Slashdot Mirror

Easy with the invective there, amigo.

As for Google users being more educated and internet-savvy is from Slashdot, and is not intended as condescending.

My post absolutely was speculative, but my point is that Google started out by offering the net-savvy sleek non-intrusive text-only ads that are only there when you want them, and is now going to have to resort to more conventional methods like animated images and video (rather like TV). To me that's emblematic of a shift from "upmarket" (discriminating users) to "downmarket" (newbies). Maybe I'm wrong and newbies like text ads more than image-based ones, but AOL (ISP to the masses) sure doesn't seem to think so, and based on the stories coming out, Google is only doing because AOL demands it. The broader point was that Google can no longer work exclusively on hotshot new technologies - to fend of Microsoft, they're being obligated to go with more established ones (graphic ads, AOL's dwindling but still sizeable subscriber base).

What Novell needs to do, is take what it has in SUSE, and work on getting more linux on desktop users machines.

I will agree here. Novell has successful products on the market why not take what it already has and benefit where Linux might prove useful with its current products. For example developing SUSE to be the finest and most well-integrated desktop OS with its Networking, Exchange and Sharing products.

The authors conclusion identifies Novell's strength and direction when Asay writes, "Novell is growing into its role as a major Linux vendor, and Red Hat is growing into its role as a major company, period." Because of this I think that Novell would be better-off dropping the Server-Side Development and move to Desktop Development combined with its powerful middle-ware products.

I've wondered why the spammers haven't started crapflooding the social bookmarking sites already. John Udell wrote about it last month when del.icio.us added the "for" tag.

Well, your thoughts are valid, the /. post and the linked article explain nothing about the Sober worm...

If you go here you will find that the Sober worm directs people to neo-nazi websites, and sends emails with subjects like "Dresden Bombing Is To Be Regretted Enormously" and "60 Years of Freedom: Who's Celebrating?"

Given just what /. had, I'd be more inclined to think that it coincided with Marilyn Manson's birthday. But the virus/worm is actually well known for spreading neo-nazi propaganda.

There are other related costs that need to be considered with a large changeover to a different document standard. Not least there's the cost of re/training staff to use new software.

Anyway, if Massachusetts (or anybody else for that matter) decides instead to wait for MS Office 12 (if/when it is ready) to use MOOX format (if/when it is ready) then you still have the retraining costs. If anything they may even be higher than when switching from current versions of MS Office to OpenOffice.org.

"Power users can probably worm their way through, though there are enough advanced features that they'll almost certainly screw something up without proper documentation."

"But average users will be lost if confronted with these screens out of the blue, and you'll wind up with a help desk nightmare. Moreover, it's easy to see that this version is going to impact even network and desktop administrators in a big way."

Iif you're not using MS Office you may find a lot of your secretarial staff are keen to leave .. they need to keep their skills current just as much as the resident IT geeks .. and in the secretarial world 'current' = latest version of Office.

There seems to be some major problems with the Norton AntiVirus 2006. Some people are reporting that they have dead PCs, some have performance problems, while others are finding that they can't get the product to activate properly. Infoworld Symantec installs snafu and Amazon.com Norton AntiVirus 2006 reviews

News story from the event. The article is light on the details, and at one point refers to "pirated copies" while at another refers to "more installations than licenses".

Having seen both many a time in a corporate environment, this is not always a company decision- users are to blame on occasion as well.

The reason for the shift matters, but the fact that they shifted successfully says a lot, especially to smaller organizations that might not be able to afford enough licenses. If those style shops start switching over to avoid being out of compliance, things could start to get real interesting.

Bob Metcalfe, of Ethernet fame, is the one who started the "open sores" trolling.

In the Windows world, one doesn't get the alpha or beta patches, just the blessed finished product

yeah, right!
i won't even mention IE's security holes for the last 8 or so years (active x, ...) or outlook's bad record of keeping spam from executing malicious code (mostly through the IE engine).

but boldly stating how much due diligence is exacted upon the microsoft patches before final release is ridiculous in face of them frequently backfiring and leaving old or new vulnerabilities in their wake:

http://www.hideaway.net/home/public_html/article.p hp?story=20020924094345962
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/08/HNhacker sjump_1.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1753511,00.as p
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2120864/doubts-r aised-microsoft-patches

jethr0

Note my last post was "modded-down" as a 'Troll', lol:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169427&c id=14122224

Awwww, too bad, guess my life's over now, eh?

The fact here is, especially @ slashdot, that "Pro-Linux Penguins" just cannot seem to handle the fact that their precious open-source OS is not quite up-to-par vs. Microsoft offerings in terms of sales OR total cost of ownership (tco)...

Otherwise, if you say different, & that the facts I put up here:

"Windows leads as server market booms"

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

(This wasn't by a study sponsored by Microsoft either, OR Laura Didio the author of that article, it was by the "yankee group" no less)

& here as well:

'New News' - I wonder about the "TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis for both? Well, then, here's an answer & yes, another quote:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,155 3620,00.asp

"But for the vast majority of customers and especially those that are already Windows shops Windows still offers better TCO value, according to the Yankee/Sunbelt Software study, which is due to be published this week."

Well, simply show us different studies then, which show otherwise than what I posted up here is all which contradict what I put up as evidence as to which OS is outperforming which!

(1 study I posted (by the Yankee Group) wasn't sponsored by Microsoft no less, the 'rallying cry' of Linux folks when studies don't show what they want - which is "Linux is better than Windows" & stating since a study's funded by MS, it's "no good" & that's just b.s.)...

Pitiful guys, really pitiful. The problem with the "Linux Zealot" is just that - they're a zealot, with NO backup in data/fact!

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making my MAIN point for me here slashdotters, because apparently, when it comes down to 'push vs. shove', you just don't have the factual data to backup your b.s., period, & it shows... lol! I love it... apk

Note my last post was "modded-down" as a 'Troll', lol:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169359&c id=14118370

Awwww, too bad, guess my life's over now, eh?

The fact here is, especially @ slashdot, that "Pro-Linux Penguins" just cannot seem to handle the fact that their precious open-source OS is not quite up-to-par vs. Microsoft offerings in terms of sales OR total cost of ownership (tco)...

Otherwise, if you say different, & that the facts I put up here:

"Windows leads as server market booms"

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

(This wasn't by a study sponsored by Microsoft either, OR Laura Didio the author of that article, it was by the "yankee group" no less)

& here as well:

'New News' - I wonder about the "TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis for both? Well, then, here's an answer & yes, another quote:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,155 3620,00.asp

"But for the vast majority of customers and especially those that are already Windows shops Windows still offers better TCO value, according to the Yankee/Sunbelt Software study, which is due to be published this week."

Well, simply show us different studies then, which show otherwise than what I posted up here is all which contradict what I put up as evidence as to which OS is outperforming which!

(1 study I posted (by the Yankee Group) wasn't sponsored by Microsoft no less, the 'rallying cry' of Linux folks when studies don't show what they want - which is "Linux is better than Windows" & stating since a study's funded by MS, it's "no good" & that's just b.s.)...

Pitiful guys, really pitiful. The problem with the "Linux Zealot" is just that - they're a zealot, with NO backup in data/fact!

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making my MAIN point for me here slashdotters, because apparently, when it comes down to 'push vs. shove', you just don't have the factual data to backup your b.s., period, & it shows... lol! I love it... apk

"At any rate FOSS is not declining in use. Its growing in all the ways and places it does." - by 3seas (184403) on Friday November 25, @06:09PM

First of all - Apparently, you don't read very well, do you? Here, I will post it again, so it sinks in for yourself, & others here:

"Windows leads as server market booms"

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

* Windows Server 2003 is OUTSELLING LINUX BY A COUNTRY MILE, & then some currently & also?

'New News' - I wonder about the "TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis for both? Well, then, here's an answer & yes, another quote:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,155 3620,00.asp

"But for the vast majority of customers and especially those that are already Windows shops Windows still offers better TCO value, according to the Yankee/Sunbelt Software study, which is due to be published this week."

(This wasn't by a study sponsored by Microsoft either, OR Laura Didio the author of that article, it was by the "yankee group" no less)

As you see, as to a main quote & support of quite the opposite of what you stated?

WINDOWS OFFERS BETTER TCO VALUE THAN LINUX!

And, in the business world, it's what you find out there: Windows, bigtime, vs. Linux & OpenSource software, period... just a fact!

Anyone out there in the real working world knows it's true as well, because they're out there in it actually working in this field:

Windows is found far more prevalently than Linux @ all levels thru desktop/laptop levels, to departmental servers, to domain & AD servers, to SQLServer, IIS, &/or Exchange servers (& other BackOffice oriented app servers) to Citrix/TS Servers, & other network infrastructures worldwide (by a HUGE margin on all of those levels).

Small wonder it runs 95-99% of all the personal computers &/or servers out there, mainly because everyone knows how to use it for the most part & it works.

Especially the 99.999% uptime-rated Windows Server 2003 on SP #1 with current hotfixes/updates/patches in place!

" If they are as good as they claim, then certainly they must realize that lying is not consistant with public relations marketing, and certainly only shows doubt about their own product and/or sales pitch." - by 3seas (184403) on Friday November 25, @06:09PM

Yea, lol, ok... then, just put up some facts then, & not your poetic marketing drivel that has no facts or studies backing it up then!

How you got modded up 5, astounds me. Based on what exactly (minus -1 for useless "karma points" that is, so it's really 4) on your end? LOL, having to "lump together" all the variants of UNIX (Linux, BSD, Apple's MacOS X) is pretty lame... but still, just "hearsay" on your part & YOUR opinions only, & no facts backing it up on your part!

(Talk about "F.U.D.", period, & the "Pro-Linux Penguins" here deluding themselves, in an attempt to do so with others!)

Face facts WITH facts, like the ones I put up, ok?

E.G.-> You provided no verifiable facts, vs. my own, just poetic drivel! ... & now it's just time to bury you in more facts vs. that level of nonsense with no backup is all.

The ONLY things Linux has going for it is FREE cost (especially regarding Apache as a webserver, but then, it runs on Windows as well) & Clustering vs. Windows for NOW!

(We'll see, for how long on the latter Linux holds dominance over Windows, niche arena though it is only... When CCS releases to production a year or two from now on Windows Server CCS version release we can make comparisons on that note as well

"MS knows they cannot compete with open source software...... why else do they lie every chance they get, about it?" - by 3seas (184403) on Friday November 25, @04:44PM

Oh, really?

Take a read here then:

"Windows leads as server market booms"

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

* :)

APK

P.S.=> So much for THAT comment of yours - even the 'free software' advantage isn't working in Linux/OpenSource's favor on that account. What's considered better is just better, & the numbers bear it out on that account (very recent above) as well as a good 95-99% of systems out there running Microsoft Operating Systems (doubtless by now of the NT-based OS family (e.g.-> 2000/XP/Server 2003)) &/or Win32 softwares, period, from home & business systems (i.e.-> laptops/desktops) to Server-Class backend systems now that Windows Server 2003 SP#1 + hotfixes/updates/patches has a 99.999% uptime, as the URL above evidences... apk

"I'm unable to find any statistics for 2005, but back in 2000, Linux accounted for 36% of webservers, and Windows only 21%, according to Netcraft. It's likely that this hasn't changed." - by arevos (659374) on Tuesday November 22, @07:43AM

Oh, really? Read this, from TODAY:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

"Sales of Windows systems accounted for 36.9 percent of all server revenue in the quarter, versus 31.7 percent for Unix and 11.5 percent for Linux (Overview, Articles, Company), Eastwood said. Enterprises increasingly are using Windows-based servers for applications such as ERP (enterprise resource planning) in addition to traditional uses such as e-mail and Web hosting. Migration from Windows NT to newer versions of Windows also is driving sales, he said."

That good enough for you? I think so!

"Windows is certainly more compatable with hardware and the majority of software binaries about, but more versatile? In what way?" - - by arevos (659374) on Tuesday November 22, @07:43AM

Well, for one, apparently for end users (since a good 95-99% of systems that are desktops/laptops in BOTH corporate/business AND home users are Windows, & most likely 2000/XP/Windows Server 2003 by now).

Secondly, read that quote - seems @ the server level? Windows Server 2003 is 'rocking the planet' vs. its competition, period.

And, lastly, how you mention... can't you understand what you JUST said? It only seconds my viewpoint!

* :)

"But the bug reports from Securia, which is not sponsored by Microsoft or Linux, show quite clearly that Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2000 have more known vulnerabilities than Redhat and Oracle. How can Windows Server 2003 be more secure when it is clear that it has more vulnerabilities?" - - by arevos (659374) on Tuesday November 22, @07:43AM

You should take a look @ ALL the kernel level vulnerabilities Linux has, right here, & tell us all what you just did:

http://secunia.com/search/?search=Linux+Kernel&w=0

And, from the SAME site you seem to worship, no less... some are "remoteable" exploits, other not classified as such, but are 'local' in nature (many of them remain unpatched as well).

The thing about 'local' exploits is, that once you run an app that has a buffer overflow exploit possible in it? It BECOMES LOCALLY EXPLOITABLE by remote users hijacking it, & under the user context in which you are logged on as... with ALL the corresponding priveleges.

So, if said app with buffer overflow exists & gets exploited while you are running it as admin/superuser/root? You see the problem with calling ANY exploit "local" only!

(Better luck next time... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> And, to the guy that replied below me stating I didn't know what versatile meant? Wake up, read this post, ok?? apk

Some MORE info. for you, as to kernel level flaws in Linux (still year 2005 current on many of them):

http://secunia.com/search/?search=Linux+Kernel&w=0

BOATLOADS OF SECURITY FLAWS STILL EXIST IN LINUX, local & remote exploitable, period, with various ratings from "critical", "less critical", to "not critical" (although, this last one is subject to opinion & discussion imo).

NOW - And, as to the popularity of Windows Server 2003 vs. UNIX & Linux @ the server level currently? Here we go:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/23/HNwindow sleads_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld. com/article/05/11/23/HNwindowsleads_1.html

"Sales of Windows systems accounted for 36.9 percent of all server revenue in the quarter, versus 31.7 percent for Unix and 11.5 percent for Linux (Overview, Articles, Company), Eastwood said. Enterprises increasingly are using Windows-based servers for applications such as ERP (enterprise resource planning) in addition to traditional uses such as e-mail and Web hosting. Migration from Windows NT to newer versions of Windows also is driving sales, he said. Server revenue grew faster than IDC's projection, which was for 6 percent growth, according to Eastwood. For the first time, you could say that Microsoft has its own legacy, and that legacy is NT," Eastwood said. How much of Windows' gain will be permanent is hard to say, he added. However, just two years ago, Windows servers were only 31.5 percent of the market, according to IDC. Gartner's figures showed Windows servers with more than 37 percent of the market, also in first place, according to analyst Joseph Gonzalez."

* That quoted/said? Well, what's growing the fastest CURRENTLY? Read the above, & weep!

APK

P.S.=> It's best to be informed, with current info., wouldn't you agree? In addition to that, there is documentation from legitimate 3rd party tests that show for instance, that Windows Server 2003 (SP#1 fully hotfix patched) + SQLServer 2000 (SP#3 with hotfixes) is more secure than Linux variants like Redhat + Oracle or MyPHP as DBEngines, & the funny part from that analysis was the fact that most of the vulnerabilities found weren't @ the DBEngine level, but @ the OS core/kernel level...apk

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/08/24/ 010824hnfreewireless.html

Here's an example. WPA is about the same as shutting down your computer. Triggering WPA takes the computer out.

Saying "I can provide real and reliable sources" without actually doing so is just as dodgy, maybe even more so, than not talking about reliable sources at all.

Smaller ISPs seem to gain users by not making themselves visible as the middleman. The more you've noticed your ISP, the more I bet you've been frustrated.

The providers know that if all it comes down to is an invisible pipe to the Internet, all they can compete on is price and downtime (and in many areas, downtime is hard for them to control). That model makes broadband access a commodity. You may already believe that Internet access is a commodity, but propagating that view is not in the best interests of the broadband providers right now.

CmdrTaco edits an article, but people come here for the +5'd comments.

AOL is none of these things. They're an online newspaper and amusement park. *Yawn* I wouldn't pay $5 for them.

As for Time Warner stock, would you want a part of Time? Warner? Maybe in 1985.

The first time some Linux user called tech support for a $300 linux machine, there goes their profit on that sale.

This is a clear and cut case of Microsoft defending their trademark. Exactly the same thing that recently happened with the Linux trademark.

No, Microsoft Windows is a trademark. One court I believe already decided that Windows is a generic term, just like coke. Linux isn't a generic word yet. Why didn't Microsoft sue Spinnaker for creating Windows Works? Because the program wasn't called Microsoft Windows Works. What about Window Maker, Window Washer, Windows Cleaner, Windows Optimizer etc. The non-microsoft program list goes on.

I think Microsoft would have been better off just paying the guy for the rights to the name. They settled the Mike Rowe Soft incident pretty well.

Is Windows generic? http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/11/HNblowto ms_1.html , the U.S. District Court thinks so.

Enjoy.

Jack Messman says Novell now has two primary businesses: identity management and open source. That's the business Novell wants to go after, anyway. I think it has a decent amount of what you call legacy-support business as well, but it's constantly shrinking.

Identity management is a pretty hot area right now and a lot of companies want a piece of it, including the big guys like IBM and Sun. Novell remains a leader, however, largely because it has a superior directory product.

I wrote an article profiling Novell and it's current business prospects last year. It still pretty much holds. Try to look past the fact that it quotes Laura DiDio -- before joining the ranks of the "notorious foes of Linux," she covered Novell for years and years.

The latest news is that Novell's shareholders have been pressuring it to focus more and more on Linux and open source. I'm not sure that's necessarily the best move, because I don't think Suse Linux is generating all that much revenue so far. The open source angle seems to be perceived as the "sexiest" way to go forward, however, with the hope of reviving the Novell brand.

This isn't really a new problem, as you can see from this article dated January 5, 2001. From the article: Amazingly, a large hosted-server operation can average the same power usage as a steel manufacturing plant.

Try these instead:

Canon develops fuel cell prototypes

Canon shows prototype hydrogen fuel cell

Canon to develop fuel cells for printers, cameras

There seems to be lots of SATA-RAID based iSCSI SAN devices available nowadays.. Some links to products I have seen:

http://www.equallogic.com./ They make nice SATA-raid based iSCSI SAN devices with all the features you could expect (volumes, snapshots, array/volume-expansion, hotswap, redundant controllers, redundant fans, etc).

http://www.equallogic.com/pages/products_PS100E.ht m
14 250G sata disks, 3U, 3.5 TB of raw storage.

http://www.equallogic.com/pages/products_PS300E.ht m
14 500G sata disks, 3U, 7 TB of raw storage.

http://www.equallogic.com/pages/products_PS2400E.h tm
56+ TB

Looks good. I have not yet used them myself :)

Another iSCSI SATA SAN possibility:
http://www.mpccorp.com/smallbiz/store/servers/prod uct_detail/dataframe_420.html
16 sata disks, review:
http://www.infoworld.com/MPC_DataFrame_420/product _53700.html?view=1&curNodeId=0

This company also has SATA iSCSI SAN devices:
http://www.dynamicnetworkfactory.com/products.asp/ section/Product~Categories/category/iSCSI/options/ IPBank/drivetype/L~Series/formfactor/Integrated/in face/SATA~-~Serial~ATA

iSCSI SAN comparison:
http://www.networkcomputing.com/story/singlePageFo rmat.jhtml?articleID=170702726

There are also software iSCSI target solutions for use with your own/custom hardware.
http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net/ for building linux-based iSCSI target/SAN.

If you are familiar with iSCSI targets / iSCSI SAN devices please post your comments!

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/21/HNsenate h-ib_1.html

Your government at work.. for Microsoft.

Your wages will get lower and lower until Gates is satisfied that you're cheap enough.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/21/HNsenate h-ib_1.html

Your government at work.. for Microsoft.

Your wages will get lower and lower until Gates is satisfied that you're cheap enough.

Is not that bash or python are bad, but bash-like shells are 30-years-old unchanged technology.

Now, where have I heard that before?. Bob, is that you?

To steal the response from Nick Petreley: I'm using 30+ year old technology to post this respose. You might have heard of it, it's called "Ethernet".

And you're right, bash hasn't changed one bit.

Is not that bash or python are bad, but bash-like shells are 30-years-old unchanged technology.

Now, where have I heard that before?. Bob, is that you?

To steal the response from Nick Petreley: I'm using 30+ year old technology to post this respose. You might have heard of it, it's called "Ethernet".

And you're right, bash hasn't changed one bit.

Oracle earlier this year signed a deal with Zend Technologies and launched a tool for making it easy to use Oracle with PHP named "Zend Core for Oracle" Zend Core for Oracle Now they bought out InnoDB.

They are thus probably going to add InnoDB support directly into Oracle products making it easy for Companies currently paying royalties to MySQL to switch to Oracle later on. We know they cannot withdraw InnoDB from the market completely as it is a GPL version of it that would create more threats than benefits just leaving behind. Oracle could of course drop improving on the GPL version, but would likely be hurt by this more than ever - everyone would jump ship for PostgreSQL etc. The more probable is thus that they will try to play nice with OSS at least for the time being.

In the long run however it is more uncertain if OSS will benefit from this... Oracle currently have great benefits from being acknowledged as OSS company at this time, but what will happen when Oracle gain a larger share of the OSS market? Then they might try to distinguish their proprietary systems vs. their open counterpart. This could lead to a long term disadvantage for OSS.

A worse posibility - what if the buyout of InnoDB and the cooperation with Zend in reality is meant to soften MySQL so Oracle later may aquire MySQL? They have a dual license too, and may as well be bought as InnoDB. MySQL have gotten lots of unnecessary bad remarks recently for restoring the support for using the database on SCO servers. We all do mistakes, but MySQL have definitively contributed a lot more to Open Source than most, and would thus be a longer term good OSS partner than Oracle.

I hope MySQL manages to find a way to stay strong in the OSS world as well as in the economic one!

Imagine the possibile consequences of MySQL selling out to Oracle...

No such market exists.

...being able to survey the history of an entry is definitely a bonus - it's a good way to correct for the biases present in any given article.

in fact, it might be helpful to see the entry 'diachronically' - you regard the entry not as the snapshot available at the moment you look it up, but as the cumulative history of the entry from the moment when it was first created.

what would help here would be some kind of diachronic viewing mode. maybe it could be done with javascript - there would be a slider at the bottom of the screen that you could drag back and forth to see the entry at different stages in its history. much more convenient for comparative purposes than the rather clumsy history link at the top of the article. it would allow readers to assess the genesis of the article and also to warn them of any lingering biases that remained from past edit wars.

the idea comes from jon udell's entertaining studyof the history of the article on the heavy-metal umlaut.

That's true - I've been following the Rambus/Samsung/Hynix/Siemens/Micron Technology lawsuits battle over RDRAM/SDRAM memory (worth billions), and wonder if this battle will ever end (the latest installment seems to have Rambus suing Samsung).

Uh, no. You are incorrect, sir. I can only infer from your comment above that you are not in the applications development industry (or have extremely limited experience with it...Perhaps you are a "Gates fanboy").

You, and Mr. Gates (if this is what he professes to believe), are also mistaken that a rising number of students in these programs will correlate to a rising amount of top-notch talent. There's no correlative or causative relationship there, as the last tech boom (in the late nineties) proved. (How many of those graduates were considered "top-notch"?) There is a finite number of people who will be interested in this sort of work and an even smaller number of those who will be "good" and an even smaller number who will be "great". Those people know who they are and will frequently self-select into the field. Even fewer of those will be willing to work in the high pressure, "always on," "Ballermized" culture of Microsoft. (Think of the famous Windows 1.0 sales pitch or the "I love this company" speech or the "Developers" chant. As you watch the segements, ask yourself, "Would I want to work for this man?"). More likely, they will go work for Google.

Basically, you either have the "skillz" or you don't. No amount of training will take you to that level if you don't have the ability to intuitively grasp the underpinnings of the field. You could still be a programmer, but it would be unlikely that Microsoft would consider you to be a "good enough" programmer.

While this may do some good, really (in terms of inspiring people who might not have had a clue what they would want to do for a living) it strikes me as a strategic play to keep the cost of good developers low and to placate those who are politically opposed to raising the quota for H1-B visas in the US.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, as the undergraduates (as another poster already mentioned) are smarter than they look and have finally figured out that law and finance are the two industries in this country in which demand will never decrease. And it is, definately, the smart play.

So you think it is unethical to plan the content of a publications based around products advertisers have to sell?

Why? How is that deceptive?

And why do you think all magazines come from America?

Do you think Infoworld should have more articles reviewing electric guitars?

Here's something else you may not realize. If I'm running an article one week on -- oh, say relational databases -- and Oracle hears about that and decides to buy a big two-page display ad to run right smack dab in the middle of my article, we won't do it. You may not believe that, but it's absolutely true. We may run it somewhere else in the issue, of course, but we won't run it alongside the relational database content. Occasionally this can be very inconvenient for us. But this, again, is a general standard of practice for magazines in the United States -- though, again, I can only speak for news and information publications, not lifestyle books.

Or do you disagree, and therefore demonstrate a rather obvious problem with your reading and comprehension skills?

Also, could you provide a link that says you are an editor, rather than one that says you're a columnist?

And mark up the text for those links in a less deceptive fashion?

Perhaps you could read some Australian editorial ethics guidelines.

Er, really. Relevant to both. You don't seem to have had experience in the industry (no problem, I probably don't have experience in various things you do) but call up an editor of any major magazine and ask them if they son't set out to create content relevant to the advertiser.

I don't know what magazine you edit, but if you really set out to create content designed to please your advertisers, please tell me the name of your publication so I won't make the mistake of reading it. We don't do that at InfoWorld and I wouldn't want to work at any magazine that did. You may also want to bone up on editorial guidelines for ethical standards and practices, such as those published by the American Society of Business Publications Editors or the American Society of Magazine Editors.

"Fools!" cried their second in command, who most resembled Uncle Fester. He then made a great commotion with chairs in his office and moaned like a Wildebeast, "I will KILL NETSCAPE! I have done it before and I will do it again."

And he laughed a cruel laugh as he ordered his Developers to craft all manner of Evil for Netscape. "My master says this is His Platform and none can compete therein. HP shall be punished and blamed for their insolence." Before a single unit was shipped the trap was laid.

So the New XP, according to it's master's instructions, reported the offenders who dared challenge the The Browser and there was a great plague on device drivers for the unfortunate users and other dependents.

For Yeah, HP had not learned the Digital Research Lesson, and though they slew their own son, the Beast of Redmond is impossible to satisfy without perfect Obedience.

Palm is expected to have shipped about 480,000 Treo devices in the company's first fiscal quarter, which ended in August, said Todd Kort, principal analyst with Gartner Inc. About 90 percent of those shipments are of the Treo 650, which was first introduced in October of last year. The Treo 600 made its debut in 2003 from Handspring Inc., which was later acquired by Palm.

No manufacturer is immune to problems with computer hardware, but the Treo has been a success for Palm and wireless carriers over the first few years of its life, Kort said. If the problems with the device were as widespread as the plaintiffs claim, it's likely that wireless carriers would have pulled the device from their shelves after receiving complaints, as T-Mobile USA Inc. did earlier this year with HP's h6315, he said.

Mistakes? What about what Palm did right?

Their only mistake was not breaking the law, like RIMM did. Basically, NTP is holding a very vague patent and trying to extort manufacturers who want to make very obvious products.

RIMM went out and knowingly infringed on the patent with hopes that someone would fix the patent system prior to the enforcement of such nonsense.

The bottom line is that Palm devices have been largely replaced by smartphones and Blackberries. Palm *could have* been Blackberry if they just had the cajones to take on the system in the first place.

Great utility that generate password for each site by hashing
the values of a master password plus the domain name of site
E.g.
          my_master_password+cnn.com=unique hash
          my_master_password+slashdot.com=unique hash
        The unique hashes are used as password and you only have to
        remember the master password which remains the same.
See a video tutorial: http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/singleSignO n.html
Or original site of utilitiy: http://angel.net/~nic/passwd.html
Plus a bloggers explanation:
        http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/05/03.html

Great utility that generate password for each site by hashing
the values of a master password plus the domain name of site
E.g.
          my_master_password+cnn.com=unique hash
          my_master_password+slashdot.com=unique hash
        The unique hashes are used as password and you only have to
        remember the master password which remains the same.
See a video tutorial: http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/singleSignO n.html
Or original site of utilitiy: http://angel.net/~nic/passwd.html
Plus a bloggers explanation:
        http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/05/03.html

They can always pull a "software audit" on Massachussetts. All they have to do is ensure the cost of an audit will cost more than it would to force massachussetts to buy microsoft products. They've done it before and they will do it again. It's the ultimate weapon, and it's very effective.

That's a tactic that I hadn't thought of, and it would certainly be a way of putting pressure on Massachussetts. However, it would have to be one heck of an audit to cost the state more than an upgrade to Office 12 (estimated cost $50 million for 50,000 desktops). My guess is that such an audit would actually be detrimental to Microsoft's cause, in the same way that an audit of Ernie Ball Inc. prompted a mass migration to Free Software. Massachussetts is already planning on phasing out Microsoft Office. If Microsoft pushes too hard against Massachussetts it could very well decide to switch operating systems as well. I am sure Novell (now headquarted in Massachussetts) would be willing to help Massachussetts make the switch. More importantly, Microsoft knows that it has to sell Windows Vista and Office 12 to 49 other states. If it puts too much pressure on Massachussetts then other states could very well rethink their reliance on Microsoft. No one wants to be in a position where their vendor can dictate terms. Part of the reason that Microsoft was able to garner the marketshare they currently have is that they have been pretty customer oriented. Generally speaking Microsoft solutions have always been a pretty good deal.

And since when has microsoft cared about the law anyway? They got off easily by ordering the bush administration to pull the plug on the antitrust trial.

There is a difference, my friend, between what's legal and what makes economic sense. There's lots of people that have problems with the government interfering in the software industry. I have been an advocate of Free Software forever, and have used Linux as my desktop both at work and at home since 1995. I think that eventually Linux is going to win out for purely economic reasons. However, even being the huge Free Software bigot that I am I still had a problem with the government deciding what could and what could not be bundled with an operating system. Microsoft was able to "pull the plug" on the antitrust trial because there were lots and lots of people that had a fundamental problem with punishing Microsoft simply because it had been successful.

If Massachussetts' move to OpenDocument formats was entirely politically motivated then a software audit would perhaps be successful in getting it to change its mind. However, at least this time it would appear that Microsoft is getting the boot at least in part because its competition is "good enough" at a lower price, and that's very hard to maneuver against. Massachussetts officials can always point out that the switch is a cost savings measure and use that to bash opponents over the head.

First, it looks like the moderators who said I was offtopic in the GP haven't taken the trouble to investigate Trusted Computing thoroughly enough. It is as relevant as anything else on here.

Now I will have to explain myself in more detail. Those who don't believe that your computer will gain the ability to betray you should perhaps begin by reading this, where it said that...

Transmeta's security technology was not designed to specifically target DRM technologies. DRM applications can certainly utilize our secure, hidden storage facilities to protect the digital certificates that they use, but we also see broader application into embedded markets, especially as we work towards extending our secure storage mechanisms beyond mere data to provide protection of entire algorithms and other intellectual property that our customers may wish to hide from the user-visible x86 space," the spokesman said.

My emphasis. In short, applications will be able to hide data from users. Since then, there seems to have been a tendency to try to occlude the natural meaning of "user" so that this capability is not obvious, but in 2003 nobody understood TC well enough to worry about the controversy, so they had it in the correct context. Amazing, huh? Now, back to what I was going to post...

If TC hasn't been taken into account by the brochure, I worry they may ignore some of the finer implications. To begin with, applications on your own computer (not necessarily the connecting computer) will be able to store information about what you are doing and when and to "protect" it, without giving you the ability to look at that information yourself or to even know where it is stored. If the reporter is ever caught, the reporter may not know that there is incriminating information hidden on her own computer. So, it is no longer enough to just destructively delete a browser cache or something and be reasonably certain nobody can prove you authored a message. And, have you checked what data spyware may be sending out of your computer -- now with your unique, attestable identity attached to it?

So, if the brochure doesn't address that, it's only good for a short time.

The AC seems to be saying that the source of a comment can be hidden by bouncing it around to different places, so that the destination site cannot tell where it came from, and so that the service at the source cannot tell it is a disparaging comment until it is already posted. Well, that assumes that all of the intervening sites aren't cooperating, and they may have to cooperate in order to remain in business in a given country. Since the identities of the people sending traffic to cooperating sites will be known up to the point where the traffic reaches a non-cooperating site, anyone constantly sending traffic to a non-cooperating site will be investigated more closely. If the result of the investigation narrows it down to a few people, then all of their computers can be searched to reveal the reporter.

So, it may not be impossible to remain anonymous but it becomes risky and harder, and with technologies that are meandering this way, becomes near impossible.

Eventually the only solution may be to spread a rumor to a bunch of people you dislike and hope they type it for you :)

Jon Udell has an interesting idea of reinventing the office suite for a networked world. He says it should include "service orientation, peer-to-peer capability, workflow, federated identity, and new ways to query and visualize data." With the source code, someone could develop a system that could improve inter-company communication and collaboration using Open Office. We need to think 21st century.

Jon Udell has an interesting idea of reinventing the office suite for a networked world. He says it should include "service orientation, peer-to-peer capability, workflow, federated identity, and new ways to query and visualize data." With the source code, someone could develop a system that could improve inter-company communication and collaboration using Open Office. We need to think 21st century.

After re-reading what I wrote in the parent comment, I realize that it is excessively pro-Microsoft, in my opinion.

There are entire huge areas of abuse that I didn't mention.

Several years ago I accompanied some friends to a computer store to help them buy a computer. We were offered Microsoft Office for $50. That's why Lotus SmartSuite and Corel WordPerfect lost market share. There was always a two-tier market for Microsoft Office. You could pay full price, or you could pay $50. It seemed to me that Microsoft was less than intense about stopping the pirates, because that ran the competitors out of business.

Microsoft did the same thing with DOS. At one time, 5 local and national distributors with which I did business all carried pirated DOS. I visited one distributor that indicated they were genuinely concerned, and showed them that it was easy to detect a pirated copy. Microsoft verified that. Other DOS-like operating systems were not able to compete with broad-scale piracy.

In 2002, Microsoft implemented a plan it called "Software Assurance". At the time, Ed Foster, who writes a famous column called GripeLine, called Software Assurance "manipulation ... and ... pseudo-extortion" Ed said then that many people "have ... gotten the impression from Microsoft or their resellers that the deadline holds menace for them if they don't respond".

In his column released on September 15, 2005, Ed quoted one customer as saying that Software Assurance was "one of the biggest sucker jobs of all time".

Ed said, "The thing that Software Assurance has always assured is Microsoft revenue -- what the customer has gotten is risk, and lots of it. Expecting Microsoft to deliver value when they've already got your money is just not a very good bet."

Those are just two short examples. Some people believe that there are hundreds of Microsoft abuses like that, but, as far as I know, no one has counted all of them.

targeting Novell's two corporate jets, its "overstaffed" R&D department

I wonder by cutting its overstaffed R&D department if they really just mean move them all to China?

I guess the execs will need those corporate jets to fly back and forth to China in style so they can visit their lower-paid works occasionally.

Fact is, IE7 is going to be far more standards compliant,

By the way, NT4 is 10 years old, not 5. We're talking Linux kernel 1.x here.

This one is so awful. From the looks of it, Linus Torvalds was forced to play the trademark game, because of a slimeball lawyer.

But it appears that because he didn't defend it from early on, he's now unable to claim it in Australia. So he should have been demanding money from all the Linux-name-using folks all these years if he wanted to become the trademark.

How ironic: to frustrate a lawyer slimeball at the behest of his users, Mr. Torvalds makes himself look silly in front of the court.

To get an idea of how scummy the first lawyer was:

Torvalds didn't plan on gaining trademark protection for the word "Linux" when he began work on his OS, but by 1996 he started wishing he had. That's when William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston first started demanding 10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors, based on a trademark claim he had filed in 1994. The Linux kernel was still free software, but according to Della Croce, the name itself was his property.

That's 10 percent! What a parasite! It makes me think he deserves the Mr. Hands treatment.

More (or less) informative is the podcast/transcript of an interview that BG gave at PDC-2005 to Jon Udell over here. Lots of technical talk - role of XML, etc.