Slashdot Mirror

"Bullshit astroturfing." - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday August 06, @09:27AM (#20129253)

Ok... read this (and, you had the NERVE to say in your topic that I am "full of shit"? ROTFLMAO!):

The quote I cite below, is From RIGHT here (& FAR MORE CURRENT THAN YOUR MARCH 21st 2005 dated data, as this is from NOVEMBER 2005):

http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/s oftware/story/0,10801,106050,00.html

"Nasdaq replaced aging Tandem mainframes used to disseminate market trade data with a SQL Server 2005 system that handles 5,000 transactions per second and 100,000 queries a day and can scale up to 8 million new rows of data per day, according to Ken Richmond, vice president of engineering for the stock exchange."

(LOL - who's "FULL OF SHIT", now, "Tommy Boy"? )

ROTFLMAO! Hey "Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft F.U.D. spreader": HOW DOES EATING YOUR OWN WORDS, taste?

(There is the taste of victory which I enjoy, & you? THE BITTER TASTE OF DEFEAT!)

Tommy-Boy - You've made me laugh, w/ your name-tossing (along with other /.'ers name calling, down mods of my posts, evasions of security tests I posted that show Windows as more secure than any PC NIX here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260975&cid= 20109707 , use of profanities directed my way, & "spelling + grammar checks" (those with no PhD's in English mind you) but, this makes me just laugh, read on)!

Ah, lol... Dave Mustaine & MegaDeath said it best, for me:

"A tout le monde (To everybody) - A tout mes amis (To all my friends) - Je dois partir (I must leave) -
These are the last words - I'll ever speak - And they'll set me free"

Free, of the b.s. "proof" you posted, which is WAY outta date!

Free, of the b.s. 'downmods' I have gotten in this reply of mine, despite facts I post which are indisputable!

Free, of the typically defeated's online "spelling & grammar checks", you guys with NO PhD in English often try... & fail on, because you understood my points via the context in which they were used - VERY cheap, & WEAK!

ALL, VS. YOUR "FREE" OS (look @ the backend costs of supporting it, & retraining, as well as bugginess supporting Win32 wares, the MOST used on the planet which you ALL have to deal with because most folks & companies use them? Well, think again on THAT point too), & the FUD campaigns you try to spin using it, vs. Windows...

(Listen to that tune sometime, "tommy boy", because YOU NEED IT, bigmouth & PLEASE - quit misinforming others with OUT OF DATE, 1982-2005 "data proofs", or you will make THEM look stupid, as you NOW do, for name calling!)

Your doing what Mr. Mustaine said in another tune of his "Dance like a marionette - swaying to the symphony (of destruction)"... lol!

If you can't HANDLE the truth? Don't read it... above all else!

APK

P.S.=> I won't SAY something, unless I am dead up sure it's right, & from a valid source + CURRENT data!

(That is, unless I can prove it myself with facts others can test, like the URL below regarding Windows security vs. that of ANY PC *NIX):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260975&cid= 20109707

Ahhh, like usual? ... TOO easy!

When you "Pro-*NIX" people stop posting outright FUD? I'll stop making you look foolish... minus your use of profanities, and outdated B.S.! lol... apk

Symantec, which acquired Veritas in July 2005, is running Oracle's E-Business Suite 11i applications on Sun Solaris servers. Using an Oracle Fusion Middleware portal on the front end, the new system was designed to provide a single point of contact for the combined company's customers and business partners, Thompson said. Source: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=281856&intsrc=arti cle_more_bot

While the FUD machine has done an admiral job at making Vista seem like a steaming pile, that's all it has been: FUD.

I've been using Vista since November of 2006, essentially days after it was released to MSDN, and it is without a doubt better than XP. The improvements are both obvious and subtle. I'm not going to list them all here, because others have done a good job already.

So if Vista is superior to XP technically, which was deemed by most as a great success, then Vista being a failure must be attributed to sales data. Many early reports showed Vista having poor sales, but those reports were flawed due to the fact that they compared the launch of Vista to the launch of XP. Vista launched Jan. 29th, long after the holiday season was over, where as XP enjoyed the entire holiday season to boosts its sales.

Once this was corrected, reports showed that Vista was selling on pace with XP. Indeed, as of March 2007, Vista's sales were double that of XPs.

In addition, despite being released to consumers and businesses separately, Vista's sales were only 4% behind XP, which was released to both simultaneously. In other words, Vista beat expectations by a long shot.

So it must be that sales of Vista have stagnated since March... opps, that's not true either. Apparently, Vista sold so well that it offset the massive hit Microsoft took as part of extending the Xbox 360 warranty to 3 years.

And then there is the wonderful story that Vista has somehow boosted XP sales, which is completely silly. It didn't boost XP sales. There was a larger proportion of XP sales than were expected, but the breakdown is about 80% Vista, 20% XP. Part of this is thanks to the FUD machine (good job guys) prompting some large OEMs, like Dell, to offer XP on lower end machines. Microsoft underestimated the FUD machine's ability to influence the market. (By the way, there were 7% more XP sales than were expected. Hardly a tidal wave of XP purchases.)

Sorry guys. I know you desperately want to believe that Vista is a failure, both technically and in terms of sales. But you're wrong on both accounts. 2 years from now, when 90% of PCs are running Vista, you'll probably still claim it's a failure, although you'll fall back to the technical side of things.

I'll be sure to bookmark my post and repeatedly link to it in all those flame wars.

Maybe you should read TFA again, and it'd all make more sense to you.

You write: "it is suggested that Vista growth is largely cannabalistic from XP"
TFA reports: "Vista's increases have come at the expense of Windows XP and Windows 2000"
[sounds very explicit, not suggested]

You write: "TFA states early on the rate of conversion to Apple's new format"
TFA reports: "the computer maker is not making new Mac converts"

You write: "If this were reversed, and an apple fan site..."
TFA links to another article which is pro-switching to mac: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command =viewArticleBasic&articleId=297826 [MS doesn't really have many fans, they've got lots of users though]

But since you didn't understand TFA, let me put those mac growth numbers into a simple context:
In January: PowerPC: 4.34%; Intel Mac: 1.88%
In June: PowerPC:3.52%; Intel Mac: 2.48

Difference: PowerPC -0.82%; Intel Mac: +0.6%

The implication: The people that bought Intel macs did not make up for the number of people who either bought Microsoft, or threw out their PowerPCs. We would have expected that a drop in PowerPC numbers would make at least a corresponding rise in Intel Macs, but it didn't happen.

This is bad news for mac lovers, but news nonetheless

Vista's increases have come at the expense of Windows XP and Windows 2000, both of which have dropped in usage since January.

It looks like OCZ has plans to deliver an actual nanotube product. Anyone seen one of these for sale yet?

It's this simple, people are afraid of change, many people will not do change because it puts the testing of their reputation on the line. (many CEO's, CIO's, IT Directors, IT Managers, and the likes) Even though it is very evident the cost savings and the possibilities of re-allocating money to other projects that have never been touched because of current issues with M$ products or incompatibilities with others. These people are not comfortable with change and they do not want to put any effort or time in to making a significant change (they would rather deal with what they have been dealing with because of the possibilities of not having a job tomorrow, if they were wrong). Even if of it is evident that the benefits out weigh the eventual cost, productivity, time and effort of another product that they don't have now.

No one is willing to take risks anymore. They would rather agree with one another that it will not work out in the end. Even though I don't agree with these peoples though process, I do agree that it can be a task to get everyone to buy in to the change that would take place with the sagnificant change switching to OSS or Linux, but it is not impossible if you spend time to outline, plan and prepare for this type of rollout.

There are many success stories of people switching to OSS and Linux for their small, meduim and large size companies, who have taken the plunge to save money and troubles.

Ask the following companies - (I will kill two FUD's with one stone here - the use of OSS and Linux)

NASA - http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Projects/Columbia/co lumbia.html
- http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/

DELL - http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/pow er/en/ps1q03_insights?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz

Walmart - http://www.wirespring.com/ (firecast runs on Linux andfirecast is and OSS)

Sony - http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int &id=2804
- http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/media_companies/sony3 .html

Google - Summer of Coders (need I say more?)
- http://code.google.com/

IBM - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource

Boeing - http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO-boeing.html
- http://www.zdnetasia.com/toolkits/0,39047352,39379 125-39094247p,00.htm

Wall Street, Merrill Lynch, ETrade, TowerGroup, Shahrawat (even as far back as 2002 - they must be Linux and OSS giants now!)
- http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html
- http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/lin ux/story/0,10801,75271,00.html
-

other to name Remax, People Soft, Byte, Cisco, Credit Suisse

For a much longer lists.. and why enjoy the following!

- http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/

-

www.netcraft.com and http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9023538

Seriously, there's only the lightest mention of taking measures to encrypt user data prior to any loss. Almost every week now a major data breach is reported, usually via a laptop or backup tape, but why not a smartphone? These are all 'puters, and data needs a policy and toolset everywhere right?

Personally I can't really think about even leaving the house with such a smartphone unless its been encrypted AND backed up. Then at least the stress is limited to the replacement cost of the phone. Same logic as laptops, of course.

Here's a link to the full text of the article.

To reinforce my point, there's even a link to the related story of Paris Hilton having her address book published over the internet.

FWIW, I just bought a Nokia N95, and it comes with a good chunk of Windows software for syncing (to Outlook or Lotus Notes), plus backup. But I've been reading up on firmware updates, etc. via forums, and apparently the Nokia backup application is really a misnomer, because following a firmware update, (where you'll lose all your settings, etc.) if you try to 'restore' you'll restore old bugs, etc., and you are advised only to reinstall everything fresh again at that point, (but you can still easily *sync* contacts, etc., so the pain is much lighter than it seems).

p.s. My main concern about the Nokia N95 was how useful the GPS would be, especially without a car, as I don't drive and in-fact use a lot of bicycle-only roads here in Holland, ...and I was skeptical about the purchase. Well I've only had a chance to really field test the GPS once, but it worked, and I was amazed. Also no battery issues while active GPS tracking, although I wasn't out for very much more than an hour (but the phone was in use all day). But still, I found my way using only the phone, on curvey and unintuitive bike paths around all kinds of bodies of water in my way.

The new firmware, which I didn't test, adds support for assisted-GPS, which gains accuracy using cell tower info. But I don't have any carrier, I only use 802.11, and from what I've read, A-GPS only works with a data contract like HSDPA (and its cell-towers for accuracy) which is in-use on the Netherlands.

Seriously, there's only the lightest mention of taking measures to encrypt user data prior to any loss. Almost every week now a major data breach is reported, usually via a laptop or backup tape, but why not a smartphone? These are all 'puters, and data needs a policy and toolset everywhere right?

Personally I can't really think about even leaving the house with such a smartphone unless its been encrypted AND backed up. Then at least the stress is limited to the replacement cost of the phone. Same logic as laptops, of course.

Here's a link to the full text of the article.

To reinforce my point, there's even a link to the related story of Paris Hilton having her address book published over the internet.

FWIW, I just bought a Nokia N95, and it comes with a good chunk of Windows software for syncing (to Outlook or Lotus Notes), plus backup. But I've been reading up on firmware updates, etc. via forums, and apparently the Nokia backup application is really a misnomer, because following a firmware update, (where you'll lose all your settings, etc.) if you try to 'restore' you'll restore old bugs, etc., and you are advised only to reinstall everything fresh again at that point, (but you can still easily *sync* contacts, etc., so the pain is much lighter than it seems).

p.s. My main concern about the Nokia N95 was how useful the GPS would be, especially without a car, as I don't drive and in-fact use a lot of bicycle-only roads here in Holland, ...and I was skeptical about the purchase. Well I've only had a chance to really field test the GPS once, but it worked, and I was amazed. Also no battery issues while active GPS tracking, although I wasn't out for very much more than an hour (but the phone was in use all day). But still, I found my way using only the phone, on curvey and unintuitive bike paths around all kinds of bodies of water in my way.

The new firmware, which I didn't test, adds support for assisted-GPS, which gains accuracy using cell tower info. But I don't have any carrier, I only use 802.11, and from what I've read, A-GPS only works with a data contract like HSDPA (and its cell-towers for accuracy) which is in-use on the Netherlands.

Well, the Air Force doesn't seem to be pulling up the DoD average, which is still an F on the 2006 Federal Computer Security Report Card. http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/ FY06FISMA.pdf

Overall, the report shows a slight (C-) improvement from 2005's dismal D+. But whatever "large US Governemt agencies" are doing, it doesn't seem to be enough. I know how joyous I was when my personal information escaped the Veterans Administration--along with that of about half a million others. http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/064307.shtml

Nor has the Air Force been immune, though I haven't heard of a data loss there since the 2005 episode involving 33,000 officers. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/story/0,10801,104080,00.html?SKC=security-10408 0

Of course, for some serious good times, you have to read about the Department of Homeland Security having to report 800 security incidents (virus outbreaks, 'hacking' tools found on servers, breakins, etc.) over a two year period to Congress, as reported here on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/20/125 9219

I don't get to hear enough from DoD people who are down in the trenches (no pun intended) on a daily basis. That rather sucks, as I'm a security guy. Would you care to share any thoughts on what might be wrong? Or, if you're in an area where things are going well, what are you doing differently from those departments/agencies where things seem to be a complete mess?

Read it and weep.

IBM'er says Vista's RAM sweet spot is 4GB
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011523

Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=29 17&p=4

"While it's very difficult to benchmark the impact of SuperFetch well, in our usage of Vista if you have enough memory it is a tremendous ally. Honestly SuperFetch is the biggest reason, in our opinion, to move to the x64 version of Vista so you can use even more memory. Although we found that 2GB of memory is still quite passable under Vista, the new sweet spot if you happen to multitask a lot is 4GB - in no small part due to how well SuperFetch utilizes the additional memory. Do keep in mind that you'll need to make sure your motherboard has proper BIOS support for 4GB and also make sure Vista x64 has driver support for all of your peripherals before committing to the move....

How much RAM do you really need for Windows Vista? We recommend a bare minimum of 1GB of memory for all Vista users, 2GB if you're a power user but don't have a lot running at the same time, and 4GB if you hate the sound of swapping to disk...."

Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista /page11.html

"Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?

Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).

Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.

There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it.

We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.

There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately.

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32

Most of the "techies" that I know think the same thing about Vista. That the really big reasons for not upgrading will be fixed after SP1

Which is why we should be weary for Microsoft's rush to put out SP1 ("Microsoft attempted to undercut Google's reason for extending the consent decree by promising to release a beta Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) before the decree's Nov. 12 expiration.") -- It's not really the fix everyone's hoping for. Maybe in the future SP1 will be put out as soon as possible just to placate people who would generally wait for SP1 before buying? It makes marketing sense at least.

RHEL5 shipped March 14th, 2007. Why not compare it's errata?

I wouldn't count any updates released on 3/14 against RHEL5 on it's ship date - It's a perfect example of how OSS works and how fast patches are available. RH wanted to ship a stable version and didn't want to through last-minute patches into the install routine. What's the first thing you do when you install a new OS? You run the tool for online updates. So on day one 19 patches were available for all the bugs that had popped up since the version freeze to produce RHEL5.

Since 3/14, there have been 42 updates to RHEL-WS5. 11 of them have been after the 90-day mark, so that leaves you with 31 defects in the first 90 days of RHEL-WS5. That's also not using the "reduced" method to match feature-for-feature what Vista has.

However, I think the point is still always going to be that you can't have totally bug-free sofware. But it's how fast are bugs found and fixed. That's what Microsoft can't touch. How long do bugs go unreported so someone can take advantage of them on MS OS? Even once reported, how long do they linger? The same is simply not true for any critical bugs found in OSS.

But it is nice to see MS finally taking security seriously. They've only been trying to do that for 5 years with their Trustworthy Computing Initiative. Why not compare Windows 2003 Server stats, since it was released after the Trustworthy Computing Initiative? 6 months showed 38 defects. If you compare RHEL5 with just the same installed features to match WS2003 in 3 more months, I wonder how it will fair?

Of course, Microsoft had the NSA help them with Vista, which proves again that the more eyes you have on the source code, the better ;-p

I'll stick with CentOS myself... all the benefits of RHEL without the support fee costs.

Run windows apps on Linux -- eventually, we're going to need to take this step. A standard, unified API to develop for makes it easier on companies that are already afraid that DRM violations will erode their bottom line. If Linux starts running Windows apps, I think more people will switch over, because they run Windows for the easy installation (now nearly conquered by Ubuntu) and the vast library of software guaranteed to run on it.

Talbott thinks we should all be growing our own organic carrots. Isn't that a formula for the destruction of civilization? Work is a good thing. But different people doing different work that they each enjoy is also a good thing.

Talbott's "arguments are unlikely to persuade those who prefer digging into code to digging in the compost heap. And they should not persuade anyone who prefers sound thinking to platitudes."

Wisconsin passed a similar law over a year ago. [Article]

I notice this is your first post. Congrats. If you want to look slick, learn to use the anchor element to embed the link. Here's one of many guides. (You'll want the first item in this list.)
Alternatively, select the text from any comment which contains a link and use your browser's View Source function to see real-life examples.
Fair or not, this is part of the slashdot culture; what one says is important, but how it appears to the reader also carries weight.

Glad you got up-modded.

"Just a thought; But what was the Operating System of Choice for those poor unfortunate Department of Homeland Security Victims?"

'The contract, awarded June 27, named Microsoft as the "primary technology provider" to the Department of Homeland Security, supplying desktop and server software critical for the agency'

"Microsoft Corp. has hired another Homeland Security Department official for its team "

was: Re:Just Out of Curiosity

You can order all the goods and services you want with your computer, but eventually someone's going to have to drive that stuff over to your house, which will be pretty hard to do with "no car at all."

Printer Friendly:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9024784

Anyways, it doesn't matter what the US signs into law if there is no meaningful oversight, penalties and enforcement.

I also can't imagine that the business lobby isn't going to scream and shout about the expense involved with implementing true EU style reforms.

One alternative to all these expensive-to-implement laws is to make it an opt-in industry. By the time they're done culling out all the people who don't want to be in the database (a one-time event), EU style privacy laws won't cost all that much to implement.

Firefox has managed to get a 25% marketshare against Microsoft, on their own OS.

Where are you getting this figure? I typically read that Firefox is hovering around 15% globally:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=windows&article Id=9025162&taxonomyId=125

Nevermind, I found it. Here's the direct link to the scorecard and top 100 list: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9024364

Here is a link to the one page printable version of the article.

"Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete"
This must be what it feels like to be in the spin room after a Presidential debate. Someone's distributed the talking points, and now dozens of people are suddenly parroting the exact same line: "This is an SDK. It is not a browser war."

Well, you're half right. It will be easier for Windows users to ensure Safari compatibility when Safari runs on their own systems. But this is also Apple making a play for a share of the Windows browser market. Let's review.

Reuters: "Jobs put Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer browser squarely in his sights ... 'We would love for Safari's market share to grow substantially,' Jobs said ... 'We assume Safari for Windows should increase market share and encourage Web site developers to allow for greater compatibility with Safari,' Soleil Equity Research analyst Shannon Cross said."

MacWorld: "A second reason for Apple's expansion into the Windows browser market might be a simple matter of green ... The more Safari users, the larger Apple's revenue from its own deal with Google. ... 'In addition to the iPhone, there are two things Apple is looking for--increasing overall market share to ensure developers are supporting it [Safari] and bolstering the number of alternatives to Internet Explorer,' [NPD Group analyst Ross] Rubin said. ... 'The Mac's market share is great, but we want to grow, and, in order to do that, we have to create a version of Safari on Windows,' Jobs said during his keynote. ... 'What we know is that people will love an innovative browser,' said Brian Croll, Apple's senior director of software product marketing. 'We think it will be really popular on Windows.'"

Computerworld: "a major step for Apple into the browser wars ... During his speech, Jobs said that Apple simply wants to increase its browser market share, which seems logical."

And so on...

John Lilly, Mozilla's chief operating officer, focused on the part of the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote where Jobs spelled out existing browser shares of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari -- 78%, 15% and 2%, respectively -- before displaying another pie chart that showed Safari with about a quarter of the market, IE with the remainder.

In the ad: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9024559

Does the little asterisk means the price is:
Case A:
80MB HDrive for 12000$, for a minimum of 40 systems;
300MB HDrive for 20000$, for a minimum of 69 systems;
Case B:
40x 80MB HD for a total of 12000$, totalling 300$ each;
69x 300MB HDrive for a total of 20000$, totalling ~290$ each.

Any idea?

Hi all. Computerworld's antique ads article is fun, but if you want more on the subject of vintage computing in general, then check out Computerworld's blog devoted to the topic! I write it; the link is http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/koblentz/

is here

Or, your state is doing it anyway. Doesn't hurt that Ed Felten is a professor at a major college in your state.

Here.
And here.
Also, here.

Note that the first one isn't even Microsoft 'stuffing channels' as you so often accuse them of doing - it's a small distributor, commenting that they've sold Vista at an alarmingly high rate since launch.

So much for that sleep, then, eh? I hope you had good dreams about you and RMS spooning on a penguin-shaped bed.

Especially those with a list of apps, mashups or what ever the buzzword is today on top of that without links. Make your own decisions. BTW I only count 8.
There is also the printable version
- FileWave
- NetOctopus
- LANrev
- Radmind
- ManageSoft
- LANDesk
- Timbuktu
- NTRsupport

Tried to RTFA but didn't succeed (good thing I can read an address)...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9024079

-Anony Mouse

You went to the effort to prove something that's explained by Maynor in the very video you're claiming to debunk? Wow, what a complete waste of time.

In order to "fake" something, you have to pretend that it's something it isn't. Maynor was, in fact, perfectly open from the beginning about the use of a third party Wifi device. There was no attempt to mislead - from him. There were, on the other hand, hoards of people who lied or repeated lies about what he did, claiming that he lied when he clearly didn't. Only a few, apparently not including yourself, have had the decency to withdraw the lie.

Printable Version

Right now this doesn't worry me too much - after all, how much "identification of anonymous dissidents" could someone do based only on one's gender and a rough estimate of age? On the other hand, if Microsoft do expand to geographical location, occupation, and educational degree as mentioned, then it's rather worrying.

For those of you who want to read the article without having to click through seven pages of ads: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9020880

Yep, looks like the poster didn't actually read the comments of the earlier post, where the general /. consensus was that it was a shitty self-serving article, full of corporate self-interest and lacking in technical merit.

From that article:

"Most typical Web surfers who install this extension remove it after the novelty wears off."

Did Peter Smith just happen to have the opinion of "most typical Web surfers" at hand? Looks to me like he is writing his own opinions as if they belong to some majority. The article contains several similar lame excuses and generalisations along the lines of "I didn't like this so neither should you.", and it undermines the few reasonable points he makes.

I think "most typical Web surfers" use some form of IE, and those who have chosen Firefox probably did so precisely so they could have more control over their browsing experience, which is exactly what addons like NoScript and AdBlock provide.

For me, that article served to flag computerworld.com and particularly writer Peter Smith as "not worth reading".

So don't "be sure to skip" those extensions, as some of them are amongst the best extensions available for Firefox.

here

Print Version

Print Version

... let's just go to the "readable" story: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9020942

link because a /. thread with no no-ads link is like a fish without wings

Click Here

Here are all 10 in one page.

No better place to dovetail than first post.

Here's a link to the print version for those who dislike clicking 18 times to read a news piece.

And for those not wanting to feed the gossiping trolls altogether, here's the (pointless) "Top 10" list in short form.

1. Cobol
2. Nonrelational DBMS
3. Non-IP networks
4. cc:Mail
5. ColdFusion
6. C programming
7. PowerBuilder
8. Certified NetWare Engineers
9. PC network administrators
10. OS/2

You may now return to the /. index in search of better things to quibble over.

For those who don't want the ads and "click to continue" garbage. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9020942

because clicking "next" a bunch of times just to read a small paragraph is lame
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9020942

Slightly offtopic, but did anyone notice one of the other articles beneath this one? It appears that Sony has cut out the adult film industry from putting titles on Blu Ray.
Here is it.