Slashdot Mirror

For those that couldn't get past all the doubleclink.net stuff,
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=199201237

MS's Patent Deal Covers "Certain Linux-Based Products"

Microsoft and Samsung Electronics have agreed to a broad, cross-licensing patent agreement that apparently includes a controversial clause that protects against any legal claims Microsoft may have on technology used in Linux....

Within the joint press release announcing the deal, however, the companies said, "Samsung and its distributors and customers may utilize Microsoft's patents in Samsung's products with proprietary software, and Samsung will also obtain coverage from Microsoft for its customers' use of certain Linux-based products ."[PJ:Emphasis added. So it isn't Linux itself, I gather, rather stuff that runs on it, perchance things like Mono, OpenOffice.org, etc.]

Certainly, since your claimed expertise isn't technology, I'll repeat this again. IBM has had a monopoly for over 50 years in the mainframe business. There was an anti-trust case taken by the U.S. government back in the 1950's IIRC against them. Contrary to popular myth, the mainframe business is very much alive and well, and in Q4 last year, it was their largest growth segment.

I say "almost all" because there's a small startup which is selling mainframe-class computers which runs IBMs software directly. IBM didn't like this, so they filed a Software Patent lawsuit against the company.

The company is called "Platform Solutions", and they are apparently using Linux to achieve their emulation.

So, in short, IBM has filed a Software Patent lawsuit against a Linux company. Here's some Press Coverage:

"IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."

IBM has a VERY long history of patent abuse in the mainframe business; software patents are only the latest variation on a theme. Please check Wikipedia if you want to learn more about the Consent Decree that IBM had to operate under until possibly recently.

"Actually, some of the reform these guys have proposed and the briefs they have written for SCOTUS cases have been in favor of things that would REDUCE the number of patents."

Prove it (but you can't). The standard argument is that first-to-file INCREASES the number of patents, since large companies find it easier to generate more patents than small companies do.

"First to invent is a mess."

And First-to-file stifles innovation. It is pure pork for the big companies. The patent system was supposed to be about encouraging innovation, not stifling it. I agree the whole system needs to be redone. But First-to-file is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about the changes that are needed.

"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention"

Really? Do you mean all those patent trolls who never ship any product have a working prototype? I'm a little surprised to hear this claim from a supposed Patent Attorney. I can think of several Troll companies which don't have a working product. This is usually their standard operating procedure.

A copy of the prototype binary and source code ought to be a part of any current Software Patent, IMHO.

IBM has no connection to the editorial content posted on Groklaw.

Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.

IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

Groklaw met the criteria for hosting on ibiblio's free servers. If your web site meets the criteria, you can host it there for free also. View some other sites on their collection page. Groklaw is a site to discuss open source legal issues, it is not limited to IBM or to SCO, although that is the predominant legal battle going on at this time. If you read Groklaw, you will know that there are not only articles about the other SCO litigation (RedHat, AutoZone, Daimler-Chrysler and Novell), but discussions about Microsoft, patents, ODF vs. MSXML, other GPL cases and the new GPL V3. Ibiblio is run by the University of North Carolina. IBM has contributed servers to the project long before Groklaw came into existence. IBM has no say in the sites hosted at Ibiblio or their content. Ibiblio could host SCO's site if it met their criteria.

I want to know why it matters though... Groklaw looks at the public filings that anyone could get if they were willing to go to the courthouse for a copy. They don't have any secret information and don't get information from IBM. IBM has been nearly quiet in the media since the case has begun, citing their preference not to comment on litigation.

Since before the IBM case started, SCO has been issuing public statements both through their media shills and on their own web site. They've made outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever to support them. They've tried to co-opt the GNU/Linux operating system as their own, charging $700 per processor to run it. That's a slap in the face for the thousands of contributors who relied on the GPL and made their own contributions, and to Linus Trovalds who initially developed Linux. After initially claiming that three teams of experts found millions of lines of infringing code in Linux, they waited three years to show ANY evidence and then it was only 326 lines. They transformed their case from Trade Secrets (since UNIX contains none as admitted by their lawyer Kevin McBride) into some bizzare "ladder" theory where IBM loses control of it's own independent creations simply by associating them with their flavors of licensed UNIX.

The most bizarre thing is how they value their "core UNIX intellectual property". Caldera was created as a Linux company in 1994. They raised about $70 million in an IPO as a Linux company when they went public in 2000. They purchased assets and operations from Tarentalla (Santa Cruz Operation) for $93.8 million in 2001. You can see that in the 10-Q report they filed with the SEC (search for "Purchase price allocation"). They allocated that money this way:

1. $66.1 million - Goodwill (SCO customer base)
2. $26.7 million - Distribution/reseller channel
3. $5.8 million - Existing technology (consisting primarily of UnixWare and OpenServer)
4. $1.5 million - Acquired in-process research and development
5. $1.4 million - Distribution agreement
6. $0.8 million - Trade name and trademarks

Calde

There have been many strange articles in the media, for example in this forbes article they report that IBM may have destroyed evidence. However that evidence was what SCO used as a basis for starting the case, and so SCO "must" have had it to begin with. Forbes and other similar media outlets report large amounts of SCO material without comment.

The question has been raised: where are they getting this material and why are the reporting it as it is. The primary place where that's been raised has been Groklaw and the accusation has been that parts of the media are actively backing SCO even against all possible evidence. Now SCO and those parts of the media have started an intimidation campaign against Groklaw both in court and in the media, along side attempts to by SCO's media friends to invade her privacy. This recent posting is showing the hypocrisy which is behind this campaign and it's media backers who use as accusations in court filings things that they themselves also do.

Did you even read the entire Groklaw article? The whole reason this was posted is in response to this totally asinine Information Week Article headline:

IBM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw

(See http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=198100504)

Basically, Information Week and some asshat reporter named Paul McDougall tried to smear Pamela Jones by suggesting IBM was behind Groklaw because Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio. Well, so is a shitload of other stuff, including support files for SCO OpenWare.

Does the animated cursor exploit work on Vista?

The later article on the ANI exploit states Vista is vunerable.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=198800300

"The bug affects all the recent Windows releases, including its new Vista operating system. Internet Explorer is the main attack vector for the exploits.

Are there enough exploited boxes to increase Vista traffic by .3%?

Outsource the CEO.

OK, let's look at a Fortune 500 CEO:

F. Duane Ackerman is CEO of BellSouth, holds a B.S. in physics and an M.S. from Rollins College, and earned an MBA from the Sloan Fellows program of the MIT Sloan School of Management. Prior to becoming CEO in 1997, he spent 3 years as COO of BellSouth (a company with $20 billion in revenue).

How many people in India have been COOs of a tech company with $20 billion in revenue?

The largest company in India by revenue is probably Reliance Industries (petrochemicals), which does about $20 billion. So there are probably one or two people in India who have experience operating companies of the size of BellSouth, but those aren't tech companies.

So let's look at the largest tech company in India, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) with revenues of about $4 billion. The CEO of TCS, Ramadorai has a BS in Physics from Delhi University, a Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics and Telecommunications from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and MS Computer Science from the University of California. Ramadorai, now gets Rs 2.44 crore, or $561,000. It is unclear to me if this includes all possible non-salary compensation or not. I suspect he may hold a lot of stock.

James Q. Crowe is CEO of Level 3 Communications, which has $3.6 billion in revenue. His salary is $375,000, but his stock option profits are $3,750,000.

The CEO pay for top Indian CEOs is going up rapidly though...S Ramadorai' pay went up 100% from 2005 to 2006.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=129698

Last year, PepsiCo ($32 billion revenue) hired Indian-born and -educated Indra Nooyi for CEO. Nooyi was born in Madras and attended business school in Calcutta before completing her studies at Yale. Her salary is $964,413 but total compensation is $9,377,119.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/ 2006/08/pepsi_outsource.html

On the other hand, Indian CEOs may soon need to pay a 35% tax on stock options, so maybe we will see more Indian CEO talent coming to the US:

http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/Corpo rate/Execu_Comp_03-12-07.pdf

The InformationWeek article you cite, If You're Going To Steal Software, Steal From Us: Microsoft Exec, is from this year, 2007. However, it's been about a decade since Chairman Gates admitted encouraging piracy to gain market share. Hey, it works. Spread their proprietary file formats, protocols and digital restrictions technology. That's where the real lock is.

Whatever. I guess someone will have to update this image to reflect the look of the new desktop and his physical decline.

The SCO case includes some behind the scenes activities that might cause an otherwise sane person some paranoid thoughts. http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48789.htm?D E=1 The suicide of Noorda's granddaughter and heir to the fortune he built up at Novell and Canopy (the holding company that is SCO); the legal and family proceedings revolving around his Alzheimer's disease http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=193200278&subSection=Breaking+News; the suicide of Robert Penrose, a key canopy partner shortly after his firing from the Canopy http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000250.htm and other details too lurid for even slashdot.

Canopy (and Noorda's family and associates,) apparently are not people who have both oars in the water.

Does anyone want to speculate as to whether PJ has a right to fear these deaths were other than self-inflicted? Under the circumstances, would YOU feel threatened by these people?

Microsoft depends on piracy to increase the number of computers their products are on. People using torrents are just helping them out.

It was big news in February that MIT is not migrating to Vista. That's still true, and other universities, such as CUNY, aren't interested in upgrading their Windows boxes to Vista.

I have been defenestrating Windows machines for years, but my experience with the Mac Book Pro and Parallels did it: I'm a Mac convert. Aside from cost, at this stage for many usres there is simply no reason to buy a Windows box when you can have a Mac and run Windows on it as a guest OS if necessary. I agree with the author: now that virtualization provides transparent Windows support, this is a turning point for furture of the Desktop.

Incidentally, rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I was eager to try out Parallels and used for that purpose an OEM copy of Windows that had been removed from a DELL machine, and then activated Windows XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program. But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me that I was some sort of criminal: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP." The Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional I received in the mail the following week contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation."

Microsoft's practice of treating paying customers like counterfeiting criminals is a further reason to think of Windows as just another app.

Perhaps the big SEC bust actually had some effect. My personal harvest of spam has dropped recently from 1000/day to 500/day.

What about this?

http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArti cle.jhtml?articleID=197002968

Debbie does Dallas...again.

Here's a couple recent linsk for data center photo tour geeks: Info Week just had a slideshow of photos from inside the Sun Blackbox portable data center, while C/Net offered a look inside LucasFilms' Death Star data center in San Francisco.

much better
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=197700391
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=197700439

much better
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=197700391
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=197700439

Dupe or not, the sad thing is there are lots of students clueless enough to think that they need MS Office when 99% of them can do all they need with OpenOffice.org.

Yes and part of this reason might be the fact that companies (like my own) are putting a temporary ban on Vista, Office 2007 and IE7 upgrade. IE7 being more technical than cost efficient since some of our applications won't run on IE7 (I don't know which, I have IE7 installed along with IE6 and less for web development purposes and I have no problems yet).

There's also an information week piece that my company is using to value it's decisions on. It talks about how the U.S. Department of Transportation are putting a temporary ban on Vista and Office 2007 since they have usability issues and show no real productivity use for the cost, or as they say, there's no ROI. I did submit this as a story, but I think the story submit is a bit flooded or I used the wrong one since my last two stories are still pending, from several weeks ago. =P

Cheers,
Fozzy

Not too long ago two of IT's top original thinkers and innovators, Jeff Hawkins and Ray Kurzweil, appeared at an MIT emerging tech conference to discuss artificial intelligence. Both see computing mirroring the functions of the human brain. But they disagree on how fast scientists and engineers will develop technologies that exhibit the most complex cerebral traits of humans: self-awareness, emotion, and even a sense of one's own mortality.

Because of technology's exponential growth, Kurzweil sees emotion-laden, self-aware machines being developed by mid-century.

Hawkins' view on technology patterned after the human brain is more limited than Kurzweil's prognostications, saying such artificial beings will take centuries, not decades, to create. The brain is just too complex to replicate that quickly. In this video, Hawkins says robots that run amok, will remain science fiction for a very long time. In a recent magazine interview, Hawkins discusses his theories on building an intelligent machine.

Here's a series of podcasts of Kurzweil's vision of a computer that reasons and shows emotion.

A brief summary by users. There's nothing really new here, except the depressing insistence that they have no choice.

1. Describes serious driver and power management issues that make Vista unusable. Thinks he's going to get it because he does not have a choice. Hates Vista DRM even though he believes in DRM. Thinks new interface will cost retraining dollars. Likes root better than uac. Likes drive encryption.
2. Loves it so much he describes himself as a "Microsoft Vista evangelist", but is unable to name a feature other than better looks and "security" as reasons. He also does not tell us if any of his broken software ever came back to life.
3. Serious driver issues with pre-release code and released code does not have all the drivers he needs. No sound, welcome back to the early 90s. Slower than XP. Likes KDE and Gnome, but says his civil engineering business can't switch to gnu/Linux because there are no legal DVD players available. Vista won't work for him either because AutoCAD won't work.
4. Hates elimination of old shortcuts. Vowed to steer clear of Vista because it does not work with M$ SQL and other services. Is disappointed by drive encryption and predicts many more showstoppers.

The printable version of this article still displays. Pages 2 and 3 of the article did not display when I looked at it. The opinions of Bill Flanagan and David Gray were lost to formatting errors and merged with the others.

These are the same guys that sell Mac OS antivirus through fear and can never have enough access to the Vista kernel.

Microsoft has some big problems with security, but Symantec is sickeningly desperate. I used to depend on Norton/Symantec to keep my computer from dying. Now I just want the company to die (as desperate companies sometimes do). They sound like one big Mad Money "sell-sell-sell" button, just wanting to sell something to the public for whatever they use.

Some Googler! What's he playing? Q-bert?

I love this one:
http://www.informationweek.com/galleries/showImage .jhtml?galleryID=4&imageID=4
WTF is that? The Ameribear? The Don't-Be-Evil-Ameribear? The Beargle? Smokey the Beargle? Smoogle, the Don't-Be-Evil Ameribear?
It Boogles the mind! :)

Glad to know that there's some diversity in editors in their offices. Wonder if there's an ed(1) advocate on that whiteboard by now.

Maybe because Vista requires activation and (last I heard) needed an extra server to handle activation every 180 days, and Office 2007 doesn't? This could matter to a significant number of IT groups in the corporate world.

info week just ran an article on hp getting into data warehousing and bi that had this paragraph pretty early on: Until sitting down with InformationWeek recently, the company has been mum on the initiative--not so much as a peep from its normally talkative marketing team. Indeed, it's an unlikely move into a sector where IBM, Oracle, SAS Institute, and Teradata have years of experience, well regarded products, and loyal customers. Those four vendors--along with Microsoft, which has muscled in on the strength of its SQL Server database--hold about 85% of the $5.2 billion-a-year data warehousing software market, a sector IDC projects will grow 9.5% annually through 2010.
 
so you are right - there's a lot of opportunity there, even for a small player.
 
on a side note, i thought the opening paragraph described the current situation pretty well
  For more than a decade, big companies and sophisticated data aggregators have adopted data warehouses, yet few have mastered them, and many have outright failed in the effort or have been scared off by the complexity. The goal is to give workers access to real-time data across departments and geographic units, but more often than not, data warehouses end up as costly clunkers with outdated, inconsistent, and missing information.
 

I forgot to mention in the first post, that it's more than just Firefox growing. Safari and Opera may be relatively small, but they're gaining as well. And there are quite a few other modern browsers around. You can expect several of them to grow over the next couple of years, probably at IE's expense.

So even aiming for just IE+Firefox support isn't enough to be sure that you're not still turning people away. Fortunately, many of the lesser-known browsers share the same rendering engine (or a variation thereof) with Firefox or Safari, making it easier to keep compatible. You basically have to target the standards and test in Gecko, IE, Opera and KHTML/Webkit.

"...and access is unrestricted."

Well, kind of. Except for the fact that you need a proprietary OS to access it. And proprietary hardware to go with it. It seems if you do not have the correct hardware and try to run this, Apple will sue the shit out of you. Why don't they make this compatable with all versions of FreeBSD, then call it unrestricted?

It's probably for a VLK version. There was some issue with those associated with Eopen in the beginning.

Nope, VLK versions require no activation at all.

I suspect they were referring to a free trial download version.

I would love to see police officers get some type of 'spiderman tracking device' to tag cars that evade arrest. Follow from a couple of miles back and wait until they stop. Safer for everyone, the police, the public, and the driver.
 
You mean this?

If you read the article, you will see that Mrs. Crawford does not even come close to saying
that "Software is at Dead End". She says software needs to catch up with the hardware.

Computers have more and more processors (and different kinds of processors, like GPUs), and
currently most software isn't designed for that kind of environment. IBM has developed
some clever ways to program these types of systems in a "general purpose" way.

That's the worst summary of a headline that I've ever read.

ozgur uksal
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=197001130/

2004-01-26 he said that it would be solved in two years:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=17500979

"I've always been amazed at the Apollo spacecraft guidance system, built by the MIT Instrumentation Lab. In 1969, this software got Apollo 11 to the moon, detached the lunar module, landed it on the moon's surface, and brought three astronauts home. It had to function on the tiny amount of memory available in the onboard Raytheon computer--it carried 8 Kbytes, not enough for a printer driver these days. And there wouldn't be time to reboot in case of system failure when the craft made re-entry. It's just as well Windows wasn't available for the job." [Thank God!! - Ed.]

If NASA open-sources software of this calibre, the entire world will benefit. Look at what NASA's innovations have done for miniaturising circuitry, freeze-drying foods, high-speed airfoils and robotics (to name a few). Now, go download NASA mars rover imaging software (MAESTRO) at http://mars.telascience.org/softwaredownload and look around Mars yourself. With software of this quality open-sourced, just think of the value to the world.

Oh wait, by most accounts, Tiger is still as good or better than Vista.

Oh wait, by most accounts, Tiger is still as good or better than Vista.

Click here to avoid the five pages version and graphics.

All in one page for those of us who hate ad-spammy articles.

As Northrop Grumman has just opened a factory for high energy laser weapons in Redondo Beach, California. Admittedly they're aiming to shoot down ballistic missles and systems to protect buildings and areas.

Click here to going to next pages. :)

For the time being. From InformationWeek.com:

Eventually, the company expects to add more titles and to support to the Mac operating system and other platforms.

See here for more info.

"both DRM technology and GPLv3 will cause "lots of arguments" but in the bigger scheme of things, neither will stop good technology from prevailing."

He doesn't seem to be aware of the current actions to limit his options here.

The problem is that IBM appears to be trying to take control of Linux via software patents. Specifically, censoring it when a Linux solution gives them competition that they don't like.

And they are doing this in the fashion of a Patent Troll, with some rather questionable software patents.

I've mentioned this before; here's the link again. "IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."

What is especially disconcerting is that if IBM wins this lawsuit, it means they will have extreme influence (if not effective control) over most (if not all) Linux products out there, given IBM's vast Patent trove.

Note very well that this is what people were worried about with Microsoft and Novell. The sad news here is that this may have already arrived, via IBM. Which is probably why IBM wants to keep this quiet.

Hello - where's the Linux community on this one? People (myself included) were up in arms when Microsoft and Novell tried to skirt the GPL. IBM's approach strikes me as much worse. It's here. Now.

While Linus would like to keep adding good technology to the kernel, if IBM's lawsuit is allowed to stand, Linus doesn't seem to recognize that his options may be taken away from him. He will no longer be able to publish software without IBM's blessing.

What's next? Is he going to need Microsoft/Novell approval after that?

The only option that I can see is the GPL v3 license approach. One wonders how long Linus can keep ignoring this issue. It would be much better if he were taking a proactive approach here, because simply ignoring the issue doesn't seem to be working.

Nvidia have paid people on the job, with the relevant experience. What makes people think that the oss community can do a better job than nvidia's own people, when they can't even keep their own codebases bugfree?

You were asking the right question up until the last bit. Nobody can keep their codebases "bug free". Humans make mistakes. I assume you're human, ergo you make mistakes too, right? There's probably no program on Earth bigger than twenty lines that's bug-free. Not even LaTeX, though it's been quite a while since anyone's found one.

But as to why "people think that the oss community can do a better job than nvidia's own people", it's because OSS development has, when comparisons have been possible, proven to be better-written than the commercial alternatives. There are objective tests that illustrate this, over and over.

(Note, I still think this Fluendo stuff or something like it is a good idea. But I still want the OSS work to go on, too.)

What isn't getting reported (at least not on Slashdot, for whatever reason) is that IBM's current actions are schizophrenic, if you view them in the best possible light. In the worst possible light, these actions can be viewed as an attempt to by-pass the Patent Office. To make absolutely certain that the big guys retain control over the process, and aren't pestered again by the little guys.

A superb example of this is the fact that IBM is ACTIVELY fully supportive of Software Patents, and has even used what appear to be rather bogus ones (against a company which is using Linux, no less), in order to stifle the competition.

I'm speaking about IBM's lawsuit last month against Platform Solutions. Here's one quote and link from a press article:

"IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."

There are other links if you do a Google search; but it's pretty clear that IBM wants to keep this as quiet as possible.

The point remains though, that IBM is being extremely agressive with Software Patents, against what appear to be Linux-based products. And anything IBM says about "improving the quality" is utter BS. Their priority is to improve the bottom line.

Sorry if that pops some people's bubbles about IBM. There is no question that IBM has been helpful to the Open Source community. But it's quite clear that this only goes so far. And as long as they are actively working as a Patent Troll to stifle competition, IBM cannot be trusted.

Let us hope that it doesn't go so far as submarine patents. But honestly, I've never seen a big company play nice out of the goodness of their heart yet, when it comes to their competition.

IBM might have struck me as leaning that way before last month. But not any more.

1 First to market will be from HP. 1.8GHx Sempron. Four Drive Bays. Four USB Ports, 10"x5"x9."
2 Software based on Windows Server 2003. No sales to end users.
3 "Smart" automated backups of all Windows systems on the network. Remote access through free WindowsLiveInternet address.
4 Stream media to the XBox 360 and (any?) Windows device.
5 Appears as SMB file server to other operating systems.
6 Open a drawer to an unused bay, snap in a drive, no need to power down. (Hot-swappable RAID configurations?)
7 Should be in stores around September.

Microsoft, HP Unveil Windows Home Server

As do theregister, theregister, attrition.org, attrition.org, grok.org.uk,

Even mi2g's own research FTA:

The firm estimated that, with around 600 million Windows-based computers worldwide, this works out at between $281 to $340 worth of damage per machine.

Wow. That is a lot of money per Windows box, per year. To do as badly in sum, every linux box on the interweb would pretty much have to commit fusion.

"Windows computers in over 200 countries were infected. Judging by events which unfolded between January and April 2004, there could be a choppy cyber-sea ahead, made all the more complex by new and more dangerous malware families yet to emerge."

The top 10 malware programs of all time, according to mi2g, are MyDoom, Netsky, Sobig, Klez, Sasser, Mimial, Yaha, Swen, Love Bug and Bagle.

Of course, none of those programs run on OSX or linux.

"It serves the purpose of the vendors to blame the users or the virus writers and not themselves for designing 'Swiss cheese' software."

Don't you MS bloggers have anything better to do? Could you maybe have a look at that virgin Vista IP stack for us? We're a little worried you guys were trolling slashdot and not FIXING THE DAMNED BUGS.

I think your argument of "It's so simple a 5 year old can do it" is flawed for one big reason: The five year old isn't used to using IE.

You must have missed this article

I'll conclude with

with Microsoft applications, there's a feeling that, by and large, the only UI guidelines that Windows applications adhere to is "what we feel like." (I know Microsoft has a lot of UI guideline information, but since no one seems to follow any of it, I'm not sure what the point of it is.)

well, maybe not hypocritical - but here's something I find amusing:

For years, IE was the only browser that didn't have tabs. Why didn't it have tabs? Well, according to this article:

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=163104202&tid=5979%2C5989

Microsft claims the reason is that:

"Some people have asked why we didn't put tabs in IE sooner," Hachamovitch wrote. "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistencywill it confuse users more than it benefits them? Is it confusing if IE has tabs, but other core parts of the Windows experience, like Windows Media Player or the shell, don't have?"

oh ok. that makes sense. They didn't want to change IE because that would confuse people.

But then how do you explain this change in office??

Well obviously, the IE explaination was just a lame excuse. IE didn't have tabs because they didn't care to add them. Quite obviously, they have no problem making major changes that will confuse people. And personally, I don't care. I'm willing to try something new in the hope that it will be better. I just don't like the BS