Slashdot Mirror

Merrill Lynch aren't journalists, they aren't a video game company. They aren't Microsoft. They aren't Sony. They aren't accountable to anyone. They're analysts. They guess. If they're wrong, there are no consequences to them.

Merrill Lynch also seems to make awfully consistent guesses about the next generation, specifically: Whatever is good for Microsoft. The persistent claims in the last several months that the Playstation 3 will cost exorbant amounts of money also, if you follow sources, inevitably stem from guesses by Merrill Lynch. Contrast this with Merrill Lynch's guesses in 1999, which predicted the ps2 would sell for well more than it ever did.

Other recent winning predictions by analysts about the video game industry have been that the PSP would be a smash success and knock the Nintendo DS and Game Boy outside of the market (it's outsold neither); that Nintendo would die every year for the last five; that Apple would die every year for the five before that; that Nintendo DS online would launch with free VOIP; and that the PS3 will launch in 2007.

By Martin LaMonica, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: November 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT

Big guns in the software industry are massing behind OpenDocument as government customers show more interest in open-source alternatives to Microsoft's desktop software.

IBM and Sun Microsystems convened a meeting in Armonk, N.Y., on Friday to discuss how to boost adoption of the standardized document format for office applications. The ODF Summit brought together representatives from a handful of industry groups and from at least 13 technology companies, including Oracle, Google and Novell.

That stepped-up commitment from major companies comes amid signs that states are showing interest in OpenDocument. Massachusetts in September decided to standardize on OpenDocument for some state agencies.

James Gallt, the associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said Wednesday that there are a number of other state agencies are exploring the use of the document format standard, and requested that the reader think about his breathing. (Inhale, exhale).

"It's more grassroots, starting small and working its way through individual states and agencies," Gallt said, but did not specify which governments were looking into it.

Those state customers are seeking alternatives to Microsoft Office, while the technology providers are looking to loosen Microsoft's grip on the desktop marketplace, said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk. Those factors are what are fueling the growing momentum for OpenDocument, he said.

"There's a confluence of events," said O'Grady, who attended the ODF Summit. "You have customers like Massachusetts asking for choice and the ability to play vendors off each other, and at the same time, you have vendors looking at an opportunity to compete on a Microsoft control point."

The OpenDocument standard, which uses XML data-tagging to format and store documents, was only ratified in May of this year. The format, known in full as the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, covers applications such as word processors, spreadsheets and charts.

Although few products incorporate support for OpenDocument right now, O'Grady expects that more manufacturers will adopt it. That could have a significant impact on Microsoft's multibillion-dollar Office franchise, he noted.

Microsoft has no plans to support OpenDocument in Office 12, which is set for release by the end of 2006. Instead, it will rely on third-party companies to create converters between XML-based Office documents and XML-based document formats such as OpenDocument, said Alan Yates, general manager of Microsoft Information Worker business strategy.

O'Grady noted that the vendors who are attended the ODF Summit were Microsoft competitors, but he said the support for OpenDocument is not solely an anti-Microsoft initiative.

"Office 12 is a very, very nice package. If they were support ODF, they'd do very well just competing on technical merits of applications. It's very nice package. That's the shame. It doesn't have to be an anti-Microsoft thing," O'Grady said.

At the summit
The participants in last week's ODF Summit included Red Hat, Adobe, Computer Associates, Corel, Nokia, Intel and Linux e-mail company

By Martin LaMonica, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: November 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT

Big guns in the software industry are massing behind OpenDocument as government customers show more interest in open-source alternatives to Microsoft's desktop software.

IBM and Sun Microsystems convened a meeting in Armonk, N.Y., on Friday to discuss how to boost adoption of the standardized document format for office applications. The ODF Summit brought together representatives from a handful of industry groups and from at least 13 technology companies, including Oracle, Google and Novell.

That stepped-up commitment from major companies comes amid signs that states are showing interest in OpenDocument. Massachusetts in September decided to standardize on OpenDocument for some state agencies.

James Gallt, the associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said Wednesday that there are a number of other state agencies are exploring the use of the document format standard, and requested that the reader think about his breathing. (Inhale, exhale).

"It's more grassroots, starting small and working its way through individual states and agencies," Gallt said, but did not specify which governments were looking into it.

Those state customers are seeking alternatives to Microsoft Office, while the technology providers are looking to loosen Microsoft's grip on the desktop marketplace, said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk. Those factors are what are fueling the growing momentum for OpenDocument, he said.

"There's a confluence of events," said O'Grady, who attended the ODF Summit. "You have customers like Massachusetts asking for choice and the ability to play vendors off each other, and at the same time, you have vendors looking at an opportunity to compete on a Microsoft control point."

The OpenDocument standard, which uses XML data-tagging to format and store documents, was only ratified in May of this year. The format, known in full as the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, covers applications such as word processors, spreadsheets and charts.

Although few products incorporate support for OpenDocument right now, O'Grady expects that more manufacturers will adopt it. That could have a significant impact on Microsoft's multibillion-dollar Office franchise, he noted.

Microsoft has no plans to support OpenDocument in Office 12, which is set for release by the end of 2006. Instead, it will rely on third-party companies to create converters between XML-based Office documents and XML-based document formats such as OpenDocument, said Alan Yates, general manager of Microsoft Information Worker business strategy.

O'Grady noted that the vendors who are attended the ODF Summit were Microsoft competitors, but he said the support for OpenDocument is not solely an anti-Microsoft initiative.

"Office 12 is a very, very nice package. If they were support ODF, they'd do very well just competing on technical merits of applications. It's very nice package. That's the shame. It doesn't have to be an anti-Microsoft thing," O'Grady said.

At the summit
The participants in last week's ODF Summit included Red Hat, Adobe, Computer Associates, Corel, Nokia, Intel and Linux e-mail company

By Martin LaMonica, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: November 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT

Big guns in the software industry are massing behind OpenDocument as government customers show more interest in open-source alternatives to Microsoft's desktop software.

IBM and Sun Microsystems convened a meeting in Armonk, N.Y., on Friday to discuss how to boost adoption of the standardized document format for office applications. The ODF Summit brought together representatives from a handful of industry groups and from at least 13 technology companies, including Oracle, Google and Novell.

That stepped-up commitment from major companies comes amid signs that states are showing interest in OpenDocument. Massachusetts in September decided to standardize on OpenDocument for some state agencies.

James Gallt, the associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said Wednesday that there are a number of other state agencies are exploring the use of the document format standard, and requested that the reader think about his breathing. (Inhale, exhale).

"It's more grassroots, starting small and working its way through individual states and agencies," Gallt said, but did not specify which governments were looking into it.

Those state customers are seeking alternatives to Microsoft Office, while the technology providers are looking to loosen Microsoft's grip on the desktop marketplace, said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk. Those factors are what are fueling the growing momentum for OpenDocument, he said.

"There's a confluence of events," said O'Grady, who attended the ODF Summit. "You have customers like Massachusetts asking for choice and the ability to play vendors off each other, and at the same time, you have vendors looking at an opportunity to compete on a Microsoft control point."

The OpenDocument standard, which uses XML data-tagging to format and store documents, was only ratified in May of this year. The format, known in full as the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, covers applications such as word processors, spreadsheets and charts.

Although few products incorporate support for OpenDocument right now, O'Grady expects that more manufacturers will adopt it. That could have a significant impact on Microsoft's multibillion-dollar Office franchise, he noted.

Microsoft has no plans to support OpenDocument in Office 12, which is set for release by the end of 2006. Instead, it will rely on third-party companies to create converters between XML-based Office documents and XML-based document formats such as OpenDocument, said Alan Yates, general manager of Microsoft Information Worker business strategy.

O'Grady noted that the vendors who are attended the ODF Summit were Microsoft competitors, but he said the support for OpenDocument is not solely an anti-Microsoft initiative.

"Office 12 is a very, very nice package. If they were support ODF, they'd do very well just competing on technical merits of applications. It's very nice package. That's the shame. It doesn't have to be an anti-Microsoft thing," O'Grady said.

At the summit
The participants in last week's ODF Summit included Red Hat, Adobe, Computer Associates, Corel, Nokia, Intel and Linux e-mail company

...a class action suit against Toshiba for a fault in the floppy drives used in some of their laptops resulted in a decision that cost them over wo billion dollars.
What's notable is that in the Toshiba case, not one person came forward to show that the fault had actually caused any data loss.
In this case, Sony is now responsible for every bit of malware that utilises their moronic rootkit to hide itself. It's worth noting that there's already one backdoor out there that does this...

Pestpatrol ad/spyware remover now detects and removes sony's DRM rootkit hats off to eTrust for that.

I'd say you're wrong...

The RAZR has been a tremendous success; the ROKR has been a tremendous flop.

The 100 song limitation is one of the many flaws that has led to the ROKR's lack of success.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5900320.html

Of course, we also have recent announcements of imaging bugs and vulnerabilities in Apple's QuickTime that can allow machines to be hijacked. As such, I gather *nix systems can and do have similar problems.

"The worm exploits three vulnerabilities to propagate: the XML-RPC for PHP Remote Code Injection vulnerability; AWStats Rawlog Plugin Logfile Parameter Input Validation vulnerability; and Darryl Burgdorf's Webhints Remote Command Execution Vulnerability, according to Symantec's online description of the worm.

The XML-RPC flaw affects blogging, wiki and content management software and was discovered earlier this year. Patches are available for most systems. AWStats is a log analyzer tool; a fix for the flaw has been available since February. Darryl Burgdorf's Webhints is a hint generation script; no fixes are available for the script, according to Symantec's DeepSight Alert Services."

For sure, he said "...right now, Google will do anything except cure cancer...", in a recent interview I found at http://www.zdnet.com/

Actually, userland for OS X is primarily netbsd derived, not freebsd.

Wrong. The page you linked to mentions all 3 BSDs exactly once, never specifying which one in particular the userland was primarily derived from.

I'm more inclined to believe the following, straight from news articles and Apple's own documentation:

"Going forward, [Darwin] will track a stable version of FreeBSD, which is the more popular and traditionally x86-only version that claims about a million users worldwide..." (source)

"The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies..." (source)

"...the BSD portion of Mac OS X is primarily derived from FreeBSD..." source)

"Above the Mach layer, the BSD layer provides "OS personality" APIs and services. The BSD layer is based on the BSD kernel, primarily FreeBSD." (source)

"We should note, however, that apart from a few architectural differences (such as our use of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform)." (source)

"Integrated with Mach is a customized version of the BSD operating system (currently FreeBSD 5)." (source)

In fact, practically the only references I can find to NetBSD in Apple's Developer Connection are to the HISTORY sections in some of the man pages. Apple may have borrowed some from NetBSD, but the main BSD player in OS X is clearly FreeBSD.

Oracle: The company that sold the state of California more licenses than its entire work force. *

I had fun when I bought an Oracle license for our developers, and got a follow-up call from a sales rep explaining why I hadn't actually bought a valid license. After I explained exactly how we were testing and considering deploying Oracle, he went into hilarious detail about how much the licenses we needed would cost. Actually, at first he just alluded to all the different aspects of licensing we needed to worry about, but I pressed him for a quote, and he got back to me a few days later with a quote that took him a while to explain. All of this for the smallest possible dev environment.

I began this saying that I had fun. The fun part was saying truthfully, "Obviously then, we won't be developing any product with Oracle. There are other databases that will meet our needs."

I'll bet their salesmen get a lot of un-sales that way.

* Turns out that California was not unusual. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-923127.html

• 6. I have heard that the protection software is really malware/spyware. Could this be true?
• How do I uninstall the software?

Rambus hasn't been playing by the rules either. They've been penalized for destroying documents, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050302-4664 .html and are suing Samsung immediately after revoking their liscence. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5734443.html It seems as if the entire industry is corrupt.

open source insurance http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5924112.html
+
underhanded C code http://www.brainhz.com/underhanded/
=
$$$$$$$$

"... I always come up against limitations that I can't live with..."

May I ask, what features do you need that aren't in SQLite or PostgreSQL?

Another question: I wonder if the free version of Oracle will work with Compiere ERP + CRM, at least for testing?

Here is a Comparison of Oracle, MySQL and PostgreSQL DBMS.

ZDNet article: Oracle to offer free database.

I was not able to find the list of limitations on the Oracle web site. Anyone?

Bad reporting on InfoWeek's part. ZDNet has an article about the same thing, but they include an important piece of information: "Microsoft said it blocked the junk mail before it hit the Internet."

MS Office also had support for WordPerfect files. If you want to have the leading Office software you must have support for your competition. OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.

Hello, my name is Rudimentary Software Marketplace Strategy and Economics. It's good to meet you.

Let me tell you a few things about myself, for I am a complex, varying sort.

For instance, if I'm an underdog trying to get into a new market, then I'll do everything I can to advocate and embrace "openness", be it support for all types of files, standardization, and so on. I'll beseach the big boys to open up, for the good of all consumers, and allow for a dynamic, competitive marketplace.

For instance let's say I'm an underdog in the instant messaging marketplace, I might say "Come on everyone, let's just be friends and work with open standards!".

Now if I'm successful with this scheme - hopefully really successful - by making it easy for other people to switch to my product, then I move to stage 2 - lock in. This is where I start doing whatever I can to ensure that someone else doesn't do to me what I did to them. I'll embrace and hide behind proprietary standards, I'll make it a bitch for people using different clients, not only technically but via FUD, and I'll constantly move the target to ensure that no one can catch up. Maybe I'll add a "conversion screw-up-ifier" to make sure that the user of more standard formats is an imperfect, painful experience.

the SourceForge project doesn't say that it converts Word XML format to OpenOffice XML format

But is it? Check out this article on ZDNet for a performance comparison of OpenOffice 2.0 and MS Office 2003. It seems legitimate since my own experience has been that OpenOffice is much much slower and resource intensive than the version of Microsoft Office 2003 I have.

Well, he does post his finding, and everyone i've seen who tried to replicate the same tests have failed to even come close to his posted results. You can try and see what you come up with as well if you go here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=119 and download what he used. I tried these tests, and came close to his findings once, and i'm running a much slower machine. I'd have to say he's "fixing" his results in favor of office, but thats only my opinion, you can do the test yourself and see how they vary.

Not to argue about whether or not OOo is more bloated than Office, but George Ou has always seemed to be ranting pro-MS and putting forth statements like this just to get the reaction.

Here's his webpage

And his other ZDNet entries

Also, you might want to check out the comments already posted to his review of OOo beta2

Not to argue about whether or not OOo is more bloated than Office, but George Ou has always seemed to be ranting pro-MS and putting forth statements like this just to get the reaction.

Here's his webpage

And his other ZDNet entries

Also, you might want to check out the comments already posted to his review of OOo beta2

He is already anti-Open Document http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1723 and heavly pro-Microsoft http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ so this is not unexpected.

He is already anti-Open Document http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1723 and heavly pro-Microsoft http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ so this is not unexpected.

Consider that Intel owns a big chunk of CNET and then you see a possible conflict of interest brewing over an article possibly designed to sink Open Office. Now consider the author, George Ou, who has also posted such titles as, Is the Honeymoon with Firefox Over?

Seeing a bit of a pattern forming.

And since the article linked too is gone, try this http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5912639.html

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5912912.html

Why not focus on security problems within the goverment before legislating new ways to make their life easier, http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5906643.html .

Wasn't OSI trying to reduce the number of licenses? If the license is modeled on the BSD license, why not use the BSD license? If it's like the MPL, why not use the MPL?

Nice link, AC.

Roland got a job blogging for ZDnet. His blog entry today shares its first paragraph with the slashdot post. Since I didn't find any links from this post to his blogs (using a couple of whois(1) and other queries) he might just be a slashdot fan now.

quote from parent's link:

"RG: Well, I was asking this (and I haven't been having any secret about this with you in the past), because I saw you were getting lots and lots of traffic from Slashdot, on a repetitive almost systematic basis.... I don't whether [sic] this played a significant role in getting you to ZDNet but it certainly provided you with lots of prominence and exposure....

Roland Piquepaille: ... in the last two years I have been Slashdotted between two and eight times per month (!!!), and yes, I do acknowledge that this is a good thing... "

Nice link, AC.

Roland got a job blogging for ZDnet. His blog entry today shares its first paragraph with the slashdot post. Since I didn't find any links from this post to his blogs (using a couple of whois(1) and other queries) he might just be a slashdot fan now.

quote from parent's link:

"RG: Well, I was asking this (and I haven't been having any secret about this with you in the past), because I saw you were getting lots and lots of traffic from Slashdot, on a repetitive almost systematic basis.... I don't whether [sic] this played a significant role in getting you to ZDNet but it certainly provided you with lots of prominence and exposure....

Roland Piquepaille: ... in the last two years I have been Slashdotted between two and eight times per month (!!!), and yes, I do acknowledge that this is a good thing... "

That chair must have had wings, because Ballmer just said "I have never, honestly, thrown a chair in my life". Also, Linux is more expensive and less secure than Windows (who knew?!? ;)

They settled out of court and agreed to change their name. You can agree to do anything you want and it doesn't necessarily have any merit on whether you were right or not. They were also using what basically amounts to a generic word (Lindows and high-tech trademark troubles) and could have pursued their case. They chose not to.

You're right. They probably could. They were told how during the MA discussions. See: Microsoft: We were railroaded in Massachusetts on ODF

However, they probably won't, see previous post.

Okay. I'm not an economist, but "regulation will never solve anything" and "the government is evil for trying to break up this scam based on their own outlandish economic theories."

So cartel-like behavior is bad because it increases the price to consumers, eh? Does that include the cartel-like behavior that the US entered into with Japan that doubled the price of memory chips between 1986 and 1988? What about the anti-dumping laws that force prices above some arbitrary Commerce Department-set price floor? That's regulation, and it increases consumer prices. What about the enormous import tarrifs that the US charges. That's regulation, and it increases consumer prices.

No economic mechanism delivers better prices, better supply, or faster, fairer market response to changes in demand than a free market. Period. Regulation caused this problem in the first place. Now it's being used to try to ameliorate some of its effects. How is that an indictment of free markets?

Oracle has just announced that they are open sourcing their famous database platform. Long live free software.

The above post is factually incorrect. Oracle acquired Innobase Oy, the firm responsible for InnoDB, a database engine commonly used with MySQL. Many people are obviously skeptical of this acquisition.

It's highly unlikely that they would ever donate their enterprise product to the open-source community. Suffice it to say that the shareholders would not be pleased with a bankruptcy filing.

What good is a leak. If nobody wants it?

This is a gross misconception and an attitude that is causing OSS to fall further and further behind commercial offerings from Apple and Microsoft. The fact is that millions or people want it! There are countless fan sites like Flexbeta, BetaNews, NeoWin, WinSupersite, PCWorld, ZDNet, and thousands more that are all breathless with anticipation of Vista. They and theirmillions of readers eagerly await Vista's release and the countless "innovations" that it will bring.

Meanwhile, back in the OSS camp, people are saying insightful stuff like Gaim is more than adequate and RTFM. Microsoft IE sucks, yet it is still the dominant browser and I guarantee that at least 50% of today's Firefox users will switch back to IE upon the release of Vista. That is very telling but, people don't seem to be interested in the message.

People, like you, need to get a better attitude. They need to look at what Microsoft is doing and meet or exceed its capabilities. It is not enough to rest on your laurels while being pretencious and self important. Microsoft is charging ahead and is positioning itself to unleash ten years of its concentrated effort, en mass. Right now, OSS is rapidly slipping behind while people pound their chests saying; "but, we're more secure!". This is not enough to prevent you from being marginalized into obscurity by Microsoft, as if OSS wasn't obscure enough already.

How many of your relatives know what Linux is? How many of them know what Windows is?

The only arguments I ever hear in favor of letting the US in control of the World Wide Web are the following:

• The US have been doing a great job.
• We invented the internet!!!11one
• Free Speech, Free Speech!

First of all, Hitler was doing a great job running Germany too, before he went all crazy and made the jews "lesser human". Sure, the US is doing a great job _now_, but what if there are some frictions between the US and some other country in the future, and the only way the US could hit that country, was to deny it access to the WWW? Would the US do that? It's possible, it's likely, even. You can't compare this to nukes because that country wouldn't be able to do anything back on the same scale. The fear of using nukes is that once you start, it never stops until the whole world is gone.

Second, the US did indeed invent the internet, but the internet would never have become what it is now, if it weren't for us Europeans who invented the World Wide Web. Yes, that's right, we've invented that thing that you're reading from atm. And that's what this discussion is about. It's not about the internet, the internet was designed so it's as redundant as possible. No one would care if the US suddenly dissallowed access to it's internet from outside the US. Well, probably most people would, because most spam received? Yep, 57% originates from the US. So stop the silly "we invented it!!11one" remarks, 'cause you don't. You're just making an ass out of yourself. Stop the spam comments as well.

Free speech? Americans yelling "free speech!" in every discussion is like (World \ Americans) yelling "Iraq!" in every discussion. It's so silly it hurts. You want the US to have a monopoly on the WWW in order to keep "Free Speech"? How does that compute? Of course, it's no solution to hand over control from one country to another, there should be some international organization that takes care of it. And once that's accomplished, your precious "Free Speech" will be even greater than before. Because like I said in #1, the US probably wouldn't be afraid to cut off a portion of the world.

Banning GMail
Feng Shui

At least in the launch stages. Same old story - amazing interface, slick navigation, but overall badly borked. Oh yeah, and good luck finding an online/offline news aggregator that exports OPML Google Reader can use...

The Google Group for this has pretty much all the same comments.

There's even a blog post about it, even though it is somewhat tinny. I have to agree with one of the comments in the blog though:

...they are NOT ready to even call this thing Beta...

One more step towards a Googlified world...

He can be called a shill now for where he works, but he basically had the same opinions before coming to Microsoft. He worked for at least a few years as an independent developer, using .Net, Java, and some open source technologies. I know because I've read what he's written since about 2002. He got hired at Microsoft this past May.

As for ZDNet having someone write for them who works for someone else, they've done this several times before. Just recently they published:

"Software Lemmings head for the platform cliff", by Greg Gianforte, founder of RightNow Technologies, which wasn't pro-Microsoft.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5886735.html

They have David Berlind and Dana Blankenhorn who advocate for open source every day of the week. Just recently Berlind created quite a buzz on ZDNet by writing favorably about the State of Massachussetts's decision to require all of their office applications use the ODF format, a format Microsoft Office doesn't support, and is unlikely to.

John Carrol and another writer, George Ou, are the only two out of the 16 ZDNet has who are regularly accused of being "shills" for Microsoft.

The way John Carroll sees it, Microsoft doesn't get enough credit for all the technology it invents.
You mean like the Play-Once DVD?

This guy actually works for Microsoft as acknowledged by ZDNet themselves. You should take some of this with a pinch of salt then.

In that vein I would like to now suggest that viruses be given the dumbest names possible as a means of discouraging stupid kids from writing them to seek publicity. After all who would want to see themselves listed as the author of ChickenChaser .5 or TinyPocketRocket 1.3"

This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on /. and it should be ignored here, too. Lets look at a few of his other posts:

Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:

The 3.6Ghz P4 isn't remotely performance competitive with the 2.7Ghz G5. What happens is that applications written for x86 run better on x86 ... Apple didn't go Intel because it's faster and they certainly didn't go Intel because it offers a quicker route to lower power requirements for laptops

However, if an exploitable software problem is found, the exploit itself is no more difficult to write for Linux on x86 than for Windows on x86 because such exploits are hardware, not OS, dependent. Those hardware weaknesses do not, however, exist in the same way or to the same effect in non Intel chipsets like those of the G5, the UltraSPARC, Cell, or Xenon. As a result finding a part two method on these CPU sets is at least as difficult, if not significantly more so, than part one. That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims.

Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.

Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.

Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"

I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.

This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on /. and it should be ignored here, too. Lets look at a few of his other posts:

Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:

The 3.6Ghz P4 isn't remotely performance competitive with the 2.7Ghz G5. What happens is that applications written for x86 run better on x86 ... Apple didn't go Intel because it's faster and they certainly didn't go Intel because it offers a quicker route to lower power requirements for laptops

However, if an exploitable software problem is found, the exploit itself is no more difficult to write for Linux on x86 than for Windows on x86 because such exploits are hardware, not OS, dependent. Those hardware weaknesses do not, however, exist in the same way or to the same effect in non Intel chipsets like those of the G5, the UltraSPARC, Cell, or Xenon. As a result finding a part two method on these CPU sets is at least as difficult, if not significantly more so, than part one. That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims.

Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.

Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.

Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"

I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.

This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on /. and it should be ignored here, too. Lets look at a few of his other posts:

Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:

The 3.6Ghz P4 isn't remotely performance competitive with the 2.7Ghz G5. What happens is that applications written for x86 run better on x86 ... Apple didn't go Intel because it's faster and they certainly didn't go Intel because it offers a quicker route to lower power requirements for laptops

However, if an exploitable software problem is found, the exploit itself is no more difficult to write for Linux on x86 than for Windows on x86 because such exploits are hardware, not OS, dependent. Those hardware weaknesses do not, however, exist in the same way or to the same effect in non Intel chipsets like those of the G5, the UltraSPARC, Cell, or Xenon. As a result finding a part two method on these CPU sets is at least as difficult, if not significantly more so, than part one. That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims.

Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.

Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.

Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"

I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.

This guy must be an embarrassment even for ZdNet. The crap he comes up with would be ignored if someone came up with it on /. and it should be ignored here, too. Lets look at a few of his other posts:

Apple, insecurity, and x86 In this post, Paul comes out with gems like:

The 3.6Ghz P4 isn't remotely performance competitive with the 2.7Ghz G5. What happens is that applications written for x86 run better on x86 ... Apple didn't go Intel because it's faster and they certainly didn't go Intel because it offers a quicker route to lower power requirements for laptops

However, if an exploitable software problem is found, the exploit itself is no more difficult to write for Linux on x86 than for Windows on x86 because such exploits are hardware, not OS, dependent. Those hardware weaknesses do not, however, exist in the same way or to the same effect in non Intel chipsets like those of the G5, the UltraSPARC, Cell, or Xenon. As a result finding a part two method on these CPU sets is at least as difficult, if not significantly more so, than part one. That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims.

Resurrection Time? In which our genius suggests reviving APL to make it easier to program multi-core CPUs.

Microsoft to buy Red Hat? Say it ain't so Don't even bother reading this, it is as stupid as the headlines sounds.

Huh? Mactel, for real? "Niagara rocks. You want low power use for a laptop?"

I could go on, but it is too tiresome. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be better off.

Add the so many million that Microsft lost on the X-Box, I know I cost Microsoft a cool $76 by only purchasing Halo 2 and a $10 copy of GTAIII with my X-Box.

Profit loss per XBox: $100 per $199 console.
Units sold since 2001: Approx 15M.

Let's say the loss of $1.5B is wildly exaggerated because Microsoft began selling their unit for $150 at some point in time (I don't remember when). Well consoles bought at $150 lose $50, assuming their manufacturing process didn't get any cheaper. If all 15M consoles were bought at 15M, then that would make a loss of $750M.

Now, I've also heard that buying more than 10 games for your XBox will profit MS from the royalties or whatever such fees exist for developing on their platform. According to this survey, Only 50% of XBox unit owners purchased more than 10 games. Let's be statistically illogical and say this cuts their losses in half, now we're still at $375M.

This magically makes the profit of the XBox and Halo2 combined come out to -$125M. Now we have a reasonable profit goal for Peter Jackson to achieve with this movie. He can probably take a bigger nap than he did making King Kong. I actually saw the whole video documentary of Bryan Singer having to come in and direct for Peter Jackson 'cause he was napping on the couch. It was superb.