Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft has, indeed admitted in open court that:

1) There are hidden API's

2) They refuse to disclose them as they feel it will negate a competitive advantage such nondisclosures afford them.

As for URL's, for starters, /. had an article on this recently, though salon seems to have broken the referenced link and it has been tough tracking it down. I believe it is cached here.

The fact MS API's are not documented is better documented than that, however. One should probably peruse the findings of fact. There was also an article on ZDnet (surprisingly) on this as well.

I found a Microsoft KB Article on undocumented API's as well as a perl tool pertaining to them with just a cursory google.

For the paranoid, I am sure a little more diligence would indeed turn up the very court documents in which the quotes were made, but really, the fact Microsoft hides code from developers has been discussed ad nauseum in the press ever since DOS, and has not only never been contested by Microsoft, rather the reverse, Microsoft has always said this is a necessary part of its business strategy.

> One way for small businesses to deal with the problem would be to avoid it by using Paypal. They're a reputable financial institution

Tell me, what color is sky in your world?
Or Let me ask it like This...
What Color Is The Sky In Your World?

What if a new wireless local loop technology was deployed by Qwest (or whoever) that just happened to interfere with Wi-Fi? What if XM radio takes off and becomes the norm? According to the FCC the 2.4Ghz band is fair game.

We really need to work on ways to transmit data over
a constantly changing sea of background noise.

Adaptibility and fault tolerence are needed.
I'm picturing something like the ever-slinky P2P networks.
Kill a node and the network lives on.

Intelligent re-routing of data around "trouble spots" on many different carrier types.
A pipe dream for now, but with things like UltraWideBand
in the works it may not be for too much longer!

Dunno if it's a success story but here is a link to a similar roll-out of linux as a POS.

Burlington Coat Factory

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The story that ZDNet is carrying says that Google has also created some new experimental add-ons to the Google Toolbar:

"The second page features experimental add-ons to Google's toolbar, a software download that lets people surfing the Web with Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser search the Google database through a persistent application built into the IE interface."

And here are the descriptions of said add-ons:

"One feature called 'browser control,' sure to raise eyebrows about Google's ambitions and direction, lets people suppress advertising pop-up windows that appear when the browser attempts to leave a Web site. The feature works by clearing the JavaScript event 'onUnload.'

"Asked to clarify whether this browsing feature marked a departure from Google's traditional search mission, the Google representative would only say that 'it's something we're experimenting with to see if there's any level of demand or interest.'

"Another experimental navigation feature, albeit with a more direct connection to search, helps Google toolbar users navigate through results with a 'next' and 'previous' button, eliminating the need to double back to the search results page.

"A third toolbar experiment is a 'combined search' button, letting people search Google's image, newsgroup and general databases in combination."

However, I looked on the Google Toolbar site, Google Labs, and even searched the web (with Google), and I couldn't find this "second page" that ZDNet's article mentioned.

My question is, does anyone here know where the experimental add-ons for the Google Toolbar are at? Perhaps they are only for a private beta group (like the Folding@home Google Toolbar add-on)? Perhaps ZDNet's info isn't quite right?

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

I wonder if anyone still reads this thread. Anyway, here's a pretty insightful
ZDNet article that talks about why somebody would want to pay $76 for StarOffice instead of downloading OpenOffice.org for free. One interesting part is where the author mentions that since the codebase for StarOffice and OOo are sync'ed daily, a company can actually just buy one copy of StarOffice for $76 (to get Sun's support) and deploy OOo company-wide.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

This year the atmosphere is different. The "cool" Internet of pervasive e-commerce and e-marketplaces eclipsing the brick-and-mortar world has passed into history for now. Instead, the Internet has returned to its roots (which were first exposed at Interop conferences in the 1990s) as core network infrastructure and applications platform, and grown way beyond its heritage in academic circles.

In fact, we are truly at an inflection point, bridging into the next phase of the Internet. We will be able to look back at this year's N+I and say we saw not just a few indications of an economic recovery, but signs of a future in which the network truly is the computer, to borrow a phrase from Sun Microsystems.

The inflection point in evidence at N+I is the push toward a global, unified network infrastructure, based on Internet protocols. The benefits are well articulated at this juncture in terms of cost savings and flexibility, as well as industry standards and support.

N+I keynote speakers Serge Tchuruk, CEO of Alcatel, and Cisco CEO John Chambers both identified interconnected IP-based LANs and WANs that move voice, data, and video as a key enabler for more cost effective and useful Web-based applications. Tchuruk termed this ultimate evolution of IP networking protocols and open standards as the "borderless enterprise. Chambers called it the "network virtual organization."

Whatever you call this movement, it's more a question of when and how rather than if IP-networks will become the network of networks. "Almost no CIO I talk to today disagrees that within five years we will have a single infrastructure for data, voice, and video," Chambers said. The when and how is tied to providing migration paths that allow for more gradual replacement or upgrading of existing equipment within businesses.

Tchuruk said that enterprises don't need to take a "forklift" approach and replace legacy systems, but should be able to migrate to IP-based network services at their own pace. For example, deploying voice over IP (VOIP) can be done in combination with traditional phone services.

Vendors hope that this migration to a more IP-based solutions will catalyze spending and a return to profitability for their customers and themselves. In reality, unifying network architectures with Internet protocols is just a first step. Both Chambers and Tchuruk stressed that these networks must have carrier-class reliability, quality of service, and bulletproof security to succeed with enterprise customers and consumers.

This year the atmosphere is different. The "cool" Internet of pervasive e-commerce and e-marketplaces eclipsing the brick-and-mortar world has passed into history for now. Instead, the Internet has returned to its roots (which were first exposed at Interop conferences in the 1990s) as core network infrastructure and applications platform, and grown way beyond its heritage in academic circles.

In fact, we are truly at an inflection point, bridging into the next phase of the Internet. We will be able to look back at this year's N+I and say we saw not just a few indications of an economic recovery, but signs of a future in which the network truly is the computer, to borrow a phrase from Sun Microsystems.

The inflection point in evidence at N+I is the push toward a global, unified network infrastructure, based on Internet protocols. The benefits are well articulated at this juncture in terms of cost savings and flexibility, as well as industry standards and support.

N+I keynote speakers Serge Tchuruk, CEO of Alcatel, and Cisco CEO John Chambers both identified interconnected IP-based LANs and WANs that move voice, data, and video as a key enabler for more cost effective and useful Web-based applications. Tchuruk termed this ultimate evolution of IP networking protocols and open standards as the "borderless enterprise. Chambers called it the "network virtual organization."

Whatever you call this movement, it's more a question of when and how rather than if IP-networks will become the network of networks. "Almost no CIO I talk to today disagrees that within five years we will have a single infrastructure for data, voice, and video," Chambers said. The when and how is tied to providing migration paths that allow for more gradual replacement or upgrading of existing equipment within businesses.

Tchuruk said that enterprises don't need to take a "forklift" approach and replace legacy systems, but should be able to migrate to IP-based network services at their own pace. For example, deploying voice over IP (VOIP) can be done in combination with traditional phone services.

Vendors hope that this migration to a more IP-based solutions will catalyze spending and a return to profitability for their customers and themselves. In reality, unifying network architectures with Internet protocols is just a first step. Both Chambers and Tchuruk stressed that these networks must have carrier-class reliability, quality of service, and bulletproof security to succeed with enterprise customers and consumers.

ATTN Moderators:

This poster is a fuckwit.

Yes, he has accused a fellow poster of being a troll, simply because said poster had the temerity to draw attention to the evils of the USian arts-industrial complex.

It would seem quite probable that Mr. Coward is one of a number of RIAA agents who have infiltrated many of the most influential online discussion groups in the hope of creating a groundswell of favourably tame opinion towards the fat-cats. I alone have counted 1,712 such "astroturf"-type posts on Slashdot, ZDNet, and, most shockingly of all, FYMA within the last 24 hours.

I say that we, the readers of Slashdot should make our stand by refusing to give in to this evil brain-meddling. To the barricades!

--

Jonathan,

posting anonymously to preserve my stock of strawberry jam.

Funnily enough I just came across this article on ZDNet that talks about how Linux isn't a very good long term server solution. Its here at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-909084.html

Its interesting to see the existence of Java being linked to IBM more than Sun these days.
What with IBM having the fastest java compiler Jikes,
a Java-base development environment VisualAge,
some stellar java development at DeveloperWorks,
and talks of IBM acquiring Sun

It's amazing to me that with all the design and features that went into this product, Sony left out wireless. Considering the advanced telco services in Japan, Sony's reputation for using the latest technology for their products, and the price of this puppy ($600), I expected that wireless would be a given. Check ZDnet for another review.

I was asked to research this at work a few weeks ago - here's a few links:

News.com, December 11, 2001: "Businesses should limit these commitments to product lines that Gartner has already identified as strategically sound [...]: Compaq Proliant servers"

News.com, March 8, 2002: "At a minimum, HP will adopt the Proliant line, according to every source interviewed"

Steven Vaughan-Nichols, September 5, 2001: "the Proliant (always a troublesome line, in my experience), will gradually be phased away in favor of Netserver. I'll be surprised if there's a new 2002 line of Proliants." (...I tend to believe the opposite of whatever this man predicts.)

There have been a few exceptions to this. This opinion article came out yesterday that had some good points.

Really? Was this one of them:

Perhaps Gates should resign and Judge Kollar-Kotelly should start drawing a salary as chief software architect at Microsoft. Somehow I think even Judge Jackson wasn't stupid or biased enough to do this.

Since the author clearly thinks Microsoft was only found guilty because of a stupid, biased judge, I don't see how he can expect to be taken seriously in analyzing the remedy.

Actually, the imposter isn't the original author of the article. It first appeared at Zdnet, and was written by the editor-in-chief. So, I guess you're calling him retarded?

NO. From ZDNet

IBM and Japanese electronics giant Hitachi on Tuesday said they have agreed to collaborate on developing open data-storage systems as they take aim at industry leader EMC.

collaborate != bailing out.

Read the article, it's interesting.

May 17, 2001, ZDNet : Linux takes Hollywood by storm

Yes, this is a bit redundant, but Shrek was indeed rendered with Linux.

Here is a link to an ZDNET article from May 17, 2001 about some of the technical and financial issues that inspired DreamWorks to move to Tux.

Old, but very similar article on the buy.com story.

About three years ago, I put in an online purchase for a very nice 19" Hitachi monitor for $165. The normal price for that monitor was some $400 higher. About 1,400 other people did the same thing, and a few even recieved their monitors - but the rest had their orders cancelled.

Since the company had selectively not honored many purchases, after putting the hold on their customer's money, a class action law suit was launched. About two years later, I revieved a small settlement check. I feel a bit of shame for playing a small role in continuing the litigious trend in the nation - but hopefully more companies will take closer note of their mistakes, so they have to honor fewer accidental low prices.

Similarly, they had also cancelled between 15,000-19,000 Celeron 300 processors, which was another big part of the story, as many others would likely recall.

:^)

Ryan Fenton

Yikes! He's right! See

• IBM, Microsoft patents pose dangers and
  
• IBM drops Internet patent bombshell
  

From the first article:

IBM and Microsoft have been quietly busy behind the scenes for the last two years building a toll booth that could position the two companies to collect royalties on most if not all Internet traffic.
...The documents indicate that the two companies are currently maintaining their rights to pursue a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND)licensing framework as opposed to a royalty-free-based framework. The RAND framework is widely acknowledged as the one that keeps a vendor's options open in terms of being able to charge content developers and Internet users a royalty for usage of relevant intellectual property.

Yikes! He's right! See

• IBM, Microsoft patents pose dangers and
  
• IBM drops Internet patent bombshell
  

From the first article:

IBM and Microsoft have been quietly busy behind the scenes for the last two years building a toll booth that could position the two companies to collect royalties on most if not all Internet traffic.
...The documents indicate that the two companies are currently maintaining their rights to pursue a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND)licensing framework as opposed to a royalty-free-based framework. The RAND framework is widely acknowledged as the one that keeps a vendor's options open in terms of being able to charge content developers and Internet users a royalty for usage of relevant intellectual property.

So, what are they supposed to use, a really big passwd file? OpenLDAP? Novell NDS? A big Oracle database? Why should we even care what the technology is, as long as it works?

Maybe because it doesn't work.

ever thought of that?

Unfortunately, all the Microsoft-hating government pawns around here seem to have missed the real point of the article.

This isn't just "Microsoft-Hating"
These are valid concerns...

According to this page, PHP is faster than ASP.

And even at ZDNet, PHP is a bit faster...

Microsoft is at it again, this time big-blue is right along with them. IBM and Microsoft are trying to erect so-called standard-bodies that would allow them to get-around the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) requirements for standards to be royalty-free.
Read this article over at ZDNet to get an overview of what is going on.

While they did release the core SOAP and UDDI specifications to the royalty-free process, they are trying to create "piggy-back" protocls that will ensue royalties (i.e. security signing of SOAP messages, file attachments on soap messages and security policy negotiations). They are trying to establish these standards through the UDDI and WS-I organizations. These organizations are perceived to be open and acceptable standard bodies, but they are not. They are heavily controlled by both juggernauts and conform to their interests.

The W3C and the IETF are the only true standard bodies of the Internet! Do not be fooled by IBM and Microsoft and do not be sucked into their grip!
They are trying to ensure that Open-Source, Free implementations of these standards will not be possible! They will be trying to become "toll-boothes" on the Internet.

Try the printer-friendly version

The fucking potential for the fucking two giants to fuckin' erect a goddamn toll booth is tied to the fucking likelihood that Web services protocols such as SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI--and the fucking related ones to fuckin' which the fucking two companies hold patents or other intellectual property rights-- will one day be as important as the fucking standard protocols (such as TCP/IP and HTTP) on which the fucking Internet is based today. You are a pussy. Web services and the fucking protocols that make them piece of shits possible are destined to play a motherfucking major role in most if not all electronic commerce as well as other Internet traffic.

If the fucking protocols do become standards, either by virtue of a fuckin' independent standards organization's imprimatur or by attaining a de facto status, IBM and Microsoft--or any other company that maintains the fucking intellectual property rights to their sorry ass--could legally impose royalties on that traffic. In fact, any protocols that become a part of the fucking core Internet infrastructure without having been made available on a fuckin' royalty-free basis could guarantee the fucking owners of the fucking intellectual property the fucking right to fuckin' place a fuckin' tax on the fucking Internet traffic that depends on those protocols. I will eat your soul.

No motherfucking standard policy
For the fucking most part, standards-setting for the fucking Internet and Web has taken place within the fucking working groups of two organizations: the fucking Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the fucking World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). You are a shithole. Until recently, neither organization had maintained a policy requiring vendors to make the fucking intellectual property (IP) them poo pirates contribute to the fucking standards setting process available on a royalty-free basis. Know this, you are a fuck. According to W3C Patent Policy Working Group Chairman Danny Weitzner, "Despite the fucking lack of a policy, there has always been a goddamn understanding amongst the fucking various contributors that the fucking Internet and the fucking Web wouldn't be possible or scalable unless their contributions were available to fuckin' all fuckheads on a royalty-free basis."

But that gentleman's agreement has been tested several times over the fucking years and that bastard could end up being tested again by Microsoft and IBM. According to fuckin' documents on the fucking W3C's Web site, IBM and Microsoft not only own intellectual property within specific Web services protocols, but also (in addition to the fact that you're a shit) have no motherfucking intentions of relinquishing their IP rights to those protocols should them horse lips become standards. Fact: you are a cock. The fucking documents indicate that the fucking two companies are currently maintaining their rights to pursue a fuckin' reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing framework as opposed to a royalty-free-based framework. Pop Quiz, why are you such a fuckhead? The fucking RAND framework is widely acknowledged as the fucking one that keeps a motherfucking vendor's options open in terms of being able to charge content developers and Internet users a royalty for usage of relevant intellectual property.

HP has a DE100C out, since November 2001. Smilar product, expensive though!

ZDNet intro article

Slashdot Article #1

Slashdot Article #2

HP's web site

Open Source Info

I thought that I recalled the name David Berlind from somewhere. It was an article I read over at The Register about one of the most clueless half-witted tech articles ever written. The register article is here and the original ZDNet article is here. Both make for very amusing reading.

I thought that this article about IBM and open source was much more interesting than the IBM buying Sun article. It shows how masterfully IBM has used open source to make de facto standards out of its versions of web service protocols, like UDDI and SOAP, at least in as far as they apply to Java.

Get with the program, Slashdot. IBM buying Sun has nothing to do with hardware and operating systems, and it has everything to do with web services and Java.

C|Net may have removed Kazaa downloads, but their subsidiary ZDNet still has it available.

They include a link to the C|Net story which discusses the B3D spyware, so this is not just an oversight.

I was all ready to applaud C|Net's decision to pull Kazaa, but this makes me wonder.

There's a favorable revue on ZDNet with a warning about some minor drawbacks.

He proposes implanting time codes into all open source networking and security software that cause it to "expire" like a Blade Runner replicant when it reaches a certain age, forcing an update."

Remember the bug where Windows 98 would automatically halt after 49 days? See, Microsoft really IS ahead of the security curve!

The sad thing is that they will be caught lying again, stand corrected and we'll all just move on. Is there any penalty in these proceedings for lying to the court (usually a serious offence for you and I) or will they get just get their wrist slapped, like they did for the faked video.

ZDNet ran a feature on Outsourced Content Management solutions a couple weeks ago. Talks about the Application Service Providers that are available for content management. Having spent the last 5 years implementing Vignette, Interwoven, and custom-built apps, it might be worth looking into...

Having used Site Server 2.0, and the Rudimentary Content Management that sucked rocks in Site Server 3.0 I've gotta say Microsoft Sharepoint Portal Server (Site Server 4.0 essentially) Rocks.

It's improved tremendously in this iteration, although there's still room for improvement. see http://www.zdnet.com/supercenter/stories/review/0, 12070,475696,00.html

As you've probably guessed VNC et al will only give you remote access, not exactly what you are looking for.

For most mundane things I use Yahoo, it gives me email, address, calendar, bookmarks, yellow pages, file space etc etc I can log in from wherever, currently San Francisco, but also the UK etc. Simple and cheap. The best thing is that all my bookmarks are there for me.

There used to be a company called desktop.com which I thought was going great places, until the slimey VCs fucked up and took their money back. This would have been exactly what you wanted.

You could take a look at freedesk, Magical Desk.

When you find what you like prehaps you could do a review?

Its bold of slashdot to have an article about technology that may put them out of business. Why not go ahead and put up other articles that are just as bold? ;-)

Slashdot creates a pay-for-no-ads service

"Even worse, advertisers will choose a site because they are interested in targeting people who are most interested
in the content. And those are precisely the people who this site can no longer deliver to the advertisers.
"

And they still have not fixed the page widening bug!

Are YOU getting your moneys worth from Sla$hdot!?!?!?

from the zdnet link:
Meanwhile, advertisers will choose a site because they are interested in targeting people who are most interested in the content. And those are precisely the people who this site can no longer deliver to the advertisers.

Slashdot's got that problem covered - even paying subscribers still see ads some of the time!