Slashdot Mirror

MS flirtation with Java was over years ago and pure Java would be a very poor choice of a programming language for .NET.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/

Complete brainless robotic anti-M$FT FUD, and if you had spent even 60 seconds checking your facts, you would have found that your statement is a lie.

Windows 2000 Pro: 250+ security bulletins
Windows XP Pro: 187 security bulletins
Windows Server 2003 Std: 124 security bulletins

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security

So not only is your statement untrue, it's the opposite of reality.

Check your facts before you post.

I'm not sure about Perl, but the developers (, developers, developers) at MSFT are doing really cool stuff with .NET, like LINQ. ASP.NET is going to support interpreted languages. Ability to integrate a functional language with languages like C# promises to be quite cool. Of course, who knows if you'll actually get to use any of this cool stuff.

it takes more time for a release

Really? What was the gap between Win95 and Win98? Between Win98 and Win2k? Between Win2k and XP? Let me give you a clue.

I'm not debating that Vista has taken a metric shit-load of time to drag itself to RTM (we didn't use to call Longhorn Longwait for no reason), but your assertion that each release takes longer than the last is demonstrably false.

there is really very little motivation for the average user to upgrade from XP to Vista

There's very little motivation (beyond not wanting to feel that their computer is old and out of date) for the average user to upgrade from any given OS to any other. Most people do not upgrade their OS, they upgrade their PC and use whatever OS comes with it. They upgrade their PC as and when they feel that their current one is too old and slow for their needs; that varies from person to person. Even some gamers are still using Win 98 (see Valve's survey, scroll down to/search for "Windows Version"), and gamers are the group most likely to upgrade their OS.

Is anyone else convinced that this will be the last version of Windows as we know it?

I'm not convinced that it will be, but I concede that it might be. Don't expect Windows to go anywhere any time soon though, it's far too popular (as much as we might hate it) and makes MS far too much money for that to happen.

It seems that Microsoft is wanting to stop people buying a volume license key and installing it on unlimited computers. They have new Volume Activation 2.0 now that gives you a central activation server or a multiple activation key now. My new volume license key is now available at their page also. I just need the iso now...

You joke, but you can actually download the ISO of RC1 freely from Microsoft (without having to jump through lots of hoops - assuming you have a Passport [MSN/Hotmail/X-Box Live] account already, or don't mind creating one). You need to give your details to get a licence key (which is immediately presented, and emailed to you for good measure), and you can use it on up to 10 PC's.

You must apply for a licence before November 30th to get a serial number though! If you do purchase it you can upgrade to the full release (i.e. you won't have to wipe your existing install). I actually think that's pretty cool. It makes me wonder why - as far as I can tell - you can't just 'unlock it' on line by paying for it with a credit card (the way I buy most of my Windows games now - e.g. through Stream or from similar systems like EA Downloader). I would expect that to cut down casual piracy amoung lazy people who can't be bothered to work out how to get round the 'activation/validation' that's increasingly required.

Are you kidding me? There isn't anything left in this country that is truly made in the USA. Where do you think Microsoft employs these whiz bang engineers and programmers who write the code and design the hardware. Hint: It's not in the U.S. The only people profiting in the U.S. from buying Microsoft are the executives like Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates.

Don't forget that the most commonly used (by less technically inclined people) e-mail client, outlook express, would download and store hotmail web-mail just as easily as it did pop3 / smtp mail.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/using/howt o/oe/setup.mspx/
http://help.yahoo.com/mail/pop/pop-06.html/
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=13276/

Yes, they are USUALLY web only mail servers, however, as shown above, they can ALL be configured by the user to be used locally on their computer.

PNRP = Peer Name Resolution Protocol

Its how they identify peers in a P2P network.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/netwo rk/p2p/pnrp.mspx

Microsoft volume licenses are upgrade only . I.e. you must already have an upgradeable (or downgradeable; downgrade "rights" are not universal) version of Windows installed to be able to use the license. source

"We cannot have IPv6 until the authorities and powers that be online, get a handle on the spam problem", mabu

By that logic spam is cause by IPV4. No, the real casue of spam is all those compromised Windows machines out there. How about making an OS that cannot be so easily be co-opted into a spambot network. How about the chief facilator of these spambots imdemnifying companies against getting spammed or hacked. Now that would be really innovative.

DNS name publication requires updates to DNS servers. Most people must contact a server administrator. This takes time and incurs costs. PNRP name publication is instantaneous, effortless, and free .. DNS relies heavily on caching to improve performance. Unfortunately, this means names cannot be reliably updated in real time.

Stateless autoconfiguration of hosts .. IPv6 hosts can be configured automatically when connected to a routed IPv6 network .. On 20 July 2004 ICANN that the root DNS servers for the Internet had been modified to support both IPv6 and IPv4.

was Just say NO to ipV6 (score 5 nonsence)

It isn't IPV6 exactly but a combination of PNRP (Peer Name Resolution Protocol) and FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). See here where PNRP v2 is already incompatible with PNRP. According to this it's a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 called the Next Generation TCP/IP Stack and overcomes shortcomings in the DNS system. I find that article quite difficult to follow. Who would have thought name resolution would have been so complex. Is this one of those propriatry protocols that any third party has to pay MS royaltes to access. One of the protocols MS is being fined by the EU for not publicising. Some source code and API calls not being acceptable.

It isn't IPV6 exactly but a combination of PNRP (Peer Name Resolution Protocol) and FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). See here where PNRP v2 is already incompatible with PNRP. According to this it's a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 called the Next Generation TCP/IP Stack and overcomes shortcomings in the DNS system. I find that article quite difficult to follow. Who would have thought name resolution would have been so complex. Is this one of those propriatry protocols that any third party has to pay MS royaltes to access. One of the protocols MS is being fined by the EU for not publicising. Some source code and API calls not being acceptable.

nice to see so many people jumping to conclusions

I counted the use of the word "patent" 16 times in Microsoft's press release. Draw your own conclusion.

Slashdot sigs aren't long enough to provide the link to the correct platform. ^.^

ICN and PNRP seem like a good idea but it's just like DNS writ large with a million levels rather than 3 or 4. It's basically the equivalent of everyone running their own DNS server on their computer that randomly accepts entries from other computers on the net and no root servers or authority at all. The "secured" name makes sure that when (if) you finally find your computer by randomly traversing the P2P network of PNRP servers, the client can compare the name with the hash address of the computer.

They have a whitepaper over at M$FT that talks a little about it. As always, it's one of those "features" that they will leverage themselves to speed up their MSN content delivery in return for a free windows "live" subscription. Lame.

that would have been office then (retail not OEM)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/t rans/sysbuild/05_feb04_sb.mspx
quite an interesting page, seems you can get an OEM licence with purchasing hardware such as a mouse.

i totally agree with you. from the press releases and news articles it seems that MS is ensuring that every popular application such as JBoss, PHP and Ruby runs as well on Windows as it does on Linux. With MS dollars they will ensure all sorts of compatibility/interoperability with other portions of Windows (IIS, IE etc) - which to be blunt is all MS does - ensure compatibility (within strict rules of course). So now Windows will once again become a choice for deployment of stacks - which Linux currently is.

As much as I like to bash Microsoft, this whole "Microsoft is the next SCO" is bullshit. The only possible patent infringement going on is in the Microsoft compatibility stack of Mono.

Sounds like you have been mentally absent from the software patent wars.

In 2003 Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps from IBM who was the guy who turned IBM's patent portfolio into a huge revenue source.
In 2005 alone, Microsoft filed for over 3400 patents.

With that kind of aggressive approach to software patents, no one, except perhaps a theoretical linux-SWAT team at MS,
knows just what Ballmer may pull out of his ass to screw with linux in the future.

First off press releases are not a good source for information. It's basically an advert for the company. I read the specific PR regarding patents and it doesn't say what you claim. But it does say they will not pursue lawsuits over intellectual property they own in Novell's products. So my question for you is what intellectual property does Microsoft own in Novell products other than certain parts of Mono? And cite sources please.

And XCP does nothing on my linux box, or on my windows box (same box, dual boot) where I've disabled autoplay.

So why do 90+ percent of desktop computers sold to the public ship in such an insecure state? Do most people know how to turn off autorun in Windows 2000 and Windows XP, or that it is even possible? Hint: Microsoft's solution requires registry editing.

Why would I want my computer to run arbitrary executable by sticking discs into the drive anyway?

Because people don't know how to go to My Computer and run Setup.exe when installing a program from CD.

but if someone's pirated the app they generally won't be ringing up for support.

Those are the only two cases I found quickly, but I'm sure there are others.

I thought I might creatively show how not only are the figures for Piracy of XP over the top but that in fact Microsoft is abusing its power in the market place to sell unneeded licences.

Site Licences already mentioned,
Transfering os from an older system to a new one. certainly legal if you bought a retail licence and didn't Xp allow you to install on 2 PC's (Desktop / Laptop).
buying a copy for a better price from elsewhere.
Ubuntu installs and other Linux versions.
Other Windows Versions 2000, ME or 98SE (still available as retail packs if you look hard enough)
Installed copy of OSX86 (yeah probably pirated but not pirated from Microsoft)
BSD mustn't forget about that either and honerable mentions to BEOS and OS2 warp and a dishonerable mention for a copy of SCO Unix.
mustn't forget Beta test/ release candidate versions of Vista.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/pre view.mspx

Is it possible that some people realise that Vista is due for release soon and decided not to buy XP when
Vista will be available to buy shortly?

To assume 1900 PC's had Pirated copys of XP Pro isn't credible, perhaps in 4 weeks time it will be pirated copys of Vista Enterprise.

ok so 1900 copys of BEOS is also unlikely but for many Linux users paying the Microsoft Tax is abhorent and buying a barebones system without an OS is preferable

Might I also suggest that the cost of buying a PC with XPhome and one without an OS is generally comparable
for the small difference in price in most retail bundles. Is it worth the hassle what with WGA making regular checks to see if its on a legal copy of windows today.

It is also a false comparison to say that 2,000 Pc's were sold and reflecting the share of 5% of Desktops running Linux that would only account for 150 PC's being bought for Linux use.
The vast majority of PC's running Windows will have been bought with Windows preinstalled and of the overall
sales of PC's 2000 barebones systems probably would account for less than 5% of annual PC sales in Australia.
I would put it to you that its likely that over 95% of PC's sold in australia came preinstalled with Windows and overall more Windows Licences were sold than are actually in use and if that is true it's not a case of piracy costing sales but of Microsoft exploiting and controlling the market to such an extent they are literally getting money for nothing (and when the deal with novell takes effect Microsoft will be getting paid royaltys on installations of Suse Enterprise Linux as well).

The truth is we do not know how many of these PC's are running legal operating systems and no way of knowing without physically checking.

From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.

MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune

Use SUS or WSUS or one of the many 3rd-party patch management applications.

As an example I know of one network in particular where the Windows domain servers (print servers, file servers, DCs, ISA boxes, etc) have no access to the outside world at all. No access at all. The internal Exchange servers don't have access to the outside either. They relay all mail through a SMTP relay w/ anti-spam and anti-virus functionality in a DMZ. None of the internal critical servers have any access to the outside at all. IIRC they use SMS for patch management. That is a wonderful layout. Even if an attacker manages to gain access to your internal servers they can't readily get sensitive data out to the outside world. Likewise forcing all desktop PCs through proxies is also a slick way to protect your internal data.

There's no single silver bullet for the problem(s) but there are steps you can take to make things better. Yeah, this is more work. There's no doubt about that. It's less convienent to apply patches but then again I wouldn't want a server automatically patching itself either. I would want to wait a week or more at the least to allow everyone else to test the new patch. I'd want to review the changelog and release history before applying the patch. In an enterprise network the patch should be tested in a lab before limited deployment to the company servers. Controlling external access would simply be one of the steps in this process.

You mean kind of like SharePoint?

At least publish what patents are allegedly infringed in SUSE, so the rest of the Linux world can evaluate and pull out anything like Mono or whatever it is that was threatened or research and disprove any allegation. Not everyone even includes Mono, because of worries about Microsoft and patents, so if that's what this is about, please just say so.

They replied:

Hello, Thank you for contacting Microsoft Customer Service. I understand that you would like the alleged infringement in SUSE be published so that Linux users may do an evaluation of it. Please provide the following information so that I can investigate your concern: 1. Please confirm if you are referring to this article: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov0 6/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx 2. The exact address of the Web site where you found the alleged infringement in SUSE. 3. Where exactly would you like this published? Microsoft values you as a customer and I look forward to your reply.

Thank you, Glenn & Dave Escasa Microsoft

managers@microsoft.com

Anyone want to give it a go and take the ball from here? -hehee!

While this doesn't solve the security breach, for future use, Virtual PC from Microsoft may be an option to run virtual Win98 sessions from XP machines. Microsoft made it free and available for download from here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default .mspx

Hi, high priority updates (including security) are not part of the WGA process: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.asp x#Question5Label Automatic updates does not validate with WGA, only the windows update website.

Maybe it conincides with the opening of the Search Technology Center in China 1 year ago.

Some of the authors of the patent applications are listed as from Beijing, China.

Speaking of M$ windows does that mean wikipedia is now no more or less reliable than the most used commercial operating system http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx ;-). They specifically do not warrant against the inclusion of viruses in the operating system.

• Failed to test IE7 during beta, knowing that it was on the way (to avoid the "scramble")
• Had their machines configured to blindly download and install all "high priority" updates
• Have never heard of Windows Server Update Services

This flaw does not affect Vista users thanks to IE 7's Protected Mode feature.

Actually, Microsoft has never stated that IE7 will be forced to the users after a grace period. In fact, the block will hold as long as the blocker is in place.

blocker details.

Disclaimer : I am a product manager for IE =)

Contact your local Microsoft partners and offer your help.

We are all listed here: http://directory.microsoft.com/

I can assure you that a lot of us have a ton of interesting projects that need a lot of research and we don't have the time to do it. You'll probably be interested in working with ISVs.

"Windows Vista continues to support the same Direct3D and DirectDraw interfaces as Windows XP, back to version 3 of DirectX (with the exception of Direct3D's Retained Mode, which has been removed). Just as with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, 64-bit native applications on Windows Vista are limited to Direct3D9, DirectDraw7, or newer interfaces. High-performance applications should make use of Direct3D 9 or later to ensure that they have the closest match to the hardware capabilities." Graphics APIs in Windows Vista

Talk about FUD! Except this goes upwards into sheer paranoia.

Google's response to people like content owners who don't like Google's use of their copyrighted materials without permission, have found that Google's reaction is to claim they are doing public good and then fight in court.

Can you tell me how Google makes a profit from conveying the copyrighted materials? They don't sell any of the photos or videos that come-up in a search. They do that for free. Without a profit-motive, it's very hard for anyone to sue Google for conveying licensed/copyrighted content. It's no wonder they fight it in court, because the other guy doesn't have a case!

Google is also collecting more of our use and web patterns through Google desktop and toolbar.

Is that so? Ordinarily, Google Toolbar only logs data that barely indicates that it successfully installed... and that's all it will ever do unless you actually use it. Even then, the only information it sends are based on the information that is absolutely necessary for the advanced features to even work.

... or didn't you read the Privacy Policy? (BTW... so much easier to understand than MSN Hotmail or MSN Search ...looks the same, but not the same. Hmmm....)

Add in the fact that they have your cell number, are indexing your email, have your calendar, etc.

Maybe they have your cell number, but that's because you wanted SMS alerts sent to you. Maybe they're indexing your e-mail, but that's because you signed-up with Gmail in the first place. If they have your calendar, it's because your taking advantage of that service as well. Now, where's the so-called "invasion of privacy" here?

Simply put, if you want to be protected from all that, then stay off the 'Net. The fact that you're here on ./ seems to imply that you won't.

It's the Information Age; you have to give to get. It's not exactly quid-pro-quo, but there's always the alternative.

Feel free to go start-up your own search engine and see how easy it is.

Talk about FUD! Except this goes upwards into sheer paranoia.

Google's response to people like content owners who don't like Google's use of their copyrighted materials without permission, have found that Google's reaction is to claim they are doing public good and then fight in court.

Can you tell me how Google makes a profit from conveying the copyrighted materials? They don't sell any of the photos or videos that come-up in a search. They do that for free. Without a profit-motive, it's very hard for anyone to sue Google for conveying licensed/copyrighted content. It's no wonder they fight it in court, because the other guy doesn't have a case!

Google is also collecting more of our use and web patterns through Google desktop and toolbar.

Is that so? Ordinarily, Google Toolbar only logs data that barely indicates that it successfully installed... and that's all it will ever do unless you actually use it. Even then, the only information it sends are based on the information that is absolutely necessary for the advanced features to even work.

... or didn't you read the Privacy Policy? (BTW... so much easier to understand than MSN Hotmail or MSN Search ...looks the same, but not the same. Hmmm....)

Add in the fact that they have your cell number, are indexing your email, have your calendar, etc.

Maybe they have your cell number, but that's because you wanted SMS alerts sent to you. Maybe they're indexing your e-mail, but that's because you signed-up with Gmail in the first place. If they have your calendar, it's because your taking advantage of that service as well. Now, where's the so-called "invasion of privacy" here?

Simply put, if you want to be protected from all that, then stay off the 'Net. The fact that you're here on ./ seems to imply that you won't.

It's the Information Age; you have to give to get. It's not exactly quid-pro-quo, but there's always the alternative.

Feel free to go start-up your own search engine and see how easy it is.

Have you considered the more practical reason that a public spec must be supported, it costs a lot of resources to support a public spec and Microsoft did see enough business benefits of doing so.

Gosh, so how much does it cost microsoft to maintain the Fat32 Spec? I mean it hasn't been updated in 6 years, why do they keep paying for it? What is the business benefit?

Yeah, I've considered what you said. Then considered how old NTFS is. Then considered how much further we'd be if we even had an old spec with no support - like say NTFS v3.0 which came out with Windows 2K and hasn't been updated in 6 years. I decided you were wrong.

Symantec has released it into the wild. Here's how it works.

The computer receives the virus into RAM, usually via the processing of input received from it's visual sensors, interfacing with language banks. For the virus to take hold, the computer must be improperly "patched," in that it holds incomplete definitions of what a computer virus is.

Thusly imporperly patched, with an inadequate understanding of what is truly dangerous to its silicon counterpart, the incompletely educated human computer incorrectly processes the information, making the false decision that a financial invesment in Symantec products are in order.

The virus spreads itself to other human computers through the need-to-appear-smart subroutine.

In order to protect itself, the human computer should run the program http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/viruses/i ntro_viruses_what.mspx, which is simply an educational program, designed to infuse into the human computer an understanding about computer viruses. It is a free program offered by the computer company most experienced in viruses.

You'd better tell shell32.dll (some 8MB) and its many related libraries (like shdocvw.dll short for shell document view, shlwapi.dll for shell lightweight api, etc. x 20), which literally have been implementing the shell in Windows since NT 3x and Win95. Perhaps the term you're looking for is "command prompt"?

I have read the GPL. Microsoft isn't writing GPL code. Microsoft isn't selling Linux. All they are doing is working on appropriate interop between the two systems and a covenant not to sue non-commercial open-source programmers. None of that is GPL-breaking. You should really do some research. Press Release

And read people's analysis - just not the mainstream press, who spun this sensationally as "MS validates Linux." It becomes clear quickly that this is a very cold move to:

1. make it clear that Novell has the only authorized Linux, and anyone else is open to lawsuits. This is an attack on one of Microsoft's main challenges, Linux, as well as open source in general. They also make it clear that anyone but Novell who is funding open source development is subject to lawsuits.

2. make it clear .net (and mono) are legitimate options, if you work with MS or Novell. This is an attack on one of Microsoft's main challenges, the cross platform Java.

3. Establish that a normal way of doing business is to exchange patent suites. This is an attack on individuals and small business.

Watching the video, Novell's CEO slips in that he reached out to Microsoft. Missing that, during Q&A, someone asks who reached out to whom. He again has to state he reached out to MS, but with more visible squirming and coverup.

Also during Q&A, someone asks Ballmer if they would work with other vendors such as Red Hat on a similar deal. Ballmer talks for an extended period and does not address the question.

The press release video has been reorganized so I can't find it here, but the text is here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/2006 /11-02NovellInterop.mspx

That this is spun as news is incredible, when you consider what they are really claiming here - that they are ready to sue any Novell/Open Source company that is not Novell.

Welcome to the new world.

Fedora Core 5 (from source)

To install the latest madwifi:

become root with "su -" then fix modprobe.conf with "vi modprobe.conf". Add this line: "alias ath0 ath_pci"

go to /root: "cd " (so you don't scatter sh*t all around) and check your kernel version: "uname -a"

download and install the kernel headers: "yum install kernel-devel-{kernel-version}"

- download the latest madwifi tarball , untar it, cd to its root directory

"tar -xzf madwifi-{madwifi-version}-tar.gz" , "cd madwifi-{madwifi-version}", "make KERNELPATH=/usr/src/kernels/{kernel-version}", "make install"

now you can try it: "modprobe ath_pci" and if all goes well, you can create the device ath0:

"cd /etc/sysconfig/networking/devices", then "vi ifcfg-ath0"

enter this (managed mode, dhcp):

(Each on a seperate line) "DEVICE=ath0", "BOOTPROTO=dhcp", "ONBOOT=yes", "DHCP_HOSTNAME=", "IPADDR=", "DOMAIN=", "NETMASK=", "HWADDR=", "USERCTL=no", "IPV6INIT=no", "PEERDNS=yes", "TYPE=Wireless", "ESSID=yournetworkid", "CHANNEL=1", "MODE=Managed", "RATE=Auto"

then do "vi keys-ath0" and enter: "KEY=mywapkey"

then do: "cd ..", "cp devices/ifcfg-ath0 profiles", "cp devices/keys-ath0 profiles"

you're done. For ad-hoc connections

Do everything as above, except enter "Mode=Ad-Hoc" in ifcfg-ath0

Then change modprobe.conf: "vi modprobe.conf"

you should have this line: "alias ath0 ath_pci"

add this line: "options ath_pci autocreate=adhoc"

For two or more cards with different modes "vi modprobe.conf" and remove all lines like "alias ath# ath_pci"

Then enter:

install ath_pci /sbin/modprobe --ignore-install ath_pci ; /usr/local/bin/wlanconfig ath0 destroy ; /usr/local/bin/wlanconfig ath0 create wlandev wifi0 wlanmode ; \ /usr/local/bin/wlanconfig ath1 destroy ; /usr/local/bin/wlanconfig ath1 create wlandev wifi1 wlanmode ; \ ...etc

Yep... my mom would jump right into that.

Oh, and it doesn't really do any good comparing against Windows 64-bit you know. When you consider that Microsoft themselves have warned away end-users from running it*, well...

*Taken from the 64-bit FAQ at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/rus sel_x64faq.mspx

These are closely related questions. The initial target audience for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is anyone who is running into performance and memory limits on their 32-b

Every Zune device creates an opportunity for connection. Wireless Zune-to-Zune sharing lets consumers spontaneously share full-length sample tracks of select songs, homemade recordings, playlists or pictures with friends between Zune devices. Listen to the full track of any song you receive up to three times over three days. If you like a song you hear and want to buy it, you can flag it right on your device and easily purchase it from the Zune Marketplace.

To get started with great music and videos out of the box, every Zune device is preloaded with content from record labels such as DTS, EMI Music's Astralwerks Records and Virgin Records, Ninja Tune, Playlouderecordings, Quango Music Group, Sub Pop Records, and V2/Artemis Records.

...in the software. While this clause is in the EULA, I don't see how "PC home-brew system builders" can use Vista.

Surely this is exactly what hobbyists are doing when they e.g. install a more powerful graphics card?
Ditto programmers when they work-around the bugs in any Microsoft API

...

d) A convenient reminder that M$ is still taxing the world $40,000,000,000+ per year for a dozen programs mostly written more than a decade ago with the most difficult bits, the device drivers, being written by third parties. M$ marketing and their astroturfers really wish that people would forget that.

Until they remove their marketing keys from general purpose PC keyboards and stop propaganda like Get the facts the use of "M$" is a very minor response.

---

New game: Spot the lying astroturfer on /.!

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie [for the good] ie team blog http://secunia.com/product/12366/ [ for the bad] ie7 vulnerability report http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/ [for the both] ie community page

Benchmark Testing, Microsoft .NET Framework
You may conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components (".NET Component"). You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you comply with the following terms: (1) you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third-party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the date(s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft's support Web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches, and fixes available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4) it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly available location such as a Web site, so long as every public disclosure of the results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing. The foregoing obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such disclosure is made under confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such customer's application(s) are specifically tested and the results are only disclosed to such specific customer. Notwithstanding any other agreement you may have with Microsoft, if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same conditions above.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov0 6/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx

A quote:
Good for the Open Source Community

Novell officials noted that one of their priorities in working toward the agreement with Microsoft was making sure the agreement made sense for the open source community. As part of today's agreement, Novell and Microsoft are announcing three important commitments. First, Microsoft will work with Novell and actively contribute to several open source software projects, including projects focused on Office file formats and Web services management. Second, Microsoft will not assert its patents against individual noncommercial open source developers. And third, Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is included in the SUSE Linux Enterprise platform, including SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop.