Slashdot Mirror

MS was found to have a monopoly and the case was settled. Not only was MS not convicted of anything, conviction isn't even a possibility in a civil case like anti-trust. All that happened was MS agreed not to do certain things. Certain document formats and protocols have to be made available with a reasonable license. It doesn't have to be free (ISO standards aren't even free -- they're actually quite expensive), it just has to be available on nondiscriminatory terms.

Here's the patent license for XPS:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.msp x

"Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading or writing XPS Documents, or rendering XPS Documents as allowed by the XML Paper Specification."

The exceptions are that if you sell hardware (printers, scanners, etc.) that use the format, you can't sue anybody over the format. So that way HP can't use the format while suing Epson over IP in it.

dom

The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.

Print this out, roll it up and insert it in your rectum - very slowly - while you deploy your "hundreds of various Windows boxes". That will help you realize that you know jack shit about this, and you never will.

Your company happens to be giving the Mac RDC client away for free. :-D

Unless you mean some other kind of remote access? Macs can natively handle most VPNs and have Samba built in. What sort of remote access does XP have built in that OS X doesn't?

Whilst you're on your high-horse about Sony = Evil, why-not download Vista

1. You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You in planning and designing Your product, service or technology ("Product") to interface with a Microsoft product, specification, service or technology ("Microsoft Product") as described in these Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft.

What you should be questioning is why XPS exists at all.

There sort of is - Microsoft Layer for Unicode. It doesn't target the graphics API though, just some boring strings stuff.

I think there's also some sort of licensing problem with using MSLU in Mozilla though. There was a bug about that, and some sort of open source alternative that... didn't really go anywhere. That, and the main problem with Mozilla was needing a Cairo backend that runs on Win9x. Last I checked, they just didn't have the manpower for it, and was open to help.

Other than the TCP/NetBIOS stuff (that never, to the best of my knowledge, had a remote exploit that let anyone take control of the box), a box running 98SE runs no services. No uPNP exploit. No DCOM/RPC. No Messenger. No nothing. For all intents and purposes, it's already firewalled when you plug it into the wall.

Then the best of your knowledge is sadly mistaken.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/dow nloads/igmpw98.mspx?mfr=true

http://www.cert-in.org.in/vulnerability/civn-2005- 32.htm

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1163

http://www.cert-rs.tche.br/listas/infoseg/msg00260 .html

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /ms01-059.mspx

Those are just a few issues with the TCP/IP stack, NETBIOS, uPNP on Windows 98 that I found within 60 seconds of searching Google. I remember running 98SE back in the day - there used to be patch after patch for it, just like for any modern OS today. Don't kid yourself or anyone else that 98 is a secure OS. Likening it to being firewalled out of the box is rediculous.

DRM? What DRM? You can't do DRM when you've got no security model.

98 has DRM in WMP7+ just like XP does.

98 runs services also. They're not user processes, so they don't appear in Task manager on 98. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist. How do you think NETBIOS works? By magic?

If I had to recommend a secure OS to anyone, 98 would come way down my list. I'd at least choose something that was still vendor supported.

Other than the TCP/NetBIOS stuff (that never, to the best of my knowledge, had a remote exploit that let anyone take control of the box), a box running 98SE runs no services. No uPNP exploit. No DCOM/RPC. No Messenger. No nothing. For all intents and purposes, it's already firewalled when you plug it into the wall.

Then the best of your knowledge is sadly mistaken.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/dow nloads/igmpw98.mspx?mfr=true

http://www.cert-in.org.in/vulnerability/civn-2005- 32.htm

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1163

http://www.cert-rs.tche.br/listas/infoseg/msg00260 .html

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /ms01-059.mspx

Those are just a few issues with the TCP/IP stack, NETBIOS, uPNP on Windows 98 that I found within 60 seconds of searching Google. I remember running 98SE back in the day - there used to be patch after patch for it, just like for any modern OS today. Don't kid yourself or anyone else that 98 is a secure OS. Likening it to being firewalled out of the box is rediculous.

DRM? What DRM? You can't do DRM when you've got no security model.

98 has DRM in WMP7+ just like XP does.

98 runs services also. They're not user processes, so they don't appear in Task manager on 98. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist. How do you think NETBIOS works? By magic?

If I had to recommend a secure OS to anyone, 98 would come way down my list. I'd at least choose something that was still vendor supported.

The approximately 4.5 million domains that moved are, after all, inactive parked domains -- meaning few people are pointing their browsers at them. As for domains that actually do get Web traffic, plenty of those still remain on Linux at GoDaddy.com, something Microsoft failed to mention in its press release last month touting the domain transfer.

The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."

Then you couple that "fact" with the fact that it only is supported in Vista and probably uses binary blobs in the XML makes it totally useless for people like me who avoid MSFT products like the plague.

Incorrect. The XPS specification is available here, and makes no mention of binary blobs inside XML files. XPS itself is binary, but simply because it's a zip file containing XML pages, images, and fonts. Want go generate an XPS document? Output a couple of text-only XML files and zip it up! In fact, try downloading the product guide, renaming to a zip file, and unzipping it.

It seems that Microsoft dosen't even know how to do their own .doc file format!

I took the Windows Vista Product Guide (60,565KB) and re-saved it in OpenOffice.

Using OpenOffice and...
Doc file format - 56,172KB - (4,393KB smaller)
OpenDocument - 52,136KB - (8,429KB smaller)

Of course Microsoft want to to, and personally I don't think Adobe have a leg to stand on in complaining about it. The only worry with Microsoft as always is that "their" PDF won't be quite compatible with everyone elses.

At this point they have no reason to make their PDF incompatible since Microsoft doesn't make a PDF viewer. Incompatible PDFs would simply make them look bad. Plus they have their XPS format; thus it wouldn't make sense for them to expend resources on making a PDF viewer and extending PDF.

Sure, they can keep xps, it looks like a decent enough format. Just be sure to publish the spec!

Specs are available here. It includes the XPS spec itself, which describes the format of the XML files to render pages, and the packaging specs, which describes how those XML files, resources (images, fonts) are packaged together. Office 2007 uses the same packaging specs, which is really just a zip file with certain XML files describing how stuff is connected. A nice side effect is that to generate an XPS document you simply need to output XML and resources, and zip everything up.

First of all, if there's anything you dislike about Vista, complain here. It's a beta release, so there's still time to fix issues. They also have newsgroups. Device issues, software installs, UI issues, non-working games, etc.; they're all good issues to point out.

I like the new file explorer interface but from the initial feel it seems to be more about the look than the functionality of the desktop.

One of the new features I like is quick category searching via the column headers. I'm doing this from memory, but if you click on the button next to File Type, for example, you can quickly cull the current view down to all JPEGs and PNGs.

I have not installed the wireless networking yet but without my firewall, anti-spyware and anti-virus products, I'm not sure that I even want to connect the the internet.

Vista comes with a firewall and antispyware (Windows Defender). They're both in the control panel, and at least the firewall is quite configurable. I believe outbound blocking is off by default, but can be enabled. I haven't used Windows Defender to judge its usefulness.

First of all, if there's anything you dislike about Vista, complain here. It's a beta release, so there's still time to fix issues. They also have newsgroups. Device issues, software installs, UI issues, non-working games, etc.; they're all good issues to point out.

I like the new file explorer interface but from the initial feel it seems to be more about the look than the functionality of the desktop.

One of the new features I like is quick category searching via the column headers. I'm doing this from memory, but if you click on the button next to File Type, for example, you can quickly cull the current view down to all JPEGs and PNGs.

I have not installed the wireless networking yet but without my firewall, anti-spyware and anti-virus products, I'm not sure that I even want to connect the the internet.

Vista comes with a firewall and antispyware (Windows Defender). They're both in the control panel, and at least the firewall is quite configurable. I believe outbound blocking is off by default, but can be enabled. I haven't used Windows Defender to judge its usefulness.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/pre view.mspx Time-limited software Windows Vista Beta 2 (and RC1) is time-limited, pre-release software that will expire on June 1, 2007.

Where the hell is the PDF?

If you go to this link: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpslicense.mspx You will find, This CNS provision will only apply to companies engaged in the following businesses: Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) focusing on printing technologies that consume XPS Documents in printers IHVs focusing on scanning technologies that create XPS Documents with scanners Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that support the above types of IHVs through the development of Raster Image Processors (RIPs) and drivers You'll then notice there are Microsoft patents involved in the closed standard. Conclusions? 1. Typical OSS project is screwed 2. Closed standard designed to extend and extinguish competitors. (So is PDF in some ways) I'm not saying Adobe is the good guy here, but the print industry has had YEARS of working out the kinks in PDF's. I'm not sure what Microsoft brings to the table.

...is where was the photograph taken that's shown on the Vista page at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/?

PDF is an open format? That explains why Adobe doesn't fancy the idea of Microsoft including PDF exporting functionality into Office 12!

As for the openness of the XPS... why don't you hop on into the site linked to above and visit the Licensing Overview page.

What you should be questioning is why XPS exists at all.

Those of us who know exactly what XPS is do not question it at all because it is quite clear... despite the lack of seeming malicious intent from Microsoft.

Maybe you too should do some reading on the topic or watch a video.

Before griping too much, why don't you spend some time and look into what XPS really is and see that while being similar to PDF from a regular unskilled user perspective, the options and features it supplies are widely applicable to many different levels and applications.

How many printers do you know that ship today or will be out within a year allow you to send a raw PDF file to it and have it print as is without any kind of client spooling and image degradation? XPS lets you do that.

I am a simple man.

I don't want an operating system with bells & whistles. I don't want an operating system that looks like it has a glass face or real marble or the most incredible anti-aliased font you've ever seen. What I want is an operating system that works and works efficiently.

There's no reason to preach to the choir, I have many machines (most of them Linux) that dual boot to many operating systems but you'll always need Windows because it's kind of the 'industry standard' for some people.

But when I look for an operating system the words 'form','function','marriage' & 'perfect' come to mind but not necessarily in that order. What I mean is, there's a balance I seek such that my hardware isn't stressed just to open a text editor yet the design is simple & friendly to the eye.

I run Windows XP professional & it works. It works well, which is surprising considering my history with the Windows operating system. It can be cut down to a pretty bare point of functionality and I like it.

So, Mr. Gates, why should I upgrade to Vista? Your "feature list" (the same damn thing I've been seeing for the last year) doesn't entice me at all. In fact, it scares me. You know what else scares me? It might not run the games I currently play ... and I'm not even sure it will run on my current hardware. Hell, even IBM doesn't seem to want Vista.

Tons of cash for a bloated operating system? No thanks. I'll settle for Windows XP Professional.

Okay, go to the "resource centre link", provided herehere for your convenience. What do you notice? I'll give a hint:

Download the Windows Vista Product Guide

Available in Microsoft Word format (60 MB) or the new Windows Vista XPS document format (12 MB) . (emph mine)

Where the hell is the PDF? Aside from the fact that this is really fucking annoying it has some really worrying implications. They're trying to boot out the PDF format, which is nice, open and ubiquitous with their own format - and they're using their monopoly on the desktop operating system market to achieve this.

Let me be the first to call "Antitrust. Thanks for playing Microsoft! Please give the EU another 600 million euros.

For me, this little bit of text says it all. There's no PDF, they're pushing their own format that they know nobody uses. This shows that even after multiple multi-million dollar settlements and huge fines from the EU the company has not changed one bit. They seem to be acting much like a heroine addict, in that they're moving from one crime to the next, getting bigger and bigger fines but no matter how much you fine the company it is still pathologically anti-competitive.

I do have to say that the longer Microsoft remains on this path, and refuses to comply with the law, the more likely that it will meet it's end equally as sticky as the heroine addict. Is it a rule that all big companies go the way of AT&T eventually?

Simon

or, you could have copied the executable to C:\windows and renamed it notepad.exe. it sucks that windows doesn't use symlinks though. would make it a whole lot easier.

Well, symbolic links are out (unless you want to link to a directory, then you can use junctions, but a hard link is available and should work.

or, you could have copied the executable to C:\windows and renamed it notepad.exe. it sucks that windows doesn't use symlinks though. would make it a whole lot easier.

Well, symbolic links are out (unless you want to link to a directory, then you can use junctions, but a hard link is available and should work.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/f/d/3fd1a 09d-af15-4ab7-a554-0ac6c1e76c16/MBSASetup-EN.msi

Link straight to the file. (version 2.0)

Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.

There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.

Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.

Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.

There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.

Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.

Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.

There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.

Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.

Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.

There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.

Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.

Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.

There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.

Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.

Try this page or any links on it.

A virus could use one of the "Product-Key Changer" scripts (see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=328874) to install a pirated product key on every infected computer (whiping all traces of the original key).

This would render millions of genuine installations indistinguishable from pirated installations. What a mess for Microsoft! They would have to immediately "kill forever" the WGA helper, and maybe even remove the WGA check on Windows Update.

Such a virus would be a hard lesson to learn for the writers of all kinds of automated "genuine" checks.

Regards,
M.

just block this address Location: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/replacement/biosl ist2.xml

I have an emachine at work (purchased from CostCo) which I was later forced to reinstall using the eMachines restore CD that came with it. WGA _sometimes_ thinks it's invalid now. Online WGA validation usually succeeds, but it failed once last year, and yesterday I started getting WGA notifications, but they're gone today. Odd, and infuriating. I read a page on their site where they claim there were zero (0, as in not a single one) WGA false positives during the first half of 2005. I guess they chose to ignore the one I reported. If they redefine "legitimate" to mean "passes WGA", then and only then could they have honestly made such a bullshit claim.

I also have a legit Office XP installation on an older system that spontaneously decided to demand reactivation, even though there had been no hardware changes in over a year. It reactivated fine, without requiring me to call in. It had demanded reactivation by phone a couple years before as well, but that was after replacing the video card.

I run Linux at home, since 2003.

This article isn't anyway. This group has been paid by M$ to do "objective" research many times in the past and they never come out showing M$ on the losing side of those "objective tests." One such propaganda device was M$ using the story of a company "Envirotactics" in New Jersey moving from Linux to M$'s server platform after the "Blaster Virus" brought their network down and cost them $5,000 to $10,000 daily during the outage, and the general headaches it caused. Ironically, that is impossible as the Blaster Virus/Worm is and was an IE/Explorer security hazard, something not even present on a Linux system without emulation - and certainly not "critical to the stability of the OS" as (Internet)Explorer is to Windows. Funny enough, NetCraft shows their web server to be an HPUX (HP's Unix) software base, not Windows and IIS. M$ Propaganda/Article Site: http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/case-studie s/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15438 NetCraft result: http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.envirotactics.com%2F&position=limited&lookup=Wa it..

I heard horror stories of people with 'acquired' versions of Windows XP who went to the 'new' 'Windows Update' service and ended up with an annoying tray icon constantly reminding them that their version of XP is pirated.

But you know, I havent been to WindowsUpdate in over a year.
I use a great (and free) tool provided by microsoft themselves - called "MBSA" (Microsoft Base Security Analyzer) to download and install updates.

With MBSA, I can do a quick install of Windows XP with SP2 integrated in vmware, then run this tool, and find out that (as of yesterday) there are 39 hotfixes needed for vanilla XPSP2 install, and it gives me direct (no WGA crap) links to download these updates. All I have to do then is save them all one by one, integrate them into a XP SP2 iso image, and use this pre-integrated disk to install with.

Since i reinstall windows every few months this is not a problem, and for those who insist on keeping windows machine installed longer, they can simply use MBSA to download incremental updates and install them manually.

Actually its not as expensive as you might think. Microsoft offers a software kit for system builders that includeds registered full versions of most of the microsoft products...all for $300 (usd) a year. The catch is that if you don't re-up your licenses are not renewed but, in my experience the cost bennifits of the package are so much better. https://partner.microsoft.com/global/salesmarketin g/actionpack/

Like every other system administrator I have to write and read reports or run tests on hardware and software. To shortcut a lot of problems I start by critizising the (far too often flawed) methodology of any study I get before I base a decision upon it. This is not ment as a personal attack, but (maybe because of marketing mangling) I saw real flaws and a lot of bias in the case study that was originally used in Get The Facts. The biases I claim to have seen were subtle and very nasty, but of a completely different nature than the one in TFA[1].

I wrote a Microsoft-funded white paper last year with the assistance of two subject matter experts - a Microsoft expert and a linux expert, both certified veterans of their fields.

Case studies are an important part of understanding a wide variety of phenomena, however, in textbooks containing them there is often a disclaimer: those were particular people, with particular skillsets in a particular situation[2]. Neither I nor anyone else (say Microsoft's marketing department) is justified in generalizing that situation to anyone else. Hence the demand for surveys such as this one. You can translate the metrics used in the Get-the-facts paper into variables and then show that many others, with very different situations still show these results. Unfortunately, this article does no such thing. There is no specification of what kinds of servers, the platform configurations or even the application loads.

We compared many factors including user management, authentication, "ghosting" new machines remotely, remote application installs, file sharing, delegating authority to subordinate administrators, and much much more. ...
We wrote about all these factors and rated them on 10-point scales per lab, and condensed those into one comprehensive graph showing overall ease-of-use of each NOS.

I would hope that, given an expert on any topic that I'd get a good ease-of-use for that topic. At that level of operator skill and performance, which I have tried to mention is very atypical, I would surprised if the huge resources of Microsoft had put out a failure. Was there was something that the Microsoft product could do the Linux one could not[3]? What features were missing? Why was that feature missing? That was then, this is now, how do those compare today? The pace of change in Linux features is not determined by a single vendor[4].

Long story short, Windows came out on top by a huge margin in every field - ease, usability, intuitiveness, support, everything.

The reason systems administators exist is because of their skills at doing things that are not easy. Otherwise they don't keep their jobs very long (but this is the same for any job.) I really can't argue for or against ease as a metric.

I would hope that with the huge desktop penetration that Microsoft's OS leads in intuitiveness. Now if your Windows admin had grown up in a Macintosh home, used a Mac and home and on his workstation at work I'd be inclined to consider the intuitiveness argument. 20 years ago, that Linux admin would probably have come from a Unix desktop and Unix workstation and Unix or Mainframe server envrionment. How can we be sure that 20 years from now it will be Linux or OS XXX on the desktop? (On the other hand, the byzantine way OSS is developed does encourage only-developer-friendly interfaces.)

MS soon compiled our white paper into marketing materials and stuck them on http://www.microsoft.com/getthefacts (but it's been replaced by more recent studies).

I belive that Novell, one of those 'niche players' in the Linux world (11% Linux webserver share vs 49% RedHat Netcraft 2004,) released a much better take on those marketing materials with it's Get the Truth campaign.

I personally was funded by MS to spearhead an impartial study, and MS management had a genui

Microsoft's security patches are released once a month, not once a week. Although once or twice a year they may make an exception for a particularly dangerous exploit. It's a good bet that you will need to reboot about once a month for Windows security patches.

Appearantly you don't know proper Windows server management either.

Chaining update installations without QChain.exe is not safe

When you install updates, if a file is locked or in use, it cannot be replaced. As a result, the file is placed in the Pending File Rename queue and is replaced after the computer restarts. The problem occurs in the following scenario:

• You install updates A and B without restarting the computer between installations.
• Both packages contain file X. Package A's file X is version 3; package B's file X is version 2. The version of file X on the computer is version 1.
• When package A is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.
• When package B is installed, it places its version of file X in the Pending File Rename queue.
• When the computer is restarted, because package B was installed last, its version of file X is installed (in the Pending File Rename queue, the last file is the one that is used). As a result, version 2 is installed instead of version 3 as you expected.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q296861/

Well, sometimes there are nuggets buried in the chaff. Following a link to an editorial at neowin in a post above, I read a Microsoft case study that gave me a good chuckle.

Thank goodness we already use Windows Server System so that we were not vulnerable to the "Blaster virus"!

I wrote a Microsoft-funded white paper last year with the assistance of two subject matter experts - a Microsoft expert and a linux expert, both certified veterans of their fields. The goal was to compare the processes required to set up and administer various services in Windows 2003 Enterprise vs. Red Hat's and SuSE's boxed enterprise server NOSes. Because the white paper was intended for internal use only, we had 100% control over what services would be tested, how to evaluate them, and how to present our findings. We didn't evaluate uptime per se, but I feel my comments are relevant since installation and maintenance contribute to server and client downtime, ergo, uptime.

We compared many factors including user management, authentication, "ghosting" new machines remotely, remote application installs, file sharing, delegating authority to subordinate administrators, and much much more. The Windows and Linux guys would work on a "lab" side by side, often peeking over to see how the other was doing. At the end of each lab we'd all have a discussion about the number of steps, any problems, company and community support, the ease/frustration factor, and how it went overall. We wrote about all these factors and rated them on 10-point scales per lab, and condensed those into one comprehensive graph showing overall ease-of-use of each NOS.

Long story short, Windows came out on top by a huge margin in every field - ease, usability, intuitiveness, support, everything. In fact, the only topic where Linux came even close to Windows was in community support, and even that was only 50% of Windows' score. At the end of the project the Linux expert garnered a lot of respect for Windows and quashed most of his prejudices. Needless to say, MS soon compiled our white paper into marketing materials and stuck them on http://www.microsoft.com/getthefacts (but it's been replaced by more recent studies).

I was a little disappointed that we couldn't expand the scope of the test to put stuff like Apache and Squid and mySQL through the paces, but the topic was enterprise administration, not publishing live services. I also would have liked to have tested custom installs of other linux flavours like Debian or Slackware, but neither product had a specific enterprise distribution.

So don't be too quick to label all pro-Windows studies BS or FUD or other ignorant catch-all acronyms. I personally was funded by MS to spearhead an impartial study, and MS management had a genuine interest in improving their products. I can't speak for the study in TFA, but my own was conducted with nothing but integrity and truthfulness.

You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer

The TCP connection limit is not enforced, but it may be bound by legal agreement to not permit more than 10 clients.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/ar chives/2005/04/the_truth_about_1.html
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/lin ux/story/0,10801,82070,00.html
Laura DiDio, an analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston, said she was shown two or three samples of the allegedly copied Linux code, and it appeared to her that the sections were a "copy and paste" match of the SCO Unix code that she was shown in comparison.
DiDio and the other analysts were able to view the code only under a nondisclosure agreement, ... "The courts are going to ultimately have to prove this, but based on what I'm seeing ... I think there is a basis that SCO has a credible case," DiDio said. "This is not a nuisance case."

Watch the "expert" Laura Didio on video from a credible source:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /videos/didio_video.wvx

Enjoy her!

*lol*

Or, if you'd like a nice GUI to do this, download Tweak UI from Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

> Now I'll have to make a photocopy of a $20 and send it to the RIAA

Simply, you can't!

Try to make a photocopy of a 20 dollar bill or any other major currency and the color xerox machine will lock down and freeze hard. You will have to call a technician to revive it and he will notify police and you will have a hard time explaining things. The software routine to recognize and deny money being copied has been in almost all color copiers and multifunctional devices (and computer software like Photoshop) for the last 20 years. Also color laser printers embed the serial number of their drum unit in tiny yellow dots on every page printed, tracking it to you.

See the "Ion Constellation" for more info:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=4DFD5390-0793-420A-890A-97DC3AD94127&displa ylang=en

So to summarize: you are fragged!