Slashdot Mirror

"I was really pissed when I discovered that Microsoft had discontinued all versions of Visual Studio Express under the most recent one (2008, I believe?). I had to go and get a copy of VSE2005 off of bittorent since you could no longer download it from the Microsoft web site."

Then you got pissed and used BitTorrent for absolutely no reason whatsoever, because Microsoft are touting Visual Studio Express more than ever nowadays, it's become a core product for them.

http://www.microsoft.com/express/

What gave you the impression they'd discontinued them? Even on the standard Visual Studio pages links to express are and always have been clearly visible.

I didn't have that choice with VB6, Java, and .NET.

Dunno about Java or VB6, but you can get static linking with .NET. For your own applications, you just compile all your projects to "netmodules", and then link them together into a single assembly using AL. Alternatively - for example, if you have a precompiled third-party assembly - you just use ILMerge.

Yes, you cannot do that trick for .NET system libraries (not that the license would allow you to, anyway), but it's fairly normal to expect the user to have a corresponding VM/runtime installed.

I'm pretty sure assembly binding redirection doesn't require you to have the signing key. :)

A two second search on the Microsoft site brings up the fact that no, they have not discontinued the express versions of Visual Studio! All they appear to have done is removed the links from the part of the site that markets the full version and given express its own distinct area...

http://www.microsoft.com/express/

They don't do the deep plumbing hacks as often any more, most of what they used to do is now forbidden in order to be compliant with Connecting and Configuring Displays. This is why Vista disabled heterogeneous systems, because prior to our implementation of a unified persistence database and monitor setup APIs, each vendor provided their own solutions, and most were incompatible across vendors. That is largely fixed now, and though we find some places of code that still need fixes, we work hard with the IHVs to ensure your description of their drivers is no longer true.

That's great until some common library needs to be updated for a security hole, and you have download 20 updates from different vendors (assuming they even provide updates...) rather than 1 item in Windows Update.

Sure, but doesn't SxS suffer from the same problem? i.e. you download the new/patched library version, but SxS still magically ensures that all your apps still use the old one that they were compiled against (you know, for compatibility).

Or perhaps I am missing something here?

Assembly (set of DLLs) versions can indicate (lack of) backwards compatibility. I would assume that this means an application looking for FooLib 1.2.3.5 would find FooLib 1.2.3.6 if that was installed, but not FooLib 1.2.3.4 or the FooLib 1.3.x.x that might also be installed. But this is just an assumption since I don't write Win32 programs and the immediately available documentation seems to be rather sparse, I guess it's entirely possible that Microsoft didn't do the sane thing here.

they do offer an API that allows you to use third party devices with iTunes, but Palm has chosen not to go that route.

No they don't. Writing a daemon that reads and writes to an XML file (that has changed formats in the past) is NOT an API. Stop saying there is an API.

Ok fine, you can take that XML document, derive an XSD from that file using XSD.exe.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x6c1kb0s(VS.71).aspx

Then take that XSD again and run it against XSD.exe to derive classes to read and write XML documents of that schema.

So they don't provide a direct API but any programmer worth their pay can perform the above steps to create the necessary classes.

XML files can be APIs. For example, a WSDL is an XML document describing a webservice with defined inputs and callable methods. I've also encountered situations in my job where the only "API" for communicating with an entity is a series of XSDs describing the format of the data they want. I've used the above tool to derive classes for creating files in the correct format and for parsing their responses which also arrive in XML format described in their documentation by an XSD file.

Installed Visual C++ 2008 Express not too long ago, wrote some code, compiled for debugging, so far, so good. Next step was to run the damned thing, this worked for a while, then mysteriously failed because it could no longer find its own stupid runtime DLLs.

Actually, this was really easy to solve, All I had to do was disable incremental linking, which should have been obvious to just about anyone

Links for the skeptic,

• http://stackoverflow.com/questions/218747/msvcr90d-dll-not-found-in-debug-mode-with-visual-c-2008
• http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcgeneral/thread/8f08777b-1c4d-4e10-89a2-f7bc95cf5e98/

Either they ship private assemblies, or they are broken in the first place.

Actually that was a big problem with the GDI+ library a few years ago. People have even written their own vulnerable DLL scanners for this sort of thing.

I completely agree with you that it's rubbish that Windows doesn't have out of the box support for virtual desktops. It should have been part of Windows a long time ago, at least a basic implementation of, allowing 3rd-party developers to offer more complex and powerful implementations at their own leisure (as is often the case with built-in Windows functionality). Another personal beef is the lack of multi-mon taskbar support, instead having to rely on UltraMon or similar applications.

My point was purely that the APIs to enable this support have been in place for a very long time, it's just Microsoft seems to have no interest presently in using them to create solid built-in support; but other 3rd-party apps use them to create the desired effect. As for your options, you might want to check out this old Ask Slashdot: Virtual Desktops on Windows? discussion; it has plenty of good recommendations.

In a similar vein to the old XP VDM PowerToy (which admittedly wasn't very good), Mark Russinovich has written a nice tool as part of Sysinternals Suite simply called Desktops. It differs a bit from many other virtual desktop apps, but the link explains it well. The result is it has some (possibly very significant) downsides, but there are some advantages as well. I've found it to be very fast personally and by nature it eliminates in my experience the compatibility problems you mentioned.

Proper built-in virtual desktop support really ought to be at the top of the MS's UI priority list, and I'd hope we don't have to wait till Windows 8 for it, but something tells me that'll probably be the case...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/resultsForCategory.aspx?displaylang=en&categoryid=7 is what you're looking for; it's a little inelegant, but searching by date and using your browser's find feature to find Windows XP makes it quite managable. Hope that helps, may you never have to personally use Windows XP ever again (:

Oh how the users of slashdot have forgotten. The entertainment cartel tried to pass much worse. They tried to get laws passed which would require all computers to be DRM controlled.

Not only did they demand a system to keep their files from being copied (at great expense to your computer--they wanted every audio and video input to scan for watermarks. The standards would also require all multimedia hardware (sound cards, video cards, CD/DVD drives) to encrypt everything, so no one could tap into the lines to "steal" any content. They also asked for such features as the ability to erase "pirated"[1] files remotely.

Check out the SSSCA and CBDTPA. Note the euphemism "security" for DRM.

Palladium was Microsoft's answer to this. They tried to sell it as protection against viruses and such. Look in the section titled "How does Palladium work?"

The PC-specific secret coding within "Palladium" that makes stolen files useless on other machines is physically and cryptographically locked within the hardware of the machine.

Palladium was renamed Next Generation Secure Computing Base. It was supposed to go into Longhorn (renamed Vista), but apparently they never got it working properly. Some say this is why Vista is so screwed up.

In fact, I would say the whole reason MS went into the game console business was to test out their DRM ideas so they can incorporate it into mainstream Windows. Game console companies lock down their computers[2] hardcore. It is difficult to run any "unauthorized" programs on their systems, and you risk being arrested for being a "pirate" if you do.

[1] "Pirated" files, meaning any file they don't like.

[2] A game console is just a computer with more emphasis on graphics acceleration and locked down so their manufacturer can charge "royalties" for the privilege of writing programs for their console. Look at the parts in a game console--CPU, GPU, and such. There is no reason you couldn't run a word processor or other programs on it if you were given approval. In fact even the Nintendo DS has a version of the Opera web browser for it.

That's absolute bullshit (or fud). You expressly do not have to pay Microsoft to get their approval. You just need to sign your application / device driver using a certificate from a bunch of trusted CAs.
.

See here for a list of trusted CAs: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995347.aspx

"Visual Studio 2008 is a 32-bit application and when installed on a 64-bit Windows operating system will run under WOW64".

Not to mention, VS and MS Office are still unmanaged C++ applications, not C# or managed C++ (or whatever term they use these days) .NET apps.

Oh, yeah, just like every other device. That's why Microsoft has this whole article on how DRM limits you. No more than any other device... I can rip my CD's on other systems. I rip it the Windows Media way? DRM. Perfectly legal use, Microsoft just chose to block it because they respect the media companies more than you. Microsoft has gone out of their way to add additional DRM that is NOT REQUIRED BY THE FUCKING SPECS. That's not like "every other device." That's a clear statement of where you fall in the scheme of things.

No, that's different from what I'm talking about.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/en-us/business/solutions/enterprise/mdm-security-features.mspx

Correction: WinMo has had this since Smartphone 2002

There's Services For Unix from Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&DisplayLang=en

Disclaimer: Windows 7 isn't listed on the compatibility list, so I can't guarantee it'll work. Should though.

The question is just how they learn these things, and if they use them for more nefarious purposes. With Facebook, I'm fine with them using the information that I gave them. I'm not fine with them using my activity outside the site to target advertising.

Except it's not Facebook that provides the ads, all Facebook does is provide the space for the ads. Microsoft provides the ads.

Falcon

To not have seen an official MS retail (or free version!) of an AV product after all these years seems like a missed opportunity.

There is this now. http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

^This.

I work help desk at the college I'm enrolled at, and removing this virus and its variants from student laptops is pretty much the entirety of my job description.

I recommend running ComboFix first, because it will generally neuter a virus enough for MalwareBytes to install and remove it. If the virus keeps ComboFix from running, rename it to magickitties.exe - some kill AV processes by name.

Anything more interesting than that, download the free Windows AIK. Make an image of the drive using ImageX. Mount the image (and the registry hives on the image) on a clean PC and do a scan on that. Reimage the PC with the clean image.

Just creating an image with ImageX is sometimes sufficient to remove the rootkit portions. ImageX is file based, and the rootkit portions hide from the MFT. ImageX simply fails to gather the rootkit portion, because it hides too well.

Usually, all it takes is 10 minutes of letting ComboFix run and 30 minutes of letting MalwareBytes run. Very slick.

Well according to this article:

Updated signature files for the Microsoft Anti-Virus programs for MS-DOS and Windows are available from the Symantec/Central Point BBS or the Symantec/Central Point forum on CompuServe. The updated signature list for MS-DOS Anti-Virus is called DOSAV.EXE, dated 9/27/95. The updated signature list for Windows Anti-Virus is called WINAV.EXE, dated 8/31/95.

The Symantec/Central Point BBS number is (541) 984-5366.

To reach the Symantec/Central Point forum on CompuServe, type GO SYMDOS or SYMWIN at any CompuServe prompt.

Don't use MicroSLOP

Yours In Tashkent,
Kilgore T.

Well, yes and no; it depends on what kind of data.

Windows Defender, which is on pretty much every XP and Vista box, already does this. Out of the box, it will submit information on startup programs, malware detected and removed, and which services and startup programs you have disabled, to the aptly named Microsoft SpyNet.

It's not quite as scary as it sounds; if you're using Windows Defender to decide whether or not to kill that fishy-looking SynTpEnh.exe process from starting, you can see that 99% of SpyNet members leave it enabled because it makes your laptop's touchpad work. </contrivedexample>

So, maybe be a bad idea, but not a new one - it's already being done.

The license agreement, for reference:

http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/eula.aspx#mainNav

Automated Windows Update is something you want on most systems anyway. The DRM section looks like it's just calling standard Windows DRM functionality as necessary, not adding more. What's wrong with Silverlight, aside from eating a little bit of (cheap) disk space?

Where did the "not authorized to talk about MSE" bit come from? I admit I've only skimmed the material but I couldn't see that.

I find this link does not render correctly for me in Firefox 3.5 : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bs2twtah.aspx The "This page is specific too" bit comes up over the top of other text making it unreadable. I don't know whether it's a Firefox bug or just bad HTML.

Many universities use this POS.

http://www.blackboard.com/

Its a user-unfriendly mish-mash of forums, teacher news posts, file transfer, PM, and file upload functionality. It could entirely be duplicated using existing open source softwares in a superior manner if someone tied together a whole suite of apps and unified the interface. All I know is I can normally trust a website to be able to Attach A File in most any browser, I thought we had that one licked back in 98.

Of course my School isn't even Worried about Firefox...

Internet Explorer 8 has not been certified to be compatible with Blackboard. Be aware you may run into issues using IE 8 with Blackboard. Using the IE 8 compatibility view may help. Click this link for more information... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/956197/LN/ For information on how to revert back to IE 7, click this link... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700

Many universities use this POS.

http://www.blackboard.com/

Its a user-unfriendly mish-mash of forums, teacher news posts, file transfer, PM, and file upload functionality. It could entirely be duplicated using existing open source softwares in a superior manner if someone tied together a whole suite of apps and unified the interface. All I know is I can normally trust a website to be able to Attach A File in most any browser, I thought we had that one licked back in 98.

Of course my School isn't even Worried about Firefox...

Internet Explorer 8 has not been certified to be compatible with Blackboard. Be aware you may run into issues using IE 8 with Blackboard. Using the IE 8 compatibility view may help. Click this link for more information... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/956197/LN/ For information on how to revert back to IE 7, click this link... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700

I agree, though if MS were smart they could look in their own backyard and subvert the subversion. I think OneNote would be one of the best Wave clients out there.

Was? I had no idea it was October 22nd already.

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was the only one here who had ever tried to pull data out of SharePoint. While I'll agree with many of the posters in this thread that SharePoint can be as much trouble as a help, the idea that it is some vendor lock-in fortress is just stupid.
Hell, you can drag and drop your files out of a document library using Windows Explorer, this is hard? Or, for single items, left-click the down arrow, click Send To, click Download a copy, fuck this is hard! BTW, this even works in FireFox, though you do have to disable NoScript, which I guess can be hard if you have a room temperature IQ.

Oh ya, and as someone else has already pointed out, you could always dig into the SDK and write programs against it to move data in and out.

But yes, SharePoint is a fortress which eats your data, pollutes the environment, and kicks puppy dogs.



Come on guys, MS's software has enough problems, without us making shit up.

Create strong passwords

WTF are you talking about? That's absolutely NOT true. All versions of MS OfficeXP and 2003 are listed on the Vista compatibility pages :

https://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&page=2

Perhaps you should either do some research or work for Dell.

Unless it's a 64 bit machine

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&os=64-bit&page=4

Of course it works fine with zero difference between using Office XP on Vista or on Windows XP. The page you link to doesn't say you need to do anything to make it work - it just slimily says that they recommend you buy a new version of Office.

WTF are you talking about? That's absolutely NOT true. All versions of MS OfficeXP and 2003 are listed on the Vista compatibility pages :

https://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&page=2

Perhaps you should either do some research or work for Dell.

Perhaps you should actually read his comment.

WTF are you talking about? That's absolutely NOT true. All versions of MS OfficeXP and 2003 are listed on the Vista compatibility pages :

https://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&page=2

Perhaps you should either do some research or work for Dell.

Unless it's a 64 bit machine

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&os=64-bit&page=4

WTF are you talking about? That's absolutely NOT true. All versions of MS OfficeXP and 2003 are listed on the Vista compatibility pages :

https://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/Browse.aspx?type=Software&category=Business%20%26%20Home%20Office&subcategory=Office%20Suites&page=2

Perhaps you should either do some research or work for Dell.

Personally, what I got the biggest laugh at is that, just like Fog Creek's other software, they're wanting ridiculous amounts of money for this code. Hosted? On a shared server? 10 million page views a month (Random page on Stack Overflow, 20KB, so in other words, about 200GB)? How much would you pay? For this forum / QA software?

With Stack Exchange? A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH.

Wow. Just wow. Really, Joel? You think your software is worth that much?

Or hey, you could use it on your own server. If you're willing to pay TWO AND A HALF THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH...

Wow, that is rediculous. Why, it's almost as much as a single MSDN subscription or an Oracle license (assuming I actually read that mess properly).

I disagree. Software vendors should not be accountable for their bugs, unless they agree to be accountable for them.

from WinXP EULA:

Well I was going to put a quote from the EULA here, showing the disclaimer of warranty, but slashdot doesn't like all caps, and wouldn't let me. It says:

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

The GPL also has a disclaimer of warranty, but slashdot wouldn't let me include that either.

I believe that the Driver Development Kit (DDK) comes with Platform Builder for Windows Mobile which isn't available for distribution. You can download the 120 day evaluation version of PB for WinCE5.0 (which Windows Mobile is based off of), I believe it comes with a DDK and there is a ton of shared features and source between WinCE5 and WinMo5.x to 6.5.

I am guessing that since it is not possible to plug 3rd party HW into WM devices, that no need was seen to release a public DDK.

It looks like there is a Bluetooth HID driver available from TekSoft, but MSDN says at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa455763.aspx that WM supports HID mice and keyboards and other input devices so YMMV.

Also check to see which Bluetooth stack your device is using, both Widcomm's and Microsoft's Bluetooth stack can be found on retail devices. Also note that some device manufacturers disable portions of the Bluetooth stack, so some devices may not support all features of Bluetooth that the stack is capable of.

I don't know of one, but there is good bot prevention. It's called "Linux".

So in other words, you want me to replace our Windows workstaions that run our ERP software which runs most of the business, over to Linux workstations that will not run ERP software worth anything, so that our business has to shut down?

SmRT!

I have made some Linux deployments here, but sadly there is just no way to fully switch over without seriously major and long interruptions in the business processes.

Due to the ERP software using 'technologies' ranging from Access 2000 up to dotNET 3.0, this pretty much rules out Wine and CrossOver.

The only two methods I see available at the moment, are

a) Use vmware or the like for our ERP client. Still runs windows, still needs a license, etc etc. Not really solving the problem, nor worth the effort.

b) Upgrade/Add a Windows 2008 server (We use 2003 currently) which has the new Terminal Services (RDP 6.1) TS-RemoteApp where you can export applications instead of just full desktops.
This will let us seamlessly run the ERP client modeless on the Linux systems, where the software runs on the server, but the GUI looks native.

I do like the idea of B, but an upgrade to Win 2008 is not cheap, and while it would be an improvement (Keeping Windows off the desktop and away from the users), that will be a major chunk of budget for only minor benefits, with the possibility of major problems in the future.
The only upside is that to stay on the upgrade treadmill, going to Win2008 will need to happen eventually anyways.

Wide general sweeping statements though... Easy to prove wrong every time.

Sure, Apple did it. Nothing at all to do with the most popular OS vendor not supporting it until 2008.

You can use the 'Add/Remove Programs' item in the XP Control Panel to add programs.

"Add or Remove Programs helps you manage programs and components on your computer. You can use it to add programs (such as Microsoft Excel or Word) from a CD-ROM, floppy disk, or a network, or to add Windows updates and new features from the Internet. Add or Remove Programs also helps you add or remove Windows components you chose not to include in the original installation (such as Networking Services)."

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/win_addprog_window_component.mspx?mfr=true

The Update:

In .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the .NET Framework Assistant enables Firefox to use the ClickOnce technology that is included in the .NET Framework. The .NET Framework Assistant is added at the machine-level to enable its functionality for all users on the machine. As a result, the Uninstall button is shown as unavailable in the Firefox Add-ons list because standard users are not permitted to uninstall machine-level components.

In this update for .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and in Windows 7, the .NET Framework Assistant will be installed on a per-user basis. As a result, the Uninstall button will be functional in the Firefox Add-ons list.

This update will also make this version of the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox compatible with future versions of the Firefox browser. To properly update the .NET Framework Assistant, this update must be applied while the extension is enabled in Firefox. ... Updates to the .NET Framework Assistant may include updates to the Windows Presentation Foundation Plug-in for Firefox causing it to be enabled upon its initial update.

Update to .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 for the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 for Firefox [May 6 2009] [about 700 KB]

The update is in .Net framework 4.0, currently in beta. How to remove the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox [June 2, 2009]

The Update:

In .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the .NET Framework Assistant enables Firefox to use the ClickOnce technology that is included in the .NET Framework. The .NET Framework Assistant is added at the machine-level to enable its functionality for all users on the machine. As a result, the Uninstall button is shown as unavailable in the Firefox Add-ons list because standard users are not permitted to uninstall machine-level components.

In this update for .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and in Windows 7, the .NET Framework Assistant will be installed on a per-user basis. As a result, the Uninstall button will be functional in the Firefox Add-ons list.

This update will also make this version of the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox compatible with future versions of the Firefox browser. To properly update the .NET Framework Assistant, this update must be applied while the extension is enabled in Firefox. ... Updates to the .NET Framework Assistant may include updates to the Windows Presentation Foundation Plug-in for Firefox causing it to be enabled upon its initial update.

Update to .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 for the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 for Firefox [May 6 2009] [about 700 KB]

The update is in .Net framework 4.0, currently in beta. How to remove the .NET Framework Assistant for Firefox [June 2, 2009]

omg. Crappy database server running on old hardware does not qualify as a database? I think you've dabbled in SQL and resent Excel junkies encroaching on your skillset.

Excel has ODBC drivers, meaning you can do anything with Excel you can with Access, except primary/foreign keys. Yes, you can write SQL. Yes you can join different tabs. You can even do triggers if you want to screw around with VBA, which excel junkies are more than happy to do.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/195951
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/178717
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/141284

And before you try it, know that the Excel driver is TERRIBLE. It makes assumptions about your data by scanning a set number of rows, instead of having column definitions. I have had to fake it by putting datetimes at the top of a column, so Excel doesn't think empty rows are text. Or the other way around, yielding import errors.

But it does work as a database.

omg. Crappy database server running on old hardware does not qualify as a database? I think you've dabbled in SQL and resent Excel junkies encroaching on your skillset.

Excel has ODBC drivers, meaning you can do anything with Excel you can with Access, except primary/foreign keys. Yes, you can write SQL. Yes you can join different tabs. You can even do triggers if you want to screw around with VBA, which excel junkies are more than happy to do.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/195951
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/178717
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/141284

And before you try it, know that the Excel driver is TERRIBLE. It makes assumptions about your data by scanning a set number of rows, instead of having column definitions. I have had to fake it by putting datetimes at the top of a column, so Excel doesn't think empty rows are text. Or the other way around, yielding import errors.

But it does work as a database.

omg. Crappy database server running on old hardware does not qualify as a database? I think you've dabbled in SQL and resent Excel junkies encroaching on your skillset.

Excel has ODBC drivers, meaning you can do anything with Excel you can with Access, except primary/foreign keys. Yes, you can write SQL. Yes you can join different tabs. You can even do triggers if you want to screw around with VBA, which excel junkies are more than happy to do.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/195951
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/178717
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/141284

And before you try it, know that the Excel driver is TERRIBLE. It makes assumptions about your data by scanning a set number of rows, instead of having column definitions. I have had to fake it by putting datetimes at the top of a column, so Excel doesn't think empty rows are text. Or the other way around, yielding import errors.

But it does work as a database.

It has. "Fluent UI" (the official term for Ribbon) is patented. License is free, but only if you comply with the fairly strict guidelines published by MS, that specify in great detail how Ribbon should look and work.

The exception to the above is "applications that compete directly with the five Office applications that currently have the new UI (Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access)" - Microsoft will not license the patent for those, so you can forget about Ribbon in OO.org anytime soon. But Firefox should be fine.

That said, looking at the screenshot in TFA, I don't see anything looking like a Ribbon in it. It rather seems that they are just getting rid of the menubar, same as what IE7+ and Chrome did, and putting tabs above the address bar, again as in Chrome. This doesn't make Ribbon, so I doubt any patenting issues would even arise here.

Yes, Microsoft has patented the ribbon interface, and you need a license to use it. Microsoft will not allow "clone products" to be licensed, which means sense Firefox is a "clone product" to IE (in Microsoft's eyes) then Microsoft will not give Mozilla a license.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx