Slashdot Mirror

http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.asp x?view=22&pcid=7f4a43d5-a0f2-4ee7-83f2-7caa426ecdc 5&crumb=catpage&catid=ea710cad-37b0-4975-bcd6-abfe e19961df

Order from Microsoft
Full Version

Windows Svr Ent 2003 R2 w/SP2 Win32 English CD 25 Clt
$3919.00
Item: P72-02365

I saw there were some other cheaper licenses around, but they didn't include 25 client licenses...

I'd suggest you check the video for power shell:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/vid eos/windowspowershell.wvx
Any reason why this video is on the Microsoft website?

I'd suggest you check the video for power shell:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/vid eos/windowspowershell.wvx

Any reason why this video is on the Microsoft website? It basically shows that things in Linux can be done with a couple piped commands.. and on Windows they require WMI scripting..
True, under Linux you use ps, grep, awk and kill to kill a process... but on windows everything else from adding a user to a group to preventing a service to be run at startup requires a fair amount of WMI scripting..

Again, wasn't this supposed to be PRO-microsoft?

I was quoting from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/vid eos/windowspowershell.wvx I should have put a link in my parent post.

So, it looks like Microsoft decided to get rid of me. Well, that doesn't matter because LINUX STILL SUCKS!!!

WINDOWS SERVER 2008'S PERFORMANCE WILL LEAVE THE PENGUIN BLOODY AND DYING. READ THE CASE STUDIES TO FIND OUT WHY.

COMPARE!

Open Standards != Open Source
Open Source is a software development and distribution model, which does not equate to how easily the software interoperates with other software or how open or standardized the interfaces are.

INI files are files with a .ini extension and the following form inside

[Section1]
Key1=Value1
Key2=Value2

[Section2]
Key3=Value3

[Database Info]
Server=1.2.3.4
UserID=Joe
Password=xyzzy ;s or 's at the beginning of a line indicate a comment line.

To understand the registry, I expect you'veused explorer with it's tree view of files. The registry looks like that. It's a giant tree of directories called keys and "file" like items I just call data. Find a reference to one, use start run, type in regedit and hit enter and you're in. Hop down the tree and follow the instructions, adding, changing or deleting data and adding / removing keys (folders). There is NO undo. The registry is partly stored, and partly dynamic. The stored parts are split over several different files. Random tweaks are bad, but it's very powerful. (ie, MS made WAY too much depend on it.) It is world readable, although certain sections can be protected.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

Ack, I forgot about the programmer's last resort on Windows... although you'd be mad to do anything with it. Pretty much every DOS and Windows version comes with DEBUG which lets you make programs in assembler. I'd rather go out and buy something personally.

Speaking of shells, MS is working on a new one. It's long past due.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technol ogies/management/powershell/faq.mspx#EKB

Also, while MS bloat may be requiring faster computers, sadly, so is Linux. When I tried Mandrake ~ 2 years ago (or was going to) on old hardware, I couldn't run the default install program on the CD. The OS would technically run on the machine, but the installer needed twice as much RAM as the box had. SUSE doesn't like older machines either.

INI files are files with a .ini extension and the following form inside

[Section1]
Key1=Value1
Key2=Value2

[Section2]
Key3=Value3

[Database Info]
Server=1.2.3.4
UserID=Joe
Password=xyzzy ;s or 's at the beginning of a line indicate a comment line.

To understand the registry, I expect you'veused explorer with it's tree view of files. The registry looks like that. It's a giant tree of directories called keys and "file" like items I just call data. Find a reference to one, use start run, type in regedit and hit enter and you're in. Hop down the tree and follow the instructions, adding, changing or deleting data and adding / removing keys (folders). There is NO undo. The registry is partly stored, and partly dynamic. The stored parts are split over several different files. Random tweaks are bad, but it's very powerful. (ie, MS made WAY too much depend on it.) It is world readable, although certain sections can be protected.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

Ack, I forgot about the programmer's last resort on Windows... although you'd be mad to do anything with it. Pretty much every DOS and Windows version comes with DEBUG which lets you make programs in assembler. I'd rather go out and buy something personally.

Speaking of shells, MS is working on a new one. It's long past due.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technol ogies/management/powershell/faq.mspx#EKB

Also, while MS bloat may be requiring faster computers, sadly, so is Linux. When I tried Mandrake ~ 2 years ago (or was going to) on old hardware, I couldn't run the default install program on the CD. The OS would technically run on the machine, but the installer needed twice as much RAM as the box had. SUSE doesn't like older machines either.

So "Open Source" now means it has to compile and run on all platforms?!?!?

Microsoft's Limited Permissive license states that:

(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Whereas the Open Source Definition states that:

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

And...

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

So, in other words, yes. If someone wants to compile, run, and distribute Open Source software on some other operating system, the license must allow it. And the MS-LPL is therefore not compatible with the Open Source Definition.

MCP certification is 1 exam
MCSA certification is 4 exams
MCSE certification is 7 exams
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcse/windows 2003/default.mspx

Incorrect. A Windows 2003 MCSE does, in fact, require seven exams (six chosen by Microsoft, one elective). You may be confusing it with the MCSA, which "only" requires four exams.

Incorrect. A Windows 2003 MCSE does, in fact, require seven exams (six chosen by Microsoft, one elective). You may be confusing it with the MCSA, which "only" requires four exams.

Tell me why should I trust Microsoft not misleading people into using that licence when they talk about permissive licence. Once we say the MS-PL is ok, how do we tell people that MS-LPL is not?

And, to answer your question, there is the word 'Windows' at the above licence.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684247. aspx

And for the record, Vista networking IS far faster than XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx

last line:

(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.

Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.

Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.

Wake me up when ANY IDE can come close to the functionality of VS2005 + Team Foundation Server.
There's none, period. Sure Eclipse is a damned fine IDE in its own right, but, excuse the pun, but it's completely "Eclipsed" by the TFS extension to Visual Studio. And that's just 2005.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa7189 34.aspx

Solution files can be converted to & from various formats using 3rd part tools. Google it.

And jesus, what's this shite about one Window? That is just a plain lie - every single window is detachable, moveable for both debugging and editing modes independently.

Please tell me where the word "Windows" even appears in this license. I don't see it. Maybe you should actually read them before you make such comments.

That would be the Limited Permissive License. The Ms-PL might stand a chance of being accepted by OSI, the LPL however will not. Which is also why they haven't submitted that one to OSI.

The only difference between the PL and the CL seems to be the Reciprocal Grants condition present in the CL, which is somewhat akin to what the GPL says about being required to distribute the source and the license along with the binary. The PL, then, seems somewhat closed to the BSD license in that you only have to retain the copyright notices. However, both licenses say,

If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

Wonder what licenses apply here? Presumably other OSI licenses if the MS licenses get OSI-approved?

Regardless of all that, I still don't see the point of these licenses. There are plenty of good Open Source licenses out there for people to choose from, why the hell would I choose this one? Somehow I find it hard to believe in MS's genuine goodwill. Call me prejudiced, but I don't trust these licenses. If MS were genuinely interested in Open Source, they'd use a known approved license instead of coming up with their own.

Another addition to my parent post: The Microsoft licenses are ALREADY causing confusion and dissension. See the anger and hostility in the discussions below.

The Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) says in the sub-heading: "This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software."

Some of the people commenting in the discussions below are reading only what they believe are the license terms, and not seeing the sub-heading quoted above, which is ANOTHER license term, even though it is not formatted that way.

Again, the license says, "If you USE [my emphasis] the software, you accept this license."

Microsoft's multiple licenses with confusing formatting are already causing harm to the open source community. And Microsoft is just getting started with this.

More about the issue in my parent post: There is more than one license.

The Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL) says, in part: "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

Be very, very careful. If some of the Ms-LPL code is mixed with real open source code, there can be a license violation.

> Not completely though. Microsoft Word is terminally brain dead. Framemaker was much, much easier to use, more powerful and understood emacs key bindings. Of course, Microsoft Word is just an application not the O/S.

I don't particularly care for Word either, but in my case that's because I have no need for it, except in viewing what other people send me. I'm not in any sort of a PRish or manager-ish job, so notepad is good enough for me, and e-mail for everyone else. Large amounts of data? Format in a text file and attach to e-mail. If you get into Word or Excel XP will be painful, if only from opening them with each file if you tend to close what you're finished with.

>> d: download TweakUI and play some more
> "Hold on right there cowboy", installing 3rd party stuff is taboo.

3rd party depends on where you work. At my last job, anything went. At my current job, it's more structured (gasp, actually buying licenses for software!) but TweakUI is a gray area. One one hand it's not installed by default, on the other it IS an MS product, offered for free. Of course given that it's just a friendly front cover for registry and ini settings, you can look it up, see what's inresting then look up how to do that manually.

> I tried to find something I liked about Microsoft Windows XP
Most people who like XP probably came to it from 2000 or 98. Compared to those OSs, XP is an improvment, if only for minor touches here and there in the pack-in utilities. Minor things like ctrl-g for goto line or list line number in notepad make a big difference. If notepad automatically told you what line you were on like most other editors half of that would be pointless but... you take extra functionality where you find it. Compared to earlier versions, every new Windows adds something. (I think anyway, after what I heard about ME I never tried it. Not sure what it added besides problems) The question is whether the new features are worth the bloat and new errors.

For people coming to XP from MaxOS, I'd expect it to be annoying, but do-able. Max has always been advertised as the easy computer, so power (of the OS) doesn't mean much here.

For people coming from *nix, the loss of the rich command line would be a problem. (Although there are and from at least 3 on always have been alternatives, if only disgusting ones involing a batch file that calls a gwbasic that writes a second batch file called by the 1st after gwbasic. At that point you were pretty much better off using basic as your shell.) Windows took a hit when it "became" the OS and quit packing in a language, but as soon as the web became popular it was largely moot.

> I've enjoyed this discussion.
Ditto. It's nice to talk to someone with an opinion based on practicality over psuedo-religious beliefs.

> btw, My former advisor in college was James Kajiya, a most brilliant man who taught me many, many important things that continue to bias me to this very day.

If you mean
http://research.microsoft.com/users/kajiya/
he's certainly made a name for himself.

The cat just wants the bird to become part of its ecosystem.

it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows

Please tell me where the word "Windows" even appears in this license. I don't see it. Maybe you should actually read them before you make such comments.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx

One things is for sure - they all rely on proprietary Microsoft produts (.Net, sharepoint, SQL server, etc) to run. They're not particularly useful to the Open Source community, just the Microsoft community. (In Debian, they would sit in the non-free repositorty).

I think you've confused the "Open Source community" with the "Linux community". While there's a fair amount of overlap, "Open Source" does not imply simply Linux.

Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:

The Ms-PL and Ms-CL have been submitted to OSI for approval. We'll have to wait and see if the OSI decides they're not compatible with Open Source licenses.

Also, way to be reactive. All software licenses govern use of said software, where "use" includes the usage of the source code for the software (if you read the license, it says nothing about how you may actually run the licensed software). In the case of an open source license like BSD, the only governance in place is the requirement to retain copyright information when modifying and redistributing the source. The GPL goes further and requires that you retain the same license for any derived work (the "viral" nature of the GPL) and that you must make source available. The Ms-PL has a BSD-like copyright restriction with a GPL-like license restriction (you must use the MS-PL license for any derived works with published source code, though you may publish binaries under a separate license without publishing source) and a patent revocation clause in case you sue. That may or may not fit the requirements for OSI-certification as an open source license, but it's still a very relaxed license.

Basically, to jump into the OSS bandwagon which, while it's not an actual threat to Microsoft outside the server arena, has been steadily gaining popularity for the past years. The idea is, IMHO, to shift the perception of open source from the more "common" licenses to their own, which, yes, can be quite restrictive. It's a smart move - either you get into the OSS club with your own rules, or you fail... but atleast appear supportive.

FWIW, i don't like their shared source licenses. In a way, they could be thought of like a step in the right direction, but they're not really very useful if all they allow you to do with the code is watch it.

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

This is probably close to the mark. Here are some new features for Vista:

The Multimedia Class Scheduler Service: basically a service that juggles thread priorities keeping "important" ones (read: audio playback) near the top:

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684247. aspx

The I/O system in Vista also has an idea of different priority packets. Therefore the disk read for the next MP3 frame is probably a higher priority than
the read for the next network packet.

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/priorityio.ms px

This is complete speculation on my part but I could see how these thing might affect machine performance during audio playback.

This is probably close to the mark. Here are some new features for Vista:

The Multimedia Class Scheduler Service: basically a service that juggles thread priorities keeping "important" ones (read: audio playback) near the top:

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684247. aspx

The I/O system in Vista also has an idea of different priority packets. Therefore the disk read for the next MP3 frame is probably a higher priority than
the read for the next network packet.

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/priorityio.ms px

This is complete speculation on my part but I could see how these thing might affect machine performance during audio playback.

Well we do know that there are new API's in Vista that allow reservations of bandwidth for devices (like disk drives) and that media player does indeed make use of them (this has been demonstrated at events like Tech-Ed and Mark Russinovich's talks have contained demonstrations of this as well).

The scheduler is the cause. See Jump

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues /2007/02/VistaKernel/

Currently you cannot disable this without disabling the audio... There should be a fix for it in SP1 rumor says.

While I realize that the Freespace 2 engine has a pretty impressive open source community, I still pine for the days of good space combat sims.

The closest thing I've played in a long while is Project Sylpheed (not to be confused with the old 3d-shooter Silpheed), but it's closer to a "macross space combat emulator" than a space combat sim in the tradition of Wing Commander, TIE Fighter / X-Wing, Freespace, etc.

1. Definitions. [ ... ] A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.

A "contributor" is any person who distributes her, or his, contribution under this license.
A rather sad reflection on the grammatical knowledge of the person who wrote the licence.

Now, read very carefully:

3. Conditions and Limitations.

[ ... Non contentious clauses ( I presume ) ... ]

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution.

If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

I know that the business practices and code quality espoused by Microsoft have, in the past, been highly dubious, but let's just give them a moment to demonstrate that they have indeed seen the light and realised that being decent citizens is a better plan for the continued existence of their business.

IANAL (for Entertainment purposes only!)

Here are two clauses from the license

(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.

[...]

(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.

I am pretty sure that this license (or at least some software under the license) will not be accepted by Debian, which is slightly stricter than the FSF and the OSI. If the software includes a trademark, it must be included when distributed in either modified or unmodified form. If there is trademark a trademark, it is probably non-free. Remember, the trademark may even be an image, not just a small copyright statement.

Therefore, distributing software under this license that contains a trademark will have non-free components that are not removable. This is the same reason that Debian rejected the GFDL as well as the some of the issues with the Firefox/Iceweasel thing.

Now, for the FSF,

* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

If removing a trademark or logo can be considered an improvement to the program, you are not allowed to do it. This means you cannot improve the software. I bet this makes it fail FSF approval. Again, IANAL, just speculating here.

Now, before I am blamed for being off topic, here is a relevant OSI section,

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

I am getting more desperate here. This is similiar to the FSF thing above. Assuming the trademark or logo is not free, you will be unable to modify it.

I probably don't know what I am talking about, though. The BSD advertising clause (requiring that the software contains a notice that it was developed at Berkley, etc) was still accepted and considered free (and annoying), and it is very similar to this logo/trademark thing.

Chris DiBona of Google Inc. has asked the question if the OSI license submission ment that Microsoft would "stop using the market confusing term Shared Source." While I disagree on several things, I think this question deserves a reasonable answer. Rather than answering the question, instead Bill Hilf provided the excuse that "the reasons we continued to call it the 'Shared Source' program was to acknowledge that these licenses had not been approved by the OSI." [1]
.
Based on what was said by Bill Hilf, a project covered under MS-CL or MS-PL should be referred in Microsoft marketing as a "Shared Source" application. But with the Sharedpoint Learning Kit, covered by the MS-CL [2], the term used by Microsoft is "open source application." [3] Independent of approval by the OSI, Microsoft has already pre-approved it's use of "Shared Source" and "open source" as interchangeable terms in a way that appears to be an attempt to purposely confuse. This could even be seen as a method to disrupt the moment that the previous open source terminology had gain in the popular press. Regardless of the intention, Microsoft's use of SS and OS as interchangeable terms is not consistent with Bill Hilf's claim.
.
So, this leads back to DiBona's question which is still left without a reasonable answer. Will Microsoft stop using the marketing term Shared Source as a method to confuse? If Microsoft is serious about working with the OSI, why is SS already used as an interchangeable term before the OSI has even approved the licenses?
.
[1] http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:1338 5:200708:mkohfpmjekmjelobgffa
[2] http://www.codeplex.com/SLK/Project/License.aspx
[3] http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/choice.mspx

Reacting negatively?

Go look at the MS-LPL license: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx

and read the bits about the restrictions to MS Windows only. Can you honestly say that MS is trying hard to just get along?

No.
That means nothing. It's an outreach site to the community to hype up support. Guess what, sluggo? EVERYBODY DOES THAT.

Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/communities/default.mspx
Sony: http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7461
Nintendo: http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/e vents-marketing-trade-shows/3876092-1.html
Adobe: http://www.acrobatusers.com/

Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.

"I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

If Vista sucks so badly, how about a free downgrade to XP? Have a look at the royalyoemreferencesheet. I assume you may have a problem with drivers for any of the Sony-proprieatry features, because those probably don't even exist if the actual hardware is vista-only, or Sony may not allow you to download drivers for any OS but the one that came with the laptop. I had that problem with a very expensive Vaio subnotebook, and that, along with their atrocious warranty service is among the many reasons that I won't buy any sony hardware again. Back to downgrading Vista (pro or ultimate only), let me cite from the sheet linked to above:

Q. What about product activation? When a previously licensed version of Windows XP Professional is used for the downgrade, won't activation fail on the new PC?
A. When an end user is using their downgrade rights offered under the License Terms in Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions and they use both Windows XP media and a product key that was previously activated, they will be unable to activate on-line over the Internet, due to the hardware configuration change when installing on the Vista system. In these cases the end user will be prompted to call the Activation Support Line and explain their circumstances to the Customer Service Representative. Once it is determined that the end user has a valid Vista Business or Ultimate license, the Customer Service Representative will help them activate their software.

You should really downgrade and request a new activation key, because that's the only way Microsoft will ever know how badly you want to downgrade. Actually one should expect that most business users will not need any help for activation, because they will be using pre-activated windows installations that are bound to some bios signature ("SLP" [microsoft.com]) found on all the systems from the large suppliers (Dell, HP, ...). Works for me.

I was also hoping to find a software solution to lock USB ports for Windows XP Home Edition, but the closest thing I could find was this incorrect Microsoft knowledge base article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;823732
Windows XP Home Edition doesn't let you set ACL security on files, so their directions are incorrect. Furthermore, I tried the change to the USBSTOR registry key they mention, and it had no effect on my USB thumb drive.

Basically the guy is saying he does not want tech savvy users to access his site.

You mean like this site?

See here and you can save as Office 2007 formats for old Office versions (as long as they have this pack). I also noticed MS keep them updated through Office Update and I still use Office 2000 SP3.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=264303&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20219969

Here's a list of many companies & their results/case studies, using SQLServer 2005 for line-of-business/enterprise class/mission critical objectives & tasks...

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/bigdata/default.mspx

(companies like NASDAQ using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 to keep the official record of trades & dissemination of that info. & @ a stable rate of the "fabled 5-9's" of uptime (99.999%) & no history of them being cracked/hacked either...)

SQLServer 2005 vulnerability history @ SECUNIA:

http://secunia.com/product/6782/?task=statistics

(Zero/0 advisories of vulnerabilities...)

APK

P.S.=> That's most of your objections overcome & how/why, & this now too:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=264303&cid=202 59631

apk

It would appear that this concept does *not* go over their head. What you're talking about is the "Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats" and it's been out since June:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displa ylang=en

BTW, it works with Office 2003, Office XP and Office 2000

----
"To me, effective security is more important than theoretical security. Linux is a reasonably secure platform. I cannot say whether it's fundamentally more or less secure than NT" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday August 16, @11:03PM (#20256907)
----

Well, you've got an EASY way to find out: Run CIS TOOL, since it is a multiplatform test for both Windows NT-based OS & *NIX variants (many, not all run it, odd... same codebase trees in say, FreeBSD which runs it, but OpenBSD does not (this kills *NIX imo))... the test IS noted by COMPUTERWORLD for its purpose (to help secure you) & SANS (a respected site for computer security).

Put your money where your mouth is, put up or (you know what)... don't just "talk the talk", but "WALK THE WALK" & prove your statement in a FAIR test, based on best security practices analysis for the OS platform's its run on (testing analogs between them, WHICH THERE ARE PLENTY OF between *NIX & NT-based OS).

----
"Sorry, dominance in the datacenter is a very recent thing, and actually not a very solid one. They have maybe 50% marketshare, last I looked, up from 25%." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday August 16, @11:03PM (#20256907)
----

Neither is "security by obscurity"... as far as a solid evidence of security.

I.E.-> Just because something is less targetted does NOT mean it does NOT CONTAIN BUGS/HOLES/VULNERABILITIES, by any means/stretch-of-the-imagination!

(Because a ware is less used, does NOT mean it is secure - & 'real hacker/cracker' types out there are looking to get information, to sell, for profit, are going to target THE MOST USED STUFF to increase the attack surface of their worms/virus/keylogger spywares etc., period! Good side of it? They DEFINITELY force MS & other software publishing house OEM's to "shore up their wares" & imo, are the best "security researchers" in the world really - well, those that disclose what they find, that is!).

AND, hell of an increase for MS, wouldn't you say... I certainly would, I can assure you of that much.

----
"Having some big important name depend on us" is not the same thing as "dominating." It's an ancedote, and I've got a few for you -- Dreamworks and ILM have moved to Linux renderfarms, even many of them to Linux workstations. Lord of the Rings was rendered on Linux, and the Halo movie is likely to be as well." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday August 16, @11:03PM (#20256907)
----

Ok, sure, you have a few BUT, I can "overwhelm & devastate" by producing MANY more, & from a single source!

(... here is a TON of that type of data, from Microsoft's own case studies where SQLServer 2005 + Windows are in place, in large businesses (in high tpm mission-critical environs no less)):

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/bigdata/default.mspx

Dig around there, & you see TONS of folks with high tpm (transaction per minute) systems in place, like NASDAQ has using the Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 combination for the official record of trades & dissemination of that data...

NASDAQ's system that uses Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 runs @ the "fabled 5-9's" of uptime no less (99.999%), 110% 'bulletproof & bugfree' of vulnerabilities in SQLServer 2005 (none in its nearly 4 yr. history now have surfaced) & NASDAQ has never had that system be "hacked/cracked" either...

----
"However, it's close enough that being a smaller target makes it more secure. I believe it would continue to be more secure even if it were a larger target" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday August 16, @11:03PM (#20256907)
----

Neither is "security by obscurity"... as far as a solid evidence of security. See my previous statements about this, above, again.

"because it would also get a larger team of developers for free, and because I believe open projects have much m

The Microsoft "Account Technology Specialist" is right. Here's a good link from Microsoft on downgrading: http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c8 3d3-833e-4f11-8cbd-699b0c164182/royaltyoemreferenc esheet.pdf