Slashdot Mirror

Don't forget about MS Class Server! ;-)

http://www.microsoft.com/Education/ClassServer.msp x

Happy birthday, consider yourself lucky! You could have been born on Sep 23 like I did...

In the quote you actually use, he doesn't say "Office XP Professional 2003", he says "Office Professional 2003" which does exist.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/ professional.mspx

Due to the similarity in file formats and program functionality it's not completely unfair to use "XP/2003" as nomenclature but Mad Penguin's punctuation is not Gary Edwards fault.

Finally, he says you need Exchange 2003/Sharepoint/Project Server etc. to use Office 2003 to the fullest - which is true because MS uses proprietary means for information sharing, whereas with open standards it wouldn't matter which server people use. "Using Office right" involves data interchange if we are to believe Microsoft (with those stupid dinosaur ads). You fail to address this point.

s an example my flatmate he is making his PhD and has some buisness going in Mexico. He use to get into MSN Messenger every other night and video conference with some people back there to discuss work.

Additionally, he should track what Microsoft does and doesn't do with is "personal information," as outlined in Section 5: quoth the 'Soft:

If you are using MSN-branded software with the Service, please see the MSN Privacy Statement http://privacy.msn.com/ for notices about how we collect and use your information. If you are using any other software with the Service, please see the .NET Messenger Service Privacy Statement at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/messenger/privacy policy.asp for notices about how we collect and use your information.

We consider your use of the Service, including the content of your communications, to be private. We do not routinely monitor your communications or disclose information about your communications to anyone. However, we may monitor your communications and disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, if we consider it necessary to: (1) comply with the law or to respond to legal process; (2) ensure your compliance with this contract; or (3) protect the rights, property, or interests of Microsoft, its employees, its customers, or the public.

In particular, "(3)pretect[ing] the rights, property, or interest of Microsoft" leaves a lot of wiggle room for listening to fresh ideas coming across their pipes (unlike AOL, who specifically state that whatever you type is theirs!).

Finally, he should continually check the Terms of Service; they "may change this contract at any time. You must review this contract on a regular basis." (Section 2). So what they say now isn't necessarily what they'll be saying later. Remember also that, like any business, it's nothing personal, just business. Their goal isn't to make you happy; it's to make money. If people get happy, it tends to give them money, but so long as most people are happy, a few people can get screwed, particularly if they can wriggle out of it in the courts and the courts of public opinion.

And finally, one-click videoconvferencing systems exist for Linux. For example, skype runs on Linux (again, check the ToS!), and also Gnome Meeting, amongst others.

Because you're depriving Microsoft of CAL income by not licensing Microsoft Live Communication Server. What other reason could you have for not providing Microsoft with more money!

Arguably, the design of new IP set-top box are very close to PCs. However, the boxes on which most of Microsoft's partners are working will never be used as PCs. They won't even host a hard-drive.

During the last IBC convention this September in Amsterdam, Microsoft revealed their relationship with set-top box manufacturers.

I've seen Microsoft TV run on a box that for sure was not a regular PC. It was slow, but it was acceptable.

A large IPTV deployment is hundreds of thousands of set-top boxes. It is important to bring the cost of the boxes down, not too much above $100. (That means already tens of millions of dollars, solely for the price of the boxes!) There is no IPTV without cheap set-top boxes.

The problem facing Microsoft today is that noone wants a proprietary solution. Microsoft also seems to have problems with scaling their nice features to work for a very large amount of users. Make sure you read: MS's IPTV strategy in tatters

The rest of it ("instant channel changes"? My parents had that with a regular TV - it was called "Hey, kid, change the channel") is fluff.

this is important. not if comparing to normal tv, but when comparing microsofts iptv solution to others. changing to a different streamed channel is only possible at an i-frame (or else you get a screwed up or no image until the next one). with mpeg2 they come pretty often, with mpeg4 they come less often. with both you cannot switch imideately.

microsoft uses a combination of unicast and multicast to get by this problem. check their site for more information: http://www.microsoft.com/tv/default.mspx

• Conduct IM conversations securely with customers and partners from one client whether they use Live Communications Server or a public IM client like AOL, MSN, or Yahoo!.

The problem back then was that you had large segments using IE and NS, both of which supported different flavors of JavaScript

Actually, the differences in Javascript have always been relatively minor. It's true that Microsoft call their flavour JScript and not Javascript, and there are a couple of features found in one and not the other, but in practice, they might as well be the same language, and of course they have been standardised as ECMA-262 since then.

Today, however, we've reached the tipping point where most of the systems out there have browsers that can support the features needed to make developing these types of projects worthwhile.

The same was true years ago though. Remember the vast majority of people, particularly Hotmail users, surfed with Internet Explorer 5.x. The difference in Javascript to support Internet Explorer 5.x compared with 6.0 is negligable.

BTW, XMLHttpRequest is supported as of Internet Explorer 5.0+

I couldn't remember off the top of my head whether it was 4.0 or 5.0 when I posted, so I already checked Wikipedia, which stated 4.0. Serves me right for not double checking it; you are right, it was 5.0.

Personally, I don't think four years ago I would have wasted my time trying to do advanced cross-platform code the vast majority of people would never see...

Four years ago, Internet Explorer 6.0 had already been released, and the vast majority of people were on Internet Explorer 5.x or 6.0. Really, it's been over four years without any real change in the Internet Explorer codebase. I think you're overestimating how much has changed in terms of the features available to the majority of users. Alternative browsers have come a long way, but most people don't use them and are as capable today as they were four years ago.

Microsoft couldn't have done what Google did and launch AJAX webmail without any fallback for less capable browsers, but that wasn't necessary. They could certainly have launched AJAX webmail for the majority of their users, to great effect, four years ago, while continuing to provide service for users of other browsers. Browser support isn't the issue.

You don't need security patches if you simply uninstall the problematic applications and replace them with better alternatives and installing some top-of-the-line antivirus software. And yes, everyone should use some sort of antivirus, as it's only common courtesy, considering the fact that Linux users are bound to have some friends that use Windows and sometimes communicate via e-mail.
Seriously, even something as simple as a .jpg or .png file can cause serious issues in Windows, so why not have the decency to catch such files and stop them from being spread all over?

But you can not transfer the perpetual royalty free rights you were granted.

Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature?
A. Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses.

Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form?
A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program.

Well, that's exactly what I'm asking. If the XML Schema for it is published, why can't I write a simple XSLT to convert it to some other format? (E.g., to DocBook, or OpenDocument, or simply to HTML.) Or can't I run it through Xerces/Saxon/libxml/whatever and extract the data the old fashioned way? What concrete problems would I be looking at in that scenario?

From the MS doc as noted in a comment below:

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp [microsoft.com].

Since a license is required to READ or write the format, exactly how are you going to convert? Apply to MS for a license to write a program to move off their product? I mean you do have to READ the format in order to convert, or did I miss something?

But you can not transfer the perpetual royalty free rights you were granted. So what happens if MS stops giving it away next year? Would I have to prove that I made use of their offer while it existed?

Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature?

A. Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses.

Check out the Kahuna demo at channel9

If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp."

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp."

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

The XML Schemas are freely downloadable, you don't have to sign anything. They are just patenting their own software implementation that processes those XML documents. You can still make your own implementaiton.

Ok, so you don't have to actually sign the patent license, but still the legal notice is provided within the downloadable MSI:

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.

But let's look at the article you linked to:

The patent application states: "The present invention (word processing document stored in a single XML file) is directed at providing a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents."

Broad, non-specific. This could include any kind of use of the schemas.

Microsoft spokesman Mark Martin denied that the recently discovered patents contradict Microsoft's fall 2003 moves to open up its XML schemas. [...] Martin said it would not make sense for Microsoft to block or hamper XML development -- "something it has been working to establish as a standard and get broadly and consistently developed."

Embrace.

However, Microsoft will "innovate above the standard -- just as other companies will do in an effort to seek differentiation, address customer needs, add competitive value, etc.," he explained.

Extend. You know the next word.

This isn't the first time that Microsoft has sought patent protection for technologies that are W3C standards. For example, the Redmond software company was granted a patent for the W3C cascading-style-sheet technology in 1999.

No, and that pretty much pissed off everybody at W3C. They filed for the patent in secret while developing CSS with the other members of the W3C.

I'm not convinced by this article.

I don't see why he would have any problem with the licence. Have you read it yourself? Have you read this? http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/janletter.mspx

I've pernsonally written programs to directly generate documents MS XML files and don't see why you users are limited to MS tools.

Have you complied with the terms of the licence?
http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseovervie w.mspx

You mean just like the MS Office reference schemas which include a Patent License that includes the term:

"You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights."

This making it impossible to implement in Free and most Open Source software? Not very useful to OpenOffice.

.After years of console development on a large number of platforms I can say:

You're an idiot.

Please shutup in the future.

How marvellously refuted. I'm convinced by your persuasive argument that my own years of experience of using Microsoft development tools (as much as I prefer Cocoa) has been some sort of bizarre dream.

Yeah, Microsoft and there stupid XNA and directx is so much less easier to use than manually optimising for individual vendors unique hardware, even when (like Sony [1]) they dick you around over specs and access to the hardware.

[1] Oh, I know we said it's was going to run 300 Mhz and that your units run at that speed, but you can only use 200 Mhz of that or we won't release it, and no you can't have a UMD burner, you'll just have to send it to us hope your game doesn't have horrible loading issues that you don't have enough time to resolve before release.

I bet you hated the Dreamcast and it's stupid SDK's (including Win CE kits) too! Easy to develop platforms are for noobs huh?

.After years of console development on a large number of platforms I can say:

You're an idiot.

Please shutup in the future.

How marvellously refuted. I'm convinced by your persuasive argument that my own years of experience of using Microsoft development tools (as much as I prefer Cocoa) has been some sort of bizarre dream.

Yeah, Microsoft and there stupid XNA and directx is so much less easier to use than manually optimising for individual vendors unique hardware, even when (like Sony [1]) they dick you around over specs and access to the hardware.

[1] Oh, I know we said it's was going to run 300 Mhz and that your units run at that speed, but you can only use 200 Mhz of that or we won't release it, and no you can't have a UMD burner, you'll just have to send it to us hope your game doesn't have horrible loading issues that you don't have enough time to resolve before release.

I bet you hated the Dreamcast and it's stupid SDK's (including Win CE kits) too! Easy to develop platforms are for noobs huh?

Problem is the Microsoft XML format is proprietary to Microsoft. While the standard is "open" -- as in published -- there are restrictions as to who can implement it.

Didn't Microsoft buy up a VM software company with intent to use the virtualization to remain backward compatible (Virtual PC)?
Under the new license you would need to have an extra license to run Win3.11 apps on the latest (not-in-and-of-itself backward compatible (sic)) Windows version.

seems like "delegates" are little more than function pointers, of a sort.

Personally, I find delegates useful, although I'm not fond of the fact they introduce a large amount of separation between the object and the event handler. It's far too easy to rename an object in VS.Net, and start having delegates that have function names that don't reflect the object they're handling (Button1_Click() anyone?).

Properties seem to be an interesting syntactic sugar on private member vars and public getter/setters.

There are some critiques of these features and other C# features at this page, but author writes like he has an axe to grind against C#, and most of the dangers of the features are quite overstated. In the example of delegates, he badly misuses them to show the dangers of them (but he is correct that they are not as type-safe as they should be). In the rant against properties, indexers, etc, he overstates the performance impact of them by ignoring the fact the optimizer is capable of inlining such function calls during JIT just as Java VMs are. And the user-defined implicit type conversions rant largely consists of telling the story about how VB4's preset type conversions caused havoc, therefore it must suck in C#, too. I would have to agree with him on structs (nearly useless and endlessly confusing on what the proper use for them is) and the problems with unchecked exceptions (which makes programming initially easier until you actually need some exception handling), though.

Do take an evening to back through the newer features added to java lately.

True, and thank you for the clarification - But you've overlooked one particular group of users that might earn the sympathy of a Slashdotter or two - Developers.

In a mid-to-large business environment, you might well break a 16-way system up into four 4-way virtual machines. In a dev enviromenment, however, we frequenly do the exact opposite - Try to simuate conditions of 16 systems on a single physical RAM-heavy 4-way machine.

So what effect does this have, on the development side? Exactly one - Small-time developers (meaning any person/group/company with a single-digit number of physical (not virtual) human members) will now have a much harder time (legally) developing software that scales up well. Not that most dev teams bother with licensing, but still, most people prefer running legal...

Congratulations, Microsoft - With a single cryptic (and spinnable) change in server licensing, you have destroyed any legal "enterprise" level development by individuals, small teams, or anyone with a budget where "Taco Bell" counts as a significant budgetary line item.

If Microsoft really wanted to give up profit, they could have, with a single license clause, capped the cost at the physical CPU equivalent. But, oddly enough, they didn't. Hmm...

These licensing changes are for companies who are using virtualization in production environments. If you are even a small-time developer, it makes sense for you to purchase an MSDN subscription (prices range from about $500 to $2500 for a year, depending on the products you need). MSDN recently included Virtual Server amongst its offerings. A few points about MSDN subscriptions:

- You subscribe for one year, which gives you a starter set of all software on CD/DVD, plus 12 months of updates mailed to you and access to the download site.
- MSDN licenses are *perpetual*. Even after your subscription lapses, all the software you have is still fully licensed and legal. It can even be resold (must go as an entire unit though).
- Retail subscriptions come with retail keys, which generally means 10 activations. If you ever run out, though, I've found you can just give them a ring and they'll give you another key to use. Subscriptions purchased under volume licenses come with volume license keys and no activation.
- The license is a free-for-all for development and test purposes. From the EULA: "For purposes of designing, developing, testing, and demonstrating your software product(s) ... Microsoft grants you a limited, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to make, use, and install the Server Software for any individual Server Software on any number of Servers."

None of these licensing changes affect developers who are running software for development and testing purposes. Accuse Microsoft of gouging real customers if you must, but developers get a pretty sweet deal with MSDN.

I've had the chance to play with a dual-core HT'd desktop processor from Intel. It has XP Pro on it, and runs fine, showing 4 processors.

As I responded to the grandparent:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx

"On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model."

Microsoft says things are licensed on a physical CPU basis. You could put four quad-core chips in there and still be properly licensed. See this story or this document for more details.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx

"On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model."

1) This change affects only virtual processors, not physical ones. If your running VMWare or MS Virtual Server than this is for you. Otherwise move along.
2)This licencing scheme is designed to save companies money instead of giving up more for MS. For example, say you have a 16 processor system, and you VMWare it so your running 4 instances of Windows Server 2003 with SQL server. under the old system, you had to buy SQL Server for all 16 Processors. Now you would only buy for the 4 VM's
3) Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition is now licenced for 4 instances of itself per Machine. So you could run 4 Windows 2K3 Servers VM's on one server and MS says "go for it"

The Details from the Horse at MS

Actually as part of the anti-trust case (in the US) Microsoft isn't allowed to use undocumented Windows APIs in their products. If their anti-virus product uses it they have to document it on MSDN.

To quickly sum up the discussion:

1. Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows. Microsoft granted you a license (EULA) when you took possession of your computer.
2. "Subject to sections 107 through 122 [of Title 17, United States Code], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize . . . [the] distribut[ing of] copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. 106(3).
3. Section 107 contains the Fair Use Doctrine, but that doctrine doesn't apply to resales. Section 109 contains the Doctrine of First Sale, which applies here, and limits section 106:

   Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. 17 U.S.C. 109(a).

4. So if you own your copy of Windows, you are free to resell it. The catch comes when you read further down.

   The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it. 17 U.S.C. 109(d).

   If you got your copy of Windows bundled with a PC, you don't actually own it. It came with an EULA, a license to use, which is different than ownership. Microsoft is explicit about this:

   "3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold." Windows XP Home Edition EULA.

   Other Microsoft EULAs contain similar provisions.
5. You still have a license from Microsoft, which you might be able to sell. The only permission you have to do so must come from the terms of the license itself, or outside communication with Microsoft.

   "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. . . . Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms." Windows XP Home Edition EULA.

In other words, 109(d) says that 109(a) doesn't limit 106(3), and you don't get to sell your copy of Windows because you don't own it. You may be able to sell your license if you (1) are the original owner, (2) give up all the related documentation, certificates, etc. to the purchaser, and (3) get the purchaser to agree to the EULA first. I say "may be able", because even if you satisfy all three conditions, the buyer may not be able to actually use the software once it's transferred, due to technical limitations (such as tying the software to the hardware when it's installed at the factory). Of course, that's his problem, but if he can't use the software, he's not going to pay you for it.

Ok, so symantec is going after MS for an anti-trust suit? um...WTF? MS used to be notorious for security flaws. They clean up their act, try to pull together a new OS, and try to include decent security.

I'm sorry Symantec, but i don't think they're trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and get away with a monopoly. I'd say they are trying to get their act together and get past their notoriety for sucking at security.

Why pay for Norton when it can't find viruses that i need it to find? I'm sorry but i'd rather use bundled MS software, if that fails i'll look for a free alternative, i'm not gonna spend $45 or whatever Norton costs these days to get a half a$$ed virus scan. I made that mistake two years ago, i don't feel like paying them more money for more half baked protection. I'll try what MS has to offer. I think the've made some improvements.

i'll leave you with this thought, MS Anti-Spyware Beta.

-MP

In order to reduce a significant source of piracy, Microsoft has disabled online activation for COA Keys that are attached to PCs that have been pre-activated by OEMs. This change should have a minimal impact on licensed users who generally do not use their COA Key to activate the software because it has been pre-activated by the OEM. However, if a licensed end user needs to activate because the OEM pre-activation does not work as expected (e.g., after the replacement of a defective motherboard) they can do so via phone-based activation.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/deploy/oempreac.mspx

What I would like to know is just WHO is still buying anything from these people?

I wonder.

Well, unless the server was written using memory transactions, which are starting to look like a good idea for other reasons also. If you had a transactional layer on top of your NVRAM, then you could structure things to allow crash recovery as well; then you could recover from any crash at any time.

Xbox 360 only has a plain DVD drive, this means PS3 will be the only console that can play HD movies

The XBOX 360 plays HD just fine - as MOST Studios have already backed and plan to distribute HD DVD Content on regular DVDs using WMV format, just like the "T2 Extreme Edition" that was released two years or more ago.

Using WMV HD capable compression capabilities, most studios have commited to providing HD Content on Regular DVDs using the Windows HD Media format.

This is why the XBox 360 didn't need a HD-DVD player, and will actually help to promote the basic DVD using more advanced compression techniques than the VERY AGED MPEG2 format.

Goto: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia if you want to see what 5.1 or BETTER and High Definition Video that will easily fit on a dual layer standard DVD looks like.

Additionally, does anyone not see the irony? Microsoft doesn't like BlueRay because of the 'additional' content restrictions - and yet people here are like "Yeah Sony, you are making it easier to lock our movies!". WTF?

This story is not only FUD, but makes assumptions based on CRAP information.

Slashdot editors and contributors, do you even fact check or monitor each other? Your commentary and news is turning into the laughing joke of the internet.

Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, said that although Microsoft is seen as being very pro-patent at the moment, if every other software maker enforced its patents in the same way then Microsoft would find it very difficult and expensive to do business.

What do you call the Eolas lawsuit?? Inexpensive? Give me a break! More than $500 million for one patent? And you don't think Microsoft is worried about patent disputes?

In fact, why do you think that Microsoft patents so aggressively? To sue Linux? No! Historically, their extensive patent portfolio is used defensively. The problem is, defensive patents really only work against large corporations, who will usually settle rather than seeing all-out patent armageddon warfare, which just costs tons of money (e.g., Sun vs. Microsoft). Eolas is exactly the type of company that defensive patents don't work well against: small IP-holding companies looking to cash in by bringing targeted infringement lawsuits against the biggest money-makers. (Don't forget that every other browser on the planet was also infringing upon Eolas -- they just chose not to sue anybody else.)

Paranoid Linux types are always worried about Microsoft using its patents to destroy things like FAT filesystem compatibility, but that has not happened. (If you recall, the recent activity surrounding the FAT patents were initiated by Microsoft competitors, not Microsoft.) That doesn't mean it won't, but it is an important distinction to make!

Anyway, bottom line is that XML is going to be a huge patent minefield down the road; and the problem with landmines is that even the big boys step on them.

Good Luck Microsoft if you want to use Open-XML 2.0 without paying us.

I must admit, it makes it look more like they're providing a serious product rather than something made by a group of hippies and slackers.

*dives under a table with his Powerbook*

First off, Microsoft mentions in the download details for the malicious software removal tool that it is not a substitute for antivirus software. It simply scans for some of the more prevalent trojans and worms and attempts to remove them. If you look at the Microsoft knowledge base you'll note that all of the malware it currently targets are worms, trojans, or rootkits.

Second, it's amusing to me that you chose Webroot for your example since they offer SpySweeper to MSN dialup customers at no charge. In fact, my dad uses it (rather than the copy of Ad-Aware I installed for him) because it is the "official" Microsoft product.

First off, Microsoft mentions in the download details for the malicious software removal tool that it is not a substitute for antivirus software. It simply scans for some of the more prevalent trojans and worms and attempts to remove them. If you look at the Microsoft knowledge base you'll note that all of the malware it currently targets are worms, trojans, or rootkits.

Second, it's amusing to me that you chose Webroot for your example since they offer SpySweeper to MSN dialup customers at no charge. In fact, my dad uses it (rather than the copy of Ad-Aware I installed for him) because it is the "official" Microsoft product.

The argument that Rob Pike makes in A Concurrent Window System and with Luca Cardelli in Squeak: a Language for Communicating with Mice is that many of the event systems and associated state machines that we write can be much simplified by treating input multiplexing, and thus coroutine-like structures, as language primitives.

This work follows directly from Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes - a good summary can be found here. Working with CSP only a little has convinced me of how much easier so many systems tasks are in this framework than in the world of the massive state-system/event loop world.

Despite the dearth of official links (MS still doesn't 'get' the whole Internet thing, do they?!), we do now have some more authoritative sources coming online.

The reveal was in Munich today, which is part of the reason you might see less if you're only trolling around on American sites (on the U.S. dominated and controlled Web).

As for TFA, Paul Bryan is not even a Real Microsoft Executive, but Mike Nash sure is, and you can catch a couple quotes from him via some trustworthy sources.

From The New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and the International Herald Tribune: "Nash said he had seen a culture change since Bill Gates said three years ago security would be a top priority. 'I used to be begging people to pay attention to security. Now they get it. Security is part of everyone's job.'"

BG

Despite the dearth of official links (MS still doesn't 'get' the whole Internet thing, do they?!), we do now have some more authoritative sources coming online.

The reveal was in Munich today, which is part of the reason you might see less if you're only trolling around on American sites (on the U.S. dominated and controlled Web).

As for TFA, Paul Bryan is not even a Real Microsoft Executive, but Mike Nash sure is, and you can catch a couple quotes from him via some trustworthy sources.

From The New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and the International Herald Tribune: "Nash said he had seen a culture change since Bill Gates said three years ago security would be a top priority. 'I used to be begging people to pay attention to security. Now they get it. Security is part of everyone's job.'"

BG

Road Apple on the Convergence Highway: Three months with Windows Media Center (This is partial text of an article, for the full version with the pictures, email me Duke Weber dleinweber@gmail.com I'm with Stupid Gadget Jones comin' down. I had to have something with a plug, at least a battery compartment. Primal cravings make people do strange and stupid things. They made me build a Windows Media Center PC. This has been going on since I was 12. Mom would drag me to Radio Shack to buy diodes. Diodes, a gateway gadget, lead to stronger stuff. Pretty soon you're soldering everything in sight. Then stereos with speakers as big as refrigerators, wires made from single crystals of silver. Zones of audio, zones of video. DVI and HDMI and panels and plugs that no one else in the house understands, except maybe the 15 year-old girl with the 16:9 rectangular eyes. Computers everywhere. Windows and Macs and Linux. Ethernet Cat 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Routers, hubs and switches blinking under tables and in closets. Eventually the computer stuff gets lucky with the hi-fi and video heap and that is what magazines like this call "Convergence". Digital devices, music and video converging in a whole new pile of stuff with plugs that we can all go out and buy RIGHT NOW. I'd already plucked the low-hanging convergence fruit. Hang a bunch of beater laptops on network, plug 'em into stereos with he-man external sound boxes. Run iTunes all around and pat yourself on the back 'cause you are CONVERGED, and you didn't have to pay the price of a Buick for some gadget with an 80 gig drive and a blue light to do it. But when the Gadget Jones is down, you need more wire. A few months ago, I made the mistake of cruising websites that traffic in this convergence porn. The news, behold, is that Microsoft, after a few tries, now has a product that doesn't suck - Media Center Edition 2005. Mister Softee, we all know, has become the behemoth it is by selling software that sucks. It doesn't suck quite enough for you to toss it out and get a pencil and a typewriter, but it AWAYS sucks enough that you're willing to bite for the next version, which might suck a little less. If you read it on the Internet, it must be true I was ready to bite when "Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows" (www.supersite.com) told me that, unlike Media Center Editions 2002 and 2004, the new one didn't suck. This could be a two-channel HDTV TIVO, an archive for all those VHS tapes, and a DVD recording factory, I was ready to bite harder when "Build It, Tweak It, Know It" (www.extremetech.com) told me the secrets of turning the heap of computer innards in the closet into an uber-converged monster machine that would have the lesser nerds drooling on the socks in their Teva sandals. The first secret is that you need to scam your way into getting a copy of Windows XP Media Edition 2005, which is only sold to OEMs. Usually, OEMs are companies like Dell and HP. You too can be an OEM by buying some OEM computer parts to use with the OEM software. Most of 'em want you to buy a carload of cases and power supplies and motherboards to qualify as an OEM. WWW.directron.com wants to sell you a mouse. I buy the mouse and snare a shrink wrap Windows MCE 2005, plus the snazzy Microsoft remote control. $125 for the OS, $35 for the remote, $2.99 for the mouse. In the great tradition of "gadgets beget gadgets" the mouse comes with an IR receiver on a long USB wire so you can hide the humming beast in a closet. Gadgets beget lots of gadgets. I wasn't going to build some girlie man Media PC, so I scoped out Microsoft's list of deluxe pre-made Media PCs (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/ev aluation/products.mspx) I made sure that I had the best of any of them. More disks, faster AMD Athlon 64 CPU, Zalman Cooler, Gigs of memory, DVD readers & writers, video in, DVI out. The pile of packages alone was a nerd badge of courage. I can follow instructions as well as the

I call Bull,

It is not Introduced, it is announced...there is a big difference, according to this site http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/s oftware/enterprise/default.mspx it is not available until later this year/next year

Cleartype for one.

Translated, I'm saying that technology across software domains should be consistent.

Two words: Office 12.

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp

The patents listed in the above web page:

5,579,517, filed 1995-4-24, granted 1996-11-26.
5,758,352, filed 1996-9-5, granted 1998-5-26.
6,286,013, filed 1997-1-28, granted 2001-9-4.

All of these patents appear to be related to VFAT, i.e. mapping long filenames and the original 8+3 short filenames into a common name-space. Although the filing dates are different and the title for one is slightly different, the abstract for each appears to be exactly the same.

I haven't examined the claims in each patent, so I don't know how these patents differ. It might be interesting to determine what is new in the 2nd and 3rd patents, since they were filed as long as 21 months after the 1st one. I wonder what wasn't in the original VFAT implementation? Bug fixes or features?

But, these patents don't appear to cover the "old" FAT filesystem: they address the later addition of long filenames. Again, IANAL, but I think that someone that confines themselves to the original FAT format (without long filenames) would have no need to license it from Microsoft.