Slashdot Mirror

Image 2 looks pretty cool, a cross between hens-and-chicks and ice plant or maybe an anemone

Image 1 looks like something those m3dz are supposed to do for the below average male.

Image 6 reminds me of something I pulled out of the liver of a lake perch (wonder how that thing lived, make sure you cook fish thoroughly!)

I'm guessing that this generated image was a result of enlargment/viagara ads.

All-in-all, the plants look cooler than the other ads, but I think a video showing the plant 'growing' with spam would be more interesting than the stills

Your honor, my site, godschosensluts.com, clearly indicated the adult nature of its content with the meta-tag 'zune'. I have no idea why Microsoft chose that name for their music player, but the Hebrew languages pre-dates Microsoft by at lease 5000 years.

http://news.com.com/Old+PlayStation+tops+holiday+g ame+console+sales/2100-1040_3-249457.html

Not the link I was looking for, but it does back up what I was saying.

Actually, it's back up. Here's a news article, and here's the site.

All our fears have come true - it has proper backups. Next they'll re-release with "new features".

This may have to do with the banner exploit that appeared across who knows how many myspace profiles. http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-6097156.html

Before this deal, AMD had about $3bn in cash. The Register says that Morgan Stanley will loan AMD about $2.5bn to get the deal done. This will leave AMD with no spare cash to fight the long war against the onslaught of Intel Core processors and upcoming quad-core Xeons - due this year. Disclosure - I just picked up 600 Intel shares at $17.50.

MySpace hit by security breach July 21, 2006 12:57 PM PDT More than a million MySpace users have been exposed to spyware that exploits a Windows vulnerability through a banner ad on the site, the BBC reported on Friday. Those using Internet Explorer that has not been patched against the Windows Meta File (WMF) vulnerability could be exposed to spyware and adware. The vulnerability in the way WMF images are handled by Windows was discovered in November 2005. In a WMF attack, exploit code is hidden within a seemingly normal image that can be spread via e-mails or instant messages, or via Web sites. Reports suggest the advert has been running for approximately a week. Security company iDefense detected computer servers being used to log how many times adware was installed from the advert, according to the Washington Post. More than one million installations of the adware were logged before the servers were shut down.

Back in 2003 SCO held a media event called the SCO forum where then CEO Darl McBride said this:

"They have found already a mountain of code," he said. "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix."

That and this next quote came from a CNET News article from August 2003 which also goes on to describe some of what Chris Sontag, head of the company's SCOsource effort had to say:

"I can understand one or two lines being in common," said Sontag, who is charged with maintaining the company's intellectual property rights surrounding Unix. "But when you're talking about this level of variables being the same...the comment sections all being the same, it's problematic."

Sontag then showed, in a series of slides, Linux code that he claimed has been literally copied from Unix. He said numerous comments, unusual spellings and typographical errors had also been copied directly into Linux.

So, if any of that was really ever true, then why doesn't SCO just show the judge the mountain of evidence which they angrily told the media about back in mid-2003? Instead, according to the Forbes article, they are now complaining that "code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code."

"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."

Java was attacked by Microsoft very early on because of the threat that a multiplatform language represented to their bottom line. Microsoft engaged in something they do very well, FUD, in order to do whatever they could to make Java a less than attractive option. Check this old article

The more people use macs the less we'll see fewer and fewer "internet explorer" only web sites (score: +3 Intersting? Try score: -1 revisionism)

When Bill Gates rescued Apple from bankruptcy, part of the deal was that Apple would
attack Netscape and only support Microsoft Internet explorer. Evidence here.

Truth hurts, I know. Fanboys need to suck it up, though.

Yes, Myspace has an ecosystem. They have adware. They have spyware. They have spam. They have Zango. They have affiliates. It's like AOL gone bad.

They do. In the UK there's the Association of Independent Music, and in Australia there's AIR. In Canada there's CIRPA, and in the US there's the A2IM. I found these by taking a few seconds to goodle on "independent record labels."

Many, if not most of them, do issue press releases, as you suggest.

I suspect that while the indie labels aren't suing people left and right, they may not be as pro-piracy as you expect. I knew a fellow once who ran an indie record label. He had ten employees and paid himself the princely sum of $20K per year. When x% of the population opted to pirate rather than buy a CD from a major label, all it meant was that somebody you never heard of got laid off or didn't get a raise that year. When his artists' works started showing up on the P2P services, it meant that he had to lay off his friends. Although it's the major labels (through their mouthpiece, the RIAA) make the most noise about piracy, the large RIAA-affiliated labels are actually more resilient to piracy, while the indie labels often run on razor-thin budgets. We can talk about how piracy actually helps the artist because it gets their music out there, we might buy a shirt or go to a concert, etc. but the reality for the tiny 10-person labels (who put up the cash to fund the CDS and who rely on sales to stay in business) is that they must pay the rent and pay their employees each month -- no exceptions, no excuses. If income isn't meeting expenses, it's simply not enough that some 17-year-old in Minnesota loves the copy of your CD that he got via BitTorrent.

For those who can't remember...

Who wants to take bets that someone will have a patch out there before MS does, much like with the WMF flaw?

How many more machines have to be compromised before users begin to take matters into their own hands?

The arrogance of MS is astounding. And don't say it's because of testing.

I hail Microsoft's perceived "softening" as a positive step albeit driven largely by legal fiat. However, one need only read this article on Microsoft and their stance against Google to realize and recognize Microsoft retains its hubris and aggressive stance.

Consider from the above article:

Turner said the company is also gearing up to take on IBM and Oracle, among other competitors, with new products slated for debut in the next few months. But he saved his most acerbic comments for Google.

"Those people are not going to be allowed to take food off of our plate, because that is what they are intending to do," he said.

The hubris is Microsoft's assumption anyone getting business is taking food off of their plate, or something they consider rightfully theirs, as opposed to customers who make choices in a free marketplace. Fortunately the marketplace is tipped somewhat more towards a level playing field (not all the way, but better than before).

It's not necessarily "bungling," either. Apple simply did not spend enough money with IBM for it to be worth it to IBM to spend R&D on Apple products.

Then maybe IBM shouldn't have promised 3 ghz 970's within a year, three years ago.

IBM can expect Microsoft to buy as many as 50 million XBox360 CPU's over the next five years.

And Apple ships about 4 million machines a year, some with multiple processors. So we'll say 25 million for the same time period. And everyone who keeps throwing around the "50 million cell processors" assumes that both a Cell and a 970 have the same profit margin for IBM. I don't know what they are either, but I doubt IBM makes more per Cell because it's going in a game console, and console parts have to be cheap. If a 970 nets twice as much money, Macs and the Xbox are now on even footing, profit wise. And there's no reason IBM couldn't do what Nvidia does - crank out crazy fast chips and charge crazy prices and make a tidy profit. Apple's pro market would happily plunk down ten grand on a machine with dual quad core 970's running over 3 ghz in speed. Finally, IBM uses the 970 in blade servers, so slacking off on the production of the chip is hurting them, too.

Sony may buy as many as 50 million Cell processors over the next five years.

Not if they don't stop tying to make the PS3 stillborn upon launch.

How many G5's has Apple bought? Three million?

Would have been a lot more if they had a mobile 970 to stick in their laptops and Mini's.

There's no 3GHz G5 because Apple's orders would not cover IBM's investment in creating it.

No, there is no 3 ghz G5 because IBM dropped the ball, period. Maybe in a couple years we'll be hearing the excuse that Sony was "too small a customer" for IBM to crank out as many Cell's as needed.

"Why can't MySpace screen it's advertisers?"

I don't know about myspace but a company I worked for years ago got hit by a similar problem. At that time they were letting Falk serve ads, a machine there got compromised and was used to spread images using some IE exploit:
http://news.com.com/Attackers+strike+using+Web+ads /2100-7349_3-5463323.html

Open for whom?

The policy, which Microsoft senior vice president Brad Smith said was 'committed to creating a transparent system that allows open competition,'

I can't write my own device drivers anymore.
I can't download bug fixes for DX9 without WGA being enabled, yet I own over twelve Windows Licenses.
I can't benchmark programs and publish results.
I can't take any legally purchased WMA's and play them under Linux.
I can't have drive space for my own stuff because of Windows bloat.
I can't have my money back on eleven of those twelve Microsoft licenses.
I can't have days added back onto my life span for having to waste time reinstalling Windows for various reasons.

But hey Microsoft, I just want you to know that I am happy to be a part of Apples 12% Mac increase this quarter. http://news.com.com/Mac+sales+up+12+percent+as+App le+profits+soar/2100-1047_3-6096116.html?tag=nefd. top

Open my Ass.
Enjoy,

Unfortunately the CNN.com article left out an interesting nugget of information: Google doodling can be quite lucrative.

We mentioned in this CNET News.com piece how Mr. Hwang cashed in $489,000 worth of stock in one sale (and that was when Google was much less richly valued): http://news.com.com/2061-10786_3-5447373.html

I apologize for not citing sources for the HD-DVD over Blu-Ray debate. I figured it was common knowledge at this point, what with the AV forums buzzing about it.

The whole thing about Cell yields isn't that they're low (of course we expect them to be low when starting production) it's that its look like they'reFAR LOWER THEN EXPECTED.

And since you asked, I don't have a link but IIRC the last cost estimated the Cell and RSX chips cost Sony ~$110 a piece. No idea about how the RSX yeilds are. I'd almost be more conserned about RAM yeilds though.

If you do the math you're probably thinking that means there will only be 1.6 million units ready to go by launch (assuming both Asustek and Hon Hai each hit 200k/mo.) The article goes on to state that the production will increase to two million units by October -- at least for Asustek.

The question is, will there be enough cell processors to stuff into these boxes with yields being so aweful?

There are a number of CEO's that take a $1 paycheck. The CEO of Yahoo for example http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6079650.html

This is not that they are such great CEO's necessarily, but it is also because they are making plenty of money without a large salary. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P143257.asp

You would think that the SGI name has enough high end appeal that nVidia or ATI would want to market SGI branded video cards.

For some time now SGI have been using ATI cards to power their machines - even on the high end. How much more prestiege there is to be gained, especially for nVidia who weren't picked, I don't know.

Does anyone else find it a little funny that Microsoft bought out Winternals to get Mark Russinovich? According to a Microsoft employee, "Mark is one of the top five or 10 people in the world when it comes to Windows internals." I'd believe that, but isn't it just a little funny that Microsoft had to go to a 3rd party company to find an expert in the internals of Windows?

You probably have some insider information but everything I read so far suggested that with hardware virtualization support Xen can run unmodified Windows. See Xen passes Windows milestone for example. Another example, Novell follows Red Hat with Xen announcement which says "But with hardware features in Intel processors today and AMD processors due in coming months, Xen will be able to run other operating systems as well, including Microsoft Windows.".

Limited viewing wouldn't be a very good route to go; considering that other services are already allowing you to purchase a downloadable copy of all available movies which can be viewed indefinitely, and according to this CNET article, they're also expanding to allow you to burn them to DVD.

I know about Palms. I use my Zire 31 every day and like it plenty, but the newest units (Treos) are considered trash by everyone I know that uses them. Even Palm is dumping PalmOS (!) in favor of WinCE, or haven't you been reading the news?

Oh, and I didn't even mention Blackberries because:

1. They are not a true PDA, but a portable email device, and
2. Are apparently now illegal in the US (where I live) due to massive patent infringements.

Cheers,

-a.d.-

I know about Palms. I use my Zire 31 every day and like it plenty, but the newest units (Treos) are considered trash by everyone I know that uses them. Even Palm is dumping PalmOS (!) in favor of WinCE, or haven't you been reading the news?

Oh, and I didn't even mention Blackberries because:

1. They are not a true PDA, but a portable email device, and
2. Are apparently now illegal in the US (where I live) due to massive patent infringements.

Cheers,

-a.d.-

I know about Palms. I use my Zire 31 every day and like it plenty, but the newest units (Treos) are considered trash by everyone I know that uses them. Even Palm is dumping PalmOS (!) in favor of WinCE, or haven't you been reading the news?

Oh, and I didn't even mention Blackberries because:

1. They are not a true PDA, but a portable email device, and
2. Are apparently now illegal in the US (where I live) due to massive patent infringements.

Cheers,

-a.d.-

>don't make me fucking laugh.

You're laughing? More like living in denial.

• Microsoft continues to gain share in the web server market, chipping away at Apache's commanding lead
• Microsoft Corp. continued to grow its share of the relational database market in 2005
• Windows narrowly bumped Unix in 2005 to claim the top spot in server sales for the first time

But, hey, who needs facts for that "5" rating, when you just tell most slashdotters what they want to hear?

As much as I hate MS, it is nice to see a powerful company ruffling the feathers of a few governments that have until recently thought they can expel rationality from their shores by making declarations that 1+1=3 and laws to mandate it. I hope this "cultural insensitivity" continues.

a version of Windows XP aimed at Latin American markets asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch."

I also hope everyone can see the humour of it, it's a successful prankster joke we should just laugh about and then move on shrugging it off.

Using MS office is a tradeoff: more compatibility, less security.

Is Service Pack 3 on the horizon?

Anti-trust laws are the biggest impediment to the growth of progress

I disagree. In fact, anti-trust laws are necessary to maintain a democracy. Are you against democracy, sir?

on the basis that they stifle competition

A monopoly by definition has no competition. Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Furthermore monopolies often use unfair and anti-competitive practices to squash competition that have absolutely no benefit to the consumer. For example, Standard Oil used train agreements and other unfair business practices against competitors. Microsoft specifically putin instructions to prevent DR-DOS from being used with Windows 3.1. Both practices relied on the dominance of Standard Oil and Microsoft in their respective markets.

and create unnecessary burden on companies and the judicial system.

I disagree that it unncessary. Anti-trust laws, by regulating unfair business practices a necessary burden on the few companies large enough to become a monopoly. I would guess that the proportion of anti-trust cases and thus their "burden" to all legal cases in the U.S. to be minimal (probably less than 1%).

There is and was no-one stopping Netscape to giveaway a whole operating system (Linux - Suse?) in competition to MS giving away only a browser for free.

A horrible argument. If I'm competing with you in creating a product in market A, why should your standing in market B influence this? This is anti-competitive. To make an analogy, suppose we are to run a race (100 meter dash), but the condition is that I have to do a series of sommersaults and cartwheels before I can leave the starting line. The relative merit of our products (our ability to complete the 100 meter dash) is obscured by the fact you have an unfair advantage. My product may be superior and of better benefit to the customers, but you still "win".

a default monopoly market (Windows operating system) are corrected by ...more innovative players (Apple Mac OSX)

Your example of MacOSX is also not a valid example. Apple's OS market share is still less than 4% worldwide, despite its innovations. In addition Microsoft has (1) given funding to Apple and (2) continued to make Microsoft Office products for Apple. Why? It's not from the goodness of Bill Gate's heart. Microsoft provided funding and continued Office support for Apple precisely to prevent further anti-trust litigation. If there were no anti-trust laws, there would have been no further funding, nor further work on the Microsoft Office line for the Macintosh, and the Mac line would have gone the way of the Commodore Amiga.

Then why should humans create unrealistic market conditions by means of highly subjective laws like Anti-trust

Anti-trust laws exist in actual law and are part of the market conditions here in the United States. You can't get much more "realistic" than fact. Perhaps you live in another dimension?

As to the claim of subjectivity, my knowledge of anti-trust law is not sufficient to give a definitive argument on how subjective it is. But more to the point, you provide no evidence or argument as to why objectivity would automatically be superior.

Fundamentally, the problem with monopolies is the abuse of "bundling". For example, suppose you have a system of toll roads. Company A, through acquesitions, acquires a monopoly (or even a substantial, say 60%) of the toll roads. Company A keeps the prices competitive with other companies in regards to toll pricing. So far so good.

Now suppose Company A is competing with Company B in supplying and manufacturing cars. Company A adds as a "feature" that every car created by Company A automatically gets a 25% discount on the tolls. This creates a competitive advantage for Company A, and stifles the potential advantage for C

McAfee was notified of the flaw by eEye Digital Security on July 5, but at the time had already fixed the flaw in an update to its software that was released in January, Viega said. That update was meant to fine-tune the system, not fix security flaws, he said. The current version of ePO is 3.6, according to McAfee.

"We did not realize that we had fixed a security vulnerability until eEye alerted us to the problem last week," Viega said. "We were optimizing the system, not looking for security vulnerabilities." The optimization included changing from storing data in files to storing it in memory, which removed the flaw, he said.

In related stories: Microsoft Windows Servers remain secure.

"Oh, and no exploit on any non-Windows system has ever allowed an attacker to get administrator access by looking in a fracking picture like one MS exploit did."

The WMF vulnerability did not escalate priviledges. It ran code with the rights of the logged on user. As for non-Windows systems, there have been plenty of vulnerabilities that can be trigggered by looking at a picture, like this, and this, and this and this. I'm sure I could have found more, but I didn't feel like going past page two of my Google search.

"Either way, I mostly use FreeBSD now anyways."

As long time FreeBSD user, I must say I'm sorry to hear that.

"Oh, and no exploit on any non-Windows system has ever allowed an attacker to get administrator access by looking in a fracking picture like one MS exploit did."

The WMF vulnerability did not escalate priviledges. It ran code with the rights of the logged on user. As for non-Windows systems, there have been plenty of vulnerabilities that can be trigggered by looking at a picture, like this, and this, and this and this. I'm sure I could have found more, but I didn't feel like going past page two of my Google search.

"Either way, I mostly use FreeBSD now anyways."

As long time FreeBSD user, I must say I'm sorry to hear that.

If there was a +6 insightful, you'd get it. It makes a lot of sense.

However, the case was filed on December 13, 2004. The switch to Intel was announced in June 2005.

So, it was a couple of months, not a couple of weeks between their filing suit and the big switch announcement.

Also, its worth noting that it must have worked, because everyone was in the dark about Apple's intentions.

This reminds me of the coffee maker that uses SMS technology to turn on.

It takes enourmous amounts of capital, and even more importantly, reputation to compete in the processor space.

Damn straight -- startup costs in that industry are measured in billions of dollars. AMD's new plant is going to cost them $3.2 billion.

Demand for trade-secrets to be compromised?

To me, the EU is demanding documentation while it does not spell out exactly what it is looking for, other than the total and complete release of all trade secrets of the Microsoft Corporation.

I respectfully disagree. The EU made it clear that they do not *want* any source-code. They want an API specification: (here I quote from the EU decision of 2004).

To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.

(see http://news.com.com/EUs+statement+on+end+of+Micros oft+investigation/2100-1014_3-5178465.html?tag=nl) So: no source code. Furthermore I really don't understand how publishing an API specification would disclose trade secrets.

Unclarity?

And besides, what part of (here I quote from the EU decision of 2004):

As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.

(see http://news.com.com/EUs+statement+on+end+of+Micros oft+investigation/2100-1014_3-5178465.html?tag=nl) is hard to understand and what part is unclear? I just don't see it.

A good-faith attempt?

Microsoft has been making a good faith reply to all of the EU demands, which is not a diminuitive task.

Again I have to disagree. Prof. Neil Barrett (proposed as a monitoring trustee by Microsoft itself) characterised the documentation as: "entirely inadequate" (see http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_res ponse/). I absolutely cannot believe that Microsoft, with all its software engineers, would be incapable of documenting their own communication protocol if they put their mind to it. Or alternatively recognising that they couldn't do it in short order and saying as much.

Microsoft has published significant information regarding APIs and continues to provide resources for integrating third-party software solutions into Windows.

Err ... significant? In what respect? Again I point to the statement by Barrett that the documentation was "entirely inadequate". But it gets better. The commission also quotes from an independent analysis of Microsoft's protocol documentation conducted by Taeus (see http://www.taeus.com/ for general information on this company).

Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains. [...] Taeus concluded that what documentation Microsoft had provided was "devoted to obsolete functionality", "self-contradictory" and was written "primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information.".

I feel that the above two statements destroy the theory that that Microsoft made a good-faith attempt at documentation. And as to the meaning of the EU's request being uncle

Demand for trade-secrets to be compromised?

To me, the EU is demanding documentation while it does not spell out exactly what it is looking for, other than the total and complete release of all trade secrets of the Microsoft Corporation.

I respectfully disagree. The EU made it clear that they do not *want* any source-code. They want an API specification: (here I quote from the EU decision of 2004).

To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.

(see http://news.com.com/EUs+statement+on+end+of+Micros oft+investigation/2100-1014_3-5178465.html?tag=nl) So: no source code. Furthermore I really don't understand how publishing an API specification would disclose trade secrets.

Unclarity?

And besides, what part of (here I quote from the EU decision of 2004):

As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.

(see http://news.com.com/EUs+statement+on+end+of+Micros oft+investigation/2100-1014_3-5178465.html?tag=nl) is hard to understand and what part is unclear? I just don't see it.

A good-faith attempt?

Microsoft has been making a good faith reply to all of the EU demands, which is not a diminuitive task.

Again I have to disagree. Prof. Neil Barrett (proposed as a monitoring trustee by Microsoft itself) characterised the documentation as: "entirely inadequate" (see http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_res ponse/). I absolutely cannot believe that Microsoft, with all its software engineers, would be incapable of documenting their own communication protocol if they put their mind to it. Or alternatively recognising that they couldn't do it in short order and saying as much.

Microsoft has published significant information regarding APIs and continues to provide resources for integrating third-party software solutions into Windows.

Err ... significant? In what respect? Again I point to the statement by Barrett that the documentation was "entirely inadequate". But it gets better. The commission also quotes from an independent analysis of Microsoft's protocol documentation conducted by Taeus (see http://www.taeus.com/ for general information on this company).

Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains. [...] Taeus concluded that what documentation Microsoft had provided was "devoted to obsolete functionality", "self-contradictory" and was written "primarily to maximize volume (page count) while minimizing useful information.".

I feel that the above two statements destroy the theory that that Microsoft made a good-faith attempt at documentation. And as to the meaning of the EU's request being uncle

497... 280 - did they pay anything?

What with all the drug and gang activity why would people not be flocking to the site? Its a good thing our government is a step ahead of us in protecting our children.

Okay, guys, I'm really confused about something. Linux is growing in blades. Everyone knows it. So, is it growing in market share too, or what? I can't make sense out of these conflicting statements:

Gartner says 75% of blade servers run Linux in 2003:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984010.html

IDC says 50% of blade servers run Linux in 2005:
http://jkobielus.blogspot.com/2005/01/fyi-linux-co ntinues-inroads-into.html

So what happened? Did Linux market share _decrease 25%_ IN A MARKET IN WHICH IT IS GAINING IN REVENUE? Is IDC stupid and Gartner was right, or vice versa? What the hell is this?

      ---a confused Linux user and advocate

Wikipedia says Red Hat has 1,200-1,300 employees. Of those, I suspect a few hundred are going to support.

Here's the rumor I've heard: (Can't name the source, sorry.)

If a single mega-company were to migrate to Linux and rely on Red Hat for support, it would completely consume all of Red Hat's support resources, and then some. The rumor goes that this is one of the main problems with large companies that want to move to Linux: the support capacity simply isn't there.

So, the reasoning goes, Red Hat is actually glad when projects like CentOS and Oracle support take off: Red Hat knows that it can't support everybody, it knows that it needs for it's platform to "win," it knows that there is incredible value in winning alone, and so: These developments are all good for Red Hat.

After a little research, I find this article that supports what I've heard.

A lot of us are thinking about these things in terms of home users. We don't give a damn for support- we just fix it ourselves, service it ourselves. It's part of owning a computer. But in the business, I understand they think about things differently: Support becomes a primary thing. It's not optional, even when you have internal IT people on staff.

of what XML is by Microsoft.

eXtensible Markup Language is meant for a base specification to ensure portability. Anyone can add to an xml based specfication for their product / needs. that is the idea.

if Microsoft's openxml format for office 2007 is an xml format, then they will have a dtd and reference url for the dtd that will enable any xml based application to use the format. If this is not possible, then it is another case of Microsoft lying to their customers about Microsoft products.


The above is the comment I made on Techrepublic in response to the article at the url below.
Since the Article I'm referencing is about the plugin for office 2007, it's a related story.

http://techrepublic.com.com/2100-3513-6090912.html /