Slashdot Mirror

"Whoever dreamed up this rationalization is gifted."

The holes are there by design. As in security wasn't a part of the overall design. I would argue that it still isn't."

"Like all the versions that have come before, "It's more secure" for about a week after launch and .."

It's funny... this is the second place I've seen today where someone linked to that idealog article and seemed to think that Thurrott's "Boycott IE" post was new. I seem to recall something similar happening a few months ago, where someone posted a link to some article that had been posted a year and a week earlier, and people reacted as if it were only a week old.

Seriously, how hard is it to look at the date and notice the year is different?

It's worth noting that Thurrott backed off somewhat on his "boycott" stance just two days later, saying:

If you simply must use IE for some reason, you would be crazy not to upgrade to IE 7 when it comes out.

The morons from Arstechnica would say that as they pull more crap online than anybody, including impersonating others and worse. Case in point: Jeremy Reimer, one of their article writer (who has no professional years of experience in this field, nor degree or even a certification). He was shown to have impersonated others on his forums, and outright shown to be a charlatan, unable to combat the person he did that too no less, on technical grounds in this discussion here

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=189#feedbackAnchor

Reimer and all of his "great talented arstechnica" pals got their asses handed to them badly. They came following that guy around that forum and many others over time (I'd witnessed a few) and every time he just made them look like idiots when push came to shove on the grounds this field is about, technical ones. Their geek angst got the better of them. They talk a lot & spit back already known knowledge, but when push comes to shove? Their true colors came bleeding thru, after being so soundly beaten, 1 by 1, 100's of them vs. 1 person only.

"Some users will find the feature objectionable because it could give the bossman a new way to check up on employees"

What's stoping the bossman from going back through the tape archive and doing the same thing?

"or perhaps it could be exploited in some nefarious way by some nefarious person"

That shouldn't present a problem assuming that file system security can't be bypassed.

"When you access a Shadow Copy, the file and folder ACLs still apply "

"VSS takes a snapshot (aka Shadow Copy) of the state of content stored on selected volume shares"

Could get the same functionality using rsync and using symlinks for files that haven't changed. Building up a number of virtual directories.

"the user can simply view .. and recover the file without troubling the administrator"

I recall Vax/VMS saved a different version each time the file was saved. Such functionality built directly into the file system. I read here that Xerox PARC got their first with something called Cedar.

"In Cedar, files were immutable; writing to a file produced a new version of the file and file names included a version number (e.g., filename! 10). A similar idea was found in the RSX, VMS [2], and TOPS-10/-20 [6] operating systems from Digital."

Haven't any of you been playing with the Vista betas? Vista has a sort of swap file / prefetch feature that you can enable on USB flash drive. Vista first benchmarks the device, to determine if it is fast enough. Then you can create a sort of swap file on it, as big as you like.

It's part of the Vista SuperPrefetch.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Articl eID/48085/48085.html

I cannot give enough praise to The Training Camp. I just got back from their Pennsylvania facility a few days ago. I took the MCSA course. It was one of the most enriching experiences of my life. The classes definitely focus on passing the exams. But you can't really pass the exams without knowing what you're doing. I have virtually no network admin experience, but I still did well in the course. I learned how to manage a network as well as how to pass the tests. The instructors at The Training Camp literally write the books that you'll find in the computer section of all the major bookstores. Check out this article about the publishing accomplishments of the instructors. http://www.techtrain.com/us/press_release.asp?id=4 8 One of those trainers, Andrew Whitaker, was asked by Cisco to try to hack into their network and then write a book about it. Cisco isn't going to ask just anyone to do that. Another instructor not mentioned in that article is Steve Kalman. Interview and background info on him here http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=410. He teaches the CEH and CHFI courses at TTC. In addition to having nearly 40 years in the computer field, he is also an attorney. So he's an authority on computer laws. Still another instructor who has published is Roger A. Grimes. Articles by him here http://www.windowsitpro.com/Authors/AuthorID/1293/ 1293.html. Honored by Microsoft as a Most Valuable Professional http://www.trainingcamp.com/us/press/pr_02_05_04.a sp. The Training Camp is the only place for me. You won't be disappointed if you go there. It's worth every penny.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/1521 4/15214.html/

MacOS/X has a much more stable and mature core Operating System base (Mach). Mach is MUCH older (circa 1985) than the windows NT core (circa 1993), and has been changed less. For example NextStep, released in 1989, was based on Mach, and already did much of what MacOS/X does.

If you want to go back to the OSes NT and OSX are based on, the NT core is based on VMS's design (almost as much as OSX from Mach, though OSX actually uses code from Mach, whereas NT has VMS's developers) and VMS was first released in 1978. Since NT was released, its core has undergone almost no changes. The biggest one was with Plug+Play supplementing device detection and power management.

Mach (the underlying OS) was designed with security in mind. Note however, the Mach layer doesn't define security policy, it just gives you tools with which to implement such policies.

NT was designed with security in mind. Note that the NT core itself doesn't define a security policy, it just gives you the API to implement such policies. I'll admit that Microsoft has been known to have somewhat crappy defaults for security and sometimes bad tools for fixing it. This isn't really a design problem in the OS, though.

Contrast that with Windows which has serious design flaws in its interprocess communication mechanism.

There are 3 places (at most) that applications can put their files in order to be following the rules that Microsoft has been publishing since at least NT 3.1:

• The application directory. Since Win95, the standard location for these are in <system drive>\Program Files, before that <system drive>, but otherwise wherever the user picks.
• The user's profile (or home directory pre Win95) for the user's own files.
• Optionally, the system directory (<windows>\System32) for shared libraries. These can also go in the app directory (but won't be shared).

This is similar to the unix policy, except that unix usually specifies a specific dir for application binaries. I don't see how this is 'all over your system'. Doesn't OSX have any shared libraries? How are these installed? Besides, since at least the year 2000, the Windows Installer has been the standard (and recently the only MS sanctioned way) to install, which hides all these details, and allows unprivileged installation. Domain admins can even publish .msi packages on the domain which unprivileged users can install at their option (that or the admins can make installation mandatory and unattended). IIRC, the designed for Vista logo will only be possible for apps that can install unprivileged (unless they are administration type tools useless to normal users). If the article is referring to misbehaving apps, then that's hardly Microsoft's fault. Microsoft has long published 'designed for' logo requirements that are not unreasonable for their OSes.

I'm not sure how installation conventions are related to inter-process communication, though. Processes create named objects for IPC and specify their own security descriptor at that time. Any other process that wants to open that named object must be granted access according to the SD specified by the object's creator. Every type of IPC is ultimately protected by a security descriptor. Even windows, which recieve window messages exist in a desktop object which the calling process must be granted access to according to t

If they were really afraid of being noncompliant, they could probably just release the source for the various implementations in lieu of specifications

THEY DID. The commission rejected it.

Microsoft has only set it self an impossible task because its business model requires it to ride a razor's edge between giving out too much information (and giving up the home-court advantage that Microsoft's internal developers enjoy) and not enough (and facing the ire of the regulators).

Microsoft didn't set itself an impossible task. A 3rd party did. And the 3rd party set an arbitrary deadline to complete the work. And the 3rd party won't put in writing what specifically it wants done.

I'm sure the E.U. would be satisfied with the actual source

They weren't: "The Windows 'source code was never asked for nor indeed welcomed'". ( http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/4921 0/49210.html?Ad=1 )

Does none remember that Corel was bought by Microsoft? Does Microsoft not have a controlling-interest in Corel process and operations? So they dropped their Linux offers and claim to have regained value, yet have not the common courtesy to refer to Linux as a service-oriented technology? Sure Linux is a liability if the company doesn't use it for a profitable purpose. Business-101 isn't what Corel needs, because it is evident propoganda Microsoft directs through its subsidiaries it buys into. This is no different than how Microsoft inducted SCO to harass and issue false titles and false claim to Intellectual Property owners in competition.

Since when has MS released year-named products before that year?

Windows 98 release date - June 25, 1998
Windows 2000 release date - Feb 17, 2000
Office 2003 release date - Oct. 21, 2003

You can configure USB Flash Drive Manager to copy files to and from flash drives; create images of the flash drives for backup purposes (by default, the images are placed in your My Documents folder in a USB Flash Drive Backup subfolder); configure autorun capabilities on a flash drive; and enable wireless configuration settings to be stored on a flash drive.

Five Architectural Flaws in Windows Solved In Mac OS X

Apple's MacTel: TCO for wintel is DOUBLE that of mactel over 3 years

Microsoft Says that Malware Is Often Unbeatable

These come directly from my del.icio.us bookmarks tagged "apple_advocacy" ;)

I'd prefer to be a mac tech support guy for my friends/family, to a Windows tech support guy for my friends/family, ANY day ;)

/once spent 3 hours removing a botched uninstall of norton utilities on some winblows box by manually rooting through the registry
//gouging my eyes out might have almost hurt as much

This seems to be a continuation from stories posted late last year. Here's a link to an article about this very topic posted September 1, 2005. http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Ar ticle/ArticleID/47566/windowspaulthurrott_47566.ht ml

Microsoft supports Perl and lots of UNIX stuff. Check out the new SUA built into Windows Server 2003 R2 (well, it is a free download update).

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=8b4987e6-d960-49a2-bf52-d3fbd654254c&Displa yLang=en

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Articl eID/48955/48955.html

If Oracle does indeed proceed with its version of Linux, either from acquiring a Linux firm or rolling out its own, it will no doubt be competing with MS. Oracle has had many battles with MS in the
past, but there hasn't been much development recently.

I wonder if there's a more personal side (Ellison vs Gates) to this decision or does this decision make commerical sense. It would be bad if this move distracts Oracle from their main competitive advantage: databases.

The other possibility is that it may be thinking of a Use-our-OS-and-our-app-will-run-better tactic.

And it should be noted that in the antitrust trial, the findings of fact said that one of the ways in which MS abused its monopoly power was by charging OEMs per processor, not per copy of Windows shipped.

My boss at the time actually downloaded and printed the whole thing :) He is one of those, "I hate Microsoft, but I exclusively use their products, and make a living off of them" kind of guys.

One thing I remember from back then was how MS screwed over IBM. They sold IBM Windows at a higher price because they had a competing operating system, OS/2, and strongarmed them into trying to not let them let out the secret that there were other OSes besides Windows. Also, they double screwed IBM by delaying their OEM licenses until after the "back to school" sales rush.

I actually forgot about that crap. No wonder I quit that job, and quit using MS products soon after that.

What a lowpoint in my life. More info about that wonderful company and the "findings of fact" here:

    http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=18991&DisplayTab=Article

http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/m/bsod.pn g http://www.windowsitpro.com/Files/301/Screen_01.gi f http://www.pcstats.com/articleimages/200409/BSOD_2 .gif

• object oriented desktop
  
• object based file system
  
• true pre-emptive OS
  
• true SMP OS
  
• TCP Multi-cast capabilities
  

Isn't that just a really bad "security" model.

Not quite. Real figured out a way to get their DRM'd content onto an iPod and Apple sued them. Quick link: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/4334 5/43345.html?Ad=1

Wow, the stupidity of some comments on Slashdot. Maybe do a little research before bashing?

The memory you allocate to SuperFetch will be compressed and encrypted so it's secure and can't be used on other machines. And it's double-buffered to disk, so there are no reliability problems. "You can pull it right out and use it like a typical USB stick on another PC if you'd like," Aul noted.

Microsoft got a pansy settlement with the DoJ because the DoJ "won" by too large of a margin.

It's almost like they shot the moon in the legal system; by loosing as badly as they did, they drove the judge to literally foam at the mouth, and even though the appeals court did not find any errors in Judge Jackson's decision making, they revoked his judgement because of his extreme behavior unbecoming of a federal judge.

He liked MS (and MS executives) to the Mob. He's accused them of lying and deceiving intentionally. Even after he was removed from the case, he didn't change his tune; they little drove him to the "blood boiling angry" point.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=20269&DisplayTab=Article

Here's some good quotes: (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253250.html )
Among the examples, in the Jan. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"

In the book, "World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies," author Ken Auletta writes that Jackson took aim at the appeals court that is now hearing the Microsoft case. The court "made up about 90 percent of the facts on their own," Jackson said of the appellate judges' decision in another case.

Also in that book, Auletta writes that Jackson likened Microsoft's "proclamation of innocence to those of four members of the Newton Street Crew convicting in a racketeering, drug-dealing and murder trial he had presided over five years before."

Notice that the appeals court said that although the appearance of bias was enough for them to return the case to a lower court, they "did not find evidence of bias."

Perhaps if Microsoft had not of been so brazen, if they had not gotten Judge Jackson quite so riled up, Microsoft would have been broken up. It's bizarre; but they didn't win the case on merit; they got the judgement overturned on the fact that their trial judge was so furious with them he couldn't hold his tongue.

They shot the moon, and it actually worked out. Bizarre; but you can bet your ass the next Microsoft antitrust judge will not operate like that.

It's too bad, really; Judge Jackson showed a surprising grasp of the issues. One can only hope the next judge has similar technical aptitude.

"Windows Vista will also bring changes to secure communications. With Vista, we'll finally see the use of 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) to secure HTTP traffic. Vista will also use the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OSCP) for speedier certificate status checking and will implement some extensions to TLS that are outlined in Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 3546."

XP Pro: 2011, XP Home: at least 2008
http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Ar ticle/ArticleID/49056/windowspaulthurrott_49056.ht ml

And one more article that seems to indicate it will be possible with Vista, but that XP would require some tricks to get working. I would suspect that if Linux does not yet support it, it will very quickly.

Hmmm - tiniest bit of evidence....

VMS
V+1=W
M+1=N
S+1=T

VMS +1 = WNT

Granted it's not really evidence of any sort, however, if you read around the internet, there are actually bits and pieces of evidence to be found.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=4494

http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/Windows-NT_i s_VMS_re-implemented.html

Now, whether any of it or not is factual, I cannot determine with any certainty, but there are certainly some clues to be found, and some items that make you go Hmmmm.

"What a poorly-written article. It's like they just cruised through Wikipedia and copy-and-pasted a bunch of stuff." - by User 956 (568564) on Friday December 16, @12:30AM

What did you expect? Jeremy Reimer the author of that article doesn't even have a degree related to the field of computer science, and not even a certification in it, and certainly not years of professional experience hands on in the trenches.

Ask him yourself, he won't deny that allegation. He didn't here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=125

And he constantly avoided questions asked of him there as well regarding technical issues, and instead posted libellous jpg files and mp3 songs about the person asking him questions, and got himself busted for email harassing others there as well.

It's there in plain print, and Jeremy Reimer is just what you said - a hack that reads what others write and spits it back out: Typical arstechnica regurgitation.

Root kits have been around since the early 1990s but were solely the domain of Unix variants until the late '90s, when the Windows developer community began exploring root kit techniques and several programmers published root kit toolkits that other programmers could modify and extend.

The term "rootkit" (also written as "root kit") originally referred to a set of recompiled Unix tools such as "ps", "netstat", "w" and "passwd" that would carefully hide any trace of the intruder that those commands would normally display, thus allowing the intruders to maintain "root" on the system without the system administrator even seeing them.

Generally now the term is not restricted to Unix based operating systems, as tools that perform a similar set of tasks now exist for non-Unix operating systems such as Microsoft Windows (even though such operating systems may not have a "root" account).

I can understand you wanting to avoid criminals. I guess that would make Microsoft the prefered choice. After all they never screw over partners or customers

Except for the fact that Ball had spent all sorts of money to be in compliance and found out that they were still able to miss a few packages. Yeah, Ball is a good example of what companies should not be.

It's always wonderful when someone rips a web page in its entirety without citing any source. The first result from a Google search for the quote can be found here; this page credits a no-longer-existent page.

If I recall correctly, the Dreamcast launch wasn't all rosy either. Then there is the dreaded "Disc read error" of the PS2.

No, this isn't for every situation. Common hardware is a must (or at least a real help). But, it does neatly solve other common issues, like system builds.

A freind of mine does just this on his home system about once a month (well, and at work...as he says, we're not in the business of installing an OS by hand anymore). I'm going to take the same plunge. Pick an automated system rebuild method, test it, build new systems with it and rebuild your systems on some sort of regular basis. There are lots of caveats to the Microsoft methods (ADS/RIS... single partition systems, you need BOOTP, blah blah blah). And, the image-based methods can be tricky (Ghost? Oh come now). Other options like nLite might help, too.

It may not be what the doctor ordered, but it will simplify your life when you need to build a new workstation. And, if one gets pokey beyond the reach of the other tools mentioned, blow on a new image. Plus, if you're using XP, you can use folder redirection to keep the user files someplace else, so you don't neccesarily have to rely on draconian policies regarding where they should save files (well, you can't let them save files just anyplace, so a few policies may be in order).

Is this the ultimate insult that the best way to manage Windows workstations is to automate reinstalling them? Well, maybe, depending on your viewpoint. But, it is what it is, so we build automated methods to learn to live with the limitations.

Humbly submitted, here are some of my bookmarks on the subject:
http://www.cmu.edu/computing/andrew-windows/andrew -ris-server.html
http://ani.sourceforge.net/
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;299441
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lotso/1863.html
http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/realmen/
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howi tworks/management/remoteover.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/risover.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windo wsserver2003/library/TechRef/3983c4a4-e6ff-4664-84 25-28ec740474b1.mspx
http://unattended.sourceforge.net/
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=7109
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windo ws2000serv/evaluate/featfunc/intmiror.mspx

Who knows, at this rate, it might not be out until 2008

Ring 0: kernel level
Ring 1: apps level
Ring 2: user level

Microsoft did something similar to this with NT 3.5/3.51, and these releases were quite robust.

However, for NT 4.0 they moved the display drivers and GUI to ring 0 to increase performance. This created huge stability issues as buggy display drivers (and coincidentally a sub-optimal IP stack) caused NT 4.0 systems to be extremely fragile. The anticipated performance increases were eclipsed by downtime caused by reboots and BSODs. Some of these issues were not patched sufficiently until the release of Service Pack 6/6a. There's an unintentionally funny article here that talks about the changes. I love this particular quote:

"In all my testing with NT 4.0, I haven't encountered a graphic-induced crash. Moving the heap to the kernel makes sense. Upgrade!"

/adjusts the onion on his belt

LIMIT is not very efficient either in comparrison to writing some decent T-SQL.

In fact, here's about a bazillion ways to do it easy

As I see it MS has warmed up to open source more in the last 6 months than slashdotters have.

I think you've been drinking too much M$ marketing koolaid. M$ has $40,000,000,000+ per year of catching up to do, money taken largely because of dubious business practices past and present. Their DRM efforts alone make your comment incorrect.

reich

I hereby invoke Godwin's law

Please stop trying to represent slashdot contributers in particular and OSS supporters in general as being monolithic. It's an outright lie. M$ marketdroids love to do this but the truth is M$ as a company is far more monolithic than the OSS community and the borg icon /. uses is entirely appropriate.

It's also incorrect to state /. doesn't have a diversity of opinion and anybody who claims otherwise is either a liar or a marketing zealot. Amongst many other things closed source software is often recommended by contributers. If you want a truly monolothic opinion head over to www.microsoft.com. Microsoft's pathetic idea of diversity of opinion is a site like Paul Thurrott.

Like it or not, /. is an open source news site and will push open source viewpoints. If you want corporate propaganda please head for one of the numerous corporate propaganda websites out there. I for one want some balance from those marketing parasites. Their attempts to manipulate /. readers are just one more example of their parasitic behaviour; I get enough of their dreck forced down my throat in other media.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

NT / XP / Vista - Built off of OS/2
I beleive you menat to say "Built off of VMS" here.

Philipp & I have a little disagreement on things, and I was not with his policies about one of them (defending myself vs. a fool named Jay Little from Arstechnica, who came there nitpicking @ my posts & floored himself IMMEDIATELY on his first attempt & second one as well on technical issues he made huge blunders on in taking 'potshots' @ things I wrote there in the past).

E.G. (direct quotes, long read at this URL, but FUNNY as hell @ points) ->

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=124

Just search Jay Little on that page, & see exact quotes of his shenanigans... following me from THAT site, to NTCompatible.com, & flooring himself BADLY there, but causing trouble (his main goal) nevertheless.

They say a man's strength is judged by the strengths of his enemies:

That said?

I must not be TOO strong, because as you can see above??

Jay Little, technically in this field? He is VERY weak!

APK

P.S.=> Philipp told me to ignore him, but, I would not. It's NOT my style/my way, period. When I am wrong, I will admit it, but not when I know I am not... & can defend myself on that account easily.

So, I defended myself (heh, didn't even HAVE to really, read the above URL & search Jay Little on that page from WindowsIT Pro mag) as did others from NTCompatible.com in fact, @ that website NTCompatible.com including one of their mods/ops/admins in DosFreak!

To Philipp via email?

I merely stated that I had every right to defend myself vs. Jay Little since he only came there to cause problems, & I did so in a technically correct & accurate manner vs. Jay Little's mistakes...

Still, Philipp banned myself (though he said he would lift my ban) but permanently banned Jay Little for starting trouble. I did not merit a ban, so I left there!

Go figure! Write Philipp yourself, & see if he states otherwise, I wager he will not, & no skin off my behind - the web's a HUGE place, & many spots to go to online where that type of hassles are NOT "snuffed out" like my merely defending myself (with help since others there agreed with me, & not Jay Little)... apk

This is just one more clue that Microsoft has given up on the Windows code base, and that Vista will be based on BSD code.

To review the previous clues:

First, there was Microsoft's announcement that Vista (Longhorn) will use UNIX-like User Permissions:

See Longhorn to use UNIX-like User Permissions

Why would Microsoft do that, when even many Linux supporters agree that Windows permissions are finer grained? But if the new Windows is BSD-based, Microsoft would be forced to do that, or face rewriting a lot of the underlying BSD code.

Second, there was Microsoft's announcement that Unix compatibility will be "built in" to Vista:

See: Microsoft to Stop Releasing Services for Unix

Third, there is the fact that Microsoft ported .Net to BSD, as well as pushing for other software to be released under a BSD license ("All the better to steal it, my dear.").

Fourth, there was Steve Ballmer talking about the Vista "reset" which started around 18 months ago.

See: Ballmer Pushes Microsoft Innovation, Talks Vista Reset

Does anyone really think that Microsoft could succeed in doing a major rearchitecturing of the Windows code now, in only 18 months, after they had tried and failed to do so many times over the last decade?

Besides, when has Microsoft ever shown the confidence or ability to succeed on their own? DOS, Windows NT, Internet Explorer, and .Net, were all based on other companies' products, or were developed by teams hired from outside.

And now we have this new report that another basic feature of Unix, symbolic links, will be part of Vista.

Given all this evidence, I am fairly convinced that Vista will be based on one of the Open Source BSD distributions. Unlike Apple, however, Microsoft will probably try to keep it a secret, and claim it as their own innovation.

What will be the result?

On one hand, a BSD-based Vista might be a good thing, since it will result in a more stable, and less virus-prone Windows.

On the other hand, if Microsoft remains true to their history, they'll just screw it up with all the lock-in features they'll add on top. Like the VMS-and-OS/2-based Windows NT, which started out strong (version 3.51) then gradually degraded, I expect the benefits of a BSD-based Vista to be temporary.

Then again, Microsoft is just playing for time, as they continue their strategy of locking in the Internet. Thus, they only need Windows to be better for long eneough to fool their customers, again, while they tie them up with a new set of decommoditized protocols (.Net, Palladium, DRM, Windows Media, Office 12, and so on).

The fact that most of your settings are stored in the registry, makes things a lot harder to do from the command line.

Um, you're completely wrong. Apparently you didn't read the article.

Monad uses providers to make much of the system directly accessible from the command-line, including the registry. What this means is that MSH mounts the registry as a filesystem, allowing sysadmins to query for and set registry entries as .NET objects. I'd say that paradigm is much more powerful for script writers than trying to parse configuration text files, either from the command-line or from scripts.

Two more articles that mention the "100% Pure Java" version of Navigator:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/1762 1/17621.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282, 9310,00.html

Winamp was good because there was virtually nothing wasted in the display

Then you haven't seen the "new and improved" Winamp 5. ;-)

When will Microsoft and Real catch up?

Uh? WMP 9

I haven't seen any Microsoft easter eggs in a long time. Rumor has it that due to government requirements for software, "Microsoft can't include undocumented features, including Easter eggs, in its software." This started with Windows XP, but I haven't seen Office easter eggs since the legendary Excel 97 flight simulator.

Not like Linux has been any more fun -- I think the printer on fire error was removed at some point. Spoil sports.

On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."

"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."

I hate to stop you in the middle of your hyperventilating anti-Microsoft fest, but the article is wrong--Microsoft ISN'T doing any Play-Once DVDs. You're ranting against nothing.

But hey, it got you +5 Insightful on Slashdot, thereby illustrating just how completely meaningless article comments are after all...

Surprise, surprise. Sure would be if fact-checking was a requirement of being an editor around here.

Microsoft Denies Single-Play DVD Plan

On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."

"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."

Microsoft Denies Single-Play DVD Plan

On Tuesday, Microsoft refuted earlier reports that it plans to introduce single-play DVDs aimed at curbing music piracy. A Microsoft representative told me there is no single play DVD initiative at the company, denying a report that first appeared in "The Business."

"It appears there is considerable confusion coming from [the] article in The Business about features within Windows Media DRM that allow for single-play of promotional digital materials," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "This has been an option for content owners to use for some time with the Windows Media format--but not for the MPEG2 format found on DVDs. Windows Media DRM technology allows for a wide range of business models and scenarios, but it's important to realize that this is at the discretion of the content owner to implement and that the market will dictate whether or not these features are compelling enough for consumers to make a purchase."

Did you know, that Jeremy Reimer (of you OSY site there @ pegasus3d.com no less) admitted to impersonating me on his website? Right here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=124

--------------

"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005

--------------

That's right. See for yourself there, it's plain-jane quotes of his own words (my favorite tactic along with facts)...

Sad!

Read on, that part about him ONLY gets better as we go... This is so others can consider the source & all that... it's arstechnica/osy hilarity, @ its finest! I posted that earlier here anyhow, your ADD mental problems must have prohibited you from recalling it, right?

Well there tis again for your reference!

Plus, all that, in ADDition to his ISP busting him for email harassing me as well... he's touched! Remind YOU of anyone, hehe?

It's ALL there on that page url above anyways.

E.G. -> Some weird stuff, almost as bad as your 'secret admirer' internet weirdo psycho stalker profile you keep of ME on YOUR site... that's creepy stuff man, honestly! I hope you realize that... this from YOUR site, about me:

http://paperlined.org/apps/slashdot/anonymous_APK [paperlined.org]

lol! Flaky stuff imo, & as I noted above? Way, way off about me on many accounts!

Some of which like saying I have narcissistic something or other, and you admitting your fruity in the brain with ADD? Hell, that's funny man, it TRULY is!

Jeremy Reimer also wrote childish libellous songs about me, & more too (like edited photos etc.)... & the strange part, the really weird part??

The guy's 33 years of age - the "sheer maturity" of Arstechnica/OSY forums people, lol, eh?

Like I said, it's up there @ that URL!

Ah, anyhow:

Oh & Yea - My job's just fine. I like it! Forensics stuff, & data security etc. in nature MOSTLY...

PLUS, There is no "making up lawyers" in my world, not @ all. I keep one on retainer in fact, it's worth it just in case etc. & for GOOD reasons!

(This is because I enter into contracts & early on a decade or so ago? Well, I got burned once pretty bad, being told I would get one wage, & then being paid, lol (got suckered) minimum wage one time because my headhunter burnt me, I never signed off a contract with him (written one, all verbal)).

Shit like that, lol, (I can laugh about it now, my bad, it was 10 years back now)? Teaches you lessons!

I do have work though, pretty cool job (not coding as much as I would like to be doing) but more "forensics" in nature, & for a HUGE financial firm (which shall remain nameless, I don't give out that kind of info., not until job is done/thru etc. @ least). :)

* Risk mgt./Anonymity & all that... unlike your posting your personal weirdness about me here (which is WAY off base stuff... flaky actually, but coming from you, after I know now you do have mental issues & probably are on somekind of meds (are you?)) here in my P.S. below & the other paperlined.org url about me above... lol, Well, man... I dunno about you! Again - "Dr. Arkham Asylum" would be a GOOD nickname/handle for you imo, lol!

(Especially with YOUR trying to 'diagnose me' medically on your page url up there on your site, lol... that's CERTAINLY rich! Pot calling the kettle black? Oh, lol, hell yea, absolutely!)

I would like to see your PhD in Psychiatry &/or Psychology first though, might lend credence to your bottom-line @ that URL above about me on your site, lol!

* :)

(And, again - if you don't like what I write? Heck, again - ADD & all on your end, so I have to repea

"The fact that so many people have written songs about you, made petitions about you, written webpages about you, etc. indicates that there's wide agreement that you're different. It's not just me saying that." - by interiot (50685) on Thursday September 22, @03:59PM

Ever heard the saying "consider the source"? Well, now you have... & making libellous statements as folks from arstechnica like Jay Little & Jeremy Reimer have?? Well, want to see what & where it got them??

See here, 2nd post down, where their own ISP/BSP's & HOSTING PROVIDERS agreed with me, & burned them BOTH for it @ Windows IT Pro magazine forums:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=124

Jay Little was also removed from his hosting provider there on page 124, see the facts on that as well, for violating his terms of service with CrystalTech.com for it... as well as making his "PETITION" (childish/insane) that "APK MUST BE PUT TO DEATH"... for what?

He came & attacked me @ Windows IT Pro forums, made SO many technical blunders & mistakes (as well as saying he hacked my system (b.s.) & got my sourcecode (more b.s.)) he was run off from there, & pursued me to another forums I went to, & burned himself SO badly on technical issues in his first 3 postings there & had others from arstechnica (dosfreak) chastize him for it.

He's lost all credibility/standing he had in this field imo. He blew it & made SO many mistakes, it is no small wonder he resorted to childish antics... he only ended up paying for it.

Jeremy Reimer was busted by his ISP Shaw.ca for email harassing me as well, impersonating me on his website forums (which he admitted to & is quoted there no less), making up libellous pictures & songs about me!

This is the behavior of a sane, rational, mature 33 year old? Answer me that.

Need more? Read that page's 2nd post by myself, it is ALL there & you can verify my statements there easily enough. They are fact.

No conspiracy theory paranoia here, just facts - care to dispute those?

Yes, and as far as the "Arstechnica/OSY" viewpoint? LOL, so what & who cares?? After 5 years of them keeping this up, it will only end up with the ones doing it looking childish, immature, stupid, & possibly worse should I care to pursue it in other ways.

Above all:

Don't you possess enough intelligence to realize that if someone has to do childish things like impersonate me on his website forums, make edited pictures of me libelling myself, as well as libelling me in a childish song which he ripped off from South Park no less??

Come on!

LOL - "Wake up, smell the coffee", & realize you're not fooling ANYONE with that crap.

(All of which is fact & Reimer paid for it with his ISP Shaw.ca email harassing me also & was stopped in it)

Why are they doing this? I am not sure, I think they are sick in the head to be honest about it!

See, I have taken those same people, who attacked me first EVERY TIME as you have here, & sent them into the scrap heap SO many times with facts & in technical debate @ spots other than this online? It is almost scary how easy it was.

They are just still stinging in humiliation is my guess, having to resort to childish antics like the ones I mention above... they only end up paying for it.

They keep it up, not I... just as YOU have here in fact. You're not fooling anyone!

APK

P.S.=> I have trouble believing you when you say you apologize, or will stop this lunacy on your end attacking me here, because you said you'd stop before... have you?

What irrational about pointing out that you & yours constantly start crap with me as is evidenced here:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157615