Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Isn't Slowing Down
An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to this
Business Week article Microsoft is stronger than ever. Considering this is typical of the kind of Microsoft Rump-Swabbery that Management often use to 'enlighte'" themselves, it's little
wonder that so many are of the opinion that if you can't give
Microsoft money for it, it must be no good." Of course, did anyone expect Microsoft to just roll over?
It's all very well to buy into the myth of invincibility, but they have other problems than just competition. Office sales are stagnating, OS sales are a very hard sell in a 'good enough' world (how many people do you know who are on W98?), and their costs are unimaginable (.NET, XBox). You can talk all day long about how they have an attitude more like Stalin or something than a product vendor, but attitude is not everything.
But because Microsoft is only more powerful and influential than most countries, and fights by causing economic disaster and poverty to its enemies rather than literally shooting them, people are slower to take 'em literally there.
But you should still take them literally there. If you are not with them, they want to kill you. Particularly if you try to earn a living doing stuff that they consider their property. The Gateser wishes that there be only one word processor! And web browser, and internet server, and game console, and official government internet site (which government? All governments!)
You'd think people would figure this out quicker. Is power that much harder to see when it's not wearing a soldier uniform?
Sounds good to me. Let's do it.
And if you are admittedly harmful to the public interests, what business do you have bitching about being destroyed, anyway? The public has a collective will, too. If you won't appease it and subjugate your own raw unmoderated desires to what will work in community with others, you deserve to be destroyed, and quit whining. :)
That is why you are wrong (not that you should sit back and be complacent, of course). However, if you are right, then you're still wrong, because in the event that no government will restrain the new power balance in the world, in the event that it all becomes puppet governments tied together by a 'world citizen electronic ID' sort of system by Microsoft (which doesn't even _care_ about governing, it just wants your money), you still have the option of guerrilla warfare, and so does everyone else.
"Microsoft, kill them!" like hell! I'd like to see how well they like that point of view if, all over the world, Microsoft employees are literally being killed, shot, mugged, bombed, mowed down by people with real weapons who aren't afraid to die themselves. It is my fond hope that it will not take something like that to get Microsoft people to see the societal harm caused by their 'Microsoft, kill them!' attitude. That has got to stop. That will stop. It is just a question of whether it can be stopped without taking them at their rhetoric and literally starting to kill them. That's a hell of a step, there's got to be some way to get the message through without that. Bill Gates getting pie in the face should have illustrated the personal vulnerability, but obviously nobody took the hint. They are NOT BULLETPROOF and they need to STOP with the 'Microsoft, kill them!', immediately if not sooner.
And that's a hell of a big assumption, considering that this is a really stupid thing to do, and that you can just as legitimately claim you 'have' all that scripting even if it defaults to off and does not autorun on incoming email scripts.
I can't agree with you enough. IBM recognised years ago the consistent formatting problem that you describe. They invented SGML purely to address the problem! Saving the formatting with the document isn't an obvious mistake, but once you know about things like SGML it's hard to believe that people keep repeating the mistake.
As a side note, I was reading an article on some tech site by a long-time journalist. He had just found that his 5-10 year old documents are no longer accessible! The Word format has changed so drastically that the latest release of Word can't even open the old document formats. He was extremely peeved. This is a strong argument, in my opinion, against closed document formats. XML and SGML are the only reasonable answer.
Time for Microsoft to publish another web page about the XBox to boost moral. Everyone hates Microsoft when an article about big business arises but an X Box ad never fails to rally support.
You sure you can live without an X Box? Given the X Box hysteria, we should all be sucking Bill Gate's dick and asking for seconds.
MIT has been using various UNIX flavors for ages. There are some departments which use MS software, but by and large the impression is that the lack of office applications is not a problem is that other people are discouraged from using office applications. People don't send you Word documents and such because they can't write them, so you don't need to read them.
Actually SQL Server does work better with Win2k/IIS. At least if you are trying to do serious software development, the database connectivity to Oracle is problematic.
It's also not Microsoft's fault. Rather it seems to be Larry Ellison who is to blame. He's almost purposefully crippling Oracle's ability to work with Microsoft in a sad idea that people will switch from Microsoft over to his Java application crap.
I know a number of companies who use Oracle now who are contemplating moving pieces over to SQL Server to get better stability and performance.
"exercises oppressive control over the programming powers of its employees"
Does it?
I believe you'll have a really hard time backing that statement up. At least from talking to the Microsoft employees I know, it's still the best tech company in the world to work at.
And not because of stock options. This is a company that realized long ago that giving programmers offices instead of cubicles makes them more productive, etc.
As far as your other comments. The bottom dropped out of the Consulting market last year.
What I felt was inefficient was all the manageability and configuration.
I have looked at the recent RedHat and Debian distributions. Debian has remained virtually unchanged and is still a bear to work with. RedHat has some nice pretty GUI stuff, but still has a plethora of problems. But then those problems are due to the architecture of Unix and not likely to change without a radical shift.
The ILoveYou virus could be replicated on a Unix system exactly like on Windows without any increased security.
It would require the following assumptions to be true:
#1. A well known way to send email from the system. This is mostly true already.
#2. A well known address book system. i.e. Groupware of some sort, possibly using LDAP services. This exists, but not in a standard well known way.
#3. An email system which is designed with user convenience in mind and allows the opening and execution of attachments.
That's it. Everything else can be automated with scripts or binaries in user-mode.
From then on, our new Iloveyou only needs to modify files available to the user. Why modify system files when I have full access to the login scripts in your user directory.
But for the record. I have never spread any email virus from any computer of mine. I use Windows NT/2k, I use Office, I use Outlook.
The reason? I've never been stupid enough to open any such attachments.
There is a difference between Unix and Windows, but it is primarily the types of users. Since Unix is hard to use, it tends to only have users who are either not able to figure out how to save and execute an attachment, or not stupid enough to do so.
It has nothing to do with the security models. At least not in this case.
All good points!
I did not relate this to Go, but I made a similar comment last year after the PocketPC was released.
If you look at what Microsoft did, they looked at the existing climate of Palm domination and then asked, "Great, but where do people want to be in the future?"
They then designed towards that future. More powerful, more capable devices. Color, sounds, fast, powerful, lot's of storage, etc...
The first versions of WinCE were not successful, primarily because they hadn't clearly defined this vision, and the hardware was not capable of it. After several years of refinement and evolution, the hardware began to catch up.
And now you have the iPaq and it's ilk capturing 20% marketshare.
Meanwhile Palm is changing case colors and releasing Supermodel versions of the same device that first came to market back in 1996. Any bets if they will merge with AOL within 2 years time?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
It seems to me that the open source community has not learned this lesson -- possibly because we are so unstructured. Like it or not, open source has not generally produced fundamentally new technologies at the rate Microsoft has. The one exception would lie in the Internet server market (and it is not coincidental that that is the main market where OSS is successful). We tend to spend all our time catching up in other areas.
For example, Microsoft has had a component based desktop for years, and we are just now starting to get workable ones. Microsoft has had easy GUI design for trivial apps (VB) since the early 90's -- and we are just starting to get it (QT Designer, Kylix). Microsoft still has us totally slaughtered in the groupware arena because we can't seem to really understand that groupware and email are not quite the same thing.
When Microsoft *does* miss a beat -- as with the Internet -- they follow up quickly. Once again, this is like Go. If your opponent gets you in an awkward strategic situation, you can often play through it tactically. Essentially, you end up playing just to stay in the game until your opponent makes a mistake. Then you strike out ahead and hopefully recover your strategic error. This is Microsoft's well known practice of always being the second-best product on the market until the competition screws up.
Anyway, one wonders if Bill Gates plays Go. It's relatively popular on the west coast thanks to the large oriental population. It's truly an awesome game -- the Japanese maintain that it teaches character and strategic thinking for real life. And, I think they're right. It penalizes both cowardice and foolhardiness equally, encourages you to think ahead, and has rules simple enough to teach my three-year-old with permutations complex enough to take a lifetime to understand.
</Ramble>
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
And so should anyone be, to read that set of articles from BusinessWeek. They paint a picture of a Microsoft without limits to its control over the industry, and without limits as to its profit making power, feeding into greater control, feeding into greater profits..
Of course, the article doesn't even whisper the word 'Linux' or 'OpenSource' or, heck, even 'Java' anywhere. The picture they paint of Microsoft run rampant across the industry would be a completely, perfectly accurate one were it NOT for Linux and the Open Source world in general. Throw in the fact that XP will have the yummy corporate 'rights management' stuff built in, and you've got our biggest nightmare, right?
If the article had talked about how Linux has blunted the Windows 2000 server initiative, or about how Apache still runs most web servers, or about how there are dozens of manufacturers selling Java platforms, this would have seemed a good bit less scary. Fortunately. In my view, this article paints a clear picture, that we have three choices. One, the government slaps Microsoft down in some fashion, to impede its monopoly creation and maintenance ability. Two, Microsoft gets ever more powerful and buys pretty much whatever it wants to. Or, three, that everyone else involved in the industry works together on common standards for fear of their lives. That means Linux, that means Java, that means Mozilla, that means Ogg Vorbis, that means XML, that means an open AIM, that means standardized commodity streaming MPEG2 and MPEG4. And all of that might not be enough to forestall Microsoft if they become or remain the only ones with the ability to monetize the net effectively.
When it comes to service provisioning, the openness of the underlying software doesn't matter so much. Like Tim O'Reilly says, it's the openness of the web services that will matter greatly in the next phase of the net. If Microsoft makes their XML/SOAP protocol based services open enough that a Novell or an AOL or an IBM or an Amazon or a Walmart or a Palm can compete to provide Passport-type services integrated with XP, then perhaps Microsoft won't be such a threat to competition. Anyone feel hopeful?
- jon
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
A few years back, I was one of the people involved in drawing up a plan for our university's choice of desktop OS and office software suite. For the office suite we looked at offerings from Microsoft (the incumbent), Corel and Lotus, and for the desktop OS... well, that quickly came down to an all-Microsoft choice. I should point out that our student labs run over 400 apps used in teaching, mostly win16 but a few win32 (and one or two DOS!)
We consulted our users about the office site and they quickly voted for Microsoft on the grounds that it would be a sheer bloody pain to shift. Corel was on the ropes and Lotus cost almost as much as Microsoft. So we signed Campus Agreement, and it made life a lot simpler, and Mr Gates a lot richer.
I was the local Linux zealot and I did try long and hard to convince myself that:
* We could offer a Linux desktop, with linux-native office apps and browser, and run all 400-odd teaching apps under Wine.
* We could offer a Linux desktop, with linux-native office apps and browser, and run all 400-odd teaching apps under VMware.
* We could offer a Linux desktop, with linux-native office apps and browser, and run all 400-odd teaching apps on a Citrix app server via the linux ICA client.
And the I thought - why?
Once the decision was made, we all thought - "Don't worry, we don't need to renegotiate for a few years, and the DOJ will have broken Microsoft up by then - or at very least imposed regulations to make Mr Gates tame, polite and meek in all his dealings". This did not turn out to be true, did it?
So I suppose it's time to look at putting together a strategy to make Windows 2000/Office 2000 our final Microsoft platform - there's no way we're touching Windows Xtra Pain, that's for sure. Since we last looked at the problem, Staroffice/Openoffice has become pretty viable, many of our teaching apps have been replaced by web-based teaching aids, many new apps have appeared that have linux ports.
Are any other universities thinking along these lines?
george
You can buy a Chilton or a Haynes for your automobile a lot cheaper than aftermarket books on MS software, and they're a *lot* more informative and helpful in fixing problems.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Why are they angry?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I know it's essentially suicide to mention anything PRO-Microsoft, but I'm going to take the leap.
As much as some of the 'harrier' open-source and free-software supprorters deride large Close-Souce Companies. the truth of the matter is that having companies like them around *does* foster quality development.
Just think: suppose MS died, and there was no one controlling the desktop market? I'm willing to bet you a herring that feature development on ye' olde' favourite Free OS would slow. There would be no need to improve it at the current rate because you're not racing anyone.
We in the Open Source and Free Software communities would like to think that we're immune from such normal things like sloth, but believe it or not, we are human, and are at risk of getting sloppy if there is no one prodding us on.
.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Like Ali, Microsoft had absorbed some bruising body blows in its own Rumble in the Jungle, Ballmer told the crowd. "We were getting shots from everywhere. Maybe we even had a little fear in our eyes." Then his voice suddenly rose to a shout: "You know what I say? I say we're off the ropes!" The Microsofties roared.
This statement in a nutshell embodies everything I despise about Microsoft; that they treat everything like a fight.
It reminds me of the old comparison, you stick a PC floppy in a Mac, and it tells you it's a PC floppy and shows you the files.
You stick a Mac floppy in a Windows box, and it asks if you want to format it.
If they could just learn to 'play nice' with the other guy, or at least not break things (I fear bringing active directory up on our network here) it wouldn't be so easy to dislike their products.
You're completely right. We should give up now.
On the other hand... most Linux enthusists aren't playing the capitalist game. We aren't in it for the cash. And jokes aside, we're not looking to take over the world. We just want to work on computers that don't suck. With development tools that don't lock you in. With programs that do our bidding, not the other way around.
As long as I can run Linux and OpenBSD, and can continue to buy hardware for them, I'll be fine. Maybe I'll still maintain a Windoze box for playing games, but that's it. I'm not going to give MS much of my money. And if more people adopt that attitude, MS will wither away and be forgotten.
At any rate, I'm certainly not hoping that one of those other mega-corporations is going to save the day. They are all the same, it's just that MS is the most powerful at this moment.
I agree with you to the extent that if you're trying to play MS's game on their own turf, you're likely to lose. They'd like you to believe that their game is the only one in existance. They'd like you to believe that proprietary software is the only way to achieve quality. But they are wrong.
The only answer is not to play their game. They know they can't play our game (cooperation) because they'd lose status and become marginalized.
(I think I can get flamebait and troll all in one post)
Quote:
"There's no block to people putting features on Windows," he snaps.
Isn't that part of the problem?
1. Putting a feature into Windows means its now a target for embrasure (is that a word?), extension, or imitation. You have just decided to compete with MS. Somehow I doubt their "shared source" will help. Ask Stac how much success they had in putting features into a Microsoft product.
2. This statement is, to me, implicitly saying that innovation is dependant on Windows in the first place. Wasn't it Jackson who said (paraphrased) MS makes a barrier to innovation with this kind of thinking? They hammer the doors shut if you aren't talking Win32?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
When I see all this, I find it quite frightening...
I heard that MS planned for XP an online activation of the program (or phone activation ?)...
UCITA provides big software companies with the right to remote-disable pograms and thus, with the right to insert these remote-disable facilities...
Year X : MS Windows 95, MS Windows 98, MS windows NT, MS Windows Me and MS Windows 2000 are not available anymore... By some licencing tricks as well as unneeded compatibility glitches, peoples are forced to switch to XP
Year X+2 : About everyone uses XP. US Law dept decide to start a new anti-trust against MS... MS Answer : "Drop that lawsuit or we'll disable all XP in USA"... US Government can't do anything anymore, fearing that the whole US inductry would fall apart and USA returning to technological Middle Age
Year X+3 : MS controls the world.
This scenario is a little pessimistic... But with more and more being done using computers... and MS Windows... Many monopolies aren't as critical as Computer... A Monopoly in Film, Music or such couldn't destroy the economy of a whole land and make all stop working...
When I see the future, I'm quite frightened...
But, there is another point... Laws were done to protect the people... Now, they become protections of the revenues of the big companies, thanks to lobbying and pots-de-vins.
People stealing other were shown by everyone... Now, people "steal" music (Napster and such) but these are usually not shown as doing something wrong (except by RIAA and such).
When something don't seem fair to people, they don't respect it. And in these times, we see more and more people copying music, films (Region Playback Control enhance this), Software (overpricing and bad quality enhance this one)... They REALLY DON'T THINK THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG... So, it shouldn't be wrong in the laws... When everyone breaks some law, that law becomes unenforceable...
We risk to reach a big crisis in the next years... And it may be sooner that we could think...
By the way, Bill Parish (http://www.billparish.com) had an article telling how MSFT is showing increasing wins but in reality has increasing losses. He tells that by using a pyramidal system in which stock options take a great part, they can do that trick... It's also scary as pyramidal systems will ALWAYS collapse (due to their exponential scheme)...
Ancient greeks knew steam engine (Zenon), knew how to make the big doors of a temple open when someone approach,... then we drooped in Middle Age... Will history repeats itself ?
Oni is a Bungie/GODgames product, NOT Microsoft.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Nah. Before that happens they'll devote billions to R&D to find new markets.
Face it folks, Microsoft may be our best bet for interstellar travel, if only so they can find other civilizations that need Windows machines!
Kevin Fox
--
Kevin Fox
Microsoft has a lot of capital. That alone will keep them alive. However, if you look at what they have been producing I see only evolutionary improvements in products they've had for years. The innovation mostly consists of adding features and integrating their various products. While that improves usability somewhat, it is not true innovation. Rather it is inertia. People buy ms products today because they bought them yesterday. Some of them will probably buy them again tomorrow, but some won't.
Of course the underlying question when such an article is posted on slashdot is whether they will continue be able to compete with open source software and the answer is yes of course. MS has plenty of money and can afford to experiment with their strategy as much as they like. Right now they are trying to see how much money they can squeeze out of their customers and it turns out to be quite a lot (and why shouldn't they, I have no sympathy for idiots so lets rip them off). On the other hand they are losing a few customers which is bad in the long term. Probably they will become a bit more moderate if they start losing too much customers. However considering their installed base, they will have a revenue stream for years to come, no matter what they do, no matter how crazy they act.
However, open source has a similar advantage. It's free now, it's free tomorrow. It will always be the cheaper option. The quality of some open source products is also quite good and if MS continues to make life hard for home users (with activation bullshit and all), it becomes increasingly attractive to let mandrake reorganize my disk a bit, removing all dependencies on legacy software such as outlook and notepad.
Jilles
Take a look at this piece in The Register. Basically, Microsoft have implemented a site for the UK government called Government Gateway, which will enable you to use your computer to electronically perform a lot of tasks which previously needed lots of paper work (like Tax Self Assessment). However, if you go to the Gateway you find that they have very restrictive checks on the browser you are using -- and they won't let you use some of the areas which use a digital certificate unless you are using Internet Explorer 5+.
You can still use it if you fake the UserAgent string, but this sort of behaviour from a website is at best crude, and at worst deliberately targeting non-Microsoft OSes.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
I suspect Microsoft is actually deeply worried about the next five years. The top execs know only too well just what IBM looked like to the business press in 1989 - and how quickly they fell from a position of seeming invincibility. The margins in the packaged software business are falling rapidly. Unix server revenues are nearly triple Windows server revenues - and Linux is cleaning their clocks at the low end. To move away from the software license model means going the services route - a la .NET which is untested and a big gamble to say the least.
Unlike the heyday of fawning which accompanied Microsoft in the mid-90s, businesses are becoming very hard-nosed about security, privacy and robustness - especially as more businesses integrate Internet functionality into their business models. Most are deeply disturbed at the idea of a middleware layer of services controlled solely by Microsoft and won't be very keen to move there.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Uhh, what about the dachas, the power, the women?
By any reasonable definition the high end aparachniks were pretty rich. When the system switched over to "capitalism", the system of organized robbery merely continued without the pretext of common social progress.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
True. There was an report on one of the busines programs on TV the other day about the latest version of WordPerfect which acknowledged that features or quality are now immaterial to it's success, since Microsoft is now so entrenched. People buy Windows, Word etc because they are the standard - not because they are the best. Of course these things never last - the same was true of IBM at one stage.
Who cares how many they sold--we are looking at it from a business prospective, right? What matters is net profit. If IBM sold twice as many boxes as Apple, but IBM's profit margin was one quarter of Apple's due to competition from clones, Apple comes out ahead.
While you may be of the opinion that Windows sucks more than ever, or that linux/OS X/BSD/BeOS/AmigaOS is more threatening than ever, that's largely irrelevant. Microsoft is a business, and their strength is reflected by business forcasts, price-to-earning ratios, and other financial indicators.
While Eazel is going out of business, Mandrake is asking resorting to donations, and countless other tech companies are hurting, Microsoft is doing just fine. They're not instituting mass layoffs. I know people who work there, and things are the same-old, same-old.
Linux may be a better OS, but it's not a better business plan, unfortunately.
They're the biggest and most profitable software company out there.
Dosn't the kind of stock market "game" Microsoft are involved in require showing constant expansion. Here being the biggest can be a disadvantage.
Microsoft has indicated that it is intent on continued growth of 20% a year.
:-).
Has anyone calculated just how many years it will be before Microsoft corporate strategy requires that they own everything?
Huh? I have been trying to connect to SQL server from my linux/apache/php box and just can't seem to find any thing to make this possible. MS also does not make a JDBC driver so I can try and use Java.
If I was using any other database I would have been able to connect just fine.
Anybody who bets their business on SQLserver deserves every headache they get.
War is necrophilia.
"That's right, it's democracy"
When I was going to school my professor explaine dthe difference between a democracy and a republic this way.
A lynching is a perfect example of a democracy. You have 10 people for lynching and one against.
War is necrophilia.
Thanks for the tip. For me it's not just java it's trying to connect to SQL server from linux using ANYTHING!. Does this software depend on windows libraries or can it run on Linux?
MS is the biggest lying copany on the planet. Whenever i see their "plays nice with others" ad I just want to spit on all their lying faces.
War is necrophilia.
Ever ponder what would have happened if IBM had not been a monopoly for 20 years early in the computer industry? Where would we be now? I'll bet a lot further down the road.
Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Most /.ers are not wise enough to learn any history.
-- Multics
With W in office, their legal troubles will fade away. It certainly didn't hurt that the first-level judge was at least unwise about his comments. If applications had been peeled off of Windows the world would be a different place. The probability of that happening is about 0.0001 now.
They are talking up Linux to make sure everyone thinks that they are all worried about an O/S with no significant applications that anyone cares about. They are worried like my grandfather (who is 92) is worried that 10 nymphomanics are going to attack him every Sunday.
They will finish their take-over of the web, but getting Steve "kingdom builder" Case to throw away Netscape. Already places like Weather Channel are difficult to use in Netscape and that trend will accelerate violently this year. (And yes, macromedia flash is part of WC's problems)
So what if XP is a failure. They'll change the license for Win2k to a time-based one and poof the monopoly is complete. These guys are classic Monopolists and as soon as they can lock everyone one into their party (they are very very close now), innovation will nearly stop. No monopolist will invest in his marketplace when he has absolute control and a reliable income stream. That is what XP is about. The terminal technology while MS goes off and attempts to dominate all the other software marketplaces. Ever consider what it would take in terms of cash for them to buy Palm and Handspring and just close them?...
The only thing that will stop this mess is Bill quitting and he can't just about as any human can't taking in O2. I wonder if he is at all happy... I'll bet not.
So kids, we're in deep trouble. "Open" people have failed to provide things people want enough to switch away from Windows on the desktop. If "Open" doesn't own the desktop, it is likely that "Open" doesn't own anything.
--Multics
SuperID
Free Database Hosting
This king of leads to the MS 3 rule; no MS product works at all well until version 3. MS can just throw more and more money at a problem until it goes away.
Very few other companies in the world could have afforded or would have wanted to keep MSN going. MS is different though. Once they attack a space, they just keep fighting (and spending). They will not allow defeat.
Take a look at embedded software. Another version of WinCE, 3.0 (aka PocketPC) is trying to push forward and staring to do better. At the same time, NT Embedded has finally spawned Windows XP Embedded (Win2k Embedded never made it out of the gate).
MSNBC keeps pushing forward. The mighty CNN (backed by AOLTime) is now struggling to fight off this (and Fox). Spend enough and keep trying and people watched.
Enterprise software? They have Win2k running on 32 processor intel based systems with 64 gigs of RAM. Exchange is all of the place. SQLServer use is growing.
As a business they do some many things to make sure they win. Every piece is tied to all the others. They tell you that "If you run windows and office at home, you should use a PocketPC! It runs all the same stuff!" They say that "If you run Win2k, than Exchange, SQLServer, and IIS run the best!" They want everything to tie to them. Your windows login becomes your "Passport". Now they own part of your identity. Pretty soon you will have to pay to use your own passport. Just a penny a login...
The fact is that they are just too damn good at this capitalist game. In order to protect the people and not stiffle innovation, the playing field has to be made a bit more fair. The government no longer seems up to the task. Our only hope is that MS's enemies gang up on them. Can even AOLTimeWarner, Sony, Sun, Oracle, and IBM combined beat them? I don't know. I sure hope so because I would have rather have a bunch of powerful companies in specific sectors than one all powerful company in all sectors of the economy.
-- soldack
Yeah, and he said the same thing about Windows ME and Windows 98. If Windows ME or 98 was the most important thing since Windows 95, then shouldn't Windows XP be the most important thing since Windows ME?
>>>>>>>>>
Lets go through a basic tutorial in algebra. If the importance level of Windows 95 was 10, the importance level of Windows 98 was 4, ME 6 and XP 9. Since there was nothing between '95 and '98, '98 was indeed the most important thing since '95, since 4 > 0. Now, '98 is between '95 and ME, but 6 > 4, so ME is the most important thing since '95. Lastly both '98 and ME are between '95 and XP, and 9 > 6 > 4, so XP is the most important thing since '95. Not really that hard when somebody explicates it all nice for you, is it?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
(this was not intended as a troll, btw). /., anything that doesn't extoll all the virtues of OSS programs and condemn MS for being capitalist pigs is taken as trolling. God forbid we should judge anything an technical merit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Its really sad that you have to state that. On
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What you said is interesting but I strongly disagree about your analysis of Java with regards to web apps. Java GUI perhaps is clunky. However, Java rules the networking middle tier as perhaps the most scalable, well structured and speedy platform. Simple servlets (no EJB) are very fast, very easy to learn, and very powerful. All C# will bring to this equation is native interfaces to the OS platform. Java lacks this (file permissions, etc) because Java tries to be too pure in its platform independence. .NET's biggest challenge, is that vetran C++ network coders who played with MTS and COM+ had bad experiences. The shit didn't work and didn't scale. While Microsoft may get it right with .NET, that taste is lingering, and those guys have moved on to Java Servlets.
Someone you trust is one of us.
This just in:
TUESDAY MAY 29 2001
US banks face huge claims over dot-coms
FROM CHRIS AYRES IN NEW YORK
WALL STREET banks are facing an avalanche of expensive litigation, with as many as 100 class-action lawsuits, demanding tens of billions of dollars in damages. The banks are being accused by investors of allegedly rigging the flotations of Internet companies during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. An investigation by The Times has found that 21 separate lawsuits have already been filed against ten different banks in Manhattan federal courts.
The lawsuits allege that the flotations of Internet and technology companies including Marketwatch.com, MP3.com, DoubleClick and Ariba were rigged.
Securities litigation experts in New York estimate that at least another 60 similar lawsuits are currently being prepared.
...
Seastead this.
When the east coast establishment simultaneously:
- In conjunction with Netscape, activates the antitrust powers of the US Government against Microsoft.
- Agglomerates the AOL/Time-Warner/CNN/Netscape behemoth with the approval of said powers of the US Government.
- Commits institutional investors to purchasing the initial public offerings of almost anything capitalized by Silicon Valley venture capitalists.
I think it is safe to say that no one with big chunks of capital and/or US Government power thought Microsoft was going to "just roll over".Seastead this.
Where I work, I'm constantly trying to promote Linux in places where it would be beneficial.
We're a relatively small company, with roughly 250 computer workstations/notebooks and about 20 servers, spread across 7 locations. Right now, everything is running Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 (except maybe 2 or 3 notebooks with Win '98).
I seem to be the lone voice in favor of Linux, though. The rest of the system administrators and support people I work with do nothing more than poke fun at me for trying to stir up trouble with the whole Linux thing.
Their biggest argument against Linux is that it will muddy up the environment. They're afraid of having "oddball boxes, running something completely different than the rest of the systems run". (Translation: We're too unsure of our own abilities to administer a Linux box, and don't want to be forced to learn something new.)
Our company is surprisingly willing to let the techs make the tech decisions. Management isn't forcing us to use MS products at all. They just want to see results, and being rather computer illiterate to begin with, don't care how the results are achieved. The techs themselves are keeping Linux out of our company!
Not surprising for something that has never moved.
I'm sure if they're going to loose that much money, we could start sending donations that way a la Mandrake.
(For the sarcasm challenged, this was a pitiful attempt at humor)
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
There is a key distinction to be made regarding open source software here.
It is true that there are no phenomenal returns to be made selling free software akin to the kind of profits made by a monopoly on an increasingly essential service (I use my computer more than my telephone and television combined - that has some interesting implications.)
However, there are certainly profits to be made by those smart enough to figure out they can use open source to the benefit of their business. Those businesses have an advantage over their inertia-bound competitors that, in the larger scheme of things, will see them succeed more often, all the marketing drivel from Redmond notwithstanding.
As an aside, does anyone remember the Ted Rall cartoon from a few years back about "tieing" that resulted in
I really think the key event for open source success will be the release of a very low cost appliance. Consumers want convenience at a low cost; no hassles. Such an appliance can be built (Hint: It's not the Xbox.)
"Provided by the management for your protection."
But in space, no one can hear them scream...
hehe...
I'm finally going to convert my standard general purpose machine (Desktop PC) to Linux or BSD...
(From win2k)
I'm not interested in XP.
Microsoft's XP line will do as well or perhaps better than they are expecting, despite what the /. community thinks. The average consumer will see, via good ole Microsoft marketing, that they will be able to use their computer more efficiently and effectively and that it will do lots of things for them if they get this new 'Windows XP' thing.
As for monthy subscriptions, I'm guessing most won't care too much because it'll be taken directly from their credit card that they have to pay every month anyways and if it will provide them with a richer experience on their computer they will probably overlook it. I hate to say it, but if Microsoft delivers on it's promises with this new system and provides something that is significantly different than it's previous line of windows products that people will buy it and Microsoft will make more money and extend their monopoly.
So far thay seem to have done everything right with the tight integration they are promissing which should enhance the users experience. It's too bad the Justice Department is letting this happen if they could only see how much this will help and hurt consumers at the same time, not to mention what it will do to competition.
Yes this will help consumers in ways I've already mentioned and that Microsoft has mentioned, but it will also hurt several of them if they are denied the freedom to use what they want to, however I'm willing to bet that 80-90% of the Windows users out there don't care what they're using and will just use whatever someone puts in front of them.
Competition of course will be hurt quite a bit, but this should not be surprising either coming from Microsoft. Microsoft plays hardball, and they have the resources to play harder than anyone.
I'm not pro-Microsoft by any means, but I can recognize that they do have a good business and excellent marketing which has brought them to where they are today and will continue to carry them in the future. As for Linux and other open alternatives, I'm not sure. I personally use Linux as my primary operating system, but I can also see that Linux has no real business model or good marketing and unless that is changed, giants like Microsoft will trample them out of existance.
Having a better product isn't enough.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
From a legal perspective, you're exactly right. However, when you're dealing with Big Numbers (tm), then the EULA is irrelevant in the opposite direction. In other words, no matter WHAT legal protection you have, I'm going to bludgeon you, your company, and your children if your product breaks and takes our data with it!
From that point of view, the execs have a point. It still often leads to crappy software being used because of the 'support.'
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I have a client that was just bought out by a company making business based on what a bunch of clueless execs decide in a little office, somewhere far away. I look at this situation, and understand perfectly well why MS is going to continue to steamroller over everyone they can. Here are some policies.
1) Thou shalt use no free software, because it's unsupported and will therefore break.
Now their main app is serving data up through samba, but because Mother Corp. says so, they're going to have to find something else. The stupid part is, they're outsourcing support anyways, and the company (mine) doing support _will_ support samba! There's just no vendor to blame when it breaks.
2) Thou shalt use (backup product A), despite the fact that (backup product B) is better, cheaper, has been successfully implemented across the company for several years, and is the only supported software for their large tape library.
With decisions like this, it's no wonder that companies (i.e. MS but not exclusively them) can get away with increasing their market share with a crappy product over and over again.
Here's an idea: Let the techs make the tech decisions for tech reasons, then watch bad companies rot and productivity increase immensely!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Many of these groups may also simply not play nice with each other. Many were formed when one product's developers got into an argument over something that caused them to fork. then we have the various licenses that these are released under. Getting the GPL, BSD, LGPL and others to come together would be next to impossible. No one would want to look like the loser.
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
I wonder if MS' continued growth is due to their being able to have a unified front against other companies? MS acts as one while Linux has numerous groups all with the same core beliefs (basicly) but, with their own idea of how things should be done. When MS puts out a piece of software, there is only one version at a time. Often in the Linux world you will have a free* version, a open* version, a gnu* version, etc... MS is once again able to use its unified front against these other (and often times better) products to give the impression that it's product is more popular and thus (in their eyes) better.
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
Did anyone really expect Microsoft to start slowing down? They're the biggest and most profitable software company out there. The quality of what they sell is really irrelevant from a business standpoint. What matters is that they know how to sell it, keep selling it, and make large quantities of money from selling it. They do that well. Very well.
How many people here DIDN'T know that Microsoft was going strong?
Honestly, I don't think this article was posted to inform us of anything, or to be interesting. I think the sole reason that this was posted was to see the flames fly at Microsoft. If that's the case, you really need to grow up.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I think that's partially right: the problem with communism was more that it didn't make the right people rich. By allowing only politicians to get rich (i.e. have the perks of society,) you disenfranchise many of your most talented citizens. Microsoft has always been a very talent-based organization, and this has allowed them to prosper (they hired smart geeks when geeks were very unfashionable, and really believed in talent over schooling/family, etc.) Organizations seem to die rapidly when people
- see that the organization's goals and their's are not aligned
- when they have a choice of going elsewhere.
As long as Microsoft continues to shower riches on the employees that do well, I don't think they'll have a problem.MS will probably collapse in time, as do most huge organizations, but it probably won't be because they're evil. It will probably be more like a shift in the economic climate, such as the one that did in the great rail companies.
I think two other scenarios are more likely:
Bill Gates leaves. The power vacuum is filled by politicians and sycophants. Employees see that talent and hard work are less important than politics.
Microsoft uses lawsuits and the courts to such an extent that employees feel their technical work is less important than the business/legal side.
Both these situations might cause the firm to collapse, and if it does, the collapse might to surprisingly rapid.
Agree. Windows 2000 makes unix look like child play. Once you can script the OS (vbs) you can automate anything in the console of GUI - it is very powerful if you know how to use.
You also just pointed out Win2K's greatest weakness as well. The problem with you being able to script the OS is so can anyone else simply by embeding a VB Macro Virus into an email or a Word document. I point to the Melissa and "I Love You" VB Macro Virus's which were nearly unstoppable last year, as examples of what is to come. I do not consider the ability to "Script the OS" to be an advantage, I consider it an extreme and uneccessary security risk.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Does linux's bash scripts, frex, are an extreme and unneccessary security risk?
The answer is no, bash scripts are not a security risk. It is all about security model, the Unix security model does not lend itself to this type of exploit, while the non existant security model of Win95/98/ME and the barely exceptable security model of WinNT/2K does lend itself to this type of problem.
I do agree the problem is with users, they should not be opening attachments from unknown sources, but the fact of the matter is, they do and Microsoft should know this and take steps to prevent these scripts from doing stupid things.
You may have noticed that VIM exploit you pointed to only runs code at the users security level, not as root. You should also note, there is a fix for it. While with Windows, this has been a well known problem for a couple of years now, MS has even tried to fix it a couple of times, but still, up until even a couple of weeks ago, I am still recieving VB virus's in my email.
In my opinion there are three reasons why virus's are a bigger problem in Windows then any other platform.
1. More Windows boxes then any other.
2. Windows virus's are easier to write.
3. All the programers who could write Linux virus's are too busy writing Windows virus's
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
You may have noticed that VBScript viruses you pointed to only runs code at the users security level. Well, you would of if you had half a clue.
Which of course means under Win95/98/ME the virus can do anything it wants to include deleteing system files, altering the registry and screwing with other users files.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Better delete your copies of bash, Perl, and Python then.
Again, it is all about security model, which Unix has and Windows 95/98/ME do not. A rogue perl script would not be able to delete system files, alter global configuration files or screw with other users files. Where as in Win 95/98/ME a VB script can do all of these things.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Windows is very easy to install, and I've done it a few hundred times. Turn on machine, place cd in drive, boot from cd, enter a few numbers. Not to difficult.
You left out, install chipset driver, reboot, install video driver, reboot, install sound driver, reboot, install modem driver, reboot, configure Dialup, reboot, install Network card driver, reboot, configure network settings, reboot, install DvD software, reboot, install TV Tuner software, reboot, run the Windows update, reboot. Now begin installing applications.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Ever hear of someone choosing to switch to windows ?
I did once for a couple of weeks. I got tired of having to fight with Linux to do the simplest things and I wanted USB, DvD and all sorts of things I thought Linux couldn't deliver. I had forgotten why I switched to Linux in the first place. I am not going to go into detail about how horrible Windows was (anyone who says its easy to install Windows, has never done it), but I can tell you I am back to Linux, I have USB, DvD and all that other stuff, I have vowed never to return to Windows.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Their .net strategy is a way to avoid all these games. Instead of having to produce a better word processor to convince people to upgrade from Office 97, they develop a steady revenue stream by offering their product as a service, and charging monthly.
Its brilliant, and they probably have the power to do it. Fortunately, as long as their are free alternatives out there (mozilla, abiword, openoffice, etc.), they will not be able to capitalize entirely on their position, EVEN IF THOSE ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT USED BY THE MAJORITY OF COMPUTER USERS. AOL funds Netscape development but uses Explorer because right now, Explorer is a little better, and if they don't have an "Ace in the hole", Microsoft will no longer need to give away Explorer. Microsoft's strategy can be successful at quashing competing companies, but the open source alternatives don't play by the same business rules, and are thus very important for keeping Microsoft in check.
I would have quoted more, but you get the idea. Ok, you're a writer, and you want a system on which to write. That's great, but why would you use Microsoft Word? If you really are a novelist name one "feature" that you actually need. Publishing houses don't run on word documents, so don't tell me about formatting. For a novel I can't really see you using OLE. Graphs? no. Oh wait, tables... no. hmmmmmm Auto spell checking? seems useless when you can save time by running it once at the end. Oooh, wait, the paper clip guy! I knew you had a good reason
Really, I'm just getting to my rant, and it is this. Microsoft Word (and WordPerfect, and any other word processor you can think of) is NOT the killer app. In fact, I would say that programs of that ilk are responsible for some of the worst business practices I have ever seen evolve (the absolute worse probably has to do with the proper use of AutoCAD, but I digress). Most of your larger companies have standards. Fonts, headers, etc... all have some sort of standard look and feel. Comnpanies that do most of their document management using Word Processor software have to open each document and reformat any time these standards change. People writing the documents have to constantly change their formatting as they write to accomdate these standards. Publishers are no different, they have standards to, and even if they don't, they need to change the formatting for a number of documents or several places in a document all at once(as in chapter headers) think they want to scroll through your word document to change all of the 'Arial' headers to 'Times New Roman'? Ask O'Reilly or New Riders how they manage their documents and books (Hint: it's NOT with word).
There are also many times when documents need to be found. For instance, if a key secratary leaves, that person may have been managing hundreds of documents in what ever fasion they had developed over the years. This documentation system might not be obvious to somone coming in 'blind'. With a word processor you have to open each file inside of that word processor to find a particular document you are looking for. There is no easy way to catagorize and index the documents left by that secratary.
Switching from word processors to a well designed mark up language (at one time I would have said SGML but now XML) will fix all of these problems, if implemented correctly. Since your headers, quotes, citations, body text, and everything else is now marked by function and not feel. It is trivial to select a formatting style when you produce output (display or print). If that important secratary leaves, it is a simple thing to take every document s/he had stored and index by date, subject, recipient, or any other field.
Anyone who is using a word processing program is castrating their computer in favor of a slightly more advanced pencil. Word, Word Perfect, etc... are good for keeping your resume, and perhaps writing a letter to a friend (if you were going to print it out and mail it). Even then, I'd stack a good markup editor aginst them any day.
I know I rambled, but this is a pet peeve of mine. In any case, I'd rather show business how much that office suite they love so much is hurting them than try to reproduce the same lump of steaming crap for GNU/Linux.
Politics, Culture, Food?
But let the real numbers, not Business Week's, do the talking - check out the 52-week low. 160% of 40 is 64, almost 70! Wow! But a better picture is a 5-year plot (I believe it's adjusted for the stock splits). One story is that the stock was almost at 120, and instead of being dismayed that it was reduced to one-third of its value, Business Week thinks we should be happy that's it's at nearly two-thirds instead - but they forgot to mention that part...
Ever hear of someone choosing to switch to windows?
People that tried Linux and decided they like to get things done with their system, not spend all their time mucking around in configuration files?
My grandmother hates Linux. As long as that fact is true, Microsoft owns the marketplace.
NO CARRIER
I do not consider the ability to "Script the OS" to be an advantage, I consider it an extreme and uneccessary security risk
Better delete your copies of bash, Perl, and Python then.
The only reason you've been hearing about VBScript viruses instead of more Linux based script viruses is because (many) more people use Windows than use Linux. And most of those people are idiots. They'd be just as likely to spread trouble around if they were all running any current Linux distribution.
NO CARRIER
A rogue perl script would not be able to delete system files, alter global configuration files or screw with other users files. Where as in Win 95/98/ME a VB script can do all of these things.
Win 95, 98, and ME are single user operating systems (though the shell may support multiple "users"), designed with functionality and legacy support in mind first, and security considerations second. They're not on the same level on Unix, nor do they pretend to be. Any amount of system protection that requires specific user interaction to bypass, say when they install new hardware and need to install drivers for it, would be completely unacceptable to a Windows 9x/ME user.
Take Windows 2000, which is by design a protected OS. Scripting doesn't present any more of a security breach than it does for Linux.
NO CARRIER
If it weren't M$, then what? KDE? Gnome? It'd still be a monopoly, or there'd be nothing for Word Processor developers to write to.
But who out there wants to be a WP developer? Who'se innermost craving is to write the next talking paperclip? It's been done before.
Computing, as in the stuff M$ don't understand, is in the Data Centre. These places are stuffed full of Sun and HP kit, and some EMC storage, as far as the eye can see.
Now that's somewhere M$ will never get; it's where the big boys play, where no customer will accept embrace-and-extinguish, where the ultimate requirement is, "we buy this from you so long as we are not dependant on you" - open protocols.
Okay, these customers pay a lot for hardware, but they retain their FREEDOM to chose an alternate vendor of CLOSED *PLATFORMS* and code.
Try telling AT&T that their HP boxes are closed; they don't care; the HP/UX they use are similar to the Solaris their closed Sun boxes use. They can swap-and change easily; they all use the same protocols.
If the 1-800 system changed from (say) HP to (say) IBM, you as an end-user would never notice the difference.
Get out of the shallow end. Let M$ have it; let them plough millions into research of which paperclip we want today. The intelligent CS is in the high end, where nobody will take any embrace-and-extinguish suitor seriously.
Steve.
#include <stddiscl.h>
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
The part that pisses me off is that it only gets reported because microsoft is, in fact, making money hand over fist. And Open Source is not. Bear in mind, it's not losing money, bad ideas lose money, Open source just doesnt have the phenomenal returns that selling an OS for 500 bucks and office software for 400 bucks does. Linux IS making money, but just because people who sit on stock commitees dont get to line their pockets with our efforts, as they do with buying into M$, they would rather bash Open Source as much as they can.
It also seems apparent that Microsoft has some sort of stake in BusinessWeek as well, doesn't it? :-)
The whole thing seems kinda like the Tortoise and the Hare, I suppose. The Rabbit running like mad to stay in front, the turtle just plodding along as his own pace. But we all know who won THAT race.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
There is still plenty of time to compete in the web services sphere, unfortunately the non-Microsoft world is divided (Sun, IBM, and the open communitieis each taking slightly different approaches), which makes Microsoft domination easier over time.
Every paragraph was about how microsoft could afford to take over virtually every section of the market, and build this disguisting empire.
This really makes me want to cry. Or kidnap bill gates and staple stuffed Tux dolls to his forehead.
What disgusts me the most, was that stupid reference to the Ali boxing match. Here's to taking something way out of context and fucking it up the ass till it bleeds your name.
Ugh.
--
--
#nohup cat
A better analogy would be that when you buy a car, you don't presume to have a right to get the drawings and plans that were used to make it?
They're not free, but you can pick up any of a number of excellent reference manuals here
Please inform the posters here where guides of equal quality to Microsoft's code base exist.
Thanx
MAB
It is quite apparent to me that Microsoft will fall down eventually, as all the creations of humanity have downfallen from the greatness they once had had. However I expect their demise to be neither shortcoming nor quick.
Microsoft has occupied very important positions in two vital areas: office software and desktop operating systems. They have also ventured into countless other markets, such as server software and even gaming hardware. However, it is in these areas that Microsoft will face determined oposition.
Microsoft's corporate attitude to problems (releasing often and making the public beleive there are major improvements each time) may work well for their fields of dominance - amid the ignorant public. However, Microsoft does not convince the professionals. It is the reason that Microsoft will never expand its share in the server market.
As to the desktop software area, it might take some time for opposing forces to appear. Microsoft may lose popularity among customers, for things like XP's forced registration. It is also apparent that the level of average knowledge of computers among the population will increase greatly in 10 years. Hardware may also change in such ways that may make Microsoft's activities more difficult (or the opposite - who knows?).
To sum up, remember these words in a language that was once considered to be a part of an omnipotent global culture - sic transit gloria mundi.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If some other business magazine puts forward an article that concludes: "Microsoft is bad" (vide "The Economist"), they are righteous 'free press'. If they write something that contradicts the colective opinion of slashdotters, it is 'typical of business reporting', and obviously has something to do with 'millions, that MS...'.
Face the reality: MicroSoft is a damn effective company, that makes good software and knows, how to sell it.
And for the zealous ones: I didn't say, they were moral and nice. I have just stated the facts.
-m-
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
It's hilariously short sighted that they would use Ali as their metaphor - I guess they forgot who's in better shape now Ali or Foreman. It's almost as wise a choice as using "Start me up" and forgetting the chorus...
Also startling:
Microsoft has woven rudimentary natural language into such products as Office. The next step is delivering more advanced capabilities in the version of Windows due out in two years or so, codenamed Blackcomb.
Man, hear that all you programmers; in two years you will be obsolete - Billy-bob in his trailer will be able to tell his computer.." Gawd PC, I said I want the Boss on this level to look more like Baal on that diablo game.. but not too much I'z don't wanna get sued or nothin.."
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Ovary security features? Now THAT would be innovation. I know I'd feel a lot safer if I knew my wife wouldn't be able to stumble across porn sites in my browser cache.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
When you are a superset of a competitor, this gives customers a relatively painless way to switch to you. As an example, PHP on Windows is a superset of ASP in that literally everything that you can do in ASP can be done in PHP, including COM, making ASP a rather silly choice. The only possible missing features, which can be implemented other ways easily (thus still making it a superset) are Application() and the on-load/on-unload events (persistent DB connections that can time out after inactivity do this with less effort from the programmer anyway ;-).
:-). (this was not intended as a troll, btw).
;-). If a non-Windows based solution can run Windows apps, this would make the transition for MS's user base many orders of magnitude easier.
;-).
Apache implements substantially more features than IIS can ever dream of, but, last I checked (and I hope I'm wrong), changes require a daemon restart while IIS can make changes dynamically. For most users, Apache is a superset of IIS, but for those who require dynamic updates but don't have server clusters, such as cheap ISPs, Apache becomes less attractive. If Apache could be updated dynamically, this could make Apache an even stronger superset of IIS
For a few years, I've thought of becoming a developer for the Wine project, but other projects commitments ate away at my time. We as a community should ensure that Wine reaches 1.0 and can actually run the popular applications just as they run on Windows, perhaps even better (no blue screens helps a lot
IBM claims that their AIX can now run Linux apps, but I think, IMHO, that they're missing the boat on this one completely. In Linux and just about any UNIX-like system, the value is usually in the foundation -- the OS level and the underlying libraries and utilities. In modern times, desktops like KDE and GNOME are building upon this strong, mature foundation to provide even more value. AIX is its own UNIX system, and most Linux apps should already run within AIX with a recompilation, so I (personally) don't see much of a point in Linux binary compatibility in AIX. In Windows, however, the value lies within the applications instead of the foundation OS-level. If IBM made Windows apps work in AIX, for instance, this becomes substantially more compelling than having Linux apps work in AIX, as most Windows apps can't be recompiled very easily in another OS. By being able to use the value of Windows apps in Linux, we have suddenly offered users a superset of what they have now while giving them the opportunity to continue to use their existing apps while taking advantage of Linux's superior features.
Just my $0.02.. Take it with a mL of soy sauce
The business press (local, national and international) has traditionally been very nice to companies that are currently on top, but the kind of 100% criticism-free reporting that Microsoft gets is just astounding.
No business reporter ever got fired for kissing Microsoft's butt, I guess. This article from Brill's Content describes what happens to reporters who don't toe the M$ line.
"Merrill Lynch estimates that Microsoft will lose $800 million on Xbox in the next fiscal year. "
DAMN!, how about Microsoft just give a country 1% of that, and they'll be set for life.
But I hear those graphics are sweet. I'm gonna go drive my big car to the store, buy it on a credit card, and polish my big american gun.
Does anyone else find that deeply disturbing? I certainly do.
Look, M$ produces suck-ass products and we all know it. But they figured out how to market hard and own the markets they choose. However, the Business Week article - besides being an overt blow-job for M$ advertising dollars - is almost science-fiction in its analysis.
M$ will continue to make lots of money, no doubt. But there are a few issues that need to be understood:
In the end, M$ makes loadsadough and will continue to do so. But they're not poised to dominate the world, me buckos. They're big, they're bloated, and not every pie in which they currently have a finger will taste very good to consumers. 'nuff said.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Its a reflex, and plus, look at what MS wanted to do with their products: rental fees, restricting certain files, overy security features. I don't know about you, but I don't a OS with backdoors, pay a yearly fee for software which you paid for the in first place.
As for the history and criticism of Linux: at least we can ADMIT our mistakes, MS takes longer than a Florida election recount to solve their software bugs.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Wow, and just a little while ago we were talking about Microsoft going under withing six months.
The rhetoric of the article kind of got on my nerves... BOW!! BOP!! BAM!! MICROSOFT IS BACK IN THE MATCH!!! and so forth.
--------------------------------
In the 80s, there was some copy protection that released a virus in your computer if you tried to copy it.
Another company bought full page ads saying something like "our products, which does X, don't include, and will never include, Y, which destroy your computer"
Very soon, the copy protection company went bankrupt.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
So is the ability to run code, you know.
d vi sory-1251.html
Being able to script the OS is a good advantage, it can be misused, naturally.
Want to hear about the VIM vulnerability that allows an attacker to run code of his choosing on the user's computer?
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories/other_a
You didn't hear about it because nobody send vim documents in large enough quanteties to make this a viable way for a virus.
I Love You vbs is no different than a user openning an exectuable. (Hell, vbs files *are* executables, in Windows)
Who is to blame here? The scripttable OS, or the user for opening a file?
How about linux's scripts? They may not have the same power as VBS, but they can certainly be as distructive.
Does linux's bash scripts, frex, are an extreme and unneccessary security risk?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Microsoft will eventually fall victim to the same forces that destroyed the Soviet Union as well as the old-world monarchies in Europe.
The problem with your argument is that Communism never made anybody rich. The forces that caused the collapse of the USSR were economic more than political; they were just bankrupted by their "business model" of oppressive centralized control. People seem to have much more patience with repression than with starvation, and I'm not seeing too many economic problems over at MS.
MS will probably collapse in time, as do most huge organizations, but it probably won't be because they're evil. It will probably be more like a shift in the economic climate, such as the one that did in the great rail companies.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I wonder if anyone took into account Microsoft's 'creative' accounting practices - y'know, the ones they're being investigated for by the government. All those nasty charges of 'fraud', 'double-booking', and the like might - just might - have some bearing on how profitable MS appears to the public (especially the stock market).
Hey, not that a conviction would make any difference. AOL did the same thing for it's entire corporate lifetime, was convicted of fraud, fined a lousy $3 million (the largest amount allowed under law) and it affected their stock price not at all. Heck, less than a year later they bought Time-Warner with stock that the SEC investigators called "no better than junk bonds", at a time when AOL "should be delisted for its accounting practices".
If it worked for AOL why not MIcrosoft? What's a lousy $3 million if it keeps stock prices up with bogus business reports?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Well, I wanted to, because I wanted to support an operating system that I believe deserves to be supported. I also didn't want to support Microsoft, even if it was only an implied support by using their product, since heaven forbid I pay for anything made by them. However, each time I investigated options that would give me the same sort of applications etc in Linux that I use in Windows, I came up a little short. It wasn't that there were no applications out there; it was that these applications weren't of the same standard as Microsoft ones. No, I am not trying to troll. I am no fan of Microsoft, believe me.
I am not saying that the applications I tried were less stable than the M$ equivalents. But basically, because I am a writer, I need three things: a good word processor that won't die, a good browser, and a good music program. Okay, when I'm screwing around with other stuff then I want some more, but that's what I basically require of my system. Linux gave me a system that was friendly enough, and the music program was...oki. But there are no word processors out there that can compete with Microsoft Word. Sure, Word has crashed on me a couple of times. Yes, I've even lost a couple of pages of novel a few times. But StarOffice et al do not have the same feature set that Word has, and the features they do have are not packaged as neatly. I might have been tempted to use StarOffice for word processing if only it could use a blue background and white text, because I really like the way that it combines everything into one package, whereas M$ Office is a whole bunch of separate applications.
But the simple fact of the matter is that, when it comes to an operating system that is very stable and a word processor that is very functional and wonderful to use, Microsoft is sadly still on top with Windows and Word 2000. Word XP is even better, despite the fact that the interface looks like a webpage. For anything else...I would have to go third party, and could probably find something equally good in Linux. But the problem is that, especially for luzers, the things I have mentioned here are the things that are used the most. So until some really neet applications are released that can threaten the Office suite, Microsoft will always be either a manopoly or a huge market leader.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
"With XP, Microsoft can finally harness its battery of products and Web sites, feeding customers from one product into another in a chain reaction with a potentially explosive result. Test versions of Windows XP include quick access to an easy-to-use browser that has a button that starts Microsoft's Windows Media Player. That browser zips you to Microsoft's MSN Web portal...What's more, Windows XP offers to plug you in to altogether new Internet services, such as Microsoft's alert system that e-mails or pages you when a flight is late or a stock dips low enough to buy."
Um...If the DoJ thought binding IE into windows was illegal, what the heck are they going to think of this?
I'm the stranger...posting to
After reading the businessweek article, I find myself with a pronounced feeling of dread. People used to worry about the government invading their privacy, but there's no check on Microsoft. If the MS split decision is overturned (and it seems it will be) Microsoft seems bent on controlling every aspect of the internet, despite their denials.
Just for starters, the passport "service" scares the heck out of me. Oh yes, let's give windows my personal information and credit card number, and any site that wants it can just access it like a cookie. Good idea!
It seems clear that MS cannot be trusted to control internet standards. Viva Linux!
I'm the stranger...posting to
MFC totally baffled me, but I picked up swing in a week and I can do anything with it. Maybe I never gave MFC a chance, but Java's gui has been really easy for me (but way too slow).