Slashdot Mirror

"Creating the Xen Foundation allows for even greater transparency and leadership independence than we have today, and will provide an organized forum for enabling the community of vendors and users that are building Xen into their businesses to influence the project roadmap," Pratt said.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 694721

Quote: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to let wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) to operate in unused spectrum space currently occupied by TV broadcasters. The proposal is aimed at giving consumers an alternative to cable and telecom broadband providers."

???

CC.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 101891 it's old, doesn't list numbers, but it's indicative that Europe got Suse 9, six days before the US.

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3

WoW... 2 dead links: Proud of you, that one, lol... I can't reach them, so, how can you show me this "proof" of yours, vs. this (and your OLD stale data, that's older than mine, here):

More bullshit - the links work fine.

And, if you had bothered to read the articles, you would have known that the upgrade was a 3-year program - 2005 to 2007. Not "old news", but a continuing program; and that the machines in question are Nasdaq's trading platform, have a much greater capacity than the Microsoft system you go on and on about, (which is a reporting system, not a trading platform) etc.

But you're just trying to troll, which we all already know. Your misunderstanding of the term "transaction" vis. databases makes it obvious that, contrary to your claim of "15 years experience", you never worked in this field.

So keep on, we're not impressed, you're just another dickhead shilling for Microsoft (and no, they won't front you a free laptop for this - you've got to do better than this lame attempt). Like Microsoft products, your trolling is third-rate.

Don't like it that those evil "open-sores" people are smarter than you? Awww, poor baby ... NOT! Both linux and BSD eat Windows for lunch. Of course you have no way of knowing that, since you don't know the difference between a transaction and an order, or a reporting system and a trading system.

Here's a question even an AC can sink their teeth into - why do people continue to extoll the "benefits" of Windows when, in hindsight, it was obviously a wrong turn in the road as far as computer systems are concerned? Do they feel "embiggened" by being able to click on stuff and occasionally getting it right? Or is it the psychological block from not being willing to admit that you've made a wrong choice, and that the time invested is a write-off (in other words, do Windows users labour under the "sunk costs" fallacy)?

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 491491

WoW... 2 dead links: Proud of you, that one, lol... I can't reach them, so, how can you show me this "proof" of yours, vs. this (and your OLD stale data, that's older than mine, here):

I read the link you posted, FROM MARCH 21 2005, vs. the one I POSTED, from November 2005... lol! Mine's oh, what... 8 months more current than yours?

YOU'RE OUTTA DATE/STALE, buddy!

Here's more:

Hey, tomhudson (43916), some vintage quotes of yours:

"That is a total lie. Not for trades. Nasdeq has never used either Tandem computers or Windows boxes for trades. Ever. Those Tandem computers that were replaced with Windows boxes never handled trades." - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday August 06, @07:08PM (#20135985)

&

"The machines "disseminating the data" are not the same machines doing the trades. So yes, you ARE full of crap. Enjoy it." - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday August 06, @03:39PM (#20133501)

----

Ok, you asked for it, here it is (others here CAN READ, you know, I'll let them judge (how's that))?

Securities: NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

"The system supports NASDAQs Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through MDDS, and MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades. To support MDDS, SQL Server 2005 handles approximately 5,000 transactions per second at market open."

http://www.windowsfs.com/eNews/tabid/112/articleTy pe/ArticleView/articleId/933/Securities-NASDAQ-Mig rates-to-SQL-Server-2005.aspx

Dig this, bro, & dig it good:

EVERY TRADE pal, & its data... every trade goes THRU Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005... you b.s. artist/"F.U.D." spreader, that had the sheer NERVE to call me names, & a shill above all else!

Also?

Note this part of it, too: "MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades.", lol...

(Again - PROVE otherwise, to all of us reading here - you tried, but with STALE data, outdated stuff below!)

Hmmm, I see now, why you have TROLL in your signature here: YOU CAN'T HANDLE TRUTH, even if proven from reliable/reputable sources!

Read on, McDuff (proof of it is earlier & BELOW, verbatim, from one of the architects (Ken Richmond) of the system, AND that ALL DATA for trades passes thru MDDS, & from reputable sources no less):

First of all: NOTICE THE DATE OF YOUR initial "PROOF" (it is less current than mine was, which disputes AND disproves yours):

LOL!

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."

Now, take a peek @ this above again ESPECIALLY ITS DATE, vs. your "proof" again, mine @ Nov2005, vs. yours @ Mar2005 (stale/old), also, because it further disproves your reply in an attempt to debate the above (your saying every trade did not go thru MDDS etc. in essence?)? Now if you are dyslexic? That is excusable... otherwise it is NOT!

----

Your ideas

Again, learn to read. That system is for disseminating completed trades, not the actual trading system.

From your latest link:

The system supports NASDAQ's Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS).

YOUR OWN QUOTE:

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

These are machines that are used for people who want to know trade history - not machines that handle trades. The "transactions" they refer to are queries about trades, not "transactions" for trades. A "transaction", if you actually worked with databases, is any exchange between the server and client, not a n "order" - a sale of stock.

Again .. your own words:

MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades.

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 491491

The trading system has 4x the capacity, and actually executes the trades; the Windows system you're so proud of is only for disseminating info, not actual trading. Yes, it gets a copy of each trade, to pass it along to those who want the info, but its NOT the trading system; its too under-powered by a long shot.

The eWeek story got it wrong. Internetnews.com got it right. From their article: "in an interview with internetnews.com, Howells admitted that he lacked that empirical evidence to back up his allegation. "All we've got is the raw statistics," Howells said. "We expected general trends to be similar, but what we saw was a big divergence going from the two platforms being almost the same to one tripling in size. We were looking at various reasons for that, and there may be a number of reasons for that but we don't actually know the specific reason." Among the other reasons why Red Hat users may well have increased is the emergence of a new Red Hat release -- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (RHEL) -- which was released in mid-March just a few weeks ahead of when the Alfresco study began. Novell on the other hand had no similar product launch event at any point near the Alfresco study. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 690141

The eWeek story got it wrong. Internetnews.com got it right. From their article: "in an interview with internetnews.com, Howells admitted that he lacked that empirical evidence to back up his allegation. "All we've got is the raw statistics," Howells said. "We expected general trends to be similar, but what we saw was a big divergence going from the two platforms being almost the same to one tripling in size. We were looking at various reasons for that, and there may be a number of reasons for that but we don't actually know the specific reason." Among the other reasons why Red Hat users may well have increased is the emergence of a new Red Hat release -- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (RHEL) -- which was released in mid-March just a few weeks ahead of when the Alfresco study began. Novell on the other hand had no similar product launch event at any point near the Alfresco study. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 690141

There's actually very many security holes found in Opera compared to its very low user base. Do a search, and count. You'd be surprised.
Yes, they're usually good at fixing those brought to their attention, but we know nothing about the security problems not brought to their attention. This is an inherent problem with closed source.

Also, not everyone agrees that their security handling is the best.
I remember the jpeg security bug which bit everyone, and everyone fixed. Even Microsoft treated it as critical and severe, but Opera? It was branded a "cosmetic" bug in the release notes of the next release, and no notification of the security hole, urging customers to upgrade.
Some also seem to think that their security model is flawed (in addition to not understanding vulnerability reports).

But back to the point -- with closed source, you just can't know what else lurks under the hood, or whether they actually fix problems, or just the symptoms. That a previously reported bug has reappeared in later versions might indicate the latter -- once what's in front changes, the inside becomes vulnerable again.

Even if you disagree with all of the opinions of Opera having more than their share of security issues and a less than desirable way of treating them, saying that Opera is secure because all known security holes have been patched is just plain wrong. If that was the case, software that no-one has tested would be 100% safe, because there's no known holes. In reality, there's always more holes that no-one have detected, and how many are found tends to be proportional to the amount of scrutiny the application gets. With Opera, that's far less scrutiny than Firefox and IE, so one should expect far fewer found bugs too. Not far fewer bugs. Based on customer base, Opera has more found security bugs than both Firefox and IE, which doesn't bode well for the number of undiscovered ones.

Which in the real world is practically never, considering that IE doesn't support any of them

Internet News has more details and analysis of the act, including comments from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who voted for the bill but expressed reservations:

"I worry that the provisions addressing broadband speeds and smaller geographic areas in this bill could inadvertently paint a picture of an America without broadband that is not accurate," he said in a statement... I am not sure that Congress, rather than the FCC, should be getting into this level of detail, particularly given technological changes, such as compression technologies that could make these standards a moving target."

I'm not sure I agree with him that the "America with broadband" picture is inaccurate. By most other modern countries' standards, we are far behind.

Mr. Varghese,

You spend some time in your article attacking various unnamed tech writers for their work on GPLv3, and hold up Brian Profitt of Linux Magazine, and Eben Moglen, as examples of good writing on the topic.

Can you identify a specific column that you disagree with? Or a specific author? Or at least something more specific than the general doom-and-gloom nonspecific "end of FOSS" warning that you quote?

I am far from expert on GPLv3 (haven't even read it), but it strikes me that a large number of the people concerned about version 3 aren't exactly slouches, unless you're prepared to call Torvalds a hack. I'd like a concrete example of a claim you're trying to debunk.

Oh, and while we're at it: when you're looking down your nose at other tech writers that you deem unworthy of the title "journalist," you should probably start trying to observe some fairly basic journalistic principles yourself. For example: Eben Moglen, whom you correctly identify as having worked for the Free Software Foundation, is a co-author of the GPLv3 draft , which doesn't exactly position him as an unbiased observer.

Yes, this has not only been done before, but the entire CONCEPT has a name, according to ByteAndSwitch (http://www.byteandswitch.com) : SSP (Storage Service Providers). One of those, Scale Eight, had this technology in early 2000: http://www.internetnews.com/storage/article.php/78 7211

Sure about that? There are indefinitely people under the pay of Mozilla who could stand to lose if Google drops its support.

Oh I don't know, just a few thousand here or there I guess. I mean, class-action suits don't court right ? We're not looking for the thousands of people united under one cause, we want the individual war stories of those who were wronged and didn't take the settlement.

Yeah, you really got me there.

I'm surprised the article states the '2003' date because it seems I'm always reading up on a new sendmail exploit in Linux Journal. This is one that apparently got much attention. http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3 593546 I don't doubt the article necessarily but I find it odd that exploits like the one I'm linking to are not considered critical enough to be included in the 2003 assesment.

you can't even run FC3 binaries on FC4

You can run RHEL3 binaries in RHEL4 however. And you can happily run Linux 1.0 binaries on the latest linux development snapshot. Thats because Linux DOES have a stable ABI: The syscall interface. That's the REAL ABI the Linux kernel has to support, and it's the one that it's really guaranteed to be stable. What you think as an abi it's not an "abi", it's an INTERNAL ABI. Drivers are not "software built in top of the kernel", they're plugins. And Linux developers do not care about it because linux is open source, in the open source world you can change source easily and it gets usually merged into the kernel. Basically, the Linux kernel gets more benefit from a internal unstable ABI that gets changed when it's needed and that improves all the linux drivers, than getting a stable internal ABI that only benefits a couple of external OSS drivers and another couple of propietary, illegal drivers.

Linux has no direction, no goals

That's what happens when you give everybody freedom to modify your code; everybody extends Linux in unexpected directions, that happen to be the directions the people (profesional world) desires because it's the people (profesional world) who actually develops the features. For example, some people have made Linux scale in machines with way more CPUS of what your beloved Solaris has ever run, and now other people are adding hard realtime support to the core Linux kernel, which happens to make Linux beat latency records on Wall Street servers. It all was unexpected; IT however seems to like it.

Kodak and Sun settled for $92 million.

I was under the impression that China was moving away from Windows...

:-/

"Enterprise-priced server support: Red Hat and SuSE.
Community supported for techies: Debian and Gentoo."

Pidgeonholing Debian into a "community supported" group just isn't accurate - remember the article a few months back about HP attributing $25 million/year in sales to their support for Debian? http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 661481

OH NO ....

Another senior Red Hat employee who did not get the We Hat CentOS memo it seems :-D

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 671841

Could it be Red Hat really does like CentOS?

For someone who accuses me of being 'silly' (what are you, twelve?), you completely avoided my point: this is still a government-mandated change. I couldn't even begin to predict how much damage Microsoft would do to their relationship with the government if they acted the way you're 'predicting'. It is not Microsoft saying how a computer should operate, as pointed out in the article it is the current administration who wants limits on what will run and what won't.

As for your 'advantages of free software': Too easy.

First, it's easy to tell what works and upgrades are already painless.

Ubuntu and nVidia drivers. Not all upgrades are painless, because you can't foresee everything. Developers are human, not robots. There are plenty of instances where upgrades break something important.

Second, if something does not work, it will be fixed quickly.

From linked article:

RHEL Linux average time to fix any class of vulnerability: 58 days.
Microsoft windows average time to fix any class of vulnerability: 13 days.

Third, and most importantly, the software does not have "owners" who want to mess with other software "owners".

Tell that to Gentoo users that have had several developers quit over the last few months due to differences of opinion. A lack of ownership can actually negatively impact development when there are conflicts that can't be resolved due to a lack of a resolution path.

So, before we start trashing a href="http://Symantec.com">Symantec... Has anyone actually read the threat report? I didn't see anywhere that they ranked the Operating Systems in order of Most to Least secure. Also, the report makes no claim that Windows is the most secure. The Article by Internetnews says that, not Symantec. I mean, if I'm wrong, please point out where it says this in the actual report.

If I make a report that says 5000 people die in swimming pools every year, and 100 people die from base jumping, that doesn't mean I am saying that swimming is more dangerous than base jumping. If internetnews comes along and says that, well, that's their misguided interpretation.

The report gives the facts. The article takes the facts and manipulates them to say something that isn't implied. Only an idiot would make those conclusions.

embrace, extend, extinguish.

ISO Certification failure = Product rejection. Embrace, extend, extinguish doens't work when certification acceptance is put in contracts by customers, States and Countries.

ODF Certification is done.. http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/40647.html
Adoby PDF certification application.. http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43015-1.html

However, you are correct they are trying to embrace, extend, extinguish.
MS application.. http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 618176

Google actually uses a stripped down, highly modified Redhat distro to run their servers (about 250,000 of them) that execute your search queries. http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/348704 1/

So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet

You're absolutely right. I agree 100%.
And that's exactly why governments entities and educational institutions in Texas, Massachusetts, Israel, India, Singapore, Germany, France, Brazil, China, Macedonia, Denmark, and from the opendocument fellowship *deep breath*. Australia, Austria, Belgium, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Croatia, Czech Republic, EU bodies, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and from the USA: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and New York... are NOT all switching or planning to switch to OpenOffice.

Oh wait. They are!

So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet

You're absolutely right. I agree 100%.
And that's exactly why governments entities and educational institutions in Texas, Massachusetts, Israel, India, Singapore, Germany, France, Brazil, China, Macedonia, Denmark, and from the opendocument fellowship *deep breath*. Australia, Austria, Belgium, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Croatia, Czech Republic, EU bodies, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and from the USA: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and New York... are NOT all switching or planning to switch to OpenOffice.

Oh wait. They are!

Sooner or later, Dell will either conform with consumer demand, or they will lose market share. Yes, Microsoft will continue to put up obstacles, but there's still enough competition in the hardware market that they can't control things forever. If you want evidence of this, take a look at the recent results of HP's choice to support Debian.

Anyway, I don't blame them for deleting a troll post.

If I'm reading this right, an IBM back-end system (mainframe) with lots of IBM-delivered Linux workstations were in the mix here. Anyone know for sure (i.e. work there)?

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 447741

IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).

Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).

This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview? Here's a reminder:

I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute.

It's also funny you should mention this:

Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO.

Some people (including this respected legal blogger--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!

More proof that he's gone off the deep end. :(

He complains about not being able to submit his patches, yet he refuses to sign up for bugzillia which is the way everything is tracked.

Linus has done a lot of very impressive things. However there is a fine line between genius and insanity. He started crosssing that line when he rejected Specs and started going after people using the word Linux. He needs to get a grip and chill out for a while. Otherwise in another year or two we'll be seeing an article about him checking into a mental hospital.

This is yet another sad day for Linux users.

I heard about this quite a while ago. A quick google search reveals: Gmail Trademark in Dispute (if you don't want to click it, it's an article on the subject dated August 12, 2004). This may be another instance of someone claiming rights to it, but it certainly isn't the first place Google has lost the GMail trademark.

Actually they've been trying to implement an uncrackable watermarking system which would flag restricted music, then they wanted to mandate all recording devices and computers everywere detect these watermarks (at an increased expense in terms of cost for hardware and/or processing time--scanning all audio data is not free). It was called SMDI. Didn't really fly: first off, Professor Ed Felton showed he could easily crack the watermarking. Second, the bills which would've enforced things like the mandatory watermark detection (such as the SSSCA --info at EFF) caused a huge uproar. I think the MPAA also wanted it for video too.

I mean those systems could cause major problems. Just imagine if you are filming your best friend's wedding, some joker walks by with his jukebox--maybe not even audiable enough for you to notice, but loud enough for the system to detect it, and the watermarking causes your camera to stop recording. Let's say you lose the "I do" part. That could really happen.

From what I understand, banks and national treasuries have convinced some software and hardware developers to detect watermarking for photographic things. Such as Photoshop and printer drivers and such. Some printers also create a fingerprint so supposedly the secret service (or whatever agency controls currency fraud in your country) can trace the printed paper back to who printed it.

FTA: The broader comment is that the architecture of the Internet is based on a thirty year-old technology, TCP/IP. If you talk to most technologists, they believe TCP/IP is now obsolete.

How is this fundamentally bad? It's 30 years old and therefore unusable and obsolete? If anything, I would praise such a technology for being so versatile as to last this many years. Take the bullet for example. I don't hear the military complaining that it sucks just because it's over 250 years old.
Oh yeah, wasn't banning the use of evoting supposed to be bad because it was tying them to "an old technology"?

From Internet News

Typically a Fedora Core release comes out every six or seven months. Red Hat's flagship offering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), by contrast, comes out every 18 to 24 months. Under the new lifecycle plan a Fedora Core release would have 13 months of support.

"Anything beyond this really seems to be corner cases that would really be better served by something like CentOS for free, RHEL for rock solid support, or Oracle for crackmonkies," Keating wrote. "What does this mean for the "Legacy" project? We feel that the resources currently and in the past that have contributed to the Legacy project could be better used within the Fedora project space."

Yes, for over 5 years. ;-)

Paypal Debit Bar.

http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/91 4441

What I want to know is if I get the cash back bonus using their virtual credit card like I would with the real one. ;-)

From Internet News

Typically a Fedora Core release comes out every six or seven months. Red Hat's flagship offering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), by contrast, comes out every 18 to 24 months. Under the new lifecycle plan a Fedora Core release would have 13 months of support.

"Anything beyond this really seems to be corner cases that would really be better served by something like CentOS for free, RHEL for rock solid support, or Oracle for crackmonkies," Keating wrote. "What does this mean for the "Legacy" project? We feel that the resources currently and in the past that have contributed to the Legacy project could be better used within the Fedora project space."

"That website is pretty low on content and for the heck of it I read the links on the right as well. The 25 shortcomings one is pretty ludicrous. You should read it."

I'm confused. How can it be and still have 25 shortcomings spread over two web pages.

"Most home users don't give a shit about SMB2. Most users are going to get Vista with new hardware, so their needing new hardware point is moot and really is it a shortcoming of Vista that it won't run on old hardware or is it a shortcoming of the hardware."

Why, in your opinion, is breaking SMB support in Linux not a problem. Considering that MS is all about inter-operability. Did the MS Linux Lab not even test it with the current Linux distros. If not why not?

I don't understand that you speak for the vast majority of home users. But isn't it true that they won't actually have a choice as to what to get with their next round of Windows/Vista upgrade. So what the home users give a shit about is a little moot.

It's also a demonstration in circular logic: To get Vista, 'home users' have to get new hardware. Since they don't have any choice the point is moot.

"The 2 gigs of ram to run Vista is bollocks - these guys havent even booted upto the RCs have they"

Do you think a PC running XP on 1GB will run faster or slower on Vista.

"He complains about a lack of driver support from the hardware manufacturer - how can you spin a hardware manufacturers problem into a shortcoming of vista?"

The trolls round have always criticized Linux for lack of hardware support. Why isn't that also a problem for Vista.

"They talk about lack of compatibility with AV products but do fail to mention a lot of things M$ is doing better with security"

Like locking out the AV companies from the kernel. And most of the new security feetures have been broken already.

"I run Debian in lab and Zenwalk at home"

I like Linux and really want it to be better.

"By the time he gets to 20 he isn't he making grammatical sentences and he actually claims that theres bound to be bugs in 50 million lines of code and a five year beta test period - I'd agree but it isn't because theres 50 million lines of code because dear lod Linux also has a lot of lines of code"

Criticise the form of the msg. Why wouldn't 50 million lines of nearly new code be the cause of some bugs slipping through.

"I'm not going to go on bashing the article"

As he goes about bashing the article ..

"Heres my list of things that are Bad with Vista"

"1) DRM .."

His billness has already criticised this. Is msDRM already in the works?

"2) UAC - this is a great idea in principle but the last I checked in implementation it was too goddamn annoying and I'm sure most people will just turn it off"

You mean it didn't work as there were so many thing a user had to do as root, sorry administrator. Sudo seems to work OK under Linux.

"I had no driver issues. If I did I don't think I'd be blaming MS and rather my shitty hardware manufacturer"

You must be the only one. The HW manufacturers write to the specs. How is it the shitty fault of the manufacturers when the driver don't work on Vista. The drivers would have been certify by a MS test suite, else they wouldn't have made it into Vista.

was bad article- my list for BadVista. (Score:5, Astroturfing)

http://www.ubersoft.net/
http://www.apcstart.com/site/jbannan/2006/09/1330/ vistas-user-account-control-one-click-and-its-gone
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 615936

Here's another great one...

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 593251

Especially the last paragraph...

Yep... the crap released now sure is ready... so ready that they are refusing to release it to consumers so they have more time to fix security issues "But we want to be sure we have the appropriate drivers ready and all the testing done. If I had to pick one aspect of the [delay] it's because we're trying to crank the security level higher than ever." (Allchin) - and fix "user experience" issues as noted elsewhere in the article - and in numerous other articles...

I think now redhat 7.x to 9 versions and fedora core 1..4 users are left without a choice
First they have to fix that before the rpm rewrite

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 649081

and the future seems to be smart http://labix.org/smart

What makes you think that software needs to be "compiled" for large projects? Yahoo is primarily delivered with PHP. Amazon.com is largely Perl. MySpace is largely ColdFusion (migrating to .NET). Yahoo: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1 491221 Amazon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_(Perl) MySpace: http://www.tomasbecklin.com/cf/

Ballmer said they plan on suing people who use linux because linux infrignes on their IP and that the only safe way you could use linux is by buying it from Novell.

hey this "Microsoft lawsuit FAT" and follow the first link.

"In the history of Microsoft, we haven't initiated a single patent lawsuit against an infringer of a Microsoft patent," he said. "We are very committed to licensing."

Nice troll. I'm personally as unqualified to comment on Mozilla source code quality as you are, and I'll definitely not claim everything is perfect (there's been too much abstraction in the past - hence lots of deCOMtamination work now), but every patch that goes into the Mozilla tree gets reviewed critically at least once - most often twice - for code quality, and to point to an example metric that doesn't say much of anything (but neither did you, so that should be familiar ground) - the coverity scan found fewer defects in the Firefox code (0.355) than the average baseline for open source projects (0.434).

I thought I'd do a quick Google search and see if good ol' Microsoft has ever "appropriated" any code themselves. In just a few minutes, I found eight instances where Microsoft lost court battles over the code they stole. Here you go:

As a response to Digital Research's DR-DOS 6.0, which bundled SuperStor disk compression, Microsoft opened negotiations with Stac Electronics, vendor of the most popular DOS disk compression tool, Stacker. Stac was unwilling to meet Microsoft's terms for licensing Stacker and withdrew from the negotiations. In the due diligence process, Stac engineers had shown Microsoft some Stacker source code. However, Microsoft chose to license Vertisoft's DoubleDisk instead of Stacker.[2]

Soon, MS-DOS 6.0 was released, including the Microsoft DoubleSpace disk compression utility program. Stac successfully sued Microsoft for patent infringement regarding the compression algorithm used in DoubleSpace. This resulted in the release of MS-DOS 6.21, which had disk-compression removed. Shortly afterwards came version 6.22, with a new version of the disk compression system, DriveSpace, rewritten to avoid the infringing code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

A new patent battle is brewing -- this time over Microsoft's (Quote) claim over Caller ID for E-Mail.

F. Scott Deaver, owner of Failsafe Designs, says Microsoft is guilty of the "outright theft" of his product name and intellectual property (IP), and will seek legal and financial redress from the Redmond, Wash., software giant and anyone else that uses his technology that verifies e-mail is coming from the domain it claims.

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3 393891

Alacritech® Inc., the innovator of Dynamic TCP Offload(TM) data acceleration solutions that enable the highest performance and efficiency in networked systems, today announced a U.S. District Court granted Alacritech's motion for preliminary injunction to prevent Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT) from making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing or inducing others to use Microsoft's "Chimney" TCP offload architecture slated to be available in both the "Longhorn" version of the Windows® operating system and in the Scalable Networking Pack for Windows Server(TM) 2003.

Alacritech sued Microsoft in Federal District Court on August 11, 2004, alleging that Microsoft's existing and future operating systems containing the "Chimney" TCP offload architecture uses Alacritech's proprietary SLIC Technology® architecture. The suit is based on two of Alacritech's fundamental patents relating to scalable networking, U.S. Patent No. 6,427,171 and U.S. Patent No. 6,987,868, both entitled "Protocol Processing Stack for use with Intelligent Network Interface Device."

http://www.alacritech.com/html/041305Alacritech_Gr anted_PI.shtml

In April 2001, Intertrust initiated a lawsuit against Microsoft. The lawsuit ultimately accused Microsoft of infringing 11 of Intertrust's patents and almost 130 of the company's patent claims.

The lawsuit centered on accused products based on the following technologies:

DRM and product activation technologies .NET and related security technologies
Trusted and reliable operating system technologies
In bringing the patent infringement lawsuit, Intertrust believed that Microsoft's forward-going technology infrastructure significantly relied on Intertrust's inventions for DRM and trusted computing.

http://www.intertrust.com/main/ip/settlement.html

(Redwood Shores, CA, December 15, 2005) - Visto Corporation has filed a legal action against Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) for misappropriating Visto's intellectual property. The complaint ass

I think the Mozilla team have proven you can code for free. internetnews

Spyglass then went broke.

Uh, no, Spyglass was bought out for $2.5 billion. Granted, this was a stock exchange at the height of the dot com boom, but it's hard to call that going broke.

can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?

Haven't you read their latest moves in virutal licensing?