Slashdot Mirror


Gates Comdex Keynote Shows Plans, Matrix Spoof

An anonymous reader writes "According to Eweek, Bill Gates' keynote speech at this year's Comdex showed Microsoft's 'focus on security, spam and [the] tablet PC', including a new version of its Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server, an extension of the SmartScreen Technology for spam prevention, and the next version of the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system. But the showstopper was a filmed spoof of The Matrix (screencaps available here), with Gates and Steve Ballmer as Morpheus and Neo respectively, and including a jab at Linux."

803 comments

  1. It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix. Of course, there will be bugs in the system allowing people like Neo to pop-up and hack in.

    1. Re:It all makes sense now by Kethinov · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't need a godlike Neo to hack a pathetic Windows-based Matrix...

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    2. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
      Nope, it should be as simple as gaining root on an unpatched Lunix box, like it happened to open source icons SourceForge and VIA a coupla years ago. Remember? The guy even hacked into the Akamai boxes serving ads. It was hilarious!!!

      But, um, you were saying? Don't let reality intrude upon your wishful zealotry.

    3. Re:It all makes sense now by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix.

      wrong. gates is smith! did you see the market share that guy had by the end of the series?

    4. Re:It all makes sense now by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ooh, ooh.. is SCO the architect, creator of the Matrix?

    5. Re:It all makes sense now by mattjb0010 · · Score: 3, Funny

      As the little kid says, "there is no security".

    6. Re:It all makes sense now by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      SCO is quite clearly Agent Smith, a nasty virus. Agent Smith can only fight dirty and claim to be copied, nothing innovative.

    7. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two boxes cracked in two years, that really is poor; it's disgusting that companies can get away with selling this rubbish. And it's all stolen from honest software houses like SCO, and then purposefully made insecure by Torvolds and his commie cronies, to undermine democracy.

    8. Re:It all makes sense now by huhmz · · Score: 4, Funny

      wrong. gates is smith!

      I can totally see it:
      Bill Gates: Im...not...so...bad...,once...you...get...to...kno w...me...

    9. Re:It all makes sense now by BrynM · · Score: 1

      The Matrix just Blue Screened. Whoa.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    10. Re:It all makes sense now by TwistedGreen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, he was approaching 100% CPU usage, and init couldn't even stop him!

      Now that's what I call a monopoly.

    11. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wishful zealotry? On Slashdot? Really?

    12. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's such a shame their on a long road to fucking knowhere.

      Gates and Ballmer make me wana puke

    13. Re:It all makes sense now by logan_phoenix · · Score: 1

      dear lord that is pathetic....they just raped the matrix imo.....

    14. Re:It all makes sense now by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >>> like it happened to open source icons SourceForge and VIA a coupla years ago. Remember?

      a couple of years ago... should it be a compliment to Linux or an insult to your memory that you couldn't think of anything more recent than "a couple of years ago"...

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    15. Re:It all makes sense now by bravehamster · · Score: 1

      The Architect is quite clearly Al Gore. Note the wooden demeanor, total lack of personality, and facial hair. Damn, the layers to this movie just keep peeling back like an onion!

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    16. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, there are many of them. Many, many of them. Ever stroll by linuxsecurity? Oh, many. The problem is that you don't have enough boxes out there for things like these to make a blip on the radar.

      And besides, you're probably the type of loser who likes to use "MIcrosoft Bob" as a punchline in a joke - I don't see why that reference is out of place.

      Hope that helps!

    17. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that was a requirement of registering....

    18. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck on this, n00b.

    20. Re:It all makes sense now by fishbonez · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agent Gates: I hate this place. This GNU. This open source. This license, whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the free software, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your GPL. And every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.

      --
      Frylock: That's not a toy!
      Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
    21. Re:It all makes sense now by lplatypus · · Score: 4, Funny
      Damn, the layers to this movie just keep peeling back like an onion!
      You know, not everybody likes onions. Cake! Everybody loves cakes! Cakes have layers.
    22. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "No, I don't like no parfait"?

      And so on...

    23. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of your point, massive overuse of the word 'many' makes you sound like a total tool. Hope that helps!

    24. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leave billy alone

    25. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. SCO is just a silly, soon to non-exist, company. Thats all they are.

    26. Re:It all makes sense now by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Funny
      Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix.
      NSMatrix is a class used for creating groups of NSCells that work together in various ways.

      So ... he's planning to trap humanity in cells that work together ... like ... like, radio buttons?!

      I still don't get it.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    27. Re:It all makes sense now by E.S+Taog · · Score: 1

      This has been noted before.

    28. Re:It all makes sense now by looney74 · · Score: 1

      >MS Matrix great idea. Blue Screen of Death will make a lot of sense in MS Matrix

    29. Re:It all makes sense now by DataPath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I think ol' Bill looks eerily like Cigarette Smoking Man from X-Files, with those glasses. I think a counter-spoof against Microsoft would be quite in order. The MS-SCO connection, aliens trying to undermine society and technology by force-feeding the world substandard software with draconian EULAs.

      --
      Inconceivable!
    30. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I can get an OS for free that has some security holes, or I can pay through the nose for a different OS that also has some security holes.

      And the free one comes with source code, and has a "permanent" license that never changes.

      Looks like an easy choice.. what's your point again?

    31. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we shove the linux pill up BG's ass without lube and see what he thinks.

    32. Re:It all makes sense now by thx2001r · · Score: 1, Insightful

      May I just take this opportunity to say that Bill and Steve have ENTIRELY too much time on their hands! They spent all that time filming the spoof.

      Don't they have an empire to run and stuff? I'm surprised they didn't make Agent Smith be Linus or Larry Ellison (that one's probably more appropriate, though, they think of Linux as a virus, so Linus is probably more what they wanted to use).

      Seriously, and I thought I slacked at work! These guys sit around shooting spoofs ;)

      --

      -Joe
      If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr

    33. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the FSF hack a couple of months ago? That was recent, probably even more recent less high profile hacks. Linux isn't that secure.

    34. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a couple of years ago... should it be a compliment to Linux or an insult to your memory that you couldn't think of anything more recent than "a couple of years ago"...

      How about last week... One of our competitors that pride themselves on being the best in the industry with Security and using Linux Servers as their flagship of security had about 100 customer's web servers root hacked.

      Linux can be secure, but it just isn't as easy as the Open Source world tries to create. The Myth becomes so predominate that people install Linux and just assume that their computers are more secure, and hence never take into account updates, patches, or basic security measures.

      People here simply saying that Linux is more secure is doing a DIS-service to the Linux and Open Source movement, as customers that do make the leap feel too comfortable with the 'myth of security' and then let their system get hacked right and left and flee Open Source and Linux after being burned.

      Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it. All it takes is time and a smart mind to virtually get into anything.

    35. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me the last time microsoft.com was rooted, and then we'll talk.

    36. Re:It all makes sense now by kaybi · · Score: 1

      Random example used to assert validity in your argument... ...wheres the proof?

    37. Re:It all makes sense now by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Linux can be secure, but it just isn't as easy as the Open Source world tries to create. The Myth becomes so predominate that people install Linux and just assume that their computers are more secure, and hence never take into account updates, patches, or basic security measures.... Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it. All it takes is time and a smart mind to virtually get into anything.

      There's a lot of truth to this. But it misses the point that, if you try, it's much easier to make Unix/Linux systems relatively secure, whereas it's an uphill battle with Windoze. Until recently, Microsoft gave the appearance that they didn't even care very much how secure their software was, regardless of whether the customer cared or not.

      You are correct in that this is almost a side issue, given that it is not easy on any system, and most people don't try hard enough on any system.

      But that doesn't mean that all systems are therefore equal.

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    38. Re:It all makes sense now by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I suppose October, 2000 is a good place to start. You had a point?

    39. Re:It all makes sense now by svvampy · · Score: 1

      Surely it must be Al Gore

    40. Re:It all makes sense now by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Not a fair comparison. Who says let's get some parfait? Nobody that's who! And if no one asks, no one says they don't like it.

      Nice try though,

      Joey

    41. Re:It all makes sense now by sjwt · · Score: 1

      I rembere hearing of two on /. this year,
      both just after post about how a huge
      flaw in MS was found, and how thankfully
      nothing like that can be found in OSS..

      but hey,
      ppl remmber what they want to rembere

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    42. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a lot of truth to this. But it misses the point that, if you try, it's much easier to make Unix/Linux systems relatively secure, whereas it's an uphill battle with Windoze. Until recently, Microsoft gave the appearance that they didn't even care very much how secure their software was, regardless of whether the customer cared or not.

      I'm actually sorry, but I have to disagree with this.

      Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone. (This also applies for Desktops with Windows2k and WindowsXP)

      Because of the various components distributed with Linux, there are a mass of patches to not only initially install, but there are also many services to turn on/off if used as a server with most default variant installations. Linux is not a consolidated solution, and this is not a strong point as you have many pieces with their own security issues you have to deal with.

      If you are talking about securing Windows98 or Win9x, then I agree with you completely. But don't put the DOS/Win3.x/Win9x into the 'Windows' level of insecurity - there are entirely different products. This is the year 2003, everything before the NT code base is effectively a dead OS, just like Linux of 1998 and its flaws are dead.

      The NT code base, especially since Win2k is very secure, even though Microsoft was foolish in the past to leave Windows specific ports open for intranet communications.

      NT was designed with security as the forefront of the base OS architecture; hence the Object/Token based security system in the NT kernel itself.

      But even with all the security Microsoft is throwing at it OS products, it will be a long time before there are no patches or flaws found.

      The good news with all OSes is that Security is getting better, and will continue to get better.

    43. Re:It all makes sense now by notoriousE · · Score: 1

      and all this time i coulda sworn morpheus was a black man...

      --


      And then there was E
    44. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Random example used to assert validity in your argument

      What do you want the URLs that were compromised or the name of our competitor that lost several clients because of their inability to keep up on current security?

      You know I can't disclose this type of information.

      However, check the newsgroups about a few hosting providers having their clients sites taken out in the past week and a half, and you will find some of the companies yourself.

    45. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha you fail the shrek reference

    46. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kernel.org was rooted last week. YHL. HAND.

    47. Re:It all makes sense now by welthqa · · Score: 1

      When you have more money than god, you too can do whatever the fuck you want. Even during business hours.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
    48. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site's "shell server" was compromised May 22 after a SourceForge employee logged on to an outside Internet service provider that had already been taken over by the intruder, said Pat McGovern, site director of SourceForge.net. When the staff member logged on to SourceForge remotely, the intruder captured the password.

      Well some of that is true, I mean I did trojan ssh but I did it about 5 months ago, so kudos to the admin you sir are awesome..

      "What happened was the (ISP) was compromised and had not known it," McGovern said, adding that the site's administrator quickly noticed the intruder and shut systems down. "Basically we had to go through and rebuild the machine, and then we checked the log file of everyone who used the machine."

      hrm I guess that could also be considered true, if by true you mean, finding out every box on your network is owned 5 months after the fact and only due to my own boredom that consisted of me ircing it infront of the admin, by the way good job of auditing your network, wait thats just too much sarcasm for one sentence..

      After the attack, VA removed the shell service until workers could reinstall the software and data on the server. The shell server allowed SourceForge members to type commands into the system remotely. On Thursday, the company posted an alert that the shell server couldn't be used because of an "unscheduled maintenance event."

      It also allowed me to sniff my way onto apache.org and sourceforge webserver and leave all sorts of goodies in the code..

      In this case, they only got into a shell server," McGovern said.

      Hey, theres no disputing that, I mean.. wait.. Whats this I'm defacing ?

      The company also decided to shut down its "compile farm," a collection of computers running different operating systems on which SourceForge developers can test their software.

      Why would they shut down other boxes, if only the shell server was hacked ?

      Although illicit modifications to the programming projects are a concern, McGovern said the intruder didn't get that far.
      oh come now, you're just being silly..

      Its ok thought I dont blame you guys, I mean at least you admited to being schooled, thats more then I can say for akamai, but thats a different story all together.. But never the less, I'd like to thank valinux.. apache.. akamai and ofcourse exodus without their poor security and refusal to make security breaches known to the public I wouldnt be sitting atop a mountain of roots and oodles of proprietary software.. This is the fluffy bunny signing of.. beep..

      -fluffy@#blackpanthers on efnet (the scourge of efnet)

    49. Re:It all makes sense now by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      Eh...
      Ok, what you've said is true, but you have to put it in perspective.

      First off, most Linux folks aren't off bleating "Linux is always more secure than Windows," most of us are pointing out that a typical Linux installation is more secure by default than a Windows box. Windows loves to turn on everything, whether you need it or not -- Linux takes the opposite approach. Generally, Linux is more secure initially.

      Secondly, most Linux services are open and well documented. "Hidden features" are rare and configuration isn't obscured. Windows is often the polar opposite. Generally, Linux is easier to secure.

      Finally, and most importantly, you just can not say that coding practices have no impact. Everyone knows that almost no software (read: server) is uncrackable, everyone knows that the admin is the biggest factor in system security. That said, not only are you limited by available patches and problem-awareness in a closed source environment, open source does tend to have higher quality code, lending to the thinking that less potential bugs exist -- this means that short of hacking code, an admin has better odds with better software.

      This is common sense to most folks, and I know some of you trolls like to think that "The Slashdot Establishment" is made up of a bunch of dumb hippies, it's the popular opinion so how could it possibly be right, but I'll tell you, there are a lot of good points made here. Stop blindly rejecting this stuff and saying "All OSes Are Equal" and look around you.

      Cheers

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    50. Re:It all makes sense now by boots@work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I use a net-connected Linux machine that offers several non-trivial public services. Its uptime currently stands at a bit over 400 days.

      (Yes, particular daemons have been upgraded, but using straightforward Unix techniques there was zero interruption to service.)

      During the last 400 days, there have been many times when we've had to take internal NT servers down to install service packs. Probably about six times that I recall, although I may have supressed the memory of the others... And these Windows machines are not even exposed to the internet, they're just at risk from worms and similar crap on a private network.

      "Would you like to restart your computer now?"

      "Why yes, of course, it's not like I was actually using the machine for anything!"

      There are anecdotes in favor of either system but the simple fact is there is no security-critical Windows machine with an uptime of more than a couple of months, since service packs invariably require a reboot. I think that ought to tell us something.

      And this is to say nothing of the outright bastardry of making people sign a new licence agreement to get a critical security fix.

    51. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site's "shell server" was compromised May 22 after a SourceForge employee logged on to an outside Internet service provider that had already been taken over by the intruder, said Pat McGovern, site director of SourceForge.net. When the staff member logged on to SourceForge remotely, the intruder captured the password.

      Well some of that is true, I mean I did trojan ssh but I did it about 5 months ago, so kudos to the admin you sir are awesome..

      "What happened was the (ISP) was compromised and had not known it," McGovern said, adding that the site's administrator quickly noticed the intruder and shut systems down. "Basically we had to go through and rebuild the machine, and then we checked the log file of everyone who used the machine."

      I guess that could also be considered true, if by true you mean, finding out every box on your network is owned 5 months after the fact and only due to my own boredom that consisted of me ircing it infront of the admin, by the way good job of auditing your network, wait thats just too much sarcasm for one sentence..

      After the attack, VA removed the shell service until workers could reinstall the software and data on the server. The shell server allowed SourceForge members to type commands into the system remotely. On Thursday, the company posted an alert that the shell server couldn't be used because of an "unscheduled maintenance event."

      It also allowed me to sniff my way onto apache.org and sourceforge webserver and leave all sorts of goodies in the code..

      In this case, they only got into a shell server," McGovern said.

      Hey, theres no disputing that, I mean.. wait.. Whats this I'm defacing ?

      The company also decided to shut down its "compile farm," a collection of computers running different operating systems on which SourceForge developers can test their software.

      Why would they shut down other boxes, if only the shell server was hacked ?

      Although illicit modifications to the programming projects are a concern, McGovern said the intruder didn't get that far.
      oh come now, you're just being silly..

      Its ok thought I dont blame you guys, I mean atleast you admited to being schooled, thats more then I can say for akamai, but thats a different story all together.. But never the less, I'd like to thank valinux.. apache.. akamai and ofcourse exodus without their poor security and refusal to make security breaches known to the public I wouldnt be sitting atop a mountain of roots and oodles of proprietary software.. This is the fluffy bunny signing of.. beep..

      -fluffy@#blackpanthers on efnet (the scourge of efnet)

    52. Re:It all makes sense now by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      Bad taste to reply to ones self, but...
      Reading your post and mine again, please forgive me, my reply isn't exactly aimed at you but, as is common on Slashdot, aimed at all the trolls who take what you say and mix it with FUD. My goal is not to paint you as a troll and refute what you're saying, but I dislike posts which take it to the next level, claiming that there is no security advantage to using Linux systems.

      My apologies.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    53. Re:It all makes sense now by boots@work · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd made Steve "Angry Monkey Dance" Balmer up in blackface. I would have paid to see that.

      Hey, maybe they can ship some Balmer cheesecake as desktop backgrounds in Cairo....

    54. Re:It all makes sense now by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      You don't need a godlike Neo to hack a pathetic Windows-based Matrix...

      You miss that in the real world Neo isn't very god like, he is just god like within the poor security model of the win-matrix.

      I'd like to see the Linux matrix:

      Gates: "I'm annoying I'm annoying I'm annoying!"
      (Gates segfaults and is reloaded)

      Agent Tux: "I'd uninstall or kill you, but you are no threat to the system."

      Gates: "I'm annoying I'm annoying I'm annoying!"
      (Gates segfaults and is reloaded)

      Agent Tux opens a door with a devil character behind it, and conversationally asks "I thought you were dead" as he leaves the room, closing the door on Gates.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    55. Re:It all makes sense now by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      That's funnier than the fuckin spoof! Quality, just solid gold. Give this man a medal.

    56. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO (aka SCOX) was the toilet paper that Neo
      used while he was waiting on the train driven
      by the TrainMan.

      The role has a picture of Darl McBride doing
      an impression of the Stones' 70's trademark.

      It also has a rhyme on some of the Stones'
      lyrics: When you start me up... I lick it up.

      Along places on the roll there is a picture
      of David Boise, u know ... he is the Legeal
      Eagle of SCOX ... he has his hands shoved
      down in his 501 jeans and he's making a face
      like he just got caught doing somthing naughty
      with the caption below him reading "Sticky
      Fingers."

      Toodles

    57. Re:It all makes sense now by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Thus, explaining why there are many The Ones.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    58. Re:It all makes sense now by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious. I'm more secure on 98 than XP. No PnP to get hacked, no Windows Messenger Service Spam, no extra services exposed to the internet. And I'm glad they finally figured out with 2003 that you don't need every single service turned on by default. SuSE, Mandrake, and others have been doing that for years.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    59. Re:It all makes sense now by defile · · Score: 1

      Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone. (This also applies for Desktops with Windows2k and WindowsXP)

      Proprietary software is theoretically inferior to open source software with regards to technical correctness, which includes security.

      Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't even try to counter the theory.

      Microsoft has a proven track record of compromising technical correctness to satisfy other business imperatives. They are extremely untrustworthy, and despite their new PR bltiz on how they claim to care about security, they haven't changed in any positive way. Microsoft is a PR/law firm that happens to sell software.

    60. Re:It all makes sense now by Siddly · · Score: 1

      Granted, any system needs to be kept current, but Windows is insecure by design and Linux is far more secure than Windows by design . BTW ... wasn't Matrix rendered by Linux? Even Balmer&Gates are using Linux now?

    61. Re:It all makes sense now by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --BillG looke eerily like the Emperor from Jedi. Creeeeepy.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    62. Re:It all makes sense now by Poeir · · Score: 1

      You can tell they chose their own outfits.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    63. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that's why Steve B. is enough.

    64. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then let their system get hacked right and left and flee Open Source and Linux after being burned.

      Har! Har!

      I have never heard of anyones Linux box 'getting hacked right and left'

      You sir, are either a troll or just an idiot.

    65. Re:It all makes sense now by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      >How about last week... One of our competitors >that pride themselves on being the best in the >industry with Security and using Linux Servers as >their flagship of security had about 100 >customer's web servers root hacked.
      So the kernel was Linux( some version ), what was the web server? You are saying that 100 web servers were hacked, and then mention Linux, but without stating that the kernel was the problem. So I don't know what you are saying is insecure, the web server or the kernel.

      Now, if you are going for a more general statement, like OSS is not secure by default, now you are arguing at a more general level. Open Source just means someone wrote an application ( could have been some newbie writing their first network application, for example ) who made the source code available to people who did not develop it. So yes, no guarantee that an arbitrary
      OSS application is more secure than a similar Closed Source application. Now, in practice, OSS is generally more secure because anyone can analyze and publish ( and ifx! ) security problems within the code. With closed source, this is not an option. Heck, these days just disclosing a security flaw can land you in jail(DMCA)!. Remembe r Skylarov and the more recent Gamespy stores?

      Now go one more level, and assume the application user is being a bit selective in which OSS app to use, and now you can have a much greater chance of having secure software if you choose a widely used application whose source code has been scoured by many eyes many times over.

      I am starting to beat a dead horse, so I will end my post with this. OSS has much greater chance to be secure, and is much easier to secure ( from user point of view ) than a closed source application. AND there is no guarantee an application is secure soley because it is closed or open source.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
    66. Re:It all makes sense now by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 3, Funny

      And Zeros also, damned binary world.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    67. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to cite a source for that?

    68. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the funniest thing I've read all week! Thanks fishbonez!

    69. Re:It all makes sense now by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm running XP, and I'll warrant that my machine is just as secure as yours, but with the added bonus of not crashing a couple of times a week...

      SuSE, Mandrake, and others have been doing that for years.

      I can only speak for Mandrake, but it tends to turn on most of the services that you install. True, it warns you about ones such as httpd and sshd, but only gives you an install/don't install option at that point. It's not until later in the install that you get to choose whether or not they run. Everytime I install it (admittedly not that often) I have to turn off a bunch of services.

    70. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve, there you are! Stop wasting time on /. and get your ass back here. We need to master-in 'developers (x4)' move into the fight scene.

    71. Re:It all makes sense now by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      linux (at least debian), install (from Cd, or network), deselcet (install and update everying you need), configure and your good to go.

      windows, install, patch, reboot, patch, reboot, ect for about 5+ times. then getting the updates for other software is a pain. AND in this time if your not firewalled your probaly going to have a virus already.

      Lets see, i pick debian linux. so simpley your a moron who refuses to belive widnows plain sucks.

    72. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sit around shooting spoof all the time...

    73. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, indeed, the Matrix movies are like an onion. You peel off layer after layer, only to discover that there is nothing inside...

    74. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the funniest thing I have heard all day!

    75. Re:It all makes sense now by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      think ol' Bill looks eerily like Cigarette Smoking Man from X-Files

      Nah, I think he kinda looks like Anne Robinson from The Weakest Link ...

      You ARE the weakest link! Goodbye!.

    76. Re:It all makes sense now by Sumocide · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can see it now. Nerds spoofing the Matrix to get their free software message across. Sounds like the definition of cool.

    77. Re:It all makes sense now by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      You need URGENT spelling lessons.

      URGENT!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    78. Re:It all makes sense now by mill · · Score: 1

      No, it is more like you peel off the first layer and find something tasty and useful, but after that it is the same layer after layer..

    79. Re:It all makes sense now by cavok · · Score: 1

      the best transpositon i've ever read :)

    80. Re:It all makes sense now by thesolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update,

      And I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this.

      Turning on auto update on a production server is a good way to lose one's job. I can't tell you how many times I've seen things break when a new MS patch or service pack is applied. So when a new MS patch comes out, we can't patch immediately, since we have no idea what that patch might break. We have to provide lots of testing results with the patch first, then patch production.

      In the linux world, you *usually* have the code for the patch, so if push comes to shove, you can review the changes this patch will be making to your system. Compare this to the Microsoft world, where you don't have the source, and you literally have no idea what this patch could possibly affect in your system. I recall less than six months ago, a patch applied to a production server at a friend's office caused SQL server to fail on startup. Took them 3 hours on the phone with MS to try to figure out what was going on, and finally they gave up and had to restore from a backup, and ask all users to re-enter their last 4 or 5 hours worth of work.

      And even with a Win2000 server, when a new patch comes out, you have required downtime as part of the patching. All those updates and service packs require reboots, many of them require a reboot after each and every patch! If you find out at 9AM on a Wednesday that your system is vulnerable and needs patching, the soonest you could probably do it in a production environment is lunch time, if you're lucky to get a window there. More likely, you'll have to wait until outside of business hours. And forbid that you have to wait until a weekend maintenance window or something along those lines, you could be running for days without a patch applied, because if you do apply it, your server is going down. That's often not acceptable.

      Oh yeah, I should mention that several linux distros also download recent patches during the installation. Mandrake, for example, does this, and I believe SuSE does too.

      NT was designed with security as the forefront of the base OS architecture; hence the Object/Token based security system in the NT kernel itself.

      Again, I have to disagree. NT security was inherently weak because of the fact that the server only challenges the Domain Controller once per session, so if you have a decent hacker, they can fairly easily hijack your session. Fortunately, Kerberos goes in a different direction, but that's another topic.

    81. Re:It all makes sense now by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Linux can be secure, but
      Windows can't. Well, let me rephrase that. Unless you manually edit the binaries to take out the holes, Windows can't.

      Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it.
      This is true; however, the fact that all security schemes are breakable does not mean that all security schemes are created equal. I mean, if that were the case, we'd all go around using ROT-13 instead of anybody doing cryptography research.

    82. Re:It all makes sense now by ziggyboy · · Score: 0

      How about last week... One of our competitors that pride themselves on being the best in the industry with Security and using Linux Servers as their flagship of security had about 100 customer's web servers root hacked.

      I'm curious about this particular incident. If this is genuinely a Linux problem then we should be seeing this "root hack" damaging thousands of servers. If this really happened and is only isolated to your competitor's servers, doesn't this suggest that maybe this is a problem with their proprietary (maybe web control panel) software and not Linux itself?

      It's pretty simple to get root access really. Install insecure software, hack the insecure software, and voila. Most people who get into servers enter using software that runs on the OS, say, Apache? SSH? However I doubt it's a problem with SSH or Apache because as I said, we should be seeing Linux-Apache web servers falling down like dominos.

      If it's isolated to that company, then that's their problem.

      However, I agree that there's no 100% secure operating system. Any programmer knows that no software is bug-free. That's programming 101.

    83. Re:It all makes sense now by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      No, in fact I'll bet plain ol' Keanu Reeves could do it. Whoa!

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    84. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Windows loves to turn on everything, whether you need it or not -- Linux takes the opposite approach.

      This was so true prior to Windows 2003 Server. Microsoft wanted to please the users with features so much they dropped everything in and turned it all on.

      Windows 2003 installs by default with no extra services, no IIS installed, and even IE itself is restricted. A very vanilla installation, you have to either script in additional features, or turn them on in the server configuration wizard.

      Microsoft has/is learning their lesson. It is great to have all the features, but allowing people to turn them on when needed is a key area of debate that they didn't get, especially in the server market.

      On the desktop they are also learning, WindowsXP will start having the Firewall turned on, and they are even getting ready to release an outbound Application Layer Filter for WindowsXP. Effectively killing worms and Trojan software from allowing anything in or letting anything out that is not either user or system approved.

      Microsoft has rightfully taken a bunch of lumps for problems they allowed to happen or created, but they are starting to kick over to seeing this and admitting they were foolish, which as they say, is always the first step in recovery.

      Thanks for the post; I enjoyed reading your views.

    85. Re:It all makes sense now by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Because of the various components distributed with Linux, there are a mass of patches to not only initially install, but there are also many services to turn on/off if used as a server with most default variant installations.

      You're comparing apples and oranges here. On the Windows box you didn't shut off any unnecessary services yet activated a host based firewall. On Linux you're not activating a host based firewall and then complaining you have to shut off services to make it secure. Well of COURSE you do. Everyone knows the simplest way to mitigate your risks of exposure is to minimize the avenues of attack you present to the world. My Linux boxes only run what services I need them to run.. usually SSH and Apache and that's *it*. Port scans will result in nothing else running even if I chose not to turn on the netfilter firewall, which I do anyway. I could've just as easily left all the services running, enabled the netfilter with just port 80 and 22 open and been done. Set it up to auto-update via RHN or apt-get nightly and I don't have to worry about it either. So, I partially agree with you. Bad system administration is the reason systems get broken into followed closely by failure of vendors to supply timely patches (i.e. Sun is fscking HORRIBLE with this. I've sat on pins and needles until finally giving up and recompiling my own stuff because they wait up to 6 months to release critical patches if you don't have a service contract).

    86. Re:It all makes sense now by cabazorro · · Score: 0

      To my right I have Linux RH 8.0 in intel PC. To my left I have Windowx XP on intel PC. Proceed to install both. Linux RH 8.0 forces you to create a root password for your machine and then ask you to create another account for normal used. You cannot proceed without a root password of your OWN creation. This has been the rule since the very beginning. Windows XP suggest you to create a password but you don't have to proceed with installation. An Administrator account is created with no password. Now anybody and their dog can login with Administration privileges. patches patches patches. Conclusion. It's no myth. Open Source is more secure. With Open Source you become the Security provider, with Windows you buy "security" and then your machine gets hacked. cabazorro.

      --
      - these are not the droids you are looking for -
    87. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are anecdotes in favor of either system but the simple fact is there is no security-critical Windows machine with an uptime of more than a couple of months, since service packs invariably require a reboot. I think that ought to tell us something.

      We have clients with closed systems that have run for over 600 days on NT4 servers back in 1997/1998.

      However, rebooting is not a good thing for service packs and updates, I agree completely.

      But it doesn't mean the OS is inherently unstable or insecure, it just means that a 30 second downtime has to be scheduled for the update.

      It would be a bigger argument if the Updates required the system to be down for hours, or Windows took longer than 30secs to fully boot.

      And yes, before I get flamed from the crowd, 30 seconds is pretty average on today's hardware, even Windows Servers with every feature/service imaginable turned on still boot in under 45secs on our Pentium II 400mhz systems running 256MB of RAM.

      But again, I completely agree that Microsoft needs to stop the 'Please Click to Reboot' crap for updates. With the NT architecture, there are so few times this is really necessary, at the very least, restarting a service or restarting a driver or process is all that is required and the NT architecture is designed to do things like that.

      If WindowsXP can flip between several Video Cards and drivers on the fly without restarting, installing an updated DLL is not something that should require a restart either.

    88. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious. I'm more secure on 98 than XP. No PnP to get hacked, no Windows Messenger Service Spam, no extra services exposed to the internet.

      Oh really, what's your Windows 98 system's IP? Maybe we should test your theory. :)

    89. Re:It all makes sense now by ganiman · · Score: 0

      "...turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet Connection..."

      What good is a Windows server if it doesn't use Netbios over TCP/IP? I know I don't want any of my Windows boxes using any other protocol than TCP/IP, so how exactly will they communicate with each other? How will Active Directory work? That solution only works for a single standalone DESKTOP, not SERVER.

      --
      geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
    90. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Let's decrypt your logic 101 knowledge you are trying to use.

      Proprietary software is theoretically inferior to open source software with regards to technical correctness, which includes security.

      Gorillas are theoretically more attractive than your mother.

      Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't even try to counter the theory.

      However you seem to have missed the score of interviews where Steve Ballmer can't say enough to counter this theory.

      Microsoft is a PR/law firm that happens to sell software.

      However, Microsoft's legal team was quite small prior to the first anti-competitive investigations started by Orin Hatch (from the state of Novell and WordPerfect) in the early 90's.

      Most analysts were shocked to find that Microsoft was under represented not only legally, but out of the major software companies in the early 90's, they were one of the few that didn't have congressional lobbyists.

      Additionally, they had one of the smallest marketing and PR departments of any major software vendor, especially when compared vendors like IBM, WordPerfect, and Lotus in the early 90's.

      Hmm... And this was at a time when they were virtually taking over the market in OSes and Office Productivity software.

      So if they are only a PR/law firm, I would like to hire the same small group of lawyers and PR people they were using in the early 90's that drove their sales and stock prices through the roof.

      - Next time take the blue pill... :)

    91. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      wasn't Matrix rendered by Linux? Even Balmer&Gates are using Linux now?

      Our reality is the Matrix running on Linux 5.2.4, we just haven't found Neo or the pills to get out yet.

      Ballmer and Gates are not human; they were created by SkyNet 1.6.3, which is also running on Linux.

      *Posting Environment Directive* - Cue T2 music followed by the sound of a cracking skull under a penguin's foot. :)

    92. Re:It all makes sense now by eguaj · · Score: 1

      Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone.

      You're absolutly right !

      Look at my Windows(r) box ! It has been turned off for the last 2 years, and never got hacked/wormed/remote exploited/root kited/etc. during this period, even without all those patches/service pack !

      What a great OS !

    93. Re:It all makes sense now by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      The NT code base, especially since Win2k is very secure...

      That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.

      Given that anyone who reads this and who have used windows know that it's bullshit, I wonder what it is you are hoping to accomplish. Do you really think this is 1994, and decisionmakers are still completely ignorant to reality, wandering listlessly through trade mags and newsgroups trying to come up with information on which to base a purchasing decision?

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    94. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      "...turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet Connection..."

      What good is a Windows server if it doesn't use Netbios over TCP/IP? I know I don't want any of my Windows boxes using any other protocol than TCP/IP, so how exactly will they communicate with each other? How will Active Directory work? That solution only works for a single standalone DESKTOP, not SERVER


      Um, nope, and again nope...

      Besides, notice the key words "for the Internet Connection".

      Why would you have NetBIOS enabled on your network adapter that is connected to the Internet? Are you planning on sharing your Windows printer with 1,000,000 other people in the world?

    95. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Look at my Windows(r) box ! It has been turned off for the last 2 years, and never got hacked/wormed/remote exploited/root kited/etc. during this period, even without all those patches/service pack !

      What a great OS !


      You know if you have your electricity turned off you then don't have to worry about power spikes or blackouts then either. :)

    96. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.

      In your reality, I imagine it would.

      Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...

    97. Re:It all makes sense now by Chops · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I use a net-connected Linux machine that offers several non-trivial public services. Its uptime currently stands at a bit over 400 days.

      You should schedule some downtime for that machine. If you don't cold-boot your machines periodically (once a year is a good rule of thumb), you may find after the next power outage that they don't boot anymore (generally because a dying disk is willing to continue to spin long after it's decided never to spin up again).
    98. Re:It all makes sense now by Kpau · · Score: 1

      "Dropping in a Windows 2003 server or even a Windows 2000 server, applying the initial SP and patches available (which are downloaded during the setup even), set it for auto update, turn on the Firewall, turn off NetBIOS over TCP/IP for the Internet connection and leave it alone. (This also applies for Desktops with Windows2k and WindowsXP)" Boom, you're dead... you were snared during the SP/patch downloads before you turned on the firewall. For those clients that insist on driving with no windshield or seatbelts... I apply all SP/patches via a CD containing manually downloaded material. No connection to the Internet is made until the firewall is on and configured and netBIOS/TCPIP de-activated on the exposed side. I'm sorry but Microsoft still simply does not get it in regard to security -- I might be more generous if their ISA was priced at an affordable level for small business or made part of the OS... I mean, we have WMP, IE, and Outlook Express as part of the basic OS, right? Discovered the other day that if I use LitePC to strip IE/OE out of a system, that system can no longer run the application IEAK.... is that stupid or what?

    99. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a parfait? Everybody like a parfait.

    100. Re:It all makes sense now by Admiral+Kirk · · Score: 1

      I'm running Gentoo Linux, after install I had a working system with 0 ports open.
      No services running, or installed, no unneeded graphical system.

      After installing some handy services like ssh or even net services like http, emerge -U world will keep *everything* patched, no downtime required except for kernel security patches (which are very rare).

      Does MS deliver patches for third party products? So you need to track those seperately? Not on Gentoo (or Debian, Slackware,...)

    101. Re:It all makes sense now by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Your point is valid, but it suffers from one thing that every single post of this kind has suffered from-- it completely ignores the aspect that in a Windows box, you only have to connect it to the internet for it to be broken. In many cases, it's less than 30 seconds.

      Linux is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than Windows for security. Anyone who just "assumes" ANY machine will be 100% hack-proof is just asking for trouble.

    102. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...

      Translation: I'm employed by Microsoft and I can't admit that you've bested me.

    103. Re:It all makes sense now by spruce · · Score: 1

      In the linux world, you *usually* have the code for the patch

      So all those net admins out there review the code they're about to apply updates for? I mean, I realize that are lots that could, but typically an admin won't skilled enough to read the code and determine what it will break.

    104. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      That statement isn't true. I've used windows, you've used windows. I know it's not true, and you know it's not true. It goes well beyond bordering on the absurd.

      Sorry, don't have the time for a proper response...

      Translation: I'm employed by Microsoft and I can't admit that you've bested me.


      Sorry, no affiliation. Now you only get two more guesses, make them good.

      How can I respond to someone that thinks Windows is crap and evil. I won't convince you based on my knowledge or experience or independent facts, no matter how many times I type them.

      You hate Windows, buy the t-shirt and just be happy with what you believe.

      I know Windows(NT) is not as bad as what you believe and is on par with any OS out there. I have been in OS architecture and theory for far too long, have way too much experience in testing and development and have too many clients that entrust their entire infrastructures to my techs and my company.

      But I'm sure your installation of Windows95 four years ago or botched Win2k installation is the definitive proof that Windows sucks and I can't compete with that.

    105. Re:It all makes sense now by ganiman · · Score: 0

      "Why would you have NetBIOS enabled on your network adapter that is connected to the Internet? Are you planning on sharing your Windows printer with 1,000,000 other people in the world?"

      What makes you think that every Windows computer will have more than one network adapter? Do you even know what you are talking about?

      --
      geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
    106. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, found it. 127.0.0.1. Hack all you want :)

    107. Re:It all makes sense now by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Because of the various components distributed with Linux, there are a mass of patches to not only initially install, but there are also many services to turn on/off if used as a server with most default variant installations.

      Yeah, you have a point there. Most commercial distributions install a crapload of unnecessary stuff by default. I'd like to see the default being "install a shell, kernel, enough for SSH and nothing else", then checkboxes for each additional bundle of services I want to install.

      That's why I like Gentoo. No unwanted services to turn off. The only daemons running are ones I explicitly decided I wanted. Good luck getting root via BIND or sendmail, they're not even on the hard drive.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    108. Re:It all makes sense now by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      no, i i just need to care enought to proofread my posts, witch i don't. I have other things to do that are more important then ensureing i spelt everything properly.

    109. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that different from installing an out-of-the-box RH7.x? Do you think that is more secure than an unpatched out-of-the-box Windows 2000 install? How long do you think it will take someone to root the box? 30 seconds, or more?

    110. Re:It all makes sense now by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'm not the AC above.

      How can I respond to someone that thinks Windows is crap and evil. I won't convince you based on my knowledge or experience or independent facts, no matter how many times I type them.

      Which would be zero so far.

      But I'm sure your installation of Windows95 four years ago or botched Win2k installation is the definitive proof that Windows sucks and I can't compete with that.

      Yes. I am singlehandedly responsible for the acronym "BSOD". And I'm sure that public knowledge of the latest round of Microsoft mega-viruses is soley due to my inability to get a USB printer working.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    111. Re:It all makes sense now by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows may take a mere 30 seconds to boot, but if you're dealing with a large raid array, you can often wait 5 minutes or more while the array goes through it's self check upon booting.

    112. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't give us that crap. The same copout is used by awful spellers everywhere.

      "I just have more important things to do than proofread"

      BULLSHIT. People who can spell, but just aren't taking the time to proofread, do NOT mistake "witch" for "which", and everyone can spare the microsecond it takes to hit 'backspace' when they hit an extra letter by mistake.

      You simply can't spell. Alan Partridge was right - you need lessons urgently.

    113. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127.18.34.9

    114. Re:It all makes sense now by danila · · Score: 1

      Not everybody likes cakes! But everybody hates lawyers!

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    115. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that every Windows computer will have more than one network adapter? Do you even know what you are talking about?

      What in my comments suggest that I think everyone has more than one Network Adapater?

      What are you not getting?

      TURN NETBIOS OFF ON THE CONNECTION YOU ARE USING FOR YOUR YOUR INTERNET, WHETHER IT BE A NETWORK CARD OR MODEM.

      If you are on a LAN BEHIND A NAT ROUTER OR FIREWALL, THEN YOU HAVE NO NEED TO TURN NETBIOS OFF.

      DO YOU GET IT YET?

      Geesh...

    116. Re:It all makes sense now by boots@work · · Score: 1

      Actually, that particular case can be handled using SMART testing in the disk drive firmware: one of the drive self-tests (IIRC) tells it to stop the platter, and measure how long it takes to spin up again. This is a good indicator of impending death through stiction. This can be done with the machine online and just a minor performance degradation that will be absorbed by the OS.

      Of course you could have other hardware problems that might make the machine fail to boot. Possibly the current surge at startup would be too much for the machine.

      But I think all of these things are arguments for avoiding reboots and power cycles unless you need them. They wear out the machine and are spikes of failure risk. Once a year is probably an OK tradeoff.

      A more serious problem is an admin making a change that lets the machine keep working, but fail to boot. Doing the reboot earlier rather than later might give you more chance of working out what you changed that broke it. On the other hand Linux is generally more transparent to Windows and it's easier to work out what the real problem is, rather than blindly backing out changes.

    117. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ok, found it. 127.0.0.1. Hack all you want :)

      Wow, you have the most popular IP address in the world, you must be famous... lol :)

    118. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Yes. I am singlehandedly responsible for the acronym "BSOD". And I'm sure that public knowledge of the latest round of Microsoft mega-viruses is soley due to my inability to get a USB printer working

      And you missed the Linux security holes, and the Mac Updates in the past month while installing that printer as well.

      You must have also missed Windows2k and WindowsXP, where the BSOD of has become virtually extinct.

      Just keep your mind as closed as tight as possible, make sure nothing gets in that might change your Anti-Microsoft reality.

      I think Microsoft sucks half the time, but I also see a lot of good things they have brought to the industry.

      EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

    119. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Took them 3 hours on the phone with MS to try to figure out what was going on, and finally they gave up and had to restore from a backup, and ask all users to re-enter their last 4 or 5 hours worth of work.

      Don't tell me MS SQL doesn't have transaction logs...?

    120. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Windows may take a mere 30 seconds to boot, but if you're dealing with a large raid array, you can often wait 5 minutes or more while the array goes through it's self check upon booting.

      That is when you choose a better array controller the next time.

      But kidding aside, your point is valid.

      However if uptime is that essential in the environment you describe with the necessity of massive array, I would suggest implementing a cluster to offset the load in addition to being able to patch systems without taking the server offline.

    121. Re:It all makes sense now by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

      I wish it were that easy ;)

      Our officers have mandated that because of our business relationship with HP, that we buy only HP servers for our x86 needs. HP's array cards are miserably slow, and their fibre SAN solutions are a joke. Our SUN boxes are great, and utilize a nice EMC SAN, but in the Intel side of the shop, we're stuck with HP and their array cards. We have some Windows clusters, but they are an active/passive cluster, and not the needed active/active cluster. Once of these days though...

    122. Re:It all makes sense now by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      And you missed the Linux security holes, and the Mac Updates in the past month while installing that printer as well.

      Code Red, SQL slammer, etc. etc. etc. were NOT security holes. They were major worldwide security events. Nothing in any other platform has come close.

      You must have also missed Windows2k and WindowsXP, where the BSOD of has become virtually extinct.

      Well, you got me there. Win2k gives you error boxes on its way to crash and burn, XP just reboots instead of showing you the error.

      I think Microsoft sucks half the time, but I also see a lot of good things they have brought to the industry.

      Agreed on both points. But that is a far cry from the statement "The NT code base, especially since Win2k is very secure..."

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    123. Re:It all makes sense now by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      I can't say I'm familiar with Windows 2003 Server or future plans for XP, thanks for the informative post. And again, sorry for my inflammatory post -- mis/uninformed nay-sayers get my goat.

      It'll be very interesting to see how well Microsoft actually tweaks their products. Security, bloat ("let's turn on everything!"), look and feel, stability, organization (ref: DLL hell), lock-in, etc., have always been notoriously bad in products from Microsoft. Microsoft is really trying to improve on many of these fronts and they're doing a fair job on a few of them.

      Cheers

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    124. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Our officers have mandated that because of our business relationship with HP

      Nothing against HP per se, but I feel for you.

      There is nothing dumber than limiting vendor resources, especially from management that have no clue about technology.

    125. Re:It all makes sense now by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      XP just reboots instead of showing you the error.

      Maybe you have never seen it, but I can assure you from hardware fail testing that XP has the same BSOD.

    126. Re:It all makes sense now by painfall · · Score: 0

      Damn, in MS Matrix you'll see that damn cat every 5 seconds.

    127. Re:It all makes sense now by defile · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't even try to counter the theory.

      However you seem to have missed the score of interviews where Steve Ballmer can't say enough to counter this theory.

      SO WHAT? They treat security problems as PR problems. They say there is no problem. They blame the "terrorists" for the problem. They say they're fixing the problem and that it's their new religion to take these things seriously.

      All of this is irrelevant when the end result is still hopelessly flawed, and with no patches in sight.

    128. Re:It all makes sense now by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is a PR/law firm that happens to sell software.

      Oh man, that's priceless!

    129. Re:It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      NT is old, try the new w2003server.
      I guess you are using the newest linux distribution, so do not try to compare linux with nt. thanks

    130. Re:It all makes sense now by boots@work · · Score: 1

      I'm using the generic term "NT" for the NT family of OSs, which includes W2003. Just as non-marketdroid people from Microsoft do.

      The NT machines we had to patch included 2000 and 2003.

  2. So witty.... by shftleft · · Score: 0

    OMG linux got pwned.

    --
    People who have witty things here blow.
  3. well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So which one made themself black to be Morpheus?

    1. Re:well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always said they shouldn't let backwoods inbred rednecks use computers.

    2. Re:well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... yet here you are.

  4. Say what you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I laughed out loud when I saw those pictures. At least those guys know how to enjoy themselves. (Ok, back to the hatred and rumormongering).

  5. The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so the 'red/M$' pill looks normal sized, but the 'blue/IBM' pill, looks like an elephant suppository.. gee.. I wonder which one Ballmer really wanted..

    ---
    Don't be so uptight.. it's sopposed to be a joke!

    1. Re:The pills... by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The irony is that Linux still has a very small market share, but Billy's response to Linux in this spoof, by linking it to IBM, tends to make Linux even bigger than it is, and makes it look like it is more competition than it is yet.

      As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now, I know the best way to make your competition look small is ignore them in public, and sweat them in private. This is just petty crapola by Billy and Company, but it serves to make MS look bad, and Linux to look better by being the butt of a joke made by "the evil empire". I mean, the method they used to parody Linux is fine, even remotely humorous, but doesn't serve their marketing dept. very well.

      Seriously, this may sound odd to some of you, but this is a fundamental marketing mistake, this is Marketing 201 stuff, not that advanced. This is typical of a company that thinks it is invincible, or thinks the competition can never catch up. Problem is, no one else believes this except Billy and Co.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:The pills... by AndreyF · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are trying to make their competition seem larger than it it, that way they have less worries of being split up by the government...

    3. Re:The pills... by btb · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're referring to the size of the pills, I thought that was pretty funny, having the tiny red pill be windows, and the gigantic blue pill be IBM/linux. It's a joke on IBM of course, a play on "Big Blue"

    4. Re:The pills... by SQLz · · Score: 1

      Well, apache does have 70% of the web server market share. I would say that makes it a serious competitor.

    5. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it was supposed to be a suppository.

      "When you buy from IBM, you're taking it up the ass."

    6. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. "Linux" isn't going to be what kills Macro$haft. The Open Source movement as a whole is.

      More and more people will start to see the virtue of open source, open standards, and playing fair.

    7. Re:The pills... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Well, apache does have 70% of the web server market share. I would say that makes it a serious competitor.

      True, but Apache isn't Linux, nor GPL. And many installations are actually on windows, since apache 2.0.

      Regarding linux, it has a minority share of the market. Most of my servers, and probably users too, but a small share overall. On the desktop, Linux is almost non-existant. that was my point, that MS is acting like Linux has equal share. Not smart. I mean, it WILL have equal share soon enough, just not this year, or next.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:The pills... by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      It's mod this up if I'd have moderator points!!! :)

    9. Re:The pills... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now

      Over the last 20 years, Bill Gates has amassed a fortune of around $50B by building a company that has about $50B in cash.

      But I'm sure you know way more than him about marketing and such.....

    10. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... are actually Bills daily suppositories. That's the reason for his struggle to stop GNU/Linux getting bigger. :)

      Bill, don't forget to take your medicine! :)

    11. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Billy's response to Linux in this spoof, [...] tends to make Linux even bigger than it is, and makes it look like it is more competition than it is yet.

      Well it is said that B.G. is quite good at predicting future trends in the software industry.

    12. Re:The pills... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      But I'm sure you know way more than him about marketing and such.....

      You miss the entire point. It doesn't matter who you are, in Marketing you make mistakes because you must take risks. The key is to take risks that have potential rewards that are greater than the risk's downside. In this case, there really IS no reward. Its just a dig at Linux, but in the process, they elevate it. The only reward is how cool they feel about digging Linux.

      Being rich doesn't make you a marketing genious. It doesn't make you immune from mistakes, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from getting overly confident, which was my point. As to my success, you have no idea, so it is not relevent.

      Instead of being a asshole, you might try debating the CONTENT of what I said, instead of assuming I am incorrect simply because he is richer than I am. If you see any factual errors in my comments, please feel free to correct them.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    13. Re:The pills... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Well it is said that B.G. is quite good at predicting future trends in the software industry.

      True, he did predict that Netscape would lose the browser wars. They have predicted the fall of several companies. Then again, if I point a gun to your head, and pull the trigger right after I predict you will die, that doesn't make me a clairvoyant.

      But you may be right on this one. Its hard to drive a company out of business when its based on all volunteers and no big buildings.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    14. Re:The pills... by SQLz · · Score: 1

      True, but Apache isn't Linux, nor GPL. And many installations are actually on windows, since apache 2.0. Define many? Where can I see the actual breakdown? What about this from the Netcraft site: Apache has a significant percentage gain this month as register.com, a leading domain registrar with a domain parking system serving responses for over one million domains eliminated its Windows front end, and reverted to Linux and Apache which it ran previously. Over 1 million domains moved to Linux.

    15. Re:The pills... by mrklin · · Score: 1
      "As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now..."

      Good god man, what did you do that warrant such harsh punishment?!?

    16. Re:The pills... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      True, but Apache isn't Linux, nor GPL. And many installations are actually on windows, since apache 2.0.

      Furthermore, Microsoft puts the focus of IIS on 'Workgroup Server' kind of stuff. Like deparmental websites within companies. Seamlessly editable web pages that the department manager can update using Word.

      I doubt if they sweat bullets about the fact that a bunch of amateur sites on the Internet use Apache instead. Really, IIS isn't even focused on 'Pictures of Our Cats' websites.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    17. Re:The pills... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."

      I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.

      Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".

    18. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god man, what did you do that warrant such harsh punishment?!?

      I'll be he had a desire for a social life, vacation time, and a shot at romantic interactions with the opposite sex.

    19. Re:The pills... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      The factual error is the implied "I know more than Bill Gates", or "Bill Gates is making such a freshman mistake, but I caught it."

      According to Microsoft.com "William (Bill) H. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of Microsoft Corporation" and NOT the head of marketing. Obviously the buck stops with him, but I would hope he would have better things to do than write the script for this little spoof.

      I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.

      No one is disputing that. But are you saying he NEVER makes a mistake? And no :) my feeling aren't hurt. Like I said, 20 years and doing just fine, so I must be doing something right, too. If you ever have the chance to see a "brainstorming" session within a marketing dept., you will see its always a heated affair. One comment on /. doesn't even compare.

      Either that, or you may argue that Windows is just better than anything else out there. I'm going to stick with "better marketer".

      On the desktop, it IS the best game in town. I wish it wasn't, but it still is, and not just because of the %, but the whole experience. On the server, its one of the worst going, with tons of unnecessary GUI and wasted resources. Thats my opinion. I use both on the server and desktop for good reason, however. Again, from experience, marketing can only get you so far if your product sucks.

      Personally, I think Windows is a decent product, especially after adding NAV, Zone Alarm, ActiveState Perl, Cygwin.... Not always my favorite, but I like it enough to use it most of the time for purely client tasks. Its the tactics and lack of ethics of Microsoft that I hate, not the products.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    20. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad example. Apache is like air, in that it is free and anyone can use it for anything useful without paying for it. Of course, its not a perfect analogy in that the air could conceivably be used up killing us all, but then no analogy is perfect.

    21. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point here is that Bill knows marketing. That much we all know, he's freaking rich. Secondly your whole argument is flawed as the blue pill representing IBM was not big because of any acknowledgement of IBM being a big rival or a worthy competitor, it was merely a sight gag that references IBM's "Big Blue" moniker. Just a joke, you are reading too much into it. The rest of us just smiled and shook our heads over the whole thing, you saw marketing mistakes and viewed everything through your evil Marketing eyes. May Dilbert have mercy on your soul.

    22. Re:The pills... by MrNybbles · · Score: 1
      I doubt if they sweat bullets about the fact that a bunch of amateur sites on the Internet use Apache instead. Really, IIS isn't even focused on 'Pictures of Our Cats' websites.

      People who want to put up a site with pictures of cats usually get a geocities/tripod/insert-free-service-here website. There are many reasons to run your own webserver (some of them are dumb reasons) and anyone taking the time to actually install Apache is not going to be putting up a few pictures of Fluffy and MrTinkles.

      And who would pay $$$ for a MS server when they could go down to there local UNIX/Linux users group (http://tfug.org/) with your server and be nice enough to let people show off by doing all the work for you. Most of them are very pedantic people.

      --
      Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
    23. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As someone who has been in marketing for 20 years now

      Actually, nobody gives a shit...

    24. Re:The pills... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but the bottom line is that he's a brilliant businessman, and he wouldn't have achieved his current wealth were it not for the ability to market a product effectively.

      Some people would argue that he achieved his current wealth by screwing the little guy (Seattle Software), illegally abusing Microsoft's monopoly power (Netscape), and being fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time (PC-DOS).

      If IBM had realised the potential for PCs, do you really think they would have handed such a gift to Microsoft? Bill Gates got lucky. Gates is no genius: Paul Allen was the genius behind early Microsoft. Gates doesn't have the brains of a Wozniak. He doesn't even have the entertainment value of an Ellison or Jobs. Bill Gates is rich. That's his sole claim to fame. In computing, Bill is a nobody. There are no famous papers written or even co-written by Gates. His only book is a lame self-serving (and in the first version, dismissive of the Internet) treatise on What Bill Gates Thinks Is Cool. He has written nothing worth remembering. He has coded nothing worth using. He has designed nothing worth learning from. He doesn't teach. He doesn't inspire. He doesn't do anything except accumulate money.

      Yes, he will be remembered for being rich. But he won't ever have the respect commanded by the true computing legends like Sutherland, Thompson, Joy, Knuth, Engelbart, Turing, etc. Bill Gates is more famous, has more money, but gains the least respect of any prominent figure in computing that I'm aware of. Do you honestly think this is the sign of a marketing genius? I think it's the sign of a lucky dolt.

    25. Re:The pills... by naelurec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't seen the full flick (just some still shots) but I think this does end up being some simple marketing strategy.

      Microsoft can't simply ignore Linux. If they don't satisfy current customers curiousity with their own statements regarding the competition, the customers will go out and do their own research. Doing a head-to-head comparison doesn't work very well.. so what are they going to do? Tout that Windows is more secure? more reliable? more portable? more accessible? less bloated? cheaper?

      MS has tried spewing FUD. They tried to prove that MS solutions are superior to others via paid studies. They forced OEMs and distribution channels to NOT pre-install Linux or even OS-free computer systems. There is loose evidence that Microsoft helps fund companies and other organizations that try to fight or otherwise dimish the impact FOSS has.

      Those tactics didn't work. So now they are effectively trying to dismiss Linux .. poke fun at it, associate it with evil & lock in with IBM, etc..

      I dont think it will work. Every day the FOSS movement grows stronger. More developers, more users, more contributors, more projects, more rollouts, larger announcements, new uses, etc.. Microsoft knows that the single biggest problem with software is it is easily duplicated (one of the reasons why they got into software in the first place).. However, that same trait that made Microsoft the huge corporation it now is will be, I believe, the same trait that will either completely change Microsoft as we know it or slowly destroy Microsoft as a company.

      In anycase, its fun to sit back and watch. ;)

    26. Re:The pills... by boots@work · · Score: 1

      The key is to take risks that have potential rewards that are greater than the risk's downside. In this case, there really IS no reward. Its just a dig at Linux, but in the process, they elevate it.

      The reward, from their point of view, was to assuage their own fears about Linux, and the fears of their IHVs/ISVs.

      Plenty of Microsoft "partners" are starting to at least think about Linux support. Plenty of Microsoft developers have Linux machines at home. Microsoft management can't really understand it yet, so they want to just make whiny comments. Microsoft have more money than the average l00nix troll, but the motivation is the same.

      As you say it's mostly emotional and immature but there is a certain calculated effect on Microsoft staff and serfs.

      Mocking Linux is meant to make "partners" stay in line until it's their turn to be screwed.

    27. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the desktop, it IS the best game in town. I wish it wasn't, but it still is, and not just because of the %, but the whole experience.

      You're kidding. Never tried OS X ? You could say what you want about MacOSX and Apple, but frankly, it leads the game when you consider things like "user experience", "less bloated desktop", "ease of use", etc. IMHO the current order is

      1st -- Mac OSX, by far
      2nd -- Windows
      3rd -- KDE
      4th -- GNOME

      But Windows/KDE/GNOME are quite close. IMHO KDE is leading GNOME, because it's a bit more mature and the overall framework and applications are more integrated. GNOME is very slightly behind, but the current trend of simplifying the UI is a very good one. Windows is obviously before them, not because of some inherent capacities, but more because it's widely adopted (drivers, apps, etc.). Strictly speaking of ease of use, Windows/KDE/GNOME are more or less similar (with, perhaps, a small advantage to recent GNOME versions).

      But in any cases, OS X is by far the best desktop experience for the moment. It's not about capacities and features -- it's just all thoses small-yet-important things and ideas, which help getting this feel of a nice, polished experience. Generally, it just works. That's a slogan, but there is much truth in it.

      And no, I'm not a die-hard mac-fan, I'm a linux techie since 96 which had bought a nice ibook a year ago, and was enthousiastmed by how well Apple had choosen good solutions (even if Apple isn't always perfect, they are the only one putting so much attention to the ergonomy). I'm also a NeXT/OpenStep (and GNUstep of course) fan, that could explain why I like OSX :-) (InterfaceBuilder/Gorm rulez)

    28. Re:The pills... by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      ummm mr. gates had a large sum of money and managed to dominate the desktop market, Who needed top noch marcketing skills to do that? It was good biz tatics. Microsoft has always had bad marketing, but in light of that they were still able to get to where they are due to shady biz pratices and a monopoly.

    29. Re:The pills... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Punishment and a nasty illness to top it of. I feel sorry for you man.

    30. Re:The pills... by Xformer · · Score: 1

      1 million domains, powered by how many servers?

      Certainly not 1 million of those. A domain parking service doesn't need that kind of horsepower.

      --
      All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
    31. Re:The pills... by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      Thus... "Everything that has a beginning... has an end"

    32. Re:The pills... by wibald · · Score: 1

      The real irony is that Billy Boy's Matrix spoof is ultimately a "borrowing" of Apple's "1984" Superbowl commercial. Goes to show you: Stick with what you know!

  6. Still Better by The_Rippa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm...still looks better than Revolutions.

    1. Re:Still Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hmm...still looks better than Revolutions."

      Looks fairly painful to watch actually... it's not the goatse redirections you need to look out for in the future, but an image of Steve Ballmer dressing up as Neo...

  7. already slashdotted... by QuantumSlip · · Score: 1

    anyone have mirrors?

    1. Re:already slashdotted... by indianajones428 · · Score: 1


      Is Microsoft hosting this anywhere? I'm sure they could handle the bandwidth.

      And if they can't? Well, I don't think anybody here would mind...

      --
      When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
    2. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep

    3. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gates Opens Comdex with Focus on Security, Spam and Tablet PC
      By Matt Hicks
      November 17, 2003

      LAS VEGAS--Taking the stage at Comdex here for the 20th year, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offered a status report on how the company is moving toward bridging the gaps among software.

      Gates on Sunday showcased new versions of Microsoft software aimed at securing enterprises, fighting spam, increasing mobility and improving information access. All served as examples of the need to move toward what he's calling "seamless computing."

      ADVERTISEMENT

      Just as Gates in his first Comdex appearance in 1983 highlighted software's central role, this year he emphasized how software needs to be better connected together in order for IT to reach its full potential. That means software must work across different devices, applications, services, distended anuses of Michael Sims, and networks, he said.

      "By breaching these boundaries and getting rid of these seams...we can deliver all the scenarios that we've dreamed about since tubgirl got started on rotten.com," Gates said.

      Gates opened a Comdex that promises to be stripped down from the glitz and big crowds of its heyday. Organizers are promoting a show focused squarely on business IT and expecting about 50,000 attendees, half the attendance of last year. The nearby Adult Dex now attracts 400,000 annual attendees, largely due to the fact that Steve Ballmer's bald pink ass is only present at Comdex.

      As Microsoft moves to hem the software seams, it cannot escape the issue of security. As Gates put it, "We really have to get the fundamentals right."

      The latest addition to Microsoft's security effort, which began about two years ago, is a new version of its Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server. Gates previewed ISA 2004 during his keynote. Along with offering traditional firewall capabilities, it provides application layer security, Gates said.

      In the first public demonstration of the new version of ISA Server, a Microsoft product manager showed how ISA Server 2004 allows an administrator to drill down into policies such as Web access rules to block specific applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing programs using the software's HTTP filtering technology.

      A public beta of ISA Server 2004 will be available in early 2004, the company said.

      On the spam front, Gates announced that Microsoft in the coming months will be adding its SmartScreen Technology into Microsoft Exchange. Microsoft is planning an add-on to Exchange Server 2003 for spam filtering called Exchange Intelligent Message Filter for early next year.

      SmartScreen Technology, which Gates said is already being used with MSN and Hotmail e-mails accounts as well as in Outlook 2003, is Microsoft's spam-filtering technology. It assigns a probability score to each incoming message based on user feedback, and that information is then used to help filter out spam.

      As expected, Gates also debuted the next version of the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system. It will be available in the first half of 2004 and will be free for Tablet PC customers, he said.

      It features improved handwriting recognition and deeper integration of the tablet pen support within XP.

      Beyond the near term, Gates also delved further into the future. He touted the coming advances in Microsoft's next Windows release, code-named Longhorn, including the new Windows File System and new visualization capabilities.

      "It's a very ambitious piece of work," he said, noting that Microsoft "is not even giving the timeframe."

      One of Longhorn's goals has been to improve the ability of users to search and find information no matter where it is stored. Gates on Sunday touted work within Microsoft Research to improve information retrieval.

      "People are spending a lot of time acting as file clerks," said Susan Dumais, a senior researcher at Microsoft Research who joined Gates on stage.

      Called "Stuff I've

    4. Re:already slashdotted... by Traicovn · · Score: 5, Informative
      --

      [Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
      {Traicovn}
    5. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. These are hilarious. I hope the video surfaces soon.

      Mr.Smith is the "developers" Ballmer so frequently mentions.

    6. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fucking hilarious.

    7. Re:already slashdotted... by mskfisher · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Mine got buried in the page-break - here's another, with HTML preserved:
      http://www.mskf.org/mirrors/comdex/comdex_mirror2. html
      w00t
      --
      0x0D 0x0A
    8. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU DOES NOT FAIL IT!

      You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

      You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

      You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

    9. Re:already slashdotted... by Tongo · · Score: 1

      You've been waiting for someone to aks for a mirror haven't you?

    10. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By breaching these boundaries and getting rid of these seams...we can deliver all the scenarios that we've dreamed about since tubgirl got started on rotten.com," Gates said.

      put it deeper in the post you moron

      What an ass!

    11. Re:already slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. How many times... by SniperPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many times can Bill get on stage, claim that "Microsoft is refocusing its effors into security", and be believable? I mean, they supposedly shifted all these resources into fixing the holes in Windows, and, well, we all know how well THAT went. Now we're supposed to roll over, forget about that, and say, "Oh, okay. He means it this time. I believe him."?

    1. Re:How many times... by swissmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's look at the security issues for November:

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/ te chnet/security/bulletin/MS03-048.asp

      WS03 is affected, but vulnerability is mitigated by the fact that IE runs in enhanced security mode.

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/ te chnet/security/bulletin/MS03-049.asp

      Doesn't affect WS03

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/ te chnet/security/bulletin/MS02-050.asp

      Doesn't affect WS03

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/ te chnet/security/bulletin/MS03-050.asp

      Doesn't affect Office 2003

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/ te chnet/security/bulletin/MS03-051.asp

      Doesn't affect Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 SP4

      So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure

    2. Re:How many times... by AVee · · Score: 1

      So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure.

      Yeah, but more secure is the easy part. How about secure?

    3. Re:How many times... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure

      The problem is that nobody RUNS the latest versions of Windows and Office. Windows 2000 is the defacto Windows standard for us and there are new vulnerabilities every day it seems. Office 2000 is likewise the standard. Until 2005 rolls around I don't see Windows XP or Windows 2003 being anywhere other than extremely early adopters' machines.

    4. Re:How many times... by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Only one mitigated security issue in a month for WS03, a default configuration where almost everything is off by default.

      Yep, that's secure.

    5. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure

      Dumb! Having been out longer, of course there'll be more bug reports for MS2000 stuff. People (hackers) don't yet have access to MS2003 stuff for testing.

      Whatta stupid comment you posted.

    6. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until 2005 rolls around I don't see Windows XP or Windows 2003 being anywhere other than extremely early adopters' machines.

      Windows XP has been out for, what, 1.5 years now? That means it has been shipping on new computers for 1.5 years... those are not 'early adopter machines.'

      Now add onto that: businesses that are migrating to XP, people that just want to upgrade to the new OS.

      Stop the FUD.

    7. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longhorn has never been cracked!

    8. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The closed-sourceness doesn't fill me with confidence. Most Open Source security patches are for hypothetical and difficult to exploit vulnerabilities at this stage, yet MS, for the most part, only fixes holes after a script kiddie has embarrassed someone. There are more cunning people than script kiddies in the world, so god only knows how many MS holes are unpatched and quietly exploited by the NSA or whoever.

    9. Re:How many times... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 0, Troll
      Great.... Now if we could just convience all users to buy and use copys of Windows Server 2003, then we can all sit by a camp fire and sing of days when we still had viruses and bad people and things...

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    10. Re:How many times... by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      All viruses that flew through the net had patches for the vulnerability before it spread.

      Windows source code is available for however has 1500 licenses also.

    11. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they were script-kiddie spammer viruses, not insidious let-the-NSA-know-what-the-europeans-are-up-to viruses. And windows source code, while sorta available (parts of it), is NOT buildable into a release distro of windows (except arguably wince, maybe).

    12. Re:How many times... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      They are more secure when viewed with the magnifying glass of current windows/office/ie problems...

      I wonder what little creepy bugs are there under the rug...

      A new security/api model will also have it's problems, diferent ones but nowithstanding... problems...

      If they spend less time changing the place of the shortcuts in the menus and control panel and more time solving security problems, they would be more sucessefull... and have more sysadm happy in the way... (yes, for sure w2k3 will have another metaphore that will make all the "known" places for configuring things all mixed up again... and yes, you will have to take a refresher courseware in that MSCD certificate, because of that... you aren't eligible to automatic upgrade of the certification because things are diferent now... [the icons changed places]).

    13. Re:How many times... by nite_warrior · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually not, at my work, they just installed a win2k3 server for testing, the first thing the server did was to get infected with welchia worm... do you call that secure?? it didn't even gave the guy the time to apply the patch before getting the worm

    14. Re:How many times... by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      "Secure in the default install" is not the same as secure.

      And "[insert OS name here] is no better" is not an excuse.

    15. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, security updates are vastly lower for more recent products - as some people here have mentioned, WS03 has far fewer updates, and I bet you bottom dollar that the updates rolled out to other products were a result of finding and fixing them in Server 2003.

      Anyhows, how well would you fare with a 500+ item software catalog to back track and upgrade, huh, huh? Give them credit, they're trying and for the most part of it, they're succeeding too. I look forward to the day when Linux security has a worthy competitor, because it will be better for everyone.

    16. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard the same song and dance when win 2k was released. It's secure! No exploits found yet! Well, One. It's still secure.

      *time passes*

      Twenty, we're still way better then NT, which had 63 million in it's products life time!

      *more time*

      Ok, so we're not so secure, but we're re-doubling our efforts on security for our next product, just wait.

      *product released, small amount of time passes*

      See, no bugs yet! Well, one. It's still secure though!

      WS03 can bite me because I've been here before, and it's going to be just as bad as the rest.

    17. Re:How many times... by isorox · · Score: 0

      my string vest's got more holes than this guy, but both should still be fixed.

    18. Re:How many times... by loginx · · Score: 1

      you apparently have no idea of what FUD means.

    19. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it true that if you turn on the software firewall before plugging in, you're safe? If so, shouldn't he have done so before connecting the machine to the net?

    20. Re:How many times... by loginx · · Score: 1

      Anyhows, how well would you fare with a 500+ item software catalog to back track and upgrade, huh, huh?

      And 50,000+ employes and 27+ Billion dollars in revenue per year...
      All of a sudden, it doesn't sound too hard anymore huh, huh?

      That's about 100 employees per software application.
      Also, they don't have 500 supported or developped applications... they actually have about 100 that they keep providing support for or are under active development.
      I'll take that challenge, thank you very much.

    21. Re:How many times... by Keebler71 · · Score: 0, Troll
      How many times can Bill get on stage, claim that "Microsoft is refocusing its effors into security", and be believable?

      Don't know but I know it will be exactly the same number of times Linux fanatics will stand up in unison and say Linux is better because it is [*****].

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    22. Re:How many times... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      "So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure."

      No, it just means that the script kiddies haven't had as much time with WS2003 as they have with XP. XP looked good at first, but the more time the kiddies have had with it, the number of exploits seems to have grown exponentially. Give WS2003 a year and i bet there will be just as many/month. I've been wrong before though. I'd love for M$ to produce bug free software, my broadband bill would probably go down as they wouldn't need to use as much bandwidth without the gazillion Klez and Sobig crap propagating through every wire.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    23. Re:How many times... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Only one mitigated security issue in a month for WS03, a default configuration where almost everything is off by default.

      Yep, that's secure.


      Boy, you could replace "WSO3" with "OpenBSD" here pretty easily, couldn't you?

      Any feature that is not enabled by default is not a security risk in the default installation. That's just common sense. Blasting Windows for it, and then praising OSS for the exact same thing, is a true double standard.

      Oh, and "Windows Sucks". I'm just saying, spout fair and balanced arguements on it's sucking.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    24. Re:How many times... by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I'm actually saying that it *is* secure, there' no irony.

    25. Re:How many times... by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Betas and RC of Win2003 have been available for more than 2 years.

      You need to find another reason...

    26. Re:How many times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! One whole month! I'm convinced!

    27. Re:How many times... by dcordeiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, you're wrong....
      this just says that they do write new code before launching new operating systems. what really bothers me is seeing bugs that affect all OSs from win98 to 2003... that means that is the same 10 years old code running in there!!!

    28. Re:How many times... by finalfantasydog · · Score: 1

      The problem is that nobody RUNS the latest versions of Windows and Office. Windows 2000 is the defacto Windows standard for us and there are new vulnerabilities every day it seems. Office 2000 is likewise the standard. Until 2005 rolls around I don't see Windows XP or Windows 2003 being anywhere other than extremely early adopters' machines.

      Yep, I'm still running woody without and have yet to patch it since release date(about the same time windows 2000 came out! concidence!) hmm strange that Checking bugtraq there seems to be a FEW THOUSANDS VUNERABLITIES BY NOW FOR IT.

      your thinking is bloody moronoic, it's like saying the problem is most linux users that don't know linux are running such old linux verisons without shadow password support. Can you imagine these people that never ever upgrade thier windows patch surviving in a linux enviroment?

      please people, let's at least be realistic

    29. Re:How many times... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      oh.

      hrm.

      Mabey i've been reading slashdot too long to actually trust people to make intelligent comments on windows security. Mabey I assume that everyone is too sarcastic.

      Thanks!

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  9. Oh the Irony by Brahmastra · · Score: 1

    In the spoof, Bill gates accuses IBM of stifling innovation.

    1. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the big irony? Sorry - IBM mainframe humor.

    2. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :cough:OS/2:cough: :cough:smalltalk:cough:

      what else, what else has IBM simply 'let go'

    3. Re:Oh the Irony by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      lets look at the ms track record in the innovation department.

      • dos: bought
      • nt: bought as vms
      • powerpoint: bought
      • excel: bought
      • windows ui: liberally, uh, borrowed from apple
      • word: it's a word processor for chrissake! that's innovative?
      • ms bob: 100% microsoft's idea
        • thank you bill for pusing the envelope.

    4. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, oh:
      • SCO: bought
    5. Re:Oh the Irony by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      In the spoof, Bill gates accuses IBM of stifling innovation.

      No matter how rich that guy gets he still reminds me of that stupid geek from Revenge of the Nerds. I guess money can't buy everything.

    6. Re:Oh the Irony by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      and then there was clippy... also 100% M$.

    7. Re:Oh the Irony by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Linux: A clone of Minix, itself a clone of UNIX.

      UNIX: A rough implementation of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware.

      Who's got new ideas now?

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    8. Re:Oh the Irony by Mista+LovaLova · · Score: 0

      Dont forget the i-Loo that M$ made, then made up, then again admitted to making and then cancelled.

    9. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Word was inspired by the alto word processer from Xerox parc.
      One of the people that worked at parc took the idea to microsoft when it was still an infant company - actually in Dealers of Lightening, it sounded like the idea migrated about the time the original PC was introduced by IBM.

      It only took them 8 years to implement from scratch

    10. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      incorrect on the NT citation. NT's security system was designed by the same man who worked on VMS and defined it's security system (mind you, this guy hates it when people link him to NT security, since MS took what he gave them and did it badly). NT was the ugly stepsister to OS/2 - both OS/2 and NT originally had the same codebase and where a MS-IBM joint project. NT was the fork MS ran with after they left IBM out in the cold. Also, if MS 'borrowed' the gui from apple, it should be noted that apple 'borrowed' it from Xerox parc. Having said all of that: Viso: bought Frontpage: bought SQL Server: forked from 'joint project cross liscensing agrement' with Sybase (ie, stolen underhandedly) USDOJ: bought

      --
      man is machine
    11. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NT is a sibling of OS/2, not VMS, regardless of who wrote it. The Windows UI was based on work by Xerox PARC, work which Apple also used (albeit earlier than MS). Word is quite similar in many ways to two other products that it competed with for some time, WordStar and WordPerfect, though the former is all but forgotten and the latter has stagnated since 1997 (new versions, but no new ideas).

      But the overall sense of things is on target.

    12. Re:Oh the Irony by mlk · · Score: 1

      How can you forget clipping in your list?

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    13. Re:Oh the Irony by jasontwarnock · · Score: 1

      Apple paid Xerox PARC for use of the GUI idea with Apple stock.

      --
      :wq
    14. Re:Oh the Irony by isorox · · Score: 1

      windows ui: liberally, uh, borrowed from apple

      MS and Apple nabbed it from Xerox.

    15. Re:Oh the Irony by GabrielF · · Score: 1

      Actually thats not true. Xerox didn't have the hardware to do anything with the GUI, and Xerox Corporate wasn't interested in the idea. Apple made them a deal, they got the technology in exchange for Apple stock. Later Apple recruited a lot of key people from PARC. Microsoft just outright stole it from Apple. At least thats how Woz describes it.

    16. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they paid six or seven millions dollars for a 1 day tour. They did not pay Xerox for the rights to use the GUI.

    17. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. All of those hand built Altos that ran the smalltalk GUI never existed before Apple came along with their Lisa project. Xerox never made any bitmap Stars with builtin Ethernet either.

      The UI for the Lisa and the Macintosh were greatly influenced by the smalltalk demos that were presented to Jobs. In fact, the Lisa was originaly slated to only have the keyboard and use 'softkeys' for menu access. Smalltalk was not directly implemented because the hardware requirements were greater than what would have been possible to deliver to consumers within an acceptavbe price point. Witness the Lisa and Macintosh price points contrasted with the original Xerox Star. Both the Star and Lisa were > $10,000 for a single unit.

    18. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      NT was the ugly stepsister to OS/2 - both OS/2 and NT originally had the same codebase and where a MS-IBM joint project. NT was the fork MS ran with after they left IBM out in the cold.

      The OS/2 code base was abandoned completely, it IS NOT AT THE ROOTS OF NT, nor does it SHARE CODE WITH NT.

      Point #1...
      Because of the contracts with IBM and Microsoft, if NT HAD ANY ORIGINAL OS/2 code in it, IBM would have full access and partial ownership to the product.

      Because of this condition, NT's source was given to IBM for review as per contract to ensure that it did not have any OS/2 code. IBM even admitted that NT was clean of OS/2 source.

      Point #2...
      Microsoft specifically set out to write a new OS, not just one based on old technologies, but one based on the best OS theories at the time. A Client/Server Kernel, Token Security, Layered Subsystems, etc. OS/2's kernel or basic design could never do any of this, and STILL cannot.

      Point #3...
      OS/2 was a 16 OS when Microsoft wanted to move it to 32bit. IBM panicked because they had just dropped a huge contract with GM for PS/2 286 systems with a new OS/2 release guarantee.

      Microsoft did not drop IBM, IBM would not let Microsoft make OS/2 a full 32bit OS, they wanted an evolution from the 16bit OS/2 base. This is also why if you look at IBM OS/2 32bit version that was released, it still had a LOT of 16bit code and even a single que messaging system as the older 16bit OS/2 did. Even Warp was still using 16bit drivers for key portions of the OS.

      IBM did take Microsoft's UI designs for the next generation OS, hence the Object Desktop concepts in OS/2 that were actually designed in Microsoft labs.

      And going back to your point of Microsoft leaving IBM in the cold. I remember seeing the letters and legal documents from the late 80's early 90's between Microsoft and IBM that were public domain.

      Microsoft literally begged IBM to let them extend OS/2 to a new OS that was full 32bit and broke away from the OS/2 flaws.

      IBM refused because of the PS/2 286 hardware sales they had during that period. IBM was too focused on the hardware they already sold rather than moving to a new OS model and even their new 386 PS/2 systems.

      So don't give me the poor IBM story, it is a fairy tale.

      Microsoft actually got screwed because of their bindings with IBM, they were forced to give IBM full access to use the Win 3.0 and Win 3.1 OS and access its source so that IBM was able to include a full Win 3.x compatibility layer inside OS/2. And yes it was a compatibility layer, not a layered subsystem as was in NT.

      I'm not sure if that everyone here are really just newbies and weren't around when all this was happening, or if they are just so old they have forgotten.

    19. Re:Oh the Irony by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      Word was copied in part from Xerox, in part from WordPerfect and the like.

    20. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      dos: bought

      Yep bought the basic functionality, MS made it into a working product and sold it for use to IBM.

      nt: bought as vms

      NT was NOT bought or EVER VMS - If you know anything about NT or VMS you would notice how STUPID this sounds. Just because one of Cutler's previous projects was VMS, it has nothing to do with his architectural and OS theories in NT. Cutler was also highly involved in other UNIXes of the time, so I suppose NT is now UNIX too.

      powerpoint: bought

      Not sure who was the original owner of Powerpoint. But, Microsoft has bought a lot of existing products and technologies. They even offered Netscape a sweet deal, and Netscape told them to go pound sand.

      Often when MS finds good technologies instead of just making a product to squash it, they would rather reward the company that made it (making the small company rich) and then evolve on the companies ideas with the full force of the MS development and R&D department.

      Want more examples? VB, FrontPage, and even the Defrag utility in Win2k and WindowsXP for NTFS was licensed from Diskkeeper.

      Now think about the last one for just a minute. Microsoft created NTFS, they created the de-fragment APIs for NTFS, they created the processes for unlocking and locking in NTFS for de-fragmenting, and yet do you honestly think someone could argue that they were not capable of writing a simple program to defrag an NTFS partition?

      You would have to be nuts to believe this.

      As a developer, there are VERY few lines of code to make a defragmenter for NTFS, and yet Microsoft rewarded Diskkeepers work instead of just creating their own defragmenter.

      Look at a third party free tool called Contig.exe, it is a tiny program that will de-fragment any NTFS volume and was easily written using STANDARD APIs designed by Microsoft in a few lines of code.

      So instead of putting Diskkeeper out of the business, MS licensed their product and allowed users to buy up to a fuller featured version from Diskkeeper. Rewarding Diskkeepr instead of just creating MS's own product to crush Diskkeepr.

      excel: bought

      Ok, this one I really don't know, Excel was bought from whom?

      windows ui: liberally, uh, borrowed from apple

      Just like Apple , uh, borrowed it form Xerox.

      MS Windows was in development in 1982/1983, at the SAME time Apple was starting their GUI development. However the Intel x86 architecture at the time couldn't do what the Motorola 68K CPUs could, Mac had the release and performance advantage.

      BTW, consider everyone thinks that either Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, or MS stole the GUI from Apple, who did the XWindows group steal the GUI networking protocol from?

      Xerox never fully locked their GUI developments of mouse and Graphical Interface completely, nor did they give it to Apple. If they had, they there would not have been a lawsuit from Xerox against Apple for using their technology - which there was.

      word: it's a word processor for chrissake! that's innovative?

      Several concepts from Word are a part of every aspect of ANY OS you are using today. From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it, changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking. The whole WYSIWYG UI of select and modify were introduced in Word. So next time you select a word with your mouse or keyboard and delete it, copy it, or change its font, say thanks to the MS Word developers. :)

      ms bob: 100% microsoft's idea

      Something that came out of the R&D division before people were ready for it, or the software and hardware could do what they envisioned.

      This one I agree on, it sucked, but the Dog entertained old people and kids. :)

    21. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, to keep the Travoltas and Cruises employed.

    22. Re:Oh the Irony by fermion · · Score: 1
      I don't know about powerpoint or excel or word, but Excel is MS one claim to being a real software company. Although there is little that is innovative about the spreadsheet after Visicalc, and MS has done their best to destroy the usability of Excel as a spreadsheet, they should get credit for combining the GUI with a spreadsheet.

      The thing to remember is that Excel is a Mac program. MS did not have GUI to support it. It was two years before it would run in the new Windows environment, and, as we all know, a few more years before Windows and the soon to be Office Suite ran well.

      As far as Word is concerned, MacWrite was superior in all respects for many years. There was nothing that Word did that justified the added frustration of using it. It frankly did not work. As a matter of fact, with the constant changes and what not, it did not work well on a mac until the late 90's. Word was a hack from the DOS version and other sources.

      The GUI debate is really simple. Xerox get the credit for the WIMP thing. Apple get the credit for creating a production machine. MS gets the credit for the creating something that everyone uses. It is not an issue of who though of what. It is not an issue of who was first. If is merely an issue of Apple having a well running machine by 1986 or so. Microsoft 3.1, the first workable system shipped in 1993. 3.11 for workgroups, the first usable system, shipped a year later. Just like today MS is comparing an operating system that will ship in two years with the operating system Apple is shipping now.

      It is this technical disadvantage which, i believe, lead MS to become so aggressive in marketing. They were doing ok with DOS. They played unfair, but never unethical. I think the realization that they did not have the skill or forethought to create a long term competitive plan drove them to their current problems. Really, Windows and office were good enough to keep the company healthy. Office on the Mac itself was very good and could have funded a good sized company for a very long time. But they got greedy, and just did have the intelligence to fund the greed.

      By the way in the early 80's to the mid 90's I regularly used many different OSes and many different packages in business and research capacities. I saw many different people interact with the machines. So this is not theoretical stuff. I saw Macs used by business people. They switched because MS was giving software away, while the Apple and the Mac developers actually expected to paid for their services. Of couse they are paying through the nose now.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    23. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They even offered Netscape a sweet deal, and Netscape told them to go pound sand.

      What sweet deal was this? Are you talking about the one where Microsoft would make browsers for Windows exclusively, and Netscape would make browsers for everything except Windows? Thereby giving MS an automatic 90% marketshare, which was what Netscape currently had in the Windows world?
      Yeah....real sweet.....

      do you honestly think someone could argue that they were not capable of writing a simple program to defrag an NTFS partition?

      Why should I think they could? None of their products have ever included a defragmenter written by MS. The one with Win2K is DiskKeeper, as you said. The one with Win9x was written by Intel, of all companies. The one with DOS 6.x was written by Symantec, the makers of the PC-Tools utility suite.

      Never has Microsoft released a disk defragmenter of their own. Why not, if it's such a simple task to write one?
      If Microsoft designed the API's for defragmenting, how did DiskKeeper have a program already written to use those API's before Win2K was released? Your story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.....

    24. Re:Oh the Irony by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      > If Microsoft designed the API's for defragmenting, how did DiskKeeper have a program already written to use those API's before Win2K was released? Your story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.....

      Well NTFS was around for longer than Windows 2000, but even so, Microsoft is fully capable of providing access to APIs, or pre release versions of Operating Systems for companies that are going to help them....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    25. Re:Oh the Irony by npsimons · · Score: 1
      Who's got new ideas now?


      Certainly not Apple.

    26. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore the troll. Not a day passes when he can't be a sh!thead on /.
      Just look at his posting history to see all the crap he spews out.

    27. Re:Oh the Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux could be characterized as a 'response' to Minix, but hardly a clone. That's an insult to the creators of both operating systems who each have radically different ideas about what constitutes a good operating system.

      The innovation of Linux wasn't in creating something totally new, but rather in developing a grown up operating system that would operate on affordable x86 processors. Also being free and having a somewhat anarchic yet totally functional development model was, and still is to some extent, novel.

    28. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      What sweet deal was this? Are you talking about the one where Microsoft would make browsers for Windows exclusively, and Netscape would make browsers for everything except Windows? Thereby giving MS an automatic 90% marketshare, which was what Netscape currently had in the Windows world?

      People forget that Microsoft tried to negotiate with Netscape so that Microsoft could integrate a HTML rendering engine in Windows. And they thought Netscape had the best rendering technology at the time and wanted to use theirs.

      They saw it as the next step in OS evolution; just like an OS could render Bitmaps, Text, and RTF, they also assumed that HTML was the next step in providing a basic componet of what an OS could provide to for developers and effectively end users would benefit.

      Microsoft wanted Windows to be able to have API/components built-in that allowed developers to display HTML natively without the need of a browser interface. It was Netscape they originally wanted to license the rendering engine from. When that fell through, they moved on to purchase Mosaic, and turned it into the HTML engine that is the back end of IE, which was Microsoft's second choice.

      And the funny part of the deal, Netscape would have been the browser that was installed by Microsoft on every PC that would also be using the Netscape developed HTML rendering engine for everything in Windows.

      Netscape missed the boat by not seeing a bigger picture than just browsers. It wasn't until IE's success in using Windows' component based HTML engine in applications like AOL, and other products that pushed AOL and their Mozilla group to decide to create a HTML engine first and worry about a browser second, just like Microsoft did several years before them with the IE HTML engine built into Windows.

      Never has Microsoft released a disk defragmenter of their own. Why not, if it's such a simple task to write one?
      If Microsoft designed the API's for defragmenting, how did DiskKeeper have a program already written to use those API's before Win2K was released? Your story doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.....


      Microsoft MADE NTFS, and DESIGNED EVERY PIECE OF HOW IT WORKS. Do you honestly think they needed Diskkeeper to tell them how to defragment their own FILE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY?

      Give me a break, this is just silly.

    29. Re:Oh the Irony by ganiman · · Score: 0

      "..Want more examples? VB, FrontPage, and even the Defrag utility in Win2k and WindowsXP for NTFS was licensed from Diskkeeper.."

      Ever use Diskeeper? It sucks.. really really bad.

      --
      geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
    30. Re:Oh the Irony by ganiman · · Score: 0

      "..Several concepts from Word are a part of every aspect of ANY OS you are using today. From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it, changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking. The whole WYSIWYG UI of select and modify were introduced in Word. So next time you select a word with your mouse or keyboard and delete it, copy it, or change its font, say thanks to the MS Word developers. :).."

      You could do these types of things in the DOS version of Word Perfect.. long before MS Word.

      --
      geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
    31. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      You could do these types of things in the DOS version of Word Perfect.. long before MS Word.

      You forget that MS Word was released on the Mac long before the 5.x version of WordPerfect you are referencing.

      Don't believe my facts, go look them up for yourself, the information is out there.

    32. Re:Oh the Irony by chooks · · Score: 1


      Who's got new ideas now?


      There's no such thing as a new idea.

      Wait...I think I've heard that before...

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    33. Re:Oh the Irony by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Several concepts from Word are a part of every aspect of ANY OS you are using today. From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it, changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking. The whole WYSIWYG UI of select and modify were introduced in Word. So next time you select a word with your mouse or keyboard and delete it, copy it, or change its font, say thanks to the MS Word developers. :)

      Okay, stick with me here... The Mac OS GUI was out before Windows, right? Back in 1984, you could use a Mac with a mouse, and you could use Windows with... nothing - it wasn't invented yet. You had DOS and a keyboard, right?

      From the concept of selecting a word with your keyboard or mouse and then deleting it,

      That was built into the GUI of the first Mac OS - you could select letters, words, paragraphs, whole documents with your keyboard or mouse, and then delete or edit it in the finder, no less (and of course in the text editor app that came with, MacWrite).
      ... changing it's font, etc to drag and drop of text and real-time spellchecking.

      Font changing, again in MacWrite under the original Mac OS, circa 1984. Drag an' drop, Mac system 7 - built into the OS, not just some word processor. Real-time spell-checking, I'll grant you. You know what, though? It bugs the hell out of me, grammar checking too, as my word processor constantly draws red and green underlines under words that I know are spelled correctly and the computer doesn't have in its dictionary (abbreviations like AES, S/PDIF, etc.) I want a WYSIWYG editor that really shows me what I'll end up with, not superfluous underlines that aren't really going to end up in the printed page.

      So yeah, innovation. Real-time spellchecking in a non-WYSIWYG format.

      -T

    34. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Okay, stick with me here... The Mac OS GUI was out before Windows, right? Back in 1984, you could use a Mac with a mouse, and you could use Windows with... nothing - it wasn't invented yet. You had DOS and a keyboard, right?

      Ok, you keep up this time...

      May 1983, Microsoft introduces the MS Mouse, a two button mouse for repositioning the cursor on screen and selecting items.

      Sept 1983, Microsoft Word was released; it was the first Word Processor to feature WYSIWYG, although at the time it was basically font styles on screen. But none the less, was revolutionary for the time and accredited with being the first commercial WYSIWYG Word Processor. - Source PC Magazine

      Nov 1983, Microsoft announces and demonstrates Windows, a graphical environment designed to run on top of MSDOS. Due to fighting with IBM, the Top Down release, and hardware constraints of the ill powered x86 Intel processors, Windows 1.0 was not released until 1985, shortly after the release of Apple's Macintosh. Even though both companies had been demonstrating similar GUI concepts far before either product was manufactured.

      Jan 1984, the Apple Macintosh was introduced with simultaneous releases of Microsoft BASIC for the Macintosh and Multiplan for the Macintosh.

      Release of MS Word, Chart and File for the Macintosh came soon after the Macintosh introduction.

      The MS Word concepts of select and modify were able to be fully extended with the Graphical Interface of the Macintosh, hence the introduction of select and modify WYSIWYG font and word processing formatting features. The MS Word Team of the time had further plans, such as real-time underline spellchecking, and text drag and drop within the document, but hardware performance at the time made this impossible to bring to fruition even with the faster 68k Mac CPU. - Source the MS Word Team Leader, Interview 1996

      Early 1984, early realizing the closed architecture of the Macintosh System, Microsoft introduced "MacEnhancer" which provided the ability to plug non-Apple printers, modems and other devices into the Mac. This product did not take off, but prompted Apple to later adopt their own version of the product for non-Apple hardware connectivity.

      Microsoft original championed the Apple Macintosh in 1984, and even Bill Gates appeared in original Macintosh brochure. (A collector's item for real Mac and Gates nerds)

      Late 1985 - Early 1986, both Windows 1.0 and the Apple Macintosh were failing commercially. PC Zealots used the WIMP acronym to define GUI interfaces and the viability of a the benefits of a Graphical UI were being seriously doubted by both consumers and the computer press as being truly productive Interface approaches.

      The introduction of Microsoft Excel for the Macintosh revived the Apple movement by demonstrating advantages of a graphical UI in a business setting. ......

      Now if you would like to explain to me again how MacWrite was the first Word Processor to introduce the concept of select and modify, I will eat your hat, as the Macintosh was not even available when MS Word for DOS was released that did offer this ability.

      As for there only being DOS and a keyboard for MS-DOS, you must of missed the whole MS Mouse thing from 1983.

      The other thing you are missing is that the development of the Apple Macintosh and Windows 1.0 were virtually parallel in the CUI and design concepts at the time.

      Microsoft was constrained not only by the crap IBM was pulling with Top Down, but also the fact the IBM PC of 1984 was not even close to the power of the 68K Motorola Apple used.

      If there were no hardware performance constraints, MS Windows 1.0 would have actually been released before or at the same time as the Macintosh.

      I'm sure you had an original Mac like the rest of us, but memory does sometimes fail even the best of us.

      Microsoft was a strong partner of the Macintosh, and the Excel and Word products were two of the most important busi

    35. Re:Oh the Irony by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      ... and the mouse was originally invented in the late 60's by an engineer at IBM. My point wasn't that all the innovation came from Apple, it was that it wasn't all from Microsoft, and Word really didn't bring anything truly new to the table, other than the real-time spelling and grammar checking, and Clippy.

      -T

    36. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      Ok, lets go point by point. #1 - in correct. I have MCSE manuals here next to me for NT4. OS/2 compatability is there, the roots of the OS/2 compatibility came from the OS/2 project. this is a microsoft press book. #2) See above, and, I think you know a lot less about OS/2 then you think you do... OS/2 warp server has just about all the features you just mentioned. #3) OS/2 was and is 32-bit. Go look it up. As an expansion on this, why don't you go look up how OS/2 ran 16-bit windows 3.x applications - it ran it via an isolated virtual dos machine process that ran true dos and windows. this is the same system that MS used in NT to run 16-bit application, they called it Windows on Windows. This, by the way, contradicts your assertion that what OS/2 had was a compatability layer - it was a full virtual machine subsystem, exactly as the one MS had in NT. In fact, a version of OS/2 was released that was cheaper than the full version - but required you to have a copy of window 3.0 for compatability - because by not including the actual windows files with OS/2, IBM didn't have to pay MS for a windows liscense. As for it being a 'poor IBM story' - how did you get that from my post? I called NT the ugly stepsister of OS/2, I was refering directly to its lineage, not making a reference to a fairy tale or implying that OS/2 was better. Get a brain. go read some books.

      --
      man is machine
    37. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      Here are references for the truth behind the NT and OS/2 origins, and how they DID share a common codebase. Note that one of these showed me something I did not know: OS/2 ver 1 was 16 bit, but in 89 was being rewritten fully 32-bit. this was Before the split with MS, which took place in 90, at which time, ver 3.0 was on its way to completion, designed as a network server, it was 32-bit. It was this version MS forked and renamed NT. I'm only listing the majorly relevant links, and unfortunatly, the interview linked to by the slashdot story is now gone, though you can find the text if you dig a little.

      Enjoy.
      http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Article ID/13464/1 3464.html
      http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Histor y.html
      http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/25/1242 09.shtml

      --
      man is machine
    38. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me go through this with you VERY SLOWLY. :)

      #1 - in correct. I have MCSE manuals here next to me for NT4. OS/2 compatability is there, the roots of the OS/2 compatibility came from the OS/2 project. this is a microsoft press book.

      OS/2 Code is used in the OS/2 subsystem. But if you understood NT architecture, you would also understand that NT has the ability to layer subsystems of OSes, just like it does Win32, Win16 on Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. So even in the Win16 subsystem, it is actually running pieces of Windows 3.1 code, but that DOES NOT MEAN it is based on Windows 3.1 or Win16 just because it provides a subsystem to run these applications.

      Just as in the POSIX subsystem and even the Win32 subsystem, these are layers ON TOP of the NT Kernel Layer.

      For god's sake, even do a simple architectural search on the net about NT and see how it works and has no architectural similarities to OS/2.

      And to further this point, the OS/2 subsystem was ripped out of Windows XP. Hence, no longer having any OS/2 support for running applications. If it was DEPENDANT or based on OS/2, don't you think WindowsXP might not be able to boot up once the OS/2 subsystem was removed?

      Geesh.

      #2) See above, and, I think you know a lot less about OS/2 then you think you do... OS/2 warp server has just about all the features you just mentioned. #3) OS/2 was and is 32-bit. Go look it up. As an expansion on this, why don't you go look up how OS/2 ran 16-bit windows 3.x applications - it ran it via an isolated virtual dos machine process that ran true dos and windows. this is the same system that MS used in NT to run 16-bit application, they called it Windows on Windows. This, by the way, contradicts your assertion that what OS/2 had was a compatability layer - it was a full virtual machine subsystem, exactly as the one MS had in NT. In fact, a version of OS/2 was released that was cheaper than the full version - but required you to have a copy of window 3.0 for compatability - because by not including the actual windows files with OS/2, IBM didn't have to pay MS for a windows liscense. As for it being a 'poor IBM story' - how did you get that from my post? I called NT the ugly stepsister of OS/2, I was refering directly to its lineage, not making a reference to a fairy tale or implying that OS/2 was better. Get a brain. go read some books.

      Ok, where do we even begin here...

      OS/2 was a 32bit OS, however in the 2.0 release in 1992 many of its device drivers were 16bit OS/2 code, not full 32bit. This carried over even to the latest OS/2 releases like Warp, where 16bit DRIVER code was still used.

      It was a kludge - just like Win95 was a 16/32bit kludge.

      OS/2 even had a single input cue for ALL applications. Talk about a responsive UI for a pre-emptive multitasking OS. The tagline on the box should have warned, "Sure it can multi-task, but you might have to wait 2 minutes before the previous application releases the input cue so you can click on another application or type in another window." Geesh - Even Windows95 had a multiple input cue. Again I submit to you OS/2 and NT are NOTHING alike architecturally.

      Maybe you should do a bit more reading, or at least a web search, the information is OUT THERE.

      As for the OS/2 Windows 3.x compatibility, there is a difference between virtualization/emulation and a layered subsystem. I suggest you do a bit of reading again. OS/2 was able to run Windows 3.x primarily through emulation and virtualization. It was not an OS subsystem.

      Could you also buy a true UNIX subsystem for OS/2?(not an emulator, but natively compiled UNIX code that ran on OS/2) Could you buy a Win32 subsystem for OS/2?

      No.

      Now ask yourself why? Because the OS/2 architecture was never designed to do things like this. NT was designed from the ground up so that it was NOT dependant on any OS subsystem.

      Microsoft could use a freaking UNIX subsystem on top of the NT k

    39. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Here are references for the truth behind the NT and OS/2 origins, and how they DID share a common codebase. Note that one of these showed me something I did not know: OS/2 ver 1 was 16 bit, but in 89 was being rewritten fully 32-bit. this was Before the split with MS, which took place in 90, at which time, ver 3.0 was on its way to completion, designed as a network server, it was 32-bit. It was this version MS forked and renamed NT. I'm only listing the majorly relevant links, and unfortunatly, the interview linked to by the slashdot story is now gone, though you can find the text if you dig a little.

      Enjoy.
      http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Article ID/13464/1 3464.html
      http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Histor y.html
      http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/25/1242 09.shtml


      Even as your own links clearly reference, OS/2 1.x and the 32bit OS/2 2.0 that was released in 1992 were DIFFERENT OS designs than OS/3 (OS/2 V3), which is where NT came from.

      NT was a redesigned OS using a microkernel architecture that was developed BY Microsoft outside of the IBM partnership.

      The OS/2 1.x and OS/2 2.0 projects were the joint projects between Microsoft and IBM.

      OS/3, OS/2 V3, NT was a completely new OS design having no previous architectural commonalities with any other OS - especially OS/2 or DOS. From the unique modified kernel and the HAL layer, to using a portable code design and running on everything from Alpha to MIPS and x86.

      Everyone knows where NT came from and was called OS/3 even on an early Alpha set of Disks I have, but ITS CODE did NOT come from the OS/2 project between IBM and Microsoft.

      Read your own damn articles...

    40. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      Read your own damn articles...

      No, you apparently didn't read them, from the second one:
      "By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

      This clearly shows that NT came from the os/2 ver 3 project - which was well under way by the time the split occured, as a paragraph a few before clearly states, from the 1989 days:

      "Work had also begun on two new OS/2 products. Work on OS/2 2.0 was well underway. This product would be the first true 32 bit operating system for personal computers. Designed to work on the Intel 80386 and its follow on processors which were still in development, OS/2 2.00 would no longer be compatible with the 80286 processor.

      OS/2 3.0 was in the very early stages of development and was intended at the time to be a network server version of the operating system. It was also intended to be platform independent. Because the operating system would be built on top of a microkernel, it would not need to be aware of the type of hardware on which it was running and therefore could run on Intel processors as well as Motorola, SUN, and DEC, chips with only a change of the microkernel hardware abstraction layer."

      Note the microkernel. Note the hardware abstraction layer.

      Now, I've found links to backup my side, and all you do is spout crap about 'everybody knows' - when in fact, you are wrong. Go get a book on the archetechture of windows NT4, or preferably, NT 3.5, from microsoft. goto a used bookstore. Read. Being able to backup your side with facts is elemental to an educated debate.

      --
      man is machine
    41. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      OS/2 Code is used in the OS/2 subsystem. But if you understood NT architecture

      Had you actually read what I had stated previously? Your entire rant (about #1) is based upon the belief that I misunderstood how the campatability layer worked. If you read my statement again you will see that I'm referencing what the book Told Me. Quite clearly, in the Introductory chapter, it explained where NT came from, and that it was its roots in OS/2 that lead to the compatability. Did I claim that NT had a compatability layer and that was proof? No, I referenced what a microsoft document stated.

      As for the 'subsystem' being ripped out and the 'subsystem' being required - these statements I never made, you are once again reading too much into a very simple statement. Imagine you are a Kernel developer at microsoft, and you are working on the next NT kernel based OS. Os/2 compatability isn't required anymore, so what do you do? You remove the api functions it used from the Kernel (the ones not used by other systems - the OS/2 exclusive ones), and then you modify the executable loader to not recognize OS/2 executables as being properly runable applications. that was hard, wasn't it? Now, where in that example was OS/2 source code removed, that was in use? Source code from the original OS/2 ver 3 microkernel that was used by any other part of the OS remained. In fact, simply by modifying the executable loader you could 'remove' compatability.

      As for what I know about the NT achetecture, thats off base, and rude, since you do _not_ know anything about what I do or do not know. So far, I know that you ignore facts and references from me, and claim to know everything. This wouldn't be so bad, except you don't seem to have references of your own to backup what you think.

      Moving on.
      For #2 & 3 - you seem to be going on a rant about what a kludge the OS was. This has little to do with my statements, that the OS was 32 bit. You could use 16 bit drivers with NT 3.0, if you were stupid, but that didn't make the OS 16 bit did it?

      The GUI core of OS/2 and NT are different, but that has nothing to do with wether they had a common heritage - MS took the microkernel and ran with it, extending the win api to create the win32 api. The hardware abstraction layer was a feature being built into OS/2 3.0, as well as the move to a microkernel design (which, btw, anyone who really knows OS design will tell you that the NT kernel (and the OS/2 kernel) are not true microkernels in the classic sense.), and the OS/2 ver3 project was when the split happened.

      You claim I should go do a web search, I did, thats where I got the links for my other response. It really was hard, I went to google and typed 'OS/2 NT history'. You claim I should go do some reading - I throw down the guantlet to this (because I _have_ done reading) and ask you to do the same. You repeatedly, through your statements, show your lack of knowledge, and then give no supporting evidence. It would actually be _less_ embarassing for your ignorance to come from bad sources, then for it to be sprouted as if it were the truth.

      Let me give you some pointers on things to go read about:
      Windows 3.x compatability versus the WOW system of NT - you claim they are different, but apparently that means you didn't read how they worked very well, especially in early versions of NT.

      Could you buy a unix or other subsystem for OS/2? Yes. Relatedly, OS/2 got a posix subsystem as well, and its just as buggy and incomplete as the NT one. And yes, the NT one is incomplete - try doing anything that requires a fork() call on NT, and thats only the most blatent one.

      Prove to me you aren't a troll, use some links in your next post, back up your statements.

      --
      man is machine
    42. Re:Oh the Irony by DaMann32 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the same links I did? They seem to backup coventry's side. I think you seem to be a MS biased troll, or just a very mislead MCSE.

    43. Re:Oh the Irony by DaMann32 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft actually got screwed because of their bindings with IBM, they were forced to give IBM full access to use the Win 3.0 and Win 3.1 OS and access its source so that IBM was able to include a full Win 3.x compatibility layer inside OS/2. And yes it was a compatibility layer, not a layered subsystem as was in NT.

      I'm not sure if that everyone here are really just newbies and weren't around when all this was happening, or if they are just so old they have forgotten.


      So... being new to slashdot normally means that a user is stupid, and/or rmembers things incorrectly? I think you just proved your own point - by the looks of you UID that is.

    44. Re:Oh the Irony by bloodrose · · Score: 1

      so true...

    45. Re:Oh the Irony by bloodrose · · Score: 1

      So.. like dude.. where's your references? I mean seriously, how are we supposed to follow arguments without proof?

      Also, in an "intellectual" debate its usually bad form to all caps a line as if your yelling at someone.

    46. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Now, I've found links to backup my side, and all you do is spout crap about 'everybody knows' - when in fact, you are wrong. Go get a book on the archetechture of windows NT4, or preferably, NT 3.5, from microsoft. goto a used bookstore. Read. Being able to backup your side with facts is elemental to an educated debate.

      Actually, I have an original edition "Inside Windows NT" that was given to me by Microsoft in 1993.

      Not only have I read it, but I would bet I was using NT before you ever even heard of it. I still have Alpha discs that predate any pubically available copies.

      I was in the Original NT development process and worked as a consultant with Microsoft during the late 80's and early 90's.

      The article you are so proudly touting are incorrect facts confusing the product lines and the timeline of the division and legal rights to OS/2 between IBM and Microsoft.

      IBM had nothing to do with the assembly of the NT development team, including Dave Cutler. The fabric of what NT was to be was originally going to be based on OS/2 technologies, but the NT team (Specifically Cutler) pushed Microsoft to start from scratch using newer OS architecture theories. Hence the emergence of the design of NT - without IBM - completely without IBM or any OS/2 technology.

      NT is NOT based on OS/2 technologies, and NT was NOT in any way contributed to by IBM.

      If NT had ANY OS/2 technologies at its CORE, IBM WOULD have ownership in it and have source code rights to use NT. THEY DO NOT.

      This was also another reason the NT Team choose to scrap the entire OS/2 model for the NT architecture. Not only did it give them a chance to put in place the latest OS technologies in a new OS, but it would also prevent any ownership or legal problems with IBM.

      If you are right, IBM should step forth today and claim their royalties to the entire NT line, including Windows XP. But funny, IBM has not, and was not able to do this even when the great NT - OS/2 2.x battles were happening in the early 90s.

      If IBM owned NT or NT was built on IBM or OS/2 technology, all IBM would of had to do is simply sue. Funny that you seem to know more about NT and OS/2 than Microsoft and IBM themselves.

      Now, I'm sure you can pull a few more articles to prove that I don't know what I am talking about, but I have more insight into this than you can possibly imagine.

    47. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      You have responded to so many things stating what I said, when I did not.

      For example, I never said that WOW and Win3.1 compatibility was different. The WOW is a 16bit layer that sits on top of Win32 that allows Windows 3.1 applications to run on NT-XP.

      As for the POSIX and NT compatibilty, goto Microsoft.com and search for Unix Services for Windows 3.0. The new version includes the full UNIX subsystem, not just the buggy POSIX layer that was in earlier versions of NT, and it is now also free.

      For #2 & 3 - you seem to be going on a rant about what a kludge the OS was. This has little to do with my statements, that the OS was 32 bit. You could use 16 bit drivers with NT 3.0, if you were stupid, but that didn't make the OS 16 bit did it?

      Really 16bit drives in NT 3.1? I would love to see you demonstrate this one. NT forbid hardware access to applications and NT 32bit drivers even dropped through the NT kernel/HAL layer to touch hardware. A 16bit driver could never be used in the NT architectual model.

      I never said OS/2 2.0 was a 16bit OS, but it had a LOT of 16bit code that most people didn't realize, as it was a transitional OS from OS/2 1.3. NT had NO 16bit code, ever.

      which, btw, anyone who really knows OS design will tell you that the NT kernel (and the OS/2 kernel) are not true microkernels in the classic sense.

      No they are not. But the NT kernel is significantly different than the OS/2 kernel. The NT kernel used ideas from the MACH kernel design as well as ideas from the microkernel. It is truly neither, but taking advantage of the best features of both conceptual ideas and adding in a few extra tricks.

      The NT kernel can best be described as a Client/Server kernel model. Therefore it does not have a monolithic interface like OSX, but yet it isn't bound to being overloaded with calls either.

      If you want links, start with microsoft.com and work from there. I also recommend any of the Inside Windows NT series of books, the original to the latest cover the newest NT OSes.

      NT is not WINDOWS as everyone thinks, it is the core under the modern Windows that allows WIndows to do what it does.

      As I said before, NT and Win32 are not the same thing. When you make a kernel call in Win32, you are making kernel call to the Win32 kernel, not the NT kernel. You have to specfically dig down to touch the NT kernel layer.

    48. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      So... being new to slashdot normally means that a user is stupid, and/or rmembers things incorrectly? I think you just proved your own point - by the looks of you UID that is.

      I was referring to Newbies as defined as New to Computers and technology, as it is generally used.

      There are a lot of 'newbies' that were not around when NT came about, or were around when Microsoft was the underdog.

      I had no inclination of using 'newbie' in reference to someone that was new to SlashDot and think that you are more than a bit paranoid to automatically assume this.

    49. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Did you read the same links I did? They seem to backup coventry's side. I think you seem to be a MS biased troll, or just a very mislead MCSE.

      No, not a MS lover, used to like them, but they lost my passion years ago. Additionally, I personally don't tout a MCSE, I pay my techs to get certified, just as they have also been certified in various other OS technologies.

      And I think you should re-read the links he provided and my responses. They state exactly what I was saying, he just seemed to think that because OS/3 was started before Microsoft and IBM split that OS/3 was the origins of NT.

      You can see from my other posts that this is not true, and why.

    50. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Also, in an "intellectual" debate its usually bad form to all caps a line as if your yelling at someone.

      Yeah, learned that about 15 years ago, but thanks for imparting me with your vast knowledge of posting online.

      Sometimes, people ARE YELLING! :)

      As for sources, just read a damn book, or at least do a simple search at ibm.com or microsoft.com - I don't have to be your librarian when this is very common knowledge. I am frankly shocked that so many people have responded to this as if I was telling them the earth was made of cheese.

      People that claim to be OS experts and especially in the Open Source OS movement should know this information better than they do.

      Knowing your enemy, if you see Microsoft as the ultimate evil, is the first thing everyone here should be doing, and learning about their OS technologies would be the first step in seeing what they did do right, and where they are heading.

      And by not even having a clue how NT or Windows itself works is scary, as you have no reference to what you are even competing with.

      I'm not here to tell everyone Microsoft or NT is wonderful, I am here to say, "Hey, they have done some good things, and by ignoring them, you are just sticking your head in the sand. You won't even see it coming when MS sidesteps the entire Open Source development community with technologies people out here haven't even considered."

      Just for example:
      Is an OSI Application Layer Filter becoming a standard feature on Linux desktop installations for security? Why not, it will be on Windows XP in the next few months.

    51. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      Once again, no references, unless you want to claim all of this comes from that one edition.

      First, you claim the articles prove your side right, then you claim they are wrong in general - which is it? You cant have it both ways.

      Your response is the typical 'I know because I know' troll, and once again fails to take into account what anyone else may or may not know.

      --
      man is machine
    52. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      Ah, here we go again.

      You did say the compatability was different, your parent post explicitly states that the compatability subsystem in NT is different from the 'virtualization system' (as you put it) within OS/2.

      And I'm not just talking about the posix subsystem, there were at least two comercial unix systems you could layer on OS/2, again, you didn't actually go Read about what I pointed you at. you are hopeless. Are you going to start claiming that IBM and MS had a lawsuit again over OS/2?

      Print drivers. Go try it.

      You did say Os/2 was a 16b OS, go back a few posts. It was your point #3. Then, when I said it was not 16b, you turned around and said it was a kludge, which was just a reiteration of your earlier statements.

      You really keep trying to hammer home all these arguments that NT was/is better than os/2 - which if you actualy read what I've been saying, I never said.

      The NT kernel, and much of the subsystems, have a common anscenstry with the OS/2 ver 3 project that MS and IBM worked on. When the split happened, they both took copies of that code. MS renamed is OS/2 NT, then just NT by the time of release. Reguardless of what changes MS may have wrought in the meantime, and reguardless of what IBM may have done with its copy, they both had the same basic archetecture going into the final rounds to finish ver 3 of each product.

      You keep trying to educate me on the NT kernel, as if I don't know how it works. Now you claim it has a client-server model - which is incorrect. The OS Layers provide a client-server model, the NT kernel by itself does provide only a monolithic set of interfaces as with OS X (which you dragged into this conversation why?) - only with the addition of the win32 subsystem (or the posix, etc) does the 'kernel' provide a set of flexible, extendable interfaces in a client-server fashion. If you are going to include such layers, then a monolithic kernel design such as OS X can make the same claims - the GUI on OS X could be described as a client of the kernel's services, and yet the GUI libraries and manager provide a much broader se of interfaces than the OS X kernel itself.

      You tell me to go look at microsoft.com, and yet you can't even sem to pull any references there for use in this conversation? Once again, no references, no believability.

      You say I should buy the inside wNT books, which I have behind me on a shelf, and yet you apparently have never realized something very basic about many MS books - they are filled with propaganda that can turn out to be twisted and just plain wrong. this is why when you do research, you get more than one source for your information.

      For example, I have a book on exchange here that attempts to describe mail systems before exchange was created, and it's description of original client-server systems is hideously generalized. Ignoring this generalization, it continues to enumerate the 'cons' of these types of systems - but due to its over generalization about how such systems worked, it misses the mark completely. Instead, it is only describing how a sub-set of client-server mail systems worked, and then the cons of that subset. However, from reading the book and never having exposed yourself to other (non-ms) sources of information, you would think that exchange was the end-all-be-all of mail systems (which, even from an objective standpoint its prety damn close) - and that all previous mail systems were writen by people with very small brains.

      This is propaganda, the MS way. It has very little to do with how they are doing things on a technical level, and much more todo with how they want you to think their way is better than the competition. A non experienced user, or one with a selective memory, would read the book and then sneer at every pre-exchange mail system, making false assumptions. this sort of belief system is reinforced via the Lack of qualifiers in the text. No where does it say 'most client-server mail systems' or 'the majority of clie

      --
      man is machine
    53. Re:Oh the Irony by bloodrose · · Score: 1

      You seem to make alot of assumptions based upon a few lines of text. I for one am neither Pro or Anti Microsoft Technology, I use and learn what I can. I don't believe any of this post, the comments made by anyone on this thread, with the exception of yours mention anything even related to Anti-Microsoft Sentiment. The current comments point out that the founded roots of an Operating System and technology have common ground with another Operating System, as found in many texts.
      As far as research, and my "request" at your references, everything I am finding seems to contradict what you are saying. I can easily do a search on Google.com to look for various URL's that talk about the OS2 background of Windows NT. Of course, thanks to the other users who have posted in this thread I did not have to dig very far on that side.
      And unfortunately, there is no such thing as common knowledge as this thread is distinctly pointing out. If it were Common we would have all been agreeing and none of us would have wasted our time replying to you. And no one asks you to be a librarian, we just ask you to be considerate, however that itself seems a bit much to ask. If you make a claim, your expected to back it up. I think we as a society are past the ?take a fact on face value? phase. Socrates and the other great philosophers all taught us how to question everything, ?
      As far as yelling, I don?t need to tell you how rude it is, or how completely unnecessary it is especially in this comment thread considering the only person displaying agitation and sheer rudeness... is you.

    54. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Here, you want to read, here are a few links that describe, exactly what I was already saying.

      From the NT kernel's MACH underpinnings to its hybrid of a client/server microkernel design to implement the layered subsystems - hence to OS layer dependancy.

      These links also describe (if you read them) that originally, NT was going to be based on the OS/2 V3 kernel technologies and even have the new OS/2 interface "WorkPlace Shell" that IBM later brought to fruition in OS/2 2.0.

      It also clearly states that the OS/2 model was completely abandoned and NT was redesigned, thereby adding OS/2 support in only a subsystem layer and not a PART OF THE OS.

      Also take the opportunity to explore more than just the pages of the links I have referenced, the articles often span several pages.

      Here, start reading and have fun:

      http://www.swexpert.com/F/WS1.JUN.98.pdf
      http:/ /www.2b-designs.com/ftp/CIS-19/winNT-Foundat ions.pdf
      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevie w/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/evaluate/fea tfunc/kernelwp.asp
      http://www.808multimedia.com/w innt/kernel.htm
      http://www.edm2.com/0607/kernel.h tml
      http://webserver.cpg.com/wa/2.6/
      http://tune s.org/~unios/oskernels.html
      http://pages.prodigy. net/michaln/history/os220/
      http://www.byte.com/ar t/9406/sec11/art2.htm

      You will also find in these links, from OS/2 sites that OS/2 2.0 from IBM was full of 16bit code, just as I explained in an earlier post. But again, maybe you think you know OS/2 better than IBM and the OS/2 advocates.

      BTW, there was limited support for 16bit printer drivers in NT 3.1, but they only worked through the WOW and Win32 subsystem, they COULD NOT be installed as NT System Drivers. They would also fail if used via the Win32 subsystem and not directly from inside the Win16 WOW layer sitting on top of the Win32 subsystem. - Source Microsoft.com

      Now go off and troll to someone that doesn't know you have no idea what you are talking about. You will feel better about yourself. :)

    55. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Follow my response to the post link below...

      There are plenty of 'credited' technical articles that substantiate exactly what I am saying.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86199&cid=75 11 646

    56. Re:Oh the Irony by bloodrose · · Score: 1

      I have taken the time to peruse the articles that you have referenced, and I must say as far as articles go, very interesting for some of them. For the most part, though it seems as those are geared in a direction in which I did not think this thread was in or going. Yes, NT is powerful, Yes UNIX is powerful, that wasn?t the question, or even statement. At this point my understanding was the lineage of NT.
      Your articles definitely point out the ability and structure behind Windows NT, which I do not believe anyone is contesting (at least in this thread). However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:
      "By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."
      In this excerpt we can find a definitive statement about the lineage of NT. Not that NT is better or Worse, and definitely no accusation of Microsoft being evil, certainly more towards the act of Microsoft acting on business sense to develop what the market wanted.
      Thank you for the links, they definitely proved to be insightful reading, even if however off point.
      Also of note several of the links had been mis-formatted, which for most was just a simple space in the name, which could be corrected so I could find the article, however, the reference on Microsoft?s site I cannot resolve, and simply gives me a page moved error.

    57. Re:Oh the Irony by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:


      The point that was being made in several posts I was responding to was the NT was derived from OS/2, and it was also stated and implied that NT was based directly on and shared OS/2 code.

      NT does not, read the links I provided, especially the link to Microsoft's own whitepaper on why they did away with having OS/2 as a part of the NT architecture.

      Microsoft's design team original considered the base kernel architecture of NT to be from the OS/2 base, and even a UNIX base (Remember Xenix?). They then (as noted in their own documentation in the whitepaper link) moved on to a new OS architectural model, seeking kernel technology theories from both MACH and the client/server Microkernel designs.

      NT's architecture ended up being something new and was not based on OS/2's kernel, a true MACH or a true Microkernel design. Instead it was a combination of MACH concepts and Microkernel concepts, with some of their own innovations, which managed to implement the best technologies of MACH and Microkernel without the inherent limitations of overloading the kernel or restricting it monolithic messaging.

      Hence why NT was able to do things other OSes that are directly based on true MACH or Microkernel designs are not able to do. NT, being non-monolithic, could implement a layered subsystem OS architecture, supporting multiple OS layers simultaneously, and additionally using Microsoft technology, the kernel was not overwhelmed with multiple message requests. Hence the NT kernel has been described as an object based client/server kernel based on it being non-monolithic and having a token based message system.

      So as I assert once again, NT is NOT OS/2, was not built on OS/2 technologies, nor has any commonality in architecture to OS/2 or the 32bit version of OS/2. The only OS/2 connection to NT was that Microsoft provided an OS/2 1.x character mode subsystem that was 'layered' on top of NT, just like POSIX was layered on top of NT, and even WIN32 was layered on top of NT.

      That is my point, and I find it entirely silly that to just say this was not enough proof for people, as it is pretty common knowledge in OS theorists groups.

      I have come to the conclusion that if people want to believe that NT is just a hacked version of OS/2 development, then no matter how much proof I, Microsoft, or IBM provide, people are just not going to get it or change their beliefs.

      Thanks for your post as well, most of my above comments are not directed at you, but mainly to people that are following this thread.

      BTW, here is the link to the article on Microsoft's site that was malformed before.


      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defaul t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/evaluate/fea tfunc/kernelwp.asp

    58. Re:Oh the Irony by Coventry · · Score: 1

      I am the troll? I am trolling?
      I made a joke, expanding upon someone elses joke. You didn't take it as a joke, and you went off, YELLING in your response... but I am a troll?
      I don't think you know the term properly.

      Really, I mean, these links are all mostly off topic, and none of them address the issue directly of wether OS/2 ver 3 became NT. Your statements to the contrary in your post, and your (once again) yelling, do not disprove the basic fact that the two _are_ related and came from the same original project.

      I mean, come on, does this link:
      http://tunes.org/~unios/oskernels.html

      Has anything to do with the conversation other than to prove you would rather read a single paragraph description of what a microkernel is rather than read the actual source data? The books I provided links to on amazon are all college (and in some cases, graduate course) textbooks - I'm pretty sure they define a microkernel a little bit more in depth then what this link does.

      Or did you think this link would 'teach me' about NT? This link provides no comparison between the NT kernel and the OS/2 kernel, and thus is useless in this discussion other than to be redundant.

      http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os220/

      This, once again, has nothing to do with the conversation - which is about OS/2 ver 3 that was underdevelopment when the MS-IBM split happened.
      Let me sumerize this page for you:
      OS/2 2.0 was 32 bit, but didn't get many 32 bit applications, and was thus hampered by the applications released.

      It does go one quite a bit in one section about the 16 bit parts of the OS, some of which were replaced in OS/2 2.1, but most of which were there for _compatability_ reasons.

      http://www.byte.com/art/9406/sec11/art2.htm

      And once again, what does this have to do with the conversation? This is about os/2 2.x, and about a retrofit to that (at the time) older version of the OS to allow for SMP capability.
      The references to Workplace OS have no bearing on the discussion.... unless you dig.

      If you dig about Workplace OS - you find some interesting things, such as the mach-esque microkernel, HAL, and portability to other platforms other than x86. Sounds a lot like the NT kernel to me.

      This is really getting old, so let me be Generous and end it.

      Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean I can't find a reference to (mostly) shoot down my argument.
      From:
      http://www-computerlabor.math.un i-kiel.de/~mressin /os2/history.html
      "Microsoft decides to shift focus from OS/2 to Windows. IBM and Microsoft split, with IBM taking over development responsibility for all versions up to OS/2 2.0 and Microsoft keeping responsibility of OS/2 3.0, which Microsoft renames to Windows NT (new technology)."

      This shows that version os true OS/2 after 2.x were IBM's doing, since they did not have access to the code that lead to NT 3.0.
      As magmanamous as I am, I cann't conceed completely, for this only shows who had what rights to what technology from the split, not who wrote what parts, or whose source code ended up where. IBM developers were working with microsoft on OS/2 ver 3 when the split happened, and the root of ver 3 was a continuation of OS/2 development, steered by culver to include many enahncements. To say that NT was a complete rewrite and owes nothing to OS/2, and that it is completely unrelated, is just going too far.

      Now, the argument is settled, you can continue to believe what you want, as misguided as it may be, and I eat a partial crow. I sugest you spend some time working on your manners - the amount of supositions you stated about me during this debate were rediculous, off base, and rude - I've read your statements in reply to other posters, and really, to be redundant, you need to work on your manners. You seemed to have taken a post that expanded upon a joke someone else made, and attacked it with all vigor. I made the mistake of feeding your troll, and of being too stuborn to let the issue drop - you made the mistake of just being to tightly wound and acting as if the world revolved around your falable memories.

      --
      man is machine
  10. If Microsoft built the matrix by rf0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then the glitches would be a feature
    Agent Smith would need to be updated ever 2 weeks to avoid the latest expolit which would allow Neo to destroy him
    It would have to be rebooted every month to free up the memory leaks

    Rus

    1. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, that doesn't sound too different from the movie plot. Agent Smith obviously hadn't been patched because Neo exploited him immediately upon gaining Administrator access. And we learned that the Matrix must be "reloaded" periodically to fix the humans that "leak" from the main program...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And Neo would have to pay the Oracle $60 up-front just to talk to her over the phone.

    3. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the initial code would have been developed by a different company, who Microsoft bought out.

    4. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      Agent Smith obviously hadn't been patched because Neo exploited him immediately upon gaining Administrator access.

      The whole point of Administrator access is being able to exploit whatever system component you damn well please. That's why it's called "Administrator access", and that's why it's usually restricted.

      I would've been shocked if Neo hadn't been able to exploit Smith, using Admin privileges. If Smith really did have an unpatched security hole, then Neo should've been able to exploit the agent before he rooted the system.

      Which, considering how much of a loser Neo was, could very well have been possible--he just never noticed.

      And don't try to pretend that Neo used an upatched hole to root the system. He rooted the system after being resurrected from the dead by True Love. The Machines were pretty impressive, but I seriously doubt there's a way to patch "supernatural powers derived from traveling beyond Death's gate and then returning to the world of the living on the wings of True Love".

      Which, of course, speaks to the absurdity of the screenplay, rather than the absurdity of drawing parallels between the Matrix and MS.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    5. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by RevMike · · Score: 1
      And don't try to pretend that Neo used an upatched hole to root the system. He rooted the system after being resurrected from the dead by True Love. The Machines were pretty impressive, but I seriously doubt there's a way to patch "supernatural powers derived from traveling beyond Death's gate and then returning to the world of the living on the wings of True Love".

      True Love is also what saved the man in black from dying in the pit of despair. It enabled him to hold out until Miracle Max could make a pill to restore his life, so that he could storm the castle and stop Princess Buttercup's marriage to Prince Ruperdink.

    6. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the matrix was built on a Linux platform, it would never work, because device drivers for human beings wouldn't exist.

      --
      evil adrian
    7. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Fancia · · Score: 1

      And we'd have lots of endian compilation issues with people who talk out of their rear ends, neh?

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    8. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! And, and... because the Agents would have to be dressed up like penguins!

      [Walks away congratulating himself]

    9. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by JimR · · Score: 2, Funny
      If the matrix was built on a Linux platform, it would never work, because device drivers for human beings wouldn't exist.

      ... and we wouldn't all be enslaved while the evil machines suck the life out of us. Hmmm. I'm actually beginning to see why The Matrix is like Microsoft's business model.

      --
      #exclude <ms/windows.h>
    10. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1
      [matrix:/] neo% su -
      Password: ******
      [matrix:/] root# killall matrixd
      is faster than
      ctrl-alt-del
      Username: neo
      Password: ******
      Start->Control Panel->Services
      Right click matrixd, click stop
      [WARNING: The following services depend on 'matrixd' to run and will be stopped: AgentSmith, Oracle, PersonGenerator, Internet Information Services]
    11. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      ... and little black cats would never take more than three steps.

    12. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in comuter systems with real security, administrator access just grants you the rights to adminster the system.

      The best computer you can get only has class C-D security. I have worked on a class A top secret secure computer and it had so much security that the administrator could only add people, and other people had to approve who he added, they didn't have the rights to add people. And the adminstrator couldn't access the contents of any of the data files. Very strange system.

      Oh yeah, and you can't be hooked to an external network, and the room the computer system was in had metal walls and an air chamber like thing to trap it's electronic emissions inside. Even the power system was scrubbed to keep from leaking any information outside.

    13. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 2, Informative

      On a Windows box: net stop matrixd.

      You also neglected log-in time for the Linux machine, since you left your neo account logged in -- deliciously ironic considering that you belong to such a security-conscious community.

      --
      evil adrian
    14. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by rossifer · · Score: 1

      He rooted the system after being resurrected from the dead by True Love.

      Actually, my take on it was that he rooted the system in order to get around the rule that if your body dies in the matrix, you also die in the real world. The fact that his mind was capable of interfacing with the matrix at a different level (The Gift) was what made him "The One". True Love was his kick in the pants (a better reason than just his own survival, perhaps). Once he rooted the matrix, he was "in like Flynn".

      He didn't have "supernatural powers". He had the ability to ignore the rules of the Matrix (including the death rule) and make up a few rules of his own.

      The only actual absurdity I can find in the first screenplay was the human == power source equation. The only reason to use a human instead of any other animal for energy is the big brain on the human. A cow is a much less troublesome animal for converting food calories into heat, if that's your actual goal, though a furnace is even less trouble and much higher efficiency. They should have stayed with the fusion concept and had the human brains controlling the unstable fusion reactions. But, they didn't ask me, so we got to be duracells instead... *sigh*

      Regards,
      Ross

    15. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Actually, in comuter systems with real security, administrator access just grants you the rights to adminster the system.

      The best computer you can get only has class C-D security. I have worked on a class A top secret secure computer and it had so much security that the administrator could only add people, and other people had to approve who he added, they didn't have the rights to add people. And the adminstrator couldn't access the contents of any of the data files. Very strange system.

      Oh yeah, and you can't be hooked to an external network, and the room the computer system was in had metal walls and an air chamber like thing to trap it's electronic emissions inside. Even the power system was scrubbed to keep from leaking any information outside.


      Oh yeah? Well I worked on a class A+ Super Ultra Extra Mega Secret secure computer and it had so much security that we couldn't even look at it. It had laser beams that would burn out your eyes if you even glanced at it and high frequency ultrasound rays that would selectively gel portions of your brain if you managed to actually see it. It wasn't connected to the power system. It had solid diamond walls and insulation made out of passenger pigeon feathers. The administrator could touch the door to the room, but the key was inside, just for extra security. It couldn't even be hooked to an internal network and it had to be kept in a vacuum just in case the network connection could cause the air to break down and create an electrical connection. We weren't even allowed to know that it existed!

      Very strange system.

      -h-

    16. Re:If Microsoft built the matrix by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      Yes, he left his no-privilege-having user account logged in. That is why he had to use the su command to switch to root user ( by entering the root password ) before running the killall command. Hmm, your example left root logged in, so wouldn't that be as ironic as the first post ( as per your post )?

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
  11. Hmmm... by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't know the Borg had a sense of humor.

    --


    --"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's pretty typical for company meetings to feature a video like this one. Those are for internal consumption only, though, as they tend to bash pretty much everybody. They're almost always humorous, and occasionally absolutely hysterical.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by ShadowDrake · · Score: 4, Funny

      I never understood that about the Borg. Presumably they would have assimilated *some* marketing staff over the years, enabling them to come up with a better slogan than "Resistance is Futile"... perhaps "Assimilation makes you fresh and sexually appealing, while saving money on long distance!"

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    3. Re:Hmmm... by mr.+marbles · · Score: 1

      They don't, they assimulated other matrix parodies and shoved it down the people's collective throats.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by ajservo · · Score: 1

      What's even better is the screencap of bill infront of the WALL OF HAMBURGERS! What a slap in the face to the Meatrix!

    5. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone think that maybe this was a shot at Mac? (Wall of Big Macs?)

      Or maybe they were doing something else, but even though I'm not really pro-Mac, I like to think that MS has a large shelf of them.

    6. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an avid watcher of star trek (only caught an episode here or there) but I don't remember seeing any marketing people on other planets. I think marketing only exists on earth where all the sheep are. (bah! baaaah!). The borg never assimilated earth did they? So then they would never have gotten marketing people.

    7. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "while saving money on long distance!"

      Saving money on distance? Hmm. I didn't know distance was worth money.

      (5 minutes later).

      I've got some distance for sale. Even longer than what you're used to. Good quality brand-name distance (patent pending). Now only $25 per thousand miles*! Not available in stores. Limited time sale only. Respond quickly, supplies are limited. Ask for the extended warranty plan. Service option available. All sales are final.

      *Price after $10 supplier mail in rebate, $15 factory mail in rebate, and before $5.95 S&H.

    8. Re:Hmmm... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
      perhaps "Assimilation makes you fresh and sexually appealing

      Seven of Nine, Dumbshit!

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    9. Re:Hmmm... by f64 · · Score: 1

      so true.

      when i worked apple support i used to go to these tedious rallies for retailers and support-staff, and my boss once told me "this year was boring, back in the days, they dragged up a bunch of wintel boxes and smashed them with a sledgehammer".

      all i got out of those shows were crappy tacos. oh, and a big teeshirt.

      f64 : fight for your right to be lazy!

    10. Re:Hmmm... by CaptCanuk · · Score: 1

      In the Microsoft/Borg case, it would be "Who do you want to assimilate today?"

      --
      ---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
    11. Re:Hmmm... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I never understood that about the Borg. Presumably they would have assimilated *some* marketing staff over the years...

      Even the Borg have standards.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  12. I have...nothhing by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seriously, I was planning to troll this topic or something, but...I've got nothing. It's just too lame. I mean, it's like trying to make fun of a clown by mocking his big floppy shoes or tiny car, stuffed with other clowns. It simply falls flat.

    Really. I got nothing. Sorry. Make up your own jokes.

    1. Re:I have...nothhing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, thanks very much for pointing out that you have nothing to contribute, much like your post really, because as we all know - without you and your Stellar brand of humour, we would be completely and utterly fucked and left jokeless for an entire thread! OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!

      you should go back to mommy now and ask her to pay you some attention...

    2. Re:I have...nothhing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least you were original... oh, wait--nevermind. You were just another imitator. Please, world, I beg of you: bite styles wantonly and give credit never! That's the only way for culture to survive!

    3. Re:I have...nothhing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I was planning to troll this topic or something, but...I've got nothing. It's just too lame. I mean, it's like trying to make fun of a clown by mocking his big floppy shoes or tiny car, stuffed with other clowns. It simply falls flat.

      Really. I got nothing. Sorry. Make up your own jokes.


      You can always make fun of Balmer for how much of an idiot he is. If you don't believe me (like who doesnt..) then look for yourself:

      http://media.ebaumsworld.com/microsoftdance.mpg

      And if you are still hesitant to look at it, for fear of hurting your childrens eyes or scared of downloading some trojan, then go to ebaumsworld.com and check it out. On the homepage its the 3rd or 4th video link on the right side.

    4. Re:I have...nothhing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the grandparent gets marked "overated" and not this retarded comic?

  13. Man oh man! by macshune · · Score: 1, Funny

    What I wouldn't pay to be Ballmer's stunt double and accidentally pop Bill Gates in the nose!

    And props to microsoft having the matrix run off of linux. Guess that makes sense. Can't have the matrix crashing because it feels like it! People's lives would be at stake!

    Microsoft: Demonstrating through movie parodies that Linux is a better choice than Windows for system-critical environments

    1. Re:Man oh man! by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      Here's the best part: The green text near the end (Longhorn) was all done on a Mac (AfterEffects), and all of the compositing was done with Unix (SGI Onyx/Inferno). Sorry, no Linux was used.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
  14. oh good f'ing god. by mgoodman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    just 3 comments when i clicked on the link and already slashdotted. thats ridiculous.

    --
    01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
    1. Re:oh good f'ing god. by ckathens · · Score: 1

      Worth it just to see the sort of BS Mr. Gates tries to pull out of his ass. Just seems unnatural to seem him anything other than the most boring geeky pastel sweaters. And as Morpheus?? Please beeyotch, you're like that little kid in the first Matrix who programs the woman in the red dress because he can't get any himself....

    2. Re:oh good f'ing god. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely crazy. Mirrors Anyone?

    3. Re:oh good f'ing god. by Drooling_Sheep · · Score: 1

      it was only a series of small sometimes blurry pictures, no video so you didnt miss much

  15. ASEJASLDGADADSG:LJSD!!@ by DAQ42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that is just wrong.
    Wrong I tell you.

    So very, very wrong that I cannot begin to fathom just how craptastically crappy this crap is.

    Imagine. Using a popular culture movie to debase your competition and promote your crappy vaporware. Where do I sign up for this crap? I want off your lists. All of them. And your parent company lists too. No, don't try and sell me your product by linking it to a popular movie reference, please. Let it stand on it's own merit. Oh, you say it's all smoke and mirrors and you don't have the features I want? Too bad, no money for you, bye now.

    Grrr.

    --
    Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
    1. Re:ASEJASLDGADADSG:LJSD!!@ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you would get all hard up here if a cute chick was using a Linux laptop in a Hollywood flick. You would be like, oh, this is so progressive, Hollywood finally gets it, and oh yeah, that episode with boss fighting BSOD is just jilarious.

    2. Re:ASEJASLDGADADSG:LJSD!!@ by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Except if it were vaporware, it wouldn't be around, now would it?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    3. Re:ASEJASLDGADADSG:LJSD!!@ by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, its funny, accept it. Everyone does this, Oracle did to show their gird computing, (well they used the matrix code stuff), its for a laugh, and you can bet money on the fact that everyone that saw it is thinking about it. Personally i would love to see it, it looks funny.

      So laugh at it like your supposed to, as anyone who has a sence of humor will, and move on. Its Slashdot, we already know you hate Windows.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:ASEJASLDGADADSG:LJSD!!@ by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      Every conference/keynote/partner meeting, MS does some kind of spoof like this. Whatever movie (or even commercial) is popular at the time usually gets spoofed. This is a cheerleading video, usually for internal eyes only, so it's not like MS is using this in their next ad campaign.
      We've seen Gates and Balmer dressed up as Jedi, as Austin Powers, you name it. Even Billie Mays, that corny Oxi-Clean dude, was hired for a spoof spot. It's really not that big of deal, unless of course it gets leaked to the public and we all get to make fun of it. Laugh, it's (albeit bad) satire.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
  16. Re:Intersing book on the history of Comdex by mrshowtime · · Score: 0, Troll

    OMG, that is THE most horrible thing I have ever clicked on! DO NOT CLICK IT! IT is a woman in a bathtub shitting on herself, and I'm being conserverative....OMG Blaaahaghhhhhhhh!

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  17. Ballmer as Neo? by EmCeeHawking · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gates and Steve Ballmer as Morpheus and Neo respectively

    Um, I thought Ballmer was the fat one.

    I can much more easily picture Morpheus dancing around the Zion cave shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" ad naseum, than Neo.

    1. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Just saw the video for the first time.
      I as a student would rather die than make myself an idiot like that in front of my friends...
      I guess it takes quite a "special" state of mind to do that:
      1) With noone forcing you
      2) infront of press, tv, ect
      3) as a very damn rich and important guy in the industry....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      of course i mean the DEVELOPERS... video, not the matrix spoof. Revolutions spoofed it enough for me...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny
      I can much more easily picture Morpheus dancing around the Zion cave shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" ad naseum, than Neo.

      No kidding. Neo'd be jumping around yelling, "Woah......Woah......Woah." Developers IS a multi-syllable word, after all.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      Developers IS a multi-syllable word, after all.

      Wouldn't that be "non-monosyllabic?"

    5. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      polysyllabic

    6. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by Tsali · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagined more sweat - like with all that rain coming down at the end for Ballmer....

      And the innovation pill? I have some explanations...
      - It's a placebo.
      - You can only take the pill after reading the EULA that's was in the package.
      - The package itself is flawed and tampered with because some script kiddie got into it first.
      - The pill would advertize for other pills, mostly blue and purple. ... there is nothing more pathetic that seeing two overly rich CEO's attempt to hip themselves up to pop culture. I'll take my glasses-half-full 401K presentations, my Initech pep rallies, and all that other crap over this. Nice to know that part of the war chest is going towards craptastic special effects and parody instead of, I don't know, hiring some cheap labor to look for buffer overflows.

      Two thumbs down. Even Keanu can act better than Gates.

      --
      This space for rent.
    7. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by Deimios · · Score: 1

      I can much more easily picture Morpheus dancing around the Zion cave shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" ad naseum, than Neo.

      Like this?

    8. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Woah.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    9. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Maybe "a word with more than one bit", if we want him to know what we're talking about?

    10. Re:Ballmer as Neo? by danila · · Score: 1

      Do you realise that Neo says "Whoa" only once during the whole movie. It's the fact that this moment was included in every damn trailer and TV spot that pushed this word into your collective consciousness.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  18. Bad comparison by T-Kir · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean come on!!! A more appropriate spoof would be that those two were the virus version Smith (crikey, I'm writing this now and listening to the Animatrix OST and Red Pill Blue Pill is on!!!)... yeah Longhorn would have to be the Matrix code, constraining humanity and the problem is choice: which MS don't want people to have.

    Plus, the Matrix is due for a critical crash, hmm the parrallels are endless...

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
    1. Re:Bad comparison by ckathens · · Score: 1

      LOL didn't even realize that -- second and third movie are all about "Choice". Yet what is M$ presenting us with? No choice! Lovely...

    2. Re:Bad comparison by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and the architecht(ms bigwit) is unable to make a (moral) choice since everything is an (monetary)equation to him.

      -

      seriously though.. somebody could post the gandhi reference again(and knowing slashdot, somebody will)..

      though.. i guess ms would like the ordinary people apart from them to think that the underlying code is some matrix magic and they'd better stick to visual basic.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Bad comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, look! People own Macintosh computers! People run Linux! Wow I guess there's just no choice.

      "M$" is fucking immature. Grow up Mr. wanna-be IP lawyer.

    4. Re:Bad comparison by mlk · · Score: 1

      Remember this is the future; currently MS (humans in The Matrix) are in to the slavery of a sentient life (the AI/GNU software).

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    5. Re:Bad comparison by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder why all of the Microsofties post anonymously? Could it be they are embarassed about the sheer absurdity of supporting such a wrong approach - both morally as well as technically? Perhaps mister/miss 'anonymous' can answer that for us...

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Bad comparison by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      somebody could post the gandhi reference again

      Which reference are you talking about? The one that goes "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"?

    7. Re:Bad comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why all of the Microsofties post anonymously? Could it be they are embarassed about the sheer absurdity of supporting such a wrong approach - both morally as well as technically? Perhaps mister/miss 'anonymous' can answer that for us...

      I'm a different AC, but I can explain why pro-MS posts are often ACs. It's to do with the knee-jerk nature of Slashdot moderation. If your opinions are going to be modded down to "-1, Overrated" anyway, there's no point wasting your karma bonus, is there? I'd rather jump off a six foot cliff than a sixty foot one.

    8. Re:Bad comparison by CaptCanuk · · Score: 1

      For this spoof, i'd have chosen the 2.4 kernel code to display in the Matrix... if the worlds were flipped, i'd have the Matrix represented as .NET code and I'd have put Miguel de Icaza as Neo. Paul Allen could guest star as the Architect and Linus as the Oracle.

      --
      ---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
    9. Re:Bad comparison by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Your assumption is false (see my post elsewhere in this thread).

      Perhaps the reality is that what you are advocating is really wrong/incorrect (heaven forbid) - and the mod point assignments were justified.

      It takes a person of strong character to look themselves in the eye and really accept who they are and live with the consequences (or change for the better).

      Focusing on your karma points at the exclusion of your board identity on a consistent basis is disingenuous - and makes me wonder what your motivations are on these boards (truth or power?). Perhaps it also points to why you get modded down so often (as you preceive it). Interstingly, this parallels Microsoft's moral approach (power at the expense of truth) and might explain some things about why you identify with Microsoft.

      I can see the use of the AC for such things as whistle blowing, or other things that serve to protect a slashdot identity's moral standing in the community. I can not see it as a valid means to protect your precious karma points because that tells me that you are not confident in the veracity of your own thoughts.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  19. ARRGH by McCarrum · · Score: 1

    Gates as Morpheus. Can someone please stab my minds eye?

  20. And starring the tablet PC... by Nailer · · Score: 5, Funny

    As Switch. One of the Nebuchadnezzar crew that got killed really early on the first movie and was promptly forgotten about forever.

    1. Re:And starring the tablet PC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...not to nitpick, but you'd need a computer running OSX to play Switch...

    2. Re:And starring the tablet PC... by krumms · · Score: 1

      And starring the tablet PC...as Switch.

      As who?

    3. Re:And starring the tablet PC... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      Don't say that.

      Switch's hardware was sexy.

  21. They spoofed the wrong film by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 0

    The Matrix film series are very popular but deep down very skimpy on plot and the other finer things that make good movies great.

    Therefore, The Matrix is actually very much like Microsoft -- a staple in the science category that is very, very popular but overrated.

    Linux is more like a wonderful independent film that has great devoted followers, but is not quite mainstream.

    So, Mr. Gates, you and your henchmen are really just making fun of yourselves.

    Reply if you agree with me, or if you don't, indicate why you think The Matrix is like Linux.

    Thanks. I'll enjoy tabulating these results.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:They spoofed the wrong film by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Linux is more like a wonderful independent film that has great devoted followers, but is not quite mainstream.

      You mean like the Blair Witch Project? :0

      Hot Sauce and gourmet stuff
      Linux and Mozilla customers get 5%

    2. Re:They spoofed the wrong film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep hawkin' the hot sauce, spam-chump. I thought that's what sig's were for and why I turned them off.

    3. Re:They spoofed the wrong film by mlk · · Score: 1

      No, but the film that the Blair Witch Project copyed, but was fantastic.

      Yeah for Channel 4, without I'd have no idea that a film that sucked soo much could of (and had been) done soooo much better.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    4. Re:They spoofed the wrong film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up.

  22. Remember the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, while MS/Neo may look like he will defeat the Linux/Matrix, Linux/Matrix will prevail in the end.

  23. Not a troll, it's the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does, and that's kinda sad.

  24. Comdex? by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that dying faster than *BSD?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Comdex? by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't that dying faster than *BSD?

      We hope so. We sent one of our middle-management types there hoping it would be contagious.

    2. Re:Comdex? by LucidityZero · · Score: 1

      What's Comdex? For that matter, what is this BSD you speak of?

      --
      Sig.i>
    3. Re:Comdex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're chasing Funny mods... but to be honest many things are dying faster than *BSD. SCO Unixware, for example. "Classic" MacOS. My karma.

  25. Re:Intersing book on the history of Comdex by ShadarLogoth · · Score: 1

    That's why you should carefully examine any link from slashdot for references to www.tubgirl.com or goatse... it's kinda deep in there, but it's definitely in there.

    *snip*
    3A//www.google.com/url%3Fq%3Dhttp%3A//ww w.tubgirl. com/&intel_xscale_p%26sa%3Dl%
    *snip*

    now you know;)

    --Shadar

  26. Obviously all the comments here will be about... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Matrix spoof, and not about the business plan.

  27. A true test of your server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we get

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access /pictures/comdex2003billg2.shtml on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

  28. For the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record, she's commonly known as "Tub Girl". Note also how the lady's genitals are fuzzy-focussed, so that no-one is offended :)

  29. Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 5, Funny

    I haven't seen it (yet) but doesn't Neo die in the movie :D

    Which is Neo again? :D

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  30. Now that Bill is focusing on spam/security, ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    I can sit back and take it easy. Bill's on the job. I'm going to go take a nap.

    Wake me when the web is working.

  31. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you fail it, in a distinct and pronounced way.

  32. What's wrong with this picture. by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Neo: What is the Matrix?
    Morpheus: Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is.
    Neo: Why?
    Morpheus: My tablet PC just crashed.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this picture. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny


      Neo: What is the Matrix?
      Morpheus: Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is.


      Apparently, the Matrix is a later revision of .Net.
    2. Re:What's wrong with this picture. by zhenlin · · Score: 1

      Not quite.... The Matrix is the descendant of SKY.NET, obviously a descendant of .NET.

  33. Doesn't anyone subscribe to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought after subscriptions started there'd be legions of eager-beaver subscribers with mirrors ready to go for every article.
    But here we are, comments piling up, site completely slashdotted, subscriber-only period long since passed, and not one mirror!
    Or is it that the karma-whoring eager-beavers are not the same people who see it in their heart to support Slashdot with money?

  34. +5 FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unintentionally so, but still. =)

    1. Re:+5 FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I've got more than ten from Redhat in the same period of time! So nuts to him.

      Sure Redhat wasn't exactly sure which ones I really needed, but we can't all be microsoft can we?

  35. dying by sewagemaster · · Score: 0, Troll

    with Gates and Steve Ballmer as Morpheus and Neo respectively, and including a jab at Linux

    it all makes sense now!
    no wonder trinity dies from logos' (windows logo == windows) crash!

  36. Re:Intersing book on the history of Comdex by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

    not bad, but combine the longness with tinyurl and you have a killer.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  37. Faster link by Brahmastra · · Score: 1
  38. Just another case of less bread by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1

    and more circuses.

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  39. Tablet ego by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    The Tablet is Bill Gates' pet project. He keeps pushing it even though the world at large does not want it.

    Either the Tablet is so bound up in Bill's ego that he needs to push it this hard or else this is a diversion from the fact that MS has absolutely nothing else to show the world in terms of new product etc.

    The good news, IMHO, so long as they keep spending and putting attention into the tablet they're keeping out of stuff that matters.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Tablet ego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your precious STEVE JOBS came out with a tablet, you'd JIZZ all over it.

    2. Re:Tablet ego by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      The Tablet is like Steve Job's Cube, It looked really cool, it performed decently though not great, but it costs too much and is too much of a nitch market to ever be of value.

      Bill should take Job's lead and end it with a "stop production but not tossing it out yet" quote like Jobs and go on to other things... like maybe fixing holes (sorry had to say it, hold on a minute while I put on this flame retardent suit)

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:Tablet ego by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      Steve Jobs is not my precious at all. I think he's a washed-up has-been. All the Mac folk seem to say is "we put a trash bin on our desktop first".

      I think though that Steve does have a better handle on ergonomics than Bill Gates. Steve did once say that large format PDAs (newton etc) are the wrong format. Microsoft does not yet get it. The market place does though: the tablet form factor only makes up a few % of laptop and PDA sales. The thing is too big to carry around and has too short a battery life and is just not suitable for professional use on a day-by-day basis.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    4. Re:Tablet ego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want one. A decent tablet under a grand and I am game.

    5. Re:Tablet ego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This STEVE JOBS is fuckin' terrible! It tastes like someone JIZZED all over it!

    6. Re:Tablet ego by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      "Looks cool" sells a few to geeks and to wanker CEO types that want the latest toys to show off at meetings. To make it in the real world they need to find a place in real practical use (ie. professional products/vertical systems). Putting them in homes is not real f (we know MS already loses a shitload of money there).

      Two areas that have been identified for tablets are healthcare (hospitals) and field workers (utility workers etc). These need good battery life and rugged (waterproof, drop proof etc) devices.

      I beleieve that there are two fundamental problems: (a) the technology does not fit the "problem". Battery life is too short and the devices are too fragile.(b) They require major revamps to the current busiuness models (eg. a complete change to the way patient data is managed in a hospital). Hospital administrators are very nervous of the significance of the changes, costs etc.

      Tablets fit in the gap between PDA and laptop. As PDAs become more capable they squeeze the Tablet. For most vertical market scenarios most people would rather use a smaller/lighter/longer battery life PDA than a tablet.

      Also throw smartphones into the mix. How many mobile devices can you realisticly expect people to buy & carry around? With all this competition it is difficult to see the tablet taking off.

      The easy thing for Bill is that since MS don't make these things they don't have to make the hard call to stop production. Right now Bill is backing (ie losing money - but not huge amounts) in all mobile arenas (phone, PDA and tablet) so that he has a toe hold in mobile space.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
  40. Matrix spoof by cyber_rigger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Borland did this years ago


    Borland Matrix spoof

    So much for Microsoft inovation.

    1. Re:Matrix spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *rofl*

      What a fucking lame dig at MS! The best you could come up with was "uuuh, so much for Microsoft innovation."!?!? You should've wasted your precious chars for your command line.

      I'm laughing at you, not with you.

    2. Re:Matrix spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm so stupid I can't spell inovatoin right!

    3. Re:Matrix spoof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't really a spoof. They showed footage from the Matrix movie and said a few quotes from it on stage.

    4. Re:Matrix spoof by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      Chappelle's show also did a pretty good spoof of the matrix.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
  41. I can't wait... by greenskyx · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the part where Agent Linux burns Bills eyes out and then he finally can see all the Linux everywhere...

    1. Re:I can't wait... by jptxs · · Score: 1

      ...for LinuxWorld at Javits when Tux is Agent Smith (the only character I cared about by the end) and he turns every copy of windows he finds into himself.

      And then they can change the ending so the spoof can be *better* settled than the original...

      --
      we speak the way we breathe --Fugazi
  42. what a sad spectacle by Damek · · Score: 1

    I just saw the shots of the video - man, those pics of Gates & Ballmer in trenchcoats have to be some of the saddest pics I've ever seen. I mean, sad like flames painted on a Geo Metro. What a sorry waste of good material those outfits were...

    Now, a Matrix spoof staring Tux as Neo and Linus as Morpheus... now you're talking! ;)

    1. Re:what a sad spectacle by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Tux as Neo
      Somewhere I also saw Tux in a trenchcoat like Morpheus's, and I'd think Tux would be better as morpheus than Neo.

    2. Re:what a sad spectacle by AlXtreme · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of this one.

      Okay, it's not as good as Tux & Linus bending spoons, but it's a start and I have the karma to burn. Any FX guys in the house? ;-)

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
  43. Pajama Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how Gates and Balmer look more like they are sitting around at a pajama party brushing each other's hair than they look like they are practicing their sparring.

    Billy: "Like... didn't Johnny look cute at scool today!"
    Stevie: "Like... for sure."
    Billy: "I got my period today."

  44. anyone have a mirror? by kaan · · Score: 1

    lemmee guess, www.tabletpctalk.com is hosted by IIS? regardless, the site is hugely sucking thanks to El Slashdot Effect.

    1. Re:anyone have a mirror? by deadmeat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. According to netcraft:

      The site www.tabletpctalk.com is running Apache/1.3.20 Sun Cobalt (Unix) Chili!Soft-ASP/3.6.2 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.0.6 mod_auth_pam_external/0.1 FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_perl/1.25 on Linux.

    2. Re:anyone have a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site www.tabletpctalk.com is running Apache/1.3.20 Sun Cobalt (Unix) Chili!Soft-ASP/3.6.2 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.0.6 mod_auth_pam_external/0.1 FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_perl/1.25 on Linux.

      lemme guess, this will never be modded up as informative !

    3. Re:anyone have a mirror? by Polarweasel · · Score: 1

      Nope. According to netcraft:

      Netcraft confirms it: Cobalt is dying!

    4. Re:anyone have a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just two things:

      • The site runs off Apache. You know, Apache?
      • Choice of web servers has absolutely nothing to do with available bandwidth. Ebay runs IIS. When was the last time you saw Ebay go down? 13 million transactions a day, last I looked. OTOH, the feature on the front page about The Kompany seriously fucked with their servers. I think it's a fair bet to say they run Apache as well. See how that works?

      So, please go ahead and kill yourself. There's nothing worse than a retarded wannabe zealot trying to pull a quippy and failing in such an utterly miserable way. And keep in mind I don't like IIS or otherwise run Windows. But you my friend - you and those like you should be taken out and shot.

      Thanks!

    5. Re:anyone have a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that why Sun bought them?

    6. Re:anyone have a mirror? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      I thought Novell was the technology graveyard.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    7. Re:anyone have a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is that -1, FUD moderation we need?

  45. Comwhat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comdex is no longer relevent. It's interesting to see who doesn't know that.

  46. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they focus on spam the same way they focused on security my spam will drop by.....no, wait, it will increase.

  47. Interesting choice of characters by nodwick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting that they've positioned Linux as the Matrix (the establishment), and Microsoft as Neo/Morpheus (the underdogs/rebels). I'd have thought the reverse would be a more accurate analogy ...

    1. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, it wouldn't be totally faithful no matter how they did it. At least they got the part right where the Matrix/Linux won in the end....oh wait, their "spoof" probably left the ending off...

    2. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it is funny dumbass. Please try and have a sense of humor, good christ man.

    3. Re:Interesting choice of characters by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      No. Linux is the unwelcome power that arose, and then Microsoft got all bitchy and tried to quell its uprising, and then Linux (this is the future talking now) took over and dominated, subjugating Windows to a meak virtual existence via Lindows... until The One fought back to work his way up...to...a truce?! So Linux is allowing Windows simply to exist... nothing more.

    4. Re:Interesting choice of characters by mlk · · Score: 1

      If I remeber my Animatrix, did'nt MS (the humans) start the hole thing by slavory, death and Nukes... Wow, that sounds just like Bush...

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    5. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that they've positioned Linux as the Matrix (the establishment), and Microsoft as Neo/Morpheus (the underdogs/rebels). I'd have thought the reverse would be a more accurate analogy ...


      Except done by Linux fans, it would probably look like some dumb kid in his parents basement did it with the GIMP. Fuckers.

    6. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Rebar · · Score: 1

      I can see Agent Gates saying:
      "Tell me Neo, what good is UNIX when you cannot SPEAK to it?" and proceeding to gum up the Windows telnet client to the point of unworkability.

    7. Re:Interesting choice of characters by gripdamage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's even more interesting that they show a supposed Linux laptop displaying a Windows style error message with non-sensical text. So

      1) to make linux look bad they need to make it look like Windows.

      2) they can't even come up with a common error message in Linux that people actually see (because those kind of of errors get fixed in Linux). Unlike say:

      "The driver for the display device got stuck in an infinite loop. This usually indicates a problem with the device itself or with the device driver programming the hardware incorrectly. Please check with your display device vendor for any driver updates. "

      The last two Windows XP laptops I've used got this BSOD error with different video cards and up to date drivers, although usually they just froze up and quit working entirely. Under Linux, this problem "with the device" or "driver" disappeared.

      "LINUX Kernel Error! Recompile Driver!" My ass!

    8. Re:Interesting choice of characters by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the built in telnet client in Windows has gotten increasingly better with each version, from WFW 3.11 to W2K. The stupid bugs in Win 9x have disappeared and it's finally a clean text-mode app like it should be. Dunno about XP cuz I may never run it...

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    9. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      So Bush is Bill Gates? And people think I'm weird....

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    10. Re:Interesting choice of characters by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Ever tried updating your video drivers? And does your laptop have an ATI video card? ATI drivers are still quite buggy....

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    11. Re:Interesting choice of characters by mlk · · Score: 1

      Well, one is in the others pocket atlest.

      MS Nuke, BSOD a nation today!

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    12. Re:Interesting choice of characters by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it just drops characters randomly because it's a feature. It has gotten markedly worse from NT to 2000. At least NT could allow pasted input without fucking it up.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    13. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry: the infinite loop problem occurs in ATI and NVidia cards in Windows XP. As said in the parent post, this is a common error message in Windows, unlike the imaginary error message depicted in Linux. Driver and bios updates can make the problems less frequent, but rarely get rid of them entirely.

    14. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a bug -- it's a feeeattuurrre

      Seriously, if your Nvidia/ATI driver gets "stuck in an infinite loop" on Linux, you machine has locked up and you are sitting their scratching your head. Sucks to be you.

      Windows XP detects this and drops back to VGA mode to allow you a change to fix it. (On my box, I had to tweak the ATI "SmartGart" settings.)

      As the Nvidia driver at least is largely the same for Windows and Linux, it'd unlikely that Linux is magically immune from this problem.

    15. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the Marxism lesson dipshit

    16. Re:Interesting choice of characters by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

      People still use telnet? Wild man!

      --
      What were the skies like when you were young?
    17. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Keeper · · Score: 1

      The bit is more Microsoft vs Big Blue (IBM) and "their army of consultants" than Microsoft vs Linux.

    18. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      1) he states its WINDOWS that is locking up due to this.

      2) He also states windows DOES NOT RECOVER. it BSODs and locks up. So windows XP must NOT detect this as you say if the parent poster si correct, and seince he doesn't seem to be a windows fanboy who misreads the post they are replying to i'm more inclined to take his side.

      3) he then states that switching from windows XP to linux caused said problem to dissapear and under linux there were no problems. in otehr words linux DOESN"T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

      READ BEFORE REPLYING YOU DOLT.

    19. Re:Interesting choice of characters by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've had that bug, but never on my laptop. It was about two years ago. A week later the NV drivers were updated and the problem was no more. My laptop is only about a year old, and I've played many a game on it at LAN parties and such.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    20. Re:Interesting choice of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      A pretty elaborate spoof, I must say! As far as their UNIX spoof, it's conjuring up memories of the much-too-long running Rambo series. What kind of sequel title is "Longhorn" anyway?

  48. Mirror - pictures only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
  49. Those who forget history... by freeweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah, kids today.

    Some of you may not be aware of this, but at one point (20-25 years ago) Microsoft was seen as the little guy, fighting against the big, powerful, market-dominating, innovation-stifling IBM. Remind anyone of a certain penguin?

    Microsoft has turned into everything they used to be against (and sometimes worse). Kinda reminds me of what happens to revolutionaries in the political world. Let's just hope Linus' ego can be kept in check :)

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Those who forget history... by morcego · · Score: 1

      As the late Frank Herbet wrong in one of his Dune books: "Slaves make terrible masters".

      Yes, I get the picture. Lets just hope the diversity we have on the Linux world will prevent that from happening here too.

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let's just hope Linus' ego can be kept in check :)


      Linus' what?
    3. Re:Those who forget history... by einer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Uh. What? Microsoft has ALWAYS been an innovation-stifling, will fuck for money, back stabbing company. This whole thing started when Bill G got laughed out of the homebrew computer club for throwing a hissy fit over how people were copying his version of basic.

    4. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Linux kernel is under the GPL. If his ego gets out of line, the community will leave him behind with their own fork. Linus' ego doesn't matter.

    5. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, time to watch Woody Allen's "Sleeper" again. "...next it'll be Erno's nose we're stealing." Sigh.

    6. Re:Those who forget history... by nodwick · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Microsoft has turned into everything they used to be against (and sometimes worse).
      Has Microsoft ever really been for competition? As far as I can remember, they've always been trying to beat down their competitors by whatever means they could devise. (I remember when our school went with MS-DOS instead of PC-DOS because programs had fewer compatibility issues with the dominant OS rather than a cheaper clone. Similarly, the popularity of DR-DOS petered out after MS-DOS started copying some of their best features.) It's just that they're so much bigger and so much better at it now that they're seen as a hulking Goliath instead of a gutsy underdog. The difference is size.

      And yes, dominance is what all companies strive for. Peter Lynch once weighed in on the issue by saying that "In business, competition is never as healthy as total domination." The difference between whether you're admired for your tenacity or reviled for your bullying depends primarily on how successful you are and how close you are to your goal.

    7. Re:Those who forget history... by SendBot · · Score: 1

      Having seen pirates of silicon valley and read much of the surrounding history from various sources, bill gates started doing his thing with the closed source philosophy of accusing computer enthusiasts of theft for (gasp!) trying to build off of previous work (a BASIC interpreter) and drive computing further with innovation. It then became an art in slimy business deals that allowed bill to capitalize off the hard work of others.

      Now take linux. Open source, sharing, not out to exploit contributors to the project but embracing them in a global community of developers have always been at the heart of linux's philosophy.

      As a result, Linux+GNU has surpassed the quality of competing MS products in the server market while making everything freely available and driving a new culture of sharing ideas.

      Microsoft seen as the little guy back then? Like seeing two cockroaches and thinking the smaller one is more tolerable to be climbing into your ear. Back then, MS was insignificant to me since their "operating system" was just a program launcher and the only things I gave two shits about were BBS's and PC games.

    8. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Some of you may not be aware of this, but at one point (20-25 years ago) Microsoft was seen as the little guy, fighting against the big, powerful, market-dominating, innovation-stifling IBM. Remind anyone of a certain penguin?

      Reminds me of Anakin Skywalker...

    9. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I got all my info from "hackers" I'd probably sound as stupid as you.

    10. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Microsoft was seen as the little guy, fighting against the big, powerful, market-dominating, innovation-stifling IBM.

      You mean when IBM handed over the operating system monopoly to Microsoft when the PC was first introduced? I wish I could get into that kind of a fight.

    11. Re:Those who forget history... by vsprintf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This whole thing started when Bill G got laughed out of the homebrew computer club for throwing a hissy fit over how people were copying his version of basic.

      This is true (and Bill did some dumpster diving to get BASIC), but the OP also has a valid point. When I built my first PC clone, I went to a *software boutique* and tried to buy a copy of MS DOS. (Anyone else remember PC software being so trendy that you had to go to a boutique to buy it?) It wasn't for sale, and they just laughed at me. You didn't *buy* DOS, you just *got it*, nudge, wink, get it? And MicroSoft didn't seem to mind it at all. Try doing that now.

    12. Re:Those who forget history... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Wow. You've seen Bruce Peren's distorted version of history, too. That scary music they played in the background of 'Revolution OS' when talking about the Homebrew club was just awesome. Background music is always so important. It cues us about how we should think and feel.

      The whole thing started when Microsoft produced a ROM-based BASIC language. It was used on a bunch of computer systems. There was also a Microsoft BASIC for CP/M. The CP/M community was notorious for buying one copy of each program per city/usergroup.

      Bill Gates wrote a letter to them basically saying 'Come on, guys...' A letter that actually made a lot of sense.

      Perens and the whole GNU/Unix/Hacker crowd weren't at all, in anyway, a part of that scene. They were hanging out on their greenscreens in an entire seperate part of the subculture.

      Anyhow...

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    13. Re:Those who forget history... by marshall_j · · Score: 1

      I just did. They said I'd have to buy a XP license and use that but I'd also have to supply my own DOS as they don't make it anymore :/

    14. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The whole thing started when Microsoft produced a ROM-based BASIC language."

      you keepo using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      the work your looking for is 'Copied' not 'Produced'.

    15. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is true (and Bill did some dumpster diving to get BASIC),...

      He didn't have to dumpster dive. He had access to some source code to the DEC Basic interpreter when he was in high school. Compare the bugs.

    16. Re:Those who forget history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you are looking for is "word," cockblock.

    17. Re:Those who forget history... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      "The whole thing started when Microsoft produced a ROM-based BASIC language."

      you keepo using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      the work your looking for is 'Copied' not 'Produced'.


      I am pretty sure everyone knows that Bill did write a version of Basic and didn't copy it.

      Maybe you are just confused with them buying the pieces of MS-DOS, turning it into a usuable product and selling it to IBM.

    18. Re:Those who forget history... by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      This whole thing started when Bill G got laughed out of the homebrew computer club for throwing a hissy fit over how people were copying his version of basic.

      Bill Gates was never a member of the Homebrew Computer Club, which met in California while Bill was at Harvard. The "hissy fit" you refer to was a full-page ad that "Micro Soft" (as they were then called) ran in (I believe) an Altair enthusiasts' newsletter when he found out that paper tapes of his BASIC were being copied and traded at the club. The ad contained the infamous accusation to hobbyists that "most of you steal your software".

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    19. Re:Those who forget history... by CaptCanuk · · Score: 1

      Hmm... is this *software boutique* anything like EB?

      --
      ---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
    20. Re:Those who forget history... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      The MS-DOS (PC-DOS, actually) that Microsoft bought and sold to IBM was usable, but just barely. I have a full copy (with manual) of IBM PC-DOS 1.0 and let's just say it's primative. There are some interesting 'features' like- you are REQUIRED to enter date and time at bootup. It won't let you just hit enter, as is the case with DOS 1.1 and later.

      Still, it will run in an IBM PC with as little as 16K of RAM, which is fairly impressive.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    21. Re:Those who forget history... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Hmm... is this *software boutique* anything like EB?

      EB? The one that grew and lasted the longest was Egghead. Once software became a big enough seller to attract the big retailers, the boutiques went under (no loss). There are still stores like Sofware Etc. that are small, but the boutiques were just that - glass shelves, snotty salespeople, and maybe thirty packages to pick from.

  50. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Balmer is "neo". Except in the flick he's called "steve-o" instead of "neo".

  51. Matrix XP by henni16 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix

    You mean like that? ;-)

  52. vid clip by Robocrap · · Score: 0, Redundant

    vid clip at http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2003/1 1-16comdex2003.asp

    the que is at: 16:05

    enjoy.


    (or not)

    1. Re:vid clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      linkified for your pleasure

    2. Re:vid clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, Microsoft's curse strikes again. 16:05 rolls around (introduced by Bill), and then - "we're sorry, but we might not be able to show this part. Too bad you weren't there, peon."

    3. Re:vid clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      From 16:10 to a little after 21:00 there is a static image saying "Due to the proprietary nature of the content in our program, we must temporarily suspend the video and audio portion of our broadcast. Normal program will resume in a few moments."

      Is this the kind of instant control the DRM-enabled future will have??

    4. Re:vid clip by JazzyJ · · Score: 1

      They did a 'blackout' of the audio and video at that point so you couldn't see the spoof.

      Guess they didn't get approval from the proper people for re-airing it.

    5. Re:vid clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So someone used video editing software and some jackass goes and says its DRM.

      Hey, I'm an idiot moderator, I'm going to mod this up because it says DRM.

      Tee-Hee

    6. Re:vid clip by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Guess I couldn't get a quicktime version of this, huh? ;)

    7. Re:vid clip by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. It doesn't work anyway (from 16:05 to 23:03 is a screen saying that they can't show it, and it's definitely the spoof, as right after the pause, Bill Gates is in front of a screen showing Matrix-esque falling characters)

  53. How about a realistic film clip... by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
    Perhaps inspired by the French Revolution.

    We'll cast Bill gates as Marie Antoinette ("Let them eat WORMS!") and Linus Torvaalds at the head of the unruly mob.

    At least that would be a case of art imitating life...
    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  54. need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

    "...shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" ad naseum"

    What is the background of this "walking around stage shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!..."? I thought it was in reference to a Larry Wall "State of the Onion" speech, but now it's tied loosely to Balmer. So, could someone please inform me?

    1. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by jrstewart · · Score: 1

      http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html

      It's a ballmer original. Larry might have referenced it or parodied it in a State of the Onion.

    2. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by jrstewart · · Score: 1

      For those who can't be bothered by the video, a transcript might look something like this:

      [Steve Ballmer walks to the podium]

      Ballmer: Developer, developers, developers, developers, developers! Developers, developers, developers!

      Ballmer: Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!

      Ballmer: Developers!

      Ballmer: Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!

    3. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by 403Forbidden · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows it was Sarge's script in which he tells Balmer to say "developers" 37 times, but Balmer only says it 35 times.. and it ruined the speech. (redvsblue is t3h win)

    4. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by nacturation · · Score: 1

      This link contains everything you need to know. Just watch the videos in order and be enlightened.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by tntguy · · Score: 1

      You forgot the sweat.

    6. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by SteakandcheeseUm · · Score: 1

      LOL. Mod parent up. I loved the Remix.

    7. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stll say the funniest part was when he runs out on stage, SCREAMING "give it up for me", then stomps on his own foot.

    8. Re:need explanation, "DEVELOPERS!" by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Gates (as Morpheus): There are no developers.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  55. Mirror (may not be up for long) by mskfisher · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is a bad idea, but here's a mirror:
    http://www.mskf.org/mirrors/comdex/comdex_mirror2. html
    I reserve the right to replace these with smaller versions if it gets hammered too hard...
    --
    0x0D 0x0A
  56. The Matrix spoof looks nice from the screenshots.. by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Where can we get it?? B-)

  57. I'd love to examine links here, but by freeweed · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, thanks to Slashdot's way of formatting URLs to display the domain name to the stupid right in the post (and yes, I do mean stupid, that's what the status bar is for), I can get caught on these all the time.

    For whatever reason, Opera 6 just shows the [domain.com] part in the status bar, not the entire URL like it should.

    I'm really surprised that Slashdot works better on IE than it does on Opera, but the irony doesn't escape me ;)

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:I'd love to examine links here, but by Liselle · · Score: 1

      You can turn off the Slashdot part. And, for the record, Opera 7 kicks the crap out of Opera 6, it's been re-written, I am told. It's time to upgrade, friend. I'm browsing from it now. :)

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    2. Re:I'd love to examine links here, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also works in Mozilla. Due to obivous redirect exploits I allways use mouse over.

      Maybe right click the link, paste it into the address bar, and then look.

      Oh, and be on the look out for the anti-slash.org site set up by either trolls or someone with out a life other then trying to screw with slashdoters. Those links will change to sites like goatse, tubgirl, and what ever the trolls are jerking off to now, when their posts hits a high score.

    3. Re:I'd love to examine links here, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera 7.22 for Linux is final now.

    4. Re:I'd love to examine links here, but by ndqc · · Score: 1

      No problems with /. links in Opera 7.21 for Linux. And 7.21 is way better then any previous version.

  58. Well... by bonch · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why don't you compare the number of holes this month in Windows Server 2003 compared to, say, Red Hat 9 or Debian?

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gladly, as long as we look at the ones that matter: ROOT exploits (or those that can escalate to root.

      Don't confuse every announce bug report or errata that comes along as a real-world usable root exploit under Linux.

      The Linux community is VERY quick to release a patch if there is even the REMOTE POSSIBILITY of a root exploit. 9 times out of 10 they are theoretical and they're just being cautios by patching it.

      Macro$haft on the other hand only releases a patch after an exploit (almost always the equivelant of root, with complete control over the system) has been in the wild for months and they can't hide it any longer.

      You simply can NOT compare exploits by number and think that it means anything. You MUST compare by the damage done and the number of compromised systems, and M$ gets its arse kicked every day.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, why don't we wait till the next service pack comes out for Windows, count up how many holes Microsoft knew about that you didn't and how many holes it took them 6+ months to patch.

    3. Re:Well... by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because Debian holds itself responsible for all of the packages that comprise the distribution, which by now has already exceeded the 10000 (ten thousand) packages mark, whereas Microsoft is only responsible for the security of its own barebones operating system and whichever other products it sells, like its Office suice.

  59. It's about time... by bengoerz · · Score: 1

    It's about time someone in the computer world roughed up Gates a little bit. (http://www.shutterfly.com/my/slide2.jsp?auto=0&i= 67b0de21b35a74a7e4c1&idx=42.) Good to see Balmer has it in him. But seriously, a story about the "Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server" gets slashdotted immediately? Sounds like these guys are really going to follow through on their performance promises.

    1. Re:It's about time... by bengoerz · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those of you too lazy to cut and paste the address, here is a link.

  60. [cue, spooky, decision making music] by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    Morpheous: You take the BSOD pill, the story ends and you wake up and believe whatever you want to about your lost data.

    You take the red pill, and...aw, shit, the red pill just BSOD'd too.

    You're screwed either way...which BSOD pill you want?

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  61. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For idiotic propaganda delivered as a Matrix parody, nothing beats The Meatrix. I'd like to see some of these guys start getting sued just so we don't have to put up with this tripe.

    -Dave

  62. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://up-root.org/crap/img/comdex2003billg2.shtml This is going to murder my transfer limit. :[

  63. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, he's called "steve-o" ? The marketing / PR folks screwed the pooch a bit there.

    Nothing like having one of your two most recognizable corporate officers sharing a name with a guy who's known for stapling his ball sack to his leg.
    The other Steve-o

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  64. Special Guest Star... by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Larry Elison as the Oracle!

    1. Re:Special Guest Star... by mackman · · Score: 1

      And a bunch of Jolted up perl hackers as "The Architect".

    2. Re:Special Guest Star... by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 0

      Speaking of guest stars... Where was Agent Torvals?

      --
      Cheers,
      RoadkillBunny
    3. Re:Special Guest Star... by SuuSt · · Score: 1

      So... bad...

      but so... funny...

    4. Re:Special Guest Star... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS as the Train Man!
      Ceren for Persephone!
      Tove for Niobe! ... no, those are too easy.

      Rob Enderle for the Merovingian!

  65. Is that bullet time? by Population · · Score: 1

    Or just a bad refresh rate?

    badda boom!

  66. realise the truth . . . by Brahmastra · · Score: 1

    There is no spoof

  67. Too many news sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The screencaps are farked. Aw, crap, I mean slashdotted.

  68. 10 bucks says by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next week, there'll be an article on how the company MS contracted to put this movie together did it with Apple iMovie or somesuch.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
    1. Re:10 bucks says by sharph · · Score: 1

      I can almost bet you, that if this spoof was professionally done (which it looks like it was), that Linux was used.

    2. Re:10 bucks says by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      what do you think these were for?

    3. Re:10 bucks says by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      yes... i think some maya live mocap and wirework... and anybody who uses maya knows it only really works under linux... Irix version is ok... windows version... haha.

  69. Re:Intersing book on the history of Comdex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link does not work under Konqueror running on GNU/Linux. PLZ FIX K-THX!

  70. leather trenchcoat by pyros · · Score: 4, Funny

    All this time I thought it was that leather trenchcoat making Laurence Fishburne look so cool. I need a mental shower now to clean the image of Bill Gates in a long leather coat.

    1. Re:leather trenchcoat by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A leather coat is a coolnes multiplier.
      example:
      Laurence Fishburne cool rating 8
      Leather coat cool rating x 1.4
      total cool 11.2

      Bill gates cool rating -2
      Leather coat cool rating x 1.4
      total cool -2.8

      You want proof? how many people have you seen wearing a leather trench coat?

      How many of those people looked cool? how many dorky?

      Would ANY of the people who looked cool in it, looked lke a dork out of it? I would suggest None.

      Now, at first glance, everybody looks cool, but thats just the intial impression of the coat, not the coat and person total.

      The same can be applied to 'good looks' and wearing Spandix

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:leather trenchcoat by Sevn · · Score: 1

      Height helps you pull off a leather trenchcoat and look "cool". Not being a fat fuck helps enormously. Nothing is dumber looking than a short fat guy wearing a leather trenchcoat. It ends up looking like a skirt.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    3. Re:leather trenchcoat by calethix · · Score: 1

      "I need a mental shower now to clean the image of Bill Gates in a long leather coat."

      Just be glad they didn't have Bill and Steve playing the parts of some of the frenchman's henchman.

    4. Re:leather trenchcoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still much better than their first choice:

      Ballmer as Trinity!

  71. Streaming Video Links by securitas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Courtesy of the Rejected Post Machine

    2003-11-17 08:56:08 Comdex 2003 Opens with Bill Gates Talking Security (articles,comdex) (rejected)

    Bill Gates delivered a keynote speech on Sunday evening to open COMDEX, as he has done for the last 20 years. Interesting parts of his security-heavy speech include Microsoft's research budget, with Gates saying that this year Microsoft 'will spend $6.8 billion in R&D, that's double what we spent five years ago;' admitting that tools which scan for stack or buffer overruns and other security problems 'are tools that we're not applying in our development process;' that security is 'certainly the largest thing that we're doing;' but waffled on security/patch management with this statement: 'Now, to really provide security, the software has to be kept up to date and the software updates have to be clearly partitioned so that things that are just optional and new features are kept separate from the hopefully increasingly rare updates that relate to security issues that have really thoroughly been checked to make sure they won't cause any regression.' Gates continued on about Trustworthy Computing, security, spam, firewalls, policy controls, XML, 'Seamless Computing' and the long-delayed Longhorn. There was also a parody of the Matrix starring Bill Gates as Morpheus and Steve Ballmer as Neo, with the Matrix represented by Linux-selling IBM consultants and the Real World as Windows-based. You can read the full text of Bill Gates' speech from COMDEX (with demos from three other Microsofties) or view the entire presentation online (56kbps low | 100 kbps med | 300 kbps high) for the next week. A warning though: the speech is over an hour long.

    1. Re:Streaming Video Links by rabtech · · Score: 4, Informative

      A note: This presentation (linked to in the parent) does NOT INCLUDE the matrix spoof video stuff. The presentation just blanks out with a generic "we can't show you this" message for several minutes.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    2. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed. fucking assholes, anybody know where we can get this video? ;_; i wasted 16 minutes listening to bert from sesame street talk about stupid shit for nothing...

    3. Re:Streaming Video Links by in7ane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think I speak for most people: Where is the torrent for the video then!?!?!?

    4. Re:Streaming Video Links by BinBoy · · Score: 1

      Gah! I found out too late. It's at about 16 minutes into the video:

      Due to the proprietary nature of the content in our program, we must temporarily suspend the video and audio portion of our broadcast.

      Normal program will resume in a few moments.


      Those rascals!

    5. Re:Streaming Video Links by lobsterGun · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think I speak for more people when I say,"Who gives a shit?"

    6. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I speak for even more people when I say that I hate people who say "I think I speak for..."

      Beer Man

    7. Re:Streaming Video Links by micaiah · · Score: 1

      Gates, sounds more like Kermit the Frog to me.

    8. Re:Streaming Video Links by nathanh · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think I speak for more people when I say,"Who gives a shit?"

      You don't speak for me. I think this is great. Why? Because it means Linux has finally entered the collective consciousness.

      What the fuck am I talking about? Parody only works when the audience knows exactly what you're talking about with just the subtlest hints. The spoof didn't need to spell out what Linux is. It was assumed knowledge. Microsoft assumed that the audience knew that Larry Ewing's Tux logo is the Linux mascot, that the audience knew what Linux is and what Linux does, that the audience knew that Linux is competing with Microsoft, and so on.

      It is great news that Microsoft acknowledges Linux in this way. It shows that Linux has become big enough to not just attract attention from Microsoft (the Halloween documents demonstrated that) but that everybody in the computing industry is expected to know about Linux by now.

      Woohoo. I still remember when this site was called Chips and Dips. I remember the cheering and stomping of feet when the first paper magazine ran an article on Linux. Now Linux inspires spoofs from one of the world's biggest software companies! This is a great day for Linux.

    9. Re:Streaming Video Links by BlackBolt · · Score: 1

      Not to compare Microsoft to the mucho superior Apple, but... if this was Apple's promo, they'd have figured out that letting potential customers bathe themselves in promotional material only leads to increased sales, and as such is A Very Good Thing (although I still think Apple should release a CD of all their ads on it. I'd buy it!).

      Only Microsoft is so stupid as to bury something that even Linux lovers are dying to see. Moronic. Basically they spend a wad of cash on this thing, and by allowing it to collect dust off in /dev/null (or uh.. "the Recycle Bin") will be rewarded with lost mindshare daily as they wallow in their own idiotic ignorance and PR ineptitude.

    10. Re:Streaming Video Links by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1

      Parody only works when the audience knows exactly what you're talking about with just the subtlest hints. The spoof didn't need to spell out what Linux is.

      You'll notice Linux is invariably tied to IBM. I don't think the public or even MS sees Linux as a threat in itself... It's IBM that's the largest logo on the 'blue pill', and you don't need to spell out who THAT is.

      Linux in itself probably doesn't prevent Gates from sleeping at night.

    11. Re:Streaming Video Links by Erich · · Score: 1
      Woohoo. I still remember when this site was called Chips and Dips. I remember the cheering and stomping of feet when the first paper magazine ran an article on Linux. It was believed to be the first television ad mentioning Linux.
      I still remember getting xanim to work so I could watch the Fry's ad that mentioned they were selling Red Hat.

      It's nice to see other old-timer slashdot users. Sub-5-digit uid's are like perls (sic) in a sea of gotse.cx oysters.

      --

      -- Erich

      Slashdot reader since 1997

    12. Re:Streaming Video Links by Erich · · Score: 1
      Must be getting late, I seemingly can't markup my text correctly. Trying again:
      Woohoo. I still remember when this site was called Chips and Dips. I remember the cheering and stomping of feet when the first paper magazine ran an article on Linux.
      I still remember getting xanim to work so I could watch the Fry's ad that mentioned they were selling Red Hat. It was believed to be the first television ad mentioning Linux.

      It's nice to see other old-timer slashdot users. Sub-5-digit uid's are like perls (sic) in a sea of gotse.cx oysters.

      --

      -- Erich

      Slashdot reader since 1997

    13. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, but I bet that there are MANY people who would like to see this spoof.

    14. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your three-digit uid doesn't protect you from double-posting, Mr. Elitist.

    15. Re:Streaming Video Links by mraymer · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here's a blast from the past:

      http://cmdrtaco.net/linux/images/flaunt_82397.jpg

      In that image, you can see a screenshot of the old Chips and Dips site. Heh.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    16. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "tools which scan for stack or buffer overruns ..."

      I seem to remember that about 10 or even 15 years ago, such things were advertised in the back pages of Byte, or maybe Doctor Dobbs Journal, at a cost which would not even be Bill's petty cash for half a day. I wondered then why DOS continued to be buggy.

      Sad that Bill is so many years behind state of the art, yet the multitudes, including the sycophants of the press, almost worship him.

      I don't even know why such a useless irresponsible idiot gets to open Comdex, it is not as if he is a visionary with anything useful to say. On his track record it is just time wasted, listening to the rubbish. His recent progress on security shows that while he is involved, there is no hope. The fact is that software should not have to be kept up to date, it should be properly designed, coded and tested, not just coded and partly tested, the M$ way.

      It makes me sick that anyone would bother with such trash.

    17. Re:Streaming Video Links by identity0 · · Score: 1

      The presentation just blanks out with a generic "we can't show you this" message

      No-one can be told what the Matrix parody is... you have to see it for your - D'Oh!

    18. Re:Streaming Video Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh - doesn't blame him from nonsensically claiming an inability to "markup his text" when he transposed a sentence.

      I guess a 3-digit UID doesn't necessarily mean you're intelligent or anything.

  72. mine eyes by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    i dont believe it. thats either the funniest or the sadest thing i have ever seen IN MY LIFE...

    microsoft trying to be 'counter culture'. thos images will haunt me till the end of my days.

    it doesnt even make any sense. he is give then red pill that says "ibm/linux" on it. presumably he takes it and then is awakened.. they cant even parody things correctly.

    its like rewriting brazil to make bill gates the protagonist and steve balmer that psycho bitch with the car....

    IT DOESNT WORK

    i think im going to be sick
    (oh and is it just me or does this image makes bill gates almost look like a swastica... no?)

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  73. Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by crashnbur · · Score: 3, Funny
    So I guess Billy Boy is trying to tell us that Linux is harder to swallow. In either case, it's pretty obvious that Windows has emerged victorious on a technicality.

    Other than that, I know some guys that would rather choke on a blue pill that size than go Windows.

    1. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather supply Balmer with the blue pill... as a suppository.

      Just... a... little... farther,... Steve-o.

    2. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      Which is odd, considering all the patches, locked-in app suites and huge upgrade fees that Microsoft routinely crams down its users' throats...

    3. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      That's why the red pill is so easy to swallow. Once they've got you... (insert evil laugh here)

    4. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by JPelzer · · Score: 1

      Other than that, I know some guys that would rather choke on a blue pill that size than go Windows.

      Good news then: It's a suppository.

    5. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by mrjb · · Score: 1

      > So I guess Billy Boy is trying to tell us that Linux is harder to swallow.

      Billy is showing how MS gives people a choice.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    6. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by datenwolf · · Score: 1

      The Blue Pill is that fat, I had no idea? Sure, and as it semms a runable WinXP must then fits onto a floppy disk, since the blue pill definitely does ;-)

    7. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      mmm... crush up and snort lots and lots of linux... wheeeeeee... i'm high as a kite...

    8. Re:Little red pill, BIG BLUE PILL by CaptCanuk · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope that wasn't a suppository!

      --
      ---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
  74. Keynote == ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't go to such conferences, so excuse the naivete. Have keynote addresses always been simply self-promotion and selling of the speaker's (upcoming) products? What an insipid waste of time! Shouldn't it be some visionary discussion of the industry as a whole?

  75. Here comes... by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 1

    I got a 403, so that must mean...

    "We've /.ed the Matrix! Free everyone!"
    "We've /.ed Microsoft! Free the code!"
    "Seems the Matrix was running IIS, so why did they have to go through so much trouble trying to defeat it in the trilogy?"

    --
    Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
  76. Oh of course! by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    There aren't matrices within matrices. There's just one matrix running windows that keep crashing and rebooting.

    --
    Photos.
  77. Screenshot by Ianoo · · Score: 1

    Linux Kernel Error, Recompile Driver?
    Does this company know ANYTHING about Linux, whatsoever?

    1. Re:Screenshot by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      From an Image here

    2. Re:Screenshot by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      I noticed that too...

      and thought the same thing. Oh well. I blew it off to the fact that only idiots will buy into it, and /those/ folks don't know anything about linux at least...

    3. Re:Screenshot by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they know that Linux has loadable kernal modules. I remember back when it didn't.

      You didn't notice that yet??

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    4. Re:Screenshot by unborn · · Score: 1

      I believe they may be ( legitimately ) making fun of how the kernel is glorified and how compiling drivers is taken by linux users as the norm. They know, many people wouldn't care so much about what the major parts of an OS are, nor would appreciate compiling drivers.

      Windows is much more than a kernel, they have an advantage over open-source desktops in terms of integration and functionality ( which will soon change due to a community X server project ). They also provide relatively stable driver interfaces so no recompillation is required.

      Many will say that that is what Linux should aim at. But I somewhat disagree. Sure some would benefit from interface stability, but face it: TV replaced radio and TV isn't like radio - The computer will not be like the TV. Granted, people still listen to radios on their digital TV sets...

  78. So the interrogating agents are.... customers? by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1


    I didn't get the audio... are those "agents" who are interrogating Balmer/Neo supposed to be CIO suit-wearing customers? The customers are the bad guys?

    Confused,
    LP ;)

  79. Copyright Infringement by 4/3PI*R^3 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right!!!
    Let's see one of us create a huge Matrix spoof moovie starring ourselves and show it at some large gathering or post it on the Internet. Warner Brother's and the MPAA's copyright nazis would be on us like stink on a big hot pile of fresh feces!!!

    1. Re:Copyright Infringement by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty likely that Microsoft asked permission.

      Have you asked Warner Brothers permission for anything you've done with their IP?

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:Copyright Infringement by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Not really. I'm planning a counter spoof right now. I'm gonna use tux as neo. and then get enough pictures of bill to build a model with textures... then... i'm trying to debate whether to use maya or blender. maya gives me a bit more power (a big bit) but blender is open source.

    3. Re:Copyright Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you asked Warner Brothers permission for anything you've done with their IP?"

      First, it's only infringement if it misleads people into thinking it's the original Matrix; parodies that don't do that arenit infringing. Cf. the case involing 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman".

      Second, exactly what is Warner Brothers' IP?

      The idea that what we think of as reality is actually a simulation? Done already.

      The idea that one can cross over into different realities? Done already.

      The idea that humankind is at war with machines for its own survival? Done already.

      The idea that there is one powerful individual leading a resistance against those trying to destroy humankind? Done already.

      Etc.

  80. Don't they have better places to spend their cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Showing once again that with $40 billion, you can spoof an epic story, but still can't write a secure product.

  81. Red Pill by 4/3PI*R^3 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't Steve Balmer be shoving the red pill with the MS logo up his ASS?

  82. So according to the analogy... by crashnbur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Linux is the Matrix, and Windows is the rebel humans fighting back... would Slashdot be the Merovingian, the supreme trafficker of information hoping to know all that it can and in the mean time falling short of disguising its favoring Linux?

    1. Re:So according to the analogy... by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      I don't even want to think who could be Persephone in that case!!! Cowboy Neal???

    2. Re:So according to the analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, that makes a lot of sense.
      Look at all the mindless drones of followers (the ones whom do not know the why, who have no power) slashdot sends to destroy other nodes of the matrix....

  83. My predictions... by LeiGong · · Score: 1

    Next week, Warner Brothers Studios will sue MS for 200 million dollars because of copyright infringement. This is mainly due to the fact The Matrix: Revolutions did not generate expected earnings in theaters. The week after that, MS counter-sues WB for stealing idea of "The Matrix" from Microsoft. Trademark Windows characteristics include but are not limited to: * 'glitches' in the system * a 'clippy-like' agent that will not leave the user/hero alone * unreadable source code * many revisions/version Windows/Matrix * 'freed' Zionists/Linux users * main characters that can't act worth sh*t. Two weeks later, Microsoft decides to end the whole thing and buys the damn studio.

  84. Take the BIG BLUE pill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Geddit?

    1. Re:Take the BIG BLUE pill by frozenray · · Score: 1

      ...not the REDmond pill!

      --
      "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
  85. Please don't make Clippy an agent by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix.

    Let's just pray Agent Clippy doesn't learn how to copy himself!

    GMD

    1. Re:Please don't make Clippy an agent by LearnToSpell · · Score: 2, Funny
  86. And featuring Steve Jobs... by crashnbur · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...as Agent Smith!

    1. Re:And featuring Steve Jobs... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Mind you, I have not seen the third installment yet... but from the wild uncontrolled replication I'd cast Microsoft Outlook as Agent Smith.

    2. Re:And featuring Steve Jobs... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      does that mean the Linux Torvalds is the Architect?

  87. Ok, this isn't it, but still looks interesting... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 1
  88. credebility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone finds reasons to doubt the credebility of linux just point them to this and he or she will not ever again take microsoft serious either. Is this Microsofts anti-grid tactic no more coding just sent in the dynamic duo? That leather coat really looks good on ..... no wait it doesn't - their dorks.

    I sure hope they don't think that they can defy gravity like their defying the courts ("..you must remember that these rules are no different from the rules of a computer program. Some can be bent, others can be broken."* With lotsa money that is ofcourse!), because that might turn out to be a painful reality check.

    * No I couldn't be bothered to look up the real quote.

  89. If only your ideology had some basis in reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    In the 18 months of using 1 advace server, and 2 win2k clients at home, number of crashes, BSOD etc: 0

    Uptime before I moved into a new house? 57 days. Before a winter storm knocked out power? 44 days.

    Number of kernal panics in the 3 weeks I've had redhat 9: 2.

    Lets not even address usability. GNOME is a cow, a dead one, a dead one that has sex with other dead cows and gives birth to baby dead cow zombies, whcih then go to the park and don't kill people because they're too useless.. KDE, is SOO pretty. But installing mozilla, for multiple users on windows? Find the win32 intaller, click on it.

    On linux. Find the documentation telling you what to do. Find the installer. Don't believe the how-to when it says deleting your .;mozilla folder will not get rid of your bookmarks etc. Try to find where redhat installed mozilla, since a simple find feature it appearently something linux doesn't need. (I might never have found it were Konquer even half as crappy and nautilus). Try to rename that directory, as opposed to deleting it. Find out the while the permissions are sensibly applied, you'll have to resort to flint handaxe technology to change them. Do so. Run the installer. Find out that it disagrees with where redhat thinks the dicectory should go. Fix the permissions for that. Proceed again with the installer, defering to it's judgement. Watch it crap out with a decent reason, or pointer to trouble shooting help. Nice! Then go back to the install instructions, get the archive of the whole enchilada. Extract the archive. Run the installer. Watch it work! YEAH! Monzilla, for one use, is done. Now, go into a shell, bash recomended, type the crap in the install instructions. Woohoo. Now by hand, copy over your bookmarks etc, even though mozilla said it imported all that crap. Now, you can install themes. But watch out! Even though they say they'll work for Mozilla 1.5 the might just cause it to not start at all, without any damn reason or effort to controll failure in anyway whatsoever. So then you'll have to go edit the pref.js file, by hand, ignoring the warning not to do so (ironic), or copy the backup over the now 'broken' version. Oh and point the icons in the window manager to the new start up file.

    And remember, as per the install instructions, mozilla recommneds a clean install for each new version, the windows user will have a cumbersome, uninstall, possibly reboot, and reinstall, taking as many as 4 mouse clicks. But the linux user, now wiser, will still have to do about half that crap, assumbing they don't learn to write a script for it, which there is really no damn reason they should have to do since the function of computers is predominantly to automate fucking rote tasks with as little user intervetion as is feasible.

    But holy crap. The way linux handles permissions and groups; especially in a window manager. Comming from win2k, it's like a modern day person taking a stroll through a neolithic peoples exhibit.

  90. "Innovation" by Tony · · Score: 1

    Called "Stuff I've Seen,' the research technology allows a user, from one place, to search and retrieve information from across applications, the Web and file types. Researchers also are working on contextualized search so that searches for relevant information take place automatically as a user is working on a document or creating an e-mail.

    Doesn't this sound like Dashboard?

    Ah, the sweet smell of innovation. It smells like... well, like the rotting flesh of last year's fresh project.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  91. It only goes to show by smartin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of all the things that money can buy, a personality isn't one of them.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:It only goes to show by shione · · Score: 1

      ...or a decent hair cut. :-)

  92. The Gates-trix by GregThePaladin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Am I the only one who remembers The Gates-trix?

    God, that was a funny film.

  93. I for one couldn't agree more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a well known fact that the world hates underdogs, and that top dog will never cloak themselves in those garments when they appear before their mutual master, in this case the marketplace.

    If anyone needs a refresher in marketing, it's you.

  94. This is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For Gates and Balmer to be doing this is almost as bad as Bush previously saying that there "oughta be limits to freedom" (in reference to the parody sites making fun of him) - and now saying things to the effect of "isn't free speech great?" to the demonstrating masses in England that are protesting his visit. Not quite grokking his own patronising attitude and only showing that he really is slimy enough to lie in order to get buy without actually fixing the problem or thinking over the protestor's viewpoints.

    (You think Saddam's a menace to his own people? How many Iraqis have your orders killed, Bush?)

    In the case of Bush, as with the Microsoft heads, sharply beating them about the head with their own intestines wouldn't be good enough for them.

    Anyway, my point is that Gates and Balmer are attempting to reverse the status quo by lying about it. It's almost as though they don't understand that people remember what they have previously done. Outside Redmond they have a particularly evil and self-centered reputation - my dealings with them validate this 100%.

    Gates, Balmer, Microsoft: YOU are the evil empire, The Borg Collective, the pigopolists, The Matrix, the control and manipulation of your customers solely for your bottom line.

    Embrace and extend, invasive product activation, Digital Restrictions Management, deliberate incompatiblities with other manufacturer's software. Don't forget that Microsoft has been tried and convicted of being a monopoly with anti-competitive tactics - AND THIS BEHAVIOUR HAS NOT CHANGED.

    With security holes in the default install that are SCARY - a naked default install Windows box on the 'net has an 8 to 16 minute life expectancy before it's scanned, trojaned and root-kitted; an email client that is so broken that it practically emails your credit card number to spammers all by itself (there are *still* preview pane auto-execute-the-friendly-virus problems).

    Then you try to sell software well below cost to 2nd/3rd world countries to get them hooked (the 1st one's always free), then whine about "freedom of choice" when Linux is chosen. I find such behavour funny, but I doubt you even see the possiblity of a joke from the top of your glass tower in Redmond.

    My definition of "freedom of choice" doesn't include funding your near-terrorism level of neglegence, greed and empathy only for the price of stock in your own tried-and-convicted-criminal slimebag company. Being disrespectful to those who are already wary of you isn't going to win you any more friends.

  95. Who the fsck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...are Neo and Morpheus?

    Cluelessly yours,
    Mal the Elder

    1. Re:Who the fsck... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Mal ! Where's your "DOOM"* sign ? What have you been doing all this time ? You've let Emperor Norton die !

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:Who the fsck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good Emperor Norton, like Joe Hill, will never die.

      Best,
      Mal the Elder

  96. Yay microsoft... by jason.mitchell · · Score: 0

    Give it a month.. Hehe don't kid yourself I'm sure microsoft just is too lazy to patch stuff now so they "look" more secure then ever =)

  97. Linux vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
    -Gandhi

    So what stage are we at now?

    1. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So what stage are we at now?

      The usual 2. ???

    2. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      First they ignore you, then you think they're laughing at you, then you pretend they're attacking you, then you're a loser.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    3. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Stage 3: ???

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    4. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are at the stage where you attack them.. BSOD! Windoze luzers!! LOL. Next, they win.

    5. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      ""First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -Gandhi

      So what stage are we at now? "

      Wow, it's a good thing Gandhi never heard of Slashdot or the 1.2.3.Profit! joke or we'd have never heard the end of it!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    6. Re:Linux vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnier its scored a 1. /. 'humor' for you

  98. Cool by inerte · · Score: 1

    There is no source.

  99. Operator: Operator. by daytona · · Score: 2, Funny

    Moerphus: I want Windows. Lots of Windows.

    Daytona

  100. don't forget.... by kajoob · · Score: 1

    it was spoofed here and here as well, just not as good. ;)

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  101. Linux Kernel Error by sharph · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, yeah. I hate those LINUX Kernel Errors that pop up all the time... Who wrote that into Gnome anyway?

    1. Re:Linux Kernel Error by GeekWithGuns · · Score: 1

      Better yet, I love how that looks like a Windows error. I really hate it when I get Windows like Kernel error in my desktop manager. No wait, I've never had a kernel error (panic) that was not the fault of some bad hardware and I have been using Linux as my primary desktop for at least 5 years now!

      Me thinks that if MS is going to go after Linux for stability, they should take care of business at home first.

      --
      [End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
    2. Re:Linux Kernel Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my firewire hard-drive always crashes Windows 95. DAMN YOU MICR0$L0TH!!!!!

    3. Re:Linux Kernel Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of fuzzy but it seems to be asking whether to recompile or ???

      1 kernel recompile = 30 minutes

      vs.

      5 Windows reboots and 3 Windows reinstalls to get it right = 5 hours

      Which would you choose?

    4. Re:Linux Kernel Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... after Linux for stability, they should take care of business at home first."

      That's what Linux needs to do in the first place dumbass. It's something fun, but please quit trying to make it simpler by adding MORE SHIT to it! Nobody likes learning NEW things when they couldve gotten it done in the first time.

    5. Re:Linux Kernel Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 kernel recompiles = too fucking long since normal people cant really code

  102. Matrix showstopper.. how uncool can you get by Ricin · · Score: 1

    No wonder the original link now doesn't even resolve anymore. Holy crap, they seem to be craving a Raspberry or something. The red pill prehaps.

    Take notice of just how clueless they are about what the "general public" perceives them to be.
    I'm not just making fun here (well largely), but I'm serious as well. They look like asses and arguably of the goatse kind.

    The popping sound of their implosion is going to be so... err, well, popping!! :)

    1. Re:Matrix showstopper.. how uncool can you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has probably never been very interested in how adolescent script kiddies perceive them.

  103. "Nitch"? by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    Despite the common mispronunciation that would result in this spelling, it is in fact "niche".

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:"Nitch"? by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      christ we have the spelling patrol now on /. what ever happened to ignoring poor spelling and talking about TECH!!!!!! (sorry dont mean to rant on you, cause your certainly not the only one and thank you for pointing out the mistake)

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    2. Re:"Nitch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      cause your certainly not the only one

      So I'm guessing it would be gratuitously rude for me to point out the grammatical error in your post responding to a criticism of your spelling?

      Talking about tech still requires talking. And talking effectively requires talking correctly.

    3. Re:"Nitch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Talking about tech still requires talking. And talking effectively requires talking correctly.

      You clearly knew what he meant, as did everyone else.
      Sounds pretty effective to me.

    4. Re:"Nitch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mispronunciation? Your link lists the first pronunciation as nitch.

    5. Re:"Nitch"? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

      Those that can do. Those that can't post to /.. Those that can't even post to /. fix grammar and spelling mistakes.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
  104. Ironic, Windows == Matrix by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Ironically I always thought Windows was the Matrix. Think about it:
    A flaw exists in the system that cannot be solved. It grows larger and larger until a reboot is needed or the whole thing crashes. Sounds like Windows to me.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  105. My god, who would want to eat that massive pill! by Vilim · · Score: 1

    I wonder what pill Balmer would take, for christ sakes they made the Linux pill so big. Reminds me of that Futurama episode where fry has to take a massive pill to go underwater. Professer - "Now you'll have to take this pill to not be crushed by the pressure" Fry - "That pills huge! I can't swallow that!' Professer - "Lucky for you its a reposatory"

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  106. NT is not VMS by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    While one of the Architects of NT was also an architech of VMS, the two OS's are completely different. NT was written from scratch.
    To say that NT is VMS is like saying "IT" is the same as "Dreamcatcher" because they had the same author.

    1. Re:NT is not VMS by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      While one of the Architects of NT was also an architech of VMS, the two OS's are completely different. NT was written from scratch. To say that NT is VMS is like saying "IT" is the same as "Dreamcatcher" because they had the same author.

      I don't know the truth of this one way or the other. I know the broad history of NT, of VMS, of the people involved, and I know a little of the APIs of various versions of the two systems... and have done some NT and some VMS programming... but nonetheless, I don't know enough to know for sure one way or the other.

      What I do know is that an awful lot of people who know more than I, contradict you. You seem to have the minority opinion.

      So, to educate all of us, please give some pointers to information to support your opinion, rather than merely the opinion itself.

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    2. Re:NT is not VMS by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      I was a software engineer and lead in Systems at Microsoft for 13 years. I worked on several OS projects including windows NT. So I quote myself as an authority: NT is not VMS.

    3. Re:NT is not VMS by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      I was a software engineer and lead in Systems at Microsoft for 13 years. I worked on several OS projects including windows NT. So I quote myself as an authority: NT is not VMS.

      I'm sorry, I don't see how that statement says that you can guarantee that NT wasn't derived from NT. It seems to me you are saying you know a lot about NT. I don't see anything there that says that you know VMS, nor about the origin of NT.

      I myself "worked on several OS projects" but that doesn't mean I know their origins.

      "An authority" is not just someone who knows a lot; it's someone who knows a lot on the subject under discussion...not just one close to it...wouldn't you agree?

      Anyway, even if you were David Cutler himself, please don't just ask us to take things on authority; give us some details to illustrate the point at hand. "You can see that NT is importantly different from VMS because..."

      (The ancient greeks discovered a number of important logical fallacies; one of them was called "argumentum ad hominem", in Latin: arguing that something is necessarily true because a respected person said that it is so.)

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    4. Re:NT is not VMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here in S. Texas, comming from the northwest, right behing the Canadian geese and Monarch butterflies, was group of Chester White's headed south for the winter.

      Swine - Chester White -Solid white, these pigs have medium sized, droopy ears. They usually have large litters and sought for their mothering ability. Boars of this breed are usually aggressive.

    5. Re:NT is not VMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Cutler himself told the authors of a book about Win2K internals a whole list of ways that the system had been architected in a fundamentally different way than VMS. I'm not good enough on OS internals to give them to you, but the book is called "Inside Microsoft Windows 2000, Third Edition" by David Solomon and Mark Russinovich. It's an MS Press book.

    6. Re:NT is not VMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know the truth of this one way or the other. I know the broad history of NT, of VMS, of the people involved, and I know a little of the APIs of various versions of the two systems... and have done some NT and some VMS programming... but nonetheless, I don't know enough to know for sure one way or the other.

      What I do know is that an awful lot of people who know more than I, contradict you. You seem to have the minority opinion.


      This is some of the most absurd reasoning I have ever seen on Slashdot. I am simply astonished at its fallacy.

      The two systems were developed completely independently. The history of Windows NT, and its relationship with VMS, has been extensively documented. For starters, try Showstopper by G. Pascal Zachary.

      You are wrong. That's all there is to it.

    7. Re:NT is not VMS by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      This is some of the most absurd reasoning I have ever seen on Slashdot. I am simply astonished at its fallacy

      It wasn't "reasoning". It was saying, "you're presenting what seems to be a minority opinion, please give further info rather than just a flat assertion." In other words, it was a request for information.

      Please try to read a little more carefully; it's going pretty far astray to have strong disagreements with people who aren't making claims in the first place.

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    8. Re:NT is not VMS by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      I know a lot about the question under discussion; I am a co-author of Windows NT. I know it was not based on VMS because I have seen the code, and in fact wrote some of it myself.

      I have no way on this forum to prove the veracity of my authority (nor do I want to reveal my identity), nor in fact any way to provide evidence beyond my own authority: what would you have me do? Post the entire source of NT and VMS and then some sort of algorithm (vetted by you?) that proves that the code is different?

      So believe me or not; makes no difference to me.

    9. Re:NT is not VMS by m_pll · · Score: 1
      give us some details to illustrate the point at hand

      Google for nt+vms. On the first page there is this link:

      Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story .

    10. Re:NT is not VMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've decided that you're right, haven't you?, and nothing short of a public line by line comparison by the original authors with full commentary is going to convince you otherwise is it?

      Just do some research and you will find the truth.

  107. Mirror (San Francisco) by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

    This will be around for a couple of days.

    http://www.tenshu.net/gaterix/index.html

    Cheers,

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
  108. Looks professionally done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet you they made this using iMovie.

    1. Re:Looks professionally done. by xcarlson · · Score: 1

      where did u get it?

    2. Re:Looks professionally done. by eguaj · · Score: 1

      Now, we know what all thoses G5 were for ! :)

  109. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, Neo dies in the new Harry Potter book. Hope this helps.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  110. A bad analogy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a MS Wintel guy through and through... but the Gates as Morpheous Comdex Spoof Video has to be the biggest misunderstanding of percieved image I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

    The Snyposis is as such. Bill is Morpheus, Steve Ballmer is Neo. Neo can take the "Big Blue" pill or the MS little red pill. The Blue pill is supposed to represent the evil machines, and the Red Pill Freedom. Right? That is the Matrix version... but I don't think it is percieved by the general population that IBM is the Evil Machines, or that MS stands for Freed Minds....

    While I feel MS offers the best line of products for enabling me to be productive, organized, and there for have more free time.... And I'd even go so far as to say they offer the most "enabling" products as they allow some pretty dumb people to do some pretty neat things, I have never thought of the as being in the Self Expression Business.

    IBM isn't in the self expression business but if you look at the world through a pair of Oakley Matrix Shades you will find IBM and Linux more closely match the Neo Analogy than MS does. Linux is all about "Tweaking" you take a program and if you don't like how it works you "tweak it" you change the rules. You can Stare at the code of linux, MS never lets you look at the code. (unless you fill out a lot of paper work and qualify through certain programs). Everytime the Matrix shows a programmer using a realworld tool it is a linux tool... Something MS should have fact checked before creating this little movie... And with out risking spoiling Martix 3 for those who haven't seen it, the secret to freeing your self from the Matrix is to be connected to the "Source"

    I wrote several of the MS guys a while back that MS was starting to have a very "Old IBM" like reputation, and that people were starting to think of them in the same ways that people thought of IBM back when Mac had the commercial with the lady smashing the giant talking corporate head... What I left out was that IBM fixed that image. They are no longer in the do more spend less business that MS is currently in. IBM's current commercials actually talk about how you can't squeeze out any more productivity that the new "Holy Grail" is customer integration and improved service. And while I still believe IBM solutions are still for big business not for little guys I really think MS missed the perception people have of them, Linux, and IBM.

    I understand the thought of the Marketing Department.... "What is cool right now... The Matrix... And who do we need to get customers to not by... IBM and Open Source.... You know IBM used to be BIG BLUE..." And when the first Matrix came out if it had been a spoof against just IBM it would have been a wonderful Ad. But IBM has changed its perception a lot in the last 3-5 years.

    If Steve Jobs had done this Spoof the analogy would still be horribly flawed, but the perception by those in the audience would have been more dead on. Mac certainly isn't about freedom of choice, but they have a lot more freedom of expression going for them. And Matrix was about choice, not expression. Neo was a programmer not an artist.

    Brandon N. Wirtz
    www.theMix2004.com
    www.Griffin-Digital.com

  111. Weakness by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a sign of weakness that they do this. I wonder how much money and time they wasted on this but apparently after seeing that fictional Linux kernel error, probably not much.

  112. In other news: by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    The other Steve-o denies any involvement with Microsoft and announces a lawsuit to protect his business.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  113. may seem strange, but by Prince+Cyph0r · · Score: 0

    I think that Linus Torvalds can definitely be the Architect in this spoof

  114. windows ui wasnt "borrowed" by Prince+Cyph0r · · Score: 0

    it was Liberated!

  115. Re:My god, who would want to eat that massive pill by zackeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The linux pill's huge, but you can chop it up into tiny pieces and just swallow what you want. The Windows pill, however, is a suppository and makes you gain 300 lbs in a few days.

  116. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest thing about that whole thing is WIndows has conditioned you to think 57 days is an impressive uptime record.

  117. you forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fast user switching : new (yeah you can get close to this in Linux but not the same)
    Hibernation : new

    And NT is not VMS. Both were archetected by Dave Cutler but this does not make them the same, or even close.

    1. Re:you forgot by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      >Fast user switching : new (yeah you can get close to this in Linux but not the same)

      I fail to see how the concept of being logged in, and having applications open, then switching to a login prompt without closing any applications, and logging in as a new user counts as innovation.
      It's been around for longer than Microsoft has.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    2. Re:you forgot by ChopsMIDI · · Score: 1

      ALT + [ F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 ]
      Doesn't get much faster than that.

      --

      How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
  118. MS & Linux Both are both the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step away from the keyboard and get a life,
    do something else in Real Life, away from the digital matrix.

    Like: Go backpacking, hike some trails!
    Follow a real white rabbit through the forest...

    (Ya - I know the irony of typing this in a computer lab... oh well! )

  119. Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What businesses are migrating to XP?

  120. If Matrix ran on Windows XP... by abdudani · · Score: 1

    They already got it... Matrix running on Windows XP ... !! http://www.matrix-xp.com/index2.php?page=downloads &lang=eng Take a look at Matrix XP.. its preety funny towards the end...

  121. Re:My god, who would want to eat that massive pill by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

    shame you mangled the punchline's most important word. =/

    --
    Sleep is for the weak.
  122. One word... by Snowdrake · · Score: 1

    ...stop Princess Buttercup's marriage to Prince Ruperdink.

    HUMPERDINCK!

    1. Re:One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reference to Dink Smallwood?

      Hump her Dink!!!!

  123. What is more important? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are looking at everything big picture. Great, but the devil is in the details. Saying that microsoft isn't an innovator is like saying that berkley doesn't do Physics. Its the small gradual improvements that make great ideas into great products.

    Oh and you forgot about IE. Copied from Mosaic.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:What is more important? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      That's right. IE was started from an existing codebase. Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic.

      Netscape, on the other hand, was started by some vulture capitalists raiding the Mosaic team, closing the source, and running to the west coast with it all.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:What is more important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netscape, on the other hand, was started by some vulture capitalists raiding the Mosaic team, closing the source, and running to the west coast with it all.

      Actually, Marc Andreesen, founder of Netscape, worked on NCSA Mosaic as a project during his university days. When he left, the code was considered owned by the university, rather than the student, probably due to some wierd agreement with regards to time on school computers, or whatever. Anyway, he started a company, rewrote the browser from scratch, and got a huge jump on Microsoft in the process. There was no real venture capital until the company was already well on it's way to a good product, and the people had already left the Mosaic team, since it was a purely academic thing.

    3. Re:What is more important? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Marc Andreesen, founder of Netscape, didn't have squat, and most people agree he wasn't the key member of the Netscape development team. And he and Clark (the vulture capitalist involved) hired away other members of the Mosaic team.

      In one sense, it's an example of software developed at a University being 'privitized' successfully, rather than languishing on a campus forever. But in another sense, it's an example of someone running off with a project, and it's team members, taking publicly funded IP with them.

      I'd hate to say individuals are 'trapped' on campus and not allowed to leave and become wealthy based on skills they learned on campus. But when they take the work that the university paid for with them.... it becomes a bit murky.

      And really, the thrust of my comments on Netscape aren't that they are 'pure evil' or anything. Just that they're the same ambiguous folks as the rest of us. It's possible we're LUCKY Microsoft stomped Netscape into the dirt. I don't know that I'd want the entire Web to be 0wnzered by the company that at their height of power put a non-removable 'Buy' button on the browser toolbar...

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  124. Pastey skin, atrophied mucles, hole in the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is starting to make so much sense.

  125. Boundaries by jiri+B · · Score: 1

    By breaching these boundaries and getting rid of these seams...

    He still doesn't get security, does he?

    --
    -- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!
  126. Red Pill or Blue Pill by Uosdwis · · Score: 1

    Maybe they took the red pill and believe whatever they want to.

    Or is it the blue pill....? ... MORPHEUS!?

  127. borrowed from apple? try palo alto research center by wolf_m16 · · Score: 0

    yeah xerox

  128. Microsoft seems to forget... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    ...that Neo dies

    1. Re:Microsoft seems to forget... by DrakeX · · Score: 1

      ...Great, you went and ruined the entire movie for everyone who hasn't seen it... You shoulda let watching the movie ruin it for them!!

    2. Re:Microsoft seems to forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he doesn't die.

  129. That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one takes the business plan seriously.

  130. This stage is where we are at... by 3seas · · Score: 1
  131. Re:Obviously all the comments here will be about.. by Spleener12 · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's because /.ers already bash MS' business practices in every single other thread about it.

  132. Re:Gates is making fun of ME!!! We know that means by 3seas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    links screwed up even in not htmling them so here is a link to a page they work on.

    The last post on this page

  133. With Linux as the Matrix theres fair market... by msimm · · Score: 2

    Maybe they aren't considering Linux a serious threat yet, but rather maneuvering to gain the appearance of a competitive marketplace. I will bet in another year or so they'll really start to bemoan Linux and how its tearing the market away from them, all the while working carefully to make sure that it is never taken seriously enough to gain dominance. Seems like a fine strategy. Let [submit 3rd world market here] convert to Linux, their poor, rich governments will continue to use what they believe to be the worlds most productive (and aggressively none compatible) OS.

    Even as I write this in Mozilla I spell check it with Word.

    Microsoft more then just about anyone needs to get the word out about Linux right now. Will it bite them in the ass? We sure as hell are working on it. ;-)

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:With Linux as the Matrix theres fair market... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Even as I write this in Mozilla I spell check it with Word.

      You spell check? :) I would say "you must be new here" but I don't need the karma.

      I use quark or frontpage to spell check, but I dont bother on /. But im migrating my old p3/1.1 laptop to a p4/2.4 laptop (i only slash on the laptop in the livingroom) and will set it up as a dualboot with some flavor of linux (pissed at RH, looking for another distro still), so will have to use something else.

      Microsoft more then just about anyone needs to get the word out about Linux right now.

      Actually, I can see MS getting Word for Linux, but not getting the word out on linux. I will be shocked if MS doesn't end up making software for Linux. The whole activation thing will be weird tho, cause if you think their codes get cracked fast on windows, wait until they park it on *nix. Remember, they DO have a fair amount of experience with unix...but not as much as the crackers.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:With Linux as the Matrix theres fair market... by boots@work · · Score: 2, Funny
    3. Re:With Linux as the Matrix theres fair market... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Let [submit 3rd world market here] convert to Linux, their poor, rich governments will continue to use what they believe to be the worlds most productive (and aggressively none compatible) OS.

      Did you mean "... convert to Linux, they're poor. Rich governments will..."?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  134. Linux, Unix, unoriginal? Mod parent down from +3! by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Linux: A clone of Minix, itself a clone of UNIX.

    UNIX: A rough implementation of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware.

    Who's got new ideas now?

    Please mod parent back down to normal. He has a highly misleading view of history that has been modded up to +3.

    Misleading item #1: "Linux is a clone of Minux, itself a clone of Unix". Completely incorrect, although seemingly-plausible to newbies due to the historical association of these things.

    I evaluated Minix back when it was hot stuff, and I rejected it precisely because it was not a clone of Unix. It was a toy version of Unix. If it had been a good clone, I would have used it, no problem.

    A few years later, I evaluated Linux. It was not a toy version of either Minix nor Unix, it was a true clone of Unix. So I started using it.

    Now, ok, Linux was a true clone of Unix back then, this much is true (although not quite what the poster said), and hence yes, Linux back then was not a new idea.

    But so what? The point is that it was a FREELY AVAILABLE, OPEN SOURCE clone of Unix -- which is exactly what millions of us were waiting for. Minix wasn't real Unix...BSD was, but wasn't freely available back then...Linux was a god send.

    Misleading item #2: "UNIX: A rough implementation of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware."

    No, Unix is not any kind of version of Multics, that is just plain wrong. Sure, it borrowed a few ideas; the Unix authors were involved in authoring Multics, so surely that is no surprise. But "a version of"? No. Wrong. Completely wrong.

    As for "Written so that...Space Travel..." could run on some platform? Sure, that's part of the history...so what? The question is, what did they come up with as a result?

    The parent post is a cynical, distorted view of history that is grinding an axe to achieve an agenda. Please mod it back down to a normal +1 opinion. It is NOT insightful nor informative.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  135. "We need bugs... by ctrl-alt-elite · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...lots of bugs."

  136. nerds in trenchcoats by foggi3 · · Score: 1

    I hope that after seeing this the trenchcoat-wearing slashdotters will realize that they look just as stupid as bill gates when they wear a long leather coat.

    --
    ~~
  137. Videos? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Are there any leaked videos of this Matrix spoof?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, are there?

  138. Blue Pill Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope someone gives Bill that IBM/Linux blue pill as a suppository...

  139. MS Exercise in DRM by dbretton · · Score: 1

    Don't bother downloading the video if you are interested in the Mstrix parody, as MS has decided to flex its DRM muscles and have censored out the parody, citing "proprietary nature".

    Someone must have informed Balmer that Neo dies...

    and someone must have shown Gates this picture of Morpheus.

  140. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something bad happened with linux. Wait look at this other thing that isn't bad, but I'm acting like it is. It must be, because its against linux.

    Sounds like you're pissed at the 2 days before the kernal panic.

    Loser.

  141. Ack! by blueforce · · Score: 1

    I need a mind's pencil for my mind's eye!

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  142. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me, two kernal panics in three weeks.

    Still SHITTY.

  143. All I can say... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    ... it's just sad... I mean, Billy G & Ballmer doing Kung Fu... the IBM blue pill innuendo (uh... that's one heck of a joda doll!) those two old chickens posing as cool leather clad avatars... it's trash folks... just trash... like those cheap 256 GB USB pens (whoa so much for just 25$!) that die after two syncs...

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    1. Re:All I can say... by steve.m · · Score: 1

      And I suspose if Linus was Neo, RMs was Morpheus and the red pill had a Tux logo and the blue pill was twice as big with a Windows logo, you'd think it was the funniest thing you'd ever seen...

    2. Re:All I can say... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Not funniest at all MS fanboy, although I'd find it much less pathetic...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  144. It's over by loginx · · Score: 1

    Wow... I have to say, this time, I'm really impressed.
    I mean... Microsoft must be a very good software company if they can make videos that look like movies.
    Oh wait!

    Honnestly though... is that the new FUD campaign we were watching out for?
    If it is, I think they're hitting (themselves) very hard.

  145. Animation done w/ . . . by DrakeX · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any windoze blue screening or ilegal operation errors. . . The effects were probably created using a linux box . . .

  146. Is it just me... by nite_warrior · · Score: 1

    or does these guys really suck... I've just seen the images and I really think that if they wanted to do something like this, they could have spend some more money on making it look better, they could at least get the Morpheus glasses from Matrix2Sunglasses to make it look a little better then look at the couches, and is that a copy of Finding Nemo behind Gates?? Why does the code reads M$ products when they should be supposly be removed from the matrix (if they want to be the good guys), WTF do thos burgers back there?? is it related to the quote "A MSCCE is to computer science what a McDonalds food especialist is to fine cousine"??? Can somebody tell me what part of the movie are those two frames where are some agents on the street and then like one passing by a door with a plant in the back ?? When did he got the phone call?? and a repeated complain, what the hell is that KDE box doing there???

  147. Look out Fonzie! by mariox19 · · Score: 1

    Well, if Bill and Steve aren't the coolest, I don't know who is.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  148. Horse suppository... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the Dissociated Press:

    (DP)After regaining my composure, I realized their take on the Matrix was all wrong. The horse suppository sized pill was mis-marked, should have been the Windows pill. It should have gone in the other end, after Balmer, timidly pointing to the small Linux pill, finally submits - smiling and whistling a show tune.
    - Vin Dozier, Las Vegas


    This was just feeding dog food to the dogs - nothing more, nothing less.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Horse suppository... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Actually, here is an excerpt of a real 'dissociated-press' filter of the keynote with my annotations and emphasis added for clarity:

      "Microsoft has a traditional firewally betting [tradition of hoping it won't get through the firewall?] acrose different thing ple appenew level of take advan e-mail message[takes advantage of email messages?]. He's going to do hervices, those are can go againdustry [i.e. rehashing old ideas - or as Bill likes to say: 'inovation'] got still quite an effechnology [weak technology - from the root 'effete'] ause Micreate boundaries[artificial boundaries created by Bill?], to the screen from outside a template, ther shot at applications on the very first time Web site[some reference to Linux? - refering to open source/agile development 'ready, shoot, aim' paradigm], more than Exceliver all of our enterpriser interfaces[absolutely - 'All ur base belong us!']. We see one of them. So, now, what of progre to the Signature initially used is about in my exploring within your hard drive[omg!!], or second ge of the and the type compage, and it's goin somethis breaks down[whats new?], station of infor a long time, and wrist-to-end things cant future but are goings like that I'm talkin this that the Implicationference [the 'implication-inference' is that we will not use keyboards, but instead talk to our computers], every of my remarks of machines to desktops, of these.)

      Oh, basic principles are, continues that we've buill be used."

      I have to agree with that: "continues that we've buill [Bill-bull] be used."

      Scary as these 'tea leaves' may be, I think they shed some light on Microsoft directions:
      firewally betting againdustry effechnology!

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  149. another example of a cool idea... by notoriousE · · Score: 1

    another example of what would be a cool idea ruined by the fact that Bill Gates had something to do with it.

    --


    And then there was E
  150. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's very likely that you have a hardware problem on your linux machine.

  151. Matrix Any different than SWK? by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

    Seriously now. Apart for "production values" is there really any difference between two fat old man pretending to be in a Sci-Fi movie and a little kid pretending to be in a Sci-Fi? The one lesson to be learned, perhaps, is that nerd never disappear, they just grow older.

    1. Re:Matrix Any different than SWK? by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      As odd as this sounds, I've just developed more respect for Bill for being in a parody.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
  152. MS' version of the red pill (Pilly) by wonton_mein · · Score: 1
    Pilly: I see. So you're ready to take the red pill.
    Would you like some help with that?

    User: No. (Grabs the red pill and about to place it
    in mouth).

    Pilly: No!!! You don't take it in the mouth!

    User: .......
  153. The truth, Bill, by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    is a hard pill to swallow. And the blue paint doesn't make it go down any easier. And it sure won't taste any good now. You're just making it harder on yourself.

  154. Keynote? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1

    He was using Apple's Keynote instead of Powerpoint? Crazy.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  155. SCO the Architect? by NotAnAol · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, but they're sueing, claiming that the Architect, and therefore The Matrix, contains millions of lines of SCO code. (has SCO ever written any code?)

  156. talk about lameness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    geez, what a cheese ball spoof. I think the world is better off having never seen that awefule spoof.

  157. It's good to be rich. by rocketsled · · Score: 0

    What a marketing budget, we can't even send out flyers without a beating from the Accounting Trolls.

  158. Re:Linux, Unix, unoriginal? Mod parent down from + by IM6100 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, minix is designed to be a toy version of Unix. It is mainly distributed on a CD in the cover of a textbook about Operating Systems.

    Calling it a 'toy' really doesn't denigrate it at all. That's exactly what Andy Tanenbaum wants it to remain.

    --
    A Good Intro to NetBS
  159. Not the hardware. Might be redhat's installer tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? Would it interest you to know that my linux machine is also one of the win2k clients. I use those drive swapping mobile racks. Actually I got them so I could painlessly experiment with linux.

  160. Parent is confused by MoronGames · · Score: 1

    I think the parent is confused. But, I'll help him out. If you replace all of his references to Microsoft into Apple, it fits a lot better, I think.

    --
    hey!
  161. Been around a while by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    It has been showing on the internal CCTV within Microsoft for a while. I saw it for the first time a few weeks ago but it reportedly has been around since the middle of the summer.

  162. Steve is all over the place these days... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
  163. A mirror that thumbnails correctly! by krappie · · Score: 1

    A mirror that thumbnails correctly

    Also if anyone cares.. a tarball.

  164. Matrix: Innovation? by David_R · · Score: 1
    Movies which have parodied The Matrix include (but are not restricted to):
    • Shrek
    • Scary Movie (1 & 3)
    • Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo
    Yeah, satirising The Matrix is reeeeeal innovative. Way to go, Microsoft!
  165. Cigarette Smoking Man? by Nedmud · · Score: 1

    http://images.tabletpctalk.com/pictures/comdex2003 /billgkey/01280023%20(Small).JPG
    I've never before noticed billg's resemblance to the villain of the X-Files.

  166. "almost everything is off by default" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1


    I think I have the explaination for the "almost"...

    Well, I understand that a power off of the PC secures it somewhat,but removing Wake-On-Lan is a Bios option, so a no-no for MSCEs...8p

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  167. they get you to laugh at them by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Funny
    they get you to laugh at them. Remember the nazi's are now just a movie bad guy. Soviet russia is a slashdot joke and as for Gandhis enemy the british empire. Well. Just watch the news.

    Note that so far noone seems to have made any serious comment on the presentation. Just a lot of jokes. What MS says is just not taken serious here. Does that matter? Nope.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:they get you to laugh at them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What 'Linux' says is to be taken serious here. Does that matter?

      Yes

    2. Re:they get you to laugh at them by datenwolf · · Score: 1

      Take this serious? Sorry, but after a triple feature matrix session at saturday night I'm only able to take it with humor.

      BTW: The M$ guys seem to have a very interesting sense of humor though. IE, FrontPage, WYSIWYG, COM, ActiveX, DirectX, ASP, IIS, SMB, FAT, NTFS, defrag.exe, Access, MFC, ATL, pascal calling in the API, Drive Letters...

  168. Re:Linux, Unix, unoriginal? Mod parent down from + by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1, Informative
    When I made my comment, the grandparent article was "+3 informative", which I thought was extremely inappropriate.

    Now it is "+5 funny". I have no problem with it being "funny". I do have a problem with it being considered "informative", and I tried to explain why.

    Those moderators who struck me down by 2 points: I sure hope it was because you thought I was arguing with it being funny...because if you thought I was being unreasonable saying it was not informative, then you're crazy. It was not informative, it was wrong.

    Funny, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color.

    This is basically a comment for any meta-moderators who are looking at context. My response was not flamebait, it was correcting erroneous statements.

    99% of the time slashdot moderation seems to work very well, but once in a while it gets very weird.

    (Although maybe I'm philosophically wrong in thinking that something should be factually correct before being moderated as "informative"???)

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  169. Gates Doing karate ? by ThomasFlip · · Score: 1

    Im pretty sure they dont have CG advanced enough to make Bill Gates look like hes doing a physical activity

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
  170. Re:Keynote == properganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of how SCO used James Bond clips for their resellsers meeting.

  171. Big Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone also notice the Big Mac joke? God, I hate Microsoft...

  172. Pot. Kettle. Zealot. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny


    Nope, it should be as simple as gaining root on an unpatched Lunix box, like it happened to open source icons SourceForge and VIA a coupla years ago. Remember?


    And while we're playing at "famous compromises", we can't forget the Microsoft corporate compromises either. Not that I would want to mimic your smug tone nor intrude on your own zealotry.
  173. Matrix-XP by argent · · Score: 1

    Remember Matrix XP?

  174. Wrong Pill! by bobdown2001 · · Score: 1

    Ummmm Bill you didn't tell me about the oestrogen in the red pill. I've got boobies!!

    --
    Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
  175. Re:My god, who would want to eat that massive pill by Vilim · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry about that, heres the right one Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Excellent! This will give me a chance to try out my latest invention - these pressure pills. opens a bottle and a giant pill falls out Fry: Are you crazy? I cant swallow that! Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, then good news! It's a suppository! I seem to have a detour from my brain to my mouth/keyboard. The message gets fiddled with in transit :p

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  176. Sorry if its a Redundancy, but.... by VoraciousGorak · · Score: 1

    ...it occured to me that Bill would only be "taking a jab" at Linux if he saw it as a competitor. Which it bloody well should be.

    1. Re:Sorry if its a Redundancy, but.... by sharph · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does see linux as a competitor. We figured this out with the Halloween Documents. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/

  177. So are they promoting The Matrix's user interface? by sbaker · · Score: 1

    Hmmm - I'm seeing "Windows - The Matrix Edition"... ...We'll have all the information presented to the users in vertically scrolling columns of blurry letters - and let them reply using only a querty keyboard.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  178. Re:Linux, Unix, unoriginal? Mod parent down from + by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But "a version of"? No. Wrong. Completely wrong.

    Where did the grandparent ever say the phrase "a version of"? You quoted it, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Perhaps in your haste to defend the good and noble name of UNIX you forgot the facts and whatnot.
  179. Somebody looks like a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody looks like a Nazi. Geessh.. I hope thats not reflecting some sort of philosophy.

  180. the difference is... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The difference is that UNIX and Linux developers generally don't claim to be innovating. Instead, they implement tried-and-true, open standards.

    Microsoft claims they are innovating. That's how they are marketing their stuff. That's how they see themselves. And, worse yet, they are reinventing the bad ideas.

    It's hard to come up with anything new in operating systems. Just about anything has been tried and suggested before. The only thing that distinguishes different people and projects is how well they know the past and how honest they are about it.

  181. Re:My god, who would want to eat that massive pill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't be the first time that something from Microsoft tried to get in there...

  182. Well, Yes by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    But Spyglass licenced their technology from ... badum dum Mosaic.Take a look at the notice from the Help about menu on IE 6:

    Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
    Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc.
    Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group.
    Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp.
    Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation.
    Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright law and international treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Well, Yes by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's important to note. Spyglass was set up as a company to license the Mosaic codebase, in cooperating with UIUC where it was developed.

      The Netscape folks just grabbed it, and hired away most of the development team, and gave NOTHING to UIUC. Because they could, and got away with it.

      Subsequently, the deal didn't go 'well' for Spyglass because Microsoft elected to 'give IE away for free' and Spyglass as a result didn't get a very big 'percentage' amount, but at least Microsoft didn't outright STEAL the whole thing, which is what Netscape did.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  183. Ballmer in the Matrix by runlvl0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But the showstopper was a filmed spoof of The Matrix (screencaps available here), with Gates and Steve Ballmer as Morpheus and Neo respectively, and including a jab at Linux.

    But I totally get Ballmer as Neo - you've seen his matrix training film.

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
    1. Re:Ballmer in the Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Found
      The requested URL /media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg was not found on this server.

      Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

      Apache/1.3.26 Server at www.detonate.net Port 80

  184. I can only hope... by edubarr · · Score: 1

    that the Linux/IBM pill is not a supository

  185. Which is more pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two pasty, out-of-shape, old white guys mentally masturbating that they are characters in a second-rate cult movie?

    Or 400+ slashdot Lusers arguing the "fine points" of the third-rate parody of the second-rate movie?

    It boggles the mind!

  186. My 2 cents by infonick · · Score: 1

    To put Linux and IBM as the bad side in bill's matrix...

    it's just,

    its just bad taste is what it is.

    It could also be seen however, as a good thing for IBM and Linux. Gates is now resorting to cheep parody's and propaganda - he's desperate! :)

    --

    You are confusing me with someone who cares.
  187. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Panaflex · · Score: 1

    Troll, I feed you!! ...But installing mozilla, for multiple users on windows? Find the win32 intaller, click on it.

    Go to mozilla.org, get install RPM, save to file. Find the Home icon on your desktop, go to the mozilla installer RPM and click on it. For all users, install as root (Sound familiar?) BTW, these instruction refer to the gnome desktop.. I don't use KDE all that much.

    Try to find where redhat installed mozilla, since a simple find feature it appearently something linux doesn't need.

    The find utility is located on the red hat menu, 4th item from the bottom on the main menu, properly named "Search for files..." If you absolutely must know all the files mozilla installs, go to command line and type rpm -ql "app name" (app names is the first part of the file name, so mozilla would do the trick in your case)

    If you want to uninstall mozilla (which does leave all your bookmarks in place) just do RedHat->System Settings->Add/Remove applications. Click on "Graphical Internet" applications, and unselect mozilla. Uninstalled. Your plugins will probably not work - as they will be targeted at your old install anyway (conflicts can occur on any platform)

    To install an app RPM, just locate the RPM, go into Nautilus file manager and double click on it.

    When you encounter a plug-in requirement on a page, mozilla will happilly install it using the handy dandy auto-installer as long as the page properly references the installer (Most do these days)

    My uptime is in the hundred day range since I last rebooted redhat. I'd check the system logs (Redhat->System Tools->System Logs) for possible errors you might be encountering. More than likely it is a hardware problem.

    Don't go blaming your unfamiliarity as system design faults.. doing low level stuff on windows requires the same type of tweaking (registery editing, dll registry, ini file editing, etc...)

    Pan

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  188. makes you wonder by xsyberpunk · · Score: 1

    did they make that movie on a sgi, linux box or a mac? or did they get a bunch of stock photos and put it together.

  189. As expected.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS does a spoof that jabs at *nix and its bad. Meanwhile anti MS shills write anti MS songs, videos, pictures, etc.

    Ah hypocrisy

  190. Sounds like a pitch... but wait there's more! by aphor · · Score: 1

    So Windows 95 was more secure than WFW and NT was more secure than DOS7 based Win9x, and they're getting better with the 2003 stuff. Blah blah blah.

    The reason it is not secure is because it is governed by a function of the corporate bottom line and the lowest-common-denominator home PC buyers. These are people who aren't really qualified to buy a refrigerator, but some of them just throw money at the problem and others are resigned to "getting by."

    The bottom line still true: people who care don't do windows. I gotta admit, until I was in the position of supporting it, it seemed great. Once I became aware of other people's problems I realised how necessary it is to start a user out in a little hole and give them the pieces they need to build a ladder.

    What we need is a distro of Linux based on pr0n. pr0niX will be a *very* eye-candy distro, with a few useful apps designed to make the computer look useful, but under the hood is a broadband-wasting porn harvesting machine that works unsupervised, tirelessly, 24/7 to acquire all the porn it can amass, harnessed by your "query of kink." pr0niX runs in two modes: free and subscription based pr0n (pay sites included). If you pay for the support contract, you get premium pr0n. Otherwise, you get the scrapings of stuff harvested off Usenet. The only sysadmin functions are tuning the harvesters and cleaning out the old pr0ns.

    Somebody hurry up and tell me that Winders is jest fine fer luekinit nekkid pichers! I forgot porn addicts don't really need Linux....

    --
    --- Nothing clever here: move along now...
  191. OT: You, sir, are a fruitball. by rossifer · · Score: 1

    First of all, Matrix is derivative of tens of thousands of hero-myths, each originally created by someone trying to relate a lesson to others about the nature of the world and their place in it. The assertion that any story you (or anyone else) wrote is similar to the Matrix is therefore completely unsuprising. The Matrix is derivative of just about one quarter of all of the stories ever written. What are the odds that you were so original to avoid being in the same category as the Matrix (and that you're both derivative of the same source)? Given the style of the writing you presented in the parent post (i.e. juvenile): the odds do not look good.

    Second, you appear to have read and believed something published by the Zonpower group of charlatans. If you have any independent thought left, read again, but with a skeptical eye this time. The leader of that organization has none of the advanced degrees he claims, can't actually assemble a logical argument to substantiate his highly astonishing assertions, and near as I can tell without meeting him, is a raving lunatic who lost his lease on reality many years before. I had a run-in with several zon-people on alt.philosophy.objectivism a few years back (I'm not an Objectivist, but our philosophies are similar enough that I enjoy a good debate with the Rand crowd). However, I eventually came ro realize that I was in a mental battle with unarmed opponents and the argument lost much of its appeal. *sigh*

    The neo-tech writings on neocheating are so hysterically badly written, I'm not even certain the author has a high school diploma. The neo-tech web page is just too funny for words (though I'll bet that you don't find it funny right now, you will later). The thing I like best is the constant barrage of "neo-tech is not mysticism" immediately followed by multiple mystical claims. After some saturation level, I can guess that the weak minded would lose any ability to actually differentiate mysticism (neo-tech) from not (reality)... Looks like this is where you are right now.

    Good luck to you, sir.

    Regards,
    Ross

    1. Re:OT: You, sir, are a fruitball. by 3seas · · Score: 1

      I never claimed to have written a story...

      Considering your reading comprehension skills...

      you look like just another smith to me...

    2. Re:OT: You, sir, are a fruitball. by rossifer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ah, you're right. You just wrote "stuff" that the Wachowski brothers copied. Sophia wrote the never-published (but definitely stolen) story, possibly available on the internet, while you just wrote stuff on the internet which was stolen.

      How silly of me to get those confused. :)

      Regards,
      Ross

  192. Rhetoric not marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is rhetoric, not marketing

    Rhetoric has a much older history than you marketroids, and the people working for gates are top notch. Ever notice how the best people in certain fields "break the paradigm" that's what gates ' people are doing here - they are breaking your stupid marketing "rule". There are no rules, just what works.

    It works as a spectacle, it works because it confuses the relations, it works because it is funny (even I softened my hatred for them through viewing it, because it means gates has some form of soul). In short, it just works. It is a system of signs and codes that have an effect in different ways on different people you can't have a "rule" about how it will effect everyone, that's just BS.

    If we all people followed their marketing 201 to the letter then we'd have shitful boring adverts on TV that use volume increases and swirling images to draw out attention all the time.... hang on.... we already do.

    Wake up and smell the rotten cheese of your discipline marketroid.

    Sorry if there is a bit of hate here, this isn't a troll, I just got pissed of at the "5 interesting" more like a 2 or a 3. You have a point, but it is far from all encompassing or unassailable.

    Marketing as a discipline is very far from psychoanalysis and cultural studies or classical rhetoric and when viewed from this perspective it just looks like a stinking pile of excrement that symbolises (to me anyway) all the cheap value judgements that cause modern societies to fracture.

    You aren't going to find a wonder-skin-cream that will repair those fractures in society on late-night TV either, it takes hard work to make a society good. Comments like yours just condone being average and boring and the type of marketroid philosophies that have got us to such a state in the first place.

  193. They certainly did. by Gleng · · Score: 1

    I think it would've been more fitting if MS had spoofed "Smokey and the Bandit" instead. Ballmer and Gates could have played Big and Little Enos Burdette respectively, making underhanded deals and paying people off.

    It could star Darl McBride and Chris Sontag as Sheriff Buford T. Justice and Junior respectively, haphazardly chasing after Linus playing the Bandit, and Samuel J. Palmisano (CEO of IBM) playing the Snowman.

    --
    "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  194. But, Who R U? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, are you talking enteprise? Thats the only way your standards make sence. If the new versions are better and viable alternatives exist,then it is not Microsoft's fault, but yours for staying on an admittedly poor platform. You have to keep up with MS' latest or use soemthign different altogether. Its the only way to keep your sanity and productivity.

  195. Re:Pot. Kettle. Zealot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The site's "shell server" was compromised May 22 after a SourceForge employee logged on to an outside Internet service provider that had already been taken over by the intruder, said Pat McGovern, site director of SourceForge.net. When the staff member logged on to SourceForge remotely, the intruder captured the password.

    Well some of that is true, I mean I did trojan ssh but I did it about 5 months ago, so kudos to the admin you sir are awesome..

    "What happened was the (ISP) was compromised and had not known it," McGovern said, adding that the site's administrator quickly noticed the intruder and shut systems down. "Basically we had to go through and rebuild the machine, and then we checked the log file of everyone who used the machine."

    hrm I guess that could also be considered true, if by true you mean, finding out every box on your network is owned 5 months after the fact and only due to my own boredom that consisted of me ircing it infront of the admin, by the way good job of auditing your network, wait thats just too much sarcasm for one sentence..

    After the attack, VA removed the shell service until workers could reinstall the software and data on the server. The shell server allowed SourceForge members to type commands into the system remotely. On Thursday, the company posted an alert that the shell server couldn't be used because of an "unscheduled maintenance event."

    It also allowed me to sniff my way onto apache.org and sourceforge webserver and leave all sorts of goodies in the code..

    In this case, they only got into a shell server," McGovern said.

    Hey, theres no disputing that, I mean.. wait.. Whats this I'm defacing ?

    The company also decided to shut down its "compile farm," a collection of computers running different operating systems on which SourceForge developers can test their software.

    Why would they shut down other boxes, if only the shell server was hacked ?

    Although illicit modifications to the programming projects are a concern, McGovern said the intruder didn't get that far.
    oh come now, you're just being silly..

    Its ok thought I dont blame you guys, I mean atleast you admited to being schooled, thats more then I can say for akamai, but thats a different story all together.. But never the less, I'd like to thank valinux.. apache.. akamai and ofcourse exodus without their poor security and refusal to make security breaches known to the public I wouldnt be sitting atop a mountain of roots and oodles of proprietary software.. This is the fluffy bunny signing of.. beep..

    -fluffy@#blackpanthers on efnet (the scourge of efnet)

  196. A copy of a copy of a copy by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

    This is so tired! Only about a trillion companies in the last fifty years have had their CEOs get together and try and look cool by copying various movies, TV shows and celebrities. They end up looking like idiots but everyone has to clap along, and try not to groan too loudly. Of course, with Gates and Ballmer, there's pretty much no way they could do anything without looking like complete dorks anyway...

    It's also pretty stupid to do anything with the Matrix - it's been spoofed, parodied and sent up into oblivion anyway, in everything from Shrek, Scary Movie and Kung Pow to endless crappy TV skits and sitcoms, to the guys who trot their crappy Morpheus costume out every Halloween, to the legions of black clad goth dudes and dudettes who dress like that all the time anyway. Put down the whip, leave the horse alone. It's dead. It's been dead for bloody years!

    The crazy thing is that every time this stunt is pulled, the CEOs think they are being stunningly, paradigm-shattering creative. You're not funny. You're not cool. You look stupid. We would rather hammer nails into our genitals than sit through your clip again. Please, just give a neat little speech and go back to the gold course.

    1. Re:A copy of a copy of a copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Linus and RMS did this? You would probablly think it wouldve been the coolest thing since making Linux difficult

  197. mod parent up by Frymaster · · Score: 1
    Now it is "+5 funny". I have no problem with it being "funny". I do have a problem with it being considered "informative",

    the punch line is, obviously, the "bob" reference - and i freely admit that i know jack about win2k. i was informed by a "windows guy" (the sort who wears the ms golf shirt... you know them) that the afformentioned os was "built on vms". as for the "who boosted the gui from who argument" all i can say in defense was that apple got a two hour tour of xerox par, gave xerox a sweet stock deal in return and never made any secret of it's intentions that it was considering building a gui-driven os. ms got several prototype macs with strict nda's so they could build user apps and appeared with windows shortly thereafter.

    if there is one company in the history of computing that has been truly innovative it hast to be... at&t. but if there are two, the other one is apple.

    moderator note: this post is painfully offtopic.

  198. The Meatrix by gavri · · Score: 1

    Funny how Ballmer looks a lot like Neo of The Meatrix

  199. OT arrogance.Re:OT: You, sir, are a fruitball. by 3seas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Care to try again? Maybe you need some glasses?

    Longhorn was in the spoof for no reason

    I'm all for open source, only Gates is at the laffing at me stage which puts him ahead of GNU/Linux, which is ignoring me....Not totally cause there is some attention...maybe enough to know I tried to tell....

    There is a difference between being arrogant and just plain lying. MS lies....where does that leave GNU/Linux

  200. The Matux has you by mec · · Score: 1

    The Matux Has You

    Actually, that's more like a "Morpheux" than a "Matux". Whatever. Click and giggle.

    1. Re:The Matux has you by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      That's actually what I was looking for. Googling "tux morpheus" didn't turn up anything...

  201. There's some irony... by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    that Microsoft is spoofing a 5 year old movie. Hey, they spoof a 5-year-old GUI, why not a movie?

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  202. Clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just ... really don't have a clue .... do they.

  203. Microsoft rips off another idea by Baddsectorr · · Score: 0

    what a bunch of fucking idiots.

    --
    http://www.geocities.com/baddsectorr
  204. It's funny. Laugh, for crissakes by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1

    Why don't you just say, 'Hah hah, good one, Bill.' It was funny as hell seeing Gates and Ballmer play Morpheus and Neo. I even daresay it was cool, and the jab at Linux is certainly not worse than all the friggin' "MS Matrix" parodies out there.

    Gates has just been funny poking fun at Linux, admit it, dammit.

    What you guys are showing is an inability to laugh at yourself.

    1. Re:It's funny. Laugh, for crissakes by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'd love to actually *see* it first and not some blurry stills, before I decide it is funny. However, it seems, we are not worthy.

      --
      What were the skies like when you were young?
    2. Re:It's funny. Laugh, for crissakes by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1

      I certainly don't see anybody holding back their criticism for lack of seeing it...

  205. Re:Gates is making fun of ME!!! We know that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From my POV, looking at what posts are getting high scores, it is the linux community making fun of Microsoft.

    Looks like Microsoft is learning to turn the tables on Linux, while the parent post is being modded down to be under most readers radar.

    Interesting. Keep up the good work Linux...

  206. You were lucky! by MartinB · · Score: 1

    When I were a lad, we 'ad to log out o't' system 20 minutes before we logged in, work in a plutonium encased room, 500 metres down a mineshaft in a vacuum week in, week out, remove all t'data we were trying to print and then when we come 'ome, our sysadmin would *clickety* our pr0n collection, fill our 'ouse wi' halon and 'ave t' RIAA visit us at 2am.

    And you tell that t' kids o' today, and they won't believe you.

    --

    The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

    1. Re:You were lucky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luxury

  207. Re:Pot. Kettle. Zealot. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep. The origional Fluffy Bunny rant. You can still find mirrors of the origional defaced page (complete with cute graphics and the above rant). The rant itself shows up in Slashdot archives and Google Groups often enough.

  208. Oh my... by Oestergaard · · Score: 1

    It is just me, or does Bill G in leather jacket look vaguely like someone from the history books?

    The picture: is here

    If only he had a small mustache and wore jackboots ;)

    Hell, I bet he *is* wearing jackboots.

  209. Moo? by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 1

    The number of bovines that had to die for that production (both in the hides that Gates and Balmer wore as well as the uncountable Longhorn burgers) is hard to fathom.

    At least they didn't have Steve Balmer playing Trinity.

  210. I can picture now... by breon.halling · · Score: 1

    "Morpheus! Morpheus! Morpheus! Morpheus! Morpheus!"

    Note: For those who don't get the above attempt at humour, peep this: http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  211. Not quite Apple's superbowl ad by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    This is the dumbest parody I've seen. Gee, I'm an uberhacker like Neo, cus I know VB.NET. Actually I'm ashamed I know VB. Is this the worse casting since Gigli? Can I give Bill Gates a -1 Troll/Flamebait? Maybe next year Gates and Balmer can play the crew of the USS Enterprise while Linus is the Borg. I'd love to see a counter parody starring some of the open source crowd.

    Incidently, I think we all know Bill Gates is some combination of Agent Smith, Kaiser Zozeg, and Darth Vader.

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  212. Third in a series? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the company that brought you 'Dance Monkey Boy Revolution' and 'Pie in the Face Gates' comes a new story about an evil empire's battle with something FREE. Watch as Billgatseo and Morphbalmermonkeus take on Linux the only way they know how: by continuing to produce inferior, bug ridden software and making fun of Open Source Software. The Blowchowski brothers direct this action packed film, which features groundbreaking special effects such as the amazing "Virus Time". The New York Times raved that the Monopolatrix is "brilliant...the love scenes between Gates and Ballmer are so hot, you'll wet your pants." Ebert claims he has "never seen a movie so touching...I can see that the struggle against this Lunix thing is a real one...I had tears in my eyes." The Monopolatrix will open in theaters nationwide Thanksgiving Day. Those hoping to view the movie can purchase Licenses online for $399 per seat, and 6.0 licensing options are also available.

  213. Domopers! by lysander · · Score: 1
    What is the background of this "walking around stage shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!..."?
    Once you know why, be sure to check out the Domopers. I know this link works, but some of the US ones don't.

    Developers Developers Developers Developers
    Developers Developers Developers Developers
    I've got one word for you!
    Developers Developers Developers Developers

    --
    GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
  214. IT'S SAFE TO IGNORE THE PARENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlikely meaning you have no fucking clue at all because you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop wasting our time asshole.

  215. Betas and RC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Betas and RC. Why would anyone care to crack betas and RC which are run by like 1000 people in non-critical systems.

    1. Re:Betas and RC. by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      Probably because the betas and RC of Microsoft operating systems are distributed to more than 500'000 people.

      Also, maybe because NASDAQ and Microsoft.com were some of the websites running RC versions of WS03 before it went RTM.

  216. I'm sorry for saying this, but... by jschmerge · · Score: 1

    Fuck Them

  217. ISA!? WTF!? by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    Why would they name it ISA? Everyone knows ISA was obsoleted by PCI. ISA is slow.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  218. The End of the Human Race by LuYu · · Score: 1

    Scenario One: Blue Screen of Apocalypse

    Scene one:

    Neo is contacted, discovers "the truth", and wakes up in the real world.
    Scene two:
    Neo trains on a Linux (in the "real world" MS products do not exist or are too expensive) box with Morpheus and visits the Oracle.
    Scene three:
    Neo gets shot by Agent Smith but does not die. The resulting glitch causes an unrecoverable error and crashing MSMatrix killing every member of the human race and bringing down all of the machines, as well. The war is over. Both sides have lost everything.

    Scenario Two: Plague of Totality

    A virus goes rampant trying to insert spam directly into individuals brains. MSMatrix helps the virus by prohibiting the machines from patching exploits until MS gets around to it (the machines, of course, do not have access to the source code of MSMatrix). No patch is issued because every human being's connection to MSMatrix is severed before anything can be done. All humans and machines die.

    "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  219. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bill, your not the one."

    "But with our new trusted computing initiative, we're sure to defeat Zion."

    "Cut it out, Bill. You're killing our sales with your trust obsession."

    "Yea, Steve? At least I don't see penguins everywhere."

  220. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Missster Gates. We've been studying you for some time."

    "I know my rights! I wanna see a lawyer! Oh, fuck! I knew that it was a bad idea to drop out of Harvard Law!"

    "It seems that you have many aliases, including BillyBoyGates, BillBorg and TheNerdKing. However, this latest infringement is unacceptable."

    "No! Stallman! Don't do it!"

    "We'd like you to call your software GNU/Windows."

    [Freaky invasive scene followed by Gates sitting upright in bed.]

  221. The Microsoft Rebels? by phiwum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't get it.

    Microsoft represents the ragtag rebel alliance trying to save the majority sheeples from the all-powerful IBM-Linux Matrix?

    Never mind remedial security courses for Microsoft programmers. Their ad-men need remedial courses in film interpretation and allegory.

    Or someone needs to take their copies of 1984 away. I'm pretty sure that an ad campaign on freeing people from the Linux monopoly is a bit too unsubtle for, well, for anyone.

    Aside: I'm still ambivalent about the Matrix. You would be too, if you had taught introductory philosophy courses at Carnegie Mellon. Three-quarters of the geeks in my course had signed up for philosophy because they thought it was just like the Matrix.

    I don't mind if I never hear another Descartes/Wachowski comparison again. Especially if I never hear that Descartes would be better with more explosions and slo-mo bullets.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    1. Re:The Microsoft Rebels? by BWJones · · Score: 1

      . Their ad-men need remedial courses in film interpretation and allegory.

      It is fairly typical of large "uncool" corporations to come late to the pop culture game and attempt a capitalization of said culture to render a bit of cache to their products.

      Aside: I'm still ambivalent about the Matrix. You would be too, if you had taught introductory philosophy courses at Carnegie Mellon. Three-quarters of the geeks in my course had signed up for philosophy because they thought it was just like the Matrix.

      It could also simply be that The Matrix is tired. When it initially entered the scene, the Wachowski Bros. genuinely came up with some innovative film making, decent set design and mood and some clever dialogue. Matrix II and III simply rehashed those themes only with "more and bigger".

      I don't mind if I never hear another Descartes/Wachowski comparison again.

      What do you expect from an undergraduate philosophy course?

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:The Microsoft Rebels? by phiwum · · Score: 1

      It is fairly typical of large "uncool" corporations to come late to the pop culture game and attempt a capitalization of said culture to render a bit of cache to their products.

      I agree (warning: lame spelling flame: "cachet").

      Aside: I'm still ambivalent about the Matrix.

      It could also simply be that The Matrix is tired. When it initially entered the scene, the Wachowski Bros. genuinely came up with some innovative film making, decent set design and mood and some clever dialogue. Matrix II and III simply rehashed those themes only with "more and bigger".

      Actually, I didn't bother seeing any Matrix movie until this summer, when I bought the first two on DVD (thanks to cheap Chinese bootlegs). So my ambivalence has little to do with a cheapening product, although I agree that the second one is not nearly as fun as the first. (Of course, they are all guaranteed to do well with the geek crowds, since they portray geeks as heroes -- just like journalism movies get the best newspaper reviews.)

      What do you expect from an undergraduate philosophy course?

      At CMU? Ayn Rand. Sadly, I got that too.

      Don't get me wrong. In my experience, it is easier to deal with geeks in a philosophy course than with business students. But geeks come with their own, well, challenges. This includes their predisposition to believe that the best ideas are the most recent ideas, so why are we studying dead people?

      Also, although this probably doesn't even bear mentioning, given the forum, I am not denying that I'm a geek too.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    3. Re:The Microsoft Rebels? by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. In my experience, it is easier to deal with geeks in a philosophy course than with business students.

      Snort,....laugh. Yep. I've had a few business students in one of my intro to biology courses, and in a film class I taught. Not only did they have the most obnoxious personalities, they were demanding and lazy.

      But geeks come with their own, well, challenges. This includes their predisposition to believe that the best ideas are the most recent ideas, so why are we studying dead people?

      Hmmmm. Part of the not invented here mentality? Yes, the concept of history is often lost on this crowd, so unless one is teaching history in the context of technology, many are not interested.

      Also, although this probably doesn't even bear mentioning, given the forum, I am not denying that I'm a geek too.

      Oh, most decidedly. My wife tells me she "has married a geek" when she walks into the study and sees me behind an array of three displays. She secretly likes the concept, but it's also quite funny that at the last holiday party, one of the computer science professors here was talking to me and commenting after surveying the scene....."How did a bunch of geeks like us get hooked up with all these beautiful women?"

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  222. MOD UP GRANDPARENT! W00T! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't blame Windows for an ATI driver getting stuck in an infinite loop.

    Like the grandparent said, if your Linux video driver got stuck in a loop you'd be hosed. At least Windows detects it and recovers gracefully.

    The Linux driver model is so old that it's not funny. Linux is 1960s design blended with today's half-baked code written by script kiddies.

  223. Re:If only your ideology had some basis in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, the RPM didn't work. Why? Redhat said it needed other packages which I didn't have, and it didn't feel like gathering. I thought that was insignificant, as it wasn't part of the instructions Mozilla recommended. Randomly, I did try that in the Gnome enviroment, but nautilus was giving me an aneurism so when I found out how to switch over to KDE I did. (I'll probably go back and try gnome again, once I think I've got the hang of KDE, and have it all gussied up.)

    I know about mozilla's install happieness. It installed walnut 1.5 (which I suspect is supposed to appear as walnut/15 in the pref.js file but there are other better themes). It said everything is fine. I apply the theme, it says it's a go on restart. Fine. Close, restart, and does it open? Nope. Does it provide any error message in a dialogue or try again with the default theme, all reasonable behaviors? Nope. It does seem to spam a couple different logs with error messages though. Mozilla's lack of recovery certainly is a defficency owned by mozilla, but the lack of a dialogue? I think that can safely be put to, at least partly, to linux and the graphical enviroments as well as mozilla.

    After I wrote it, I did finally find KFind, which *looks* like it might theoretically work. But ever the pepsi challange type I started it on finding every directory containg the text mozilla. As of yet still no results. Obviously this is taking some time. In fact it was taking so long I rebooted the advance server (P3 850 with a mess of ram and a scsi raid array) and sent it a similar request. Find all files AND folders containing "winnt" Not only did it find results, it finished, and I'm a little surprised by this, first. Kfind, on the other hand, is finished as I write *this* sentance, and found 0 results. I, myself, can find no less than 5 directories containing that text off the top of my head. I have a sneaky suspicious that some of Kfind's failure is due to it using that horrid find command in some fashiion, freaking permissions (using run-as to find a file? Fine, Since I just found out how to do that in linux. Again, doesn't seem to be as easy as holding a key and launching an application....I've tried to find run as and run as root in the help)

    Oh my God. Ok, I found one, shockingly ass-backwards, way to do it. Man it takes me back to norton commander. Ok, if I run konsole as a 'super user' I can use midnight commander (HAHAHA) to find a file ala emacs style commands, and it's even reasonably fast, if a little overly verbose. Wow, that's about as modern as alchemy, better than a fint hand ax, so perhaps I should be happy to have this much. Now I'm all nostalgic, maybe I'll go play Bandit Kings of Ancient China in sparkeling EGA graphics again.

    As for the kernal panics, those, and I obviously don't know exactly how, seemed to be associate with the packages I installed. I pared it down to something well short of including a kitchen sink, and aside from the considerable slowness of gnome (KDE is so much prettier anyway) it's been moderately well behaved. Perhaps one of the updates I got via redhat's update fixed the problem as well, particularly since one of those was a new kernal. Appearently the closest I'm going to get to "run-as" as windows does it, is alt-F2, and then dragging the icon from the menu into the dialogue, which isn't horrible, but not what it could be either. Especially, considering how much Linux seems to depend on running stuff in that fashion. Finding files in Konqueror in that fasion isn't the trip to the oral surgeon it was,

    While windows might benefit from the occasional massaging. It doesn't demand it to anywhere approximating the degree graphical linux seems to. Sure I've done my share of registry editing, uninstalling miss-auto-installed HP usb and multi-fucntion drivers, malware acquired by people who went where they probably shouldn't have. (Certainly, the ease with which the malware is installed is a great reason to bash microsoft.) And when it does demand mass

  224. It's funny, laugh ! by DarkDust · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people here seem to hate that spoof, and it seems just because it's MicroSoft making fun out of Linux.

    I really hate MicroSoft, and I really love Linux. But I have to admit that this spoof has style. I mean, it's normal for MicroSoft to bash Linux, but this time they're doing it with style, and I find it very funny.

    It's not good to take everything serious, and while I really hate MS, billg and Monkeyboy this spoof really is funny, IMHO. It's childish to say it's bad just because it's MS bashing Linux. If it were Linus and Alan Cox doing that very same video, bashing MicroSoft, everyone would praise it as the best piece of humor in IT ever...

    1. Re:It's funny, laugh ! by Onnimikki · · Score: 1

      Yup. Gotta admit that it's cute. My favourite spoof so far has got to be the Meatrix, though.

    2. Re:It's funny, laugh ! by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      Most people here seem to hate that spoof, and it seems just because it's MicroSoft making fun out of Linux.

      No, most people hate it because of the dark irony involved in Microsoft making a video about freeing humanity from a computer matrix that imprisons them. The fact that they make Linux a target is just icing on the cake.

      Truly, the execs at Microsoft are clueless about what they are and how they are percieved.

  225. Re:Gates and Ballmer? Which one was Neo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Missster Gates. We've been studying you for some time."

    "I know my rights! I wanna see a lawyer! Oh, fuck! I knew that it was a bad idea to drop out of Harvard Law!"

    "It seems that you have many aliases, including BillyBoyGates, BillBorg and TheNerdKing. However, this latest infringement is unacceptable."

    "No! Stallman! Don't do it!"

    "We'd like you to call your software GNU/Windows."

  226. Matrix by Absolut+Fizznix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Continuing on the Matrix theme, how about "Everything that has a begining, has an end." Sounds good for the new microsoft slogan.

  227. Cockblock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess you are spread wide open and ready for cock?

  228. Re:MOD UP GRANDPARENT! W00T! by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

    WTF are you smokeing. THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY IN LINUX. there is no problem with linuc, linux worked, its WINDOWS that had the driver error and BSOD.

    And a BSOD is not "recovering gracefully". recovering gracefully would be unloading the current display drivers and loading default ones that are going to work 100% (or at least 99%) of the time. Thats how it should work, and i belive under linux such a thing would happen but i'm not 100% sure.

    Get a clue dude.

  229. So totally out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're so totally out of it. Who wants to look at a larger than life Ballmer anyway? He already is larger than life! And neither of them are known for being nice guys. They're assholes. Trying to win sympathy with this shit? They could have spoofed the third movie, not this old monster. They could have done so many things.

    Rich they might be - until someone comes after them - but with it, they are not. Totally. For sure.

  230. [Spoiller] will the end same ? by GundamFreedom · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is spoiler ...
    don't read if you havent see Matrix Revolution !!!!

    Will the end of Gates 'Neo' will be the same as Neo in matrix revolutions ? Will he surrender and asking peace treatment to Linux ? and will Gates 'die' in peace like Neo in Matrix ?

    If like that, then Linux rock ... :)

    --
    ./me --G--
  231. Not the only one... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 1
  232. If operating systems were "Matrix" films ... by Scot+W.+Stevenson · · Score: 1
    [SPOILERS]

    Remember if operating systems were airlines"? How about a new list: "If operating systems were Matrix films":

    MS Windows. Everybody's clothes are bright blue and yellow because the rebellion's marketing department decided that black leather was just not the family image they are trying to project. Trinity never falls in love with Neo [Gates] because of his glasses and haircut and leaves in disgust after the first film -- but Neo doesn't notice or care. The rebels win when they do this really vicious embrace-and-extend trick and take over the agents. In the end, nobody can tell the difference between the Old Matrix and Matrix XP, except that the world goes blue for a few minutes once a day and everything suddenly seems terribly expensive.

    OS X. Everybody wears perfectly designed flower power clothes and smiles in a warm, friendly way. The only exception is Trinity, who wanders around talking about her homework and seems, well, stoned. Neo [Jobs] and the crew jack out a small but unbelievably well trained elite that kicks everybody's ass. Still, they never manage to make significant inroads and when the rebellion almost dies due to lack of interest, the machines actually have to help them out. In the end, everybody just goes to the Merovingian's really cool parties, forgets the war and has great sex for the whole third film.

    Linux. Everybody wears black leather, all obviously hand made by people with widely different tastes. Neo [Linus] never really seems to give a damn about the war, but all around him, agents tend to explode and people jack out in droves just the same. His lines are actually funny. Trinity really is the best hand-to-hand fighter, but you never get to see her in action, so teenagers show little interest in the series until the third film. There is no final battle because at some point the machine empire just falls apart, as there is nobody left to supply them with power.

    FreeBSD. Everybody has really cool black leather trimmed with red. The rebels are a very small, tight-knit group who are invulnerable, but nobody can agree who Neo is and Trinity never shows up, either. Every time somebody wins a fight against the machines, a different rebel gives them the spoils back and adds some of the rebel's own technology as a free gift. In the end, the rebels hold their own with ease, but the machines' power keeps growing unchecked. The last scene is an agent saying: "The rebels? I thought they were dead."

    OS/360. The rebels wear the same suits as the machines, just cleaner, and call each other by their last names. Nobody can tell who Neo is, though Trinity is probably the one in the skirt. They don't sleep, ever, they don't smile, ever, and they don't so much fight as just silently march over their enemies. Each rebel can do really weird stuff like make virtual copies of any other character that fight for him, and the machines are finally defeated by the endless resources the rebels throw at them. Unfortunately, nobody really understands what happened because the rebel's terminology is so strange, and the film bombs.

  233. Matrix spoof as video file? by DaVinciXL · · Score: 1

    Maybe I just overread it (well, I didn't even read all the comments here since there are simply too much) but is that matrix spoof downloadable as a video file somewhere? I never liked Microsoft very much (though I must say that I admire Billy-boy for what he achieved) but, hey, this thing seems to be pretty cool! :) Remember the dancing and shouting Steve Ballmer? Well, anyways, would be nice if you could send me the link (if there's any) by eMail (sschack@ki.tng.de) 'cause I don't know if I'll manage to check back here during the next couple of days... thanks in advance.

    1. Re:Matrix spoof as video file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm searching for it too. Anybody knows where to find it? You can mail me at al_savione@hotmail.com Help me please!!

  234. Missing scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just found the missing scene!!!

  235. I don't know... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...call yourselves a bunch of geeks? It's been hours since the story broke on the front page of /. and still we don't have a torrent link to the movie of the Microsoft matrix spoof? You should all hang your heads in shame. :oP

    --
    I am NaN
  236. What are you breathing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think that's -Developers! Developers! Developers!- you're breathing?

  237. So where is the live video? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    You mean it hasn't leaked?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:So where is the live video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, where is it?

  238. pathetic by pguerra1 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing more pathetic than seeing middle aged men trying to look cool! In the pictures, you can almost see them fidgeting to get out of those clothes and back into suits.

    --

    "And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."
  239. Microsoft Matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're going to need a hell of a lot of red pills to combat all the infections.

  240. Ghandicon 2 by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    It's official, we are at Ghandicon 2.

    • First they ignore you
    • Then they laugh at you Then they fight you
    • ...
    • Profit!!!, er then you win.
    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  241. Proof that NT is essentially VMS by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
    what would you have me do? Post the entire source of NT and VMS and then some sort of algorithm (vetted by you?) that proves that the code is different?

    What you could do is e.g. post a URL that discusses the VMS vs NT differences, rather than continuing to make flat assertions based on your (anonymous) authority...That's what m_pll did (thanks m_pll!), and isn't this interesting, the Win NT magazine article highlights the zillion ways that NT is based on VMS. Some highlights:

    - "[the VMS] kernel and Executive subsystems are clear predecessors to NT's"
    - "In developing NT, these designers rewrote VMS in C, cleaning up, tuning, tweaking, and adding some new functionality and capabilities as they went...
    Nevertheless, the migration of VMS internals to NT was so thorough that within a few weeks of NT's release, Digital engineers noticed the striking similarities."
    - "Those similarities could fill a book. In fact, you can read sections of VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures (Digital Press) as an accurate description of NT internals simply by translating VMS terms to NT terms."
    - "NT's processes are virtually the same as VMS's processes."
    - "Microsoft added lightweight user-mode threads support to NT 4.0 in 1996, which it copied from the VMS implementation of threads."
    - "NT's I/O Manager is closely based on VMS's I/O Manager. Both OS's I/O Manager support a layered-driver model throughout the device driver stacks for different device types and implements asynchronous packet-based I/O commands, and its device drivers dynamically load and unload."
    - "As you can see by comparing Figure 2 and Figure 3, page 117, the Executive subsystems exhibit the most significant resemblance between VMS and NT. But many minor similarities exist in which it is clear that Microsoft derived NT's capabilities from VMS."
    - "...Therefore, VMS's security implementation is the predecessor to NT's. Microsoft even included systems tools similar to VMS's in NT, including the Performance Monitor, which is based on MONITOR, the extensible VMS performance monitor. VMS included a utility called BACKUP long before Microsoft developed NT's backup utility."
    - "...Rather than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft. In the summer of 1995, Digital announced Affinity for OpenVMS, a program that required Microsoft to help train Digital NT technicians, help promote NT and Open-VMS as two pieces of a three-tiered client/server networking solution, and promise to maintain NT support for the Alpha processor. Microsoft also paid Digital between 65 million and 100 million dollars."

    So, before I was just asking, not making an assertion. But NOW I will make the assertion: NT is clearly derived from VMS, based on the above facts.

    And for this I get slammed by a bunch of anonymous cowards and anonymous supposed NT developers? Give me a break.

    All I did before was ask for facts rather than assertions. What I got were some angry but empty words. Rather telling.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  242. Spoof? Hardly. by gosand · · Score: 1
    I think a counter-spoof against Microsoft would be quite in order. The MS-SCO connection, aliens trying to undermine society and technology by force-feeding the world substandard software with draconian EULAs.

    And how exactly would this be a spoof?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  243. Smokey and the Bandit? by miller701 · · Score: 1

    Who would be the Sally Field character?

    1. Re:Smokey and the Bandit? by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Uhhmm...How about Alan Cox in a dress? :)

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  244. Because Slashdot moderation doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a tyranny of the majority. Like it or not, Slashdot has a strong pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft (and when the conversation drifts to politics, liberal) bias. Frequently, minority posters get moderated down as "Troll" or "Offtopic" simply because they hold an opposing opinion and the Slashdot Majority want them silenced. Likewise, MS-bashing posts are "Insightful" or "Interesting". Not always, but often enough to be very noticeable. The Slashdot point system primarily rewards popular opinions rather than insight, and the minority posters have seen this repeatly. Hence anonymous posts. It's too bad, because I'm sure some thoughtful pro-Microsoft contributors have been turned off from continuously reading MS-bashing, and have simply walked away or don't read and contribute very often. I know I don't bother anymore. Anonymously yours, A minority poster

    1. Re:Because Slashdot moderation doesn't work by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Given that there are more Microsoft users and system administrators than there are Unix (*nix) users and system administrators - your point is moot.

      Given a standard distribution, the pro Microsoft postings should be the 'tyranny of the majority'.

      The fact of the matter is, as hard as you find it to swallow, even Microsoft adherents find supporting all 'pro Microsoft' viewpoints all of the time distasteful, or at least indefensible.

      It doesn't matter how loud I yell - I am only one Unix guy - compared to your several hundred Microsofties. Why don't you get your superior voting block together and mod us down consistently? I will tell you why: because the majority of people see the truth, and mod accordingly outside of any blind loyalty they may have - again, refuting your argument to the contrary.

      There is no reason to post anonymously in 'pro Microsoft' posts - unless you are embarassed by what you are saying.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Because Slashdot moderation doesn't work by spruce · · Score: 1

      Dude you're just not in tune with reality if you don't realize there's an anti-MS mentatlity on this board. Try it for youself if you don't believe me - post something pro-MS, then post something pro-Linux, and watch the mods feed.

      It's just the way it is. (Probably like if you went to MSDN chat boards and flamed MS, you'd probably be moderated. Makes sense, eh?)

  245. Re:My god, who would want to eat that massive pill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it a Grape-Flavored Suppository and you would sum up their presentation on Longhorn! Talk about tasting great until the reality sets in.

  246. makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the heck is the agent using Linux? If anything Microsoft represents the "system." I guess the guys over in their marketing dept. weren't smart enough to decipher the message of the movie....

  247. Onion Cake by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    Thanks. Now I have an urge to eat onion cake.

    There really is such a thing as onion cake. It sounds terrible, but is really quite good.

  248. More about Linux and MINIX by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Specifically, the problem Linus and others had with MINIX was that it didn't support protected memory, virtual memory and pre-emptive multi-tasking. That was a deliberate decision, because MINIX ran on a lot of hardware that simply wasn't capable of protected virtual memory and pre-emptible processes--for example, my 68000-based Atari ST.

    That's why some people claim MINIX wasn't a "real UNIX", and it's a stupid claim. There were plenty of real UNIXes back in the day that didn't have protected virtual memory. There was even one hardware platform I forget that used two 68000s in parallel so that they could get around the fact that page faults caused loss of state.

    It's also amusing that Linus was also scathing about MINIX's microkernel based design--and now we see more and more stuff leaving the once-monolithic Linux kernel and moving into loadable modules.

    I've got to admit that there's really nothing terribly innovative about Linux, in a technical sense. It's the licensing that's the worthy innovation.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  249. It is the sound of inevitability... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    "PUNT TO LONGHORN!!"

  250. eff you and your effing grandparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Linux, xfree would probably crash leaving you at the command line, or you could ctrl-alt-backspace and stop x intentially. You start x up again, and there you are: not totally hosed. Of course that point is academic, because I have never had Linux lock up that way.

    You can't blame Windows for an ATI driver getting stuck in an infinite loop.

    But you can blame Linux apparantly for an imaginary "driver error".