Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft has many times in the past cut very important functionality all in the name of making release dates. This time they appear fairly serious about overhauling their development model and aren't allowing time to be a major factor.

Right, that's why they've dropped WinFS from the feature list. Again. What is this, the third Windows version that was supposed to have it?

~Philly

When I clicked on the link in the article expecting to see some fried eggs and instead there was this.

I WILL NEVER USE A LAPTOP AGAIN

What's innovative about that ? It's a browser. People have done browsers

However, Mozilla and Firefox do have a lot of improvements over Mosaic and are innovative in their own right.

Ambitious man, that Jeeves. According to a CNET report, About.com is now up for sale, and Ask Jeeves is one of the bidders. The intriguing element here is that Google is also one of the bidders, of About.com, that is. Here is the link to the article: http://news.com.com/Primedia%20puts%20About.com%20 up%20for%20sale/2100-1025_3-5566950.html?tag=nefd. top

Someone please remind me why AOL bought Netscape again?

They bought it for the Netscape brand and the netscape.com portal to aquire more customers for their advertising business. The Netscape Browser wasn't on the top of their wishlist at all. Maybe Netscape allowed AOL to hedge their bets in the grand MSN vs AOL battle, and they probably used the browser while negotiating with Microsoft. But really, in 1998, Netscape 4.x was really starting to suck in comparison to IE.

Here was Steve Case's case for the purchase. Notice how he doesn't mention 'browser':

"Netscape's brand, portal, and people will help turn the promise of electronic commerce into reality," said AOL chief executive Steve Case in a conference call.

eBay never reveals much data on the amount of fraud that goes on through their site, but according to an article an fraud protection at ebay on CNet, fraudulent transactions on eBay in 2002 amounted to millions of dollars.

It would have to suck being swindled for a car and getting a robotic email reply when trying to find out what went wrong...

Not sure if you were joking there, but yes, BMW uses WinCE

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that Canadian statute qualified as "most jurisdictions".

Here in the U.S. for instance, there has been a much publicized and landmark series of legal battles (covered many times here on slashdot as well) as to should or should not "simulated" child pornography be considered illegal.

This, in the U.S. is mostly a First Amendment (Freedom of speach) issue. Because although this would cover real child porn, that happens not to use real children, it would also cover many things that are legitimitly under the scope of "art".

For instance, under both the statute you cited and in accordance with the way the anti-simulated-child-porn camp would have it be, the book and movie Lolita would be illegal, because depict "...a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity..."

The Canadian statute does not care if the material is intended to get pedophiles off, or if it has genuine artistic merit. This, being highly subjective, is something that I don't think the state should be deciding anyway. But think about it. How many books have you read, movies have you watched, TV shows have you seen, where there's a couple of under adged 16 or 17 year old kids getting it on in the back seat of a car on some unnamed lover's lane? Or coming of age story where the high school aged hero gets lucky?

Under these statutes, that's depicting a minor engaged sexual activity.

I don't like the idea of simulated child porn. But I don't think that it should be a crime. I think hurting people, and especially hurting children should be a crime. I think when the government starts legislating thought, that's when we've gone too far.

Well, even google had apprehensions about doing this. I remember hearing about some issue about google selling the playboy trademark for "men entertainment" stuff. In fact, another news.com.com article about it http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5190324.html?tag=n efd.lede says that google knew it was risky to sell trademarked words for targeted advertising, and decided to take the gamble.

Looks like in some legal systems they lost.

iPod available in select Wal-Mart stores.

My work machine is an XPSP2 system and last year this IFRAME vulnerability was found in October and patched in December. I had tested in on my work machine (against the warnings of my coworkers) and sure enough, using the Secunia exploit example a web page was able to add items to my startup folder with no prompt whatsoever. And according to this story (from November, pre-patch) one of The Registers' advertisers used this very exploit to stealth install spyware.

So I'm not a crazy looney (well, I am but for other reasons entirely), this stuff does happen. And often.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose department crafted the deal, hailed the decision as "a major victory for consumers and businesses" and said his department was "strongly committed" to ensuring Microsoft abide by it.

From here

Or this:

Opponents of the settlement are likely to question the extent to which politics played a role in the agreement. The Justice Department has gone from advocating a breakup of Microsoft under the Clinton administration to accepting a much milder settlement at the behest of Assistant Attorney General Charles James.

From here

Ashcroft and James didn't have their positions in Clinton's administration.

Bad Moderators, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

Has there yet been a judgement in a RIAA case? Or has everyone settled or otherwise had the case dropped?

Windows server: Sure, some folks buy it, but plenty don't. So far, Microsoft only has about one third of this space, and Linux is nipping at its heels. They knifed Windows for Itanium, to the disappointment of both Itanium users.

Server appications: IIS has lost market share to Apache in recent years, and Exchange isn't ubiquitous yet either. SQL server enjoys showing the web its limits.

Windows CE/Mobile/Tablet/whatever: Still no monopoly, and since sales of PDAs are shrinking and tablet PC's haven't really caught on, even if MS did take over this market...

Game Consoles: XBox did just have its first profitable quarter. Ever. But it doesn't seem to sell so well overseas, and Nintendo and Sony haven't been persuaded to go away yet.

Media: Media Center PC's aren't selling so well, and in a world with iTuneszilla stomping around, Windows Media suddenly seems less likely to rule the universe than it did a few years ago, even with "PlaysForSure."

Internet Services: Even with its added features, MSN Messenger doesn't seem to be destroying AIM or Yahoo Messenger. MSN doesn't seem to be destroying anybody in general, even if Verizon throws it in free with DSL, and even if MSN is the homepage for Internet Explorer. Now Microsoft wants to go after Google, too.

It's pretty interesting to consider that Windows Client and Office are so frickin' profitable that Microsoft can afford to throw gobs of money at their unprofitable products and divisions (which are pretty much everything but Windows Client and Office) and still have huge heaps of cash left over.

(Oh, and I left off Apple, because if 95% of the world abruptly switched to Apple, Microsoft is second only to Apple itself in Mac software development, and would still be one of the most profitable companies out there, on sales of Office for Mac, VirtualPC, etc. Also, because as long as Apple is out there, and isn't owned by Microsoft, Microsoft can point at it and say "look, there are other choices, we're not that much of a monopoly!" :)

Your memory must be pretty bad, since I can't evidence that a plaintiff has ever won such a case. Accessibility for even "official government websites" is strictly voluntary, and while the DOJ exhorts those agencies to make their web sites accessible, you will note there is no legal compulsion.

Now, maybe all web sites should be required by law (US law applying to the web, hm?) to be designed with accessibility in mind, and it's certainly a good idea to do so, in my opinion, for a host of reasons.

Cell phone sales have risen 35%, and Nokia leads with 46 million cellphones sold in the 2nd quarter alone. That means Nokia sells approximately 185million cell phones a year, and thats only one company. Just mind boggling.

http://news.com.com/Cell%20phone%20sales%20keep%20 booming/2100-1016_3-5345047.html

Apple makes less than $0.10 per song sold on the iTunes music store, quite a bit less than the $0.35 estimated by http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/. Check out this article instead: http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5088849.html. The key quote being:

Still, even those optimistic about the market don't see Apple getting a major boost to the bottom line.

"At a profit of less than 10 cents per song, the music store does not represent a major income opportunity for Apple," [analyst Charles] Wolf wrote in the July report. Still, the company could benefit from increased iPod sales, he said.

http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3120-20-0.html?qt=k ey%2Blog&li=49 if you like the ZDNet interface
OR http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0-1-0.html?qt=ke y+log&li=49 if you like the Download.com interface.

Just take a look at the statistics:

Europe has only had strict laws against junk communications for two years (Article 13 of Directive 2002/58/EC), they have only been in full force since November 2003 (and the provisions for criminal penalties are not even in place in each and every corner of the European Union yet) - but they mean pure and simple opt-in, and look how this continent's "spam output" already has become almost completely insignificant.

The U.S., I'm afraid to say, have put next to nothing in the way of these sociopaths: only a now-you-CAN-SPAM-more-than-ever Act that lives up to its name in the worst of ways, by legalizing most of the spam, enacting an unworkable opt-out onus on the users, and putting anti-spam warriors at the legal risk of interfering with (and being taken to court by the operators of) what is considered a legitimate "business model" except for some of the worst abuses - and for however little it is, all of this even an entire decade too late.

Reliance on technical solutions and minimal government intervention is just fine for many things - but it's failed in the fight against spam.

Here is how to do it:

Where the rights of the users and subscribers are not respected, national legislation should provide for judicial remedies. Penalties should be imposed on any person, whether governed by private or public law, who fails to comply with the national measures taken under this Directive.
(...)
"electronic mail" means any text, voice, sound or image message sent over a public communications network which can be stored in the network or in the recipient's terminal equipment until it is collected by the recipient.
(...)
The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.
(...)
In any event, the practice of sending electronic mail for purposes of direct marketing disguising or concealing the identity of the sender on whose behalf the communication is made, or without a valid address to which the recipient may send a request that such communications cease, shall be prohibited.

• a directive is a (binding) template for lawmakers in all of the European Union's member states
• necessarily, the legal techniques as well as the "Legalese" itself vary between jurisdictions
• this is a great one-ban-fits-all provision that outlaws each and every flavor of spam at once

There is nothing wrong with following an example that works so well, even if it is from Europe...

Call your congresscritter now to outlaw unsolicited commercial communications, place a hefty fine and jail time on the offenders, and put an end to these abuses before they put an end to eMail itself.

CNET News reported five days ago on the 10th that both Yukon and Whidbey would be delayed and their final names. They need that time if they are going to clean up the shit HTML and JS outputed by VS. Not that they will, that would allow people to use Firefox.

The company said Wednesday that it has decided to push out to the first half of 2005 the delivery of the next major edition of SQL Server, code-named Yukon, and a closely related update to Visual Studio.Net, called Whidbey. Until recently, the company had said that both products would ship by the end of this year.

The final product names for Yukon and Whidbey will be SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2005, said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server.

Indeed. Here we agree completely; and it's exactly the kind of thing the FSF is worried about.

There's an awful lot of suspicion about Sun going around, and for no good reason. Anybody know where OpenOffice came from?

Excellent example. Open Office almost certainly came, at least in part, from this. Note the quote in this article which clearly states

According to a patent agreement, signed in April and filed this month with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft agreed not to sue Sun for patent infringement in OpenOffice but didn't extend the same agreement to OpenOffice licensees.

Between Sun being one of the top 2 funders of SCO, agreements like the one linked, and apparent patent landmines they're dropping like OpenOffice and OpenSolaris; they're providing plenty of good reason to suspect them.

Indeed. Here we agree completely; and it's exactly the kind of thing the FSF is worried about.

There's an awful lot of suspicion about Sun going around, and for no good reason. Anybody know where OpenOffice came from?

Excellent example. Open Office almost certainly came, at least in part, from this. Note the quote in this article which clearly states

According to a patent agreement, signed in April and filed this month with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft agreed not to sue Sun for patent infringement in OpenOffice but didn't extend the same agreement to OpenOffice licensees.

Between Sun being one of the top 2 funders of SCO, agreements like the one linked, and apparent patent landmines they're dropping like OpenOffice and OpenSolaris; they're providing plenty of good reason to suspect them.

A CNET article says that Google "has no plans to sell Web addressees for now.

"Google became a domain name registrar to learn more about the Internet's domain name system," a company representative said Tuesday. "We believe this information can help us increase the quality of our search results."

According to the article its just about their search feature so far. More to come?

You are a bright one aren't you?

http://news.com.com/Gates+turns+over+reins+of+his+ empire/2100-1001_3-235639.html

Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman is working to update the General Public License (GPL) that governs Linux and hundreds of other open-source projects. The law center said it will help with that work.

A crucial task, in my opinion. More specifially, Stallman and co. are planning to protect GPL code better legally from the threat of patent litigation. Software patents are a relatively recent, and (in the opinion of many, including myself) harmful phenomenon. Updating the GPL to somehow lessen their potential impact on Free Software would be a major accomplishment.

I was reading the news today and saw a headline that read some guy cut out his mother's pacemaker. It got my attention and I read the story. Turns out the guy didn't actually kill his mom by cutting out her pacemaker as the headline led me to believe. He just cut it out after she died because he had problems with the manufacturer of it. I wouldn't say that the reporter/editor lied.

In the first paragraph of their press release, they clearly define the relationship between the patents and the CDDL.

The headline "Sun Grants Global Open Source Community Access to More than 1,600 Patents" is a bit misleading A) but technically not false and B) it's just a headline. According to Sun, they've had a pilot group of OpenSolaris developers working on the process (I think it was over 100), in addition to the 900 or so Sun engineers working on it. If those people are scattered throghout the world, saying "Global Open Source Community" is technically accurate though not what one might expect.

Now, you're a smart enough guy to understand what a headline is, but from your posts on the past few articles relating to OpenSolaris, I'd say you're just here bashing Sun. You might have a couple of personal interests in doing so.

In the previous article, you kept making reference to Sun suing linux as if it was something they were just waiting to do. Nothing they've done so far indicates they would do that. Just because they said they won't use their patents against CDDL'd OpenSolaris doesn't imply they WILL use their patents against other operating systems as you were implying. I call FUD.

Just look here. Sun: Patent use OK beyond Solaris project

The server and software company clarified its position somewhat on Monday. "Clearly we have no intention of suing open-source developers," said Tom Goguen, head of Solaris marketing. However, he added, "We haven't put together a fancy pledge on our Web site" to that effect.

Maybe your posts on this topic have to do with scaring people enough to call OSRM or maybe it's the threat to linux that an open source solaris might have.

Solaris is probably has the most market share out of all the commercial unixes. Having it become open source as well as in free to aquire might seem like a threat to linux. Personally, I believe that each has a different development model that's diverse enough that they make sense in different areas even though there is quite a bit of overlap.

The patent:

An improved media player anda method for operating a portable computing device(e.g., media player) are disclosed. According to one aspect, a portable computing device is able to protect its disk drive when being subjected to undesired levels of acceleration . The portable computing device protects its disk drive by monitoring for such accelerations and operating to avoid usage of the disk drive during periods of acceleration. Through such protection, the likelihood of damage to the disk drive or loss of data stored on the disk drive is able to be substantially reduced. According to another aspect, a user of a portable computing device can be alerted when the portable computing device is being subjected to undesirable levels of acceleration.

While attempting to further your own argument, you parroted the original poster's stereotype. Specifically, you wrote:

Were we supposed to go to class with an extra mouse in our backpacks just in case we encountered a computer designed more for grandmother stereotypes than for college students?

And in asking this rhetorical question, you validated the complaint, regardless of its merit, that one-button mice necessarily cater to the lowest common denominator as a complaint that you, yourself, agree with--and here, once and for all, is the evidence (which you refuse to acknowledge) of the stereotype's resonance in your sick, miserable psyche.

You've been caught contradicting yourself, Nick. And the circumstances couldn't be clearer.

As to your slander against Mac users as being "for the most part dense" (inviting comparison to PC users), I wonder if you've seen this Nielsen/NetRatings survey. Any methodological problems or false conclusions you could point out in this survey pale in comparison to the sloppiness of your selective logic.
--
Blah blah blah blah.

The main thing that Java is used for at the moment is database-driven applications, where the bulk of processing is done by the RDBMS.

It is possible though to attack issues of security and reliability by improving existing architecture. Perhaps, by introducing new features into the compiler (such as the Boehm-Demers-Weiser garbage collection), or making the underlying OS less prone to buffer overflows.

Of course not, we just build the hardware they run on.

Don't feel so smug, liberals, you are not the intellectual giants you imagine yourselves to be. It takes no more genius to believe in socialist economics than it does to believe in Santa Claus, and for the same reason.

-ccm

Yes. The link to the article started at the 3rd page, skipping the part about Intel's move to 64-bit on the desktop (even Celerons) in Q2 2005. From the 2nd page of TFA:

Single Core Desktop

Now for desktop processing; we have good news and better news. The good news is almost all desktop Prescotts (including the Celerons) will get a 64-bit makeover real soon. Unfortunately, you'll still need to buy a new processor but the roadmaps indicate there will be virtually no price premium on the 64-bit versions. With Windows XP 64-bit release less than a few months away, it makes sense that Intel's 64-bit push comes strong and hard in the 9th inning. We are particularly interested in how fully committed the roadmap details EM64T; even the puny Celerons get the instructions.

I also think that would be smart, but this might be a "race" to dual-core just like the race to 1 GHz in March 2000. AMD won that race by 2 days, but 1 GHz chips were not widely available from either Intel or AMD for months.

Also, here's a one-page version of the whole Intel roadmap article that covers chipsets, single-core desktops, dual-core, mobile CPUs, and "unannounced secret stuff":

The Consequence of Waking Up a Sleeping Giant: Intel Roadmaps Inside

Will AMD respond by moving up the "release" (in very limited quantities) of their dual-core CPUs? Will the race to dual-core cause Intel to release a chip that's not ready, like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III?

Will AMD respond by moving up the "release" (in very limited quantities) of their dual-core CPUs? Will the race to dual-core cause Intel to release a chip that's not ready, like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III?

The only reason Linux doesn't have thousands of viruses written for it is because nobody runs it. Same with macs.

This meme refuses to die. It sounds credible that more usage would lead to a more attractive target for malware but ignores other factors like:

• monoculture
• ActiveX
• Microsoft's decision to "integrate" their web browser into Windows

An excellent article refuting this meme, which doesn't even mention ActiveX, can be found here:

Windows XP has a better security infrastructure than any UNIX knock off.

Here's my opinion, with references to support it.

Only a criminal monopoly(1), with no consideration of their customer's interests, could embed into their web browser "application" (2) the security sink-hole of ActiveX vulnerabilities(3) to achieve vendor lock-in(4). This has resulted in the mess that is "security" in Microsoft(R) Windows(R) today.

References:

1. Criminal is strong language but Microsoft has a judgement against them regarding unlawful monopoly conduct: http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/
2. To everyone but Microsoft, Internet Explorer is an application called a "web browser". MicroSoft testified in their anti-trust trial that IE is not an application but an integrated part of their Microsoft(R) Windows(R) operating system and there is no way to allow users to not have it installed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/ 98/microsoft/275248.stm
3. Concern over ActiveX vulnerabilities have been in the media for over 6 years. The issue has gotten more attention migrating from IT trade press to mainstream media and in that time we've gone from viruses (which have not gone away) to Phishing and Spyware infestations:
   • Feb 19, 1998 IT trade press article: http://digitalcity.com.com/A+question+of+safety/20 09-1001_3-208208.html
   • Nov 9 2004 Mainstream Media article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2004-11-09-firefox-sidebar_x.htm
4. 36 page academic paper in PDF format. Network Effects and Microsoft: http://www.stanford.edu/~tbres/Microsoft/Network_T heory_and_Microsoft.pdf

What is the difference between Microsoft's Nick McGrath and Jeffrey Lee Parsons, the teen who got sentenced to 18 months in jail for releasing a variant of the Blaster worm? They look alike, use Microsoft operating systems for their evil deeds and they are both criminals, the only difference is that McGrath is not going to end up in jail for bogus claims and slander, at that level it's called marketing.

You knew this was coming as soon as you saw his picture...

Behold the comparison.

"Pages lacks ... the collaboration, tracking, and security features that make Word so excellent in business settings."

Can someone hilight the securuty features in word? I'm not trolling, I'm serious. The only mention of Word and security I know of comes from cases where Word has shown more than it intended.

"I think whoever it was flunked Roman numerals in grade school," said Nathan Brookwood, the head of technology consulting firm Insight 64.

Yes, NZheretic is David Mohring.

Holy cow, we have a winner! Or maybe not, those articles are almost a year old.

And everybody wondered what this was about.

Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Accenture, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard and Computer Sciences have formed the Interoperability Consortium

This part of the summary (lifted from the article, apparently) mentions "Computer Sciences"; the company is actually Computer Sciences Corporation.

As an aside, the printer-friendly (i.e. less cluttered) version of the CNet link is here.

People who use Apple are different, they are willing to make sacrifices on functionality for aesthetics and lower hassle.

I guess this is where I disagree. I think most PC consumers are willing to make those exact sacrifices, but to date, the small form factor offerings like this one are just not attractive in the least bit. If Dell or another deep pocket PC maker can create an attractive PC at this size, I think it may indeed sell.

The hurdle is this: I think Apple has figured out how to create nice looking things relatively cheaply -- and that's their competitive advantage at this price point. It may not be possible for Dell to make a computer at the Apple Mac Mini's size that's attractive. IMHO, Dell DJ falls short aesthetically when compared to an iPod, and perhaps that is proof that good, inexpensive design is hard to do.

I found your story a bit surprising, but I asked Jeeves himself, and he came up with this article, among many others. Funny.

I do have my facts straight, it is you who are in error.. Comcast, Cox Cable and AT&T all were investors and used the @Home network all or in part until @Home went into bankruptcy. Since you seem so unwilling to take my word for it here is a link to a CNet news article backing me up:

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-276644.html?legacy=c net/

So as you see Comcast was Comcast@Home and at least here on the East Coast everyone who was a Comcast broadband customer had an @Home email address.

I am doing something very similar in my apartment: an always-on mini-itx media server that (among other things) records free-to-air TV with teletext and provides me an interface to the teletext. While teletext isn't completely accurate, it makes for a huge body of searchable content.

Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative. The search results also will provide a breakdown on when the program aired and when an episode is scheduled to be repeated. Local programming information will be available for those who provide a ZIP code.

I think Google is aiming to stay within fair-use boundaries. (And also avoiding taking on a needless bandwidth burden serving video).

It would be possible for people to use "Google Video Search" to identify interesting TV content outside their local area, then request snippets a P2P manner from users whose computers were in the local area of the broadcast.

What are the fair-use guidelines for recording and sharing of free-to-air TV content, can someone say?

TiVO got US FCC permission for:
its customers [to] receive digital broadcasts and share them with up to 10 other TiVo units that share the same customer account. .
However, if 10 TiVOs "share a customer account", they belong to the same person (or to his family).

Is sharing, say, a 5 minute clip of a news broadcast between different computers belonging to different people allowed?

they patented their algorithm

That's not specific to mp3 at all, that's more like a patent on constant bit rate encoding (if you use an entropic encoder inside the loop). The mp3 patent holders initially couldn't even believe themselves that ogg did not infringe on any of their (broad) patents.

Uhm, why don't you reread my original post: "MS competed with Netscape by making their product better and cheaper, while Netscape stalled development of Navigator for years."

I never said that IE killed Netscape because it was bundled (though I'm sure that helped adoption, especially once IE started gaining momentum) -- I said that Netscape killed itself by not releasing an update of its software from 1997 until 2000. They weren't even trying to compete with Microsoft, except in the courtroom.

If I'm drunk, you're on hallucinogens, man. :)

What you say MS fears is called WebTV, and it failed

But before it failed, Microsoft bought it, remember? To an extent this brings up the question of whether it would have failed had Microsoft not bought it. I'd say the answer is "probably", because as you note it isn't a good idea; but there's that possibility that if Microsoft hadn't bought it the company could have continued to adapt, grow and change, and maybe held on. A small possibility, but it is there. Either way, the fact Microsoft bought it at all does indicate that whether the WebTV had a future or not, looked at it as something they for whatever reason wanted control of.

What MS really worries about, and what you got at least somewhat right, is the "Media Center" idea. Even that, though, strikes me as a flying car-type idea: one that sounds fascinating and is at least technologically feasible but never happens.

But it did happen; it's called the PSX. It was a failure. And according to Bill Gates, it's going to happen again with the XBox 2. I personally expect this to be a failure as well. But whether the "media center" has a future or not, Microsoft has definitely taken active steps to make sure that if it does, they'll have influence over it.

First he gave the kids trinoo, and now cares about our sekj00r1ty. I won't even have a look at this one.