Slashdot Mirror

Fat lot of good those patents do. Microsoft is still making $2 billion anually from Android licensing agreements.

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft...

And when buying Android you get to support Microsoft to the tune of 2 billion dollars per year.

LINK | LINK 2 | LINK 3

Speaking of SGI, they're still selling hardware (despite being sold and rebranded ... as ... themself?)

I'd count SGI for the sake of this argument.

I guess in a lot of these cases we end up on a semantic discussion of what constitutes a 'company.'

Is it the people? Jobs=dead; Wozniak=gone; Wayne=long gone.

Is it their primary business?
In that case, Apple is now a phone company.
http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/...

..or see p. 25
http://files.shareholder.com/d...

Apple's management (notably Steve Jobs) and some people who work for Apple used to work at NeXT. When NeXT needed a compiler, they chose to base their work on GCC. NeXT got caught distributing the GCC Objective-C frontend in violation of the GPL in what Brad Kuhn (longtime FSF employee and GPL violations enforcer) called a "calculated" infringement. It's reasonable to consider that when Jobs and company lost that fight they decided to get away from GPL'd software because they had experience with a copyright holder who defended their license. Sadly, Apple is building quite a record of copyright infringement. Apple got caught distributing VLC and GNU Go in violation of the GPL. Apple also got caught commercially infringing upon some writers' copyright. So perhaps Apple's switch from GCC toward a non-copylefted free compiler has at least as much to do with control over the user as any technical issues. After Apple's other illegal and unethical behavior, maybe Apple is just getting tired of the bad press.

But it's clear that differing values are at the heart of this issue; not having Apple use GCC doesn't "harm GCC" at all. The fight for software freedom was and is the reason for the GNU Project including starting GCC. Apple is welcome to help improve and distribute free software, including allowing its users to share in that freedom. This isn't a popularity contest no matter how much Eric Raymond and other open source advocates want to frame the issue in that way. As RMS said, "If that enables GCC to "win", the victory would be hollow, because it would not be a victory for what really matters: users' freedom."

Tell that to the linux developers who Microsoft has claimed ownership of their code and demanding licenses on code they did not write.

I had to look it up... http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft...

Ugh, another one of those posts from someone who hasn't used MS products since 1999 yet feels qualified to comment on them in 2014.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micr...

I read about this yesterday on zdnet and Win7 has always been available from the major OEMs

That may be so but Win7 laptops were no longer on the shelves in the mass retail stores. Only Win8. They force fed the market until we vomited out Metro, heads spinning backwards and tongues snarking like Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Hardly the response they wanted from consumers. And don't get me started on the infamous crucifix penetration scene ......

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, read this article by Ed Bott.

In short, this is just a marketing stunt, OEMs are still allowed to keep selling Windows 7 machines for quite a while yet and the number of Win7 machines that HP are selling hasn't actually increased (in fact, it's gone down by 1 - from 4 in August to 3 now).

Now we've sorted that out, I'll let you all get back to the regular programme of bashing Windows 8... :)

I read about this yesterday on zdnet and Win7 has always been available from the major OEMs:

Under Microsoft's sales lifecycle, big OEMs like HP can continue to sell Windows 7 PCs until at least October 2014. Every major PC maker takes advantage of that opportunity, continuing to offer a selection of Windows 7 PCs today. In addition, business buyers can purchase a PC with a Windows 8 Pro license and exercise downgrade rights to run Windows 7 instead. That's a longstanding policy that Microsoft has allowed for more than a decade.

Nothing but marketing tactics from HP, move along, nothing to see here...

MS has promised that they won't release a patch to disable activation and those servers are going dark too.

"A spokesperson confirmed that activations will still be required for retail installations of Windows XP post April 8. "Windows XP can still be installed and activated after end of support on April 8,""

I did, also read this politician calling for banning open source and anonymizing software. The precedent is set, just wait a few months.

If Pwn2Own has taught us anything, its that all systems have driveby exploits

This is simply not accurate. First, pwn2own has been focused on browsers, rather than the whole OS the past few years. The last time they focused on OS was in 2008. Linux was the ONLY operating system that was not cracked. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/29/linux-becomes-only-os-to-escape-pwn-2-own-unscathed/

Second, the ONLY browser and OS combination that was not defeated in the most recent contest in 2013 was Chrome on linux-based Chrome OS. A Windows based Chrome install was defeated. The OS very clearly made a difference in security. http://www.zdnet.com/linux-triumphant-chrome-os-resists-cracking-attempts-7000012331/ $3.14 million dollars is a lot of incentive, a hell of a lot more than a free macbook.

Sorry to sound like a fanboy, since obviously no system is entirely secure. But pwn2own's very small sample set specifically shows that linux is more secure.

Don't forget to look for double shielded cables to protect you from viruses too.

Compared to a Mac with the same specs?

Form factor is a spec for some people you know. Some people want a really small form factor computer. Some people don't care.

Yeah you didn't pay anything.

Which is pure bullshit. Everyone pays for Windows in the cost of a new computer. They just don't know that they do as it is rolled into the price of a computer. Proof of this is that you can request a refund for Windows.

One good thing I can say about Dell is that they seem to be granting refunds for Windows, but only on new systems (not refurbished). The key to getting the refund is to politely contact them after you have received your new PC, and state that you have read the Windows license agreement on your screen, and are following the instructions and asking for a Windows refund.

You also probably got a box with a design closer to what you want (better graphics card but smaller drive? You can do that. More USB on the front but no bluray? You can do that. Etc).

How do you know what my requirements are? You don't.

I'm still using mine from 2008. An upgrade isn't even on my radar.

This may come as a surprise to you, but your single anecdote only matters to you, and is quite irrelevant to the real world.

In Another Bad Sign For Microsoft, HP Aims Its New Android PC At The Enterprise

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/hp-has-a-new-android-pc-for-businesses-2014-1

The enterprise case for Android desktops

http://www.citeworld.com/development/22850/android-desktops-enterprise

Six reasons why Android PCs can be disruptive

http://www.zdnet.com/six-reasons-why-android-pcs-can-be-disruptive-7000024845/

And most importantly, Preston Gralla's opinion:

Why Android PCs are doomed to fail

http://blogs.computerworld.com/pcs/23379/why-android-pcs-are-doomed-fail

Of course, Dice's Slashdot refuses to discuss stories about Android PCs because their sponsors don't want them to.

The incidence rate is attenuation from holding my iPhone4 the wrong way, but actually being a low-level monkey in the industry has made me privy to much dirt.

See, it's not about a 0% defect rate. It's about actually verifying the drawings, or prototyping and measuring out what SPICE said would be okay, or actually getting out of your fucking chairs and doing old-fashioned detective work. You know, one of those things engineers are paid to do? You ever see a fully-retarded drawing with mounting bolts the size of Goodyear Blimps signed off by 4 levels of engineers including the engineering manager?

I have. And, man, you're lazy idiots. You're educated idiots, but lazy and not worth much nonetheless. Anybody could replace a mechanical engineer with a community college kid who passed drawing 101 and 102 and get more productivity at less cost.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Forgotten how to use Google?

http://www.zdnet.com/the-guessing-game-begins-over-skydrives-new-name-7000022744/

You could have just said "I did some googling, here's what I found".

Forgotten how to use Google?

http://www.zdnet.com/the-guessing-game-begins-over-skydrives-new-name-7000022744/

As we have stated previously, meta-data is NOT data

Except when companies want to release metadata such as the number of national security orders received, in which case this one integer is so sensitive that they are forced to drop the lowest 10 significant bits and only report it in bands of 1,000. It's safe to assume that the NSA gets to store all the bits in their integers.

And to add to my previous post, Gibson Security informed them of this hole in August and were ignored. In what way is waiting more than 4 months, letting exploit code be posted and user data be leaked before you actually do something a "correct response"?

I knew I was going to see this here. Disastrous12 year old software. For the record system builders were stilled allowed to install XP on new netbooks up until October 22, 2010, and new machines were still being cleared from inventory Christmas 2011. So it is still pretty new to a few people. Up until three years ago it was still new software. That is not very old for a desktop installation.

But that doesn't play into your "not Microsoft's fault stupid people won't update their software every decade" theme you have to have going on here, does it? Now it's a matter of people getting jacked out of what they paid for sooner than a reasonable expectation, on hardware that won't even run the upgrade. Completely screws up your flow. Now it's not their fault. Sorry for ruining your party.

I put the blame on the system builders then for putting a 10 year old OS on a brand new machine. Windows 7 was already the current OS in 2010/2011 so there was no excuse for putting down XP in the first place.

I knew I was going to see this here. Disastrous12 year old software. For the record system builders were stilled allowed to install XP on new netbooks up until October 22, 2010, and new machines were still being cleared from inventory Christmas 2011. So it is still pretty new to a few people. Up until three years ago it was still new software. That is not very old for a desktop installation.

But that doesn't play into your "not Microsoft's fault stupid people won't update their software every decade" theme you have to have going on here, does it? Now it's a matter of people getting jacked out of what they paid for sooner than a reasonable expectation, on hardware that won't even run the upgrade. Completely screws up your flow. Now it's not their fault. Sorry for ruining your party.

Hi, NSA, I hope you have a good day!

I can see variations of these being sold without informing the consumer of their real spying capabilities.

Power Pwn:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/07/22/0335223/the-darpa-funded-power-strip-that-will-hack-your-network
http://pwnieexpress.com/
http://pwnieexpress.com/blogs/news
http://www.zdnet.com/power-pwn-this-darpa-funded-power-strip-will-hack-your-network-7000001331/
(PDF) http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cbp072312.pdf

The AARD never worked in a shipped version of Windows. Stop getting worked up.
And Netscape made plenty of big mistakes, including this one http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Not to mention that the code was hugely bloated, that Mozilla Firefox is still trying to fix, after ~15 years. An OS that didn't ship with a browser would be laughed out of the market.

There are plenty of such stories about Apple or Google too, but they're not pushed like the MS ones seem to be.

For example, see how Google squashed Skyhook
http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/

Aliyun and Acer prevented from launching a phone because of the secret rules of the "Open" Handset Alliance.
http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launching-aliyun-phone-in-china-7000004246/

Apple and the famed 30% cut of even sales from Apps, an example of how they used someone's OSS code in Safari and then banned them from the app store:
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/

Yet you hate on MS and think of Google as a savior. Tell us, what is YOUR interest against Microsoft that you're spreading lies and FUD? The fact that your posts are modded up is the reason that Slashdot is losing readership as even the circlejerk echochamber gets bored with the same hating posts and posters.

Any evidence for you claim?

Empirically, when I disable 3rd party cookies and visit a web site with Safari, I see a large amount of 3rd party cookies. Try something juice like the LA Times which has crap tons of advertising sites.

So, assuming my instance isn't singularly broken, I conclude Safari does a piss-poor job of blocking 3rd party cookies.

Google and others figured a way around it, and in my experience, it's essentially useless. Hell, Google paid a fine for having done so.

Summary is in present tense, but per the article, this applies only to older versions of Safari (6.0.5 on Lion and Mountain Lion.) The current version of Safari is 7 (on Mavericks) and 6.1 (on Lion and Mountain Lion.)

And to be perfectly clear...the current versions, 6.1 and 7, do NOT have this issue.
http://www.zdnet.com/safari-on-mac-os-exposes-web-login-credentials-7000024287/

So the news is basically, "Older version of software has bug which is patched in current version."

The major patent free video codecs (Theora, VP8, etc) are largely attempts to recreate/modify existing MPEG video codecs to get around the patents of the aforementioned original MPEG codec.

Theora is based on VP3, which was developed by On2 and released in 2001. VP3 was based on various novel ideas developed by On2.

The end results are codecs that aren't appreciably novel compared to the MPEG codec they're going up against

On2/Google hold patents on their work around the VP series of codecs, and thus have novel developments that are part of those codecs but are not part of MPEG.

at the same time it's not even clear (from a legal perspective) whether these codecs really are patent-free, or if they're infringing on the MPEG-LA's patents anyhow

The MPEG-LA have abandoned their claims against VP8. What you need to ask now is, does MPEG infringe on patents that are held by a third party who is not a member of MPEG-LA?

...in the meantime it's questionable that these codecs can be so very similar to the MPEG codecs and somehow not fall under the associated patents.

Only by you, and people like you, which constantly trot out the same tired old FUD about patents. To be crystal clear:

1. On2 filed their own patents as they developed the VP series of codecs.
2. On2 were never an MPEG-LA member and thus no cross-licensing agreement exists between On2/Google and MPEG-LA.
3. If VP8 & VP9 are not "sufficiently different" to MPEG, then MPEG was just as at risk of infringing a Google held patents than VP8 or VP9 was to infringe on a MPEG-LA patent.
4. Third party non-MPEG-LA members may additionally hold patents which mat apply to MPEG and/or VP8 or VP9. No amount of MPEG-LA licenses or promises from Google will cover your liability should someone sue you for infringing such a patent.
5. MPEG-LA spent a good year trying to build a patent pool against VP8. They got nowhere. The MPEG-LA & Google reached an agreement in May which settled this once and for all: MPEG-LA could not build a patent pool, will give up efforts to build a patent pool, and have granted a license to Google for a handful of patents held by MPEG-LA members.
6. The license granted to Google by MPEG-LA allows Google to sub-license those patents, which they happily do. So if you use VP8, you're covered by the same patent license that Google has from the MPEG-LA.

The patents situation, of which there wasn't much of one in the first place, has been settled for a long time, The only gray areas apply just as equally to MPEG than they do to VP8 & VP9. So perhaps you can move on, now.

Australia is not the US or UK. The average copper diameter is smaller, the number of breaks in the line until it reaches the home can be a factor, the line length, age and quality is different.
VDSL2 is great in the lab but in the real world the speed numbers up and down can drop off.
http://www.zdnet.com/nbn-co-cant-guarantee-libs-50mbps-speed-promise-report-7000023901/
"....only realistically be offered two guaranteed speeds: 12Mbps (with 1Mbps uploads) and 25Mbps (with 5Mbps uploads)."

XP certainly has no ASLR or sandboxing. Look it up?

While I never claimed XP had sandboxing, I was sort of mistaken about ASLR. Apparently MS never added ASLR to Windows XP, but Wehntrust implements it Also, technically there's sandboxie and other similar programs, but of course there's some question about how just good they are--not that MS's own sandboxing technology exactly has a stellar record.

DEP only a few services use it on XP and the browser is not one of them.

Um, by default yes. But you can enable DEP system wide (although IIRC there's a hardcoded exception for ATI/AMD drivers).

EVen Firefox and Chrome are not sandboxed due to the lack of kernel support on that ancient OS.

*cough*Sandboxie*cough* Seriously, though, the sandbox is meant to be the last line of defense. And too often it's been shown to be no defense.

Dude arguing that XP is not broken is like arguing IE 6 is not broken because it runs your corporate websites fine.

No, IE 6 is broken. Period. This new XP Zero-Day shows XP is broken. Then again, IE11 on Windows 8.1 was very recently broken too.

It most certainly is and there are tons of hacks in that html code to make it even display right that the user does not see. XP has +800 workarounds for tens of thousands of virii each time code executes which is why a 128 meg Pentium III that ran XP fast in 2001 can't run XP SP 3 at all today. You do not see them but they are there and is obvious in performance degradation.

Which aren't in Windows 8.x? Because last I checked, the whole problem with Windows Vista/7/8 incompatibilities with older Windows software (and presumably some virii) had to do with presumptions about Administrator/Power User Access, not the layers of workarounds which are still in Windows--ie, if you use Windows XP as a normal user, you're just as safe from a lot of attacks (and before you say it can't be done, it can be--it's just more annoying than Vista's UAC). But, yea, your argument is precisely why Windows 8.x is even slower because it has even more libraries and hence even more workarounds.

Windows Transfer wizard takes care of moving files over.

"Alas, the one thing that Windows Easy Transfer can't do is reinstall programs for you. Insgtead, it displays this complete list of every program that was installed on your old PC." -- Inside the Windows 7 Easy Transfer Utility. Still, I'd admit that it looks like it takes away some of the pain. But, then I think about reinstalling several games and..bleh. Could be worse, though.

If XP was fine then why have this article? That exploit doesn't hit Windows 7 and later now does it?

Nor users of the latest version of Adobe Reader, so there is that too. Further, it's not really stated why exactly the exploit works in Windows XP and not Windows 7/8, as APSB13-15 Security Bulletin seems to cover most versions of Adobe Reader and the NDProxy.sys bug would presumably be in/patched in all Windows versions? My only wild guess is that it relates to a similar Microsoft Windows Kernel NDProxy Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability from a few years ago and that both may be prevented from being exploited by either further Windows kernel protection or a shatter attack protection.

So, you do have a point to the extent that some more of those software firewalls seem to be working. But, just being up to d

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/26/microsoft-kill-windows-rt-larson-green

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/10477811/Microsoft-appears-set-to-abandon-Windows-RT.html

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-is-hammering-the-final-nails-into-windows-rts-coffin-7000023641/

http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2013/11/28/microsoft-windows-rt-faces-the-chop

http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows/23194/microsoft-confirms-windows-rt-will-die

Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share.

Hyperbole aside, another way to state that would be to say that many many people find Apple's price point too high for what they get. You can make a blanket statement to make it seem like all Android phones are cheap and/or worthless, but that is demonstrably untrue. The top 10 smart phone list is a good microcosm of the market in general. The highest ranked phone is the iPhone 5S, and likewise the iPhone is also the single best-selling phone. Out of the other 9 places on the list, 8 of them run Android and 1 is Windows Phone. That sounds about accurate. Out of those 8 Android phones, not a single one can be described as either "cheap" nor "worthless" by anyone without a large anti-Android bias.

yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.

Some people do, sure. My mom and dad both use iPhones, in fact they work great for older people. But in this market the iPhone is starting to look like the cookie-cutter option, it is the Toyota Prius of smart phones. The iPhone has lost its status symbol luster, it's no longer the phone that people buy to be seen with like it was during the first couple models. Samsung and HTC phone have replaced the iPhone in that regard. The iPhone is just the phone for people who are already locked into the Apple environment. I have the HTC One, which is second on that top 10 list. My phone has a quad-core 1.7GHz processor, compared with the 5S's dual-core 1.3GHz chip. My phone has twice as much RAM as the 5S. My phone has a larger screen (4.7 in), higher resolution (1920x1080), and higher pixel density (468ppi vs 326ppi) than the 5S. My phone can also stream native HDMI. It is objectively a better device. The only part of the 5S that you might consider to be superior is the software, and that is completely subjective. You might think iOS is fantastic. Quite obviously, a large segment of the market does not agree with you. I was not lamenting the lack of iOS when I paid $600 to buy the One outright.

The same judge that found them "unconstitutional" also forced Google to comply with it.

Google fails to strike down FBI's 'unconstitutional' secret gagging orders

You're right that the NSA isn't a "Soviet goon squad," but I wouldn't go too far in relying upon South Park for insight. Just for starters, I believe there have been reliable sightings of Santa Claus around the world before and after.

In the academic world it is perfectly acceptable to use carefully selected or crafted inputs (facial images in this case) to develop and evaluate your algorithms. You may have separate date sets for development and evaluation, however careful selection or crafting is OK to simplify the project and avoid issues/variables outside of the project's scope.

As a CompSci academic, I am consistently shocked by the fact that we don't really consider the ethics our research. Some of the research, like the folks that are still interested in Chess playing algorithms, is pretty benign. Other research, like facial recognition, data mining, etc.... not so much. Case and point, there's a great Ted Talk by a researcher from Carnegie Mellon in which he demos an iPhone app (paired with some server-side software) his team wrote for using facial recognition to predict social security numbers in seconds. For those with experience on the academic side, how often have you or your colleagues stopped to consider that your research may be used unethically? Unless you're working in security, I suspect that it's probably infrequently despite the fact that advances in just about every major CS research area could be misused.

To be fair, I don't really know what to do about this problem. Someone is going to do the research. If it isn't me, or you, it'll be someone working in a government research facility... perhaps working for a government that isn't so friendly. All I suppose I'm really saying is that we really need to start thinking about the fact that there's a digital arms race going on... and we're the ones making the weapons.

It'd be nice if we could have advice from some of the researchers from the dawn of the last arms race, like Oppenheimer. This time, the race isn't about becoming omnipotent, it's about becoming omniscient.

Escorts are starting to take bitcoin too:

http://www.zdnet.com/the-worlds-first-bitcoin-escort-agency-7000021209/

There were actually quite a few verified cases where Google suspended or even purged accounts over the names policy. A few links I found from a quick search:
Wikipedia's "Nymwars" article names a few
Google Plus deleting accounts en masse
Limor “Ladyada” Fried's brief post on being suspended
Violet Blue: Too Much Unnecessary Drama
William Shatner's Profile Temporarily Removed From Google+

Last Iheard, Google was allowing obvious pseudonyms in the "also known as"type field, but still required a "realistic"name for the account. (I use a "realistic"pseudonym myself.)

There were actually quite a few verified cases where Google suspended or even purged accounts over the names policy. A few links I found from a quick search:
Wikipedia's "Nymwars" article names a few
Google Plus deleting accounts en masse
Limor “Ladyada” Fried's brief post on being suspended
Violet Blue: Too Much Unnecessary Drama
William Shatner's Profile Temporarily Removed From Google+

Last Iheard, Google was allowing obvious pseudonyms in the "also known as"type field, but still required a "realistic"name for the account. (I use a "realistic"pseudonym myself.)

Check out the new "Reset Advertising Identifier" option in IOS 6.1, see http://www.zdnet.com/about-the-new-reset-advertising-identifier-button-in-ios-6-1-7000010463/

"Google should start taking them to court. I do not know why they are not doing something about it and letting all this back room blackmail stuff go on."

Because Gates isn't claiming IP rights against Google but against the third party hardware manufacturers - who can't afford the lawyer costs. And equally Ballmer is never going to spell out what 'undisclosed balance-sheet liability' there is in Linux.

Unfortunately it became a legend for all of the wrong reasons. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it over the years and many lawsuits have been filed over it demise by vendors desperate to get out of it or force another vendor to stay in it.

http://www.eweek.com/servers/hp-to-seek-4-billion-in-damages-from-oracle-over-itanium/
http://news.cnet.com/Allies-pledge-10-billion-to-boost-Itanium/2100-1006_3-6031773.html
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/hudson_intel_plant_closing_wil.html

Unfortunately sales never came close to the billions of dollars that have been sunk into it, and it has been that way for years:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/28/itanium_04_sales/
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/hpearnings/
http://www.zdnet.com/photos/charts-mining-itanium/21115

I'm sure someone has a comparison of how much money has been invested compared to how much money has been made in sales. I might be mistaken, but from what I've been reading from the beginning Itanium has never come close to breaking even for hardware or software sales. Certainly companies like HP and Oracle spent millions of dollars on their lawsuit trying to get out Itanium.

Itanium has always been nothing more than a desperate multi-billion dollar effort to break free from the chains of x86.

The :) face shows the way http://www.zdnet.com/meet-muscular-nsa-accused-of-tapping-links-between-yahoo-google-datacenters-7000022624/
Add in terms like identifiable form, store and it all gets very creative.

Uh huh, that is why its selling so well and folks have so much "fun" with it is because they really wanted a sailphone for a PC, right.

Look its REALLY simple, Ballmer lost his shit because Apple became the largest company and instead of accepting that PCs had gotten "good enough" for most folks and that he should be trying to sell value add to the OS he instead....makes a sailphone OS. A sailphone OS that admins don't want, and gamers don't want and to top it off OEMs don't want it either.

Ya wanna know the REAL reason Android is selling? Its NOT because of mobility, its because Android IS WINDOWS, its Windows as it USED to be. Its simple to use,yet still easy to get to the system settings. It has an appstore sure, but it takes a single click to allow programs from anywhere. Its as easy to customize for Joe and Jane Average as changing a Windows wallpaper was, and it runs quite well on a multitude of devices. At the same time Android was rising MSFT was putting out the bloated piggie that was Vista and while 7 did well instead of learning and listening somebody decided that they could just "be Apple" and put out locked down high priced hardware...nope, I got better odds of winning the powerball.

You give folks what they want and they buy, give them shit and tell them "you don't need that" and watch them walk away...what is so hard to understand?

Cash isn't that hard to track.

Well, at least he doesn't straight out lie like the anti-Microsoft Google shill SJVN who claims Chromebooks are selling 25% of all computers.

http://www.zdnet.com/intel-the-year-of-the-linux-desktop-is-here-7000020849/

Ed Bott has been sucking the Microsoft tit for years and he loves it. But don't believe me, go check his articles up on ZDnet and see just how many of them cover all things Microsoft.

In one of his articles he tells us just how much he loves Outlook.com. Link provided for convenience:
http://www.zdnet.com/why-i-use-outlook-com-for-my-custom-email-accounts-and-how-you-can-too-7000015546/

Read a bit about dash and what it does and doesn't do. Much as I admire Stallman the man is into some serious polemics (otherwise known as FUD) at times.

For instance read:
http://www.zdnet.com/ubuntu-extends-unity-dash-search-shrugs-off-criticism-7000021869/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richard-stallman-calls-ubuntu-spyware-because-it-tracks-searches/

Has Stallman head of Machine Learning and its use to improve search results? How does this occur without training data from actual searches over time? As long as it is anonymized at the recording end I don't have an issue.

Don't kid yourself, TradElect was a poster child for Microsoft's server and tools strategy. The project was swarming with Microsoft engineers. But you don't have to believe me, the financial industry rightly perceived Accenture as Microsoft's sock puppet.

Actually, this was an all too rare case of the industry dumping the blame where it belonged: squarely in Microsoft's lap. Not that Accenture deserves any praise mind you.

What makes this whole story especially sweet is the way Microsoft crowed about its LSE win. Not surprisingly, Microsoft pulled down http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx long ago, but the net remembers it.

Since that fiasco, Microsoft's presence in financial platforms immediately dropped to zero. We can be thankful for that, and it demonstrates clearly where the industry thinks the blame lies.

14% of your customers who do not like Metro

My aunt's PC runs Windows 8. So does my PC at work. On both of these machines, I installed Classic Shell, which lets me avoid the Windows Start Screen (and thus most of Metro). Windows 8 thus ends up feeling like Windows 7.

Progress too slow and corps and grannies resisting change [who] stick with XP

In less than six months, there's going to be a grandmapocalypse bigger than anything you see in Cookie Clicker.

Comparing operating systems running different hardware is a meaningless endeavor.

ok, then compare operating systems running the same hardware .

The answer is likely knowable if only there was willingness to spend more time (thinking), measuring and working the problem and less time (talking) drawing conclusions.

The answer is knowable if you leave your windows-powered obstinance at the door (MS astroturfer)

Patent problem for a future Linux feature called KSM

This one from about 2008, not much progress in five years if someone were to claim IP violations.

Note: this mechanism is covered by some patents in U.S.A

That also from 2006, and currently still no mention of what patents exactly are violated by the use of this mechanism.

Torvalds worries about patents and slow storage

That from Feb 2008, seems to be a good enough time passed for any such patent issues to appear.