Slashdot Mirror
The Ideas Behind Longhorn
An anonymous reader writes: "Fortune magazine is carrying an interesting article on the new and improved Bill Gates, as well as some details on Longhorn: 'Because Gates' geeks are completely overhauling the operating system, they'll also have to redesign most of the company's other software products and services to take full advantage, including the MSN online service, its server applications, and especially Microsoft Office, the productivity suite that accounts for nearly a third of the company's sales and profits. If this enormous undertaking succeeds, it will make computers more personal than ever. Equipped with Longhorn, your PC will keep track of how you work, whom you talk to, what sites you look at, how you make documents and whom you share them with, which data on the network are yours--making all those things easier.'"
Uh, if "those things" refer to getting the work done, I already have that down pat - once you're over the learning curve, it's done. Vi is vi is vi (unless it's vivivi - the editor of the beast!).
However, it sounds as if "those things" actually refers to something else, namely the ability for some other entity to complete erode my privacy, have unprecidented access to my system (it is mine, like it or not), and leaving me open to unheard of security issues.
Thank you, but I prefer that *I* keep track of how I work, who I talk to, what I look at, how I make *my* documents, and with whom *I* share them. It's not up to the system to decide which data belongs to me since to do so it must analyze my things. To insinuate oneself either personally, or impersonally through the operating system would be simply rude.
You wouldn't tolerate your officemate or the person in the next apartment or even Richard Stallman rifleing through your desk/sock/nightstand drawers. Why should you tolerate it from Microsoft (or Apple, or Sun, or RedHat)?
But with at least 5 years until Longhorn's release, I think we can count on the world changing so radically in the meantime that Longhorn and Palladium become completely irrelevant. Look at Microsoft Bob, their last "big-bang" approach to engineering a network computer architecture, and how the WWW made it completely irrelevant.
Pre-announcing a product and starting the hype five years before it's expected to be released..."
Starting with the "Longhorn" release, Microsoft will unveil a new naming scheme to enhance the "Windows" brand name. No longer will versions numbers or years be tacked onto the Windows name, instead, Microsoft is shifting towards a more descriptive naming convention.
When Longhorn finally hits the shelves, it will come in 3 flavors, a 'personal' edition for home users, a 'corporate' edition for businesses and a government release.
Pricing has not been set but early speculation would indicate that licensing fees will be rolled into federal taxes to ensure everyone is paying for their license and not using a pirated copy.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
You say that like it's a bad thing! Really, if my computer could figure out that X10 popunders don't work on me, that I neither need larger breasts or a longer penis, and that I don't need to MAKE MONEY FAST, that might be worth something!
rewind two years
This XP sounds like the answer to all our problems - a simple OS that helps me watch all that rich web content without all those old bugs in WindowsME. It's got a redesigned interface and makes working with a PC a safe and enjoyable XPerience - indeed I will be able to fly. Where do I sign up ?
rewind two years
This WindowsME sounds like tha answer to all our PC problems. It's got multimedia extensions built in and more user friendly software. Now I can handle all my media on the PC without fear of downloading any nasty software from the interweb. Where to I pay ?
rewind two years
This Windows98 really is the biz - it helps me handle all my PC jobs and lets me enjoy the interweb without any of that nasty netscape software. It can play media files and even games. Wow - where do I sign up ?
rewind two years
Oh yes - now this is cool Windows95 finally lets me enjoy the power of my 486. It's got a revolutionary new interface and even lets me enjoy the interweb. Where do I sign up ?
rewind two years
Holy smoke, this Windows3.1 really is the biz - I can use a mouse and just click the little pictures instead of having to touch the keyboard. Finally, I can use the PC with one hand.
fast forward to 2010
Wow - this new WindowsXXX really is the biz. I don't even have to type in my credit card details anymore - I can hire music instead of own it, and rent films instead of owning them - I don't have to lift a finger because all my data is held in the safe hands of MS. It even shows me the news when I turn it on - MSNBC really is a high class newsfeed. It tells me how nice those MS people are and how there are no bugs or security problems with Windows. One of my nasty friends tried using that Linux stuff last month, but we all just laughed at him - he's been taken away now for not supplying his social security details at the checkpoint. He was a communist and a theif. I love my happy world of the interweb - someone else has taken care of it all for me. All I have to do now is click a button to consume the lovely produce of our great society. Only terrorists would use anything else - why else would they want to keep their information secret ? I am finally free from all those confusing decisions.
'Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.' - George Gordon
I'm fine with my computer tracking what I do and working to anticipate my moves -- this kind of pattern matching is what computers are good for, and we're getting to the point that most of the time we've got the spare cycles lying around. But for any such system there better be two things about it:
Anyone care to lay odds on Microsoft giving me those two items?
Call this a troll if you want, but consider: if it was a troll, I'd have done it anonymously...
/. is anti-MS in nearly every respect. I understand and accept that, in fact it's one of the reasons I visit here 100 times a day: I like seeing both sides of an argument before I reach my own conclusions.
.Net installed, Norton Antivirus, ActiveSync, eVC++, Seti@Home, Popup Killer, WinAmp, AOLIM and a PocketPC emulator... and this is pretty much what is always open). My machine is virtually never turned off and I have not seen a BSOD in well over a year, I virtually never experience problems whatsoever, and those that I do on those rare occassions are directly traceable to a misbehaving app, and the OS DOES NOT get taken down with the app.
I understand
But it seems to me that many of you (you meaning the open source community in general) are spreading just as much FUD as MS is, drapped in a cloak of supposed reality.
For instance: I constantly see posts saying how crash-prone MS OS's are and how you get 100 BSOD's a day on your work PC's (those of you that admit using an MS OS in the first place that is).
I'd be foolish to try and say that Win95, Win98, Win98SE or WinME aren't more crash-prone than just about any Linux distro, they are. But the FUD is in not being specific enough: Win2K and WinXP are quite stable. If you find it to be otherwise in your experience, let me point you in the right direction: It's not the OS! My work PC, a 2+ year-old Win2K PIII/500 Dell Optiplex GX1 with 512M RAM, on which I have over 20 gigs of various software installed, I have 10+ different things running at any given time (currently I have Windows Explorer, UltraEdit, CuteFTP, Apache Tomcat, IE, Lotus Notes R5, IIS with
If your Win2K or WinXP machine crashes all the time, perhaps I'm just that much better an admin than you are, but I doubt it. But, rather than be fair about it, you will be quick to bash MS and their "buggy" OS. Bull. Rag on any Win9x you want, I won't argue, but if your going to tell me Win2K or WinXP are crash-prone and buggy, you are wrong, absolutely. (WinNT by the way is somewhere in between in my experience... I have 5 NT servers, database and web servers, with heavy usage, none of them has had ANY unscheduled downtime in about two years, but I also had NT on my desktop for a while and it did blue screen on occassion, once every few months perhaps. Not terrible, but not great either).
How about the secure argument? Well, there's no denying that MS didn't place the emphasis on security that they should have all along. There are far too many buffer overruns in MS software to be sure. But the vast majority of viruses and trojans and other serious security problems are the result of good-old-fashioned social engineering, getting people to open attachments and such. Understand, having an application scriptable is not a bad thing, *IF* the user base is somewhat intelligent (there are exceptions of course, scripts should NEVER run without user authorization, and they of course can under some conditions in Outlook, that's MS's fault for sure). I'm not going to hammer them for giving us greater flexibility.
And what about the FUD? People claim Linux is less virus-prone than Windows. Of COURSE it is! Go out and iterview 100 virus writers and I guarantee you will find the majority hate MS and love Linux and the open-source movement. Which platform do you think they are going to target? DUH!
Windows sees more viruses because it is targeted more, plain and simple. Now, don't misunderstand me: I AM NOT blaming the open-source community for viruses, not in the least. And I am NOT saying that Windows is as secure as Linux, because it's not at a fundamental level. But simply because you see more viruses on Windows DOES NOT mean it is soo much more virus-prone than Linux. That's why I hope Linux does make it's way onto the desktop in good numbers. Let's see if this piece of FUD still stands up at that point. I very much suspect it won't.
Now, what about this Longhorn stuff? MS is trying to do something innovative (although not original) here... they are trying to give you ubiquitous access to any type of data from any location in a common fashion. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. In fact, from a strictly forward-looking mentality, it's the logical evolution. I see so many paranoid statements about privacy, but come on folks, your smart enough to not go down that path! You know as well as I do that if MS is pulling anything fishy with privacy, it will be found out in short order. I mean, how hard is it to unplug your cable modem and throw a packet sniffer on the network to see what the OS is sending out? Geez, MS's worst move would be to do something like that because, and I say this in a positive way, you people will find it and scream it at the top of your virtual lungs faster than Bill Clinton goes down on an interm!
You say they never truly innovate. Then, when you hear about some potential innovation from them, you bash them for it!
It's one thing to be anti-MS, it's another thing to spread your own brand of FUD. It's also another thing to dismiss out of hand absolutely anything at all that comes from Redmond. If something is a good idea, it's a good idea regardless of where it comes from. The United States thought the atomic bomb was a good idea, even though the idea came from Germany (and try to not make the obvious "and Windows explodes just as bad as an atomic bomb!" jokes).
It's funny... I have always hated with a passion Bill Gates because he always struck me as an arrogant cheater who I just could not respect. Be better than that folks, make the community better than that... don't pull the same dirty tricks he has.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
It's an excuse to openly defy the court. Another doomsday plan. Brinksmanship. "You have to choose between either letting us eat up the rest of every industry one by one- or intentionally destroy poor us by sabotaging this stuff that we've bet the company on! Are you ready for that?"
This reeks of doomsday plan. Like hell they don't learn- that's been working OK for them so far. The question is, since MS must inevitably over-reach and collapse (when they pick a 'bet the company' plan that's too extreme, and call the world's bluff with it), when would be a good time for them to blow a gasket? They _can't_ continue this tactic forever without becoming the most wild exaggeration of every rabid slashdotter's worst nightmare. And, like Stalin said of the Pope, 'how many divisions does he have?' Microsoft is not prepared for a serious conflict with, say, a country, in the event of a power struggle, which is the ultimate destination of this sort of thing.
I daresay the bigwigs at MS have exit strategies, though. Or, and this is a disturbing thought- maybe they don't. Maybe their world really IS an elevator with no top floor, and no down button. If so, they are destined for great disappointment. Everything ends.