Slashdot Mirror

stealth_zipper asks: "I just got off the phone with a rep from Soyo Computer Inc trying to get the ability to change IRQs for the onboard hardware. It turns out that because of a deal to get WindowsXP certification, the Dragon-series motherboard ended up having the ability of Enabling/Disabling ACPI in the BIOS disabled. Now FreeBSD has complications with multiple devices on the same IRQs (especially sound, video, and nic all off the same one). Is there a way to get around this for new hardware? Has anyone else encountered this?" Why in the world does XP need this feature disabled, and are there workarounds to get OSes like FreeBSD working properly with motherboards of this sort?

Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses. Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.

Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses. Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.

Cally writes "Further embarrasingly lame FUD from Craig Mundie of Microsoft. This time, he claims the GPL is at odds with 'commercialization' of software, without which the government gets a smaller tax take. Looks like he's really talking to legislators there ... He also knocks the Sun-led Liberty Alliance Passport SSO service as 'this notion that the world should be offered an alternative.' An alternative?"

mmaddox asks: "As a software developer, I've consulted on many projects - projects conceived in the twisted mind of management and marketing and cursed with bizarre, often hysterically funny names. Of course, these names lead to the adoption of the dreaded acronym. Most recently, I've discouraged the name selections of a few clients, in particular, the Private Inline Security System (a silly "personal firewall" - the client didn't even THINK of using an acronym) and Cross-section Heads-Up Digitizer (an engineering bit for roadway construction - anyone remember the movie?). There must be millions of these things out there. What is the worst acronym you've ever had the *ahem* pleasure of dealing with?" And in typical Slashdot fashion, it just wouldn't be the same without taking a dig at Microsoft. If you click here and look at the #2 result (of 44), then you may see one of funniest acronyms I've ever seen come out of the corporate culture. Of course, if you click on that particular link it looks like someone at the Borg have recognized their error and is trying to rewrite history, changing the "tool" into a "utility". God bless the Google cache! If you think you've seen acronyms to beat this one, please share!

mmaddox asks: "As a software developer, I've consulted on many projects - projects conceived in the twisted mind of management and marketing and cursed with bizarre, often hysterically funny names. Of course, these names lead to the adoption of the dreaded acronym. Most recently, I've discouraged the name selections of a few clients, in particular, the Private Inline Security System (a silly "personal firewall" - the client didn't even THINK of using an acronym) and Cross-section Heads-Up Digitizer (an engineering bit for roadway construction - anyone remember the movie?). There must be millions of these things out there. What is the worst acronym you've ever had the *ahem* pleasure of dealing with?" And in typical Slashdot fashion, it just wouldn't be the same without taking a dig at Microsoft. If you click here and look at the #2 result (of 44), then you may see one of funniest acronyms I've ever seen come out of the corporate culture. Of course, if you click on that particular link it looks like someone at the Borg have recognized their error and is trying to rewrite history, changing the "tool" into a "utility". God bless the Google cache! If you think you've seen acronyms to beat this one, please share!

zalix writes "Microsoft is seeking a dismissal of the case brought by the 9 States who have refused to settle. In court papers filed yesterday Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious constitutional questions," They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"."

Slashback tonight with several updates and amplifications, starting with a nice report on the current state of the effort to put Linux into the heart of the German government, but also bits on Starcraft, cleaning up UNIX config, and Kerberos.

This deserves a hearty 'Jawohl!' DocSnyder writes: "Since the Bundestux campaign started collecting votes in favor of putting Free Software into the German parliament (Bundestag), more than 25000 people have done so. A lot of online discussions - in addition to Heise News and Linux-Community.de, even some Bundestag parties have put up their online forums - are very active to share user experience about GNU/Linux and Free Software. (Sorry for most of the linked sites speaking German, it's simply too much to translate at once.)

After several open letters and press releases have been exchanged between lobbyists and politicians, some information about a research performed by the German company Infora appeared on Heise News (english version), recommending an all-Microsoft infrastructure with the exception of some security-critical services like e-mail. The detailed paper is still not available.

An internal test (english version) between the Bundestag administration, SuSE, IBM and Microsoft confirmed that GNU/Linux and Free Software are in fact ready for the Bundestag's IT infrastructure, yet the testers don't like the copy&paste method used by KDE and recommend Windows for the desktops.

Last week, the Bundestag members (MdB) Jörg Tauss and Hans-Joachim Otto have been invited by Heise for an online chat with the community. While Jörg Tauss is a clear supporter of open standards and Free Software, Hans-Joachim Otto takes the internal test as well as Infora's research as primarily relevant for the coming decision.

On Saturday, MdB Uwe Küster summarized some details in an interview. He considered the decision - officially due Feb 28 - as almost finalized. The solution would show GNU/Linux on most servers, Windows XP and Office XP on the desktops, keeping proprietary data formats and lock-in interfaces up to the next upgrade cycle, which in fact would have been problem number one to solve.

All in all, the community has provided lots of experience, ideas and solution paths which finally seem to be largely ignored in the decision finding process towards the successor of a homogenous Microsoft Windows NT4 infrastructure, which has to be replaced until 2003 when Microsoft will no longer provide support for NT4."

That's a lot of cleaning up to do! maffew writes "A lot of feedback and ideas have been flying around since my article How to fix the Unix configuration nighmare was featured on freshmeat and slashdot. So we've created an ongoing web site and mailing list for people to continue discussing, organising, and hopefully in the end coding. It's all at unixconfig.sourceforge.net.

Meanwhile here's a link to the permanent home for the nightmare article. This is where I'm making revisions and adding links."

Raise your hand if this would mean seeing it for the 4th time ... Chris Brewer writes "In case you've been living on a different planet, The Fellowship of the Ring picked up Five Baftas, the British equivalent of the Oscars, including Best Director, Best Film, and Peoples Choice. During a live interview (Real only) after the awards, Peter Jackson announces that a preview for The Two Towers will be shown from the March 22 screenings of The Fellowship."

At long last ... something? If you've followed the strange relationship Microsoft has had with Kerberos, you may feel grateful to the anonymous coward who writes: "It would seem that Microsoft is granting the world a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to implement their Kerberos extension."

Here's some comfort for Starcraft players. An Anonymous Coward writes "As stated on Blizzard's battle.net service, the latest Starcraft patch supports UDP play, so some of the compelling reasons to use bnetd have been addressed. Whatever you may think of Blizzard and the DMCA, at least it shows Blizzard is listening to its fans."

Slashback tonight with several updates and amplifications, starting with a nice report on the current state of the effort to put Linux into the heart of the German government, but also bits on Starcraft, cleaning up UNIX config, and Kerberos.

This deserves a hearty 'Jawohl!' DocSnyder writes: "Since the Bundestux campaign started collecting votes in favor of putting Free Software into the German parliament (Bundestag), more than 25000 people have done so. A lot of online discussions - in addition to Heise News and Linux-Community.de, even some Bundestag parties have put up their online forums - are very active to share user experience about GNU/Linux and Free Software. (Sorry for most of the linked sites speaking German, it's simply too much to translate at once.)

After several open letters and press releases have been exchanged between lobbyists and politicians, some information about a research performed by the German company Infora appeared on Heise News (english version), recommending an all-Microsoft infrastructure with the exception of some security-critical services like e-mail. The detailed paper is still not available.

An internal test (english version) between the Bundestag administration, SuSE, IBM and Microsoft confirmed that GNU/Linux and Free Software are in fact ready for the Bundestag's IT infrastructure, yet the testers don't like the copy&paste method used by KDE and recommend Windows for the desktops.

Last week, the Bundestag members (MdB) Jörg Tauss and Hans-Joachim Otto have been invited by Heise for an online chat with the community. While Jörg Tauss is a clear supporter of open standards and Free Software, Hans-Joachim Otto takes the internal test as well as Infora's research as primarily relevant for the coming decision.

On Saturday, MdB Uwe Küster summarized some details in an interview. He considered the decision - officially due Feb 28 - as almost finalized. The solution would show GNU/Linux on most servers, Windows XP and Office XP on the desktops, keeping proprietary data formats and lock-in interfaces up to the next upgrade cycle, which in fact would have been problem number one to solve.

All in all, the community has provided lots of experience, ideas and solution paths which finally seem to be largely ignored in the decision finding process towards the successor of a homogenous Microsoft Windows NT4 infrastructure, which has to be replaced until 2003 when Microsoft will no longer provide support for NT4."

That's a lot of cleaning up to do! maffew writes "A lot of feedback and ideas have been flying around since my article How to fix the Unix configuration nighmare was featured on freshmeat and slashdot. So we've created an ongoing web site and mailing list for people to continue discussing, organising, and hopefully in the end coding. It's all at unixconfig.sourceforge.net.

Meanwhile here's a link to the permanent home for the nightmare article. This is where I'm making revisions and adding links."

Raise your hand if this would mean seeing it for the 4th time ... Chris Brewer writes "In case you've been living on a different planet, The Fellowship of the Ring picked up Five Baftas, the British equivalent of the Oscars, including Best Director, Best Film, and Peoples Choice. During a live interview (Real only) after the awards, Peter Jackson announces that a preview for The Two Towers will be shown from the March 22 screenings of The Fellowship."

At long last ... something? If you've followed the strange relationship Microsoft has had with Kerberos, you may feel grateful to the anonymous coward who writes: "It would seem that Microsoft is granting the world a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to implement their Kerberos extension."

Here's some comfort for Starcraft players. An Anonymous Coward writes "As stated on Blizzard's battle.net service, the latest Starcraft patch supports UDP play, so some of the compelling reasons to use bnetd have been addressed. Whatever you may think of Blizzard and the DMCA, at least it shows Blizzard is listening to its fans."

cascadefx asks: "I work for a mid-sized mid-western university. One of our departments has started up a small Beowulf cluster research project that he hopes to grow over time. At the moment, the thing is incredibly weak... but it is running on old hardware and is basically used for dog and pony shows to get more funding and hopefully donations of higher-end systems. It runs Linux and works, it is just not anything to write home about. Here's the problem: my understanding is that an MS rep asked what it would take to get them to switch to a Microsoft cluster. Is this possible? Are there MS clusters that do what Beowulf clusters are capable of? I thought MS clusters were for load balancing, not computation... which is the hoped-for goal of this project. Can the Slashdot crowd offer some advice? If there are MS clusters, comparisons of the capabilities would be welcome." One has to only go as far as Microsoft's site to see its current attempt at clustering, but what is the real story. Have any of you had a chance to pit a Linux Beowulf cluster against one from Microsoft? How did they compare?

cascadefx asks: "I work for a mid-sized mid-western university. One of our departments has started up a small Beowulf cluster research project that he hopes to grow over time. At the moment, the thing is incredibly weak... but it is running on old hardware and is basically used for dog and pony shows to get more funding and hopefully donations of higher-end systems. It runs Linux and works, it is just not anything to write home about. Here's the problem: my understanding is that an MS rep asked what it would take to get them to switch to a Microsoft cluster. Is this possible? Are there MS clusters that do what Beowulf clusters are capable of? I thought MS clusters were for load balancing, not computation... which is the hoped-for goal of this project. Can the Slashdot crowd offer some advice? If there are MS clusters, comparisons of the capabilities would be welcome." One has to only go as far as Microsoft's site to see its current attempt at clustering, but what is the real story. Have any of you had a chance to pit a Linux Beowulf cluster against one from Microsoft? How did they compare?

PuZZLeR writes: "Today, Microsoft unveiled a new operating system for mobile phones (named 'Windows Powered Smartphone 2002') and plans to fully enter the wireless data devices with voice capabilities by utilizing both cellphones and PDA devices. TI already created a reference design for the Ms powered phone. While this sounds like Microsoft is going after Handspring, RIM or Danger, cellphone OS manufactures, like Nokia and OpenWave are expected to counteract to the announcements. Today, Nokia announced it will offer mobile phone makers its own development kit and OS."

PuZZLeR writes: "Today, Microsoft unveiled a new operating system for mobile phones (named 'Windows Powered Smartphone 2002') and plans to fully enter the wireless data devices with voice capabilities by utilizing both cellphones and PDA devices. TI already created a reference design for the Ms powered phone. While this sounds like Microsoft is going after Handspring, RIM or Danger, cellphone OS manufactures, like Nokia and OpenWave are expected to counteract to the announcements. Today, Nokia announced it will offer mobile phone makers its own development kit and OS."

Many people have reported a Warhol virus affecting users of Microsoft Instant Messenger. If you get messaged, "Go To http://www.masenko-media.net/cool.html NoW !!!", or any similar message (apparently there are several websites with the infection code), I suggest not following the link. A brief discussion follows.

Sequence: Get messaged "Go To http://www.masenko-media.net/cool.html NoW !!!" or something similar with another URL. Follow the link. That webpage contains malicious code which gets your messenger contacts and sends a similar message to your contacts. It looks like it uses a vulnerability in formmail.pl as well, although I'm not exactly sure how (I'm not an expert in ECMAscript, sorry, and I have no systems that could possibly be affected by this to test with). I'm sure some of our readers can provide more information in the comments below.

There appear to be several webpages which carried the infected code, not just masenko-media.net. Some webmasters are already taking them down.

Sophistication: moderate. Damage: only your pride.

Solution: probably the latest mega-patch for Internet Explorer will fix the Microsoft bug that allowed this.

Risks: obviously, the code could have done worse than just messaging your contacts. With Microsoft making "messaging" an integrated part of the operating system, any flaws in it can be exploited to affect millions of people instantly, so it is a high-value target. Does it have commensurate high-strength security?

Numen writes "With all the talk of .NET being thrown about there is a common factor occuring through many discussions, namely the claim that .NET will be unable to address functional and logic languages such as Prolog and LISP. To this end I would like to drawn peoples' attention to two resources, that shown how this may well be a non-issue, and to ask, does this change anybodies mind? "

Lukenary writes: "Mythic Entertainment, creator of the excellent MMORPG Dark Age of Camelot, is being sued by BlackSnow Interactive, owner and maintainer of CamelotExchange - an online auction site for the exchange of in-game items, money, and characters/accounts. This could be a landmark case: if you spend (typically) weeks of playing time to garner 1,000 gold in-game, do you have the right to auction off that gold for real money? Mythic has not yet had an official response to the suit, but you can read BSI's press release at the CamelotExchange site above. Personally, I find it interesting that BSI is going after DAoC, calling Mythic a "software giant," while ignoring the more established compettion in EverQuest producer Sony, Asheron's Call producer Microsoft, and Ultima Online producer Electronic Arts. Mythic's only product at this time is Dark Age of Camelot, which was released last October."

Grech asks: "I work for a US federal agency that replaces its workstations and attendant software every 3-5 years. At the moment, the environment for most workers consists of an OS, an office suite, a UTS60 emulator, and an X Server. Logic seems to say that when all this gets ripped out and replaced in a year or so, it could be done cheaper with Linux, but a case will have to be made, and a strong one. I've got the arguments, but I need the numbers and the anecdotes to back up such a huge project."

Grech asks: "I work for a US federal agency that replaces its workstations and attendant software every 3-5 years. At the moment, the environment for most workers consists of an OS, an office suite, a UTS60 emulator, and an X Server. Logic seems to say that when all this gets ripped out and replaced in a year or so, it could be done cheaper with Linux, but a case will have to be made, and a strong one. I've got the arguments, but I need the numbers and the anecdotes to back up such a huge project."

The BSA is running (until January 31) a "Grace Period" for "voluntary compliance" in the cities of San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, Houston,Norfolk/Richmond, Nashville, Indianapolis, Bozeman, and Orlando. Small businesses recieve a card in the mail, having been assigned a tracking number, so you know you're in their files. In previous press releases they state that they send out up to 700,000 of these cards simultaneously. Scanning their reported settlement victories, they then seem to pick 2-4 business to destroy. If the businesses don't go along, the BSA hires the Federal Marshals as mercenaries to help ensure compliance with their extortion. Microsoft, unsurprisngly, is a big supporter of this and pushes it to vendors as a chance to strengthen customer relations. (this is a powerpoint document, but thankfully you can also have it: translated via google). CD: Here is a link to the press release on this matter.

eyefish asks: "Is Microsoft's Common Language Runtime CLR (document in PDF form) really a way for Microsoft to slowly stop depending on hardware vendors like Intel to drive the Windows platform, and in the long run as a way to build a hardware-independent Windows platform to fight Java? I'd like to ask the Slashdot community what their thoughts are on this matter. Is there something preventing the CLR from being truly platform independent, now or in the future? How does it compare to the Java Virtual Machine?"

"It seems to me that once the CLR has matured enough, there won't be a need for Microsoft to wait for others to innovate on the hardware front and start offering its own hardware (and charge whatever it wants for it) to go with future versions of Windows.Net. Worst still, 99.99% of the population will not be able to say no to this strategy since they'll have no choice but continue using the Windows monopoly in order to run their favorite apps."

Jamie comments: I don't think it's about hardware innovation, or beating Java. It's about absolute control.

The big money over the next decade will be in transforming the computer into an entertainment device. AOL Time-Warner sees a computer as a revenue producer, with the unfortunate ability to copy digital works. They and the other five media giants want to put a stop to it; Microsoft and Intel will find it very profitable to help them.

One good step along the way is to give the computer a common interpreted language to run everything. We're there already. And when developers have to code to a virtual machine, not the actual bare iron, then whoever writes the virtual machine holds all the cards. And since the authors of the virtual machine will make a lot of money by enforcing intellectual property rights, the arms races are all over: copy protection is absolute, DeCSS won't compile, unauthorized MP3s won't play.

Of course developers rarely write on the bare metal anyway: we write to APIs, we write scripts, we write code that doesn't (need to) run in the CPU's supervisor mode. We're used to surrendering the ultimate control over the machine to the operating system, or to be more precise, to the BIOS that decides how and which operating system to run.

If we surrender this control, though, we'll find ourselves with a monopoly operating system that makes it impossible freely to write code for. (And it's not hard to cut off Linux and every other rogue free OS at the knees. The day that every motherboard's BIOS uses strong crypto to demand the master boot record be signed with a secret key known only to Microsoft is the day that Linux becomes a thing of the past.)

Naturally, to prevent you from firing up GCC and doing a rogue compilation of DeCSS or Lame or other unauthorized code, the operating system will have to stop you from running anything that isn't written in its language for its virtual machine. Requiring code to be signed by a central authority will make its first appearance as virus-prevention but its real purpose too will be control. Universities will be able to buy special licensed exemptions, at least until corporations decide universities are hotbeds of piracy and theft. At which point your alma mater begins teaching Computer Science 101 (and 201, and 301, and 401) in C#.

My prediction is that, unless antitrust legislation in the U.S. gets some teeth between now and then, the PC will become a Gameboy within fifteen years. Enjoy computers while they last.

unixbob writes: "Microsofts developer site MSDN is running an interview with lead GNOME developer Miguel de Icaza entitled Using the ECMA Standards: An Interview with Miguel de Icaza ."

Many readers have submitted word of the newest security hole in Windows XP. joshjs, for instance, writes: "Don't know if this is common knowledge at this point or not, but apparently some security researchers discovered that Windows XP's universal plug and play features contain a huge security flaw: 'A Microsoft official acknowledged that the risk to consumers was unprecedented because the glitches allow hackers to seize control of all Windows XP operating system software without requiring a computer user to do anything except connect to the Internet. ... Microsoft made available on its Web site a free fix for both home and professional editions of Windows XP and forcefully urged consumers to install it immediately.' Read more at the Washington Post's story." No OS is perfectly secure, but I bet a lot of new XP owners won't be too happy about this. Update: 12/20 20:05 GMT by T : fcrick submits a link to the same AP story at Wired, and several readers have pointed out that a patch is available. Update: 12/20 21:31 GMT by T : And as banuaba writes: "This hole also affects versions of 98 with XP File sharing installed and all versions of ME."

Slashback with ever more on ... the massive bust of illegal software producers reported on last week, the gaping security hole moaned at by those confined to the Microsoft asylum, another review of the new Linux+Java Zaurus from Sharp, and how to get the binary watch you've always wanted. Enjoy!

Too bad there isn't a lot of good Free software. aka-ed writes: "A small update on the "Drink Or Die" busts: Apparently, the feds' move has borne preventative fruit. According to this post from one of the major commercial Usnet services, binaries traffic on Usenet has taken a noticeable hit since the bust, for reasons speculated upon in the post itself."

Open wide, and say "mmmmghrfgghfgr." atreus42 writes: "Microsoft has released a patch to fix the Gaping Security Hole(TM) in Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0. This security bulletin details the file extension/content header spoofing bug that would allow bad people to disguise a downloadable executable file as text. The internet isn't doomed after all..."

How to make my Visor look slow and lowly. Sindre Lia writes "Sharp's new Zaurus SL5500 is the first PDA device from a major manufacturer in a long time that uses a new operating system and a new user interface.

According to preliminary reports from infoSync staffers Larry Garfield and Janice Karin that attended the launch of the SL-5500 and got hands-on experience with the new device, the GUI still needs polishing and to some degree also the hardware, but the device has according to them a lot of potential if some first-generation problems can be fixed.

See all the pictures of the new OS here!"

At least this letter is not in binary ... Dog and Pony writes with a lengthy letter (informative, if you have odd taste in watches). "Slashdot recently ran a story about a pretty silly binary watch. Well, anyways, being a silly person, I thought one would be cool to have, even though I normally don't wear watches.

Problem was, they only shipped inside Norway... so I sent them a polite mail, asking them to notify me if they would start shipping internationally. And today I got an answer.

Too bad it seems a really cumbersome process to get that watch... have these guys never heard of PayPal? And offering payment via the www in 2003? 'Course, you gotta have goals...

Here is a copy of the mail:

> Dear Customer

> Please note the binary watch is released World-Wide Sale

> To be able to expedite your orders please follow instructions below

> 1.0
> Order Your watch by using or online home page:rsi-digital.com

> 2.0
> US$ 35 must be transfer from your local bank to

> ATT
> NORDEA BANK NORWAY
> Middelthuns Gt 17
> Postboks 1166.Centrum
> 0107 OSLO

> ACCOUNT NUMBER: 6527 05 04641
> Research & Supplier International A/S
> Postboks 236
> 4201 Sauda
> Norway

> 3.0
> Original receipt must be faxed to +47 52 78 88 01 or send scanned and send by mail to arramsta@online.no

> 4.0
> Your order will than be expedite from our sales office

> Delivery time is estimated to be 10 to 14 days after received confirmed payment by fax or mail as stated above

> 5.0
> Note: RSI will from 2003 offer payment by using WWW.

> 6.0
> Payment 35USD cover cost of watch 28 USD handling and postage 7 USD
> Total:
> =35 USD

> Best Regards

> Tone Yven
> Sales engineer

I am still thinking that black one....

On a side note, to us non-native English speakers, that has spent too much time in Dilbert-land, "Sales engineer" really sounds like an oxymoron."

jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).

jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).

malevolence writes: "According to The Register, Microsoft has released an Uber-Patch for Internet Explorer that fixes all known security problems, as well as 3 new ones, including the content-type issue that was reported on slashdot a few days ago."

You can't help but know that Microsoft and the Department of Justice (plus several of the states that joined in the suit) are attempting to settle their antitrust dispute. The rest of the states are holding out for a settlement with more teeth, or a continuation of the case. A few links from the past few days: The LA Times looks at the states still opposing Microsoft. Microsoft defended the settlement before a Senate committee, which was crippled by political maneuvering (see also the NYT story). The speech given by the CEO of Red Hat is online. Microsoft filed a brief with the court, unsurprisingly urging the court to accept the settlement. The Register has a story on the proposed settlement, which is available at the DOJ Antitrust website. Linuxplanet has some advice for people who want to comment on the settlement - you've got 60 days from November 28. Finally, Microsoft has named two people to help it comply with the proposed settlement.

buzzcutbuddha asks: "I have been tasked with creating/finding a Collaboration and Knowledge Management tool for work, and while there are some good commercial ones out there like Intraspect and Microsoft Sharepoint, but I want to look at it from another angle. Most people are aware of online community models like Slashdot, Kuro5hin.org, Everything2.org, it's Perlmonks derivative, and Wikki Wikki Web. Some may even remember SixDegrees from before it was retired. But are there any other notable online communities that have similar functions to the systems described above? I'm looking for a way to let people load documents or link to documents, discuss the documents, moderate the submissions and comments, and do searches. At this point, the underlying technology is not important."

Arkham writes "According to this Wired article, Microsoft has contracted with a company called Predictive Networks to track the viewing habits of Microsoft TV devices. The Predictive software creates a "Digital Silhouette" that is described as being able "to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor."." I've always said that I'm cool with my Tivo tracking what I watch, provided it never tells anyone my name and address to anyone. If it meant I watched more targetted advertisements, I'd fast forward less.

twigman writes "MSDN has an interview with Ximian CTO Miguel de Icaza about Mono and past Ximian projects. It's a surprisingly objective discussion, definitely worth a read." Of course we're not surprised Miguel is objective...

twigman writes "MSDN has an interview with Ximian CTO Miguel de Icaza about Mono and past Ximian projects. It's a surprisingly objective discussion, definitely worth a read." Of course we're not surprised Miguel is objective...

m5shiv writes: "Scientific American is running a feature on 3-D Memory Chips. These devices look like they will significantly reduce the cost of PDA's and other handheld devices as well as replacing analog film. By stacking devices vertically, density goes up considerably. The company, Matrix Semiconductor, appears to have some very interesting investors such as Kodak, Sony and Microsoft."

ghost_crab asks: "After finally getting the guts to fdisk all my M$ problems away, I find myself happier and less stressed. Now all I want for Christmas is a good, solid Flash editor, a la Macromedia's Flash, or even Adobe's Live Motion, neither of which run well with WINE. I have queried both companies for projected *nix releases, and both have instead emphatically supported the EvilEmpire. A search with Google and of SourceForge gives one little hope. Is anyone working on Flash for Linux? Open Source or Not - I would be thrilled to pay for a good Flash Editor. Is there hope for those of us who claim to be graphic designers yet cannot stomach Windows for even one more day?" Is there anyone out there working on replacements for the plugins that are only available for Windows?

Flash support on Linux has always been questionable for me. I can get it to work in Netscape Communicator. Mozilla doesn't seem to want to recognize the plugin and Konqueror? Well, Konqueror just locks up hard when it encounters Flash content...either that or it throws up lots of windows when it tries to go to Macromedia's site, which bothers me to no end. Unless other OSes gain access to richer-than-HTML-content, their users will slowly find themselves left behind in a web that's becoming more and more centered on Win32-only content, which would not be a good thing.

Mr_Perl writes "As many Everquest players discovered recently directx 8.1 is not being made for Windows 95, sending stores everywhere into a frenzy to slap little stickers over the words "Windows 95" on game box system requirements sections. Microsoft has picked November 30th, 2001 as the date that Win95 moves into the unsupported phase of it's career, making it even more useless to those who still keep it around for playing the latest games. Looks like Win98 is slated for execution June 30, 2003."

Mr_Perl writes "As many Everquest players discovered recently directx 8.1 is not being made for Windows 95, sending stores everywhere into a frenzy to slap little stickers over the words "Windows 95" on game box system requirements sections. Microsoft has picked November 30th, 2001 as the date that Win95 moves into the unsupported phase of it's career, making it even more useless to those who still keep it around for playing the latest games. Looks like Win98 is slated for execution June 30, 2003."

Embedded Geek writes: "Embedded Systems Programming has a piece about Microsoft organizing its employees to advocate their embedded products in online newsgroups (part of "a new culture at Microsoft" making "an effort to shed the company's reputation as an incommunicative giant.") This is coordinated with Microsoft's launch of Windows XP Embedded at their Embedded Developers' Conference (the countdown clock on their homepage says Wednesday but the launch party is Thursday)." News.com notes that this will be used in slot machines and ATMs. Insert obligatory free-money joke.

Embedded Geek writes: "Embedded Systems Programming has a piece about Microsoft organizing its employees to advocate their embedded products in online newsgroups (part of "a new culture at Microsoft" making "an effort to shed the company's reputation as an incommunicative giant.") This is coordinated with Microsoft's launch of Windows XP Embedded at their Embedded Developers' Conference (the countdown clock on their homepage says Wednesday but the launch party is Thursday)." News.com notes that this will be used in slot machines and ATMs. Insert obligatory free-money joke.

Embedded Geek writes: "Embedded Systems Programming has a piece about Microsoft organizing its employees to advocate their embedded products in online newsgroups (part of "a new culture at Microsoft" making "an effort to shed the company's reputation as an incommunicative giant.") This is coordinated with Microsoft's launch of Windows XP Embedded at their Embedded Developers' Conference (the countdown clock on their homepage says Wednesday but the launch party is Thursday)." News.com notes that this will be used in slot machines and ATMs. Insert obligatory free-money joke.

Bruce let me know that he's written a piece on ZDNet (original home of the for the Window of Exposure idea is on Counterpane ^? ) about the problems of not following full disclosure. Very well written and does a great job of summarizing why full disclosure works. The original piece from Culp @ Microsoft is also available, along with the PowerPoint that they did.

Kent M. Pitman has already given you his first 11 answers to the questions you asked him about Lisp, Scheme, the creation of programming standards, and much more -- below are his answers to another eight (starting with answer #12). Thanks again, Kent.

12) Good texts for learning Scheme?
by drenehtsral

I have recently been working on learning Scheme in my spare time, with the eventual goal of writing a scheme based scripting system to run the guts of a massive adventure game/graphical mud sort of system, everything from environment simulation (predator/prey cycles, etc...) to 3d models (i.e. models will be geometry glued together by scripts so you could have trees that by a random seed and a growth level variable have grown over time and are unique to provide interresting landscape features). Scheme is appealing because it's simple, powerful, and adapts well to the idea of a threaded interpreter.

To further my goal of learning Scheme inside and out, I've been reading "The Little Schemer," as well as "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs." Do you have any other recommendations for good Scheme programming texts?

Kent M. Pitman: You can get a list of textbooks from Schemers website. If you can articulate a particular need or preference that you think should help narrow down the many available choices, I'd suggest posting a more specific inquiry to the comp.lang.scheme newsgroup.

13) Overlooked practical aspects of Lisp
by hding

Why do you think that people so often overlook many of the wonderful things in Common Lisp such as unwind-protect, the whole condition system (which you are of course closely associated with), and so on - things that make it very useful for day-to-day programming, and are there any such things that you'd particularly highlight, or conversely that you wish had become part of the standard but did not.

Incidentally, thank you for all of the insight so generously and regularly poured forth in comp.lang.lisp.

KMP: Well, people program with tools that are familiar to them. Unless Common Lisp is someone's first language, it'd be easy for them to overlook the things it contains that are not like the things they're familiar with. There's a certain irony here because often the reason people will leave a language for another language is that they've reached the limits of what they can do with the first language and they need more power. So you'd expect that they'd aggressively look for features of the new language that were different than the things they've used before. And probably some do. But you're right that others cling to the safety and familiarity of the operators they could just as well have found in the old language they left behind, and so in the process they miss out on what the language can offer them.

Fortunately, unwind-protect is finally (pardon the pun) present in Java. And some hints of the Common Lisp condition system made it into Java as well. So probably people who come to Common Lisp from Java will be inclined to seek out those capabilities. But there's a lot of other stuff there and I hope new users will indulge their curiosity and take the time to explore.

As to what we should have in the language, the main omission of note is some sort of system definition tool (the in-Lisp analog of make). It was a shame that we did a feature-freeze on ANSI Common Lisp in 1988 but didn't get the standard out until 1994, and the suggestion of including such a tool didn't come until the after-freeze period. All vendors offer such a facility, but programs would be more portable if there were a uniform solution.

There are also quite a number of things about Common Lisp that are available in the same or similar forms in nearly all implementations. Multi-tasking, sockets, database access, external function call, windowing, and so on. It wouldn't be bad to have included any of these, but the fact is that they weren't ready for standarization in 1988. At this point, though, I think other mechanisms than standards are the right way to proceed.

The Lisp community used to expect the delivery mechanism for new functionality to be a new language spec. But that requires working through consensus standards bodies. The problem is that, by their nature, standards bodies are synchronization mechanisms. The problem with synchronization mechanisms in a massively parallel world is that they slow things down. The world is not going to wait for us to slow down, so I think we need to evolve mechanisms that will keep up better with a degree of pace that is externally dictated.

I think this is an area where Lisp as a community has been slow to respond. There need to be community mechanisms for sharing the many great commercial and private packages people have been creating in Lisp, so that we can properly reap the cross-product benefits of our community's productivity. I see evidence that this is changing. The Common Lisp Open Code Collection (CLOCC) is one such mechanism that addresses open source code. I'd like to see similar mechanisms arise for the exchange of proprietary products as well.

As to my posts on the comp.lang.lisp newsgroup, thank you. I'm glad you enjoy them. Frankly, I always consider it a victory to hear I haven't bored everyone to death. In background I've been working on putting together several books on Lisp, but one never quite knows if one will finish such things. I regard comp.lang.lisp as a kind of insurance policy, assuring that at least some piece of what I have seen and done in my career gets transferred from individual memory to global group memory.

I think preserving individual experiences for history is quite important. In the future, this will happen naturally due to logs kept by online collaboration tools. But I'm especially worried about the records of what happened between about 1960 (the birth of programming languages) and 1994 (the birth of the web). Most of everything in that time range is recorded on paper and will eventually be lost. Looking back from the future, I expect it to be as confusing to figure out how the information society was born as it is to look back in a telescope to see the birth of the Universe. You'll get very close, but then you'll get to a point where you can see nothing. The informational big bang. I've been working on webbing all of my old hardcopy papers, and I hope others of that era will commit to doing the same.

14) Lisp - Scheme - ML
by Tom7

I know a lot of big academic (erstwhile) lisp shops, such as CMU, have transitioned away from lisp to ML [standardml.org] and relatives [inria.fr]. Some of the reasons we might give are:

• Sophisticated type systems, catching most bugs before your program is run, ensuring safety, etc.
• Much more efficient (http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/craps.shtml), partly due to compilation strategies using types
• Increased modularity and abstraction
• Pattern matching, (subjectively) more natural syntax

In fact, I'm one of those people. I've been scoffed at by lisp fans, but most had never used ML. But I have an open mind, so, in the face of more "modern" languages, what advantages do lisp and scheme offer? Do you think that these advantages are fundamentally impossible to achieve in a typed setting?

KMP: First, I assume by "typed" you mean "statically typed." I think of Lisp as "dynamically typed." I think of most machine languages as "untyped." I've heard statically typed languages sometimes called strongly typed, and I sometimes use this terminology myself out of habit, but I've grown to dislike it because it seems to me that the issue of strength ought to refer to whether you check types, not when you do. The terms "static" and "dynamic" seem to me to better get to the heart of the matter.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, admittedly somewhat out of context, "People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like." So to somewhat flippantly re-interpret Lincoln's remarks in a modern context, applying perhaps just a bit of obligatory political spin to the result: The fact that functional languages appeal to people who like functional languages is not a proof that functional languages are of general purpose appeal.

I think the real reason that CMU (or any university with a grant-based funding model) changed its direction is good sources of funding in research depend on saying you're doing something "new and different." Such a shift doesn't imply that the thing left behind wasn't "tried and true," but only that "tried and true" is not what gets research dollars. Research must constantly stir the mix, but that doesn't imply obsolescence to what came before. So don't read too much into that.

Answering each of your points in detail might require a whole article, but I'll touch on each in brief:

• Sophisticated type systems, catching most bugs before your program is run, ensuring safety, etc. Much more efficient partly due to compilation strategies using types.

  Actually, it's funny that you both mention the CMU project and then make this comment. Before moving away from Common Lisp, the CMU crowd was successful in demonstrating to the Lisp community's satisfaction that there were enormous opportunities offered by the Common Lisp language design in terms of type inferencing that still today go untapped by implementations. This is really a market issue, not a language design issue. The fact is that although other languages do a lot more type inferencing, vendors are not getting huge numbers of bug reports saying that better type inferencing is what stands between programmers and the commercial success of their product. Over time, I think you'll see more and more interesting type analysis done, but such work is always balanced against other needs of users, such as CORBA, COM, RMI, and web interfaces, for example, such as UI toolkits and debugging options. When I observe, as I often do, that languages are political parties, this is what I mean. They are each responsive not to the needs of the world, but to the needs of their constituencies. And the Lisp constituency, while it is not oblivious to the value of type inferencing, does not see that issue as its number one priority.

• Increased modularity and abstraction.

  This is quite a multidimensional space. I think Lisp provides great opportunities for modularity and abstraction that other languages do not. And yet, there are sometimes things I can't abstract as well as I wish. An example of a minor omission: Common Lisp's CLOS doesn't do protocol abstraction as well as Zetalisp's New Flavors; among other things, one can't declare that certain unimplemented methods are required. But with the use of the macro system and the Meta-Object Protocol (MOP), one can add this kind of thing. Further, the package system is missing certain kinds of inheritance capabilities I've often wished for, but I recently sat down and did the work of writing my own versions of defpackage for my own use, adding the capabilities I wanted in a way that my own tools can use, and I had no difficulty. For the most part, I've found the limitations of Common Lisp's abstraction capabilites to be incidental, and not deep, and I've found its syntactic reorganization capabilities more than capable of making up for it.

• Pattern matching.

  I think you're right that Lisp doesn't do pattern matching. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is subjective. I think there are people who like pattern matching and people who don't. In fairness to Lisp, though, on the few occasions in my career where I've felt a strong need for pattern matching, I've been able to implement it easily. And, importantly, Lisp's syntactic adaptability has allowed me to make my personal implementation look as natural in the programs I write as if it were natively provided by the language; most other languages don't give me the syntactic control to be able to add new functionality in a way that feels appropriate to the language. So personally, I don't find this a strong negative; rather, I see it as an opportunity for you to create a layered library that supports the needs of yourself and others like you.

• (Subjectively) more natural syntax.

  I don't think you can make the case that much of any language has "natural" syntax. COBOL and HyperTalk gave this the fairest shot and there's a big difference even between them and any natural language. I personally find Lisp syntax remarkably natural in that it focuses on symbols that you could say out loud, marking them minimally to indicate grouping. Other languages contain lots of special-purpose markers like commas, semicolons, asterisks, and braces/brackets/parens that are used in quite nitpicky ways. All this to say that you're right on this one: it's subjective. And as such, I hope I can fairly dismiss this as an even draw.

15) Lisp in Mathematics Programming
by An Anonymous Coward

Gregory Chaitin has a book called "The Limits of Mathematics." In it he claims that mathematicians should love Lisp because Lisp is basically set theory, and all mathematicians love set theory. I wholeheartedly agree with this, one only needs to look at Chaitin's Lisp programs to realize how quickly and succinctly one can arrive at astonishing incompleteness results in mathematics. So we know Lisp is great for stuff like this, really researching a mathematical subject. Do you see Lisp continuing in this direction, showing and discovering theorems, or will it move into industry? Or has it moved into industry, and we just don't know it? Do the likes of NASA and JPL use Lisp and Scheme religiously? I would bet so.

KMP: Lisp may have started out as a way of addressing abstract topics like math (logic, calculus, prime numbers, etc.) and artificial intelligence, but it long ago made the transition to commercial applications. Both Scheme and Common Lisp have been and continue to be used in real-world applications that might surprise you. These include (but are certainly not limited to) applications in airline scheduling, commercial database manipulation, computer operating systems, bioengineering, web services, document format translation, and, yes, even space exploration. Franz, Inc. has created quite a nice page of Lisp success stories that I think expand on this much better than I could in the space I've allowed myself to answer this question. And speaking of NASA/JPL, they did a comparative study of Lisp vs Java and C++ that some might find interesting.

16) Scheme in CS
by An Anonymous Coward

It seems many of the more popular CS programs in the world use Scheme as a teaching language. A lot of times, students complain about this, saying they'd prefer to learn about C or another language that is considered "apt for industry." I used to be like this too, but have now discovered the error of my thinking. How have you convinced others that while the latest programs might not be written in Scheme, that it is worth a student's time to learn Scheme. Many seem stuck to the point that if they won't use it outside of school, they shouldn't learn it. How can we convince them otherwise, to become scholarly citizens instead of drones?

KMP: I think the thing to explain to a student is that the world is ever changing and that one cannot put ones eggs all in one basket. Furthermore, modern environments are often quite heterogeneous, with different languages and systems being used together cooperatively. Especially for a CS student, who often has the luxury of time that a person in the job world does not, I think it's worth taking time to learn as many different languages as possible. This not only exposes the students to alternate ways of thinking, but it also prepares the student to quickly change modes of thought or languages of expression later. Once on the job, one often can't afford the ramp-up time to learn a new language at the point it becomes necessary to use. Better to already know it and just have to "brush up".

One is much more likely to consider alternative approaches if one has a sense of what is involved in them; it's very easy to fear the unknown, even when the unknown might be of great help. So get to know as many things as you can while you can. Common Lisp and Scheme, which I regard as two very different languages, by the way, should definitely be among the things every student studies. But they should not be the only things the person studies. Like it or not, there is a lot the professional programmer needs to know to be really successful not just tomorrow, but for a lifetime.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes is often quoted as saying, "A mind stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimensions." In order to stretch a student's mind, I recommend they make a list of "kinds of languages" and then learn as many different kinds as they can. Here are some that come to mind, though I'm sure others with different experience than me might reasonably contribute still others.

• A block-structured language, such as Algol or Pascal or Scheme.
• A line-oriented language, such as Fortran or BASIC.
• A rule-based logic language, such as Prolog or EMYCIN.
• An Englishy language such as HyperTalk or Cobol.
• A "stack" language such as PostScript.
• A "line noise" language (heavy emphasis on one-letter operators) like APL or Teco.
• A dynamic object-oriented language, such as Common Lisp or Smalltalk .
• A strongly-typed, statically analyzed language such as ML or Haskell.
• A dynamically-typed functional programming language, such as Scheme.
• A string or macro processing language, such as Perl or m4 or TeX or Teco.
• A database access language, such as SQL.
• An abstract high-level, assembly language, such as Java.
• A concrete high-level, assembly language, such as C.
• A low-level, traditional assembly language.
• A scripting language, such as Javascript.
• An interface-definition language such as Visual Basic, HyperTalk, or Javascript.
• A document-structuring language such as XSL or TeX.
• A language with a modern error system, such as Common Lisp or Dylan.
• A reflective/introspective language such as Common Lisp or Java.
• A symbolic programming language, such as Common Lisp or Scheme.
• A security-oriented language, such as Java or MOO.
• A language where both programs and data are fully persistent, such as MOO or HyperTalk.

I'm confident that if people make a sincere effort to learn each of these kinds of languages on their own terms, the Lisp community will get its share of converts. But further, I would hope that the people who come to the Lisp community bring with them the ideas of other communities so that we can incorporate, rather than hide from, the good ideas that we need in order to continually be moving forward.

17) A question for Kent
by MarkusQ

Do you have a maclisp manual I could borrow?

KMP:For those not familiar with Maclisp, it's a defunct dialect of Lisp that predated and strongly influenced the design of Common Lisp.

I've been working on webbing The Revised Maclisp Manual, which I had published on paper back in the early 1980's. It's not quite ready to go out yet, but should finally be ready sometime in the not terribly distant future. Probably a month or two. Watch the site maclisp.info for more information.

18) Open Implementations
by Martin Pomije

What is your opinion of the idea of Open Implementations from Gregor Kiczales? Do you think that his idea could help Lisp be more widely used?

You can see him giving a lecture about this idea here. [microsoft.com] The video is only available in Windows Media format on this site.

KMP: I hadn't seen Gregor Kiczales's talk on Open Implementations, so I enjoyed watching it. Thanks for the pointer!

The talk made me think back to various related ideas I've seen batted around for a long time, the earliest of which that I can recall is a short paper on something called "Capsules" (an object system where classes were allowed to have multiple implementations) by Richard Zippel back in the late 1970s or early 1980s at MIT. Often, especially in a university environment, people will make up such a concept, bat it around for a bit, and then go on to something else. There are some very interesting ideas there and I'm glad to see that they're being pursued seriously, especially by someone as thoughtful and talented as I know Gregor to be.

As a formalized area of study, this topic of "aspect-oriented programming" is new to me. It reuses some old ideas in new ways, and introduces some new ones along with it. I'm only just barely becoming conversant in the terminology, so I can't really speak to it from a theoretical point of view. But it looks promising. And from a practical point of view, I can note that I'm getting daily on-the-job training in it through my consulting relationship with The Software Smith. They're using Lisp as a vehicle to apply the principles of aspect-oriented programming, and the results they get are quite spectacular.

19) What was up with CLisp's "loop" form?
by Jayson

Did you can have anything to do or know who had anything to do with the "loop" form in Common Lisp? Why does it look and feel just like a FOR loop on C (from the Graham book):

(loop for x = 8 then (/x 2)
until (< x 1)
do (princ x))

This is one of by biggest minor nags about CLisp and I am very curious what was going through the committee's collective head. Didn't anybody balk at this enough to at least get the syntax cleaned up?

KMP: The example you cite is quite simplistic and if this were the only reason for using LOOP, we wouldn't have it. Lisp has a number of other iteration operators for doing simple loops like this. However, the reason for using LOOP is that it can represent much more complicated arrangements of iteration paths and collection techniques. I used to grumble a lot myself about how "un-Lispy" LOOP seemed, but over time I come to the belief that the benefits outweigh the costs. A loop like this:

(loop for x from 0
for y in some-list
when (good-result? y)
collect (list x y))

is easy to write and maintain, and much easier to explain than the equivalent, but more Lispy:

(do ((x 0 (+ x 1))
(y-list some-list (cdr y-list))
(result '()))
((null y)
(nreverse result))
(let ((y (first y-list)))
(when (good-result? y)
(push (list x y) result))))

The Common Lisp community likes to offer the traditional Lispy notations for places where they enhance readability, but we also offer alternative notations for situations where we've learned there's a call for it. We leave the choice of which style to use up to the individual taste of the programmer. Common Lisp is not a minimalist language offering only one way to do things or rigidly attempting to force people into a single programming paradigm.

By the way, this is a fundamental difference between the ANSI Common Lisp design philosophy and the Scheme design philosophy. The introduction to the Scheme specification states:

Programming languages should be designed not by piling feature on top of feature, but by removing the weaknesses and restrictions that make additional features appear necessary. Scheme demonstrates that a very small number of rules for forming expressions, with no restrictions on how they are composed, suffice to form a practical and efficient programming language that is flexible enough to support most of the major programming paradigms in use today.

By contrast, the charter for X3J13, the group that designed ANSI Common Lisp, stated the following in the X3J13 charter:

It will codify existing practice, provide additional features to facilitate portability of code among diverse implementations, and establish normative Common Lisp programming practice. The committee will begin with the language described in Common Lisp: The Language by Guy L. Steele Jr. (Digital Press, 1984), which is the current de facto standard for Common Lisp. Whenever there is a proposal for the standard to differ from Common Lisp: The Language, the committee shall weigh both future costs of adopting (or not adopting) a change and costs of conversion of existing code. Aesthetic criteria shall be a subordinate consideration.

In other words, the Scheme community is a very conservative community that is highly focused on keeping its language specification as highly aesthetic and minimal in size as possible. By contrast, the Common Lisp community is an industrial standard that is concerned with messier issues of compatibility, portability, and commercial need; while the Common Lisp community cares about aesthetics, it does not allow aesthetics to dominate practicality as a design criterion.

The relevance of this here is that the Lisp family of languages is made up of a number of smaller communities who share a few core ideas, but really have some very divergent points of view. Each is worthy of study in its own right. One should not, having looked at Scheme, assume they have good intuitions about Common Lisp, nor vice versa.

Your day wouldn't be complete without Microsoft news. Ralph Nader has written an open letter to Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Seems he has a few bones to pick with the settlement. MSNBC is running a WSJ article detailing how Microsoft beat down the DOJ in settlement negotiations. Even Israel knows Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft reveals its keep-them-in-the-dark plan for Microsoft security vulnerabilities. Amazingly, some security firms seem to be willing to go along with it. I guess they figure setting up a sort of cartel for security flaws is in their best financial interest. SANS is keeping their list of top security vulnerabilities up to date with the latest IIS exploits. And finally, MS wishes their new disclosure rules were used for yet another huge hole in Windows. Microsoft says it's "irresponsible" to expect them to get a patch out for a critical flaw within "a few days". As usual, switch off active scripting, even though that will make essentially every webpage that's designed for IE not work.

RoadFever writes: "At the Microsoft shareholders meeting, CEO Ballmer acknowledged they may have a popularity bug. "We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said. There's a summary article in the Seattle Times and more stuff on the Microsoft investor relations page. Will words translate to action? Well, the company might want to start by toning down the habit of taking credit for every innovation: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," Gates said." The question-and-answer session near the end of the meeting has the most juicy quotes.

RoadFever writes: "At the Microsoft shareholders meeting, CEO Ballmer acknowledged they may have a popularity bug. "We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said. There's a summary article in the Seattle Times and more stuff on the Microsoft investor relations page. Will words translate to action? Well, the company might want to start by toning down the habit of taking credit for every innovation: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," Gates said." The question-and-answer session near the end of the meeting has the most juicy quotes.

Bingo Foo asks: "The paradigm of movable, overlapping windows on the desktop has been around, and indeed dominant, for a long time. The original motivation for this was to mimic sheets of paper on a desktop. This is a useful metaphor, but may be a bit limiting given the capacity a computer has for automation of the layout and display of "desktop" objects. Lately, I have been pleased to see an increase in 'framing,' 'docking,' 'stacking,' and 'tabbing' being used, starting most conspicuously with frames in the web. More significantly, it has shown up as an application workspace paradigm that improved previously crappy MDI implementations in programs like Visual Studio and KDevelop. In my opinion, the most promising experimental application, even if still immature, is one of the neatest window managers around, ion. Does anyone else see a time when movable, tear-off docking and automated full-time tiling completely take over from the free-floating manually arranged desktops of today?"

There are various news articles out at most major news sites, but they're all based on this press release from the Department of Justice. The actual terms of the settlement will probably become public shortly, so I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to dissect this press release. Just read it for generalities. In sum: for this whole multi-year case, which you will recall started when Microsoft refused to obey its earlier behavior restrictions, we have more behavior restrictions, lasting only five years. And if MS doesn't obey those, they'll ... be in effect longer. Update: 11/02 15:07 GMT by M : Here are the promised terms of the settlement. Now you can dissect them. :) Update: 11/02 15:53 GMT by M : The states are refusing to sign on.

Ramsed writes: "On cnet Petr Hrebejk and Tim Boudreau wrote an article claiming that the current Microsoft Monopoly will be replaced by an 'Open Monopoly'; a monopoly of Open Source. They are explaining why big companies like IBM support this. In their view, it's inevitable this 'Open Monopoly' will win in the end, and that apart from the current monopolist, everyone will be better of, because of lower barriers for participation, software better targeted at its users and lower development costs. Profit should be made with support and consultancy." Update: 10/28 13:42 GMT by J : Little-known fact -- for important stories, slashdot sometimes runs duplicates to see who's still awake on a weekend. Nice work to those of you who caught it. See you next week. *sigh*

An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to News.com, Bill Gates announced a new software development architecture with a pretty low key name - the Global XML Web Services Architecture. According to the story Microsoft previewed four new specifications that it claims it will submit to standards bodies after a review period. The specs go by the names WS-Routing, WS-Referral, WS-Security, and WS-License. If Microsoft really discloses the way future Microsoft web services will work it should be possible for open source solutions to use them. Kind of makes you wonder where the catch is?"

box2321 writes: "There's a time and a place for large and feature-filled software. And there's a place for tiny apps - in fact, there's tinyapps.org. This is a mighty-fine resource for free and shared Win/DOS programs that weigh in under 1.44 MB. I learned of TinyApps from a pleasant source."

evenprime writes: "John Ashcroft wants congress to declare computer crimes to be terrorism, and now it looks like microsoft is trying to jump on the bandwagon. In a recent column discussing microsoft's new STPP security program, microsoft's Michael Lane Thomas stated that destructive viruses should be recognized as acts of 'industrial terrorism.' Sounds like microsoft's future security plans may depend more on legislation than on code audits."

alen asks: "The recent IIS security incidents got me thinking. Code Red and Nimda hit servers that weren't patched by their sys admins. If you get infected, you patch your server and end of story. But what if you're running Windows 2000 Datacenter Server? It's a customized solution that you can't change. All your service packs are customized by your vendor. What happens if you have a web or database server that needs to be patched immediately? Are you left out in the cold running unsecure software that you can't patch while you wait in line for your vendor to issue you a service pack or hotfix?" In a situation like this, the whole ball-o-wax resides with the vendor. If you have a good vendor who actually cares about customer satisfaction, these hotfixes will be available quickly. Would anyone out there actually recommend Datacenter for corporate environments?

"My company is currently looking to cluster our SQL 7 servers. We're considering Win2000 advanced server or datacenter. Around a month ago I sat in a meeting with our VP of IT, and the rest of the network admins I work with. Compaq tried to pitch their Windows 2000 Datacenter or Advanced Server solution. Here is the way the compaq people explained it:

You get datacenter only from an OEM. They look at the apps you're running and customize a solution for you in their lab. Every datacenter implementation is different, and every datacenter CD is different. Since we would be using an EMC SAN as our clustered storage system they said our implementation would take special customization. They would have to contact EMC engineers and work together. Once you deploy it, the OEM monitors it. And you can't install any service packs or anything without getting an OK from your OEM. Any service packs are customized for your enviroment. The SLA guarantees a 99.999% uptime or your money back. Part of your money at least. Datacenter isn't an OS, but a program in their words.

Now here is the problem. With Code Red and Nimda, how do you patch IIS running on datacenter in a timely manner? The reason IIS servers became infected was because the admins didn't patch them in the first place. So say a new worm comes out in a few months and it takes a few days for MS to create a hotfix. Datacenter admins can't install it until they get their customized copy from their OEM. And almost every 2000 server runs IIS for terminal server. It can take a few days and in the meantime your servers could be down. And I don't see the SLA covering a situation like this. Meanwhile you're explaining to your CEO how this $500K supposedly guaranteed solution is sitting dead in the water and you can't do a thing about.

Is there something I'm missing, or did Microsoft look over something like this? Especially when they are trying to push Datacenter as 'Big Iron'."