Slashdot Mirror

medireview , anybody?

Language is something funny. Even if you write your filter in a way to take into account word boundaries, you still have the problem of same words meaning different things in different contexts. Ironically, dirty words are more prone to this that polite conversation. I'd find it funny to read that certain academic institutions award summa ejaculate laude honors...

... are you seriously maintaining that the release of a white paper (ie: "We plan for our next generation of computers to be EVEN FASTER, woo!") detailing a series of products with no ship dates attached is much more important than a product that has actually shipped?

I guess I should have included news sources in my links, because there sure are a lot of them.

All sarcasm aside, your point is well taken. I like the article on the Sun site because it explains more about how the technology works than any of the news sites, but it seems that Slashdot editors are much more likely to accept a story if the link points to an "impartial" news source rather than a press release. Thanks for the tip.

The Efficeon (god, what an awful name) and the new Eden are both real products that I can now order in batches of 1 or more.

Actually, neither one of those products have shipped:

From Via's press release:

The VIA Eden-N processor is sampling now and is expected to start appearing in secure networking, entertainment and communication devices in Q1, 2004.

From Transmeta's press release:

... the Efficeon processor family will be competitive with, or outperform competing microprocessors operating within critical thermal limits such as the 7W limit for typical fanless notebook designs. Systems based on the processor are expected to begin shipping in the fourth quarter.

Wasn't it $5+ billion before they lost that $1+ billion last quarter ?

It was a non-cash loss, as shown in this excerpt:

Sun also announced Monday that it is increasing an allowance it had made for its deferred tax assets, resulting in a $1 billion noncash charge in the fourth quarter, which ended June 30. As a result, the company said it is revising its fourth-quarter results to a loss of $1.04 billion, or 32 cents per share.

Not sure if you will ever see this, but figured I'd post it anyway...

I seem to have been mistaken. Doing some Googling I found that what seems to have happened is that some senator or representative said the Copy Protection should invalidate claims against the Audio Home Recording Act. Whether it does violate the law, in spirit or letter, does not ever seem to have been decided. Still might make a good case though. Maybe even a case the the DMCA violates the AHRA would be fun. I can't afford those kinds of attornies though. Anyone out there want to take a pro bono case? :)

Here's a link that seems to sum up a majority of what I found...

One of the more interesting quotes in the article:

"Boucher is among the most prominent voices asking whether plans to gird CDs against unauthorized copying violates a compromise struck in a law called the Audio Home Recording Act. He quoted from a Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying that law, which said that a "key purpose of (the legislation) is to insure the right of consumers to make analog and digital recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use."

That meant that consumers' creation of a copy to use in the car, or to give to a family member, was legal, that report said.

However, some attorneys have noted that the law only gives people a protection from being prosecuted under copyright law. It doesn't require the record companies to ensure people can easily make those copies."

Very interesting indeed.

However, one can get into a PC system built out of brand name quality parts for under $500.

BULLSHIT.

Build me a system that will run XP Professional using brand name quality parts for under $500 and interact with the rest of the corporate universe in a meaningful fashion. That POS you're advertising on your home page doesn't count, either.

When we're buying 300 desktops for a department upgrade, we're not going with a single-source vendor: we're going with a big fucking multi-national corporation, because we're a big fucking multi-national corporation, and big fucking multi-national corporations tend to feel more comfortable when they deal with each other.

That *thing* on your home page running with Open Office as it's productivity app doesn't count either, because it's not a useful comparison for those of us who actually has to work in a corporate environment. I'm not talking about coding either: my IDE is a text editor, a couple of terminal windows and vi in a pinch, and I can do that on any box here in the building as long as I've got my faithful copy of putty.

Believe it or not, I actually have to interact with people who do things like send me documents with embedded OLE objects, Word docs with embedded tables, Excel worksheets with Pivot Charts and 90 MB behemoth PowerPoint presentations with embedded QuickTime Movies in them (forget about our Digital Asset Management system...), so we need at least a 2 ghz CPU, 512MB of RAM, and 20GB of storage. At this point we're at your $500 mark, when you factor in the fact that I need XP Pro, and a CAL or two to get it on my domain and using Outlook.

Do I want to have to do these things? Hell no. But that's why it's called work, and I can do it a hell of a lot faster on my Mac than you can on a *nix box: all of the guys I work with who are *nix heads end up at some point in a given work week having to (a) boot into Windows (b) use a second Windows machine or (c) ask me to do it for them: I never have to leave my Mac.

Try getting some two-digit IQ workerbee over in to jump through those hoops -- not going to happen. God forbid they call Tech Support. All of which shoots your ROI out the window.

Macs are cheaper and easier to support on the desktop. Period. Anyone who says differently is either a liar or incompetant. I did it for over a decade, before moving over to Software Development (also easier on the Mac, I've noticed, but that's purely anecdotal at this point.

If you want to start talking about Micro$oft alternatives in a corporate environment, this article is a good place to get the ball rolling: Ernie Ball dumps M$ Try doing it somewhere else though: this is the Apple channel: we have a working alternative already, thank you. We've had it for over a decade. It works great, and from the looks of it, only promises to get better.

In the meantime, could you see about a version of Evolution that is usable by abovementioned workerbees?

Thanks.

Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that MS will respond to your concerns.

They are busy with their own larger concerns of conquering new markets. Egg on face security flaps seem to be one of the few things that will goad them to act.

It is unfortunate their response is of the shoot-the-messenger strategy, though.

an you imagine any company willing to buy a license after SCO started suing some of the licensees (IBM, SGI)?

I don't have to.

Which Kerberos? The Internet Engineering Task Force one or the MS Kerberos version?

you can check out other articles about this at Wired and CNETNews

Wow, remember the cost estimates MS was pushing to justify how much cheaper it was to by into their software assurance plan? Pay every 1,2 or 3 years instead of once and get "free" and immediate upgrades? Considering it will be at least 5 years between XP and Longhorn, I would say everyone who used those initial numbers of a 3 years cycle for a total cost calculation got burned pretty badly.

Here is an a piece from another page:

Software Assurance is an annuity-based licensing offering, under which subscribers pay Microsoft 29 percent of the total cost of the software per year over the life of the contract, though Wilcox noted the fee schedule can be a bit more complicated when factoring in the license plan itself (Open Value, Open or Select), or when accounting for CALs.

FUCK! Sorry, I forgot my link to an article with a picture.

They've decided the industry needs a new SQL-like filesystem, but maybe not.

woops.

I assumed (mistakenly) that the article link was to the original interview. It is not, instead to the Reg's follow up.

So instead here is the original interview over on CNet which the Reg article is based on.

MSN uses SIP, iChat uses SIP, but can they all talk to each other yet?

...of a Microsoft Apologist Apologizing for Microsoft on the monoculture reports, check out this 3-part series:

Part I: Wherein the author proves he doesn't know the difference between an API and the OS which implements it He also manages to confuse integration with breaking encapsulation and argues that integration is acheived by eliminating modular programming. He also resorts to the traditional monopolists' excuse that the economics of scale trumps competition, imagining that Adam Smith would actually support this excuse.

Part II: Wherein the author proves that he has failed to notice the CCIA convinced a judge he was wrong about Microsoft's status as a monopoly. Then he goes on to lie about the accessibility of MS's APIs.

Part III: Wherein the author argues that 15-years-out-of-date MS technology is "cutting edge" while ignoring the fact that IE is still not standards compliant with a standard which he says evolves too slowly to to up with that "cutting edge."

The author of these diatribes (John Carroll) managed to convince me he was so clueless about the fundamentals of programming (compare Microsoft Press's own "Code Complete" with the "facts" in these stories to see how far off base he is) that I am sure I would never hire his consulting firm, Turtleneck Software, for anything.

The issues raised by the CCIA report deserve hard scrutiny. But that scrutiny must be based on facts. And on what the monoculture report actually said. Diversity of API is bad, and the report acknowledges this by arguing for strong international standards. Diversity of implementation is good, and the report makes a strong case for this.

Carroll lies to his readers by claiming the report favors diversity of API. He then compounds this inaccuracy by claiming Microsoft has achieved its monocultural monopoly by promoting a single API that has become a public standard. In fact, they achieved it by constantly changing the API, hiding it from their competitors, and forcing those who wrote competing products for their platform to write to a different API, which itself changed when it was convenient for MS (i.e., inconvenient for their competitors).

This level of dishonesty should get Carroll fired at ZDNet, but it probably won't.

And we still don't have a good, rigorous criticism of the CCIA's report. A criticism we desperately need.

...of a Microsoft Apologist Apologizing for Microsoft on the monoculture reports, check out this 3-part series:

Part I: Wherein the author proves he doesn't know the difference between an API and the OS which implements it He also manages to confuse integration with breaking encapsulation and argues that integration is acheived by eliminating modular programming. He also resorts to the traditional monopolists' excuse that the economics of scale trumps competition, imagining that Adam Smith would actually support this excuse.

Part II: Wherein the author proves that he has failed to notice the CCIA convinced a judge he was wrong about Microsoft's status as a monopoly. Then he goes on to lie about the accessibility of MS's APIs.

Part III: Wherein the author argues that 15-years-out-of-date MS technology is "cutting edge" while ignoring the fact that IE is still not standards compliant with a standard which he says evolves too slowly to to up with that "cutting edge."

The author of these diatribes (John Carroll) managed to convince me he was so clueless about the fundamentals of programming (compare Microsoft Press's own "Code Complete" with the "facts" in these stories to see how far off base he is) that I am sure I would never hire his consulting firm, Turtleneck Software, for anything.

The issues raised by the CCIA report deserve hard scrutiny. But that scrutiny must be based on facts. And on what the monoculture report actually said. Diversity of API is bad, and the report acknowledges this by arguing for strong international standards. Diversity of implementation is good, and the report makes a strong case for this.

Carroll lies to his readers by claiming the report favors diversity of API. He then compounds this inaccuracy by claiming Microsoft has achieved its monocultural monopoly by promoting a single API that has become a public standard. In fact, they achieved it by constantly changing the API, hiding it from their competitors, and forcing those who wrote competing products for their platform to write to a different API, which itself changed when it was convenient for MS (i.e., inconvenient for their competitors).

This level of dishonesty should get Carroll fired at ZDNet, but it probably won't.

And we still don't have a good, rigorous criticism of the CCIA's report. A criticism we desperately need.

...of a Microsoft Apologist Apologizing for Microsoft on the monoculture reports, check out this 3-part series:

Part I: Wherein the author proves he doesn't know the difference between an API and the OS which implements it He also manages to confuse integration with breaking encapsulation and argues that integration is acheived by eliminating modular programming. He also resorts to the traditional monopolists' excuse that the economics of scale trumps competition, imagining that Adam Smith would actually support this excuse.

Part II: Wherein the author proves that he has failed to notice the CCIA convinced a judge he was wrong about Microsoft's status as a monopoly. Then he goes on to lie about the accessibility of MS's APIs.

Part III: Wherein the author argues that 15-years-out-of-date MS technology is "cutting edge" while ignoring the fact that IE is still not standards compliant with a standard which he says evolves too slowly to to up with that "cutting edge."

The author of these diatribes (John Carroll) managed to convince me he was so clueless about the fundamentals of programming (compare Microsoft Press's own "Code Complete" with the "facts" in these stories to see how far off base he is) that I am sure I would never hire his consulting firm, Turtleneck Software, for anything.

The issues raised by the CCIA report deserve hard scrutiny. But that scrutiny must be based on facts. And on what the monoculture report actually said. Diversity of API is bad, and the report acknowledges this by arguing for strong international standards. Diversity of implementation is good, and the report makes a strong case for this.

Carroll lies to his readers by claiming the report favors diversity of API. He then compounds this inaccuracy by claiming Microsoft has achieved its monocultural monopoly by promoting a single API that has become a public standard. In fact, they achieved it by constantly changing the API, hiding it from their competitors, and forcing those who wrote competing products for their platform to write to a different API, which itself changed when it was convenient for MS (i.e., inconvenient for their competitors).

This level of dishonesty should get Carroll fired at ZDNet, but it probably won't.

And we still don't have a good, rigorous criticism of the CCIA's report. A criticism we desperately need.

Jim Alchin (Windows OS Chief) on Open-Source: CNET 2/14/2001
"Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."

"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policymakers to understand the threat."

"We can build a better product than Linux. There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get something for free."

Bill Gates on Linux IP: CRN 7/25/2003
"There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software."

Bill Gates on beating Linux at any price: USA Today 6/30/2003
"Well I'm not sure what you mean by undercutting. We will never have a price lower than Linux, in terms of just what you charge for the software. We compete on the basis of, if you look at the value you get out of the system and the overall cost that the system has that apply in our software.

Bill Gates on standards: CNN 9/18/2003
Gates said the Redmond, Washington-based company's work toward Web services standards would be "royalty free." ... "I can't believe I said that," Gates joked.

Balmer on Linux: E-week
"Can IBM give you a product roadmap for Linux? Can they deliver new features and fixes to Linux? Does it indemnify the intellectual property in Linux? No, no and no,"

Committee-generated standards are useless unless people decide to adhere to them, regardless of technical reasonableness.

There are two separate issues here: standards and acceptance. I suppose you have read all about the W3C difficulties getting Microsoft to implement standards in IE. If you have two different implementations, one which follows a documented, well thought out standard, and another a non-documented closed implementation, which one would you choose?

So, of course, the .doc format is a standard.

Again, where is the documentation for the .doc format? There isn't any. The standard is subject to MS's whims.

I'm not advocating the widespread acceptance of proprietary standards.

But that is what your actions amount to. And years later when all your data is locked up in proprietary formats, and MS asks you to fork over several hundred dollars to read your data, your cries of "I just want to get work done" will not help you.

Perhaps the industry consolidation that is starting to accelerate is a cause for concern. For example, this was just announced:

(Value Click buys Commission Junction.)

Amazon.com excluded, this merger will give one company control of about half the affiliate marketing industry. (affiliate marketing is a segment of the ad industry.)

Just about a year ago, CTO Craig Mundie was asked why it has taken Microsoft 25 years to get trustworthy computing into the forefront of its efforts, he said: "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently".

"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."

IANAL, but Mr. Peter Jacobs published remarks about the motives of the grad student involved sound very much like slander (or is it libel?)

"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."

IANAL, but Mr. Peter Jacobs published remarks about the motives of the grad student involved sound very much like slander (or is it libel?)

Gartner echoes concerns on Microsoft reliance

A copy of the Gartner research note seen by CNET News.com mirrors the conclusions of seven prominent security researchers, who released a paper stating that Microsoft's dominance in software could have serious consequences for national cybersecurity. The Gartner report is scheduled to be published Friday.

(The point is not what they are saying, it who's saying it.)

Gartner echoes concerns on Microsoft reliance

A copy of the Gartner research note seen by CNET News.com mirrors the conclusions of seven prominent security researchers, who released a paper stating that Microsoft's dominance in software could have serious consequences for national cybersecurity. The Gartner report is scheduled to be published Friday.

(The point is not what they are saying, it who's saying it.)

You got that right.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5057033.html

..what is probably the more significant link in the article. Worry less about 1-2 phones exploding per year, and more about the consequences 20 years down the line of putting a powerful microwave transmitter up to your head - to quote from the linked text:

Voice-only devices are giving way to real heavy Internet-ready devices with a lot more guts that, at least theoretically, may not be that great to have right next to your head, said Bryan Prohm, a wireless industry analyst at market research firm Dataquest.

This law has got to go. I am amazed at how little mass media coverage it's gotten.

That is a BIG assumption saying they can't win!
Tell that to Dmitry and his employer!

Good news! Dmitry and his employer won!

According to this article both companies (BMG and SunnComm) said they had known about it before releasing the CD.
That's just plain stupid.
Would you ship an automobile with a lock on the door that could be defeated with your finger?

A pattern of bad decisions would require termination, sure, but this isn't a pattern - this is one event.

What I was trying to get at is that behaviours are emergent traits, stemming from deep-seated beliefs. Intuit decided it was OK for them to install software on customers' computers which would run forever, even though TurboTax would likely be used once or twice. That's not a scalable behavior. I don't recall the exact details, but c-dilla was writing its data to the MBR or somewhere else it shouldn't have ever though of touching. Again, not a scalable behavior - if everybody does this, the whole ecosystem goes to hell.

1) Intuit most certainly warned their customers that they were installing the protections they installed. I read the notice (that was one the box, in the license agreement, and in the setup), and I decided to install it on a trash box instead.

Well, maybe you're right, I never read it myself - only what I heard in the news. Still, have you ever tried returning a software package that's opened? As others have said, "is it worth it for a $30 software package?"

The decision to do this was very bad, but it wasn't the crime of the century, and it sure ain't something that cannot be forgiven;

Of course, but it's a matter of broken trust. Trust is earned; when it's broken it has to be earned again. I'm hoping they do earn my trust again, but they don't get it automatically.

2) It cost them $90M? I don't think so. ... $90M is a ridiculous figure.

Did you RTFA? That's not my figure.

So your assertion that widespread filesharing would allow people to sample more music, and subsequently buy more music is the complete and utter opposite of what is actually happening!

I said nothing of the sort! I said there's no proof illegal file sharing is responsible for the decline in music sales. I also said there were other factors at work that likely have a larger and more verifiable affect on music sales than file sharing.

I am aware of studies purporting to demonstrate file sharing increases music sales. For example, Report: File Sharing Boosts Music Sales from July 21, 2000, which references a Jupiter Communications report with such quotes as "Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying," and "the SoundScan study shows that music sales dropped off before Napster launched and does not take into account the shift from brick-and-mortar music stores to online CD sales." What the??!!?? That kinda supports what I was saying. Good thing I can link to a supporting reference.

And then there is CD sales fall despite drop in downloads from October 07, 2003. Huh? The fight against file sharing was supposed to help music sales. But if less downloads doesn't equal more sales, maybe more downloads doesn't equal less sales. My mind has been blown!

News.news.com.com has Study: File sharing boosts music sales from May 3, 2002 which has numbers from different sources supporting both sides. Maybe the issue isn't as clear as more download==less sales. Seems there isn't much solid support for your assertions or your gratuitous use of ALL CAPS and Bold and BOLD ALL CAPS. (I'm kidding with you now. Can you tell?)

Here's the part where I do something you'll never see from the jokers at the RIAA...admit I was wrong. I did a little more research, and it seems my numbers on sales for the last few years where a little off.

Of course, that does not change the framework of the discussion or go to refute any of the heart of my comment. Correlation does not prove causation. File sharing on the internet started to get big about 3 years ago. Music sales started to drop about 3 years ago. The economy went into the tank about 3 years ago. The stock market hit a peak and started a downward spiral about 3 years ago. My neice was born about 3 years ago. A lot of thinks happened about 3 years ago. That does not show any cause-and-effect.

I stand by my claim, there is no proof, no evidence file sharing is responsible for the drop in music sales. I'm not saying that isn't the case; I'm saying the RIAA hasn't proved it is the case.

But wait! Perhaps I was wrong, but not in the way you suppose. RIAA piracy arguments, figures just don't add up from April 20, 2003 has a couple things to say on the issue. It seems the SoundScan numbers for music sales dropped for the first time in 2001. (SoundScan started tracking sales in 1991.) But the RIAA numbers show sales dropped in 1997. What gives? Well, SoundScan does not poll all retails and sources of legal music trade. The RIAA does not represent all artists and music publishers. So I guess the question is moot. Before we can discuss causes for a drop in music sales, we'd have to establish such a drop has indeed happened. Not only are the various industry groups highly suspect as dependable sources of information, but they don't agree with each other.

The sales figures for 2002 from SoundScan and RIAA differ by 20%. The drop in music sales was less than 10%. It's noise. It's reporting error. The pro-file sharing lobby is playing nice by accepting the premise that music sales have gone down. I a

> WHY wasn't ICF turned on by default in XP Home?

This is very good question. ICF is going to be turned on by default in XP - see this CNET article for more details on how Microsoft is doubling its efforts on security.

"Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1," [IE program manager] Countryman said. "Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS."

There you go. That copy of Windows XP Pro that you just bought? It's legacy. Windows 2003 Server? Obsolete before you unwrap it!

But never mind, because in two years time, we might produce an OS that isn't such a piece of kludgy circa 1992 designed shit.

In the meantime, please remember to renew your Microsoft Volume Licensing contracts. It's not like you have a choice, is it?

Does anyone know when Eolas first filed the complaint?

1999 shortly after the patent was granted.

There was a revision of the G4 in August, 2000. The first ones off the line had power switch problems, giving almost the same symptoms. We had them all replaced under warranty.

One work around, find an older Mac USB keyboard that has a power button on it. Plug it in and see if the machine will start then. If so, you will need to get a replacement power switch.

More info available from ZDNet.

CNet ran an article about this development, and they were quick to note that other IM software from Yahoo! and AOL already implemented this feature. The article doesn't say when the patent was filed.

A related article points out that ICQ filed a patent in 1997 (granted in 2002) which covers pretty much any kind of instant messaging application on any network. Of course, there is prior art...

I was a student at MIT from 1988 to 1992. During that time, I used an instant messaging system called Zephyr, which could work either with X11 or with a text console (if run in console mode). Zephyr didn't support notification of other users when you were typing a message (since the application to compose messages and send them was command-line, and therefore run from the shell rather than as part of a monolithic IM app), but it did support notifying you when certain other users logged on, and Zephyr by default popped up separate message windows on the target user's X11 display when messages arrived. Kind of like how classic ICQ operates -- each incoming message is displayed in a separate window which has to be dismissed by the user.

I'm sure there are more prior art examples for IM and general, and this feature in specific. The big players are trying to carve up the IM landscape by making turf claims with patents. If ever there was a time to support alternative IM technologies like Jabber, now is the time, folks.

CNet ran an article about this development, and they were quick to note that other IM software from Yahoo! and AOL already implemented this feature. The article doesn't say when the patent was filed.

A related article points out that ICQ filed a patent in 1997 (granted in 2002) which covers pretty much any kind of instant messaging application on any network. Of course, there is prior art...

I was a student at MIT from 1988 to 1992. During that time, I used an instant messaging system called Zephyr, which could work either with X11 or with a text console (if run in console mode). Zephyr didn't support notification of other users when you were typing a message (since the application to compose messages and send them was command-line, and therefore run from the shell rather than as part of a monolithic IM app), but it did support notifying you when certain other users logged on, and Zephyr by default popped up separate message windows on the target user's X11 display when messages arrived. Kind of like how classic ICQ operates -- each incoming message is displayed in a separate window which has to be dismissed by the user.

I'm sure there are more prior art examples for IM and general, and this feature in specific. The big players are trying to carve up the IM landscape by making turf claims with patents. If ever there was a time to support alternative IM technologies like Jabber, now is the time, folks.

• CygWin. The Linux-like environment for Windows.
  Mozilla. Use this for mail, news, and browsing if you like.
  Firebird. for FAST browsing.
  WS FTP Light. A FREE, FTP client that works great.
  Filezilla. which is TRULY free and does sftp as well.
  PuTTY. a free SSH client for Windows.
  TTSSH. is a much less clunky ssh client than PuTTY.
  iXplorer. freeware secure FTP client
  VNC hello!? remote controll software.
  Tight VNClike the original, only FAST.
  GNU-EMacs for Windows. just trust me ;).
  Dev-C++a free C++ compiler for those who can't afford VS.
  NetHack. as someone here said, you MUST have NetHack installed on everything...
  Free-AV.free Anti-Virus software for Windows, (mandatory these days). or
  AVG Free edition. another free Anti-Virus software for Windows.
  Zonealarm. my favorite Personal Firewall,, really!. or
  Kerio. another firewall that some seem to like. or
  Sygate. yet another firewall. whatever floats your boat.
  Boingo. to see where the closest hotspot is, hehe.
  OpenOffice 1.1 the Microsoft Office KILLER :) {really!}
  Winamp 2.x for audio/video usage in Windows, stay away from the new one :).
  Mark's Adding Machine is much better than the Windows calculator.
  SpyBot Search & Destroy The best Ad-ware / Spyware removal tool we've found, "IE is unusable without".
  Ad-Aware another spy-ware app "alas poor Windoze."
  Trillian a favorite IM, since we're all chatters @ heart. or
  GAIM since trillian hogs resources, "bad piggy!".
  Gimp image creation/editing. Who needs Photoshop anyway?
  EnZip freeware Zip Utility, Stop nagging you WinZip!!
  Iview is a great little image viewer. or
  Irfanviewone of the best image viewer out there for Windows.
  Audacity is a great little sound editor.
  Virtual Dub. a great video editor.
  cDex gotta rip those cd's for the RIAA!
  MAME for games, period. Free. You can buy some ROMs, or *ahem* ask around. and finally
  XPantiSPY since XP is E-V-I-L.

And FINALLY, don't trust me! Trust the experts;

Go to the Pricelessware site maintained by the alt.comp.freeware Usenet group.
The

Digital Photos are certainly now one of the top ten uses for family PCs.

I highly recommend using some Digiphoto Organization software, it's just leaps and bounds over storing photos as files in folders.

These packages help organize, view, and browse your digiphoto collection, then actually do something with the photos: format them for email, printing, web galleries, calendars, greeting cards, etc.

There are plenty of choices in Windows, but I don't know of any usable packages for Linux. Of course, for OSX there's iPhoto (free!)

I've been using Photoshop Album since it was released in February, and I've been very happy with it. Version 2 was released on Monday, and there's now a free Starter Edition - so there's no excuse not to try it!

Some other digital photo management software:

• ACD Systems ACDSee
• Jasc Photo Album
• Lifescape Picasa
• Ulead Photo Explorer

My suggestions for the Windows side...

For email I'd definitely recommend Eudora as it can be used free (ad based, but small add window) and isn't suceptible to propagating the many viruses that target Outlook.

As someone previously mentioned, I'd also recommend Opera, again, ad based, but a solid browser and mouse gestures rule!

Someone else also mentioned AVG for antivirus, probably the best option for free antivirus.

CDEX is a great MP3 ripping program that I've always used.

We can't forget Sonique and WinAmp for playing your MP3's. I prefer Sonique but that's just me.

Then of course there's Winzip, Adobe Acrobat, QuickTime, VNC, and ZoneAlarm or BlackIce (all available at download.com). These are all (except perhaps VNC) must have utilities for a Windows box.

Umm... I would be surprised if Dell didn't completely dominate computer sales in Texas.

The best Ad-ware / Spyware removal tool I've found is
SpyBot Search & Destroy

There is also Ad-Aware though.

Other stuff (non spyware related):
Winamp(2x is best)
Trillian/Gaim
Browsers (and mail): IE6, Mozilla, Opera are all fine

I've found both SlickRun and PopupPopper from Bayden Software to be useful as well.

CNET has an article that is much more detailed than the voxilla article. This latter article makes me even more hopeful that the court's ruling is going in the direction that I'm hoping it will go.

Shift key breaks CD copy locks
Last modified: October 7, 2003, 10:58 AM PDT
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

A Princeton University student has published instructions for disabling the new anticopying measures being tested on CDs by BMG--and they're as simple as holding down a computer's Shift key.

In a paper published on his Web site this week, Princeton Ph.D. student John Halderman explained how he disabled a new kind of copy-protection technology, distributed as part of a new album by BMG soul artist Anthony Hamilton.

Under normal circumstances, the antipiracy software is automatically loaded onto a Windows machine whenever the Hamilton album is run in a computer's CD drive, making traditional copying or MP3 ripping impossible. However, simply holding down the Shift key prevents Windows' AutoRun feature from loading the copy-protection software, leaving the music free to copy, Halderman said.

The technique was confirmed by BMG and SunnComm Technologies, the small company that produces the anticopying technology. Both companies said they had known about it before releasing the CD, and that they still believed the protection would deter most average listeners' copying.

"This is something we were aware of," BMG spokesman Nathaniel Brown said. "Copy management is intended as a speed bump, intended to thwart the casual listener from mass burning and uploading. We made a conscious decision to err on the side of playability and flexibility."

The ease with which Halderman and others have disabled BMG and SunnComm's latest copy-protection techniques illustrates the delicate balance that record labels and technology companies are trying to strike in protecting content without angering listeners.

SunnComm's technology is the most flexible version of CD copy-protection to hit the market yet. It includes "pre-ripped" versions of the songs on the CD itself, each of which can be transferred to a computer, burned to CD several times, or transferred to many kinds of portable devices. These differ from unrestricted MP3 files in that only limited copies can be made, and not every portable music device can play them.

The Anthony Hamilton CD is the first release in this new generation of copy-protected CDs that come preloaded with these "second session" tracks designed for use on a computer, a strategy also being pursued by SunnComm rival Macrovision. Record labels have pushed for these tracks, mostly provided in Microsoft's Windows Media format, to be included on copy-protected CDs in order to ameliorate consumers' concerns about not being able to use their music on computers.

SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs said the technology--which will be improved in future versions--should still be attractive to record companies. Though simple, the act of holding down the Shift key in order to enable copying does let computer users know they're doing something unauthorized, he said. That alone will dissuade many people from making copies, he added.

"This is not an all-or-nothing thing," Jacobs said. "People can break into your house, because there's lots of information out there on how to pick locks. But that knowledge doesn't mean you don't buy a lock."

In order to fully prevent the antipiracy software from loading, a listener has to hold the Shift key down for a long period of time, at exactly the right time, every time they listen to the CD on a computer. Moreover, anyone who doesn't load the software won't get access to the second session tracks, which on future CDs will increasingly include videos and other bonus material, record company insiders say.

For his part, Halderman says the workaround is so simple that it's hard to fix. Nor is he worried about falling afoul of laws that make it illegal to describe how to get around copy-protection measures.

"I hardly think that telling people to push Shift constitutes trafficking in a (copy-protection technology) circumvention device," Halderman said. "I'm not very worried."

Gosh, back in 1996 I wrote an ActiveX control trying to warn everyone that this was a bad, bad idea. Embedding native code on a web page is plain stupid. Maybe it's time to open source the code for this thing so it can be brought up to date now that everyone is interested again? Last time I opened my mouth about this Cornelius Willis (platform director at M$) called me "...clearly not an author that anyone can trust" and I ended up spending $600 on lawyers to fend off their proxy attack via Verisign. Anyone else willing to take up the cause? Mike Doyle has been pretty clear about his intent on this, he intends to deny MS the patent and allow other browsers to keep on rolling. His intent? To allow the web to return to it's original platform agnostic experience. Not a bad thing given that 95% of the (IMHO) foolish public is running IE these days. Since most web sites only support IE and Netscrape 4.7 (gack!) isn't this a good thing?

Oh, forgot one thing. Did you read at the end where he pretty much implied that, if Verisign doesn't find a way to make more money off the Internet, they'll no longer be able to keep the root nameservers running effectively?

I loved that part.

Semi-topical link.

Think harder. Many new and very legitimate companies use telemarketing and SPAM. I'm not saying this is a good thing, only that there are deeper issues. This guy makes a pretty good argument.

...their cellphones that run on Windows CE and their cellphones that run on Linux?

As Martha would say, this is a damned Good Thing(C).

It is interesting to note that Paul Allen is the chairman of Charter, and has been since he bought the company in 1998. Perhaps this will give fuel to the entertainment industry to say that technology, technology companies, and anybody tainted by either, are evil? (See here.)

Nonetheless, it is important that formidable companies stand up to the entertainment industry and its henchmen. Charter and Verizon (see story) are two folks who you'd want on your side.

justen