I have a low of 107 for the regular level, with an 82 on my favorite level, crossed squares. It took me approx 4 months of solid play to get the 149 on Diamond, it's REALLY hard.

You can find the author, Bojan Urosevic's original web site. It's shareware, but I highly recommend you purchase it because it's such a great game.

--
Gonzo Granzeau

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

The idea of transmitting data over power lines has been knocking around for a long time. Not sure about 2.5Gbps, but there have been a variety of trials here and there of more modest speeds. This CNet article has a good broad-brush overview of a few of the companies involved and the problems they face.

http://www.cnet.com/insider/ 0-1 21949-7-3304007.html

The weekend did not manage to quell the massive amounts of coverage the Microsoft infiltration continues to garner. Virtually every news organization has its own version of the Microsoft debacle, of which we've provided a sampling below. Meanwhile, we are left wondering why the crown jewels of Microsoft were left at the mercy of passwords. There are all sorts of other authentication technologies that we have no doubt Microsoft will be investigating. Perhaps utilizing the smart card support in Windows 2000 wouldn't be a bad idea. It's a shame it takes negative incidents like this to get people to consider security as a strategic business issue. Shame on you, Microsoft.

• The Wall Street Journal via MSNBC
• CNET
• MSNBC via ZDNet
• Reuters via Yahoo
• The Register

ou've heard it before and you'll hear it again. Threats are evolving. We've seen viruses retrieve and forward passwords before on a large scale, now they are becoming targeted and fast. Threat evolution is something that cannot be dealt with reactively; it must be part of infrastructure planning and design. Today, all attention is focused on Microsoft. The world's favorite target has fallen victim to a password-stealing virus that got a hold of passwords that can access the source code to upcoming versions of Windows and Office. It is unclear whether or not the perpetrators were able to use the passwords to actually access and manipulate the source code, however if the source code was accessed two questions remain. 1. Was the code manipulated in some way that could open the door for later attacks or other problems? Microsoft claims no, the code has maintained it's integrity. Other than to trust Microsoft's word we may never know the answer. 2. Does the ability for a criminal group to view the source code destroy the security by obscurity that is key to so many commercial software products? In the open source community, numerous hackers examine products and contribute solutions to flaws in the products. In the commercial world, many companies rely on their development team to produce secure code and then keep the source code secret to not only protect their intellectual property, but also to minimize potential attacks that could be launched against the product. In this case, the loss of security by obscurity could result in a criminal having intimate knowledge of the product development cycle to be able to develop targeted attacks on future Microsoft products. Regardless of the quality of Microsoft products, the mere fact that the company was able to recognize that this incident occurred is unfortunately unique. Many corporations might never know this had happened to them. In fact the ability to isolate the incident to specific networks or machine is quite difficult in many environments. The other interesting thing going on here is the Trojan horse attack. These attacks have been discussed for several years now and the current solution has been to use content filtering software to detect the attack. If you are one of the world's favorite targets, the Trojan horse writer will write the attack specifically at you. By the time the anti-virus companies know about the Trojan horse and are able to detect and stop it, it's too late. Unfortunately, it has taken a high profile incident like this for awareness to spread. One solution is to seperate general purpose computing such as internet surfing and email from sensitive computing such as accessing source code or controlling IT infrastructure. This is what the military does. They run 2 networks that are physically isolated from each other. A less expensive solution is to keep all executable content from reaching workstations such as executable programs, active HTML content, or documents that contain macros. This is difficult to acheive in reality so physical seperation is the the only way to be sure you are secure. The Wall Street Journal broke this story and pretty much everybody is currently running it. Look for more information and speculation to filter out through the rest of the day.

• Wall Street Journal via MSNBC
• Reuters
• CNNfn
• CNET
• Newsbytes
• AP via ABC News
• Reuters via Excite re: Microsoft Stock Price
• http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.hll w.qaz.a.html
• F-Secure's Qaz description via datafellows.com

The weekend did not manage to quell the massive amounts of coverage the Microsoft infiltration continues to garner. Virtually every news organization has its own version of the Microsoft debacle, of which we've provided a sampling below. Meanwhile, we are left wondering why the crown jewels of Microsoft were left at the mercy of passwords. There are all sorts of other authentication technologies that we have no doubt Microsoft will be investigating. Perhaps utilizing the smart card support in Windows 2000 wouldn't be a bad idea. It's a shame it takes negative incidents like this to get people to consider security as a strategic business issue. Shame on you, Microsoft.

• The Wall Street Journal via MSNBC
• CNET
• MSNBC via ZDNet
• Reuters via Yahoo
• The Register

ou've heard it before and you'll hear it again. Threats are evolving. We've seen viruses retrieve and forward passwords before on a large scale, now they are becoming targeted and fast. Threat evolution is something that cannot be dealt with reactively; it must be part of infrastructure planning and design. Today, all attention is focused on Microsoft. The world's favorite target has fallen victim to a password-stealing virus that got a hold of passwords that can access the source code to upcoming versions of Windows and Office. It is unclear whether or not the perpetrators were able to use the passwords to actually access and manipulate the source code, however if the source code was accessed two questions remain. 1. Was the code manipulated in some way that could open the door for later attacks or other problems? Microsoft claims no, the code has maintained it's integrity. Other than to trust Microsoft's word we may never know the answer. 2. Does the ability for a criminal group to view the source code destroy the security by obscurity that is key to so many commercial software products? In the open source community, numerous hackers examine products and contribute solutions to flaws in the products. In the commercial world, many companies rely on their development team to produce secure code and then keep the source code secret to not only protect their intellectual property, but also to minimize potential attacks that could be launched against the product. In this case, the loss of security by obscurity could result in a criminal having intimate knowledge of the product development cycle to be able to develop targeted attacks on future Microsoft products. Regardless of the quality of Microsoft products, the mere fact that the company was able to recognize that this incident occurred is unfortunately unique. Many corporations might never know this had happened to them. In fact the ability to isolate the incident to specific networks or machine is quite difficult in many environments. The other interesting thing going on here is the Trojan horse attack. These attacks have been discussed for several years now and the current solution has been to use content filtering software to detect the attack. If you are one of the world's favorite targets, the Trojan horse writer will write the attack specifically at you. By the time the anti-virus companies know about the Trojan horse and are able to detect and stop it, it's too late. Unfortunately, it has taken a high profile incident like this for awareness to spread. One solution is to seperate general purpose computing such as internet surfing and email from sensitive computing such as accessing source code or controlling IT infrastructure. This is what the military does. They run 2 networks that are physically isolated from each other. A less expensive solution is to keep all executable content from reaching workstations such as executable programs, active HTML content, or documents that contain macros. This is difficult to acheive in reality so physical seperation is the the only way to be sure you are secure. The Wall Street Journal broke this story and pretty much everybody is currently running it. Look for more information and speculation to filter out through the rest of the day.

• Wall Street Journal via MSNBC
• Reuters
• CNNfn
• CNET
• Newsbytes
• AP via ABC News
• Reuters via Excite re: Microsoft Stock Price
• http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.hll w.qaz.a.html
• F-Secure's Qaz description via datafellows.com

Check this one out. Cool or what? Too bad it's way too expencive, I wonder who will buy one for $250?
The idea is great though, use your old cassette players. Second bad thing is that it can only hold 30min of music.
They don't say how much the flash addon costs, but I bet it will be expencive also.

Oh well, bed time, night folks!

"We start seeing these new accounts being created, but that could be an anomaly of the system," Miller said. "After a day or two, we realized it was someone hacking into the system."

Sounds like it's OK if accounts create themselves, as long as it isn't too frequent. Just when you get a lot of them is it indicative of a breakin?

If any attempts to download or transfer the source code were made, such activity was not recorded in Microsoft's logs, Miller said, adding that it is unlikely any source code files were copied because of their immense size.

Good grief! What were they writing? Software bloat as a protection against theft? So, if it's so big, how do they know it wasn't hacked?

Microsoft's source codes are the most coveted in the multibillion-dollar industry.

I still can't figure out who would want Microsoft source code. Basing a new product on code you have transferred from another group is hard enough with their cooperation, basing it on a snapshop stolen from a breaking would seem to be pointless: you are better off starting from scratch.

With access to these software blueprints, competitors could write programs that undermine Microsoft--or use the data to identify vulnerabilities, making computer break-ins and virus writing easier.

Ah, the media fully buying into the "security by obscurity" approach. The underlying assumption is that any software must be so full of security holes that we couldn't possibly let people look at the sources. How clueless.

I don't think one could have written a better satire if one tried. It is sad, however, that technical reporters write this kind of drivel as serious reporting (probably directly copied from some PR releases) and people in power believe it.

CNET : News : Entertainment & Media : Story

-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...

• CBS MarketWatch
• C|Net
• The Register
• The BBC
• Wall Street Journal
• Basically
• Microsoft suspect the access was granted to St Petersburg (Russia) computer systems by use of the QAZ Trojan. The FBI is investigating.
  

I quote from cnet.com news:

The surprise settlement, which appears to be lower than Caldera's earlier demands, defused a number of potential antitrust time bombs for the software giant. Although many legal analysts thought Microsoft had strong arguments in its favor, a ruling against it could have given fuel to recently filed class-action suits.

In other words, they settled out of court, for much less than Caldera was asking, to get it over with quickly and without admitting guilt. Had they gone through the courts, paying lawyers and getting more publicity they wouldn't like, they might possibly have lost, which would have been a disaster. (And they settled cheap: Caldera was going for $400 million, plus $1.6 billion in punitive damages, for a total of $2 billion; the settlement was about $150 million, or 92.5 percent less than Caldera was going for.)

And I quote from the Planet IT article, on what Caldera charged Microsoft with:

The suit alleged that Microsoft wrongfully stifled competition by pre-announcing new software products, notably MS-DOS, before it was ready, in a deliberate attempt to discourage users of DR-DOS, which was later purchased by Caldera from Novell. The suit, which alleged numerous violations of antitrust laws, was filed in federal court in Salt Lake City.

And I still never saw "test for DR-DOS and break" in the code.

steveha

ZeroKnowledge's product, although very sophisticated, suffers from a number of drawbacks that make it difficult to use for most people in common situations. It is clearly not a one click solution to privacy that is accessible for everyone, anywhere, for free, without downloads. Online privacy problems affect everyone, yet most publicized solutions are only partial or specialized and consequently impractical and frustrating for the average Internet user. These users then resign themselves to surrendering their online privacy as a technical cost of using the Internet. The result is a flawed Internet community, and governments threatening to regulate the Internet with overtones of censorship.

First, let's address some issues I raised in my original post.

(1) ZeroKnowledge's product, Freedom, costs: $49.95 USD

(2) It is unnecessarily slow, bouncing packets between three 2nd tier ISPs.

(3) It is easy to block at firewalls since it requires fixed ports 5110 through 51113 to be open ( the second to last line on this page describes this incompatibility ).

(4) It only runs on Win95/98.

(5) It does not work with AOL, CompuServe2000, and some free ISPs. Even if you think "AOL sucks" as one commentator said, Internet privacy is a global issue and by protecting the 24M AOL users we protect ourselves by making it more difficult for eavesdroppers in general.

(6) It does not work with popular software such as McAfee's Personal Firewall, FrontPage webserver, Netware Client32. If you are using Nyms, it also does not work with Outlook, Napster, or PCAnywhere. This is documented on the ZeroKnowledge website under the main support page as #3 among the Top 10 Known Issues and detailed in Issue #57: Applications not supported by Freedom.

(7) ZeroKnowlege has difficulty with cookies. Their support page lists two known, unresolved problems dealing with client-side cookies in Issue #222: Websites say I don't have cookies enabled and Issue #223: Some websites won't let me log in.

(8) Most users are simply not going to be willing to (or, in managed networks, permitted to) install Freedom. The office is where users have access to a new computer, fast Internet connections, and a nice laser printer. In the increasingly long workday, many people are forced to attend to personal matters from their workplace. Individuals need private access to the Internet at work just as they need private access to the telephone to conduct their lives.

(9) ZeroKnowledge users must register personal and credit card information. The less information out there about you the more secure and private you'll be online.

I respect and admire ZeroKnowlege for the challenges they took on in addressing Internet privacy issues. However, their product is very specialized in its architecture and designed to solve a particular subset of privacy problems. The ZK folks have been big supporters, educators, and sponsors of privacy, and we owe them our gratitude. Finally, the depth of their technical product speaks directly to their skill set and ingenuity.

I'm posting to inform people about our web-based solution to the privacy problem, a solution that addresses all the issues outlined above and that aims to serve a broader audience. Our approach has many distinct technical challenges just like the download model. We do not claim to have the complete solution, but we feel we are the closest to a practical solution that works for the majority of Internet users. Ultimately the veracity of these claims will be borne out by users: try out SafeWeb and compare it to Freedom. Decide for yourself. Again, if you have constructive feedback in how we can build a better privacy technology we are eager to hear your suggestions. Email us at webmaster@safeweb.com.

Jon Chun
President
SafeWeb

Actually, there have been some news reports about AT&T breaking up into 4 different companies. Maybe they are just gearing up for the future :)


Enigma

(1) Costs money which experience shows very few will pay for

(2) Very slow due to fundamental network design of bouncing packets multiple times across smaller ISPs - nothing can be done about this

(3) Easy to block at firewall because it always runs at fixed high numbered ports (51101,02,07,09) so forget about relying upon access at work, libraries, schools, etc

(4) Currently only works/supported on Win95/98 - other version promised but none delivered and it will be a long, slow, expensive process to port and support - do you really think that Mac or Linux users will get the same support levels as Win95/98 users?

(5) Doesn't work with AOL (23M users in US), CompuServe 2000 (?M users) and free ISPs like DirecPC - over a quarter of US Internet users denied access.

(6) doesn't work with very popular software including McAfee Personal Firewall, Microsoft FrontPage personal webserver, Netware Client32, MS 98SE' Internet Connection Sharing, etc. Nyms will not work with common software such as MS Outlook, Napster, PCAnywhere, cookies filter utilities, etc. I don't know many web surfers who are not using at least one of these applications, which mean ZeroKnowledge will not work for them.

(7) Does not work with common web sites because it does not support client side cookies with nyms. How many users will tolerate being locked out of NYTimes.com or Yahoo.com?

(8) Is a large software download that is easily blocked from installation, detected running, and removed automatically from managed corporate networks - upto 50M US corporate workers lost.

The best way to avoid all these problems is to avoid download software packages altogether. A web-based privacy solution should work with your existing browser, computer, network, and ISP but provide the same levels of encryption as ZeroKnowledge.

Anonymizer has been the best of the web-based privacy solutions but it (1) costs money $60/yr, (2) doesn't encrypt you personal web traffic so all data is visible except the URL, and (3) doesn't work with most popular rich web sites like sony.com, hotmail, webvan, etrade, etc because they cannot handle DHTML like JavaScript, VBScript, CSS. Instead, it either blocks all DHTML breaking a site's functionality *OR* passes it unprotected which reveals your identity online.

SafeWeb.com is a web-based privacy solution that just launched last Wednesday (See CNET news.com). SafeWeb is the solves all the problems that both ZeroKnowledge and Anonymizer have listed above and enables users to surf the entire web privately (cookie management anonymity) and securely (128bit SSL) from anywhere at anytime for free - no downloads. SafeWeb finally delivers a practical solution to the growing problems of online privacy by solving all these technical problems with an easy to use service for your existing browser. Let us know your feedback at webmaster@safeweb.com and in this forum.

Jon Chun
President
SafeWeb

... was TouchNet. I found a News.com article from 1996 about it.

He also founded Chuck E. Cheese.

As much ire is directed at Rambus, I can't see the logic behind this. Ashton-Tate is relevant because they channeled resources into legal wrangling, rather than R&D and customer service. They failed, by putting all their eggs into one basket, a very wrong basket.

Check this out: in the last quarter, Rambus made $10 mil. on total revenues of $27 mil. Ok, so far so good (for a hideously overvalued speculative stock). The kicker is this (unfortunately, they took this little tidbit out of a previous version of this article on news.com): during the quarter, Rambus spent $1 million *per month* on legal fees. That's right--their legal fees were about a third of their profits and over 11% of their entire revenues!

Guess that's why they dropped their suit against Hitachi the day it was actually given a go-ahead by the courts. Of course, now that they're being countersued by not one but two industry giants (Micron and Infineon), with very deep pockets and very annoyed looks on their faces, those legal fees are just going to keep going higher and higher. And every single company in the industry--Intel included (if not Intel most of all!)--is going to enjoy watching them slowly bleed to death on legal fees.

Fact is that not a single ISP uses S/390 systems for serving web content. If the IO of these machines would be so excellent, why don't they use them?

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Granted, S/390 is not the most popular hardware for ISP's, plenty use S/390. Here's an article about one.

Here's an article where ebay discsses the possibility of moving to the S/390 platform.

This article discusses how some government agencies are web-enabling their mainframes.

I'll grant that traditionally IBM mainframes can be a bear from the usability perspective. However, things are changing quite quickly, especially with the advent of Linux on the S/390.

have a day,

-l

The chart says that the phones are being rated in W/kg. Does this mean that they are factoring in the weight of the phone?

As recently reported by the Associated Press, promiment Senator John McCain (R-AZ), joined by three other Republicans, has recently begun promoting mandated internet 'filtering' in public libraries and schools. Doesn't it seems strange that a party, whose major planks focus individual rights and freedom, is behind a proposal to obstruct it? What is your opinion on this? Is this a violation of civil liberties?

Why do you have to analyze all the results? If the first file you check has had the watermark removed, and sounds fine, you can bet you are screwed. The files are all independent. The extent to which the first file has been cracked does not depend on the next 449 files.

If I recall correctly, the hacksdmi.org website said that they would be performing some sort of quantitative test to determine how much the uploaded song differs from the original. Given that this test and the test for the watermark can both be easily automated, they have a pretty good idea of how "cracked" their algorithms are.

Sure, they will still want to do more analysis of the samples. Any they probably want to try and wrangle the details out of the people who submitted the samples. But they know. And that's why they're pissed. They know which uploads have the watermark, and they know how similar to the original they all are. If this crap worked at all, they would have said something positive.

Curiously, at almost the same time, the RIAA announced a new program to prevent piracy. See the C|Net story here. The idea is to create a "digital bar code" for songs to allow tracking of copyright information, etc. On the face of it, this sounds like a whole new tack for the RIAA. Any maybe it is. However, the article says:

Nevertheless, if it proves to be difficult to tamper with, the system could be a potential way of identifying authorized and unauthorized songs being traded through services such as Napster.


It sounds to me like the exec's at the RIAA know that their SDMI scheme is going down in flames, and are looking for a backup. However, it sounds like they are going to head right back down the watermark path. Only this time, instead of trying to encode a single bit (play / don't play), they will be trying to encode hundreds or thousands of bits. Whoever brought up Don Quixote in an earlier SDMI thread was right on the money. These folks aren't ever going to learn.

Who ever decided to call this technology watermarking anyway? It's really a horribly inaccurate name. The whole point to a real watermark is that it's difficult to create, and easy for everyone to see. But with "digital watermarks" the idea is to make it invisible. An invisible watermark it what they should call it. Maybe then people would understand what a stupid idea it is.

It would seem the above links aren't helpful at this time, so here's a few that might shed some light in this already ageing news piece:

- http://www.pcworld.com/news/ar tic le.asp?aid=31482

Also next year, Intel will probably announce an ultralow-voltage 500-MHz chip for subnotebooks that should be extremely battery-friendly. The company demonstrated a processor running at 300-MHz.

- http://www.zdnet.c om/ zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2639424,00.html

When Intel Corp.'s Frank Spindler disclosed that the chip giant is fast tracking the production of a new ultra-low-power chip for notebooks, there was an interested eavesdropper nearby.

- http://cnet. com /news/0-1003-200-3156114.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed. ni

SAN JOSE, Calif.--Intel said it will enhance energy-saving features in processors for laptops and begin shipping new mobile Pentium chips next year as competition intensifies.

Actually, it'll only cost $1,500 according to C|Net.
It's a decent article. Check it out.

Why is an AIBO k3wl3r than a real dog?
It won't freak out my cats.

ot to gloat or anything, but these are bad times for Microsoft.

I really wouldn't say that. With the economy still expanding in spite of the stability in the stock market, good news for Linux isn't necessarily bad news for Microsoft. Both platforms are attempting to grab pieces of the pie, but the pie is getting bigger, and quickly.

Microsoft has had a lot of positive news as well since the summer. It's pretty clear that the anti-trust litigation is losing momentum on the government side, and as far as platform expansion goes, Microsoft has made some major steps, the first being the release of Datacenter Server, their attempt at challenging Sun's dominance for midrange databases. This is the first release where Microsoft is guaranteeing a support organization for its product.

In addition, Microsoft has launch a slate of back-end enterprise applications, notably Exchange 2000, which add functionality to the platform, so a comprehensive web or ebusiness infrastructure can be built around Microsoft products. Of course, M$ isn't the first to offer the functionality, but they do offer relatively easy integration, something purchasing decsions tend to be based around. For example, Exchange 2000 adds instant messaging, VoIP, and Multimedia Conferencing to the base email server

That said, I'm no Microsoft fan, but I do feel that the holy wars and score keeping do undermine the image and goals of Linux and Open Source.

Since the article had only a cursory reference to EV8, let me elaborate on this most significant product. It isn't very often that an idea comes that is so revolutionary that it causes a discontinuity in the year verses performance curve. First was the idea of RISC. Next came the idea of having a plurality of execution units and issuing more than one instruction per cycle. Then came the idea of executing instructions out-of-order. What will be the next major paradigm shift? The answer is Simultaneous Multithreading. And Alpha (EV8) is the chip that is spearheading this revolution. The problem of how to always keep the pipeline full has vexed architects for years. The solution presented by SMT is deceptively simple. When bubbles appear in the pipeline due to branch mispredicts, resource conflicts, etc, why not execute other threads? Most modern operating systems have multiple threads running simultaneously anyway. By adding only 5% additional SMT control circuit, EV8 performance will double. Contras this to the competitor's CMP approach (chip level multiprocessing) where doubling the chip area produces less than double the performance. Make no mistake, SMT is the next big thing. Expect other companies to follow suit. Even Intel expressed interest in embracing SMT in their future processors. Microprocessor Report Volume 13, Number 16, December 6 1999, page 10. I'm speaking only for myself.

What the enterprise customer does is set up an initial install with the OS and application and then clone it to new PCs with Norton Ghost. (I recently used the personal edition for $99 to back up a freshly installed dual-boot windows system and I think it's just dandy; now comprehends linux ext2 filesystems).

The problem is that if the enterprise customer bought the PC from a tradition Microsoft OEM, it will come preinstalled with Windows, and they'll be required to pay twice for it, as discussed at Paying Twice for Windows and Microsoft licensing deals confuse customers, study says.

Eventually Microsoft yielded somewhat, but only for the largest customers, as discussed in Commentary: Microsoft hasn't totally reversed its policy on fees.

This is a problem because traditional Microsoft OEMs are contractually obligated by Microsoft to install some operating system on every machine they sell. Microsoft claims that this is to cut down on piracy, but it has the added effect of discouraging people from trying out other operating systems.

The solution? Encourage the enterprise customers to purchase hardware with no operating system at all installed on it from OEMs that have no relationship with Microsoft. Then the customer can do their Ghost cloning without any worry about double license fees. This will work well both for the large enterprise customers that may have been helped by the minor adjustment in Microsoft's policy, as well as the smaller enterprise that were no helped out.

If you work for one of the traditional linux hardware vendors, I'd like to suggest to you that you view Microsoft Windows enterprise customers as a new market opportunity, not just to sell Linux to, but just to sell naked hardware to. If the hardware has no OS installed at all, there's no OS support issues to be concerned with, as there might be if you put some Linux distro on it.

Consider also that although trying to sell a machine bundled with Linux might meet resistance from a company that really does need its Windows applications to do business, selling naked hardware and emphasizing savings on Windows license fees is an easy foot in the door. Once you establish a rapport with the customer you'll have a better chance to upsell them to Linux.

Also consider that if Microsoft OEMs start losing significant hardware sells to folks like VA Linux Systems, Penguin Computing, Tuxtops and the screwdriver shops, they'll be a little more aggressive about getting Microsoft to back down on requiring an OS to be installed.

Of course, an alternative to the traditional OEM vendors is to just preinstall Debian and include a clause in the contract stating that the preinstall OS software is not supported by anyone. That just pretty much screws Microsoft up the Yin-Yang.

What the enterprise customer does is set up an initial install with the OS and application and then clone it to new PCs with Norton Ghost. (I recently used the personal edition for $99 to back up a freshly installed dual-boot windows system and I think it's just dandy; now comprehends linux ext2 filesystems).

The problem is that if the enterprise customer bought the PC from a tradition Microsoft OEM, it will come preinstalled with Windows, and they'll be required to pay twice for it, as discussed at Paying Twice for Windows and Microsoft licensing deals confuse customers, study says.

Eventually Microsoft yielded somewhat, but only for the largest customers, as discussed in Commentary: Microsoft hasn't totally reversed its policy on fees.

This is a problem because traditional Microsoft OEMs are contractually obligated by Microsoft to install some operating system on every machine they sell. Microsoft claims that this is to cut down on piracy, but it has the added effect of discouraging people from trying out other operating systems.

The solution? Encourage the enterprise customers to purchase hardware with no operating system at all installed on it from OEMs that have no relationship with Microsoft. Then the customer can do their Ghost cloning without any worry about double license fees. This will work well both for the large enterprise customers that may have been helped by the minor adjustment in Microsoft's policy, as well as the smaller enterprise that were no helped out.

If you work for one of the traditional linux hardware vendors, I'd like to suggest to you that you view Microsoft Windows enterprise customers as a new market opportunity, not just to sell Linux to, but just to sell naked hardware to. If the hardware has no OS installed at all, there's no OS support issues to be concerned with, as there might be if you put some Linux distro on it.

Consider also that although trying to sell a machine bundled with Linux might meet resistance from a company that really does need its Windows applications to do business, selling naked hardware and emphasizing savings on Windows license fees is an easy foot in the door. Once you establish a rapport with the customer you'll have a better chance to upsell them to Linux.

Also consider that if Microsoft OEMs start losing significant hardware sells to folks like VA Linux Systems, Penguin Computing, Tuxtops and the screwdriver shops, they'll be a little more aggressive about getting Microsoft to back down on requiring an OS to be installed.

Of course, an alternative to the traditional OEM vendors is to just preinstall Debian and include a clause in the contract stating that the preinstall OS software is not supported by anyone. That just pretty much screws Microsoft up the Yin-Yang.

I just got a KDS AV-21TF, from onvia.com for ~$760, shipping included.

2048x1536 @80hz max resolution.
1600x1200 @85hz recommended resolution.
.24 dot pitch.
Flat Sony trinitron screen.

The Gimp is mind-blowing on this thing. Text looks decent, too. Really shows off enlightenment. If you're jealous of those 1600x1200 e.themes.org screenshots, this one might be the ticket. Not too heavy, either -- only about 60 lbs.

(Note, the price dropped right after I got it -- $733 now. Hint for shoppers: you have to consider the shipping which is usually $40 for a large item like this and can run to $80. soft4u.com seems to have the best price right now at $733.53 and free shipping.)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but a quick search reveals that Shankland has written a great many articles for news.com, many of them on Linux.

Though it's true that I didn't recognize his name, I should have done my homework before posting.

-Waldo

As previously reported, the Web redesign is aimed at providing improved ease of use, said Susan Merit, Netscape's vice president for design and production, while better targeting the company's chosen market of professional, at-work users. The Web redesign will also provide more integration with the company's new Netscape 6.0 Web browser, she said....

Netscape 6.0 preview 3 will have a new look over previous versions, LaGuardia said, based on feedback from preview 2 beta testers, who had the opportunity to try out and design a variety of new interfaces, or "skins." Preview 3 won't offer a broad range of new features, he added, saying this version is primarily aimed at addressing stability and performance issues.

BTW I disagree that Corel will be rethinking their Linux strategy. They made all their money back in the first week of sales. PCData said Corel had 23% of Linux retail sales in Jul. Corel has also been a very popular download at CNet and TUCOWS. True that last quarter's earnings showed only $1.2 million in Linux sales but this was due to the rebates used to clear the channel of the older version to make way for ver 1.2. Originally they were only going to put it out as a free download but as a retail product only released last Nov they have made $12 mil in sales which is not too bad considering it is only a sideline product.

Corel is planning an enterprise version along with Rebel and Graph on which will have higher margins. WP 10-Linux will be native to Linux which should make the critics happy. I think Corel can make money with Linux but it will take time. At least now they have the resources to make it work.

CNET, ZDNet usually only quote anti-MS folks for legal analysis.

We read about this, didn't we kids?

"1. Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch." Far fetched? Hear me out.

Slashdot, Vanguard (according to Katz, anyway) of the Geek Culture, is a victim of it's own success. I started here not long after Linux hit the mainstream, just as I got curious about the "new OS in town". Seemed like a nice spot. I think a search engine link brought me here. My first post was some drivel about how Linux zealots were being hipocrytes - they wanted users, but only the smart ones, and that wasn't how to complete the "World Domination" they craved. My little diatribe seemed well recieved, and caused a good discussion to happen - so I created my account and have stuck around. (Actually, IIRC, my response was to a someone slagging Kats when he was trying to install Linux on his laptop - and Taco helped him with it. Ironic, eh?) It seems I've watched /. go downhill ever since. Why? Simple - the human need for acceptance. This, faithful Slashdot Readers, Friends, Moderators, Karma Whores and Trolls, is the itch that /. scratches.

The one thing that always strikes one full in the face about the "geek culture" is that it's real currency is Intellect, and the display thereof. CmdrTaco, in his infinite wisdom, put a real, monetary value to the intellegence displayed by we people who post - Karma points - instead of measuring them by the quality of the thread created. Now, intead of soliciting replies in order to get lively debate, discussion and possibly New Clues, we solicit Karma. Karma, so we don't look like idiots to our peers. Or, if we figure that we don't rate, and haven't got the chance to, we troll or pop in as an AC - to hopefully deflect some of the moderators away from putting other people's "Inellect" ahead of our own. Signal 11 is right - it's now a contest to see who can win the title of "Most Intellegent Geek", not "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" - we all seem to want scratch our itch to be viewed as "Intelligent" to our peers.

No Slashdot account with a cool nic? You're just not in the game anymore, man. Don't run Linux? Further damage to your credibility. Only 3 Karma points? HAHAHHAH, you're either a moron or a Micr$oft shill, dude!

Personally, it's getting to the point that I don't give a flying fuck about my Karma anymore. +1 Bonus? Who cares. It'll just be drowned out in the rush to be first with some sort of incredibly pendantic navel gazing that we've all heard before. "Preaching to the Chior" indeed.

At least I don't have to sort through C/Net, ZDNet,Kiro5hin or the BBC to get to the importatnt stuff anymore - just the repeat stories here. VA - you've been HAD.

"Thank you for your post. That'll be 5.95 in Karma, buddy"

Okay, let's compare apples to apples. First you can READ the article about the W2k bug, then you can READ the bugzilla list, and get back to me on which of those bugs count as "core operating system" bugs. Of course, you may not know what an "active directory" is, or if it's part of the "core operating system", as you say, but I'd be interested to know what you think.

Granted, /. borked their facts on this one, and most of the bugs don't sound all that bad as far as I'm concerned, but really, what's your point?

This is a detailed article on "the one bug".

ahem... Microso ft invests in Corel, settles legal disputes from Cnet.

http://yahoo. cne t.com/news/0-1003-200-2917375.html?pt.yfin.cat_fin .txt.ne

Some choice snippets from the article:

"In turn, the two companies will work together on developing and testing products for Microsoft's .Net effort, which lets customers "rent" software over the Internet. Microsoft.Net will also encompass cell phones and handhelds computers."

Rather unsettling, eh?

"The two companies have also agreed to settle unspecified legal issues between them."

Anybody happen to have an idea on just which legal issues they might be referring to?

""They didn't want Apple to go away as a major competitor and they probably don't want Corel to go away right away, especially when things are on appeal," Enderle said. The deal may also give Microsoft access to in-house technology at Corel, including some Linux technology."

MS Linux? ::shivers::

The cnet story is very poorly written, so I understand how it was interpretted by the original submittor, but Supreme Court ruling only confirmed the 9th Circuits ruling that SONY was not entitled to injunctive relief, therefor allowing the release of the Mac version of Virtual Game Station.

Here is today's ruling as report by the wire services. AP.

"The court, without comment Monday, let Connectix continue selling its Virtual Game Station until a lower court rules on Sony's claim of unfair competition."

If you're in the mood to get me a gift, how about this? Sure beats this monster, as reliable as it's been for the last year and a half.

Don't hesitate to get in touch with me or peruse my other lists. A lot of shiny tech stuff catches my eye on a regular basis, so I'm a self-proclaimed expert. Heh.

--

When Inprise is done porting Delphi to Linux, I'll have to port it over. Until then, just boot over to Windows if you have it, or recommend it to your OS-impaired friends.

--