Slashdot Mirror

Despite popular opinion, that Microsoft only takes the ideas of others and somehow makes giant piles of money, they do have a research branch. And that research branch is remarkably open about at least some portion of their own work.

http://research.microsoft.com/

I can't wait for the same thing to happen to the high school Microsoft got mixed up with in Philadelphia.

Ok, you've got many PCs most of which run Windows XP. They've been crashing every Exploit Wednesday since October. Every one has a license that was paid for three times (six times under Software Assurance). You have seventeen core apps. Some of them are paid for several times. Some have a licensing server so that some people can use them when other people aren't, and come with a utility so that priority users can kick off nonpriority users. A couple of them are free. Four of them are nagware that came with your PCs or that you thought were a good idea at the time. One is an in-house app that only runs in a DOS box and accesses dBase files stored on your server. Every month a couple get pwned for no detectable reason.

Even if they don't run Windows you've paid over and over. You have to because they've made it happen what "enforcement" will happen if you don't.

Every software vendor you buy from makes it clear the software you bought is being split into "basic" versions that include most of the features you use, and an "Enterprise" version that includes must have features you can't live without. Both new versions will be annual subscriptions instead of purchases. Naturally, the Premium version you require will cost many times what you already paid and the cost will be annual rather than once each. Of course they're entitled to this conversion of your purchase into a "revenue stream" because they've upgraded their product from an application to a "platform framework" that "optimizes" your "TCO".

You're thinking about investigating this multicore thing that people are talking about, but it seems impossible to reconcile the software licenses with multiple "cores" on one or more CPUs. You want to do server consolidation, but every server app has to be evaluated both by a professional enginner and by a hideously expensive team of lawyers who also want to audit every piece of software you've purchased since 1974. Your CPA wants to know why you licensed the same software 3-6 times for each PC, and why you're buying licenses for software that won't run on the PCs they're purchased for. And what's this entry for "SCO Linux licenses"? You live in dread of being audited by jack-booted thugs, not because you're pirating but because the danger of a paperwork snafu that destroys your budget is nearly certain and the slightest discrepancy is going to get you canned.

I have one question: What the hell are you thinking? Get off the train to crazy town. The free stuff isn't just good, it's better. So much better that you're not going to believe you put up with this crap. If it's truly free you don't have to account for each copy/user/use/year/processor/incidence. It's not free because it's less worthy: it's free because you're not the first person to be disgusted by the experience you're having. Pay for support. Nobody ever got sued for terminating their support contract. Figure it out. The world has changed. The future is open.

Ok, you've got many PCs most of which run Windows XP. They've been crashing every Exploit Wednesday since October. Every one has a license that was paid for three times (six times under Software Assurance). You have seventeen core apps. Some of them are paid for several times. Some have a licensing server so that some people can use them when other people aren't, and come with a utility so that priority users can kick off nonpriority users. A couple of them are free. Four of them are nagware that came with your PCs or that you thought were a good idea at the time. One is an in-house app that only runs in a DOS box and accesses dBase files stored on your server. Every month a couple get pwned for no detectable reason.

Even if they don't run Windows you've paid over and over. You have to because they've made it happen what "enforcement" will happen if you don't.

Every software vendor you buy from makes it clear the software you bought is being split into "basic" versions that include most of the features you use, and an "Enterprise" version that includes must have features you can't live without. Both new versions will be annual subscriptions instead of purchases. Naturally, the Premium version you require will cost many times what you already paid and the cost will be annual rather than once each. Of course they're entitled to this conversion of your purchase into a "revenue stream" because they've upgraded their product from an application to a "platform framework" that "optimizes" your "TCO".

You're thinking about investigating this multicore thing that people are talking about, but it seems impossible to reconcile the software licenses with multiple "cores" on one or more CPUs. You want to do server consolidation, but every server app has to be evaluated both by a professional enginner and by a hideously expensive team of lawyers who also want to audit every piece of software you've purchased since 1974. Your CPA wants to know why you licensed the same software 3-6 times for each PC, and why you're buying licenses for software that won't run on the PCs they're purchased for. And what's this entry for "SCO Linux licenses"? You live in dread of being audited by jack-booted thugs, not because you're pirating but because the danger of a paperwork snafu that destroys your budget is nearly certain and the slightest discrepancy is going to get you canned.

I have one question: What the hell are you thinking? Get off the train to crazy town. The free stuff isn't just good, it's better. So much better that you're not going to believe you put up with this crap. If it's truly free you don't have to account for each copy/user/use/year/processor/incidence. It's not free because it's less worthy: it's free because you're not the first person to be disgusted by the experience you're having. Pay for support. Nobody ever got sued for terminating their support contract. Figure it out. The world has changed. The future is open.

It's called LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol.

I haven't done it, but it certainly looks doable.

"So many of the planned features were ripped completely from the OS"

Which features besides WinFS (which was ripped because nobody could figure out how to make it usable by users)? I've heard about some lame P2P functionality that was removed, but that's about it. The idea that Vista had thousands of features removed is slashdot mythology. The three pillars are intact: WPF, WC, WCF, WWF. Even the P2P stuff is mostly still there: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/10/Pee rToPeer/default.aspx

So I'd like to see a list of the features that were removed.
(BTW, if you don't think that Apple removes features from Mac OS, you're on drugs. I have inside info that lots of features that appear in any given OSX 10.x were actually planned for OSX 10.x-1, 10.x-2, etc.

No it isn't. The page http://www.geekbiker.net/ is served with the content type text/html, not the correct application/xhtml+xml.

One question: In HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, or subsequent versions of XHTML, the value attribute of the li element is removed. So in these languages, how do you make an ordered list with values other than starting at 1 and increasing by 1? For instance, how would you express a top ten list where natural reading order of the elements is from the element numbered 10 to the element numbered 1 rather than from 1 to 10, or the track listing of Follow the Leader by Korn where the first element is numbered 13? Are people supposed to make lists with a dozen empty li elements that are styled display: none?

The mistaken deprecations of some attributes such as the value attribute of the li element are why I continue to use the Transitional DTD despite following the spirit of Strict. The inability of the web user agent with 80 percent market share to correctly interpret XHTML's correct DOCTYPE (application/xhtml+xml which results in a download rather than a displayed page), combined with the idiotic gyrations needed to incorporate CSS and script into an "appendix C" XHTML file due to the change from CDATA to PCDATA and the fact that XHTML served as text/html is actually tag soup, are why I continue to use HTML 4.01.

Staples and other retail vendors have their own separate distribution licenses from companies like Microsoft to distrubt the software in boxes.

Only if they order direct from Microsoft. I worked in a local computer store, and we were able to sell box copies of any Microsoft Software we wanted to without ever signing (or seeing) an agreement from Microsoft. We just went to our distributor (who we did make sure was on their list of approved distributors) and bought a case of product, and resold said. Just like any other physical sales item. Here: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/40012335

Now, there were agreements that had to be in place for OEM copies, but like I said, that's a whole other tangent...

If Staples had been distributing Microsoft software from Cho Ming in Shanghai, even if the box looked like it came from Microsoft they would be guilty of distributing computer software without a license and be guilty of copyright infringement.

Actually, wouldn't it be possession of counterfeit property with intent to sell?

Services for UNIX is derived from OpenBSD 3.0 sources.

Our new Botnet Overlords.

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout

Pretty much all that you have stated here could also refer to MS Windows.

• You can listen for notifications of file updates on Windows.
• If you didn't mind Microsoft's indexing service (which is quite serviceable) but wanted to write your front end, you can write your own GUI to do customized searches. There are many different ways that you can do this depending on how high level the language is that you use.
• If you develop a file format that Microsoft's content indexer can't recognize, you can implemented your own IFilter. These are used by many Microsoft Search programs, including the Indexing Service (dating back to Windows NT 4.0), Desktop Search, IIS, Sharepoint, Exchange and SQL Server. Here are some IFilters to download and try.

Like most people here, I really can't see what Google are on about. What can Google offer that can't be achieved with Microsoft's solution? Would Google Desktop Search also allow the Windows standard IFilter interface, or would all the third party solutions that use this interface suddenly stop working once Google's service is switched on?

I always thought that the search has got more useless with every version of Windows. In XP, I have copied a variable name from some source code and then pasted it into the search only to find no matches. It should have at least found the file that I copied the text from!

However, I have always switched off the Indexing Service so I didn't slow the system down for those fairly rare occasions that I need to search. Maybe this would solve my problem. After this discussion, I have been inspired to give the Indexing Service a try again. And I am certainly looking forward to trying the search in Vista. Thanks, Google!

Pretty much all that you have stated here could also refer to MS Windows.

• You can listen for notifications of file updates on Windows.
• If you didn't mind Microsoft's indexing service (which is quite serviceable) but wanted to write your front end, you can write your own GUI to do customized searches. There are many different ways that you can do this depending on how high level the language is that you use.
• If you develop a file format that Microsoft's content indexer can't recognize, you can implemented your own IFilter. These are used by many Microsoft Search programs, including the Indexing Service (dating back to Windows NT 4.0), Desktop Search, IIS, Sharepoint, Exchange and SQL Server. Here are some IFilters to download and try.

Like most people here, I really can't see what Google are on about. What can Google offer that can't be achieved with Microsoft's solution? Would Google Desktop Search also allow the Windows standard IFilter interface, or would all the third party solutions that use this interface suddenly stop working once Google's service is switched on?

I always thought that the search has got more useless with every version of Windows. In XP, I have copied a variable name from some source code and then pasted it into the search only to find no matches. It should have at least found the file that I copied the text from!

However, I have always switched off the Indexing Service so I didn't slow the system down for those fairly rare occasions that I need to search. Maybe this would solve my problem. After this discussion, I have been inspired to give the Indexing Service a try again. And I am certainly looking forward to trying the search in Vista. Thanks, Google!

• In Response to 1:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system. io.filesystemwatcher.aspx - there is an unmanaged equivilant which I can't be bothered to find. As to adding to the file menu http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ctxextsubmenu.asp ?df=100&forumid=14557&exp=0&select=1294544

• In Response to 2:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa96571 4.aspx

• In Response to 3:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms69259 2.aspx - It's a COM Component but works in the same way as you describe

So what exactly can I do extra on a Mac?

• In Response to 1:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system. io.filesystemwatcher.aspx - there is an unmanaged equivilant which I can't be bothered to find. As to adding to the file menu http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ctxextsubmenu.asp ?df=100&forumid=14557&exp=0&select=1294544

• In Response to 2:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa96571 4.aspx

• In Response to 3:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms69259 2.aspx - It's a COM Component but works in the same way as you describe

So what exactly can I do extra on a Mac?

• In Response to 1:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system. io.filesystemwatcher.aspx - there is an unmanaged equivilant which I can't be bothered to find. As to adding to the file menu http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ctxextsubmenu.asp ?df=100&forumid=14557&exp=0&select=1294544

• In Response to 2:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa96571 4.aspx

• In Response to 3:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms69259 2.aspx - It's a COM Component but works in the same way as you describe

So what exactly can I do extra on a Mac?

I can't believe no-one's yet pointed out that exactly what you've just described already exists...! It's a Virtual PC image, but that's easy enough to convert to VMWare. Yes, it's free.

Wait...So console makers do the whole "morality police" thing regarding what games are released on their consoles? WTF?

My current assignment is with a server consolidation team.

Windows Vista is not a server operating system so this won't affect you. What you're looking for is Windows Server 2008.

A both OSes have home versions which allow restore of backuped Data...
For Vista you need Ultimate or Business to get restore functionality ;-)


All SKU's support automatic file backup and restore. There is additional functionality in Ultimate and Business for making an image of your entire system.

See: Windows Backup and Restore Center

Seems like you are talking about Shared Source. Thats something completely different them Open Source.

See
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source //fatal

If it's simulation you want, then you should also check out the Microsoft Robotics Studio.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/robotics/default. aspx

http://beta.channel9.msdn.com/Media/Microsoft-Robo tics-Tour-CCR-VPL-Simulation-Part-1/

It pains me to praise Microsoft, but from the Channel 9 video it looks pretty impresive - especially the simulation capabilities.

The point was that something in the OS was degrading the performance of those alternatives. Based on how quickly MS has backed down, I'm guessing it was deliberate, or at least known and accepted.

If you think the OS was purposely degrading the performance of the alternatives you're so far off base that you strain credibility. There probably was degradation, but simply because I/O contention is unavoidable with multiple indexers (not to mention virus scanners) furiously trying to scan/index user files.

In fact, as described by http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues /2007/02/VistaKernel, Vista is the first version of Windows to support prioritized I/O, and according to the article the search indexing runs at "Very Low I/O priority" to minimize the impact on other applications.

This is a HUGE one, which has not been fixed, and which MANY MANY users are dropping vista because of...

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/showpost.aspx? postid=1759892&siteid=17

essentially, it seems moving, copying, even deleting files on vista has a serious slowness bug...
(my own personal theory is this is due to DRM forcing everything to be encrypted if its passed thru the system bus - see the new zelander's DRM Vista article for those gory details;)

those types of operations are 4 times slower then XP on average, sometimes more

Usually I stay out of these kinds of things on Slashdot, because the community is so full of people like you that I despair of ever changing anything. But I'll give it another shot today...

Windows update DOES NOT REQUIRE WGA! Is that clear enough? If not, how about WGA DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY KIND OF REGISTRATION?

At worst, Windows update requires exactly one type of significant information about your computer: what patch version of the OS you have. Since I'm assuming you don't mind Microsoft knowing what Windows patches you have so far; this is hardly personal information.

You might be confusing Windows Update with Microsoft Update, which is a service to update a variety of non-OS MS software. This does require WGA validation at least once. While this involves transmitting more identifiably useful information than, for example, most OSS update programs, it's important to remember that WGA is a response to a problem that OSS doesn't have. Consider the list of info that WGA sends, from the WGA Privacy Info page:
Computer make and model: Useful for maintaining hardware profiles, and possibly for tracking down sources of mass software piracy. If you consider this info private I'm a bit worried about your priorities... you do realize that by visiting this web page you probably told Slashdot what type of browser and OS you use, and quite possibly what version?
Version information for the OS and software you're validating: See above comment about patch version info.
Region and language setting: This almost certainly is used the same way as the make/model info: in aggregate and possibly for help tracking down major operations.
A software-assigned GUID for your computer: Can help detect hardware updates or piracy (in combination with the hardware info) or software reinstalls (identical hardware and software key but different GUID).
Hash of product key and product ID: Needed to identify keys and install discs that are being misused.
BIOS name, revision, and date: Probably the same as the make/model and regional info, although it might be useful to detect hardware updates on the same system or the mass distribution of unlicensed copies, especially when combined with the other hardware info.
Hash of HDD serial number: Used to detect people creating images of a valid copy, then distributing those images (either already on hard disks as in hardware sales, or as installable system images).
Which of these constitute "personal information that I KNOW microsoft doesn't need"?

For those who claim "MS is treating me like a thief..." I trust you all don't shop at stores with scanners at the door that chack for any tags in your purchases that weren't deactivated at the register? Why the fsck do you assume it's so personal? MS isn't treating 'you' like a thief, they're treating you as a member of a general public that has shown an incredible trend towards theft. What makes you so special, from MS's point of view, that you're automatically worthy of trust? (Incidentally, have you ever noticed how the same people who say that WGA means being treated like a thief insist that software piracy is NOT theft?)

How else do you propose the problem be solved anyhow? There's Apple's route (require a trusted platform chip in every system running the OS) but I suspect that would be very unpopular (if for no other reason than because most computers still don't have one). Software piracy IS a problem too; to the parent poster and everybody else who whine about how they don't use their legit versions because of validation, don't bitch to MS, bitch to all the people you know who use unlicensed copies (I doubt anybody on Slashdot doesn't know at least a few, even if they aren't one themselves). Especially, focus on not paying anybody for unlicensed copies; supporting the black market is not a good way to m

Usually I stay out of these kinds of things on Slashdot, because the community is so full of people like you that I despair of ever changing anything. But I'll give it another shot today...

Windows update DOES NOT REQUIRE WGA! Is that clear enough? If not, how about WGA DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY KIND OF REGISTRATION?

At worst, Windows update requires exactly one type of significant information about your computer: what patch version of the OS you have. Since I'm assuming you don't mind Microsoft knowing what Windows patches you have so far; this is hardly personal information.

You might be confusing Windows Update with Microsoft Update, which is a service to update a variety of non-OS MS software. This does require WGA validation at least once. While this involves transmitting more identifiably useful information than, for example, most OSS update programs, it's important to remember that WGA is a response to a problem that OSS doesn't have. Consider the list of info that WGA sends, from the WGA Privacy Info page:
Computer make and model: Useful for maintaining hardware profiles, and possibly for tracking down sources of mass software piracy. If you consider this info private I'm a bit worried about your priorities... you do realize that by visiting this web page you probably told Slashdot what type of browser and OS you use, and quite possibly what version?
Version information for the OS and software you're validating: See above comment about patch version info.
Region and language setting: This almost certainly is used the same way as the make/model info: in aggregate and possibly for help tracking down major operations.
A software-assigned GUID for your computer: Can help detect hardware updates or piracy (in combination with the hardware info) or software reinstalls (identical hardware and software key but different GUID).
Hash of product key and product ID: Needed to identify keys and install discs that are being misused.
BIOS name, revision, and date: Probably the same as the make/model and regional info, although it might be useful to detect hardware updates on the same system or the mass distribution of unlicensed copies, especially when combined with the other hardware info.
Hash of HDD serial number: Used to detect people creating images of a valid copy, then distributing those images (either already on hard disks as in hardware sales, or as installable system images).
Which of these constitute "personal information that I KNOW microsoft doesn't need"?

For those who claim "MS is treating me like a thief..." I trust you all don't shop at stores with scanners at the door that chack for any tags in your purchases that weren't deactivated at the register? Why the fsck do you assume it's so personal? MS isn't treating 'you' like a thief, they're treating you as a member of a general public that has shown an incredible trend towards theft. What makes you so special, from MS's point of view, that you're automatically worthy of trust? (Incidentally, have you ever noticed how the same people who say that WGA means being treated like a thief insist that software piracy is NOT theft?)

How else do you propose the problem be solved anyhow? There's Apple's route (require a trusted platform chip in every system running the OS) but I suspect that would be very unpopular (if for no other reason than because most computers still don't have one). Software piracy IS a problem too; to the parent poster and everybody else who whine about how they don't use their legit versions because of validation, don't bitch to MS, bitch to all the people you know who use unlicensed copies (I doubt anybody on Slashdot doesn't know at least a few, even if they aren't one themselves). Especially, focus on not paying anybody for unlicensed copies; supporting the black market is not a good way to m

They did:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965726. aspx

*sigh*

The overhead you speak of, it's called a security system that isn't admin by default. It's also present in *unix and is called 'su' or 'sudo' instead of UAC.

Do some reading on the improvements I speak of. I've already provided a URL, but Google has plenty more. These improvements aren't exactly just theoretical, they've been years in the testing and making. Beyond that, who knows...maybe they won't turn out great for everyone once in the public domain, but neither of us can say so right now. Again, actually do some reading about the improvements before criticising and site examples. Here's one example for you now; the new thread priority and scheduling system - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues /2007/02/VistaKernel/default.aspx?loc=en

As i'm sure you're aware, revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary changes) will break things. Case in point; Mac OS X cannot run applications built for Mac OS9 at all - everything is run in an entire virtual Mac OS9 VM - not exactly friendly on the memory. So no, saying "not if they did it correctly" isn't exactly accurate.

DRM? That's another discussion. Vista so far hasn't swallowed whole anyone's mp3 downloads, nor has it magically converted anyone's film downloads into WMV's. Feel free to prove me wrong if you know otherwise.

Vista possibly is a bit shaky in areas - it's still very new. I've got a copy sat on my desk in fact that I'll install once SP1 is released. It will get there though, and just as once people ranted they'll "never upgrade to XP", they'll do again from Vista too about Vienna. Unless your a Linux bod of course, in which case good on you.

Didn't you get that memo? Install SP2 for Exchange and edit your registry. You can add another 59GB (75 total) to private store so you won't bump the limit. The 16GB limit really sucks because the store won't mount if it's too big. That's a pretty lame way of dealing with the problem. Here's your fix.... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912375

What about encryption of email?

This fundamental file copy issue is why I won't be supplying Vista (for a while yet):

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx? PostID=1358057&SiteID=17

It has many annoyances but does seem stable if a bit head-scratchingly slow at some things.

I'm beginning to believe that the DRM encryption/decryption conspiracy is the root cause.

The thing is, Vista is actually quite a enhancement over XP and previous renditions of Windows. This isn't actually debatable; see:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel- en.mspx
http://geekswithblogs.net/sdorman/archive/2006/06/ 17/82188.aspx

Changes are top-to-bottom too; everything from thread scheduling, to the entire driver model, to the TCP/IP implementation, to kernel-security has been completely re-done. And good on them I say for doing it - operating systems must evolve.

The problem is that such fundamental changes can cause some fundamental breakages, and this is what we're seeing now, and indeed, expecting. Even with Microsoft's "it must be backwards compatible" philosophy, things will break. People are just waiting for things to start working again, that's all.
I think it's unfair to bash Microsoft because of these changes and breakages too; vendors have had years to prepare for vista (god knows it's been coming to long enough) so I'd suggest the slow adoption is largely the fault of vendors. Never-the-less, Vista is a positive re-write IMHO (the DRM is a separate issue of course).

Now, next question; was the time & money investment worth it for the consumer to pay for it? Maybe; maybe not. I can't see even my geeky mates wanting to upgrade on the basis of kernel enhancements alone. The pretty backgrounds, maybe, but certainly not for a re-written TCP/IP stack.

To be fair, search in Vista is just reused Windows Desktop Search http://www.microsoft.com/windows/desktopsearch/def ault.mspx for Windows XP. I guess it was made at the height of the desktop (indexing) search tools "wars". I actually found it to be very well made.

And yes, you can run programs with it the same way. Different key shortcut though.

Yes, I use Vista and XP.

What's so "nonstandard" about that?!

Maybe not MS standard as in compatible with Exchange.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/excha nge/2007/evaluate/clients.mspx

Look at the chart in the link. Even some versions of Outlook are incompatable with some versions of Exchange.

Only Outlook 2002/XP and 2003 are compatible with all the versions of exchange listed. Everything else is incompatible with at least one version.

So what versions is the phone compatible with?

Exactly.

As it happens all the time (remember OpenOffice.org destroying MS Office's market share? Real Player being installed and used on each and every win-based computer (instead of the builtin WMP)? Everybody using Trillian/Miranda/Kopete/GAIM/Whatever instead of the ole MSN Messenger?).

Just one thing remains to be asked: Why the heck would anybody use Firefox if there are better alternatives everywhere?

Which NT4 cert was that?

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/security/ news/c2summ.mspx?mfr=true

"Windows NT 4.0 evaluation included servers and workstations in six different roles, operating in both TCP/IP networked and stand-alone modes."

I disagree. Microsoft has maintained a list of conventions for programmers for quite some time. I easily found this on MSDN, which was recently re-written for Vista:

      http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511331. aspx

      http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511502. aspx

And there's more if you keep looking.

I disagree. Microsoft has maintained a list of conventions for programmers for quite some time. I easily found this on MSDN, which was recently re-written for Vista:

      http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511331. aspx

      http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511502. aspx

And there's more if you keep looking.

However, most "fanboi" type Linux advocates and users don't have a logical reason for using Linux. Instead, they rely heavily on social proof. Linux users are "sticking it to the man", a perspective which fits with the age and demographics of many Linux "fanbois".

To the moderate, there is no one right answer, but there may be a best solution for a particular problem. Moderates run Windows when it makes sense, Linux when it makes sense, Free/Net/OpenBSD when it makes sense, and Mac OSX when it makes sense.

Hmmm...I'm getting conflicting information. According to this Microsoft White Paper (sorry, Word .DOC format), the EAL4 + Augmented with ALC_FLR.3 rating, which BTW, both Windows XP SP 2 and Windows 2003 Server SP 1 also have, is only equivalent to C2, which is the same rating that NT 4 received. IOW, this cert doesn't really mean that much.

The following products have earned EAL 4 Augmented with ALC_FLR.3 certification from NIAP:

• Microsoft Windows Server(TM) 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit version) with Service Pack 1
• Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition (32-bit and 64-bit versions) with Service Pack 1
• Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition (32-bit and 64-bit versions) with Service Pack 1
• Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Certificate Server, Certificate Issuing and Management Components (CIMC) (Security Level 3 Protection Profile, Version 1.0)
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2
• Microsoft Windows XP Embedded with Service Pack 2

What's to stop these same manufacturers that MS is trying to stop from just using one of the many ways around WGA on each of the computers they sell or install at the office?

Well, I should have mentioned that while I worked at MS I didn't work on the WGA team, so I'm not an authoritative resource. But in the spirit of /. I'd be happy to speculate! :) Given the number of previous stories about WGA being bypassed, it seems the cracks are time-limited. So a vendor/manufacturer uses one method to bypass WGA, and it eventually stops working, and then the purchaser of the computer finds out.

Honestly, I have my doubts that it's really that big of a problem.

And given that I forget the statistics, you're free to doubt. MS gets a sound beating on /. for a variety of reasons, but if you think they'll dedicate resources to developing WGA without receiving an ROI, then you probably think MS decision makers are dumber than they really are.

And the person who thought they legitimately paid for everything is stuck unable to get updates they may want and paid for unless they buy Windows again.

The WGA FAQ mentions complimentary replacement CDs from Microsoft. I don't know what the qualification requirements are.

[WGA is] stupid and only hurts the valid users in the end, which is really what most people's complaint is.

If you believe that selling pirated software to users causes those users no harm, then your position makes sense. If you believe the contrary, for whatever reason (pirated software contains god-knows-what else, pirated software makes it harder for businesses on the up-and-up to compete, you're ripping off the users, it's just not morally right, etc.), then taking steps to thwart software piracy does help the end user.

I don't have time to wait for your response that "doesn't really remove IE" so I'll just pretend you fell for my trap and tell you the real answer. Yes you can remove IE completely but MS apps that require IE to render HTML internally won't work if you do it. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318378 This will tell you about the "IsInstalled" setting. In other words, there is nothing artificial about how IE is tied in. So many things use IE such as Active Desktop, shell integration etc that it's really pointless to bother with it. If you just want to disable IE except for local uses then you can set the IE proxy setting to a non-existent domain, get a firewall, change program access, there's a ton of ways to cripple IE but trying to remove the OS's HTML renderer is akin to asking Apple to remove WebKit. Nobody forces you to IE just like nobody forces you to use WebKit, but it is there because it is used by the system. So what's the problem?

Look asshole. I'm not going to sit here and watch you change your argument.

You said "tied to one OS" implying that IE should be ported to another OS. You said nothing about uninstalling it. If you want to come back with a different topic then we can talk about that now.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927177

There's your answer.

1. To make it easy for web developers to test their sites with Safari.

I am Windows web developer so I am not sure how to download Safari (or any alternate browser for that matter) so I believe Apple already lost this one.

2. To make it easy for web developers to write iPhone web-apps.

I can't set my monitors resolution to the same resolution as the iPhone so how can I possibly developer for the iPhone? Also it doesn't support mobile IE so I can't developer for it in a cross platform manner.

3. To remove the cap on Safari's market share, so that 'it must be even smaller than the Mac market share' is no longer an argument for not supporting Safari.

Well I hear that Safari is buggy from customers that complain that my website doesn't work in it. So the smaller the market share the better for my customers and myself.

4. To let potential switchers see that the Internet will work on a Mac, even though it doesn't have the big blue E.

The MAC has a robust version of Microsoft Internet Explorer updated IIRC as recently as 2003 what more do they need?

5. To ensure that Apple is the one bringing the first mainstream WebKit-based browser to Windows, now all the porting work has been done (by Adobe).

Why is this needed? Windows already has Visual Basic... isn't this that same thing? Or it is more like the open standard active X controls that allow rich web development?

To make the Windows font rendering look even better try the tuner:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tune r/Step1.aspx (probably needs to be done in IE)

I don't really get the Apple font smoothing. If I wanted my LCD to look like a CRT I would just use the CRT.

Font linking and substitution is available in several forms on Windows too, it just takes more work to discover and use. The most relevant one for this type of application is the Uniscribe API set.

You must not be a very good developer. Windows+IE7 is free for testing.

Internet Explorer Application Compatibility VPC Image:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displa ylang=en

You can convert the VPC image to the format of your VM of choice (I use VMWare Player on Linux).

Oops! Just noticed that my link leads to the general HTTP cookies article. Here is the more on topic article about usage of HTTP-only flag

Does Ubuntu have a safe mode? In Windows you can press a function key to get to safe mode where the generic VGA driver is used.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/boot_failsafe.mspx?mf r=true

Then you can right click on the desktop and fiddle around until you get the right settings. You can test the new mode for 10 seconds before applying it too.