Slashdot Mirror


Gates on Spyware and OS Competition

Ant writes "CNET's News.com has an article that says Microsoft plans to offer its own anti-spyware software." prostoalex writes "Both OsNews and InfoWorld talk about Bill Gates' speech at the Computer History Museum in California. Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."

690 comments

  1. 800lb Gorilla by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would make sense for Microsoft to make an anti-spyware product, after all, they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware. I would also think that given the sheer amount of brainpower that they could apply to the task that they would put forth a good product. But, they have not been known as innovaters in the application world (I know, some would say in the OS world as well). Anyway, I wonder how the other folks who make and sell (or give away) anti-spyware software will react to the 800lb gorilla's entrance into their domain?

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:800lb Gorilla by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MS Engineer 1: "Hmm, here's a security vulnerability."

      MS PHB: "Well, let's get to work on patching it."

      MS Engineer 2: "Wait, couldn't we not patch it and instead sell the patch together with others as a piece of software with an annual update fee?"

      MS PHB: "Congratulations, you just got promoted."

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:800lb Gorilla by Osrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will be the same response that Microsoft always seen to get when they introduce something like this... lots of people complaining that they're not doing it, then they build something and lots of people complain that they've made a change.

      "Microsoft need to do something about security" - Microsoft release XPSP2 - "Microsoft changed a bunch of securty settings and now my badly written app does not work anymore".

    3. Re:800lb Gorilla by MoThugz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would make sense for Microsoft to make an anti-spyware product, after all, they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware.


      If they are really are the ones who know the most about protecting Windows from spyware, then almost every Windows user is doomed.

      Heck, Mr Gates himself faces the very same spyware problem.
    4. Re:800lb Gorilla by Nos. · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Of course the product they do release uses twice as much memory as anything else, doesn't work as expected, introduces rand(1,20) new security holes, and includes 10x the features of competing products but only half the functionality.

    5. Re:800lb Gorilla by gregduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before I worked at Microsoft as an intern last summer (I'm a college student), I was under the same impression about the amount of brainpower they had.

      I worked specifically for MSN Ads, and everywhere I looked (I also talked to my friends in other departments) I found sloppy coding practices, FUD, and general CYA-motivated B.S.

      9/10 people I met didn't know what they were doing, but they were too good at political maneuvering for it to matter. The people that knew what they were doing were extremely cynical and didn't think things could change. Oh how I wish I could comment on specifics. Damn NDA.

      I was really hoping Microsoft would be a cool place to work, but I was severely disappointed. Behind closed doors, I couldn't find a SINGLE person who would actually recommend taking a job there.

      When they made me an offer to join after my senior year (this year), I turned it down. I just can't deal with companies that are too laden in management and politics to even attempt agility and quality of work. Maybe it's just the idealism of youth, and I'll learn my lesson the hard way some day.

      I'm sure there are specific people and groups in Microsoft that do a bang-up job, but I think they are much fewer in numbers than they were 20 years ago (before I was born).

      g

    6. Re:800lb Gorilla by Firehawke · · Score: 2, Informative

      'Badly written' might be taking it a bit far. As far as I understand it, SP2 totally removes or largely changes an API call that was commonly used in all sorts of applications, including a number of MS's own products-- it was an ACCEPTED PRACTICE.

      I think that's probably the biggest complaint about it outright.

    7. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how the other folks who make and sell (or give away) anti-spyware software will react to the 800lb gorilla's entrance into their domain?

      That's the least of their problems. The big problem is when the 800lb gorilla will patent anti-spyware software. How will the other simians react to that?

    8. Re:800lb Gorilla by SDPlaya · · Score: 1

      Which API was this? I'd never heard this before.

    9. Re:800lb Gorilla by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Hmm talking to a network? It can't do that anymore without some configuration. Unless you're on a 10.0.0.x network, in which case it shares your printer and discs by default.

      M$ makes great software.

      --
      My other car is first.
    10. Re:800lb Gorilla by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "MS Engineer 2: "Wait, couldn't we not patch it and instead sell the patch together with others as a piece of software with an annual update fee?""

      I've met quite a few software engineers, and none of them would suggest that. (Nor would a PHB promote them, they'd take credit for it instead.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:800lb Gorilla by Zemran · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eeerrrr, if they really wanted to do something about it why not change the way the write software so that it is not so easy for outsiders to hack into their products and dump unwanted code onto their clients machines? This would efectively cut down on virii as well as spyware, trojans etc... Why do they chose to leave so many doors open? I believe it is because they are more concerned with leaving the doors open for themselves than they are worried about the effect of the abuse of those doors. Why does a Windows users email need the power to format their hard disk etc?

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    12. Re:800lb Gorilla by has2k1 · · Score: 1

      Heck, Mr Gates faces the very same spyware problem Hehehe, Mr. Bill was human first, love for free stuff is in his blood. I can bet he got that spyware from download.com.

    13. Re:800lb Gorilla by 1Oman · · Score: 1

      im using sp2 right now and my ip is 192.168.1.20 from my sisco wireless ap and i havnt changed a damn thing.

    14. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Microsoft pays hundreds of thousands to provide updates on nice fast servers for my convenience, for free, whether I got the OS for free or not.. When the annual fee comes (assuming it does) I'll jump ship and find a distro I agree with; however, right now there's nothing half as easy to use as Windows.
      You should poke ur head out of that bunker sometime, amigo. Ur inbred thoughts would welcome a little refresher from the real world (ie, NOT IRC), methinks.

    15. Re:800lb Gorilla by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sisco? Is that a brand like Sorny, Panaphonics, and Magnetbox? I guess you're lucky it still works.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    16. Re:800lb Gorilla by jrockway · · Score: 1
      --
      My other car is first.
    17. Re:800lb Gorilla by mrjb · · Score: 1

      When viruses were the big hype, didn't MS release 'their own' antivirus at some point, which was basically the same as Norton Antivirus? Now that the market is requiring so, once again they say what people want to hear: they'll release a spyware protection suite. How long will it be before this antispyware goes the same way as their antivirus?

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    18. Re:800lb Gorilla by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I want to get modded up insightful for making up a story that either a.) never occured or b.) is based on actual events where only the character names, locations, and events have been changed.

    19. Re:800lb Gorilla by wayoutwest · · Score: 2, Informative

      erm, excuse me, but OSX panther is infinitely more easy to use than windows and without the headaches, virus and malware. And it comes free with the purchase of any new mac you desire.
      Also, it doesn't require activation, a real "big brother" feature I dislike about XP.

    20. Re:800lb Gorilla by killjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sounds like every other large corporation in the world.

      My advice as a veteran is to stick with smaller companies. Not only will you make a bigger impact but you'll also be appreciated. You definately wait till you are married and have kids before you get your soul sucked out by a large company. Of course by then you'll have lost the will to live anyway so it won't matter so much :)

      good luck.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    21. Re:800lb Gorilla by HaveBlue34 · · Score: 1

      Can't they just move windows update to a standalone executable and simply not allow IE to install ANYTHING? Sounds like an easy fix to me. But what the hell do I know.
      Seriously, what downsides would there be to this?

    22. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had almost this same thought today. IE in and of itself would be a lot more secure as standalone, don't run any install software. Maybe they could make internet explorer lite for casual browsing and leave the heavy weight for those corps that use IE locally for it's ability to be used as a platform for applications. Most at home people would do just fine without the ability to install updates via internet explorer. And again a standalone application dedicated to internet updates would function much better than going through internet explorer.

    23. Re:800lb Gorilla by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      so your answer is 'b' - only the characters, locations, and events have been changed.

    24. Re:800lb Gorilla by DeltaSigma · · Score: 2, Funny
      Heck, Mr Gates himself faces the very same spyware problem.
      Hell, I can fix that problem. Set up XPde on a Gnu/Linux box when he's not looking. He'll never know the difference!
    25. Re:800lb Gorilla by dlelash · · Score: 2, Funny

      You should close your tag, or it might get you into trouble out in the real world at some point.

    26. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but he's referring to MS software engineers!

      Even if you've never heard them say such things, by their actions it would seem that this is exactly how their conversations would go.

    27. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "quite a few" hardly constitutes a worth-while sample population. That's roughly equivalent to saying "ignoring all evidence to the contrary, the hypothesis holds valid." What the fuck was your point?

    28. Re:800lb Gorilla by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      "...they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware."

      The problem is not one of technical competence, it is one of interest. Microsoft has always been interested in making its products remote-controlware enabled. There is something tantalizing and exciting about controlling the machines of your customers. This is why, that even thought Microsoft is trailing Apache in Web Server installations by a factor of two, its Microsoft IIS is still responsible for the bulk of web server security breaches worldwide.

    29. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe you're talking about printf (didn't check for overflows)

    30. Re:800lb Gorilla by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Even if you've never heard them say such things, by their actions it would seem that this is exactly how their conversations would go."

      Yeah? Name a case where a software engineer suggested that MS sell a fix for a problem they've discovered. I'm genuinely curious, not setting you up for an argument.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    31. Re:800lb Gorilla by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "That's roughly equivalent to saying "ignoring all evidence to the contrary, the hypothesis holds valid."

      Really? What evidence?

      "What the fuck was your point?"

      Though you are right that I haven't met enough engineers in the world to say from first hand experience that few would ever do that, I did not present it that way. Judging from the moderations my comment would recieve, I'd say others have known software engineers to be quite ethical. If you think that's a bunch of hogwash, then how do you explain the Open Source Software out there? Hate to sound like I'm making a cheap karma grab here, but if that isn't a strong demonstration of the general ethical behaviour of software engineers, I don't know what else would convince you.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    32. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      People complained about the firewall not being enabled by default.

      So MS enabled it by default.

      Now people are complaining about it being enabled by default...

    33. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think MS-AntiSpy will notify you when Windows iteslf tries to phone home?

    34. Re:800lb Gorilla by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Pretty sad world we live in when nobody takes anybody at their word.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    35. Re:800lb Gorilla by GreenKiwi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heck, Mr Gates himself faces the very same spyware problem.

      Nahhh... He runs OS X and doesn't have to worry about it.

    36. Re:800lb Gorilla by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually people were complaining that the firewall was worthless and that it caused problems if enabled in exchange for absolutely no protection of any kind.

      It was enabled by default about 30% of the time already, it seemed to be a pretty random thing.

      Thanks to SP2 we have a worthless, buggy, problematic firewall which yields no benefit whatsoever, turned on all the time by default! yay.

    37. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      You were an intern at a peripheral MS division, probably having "making coffee and photocopying" as your primary job description and you think you can comment on their design methodology just because you designed a flash banner? Jesus Christ, I cannot wait for you to enter the real world and get slapped in the face...

      Oh, btw, I work at Administrative services at MS - I have access to your HR file. There was NEVER an offer made to you to stay with us, in fact the comments made about your performance in Microsoft question your ability to work under stress as well as your intelligence. You had only one positive comment in performance review. Pathetic just pathetic...

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons...

    38. Re:800lb Gorilla by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. I'm sure there are specific people and groups in Microsoft that do a bang-up job, but I think they are much fewer in numbers than they were 20 years ago (before I was born).

      Welcome to the world of big business! (And, well, quite a few medium businesses too.)

      Back stabbing is rampant. If it's been done one way, it is damn hard to change anyone's mind -- so I often take Grace Hooper's advice; It is always easier to apologize than to ask permission.

      That's the truth.

      Also, keep in mind that while the back stabbing does work...once you work enough, you'll remember who wasn't being a back stabber and who was. Recommend the good guys for jobs where you work and you will slowly squeeze out the back stabbers (unless the upper managers are the bad guys -- no hope there).

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    39. Re:800lb Gorilla by ForresterInc · · Score: 1

      it was an ACCEPTED PRACTICE

      It was (and still is) a BAD practice. Seriously. Follow the official (current) API.

      I understand where you're coming from, but still...

    40. Re:800lb Gorilla by godglike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Natural consequence of monopoly unfortunately and one of the reason they're so dangerous. There is no need for them to be good so they aren't. What really matters in a monopoly is maintaining your job for life, not actually doing anything. They also accumulate crud as smart people, like yourself, have better things to do with their time.

      On another topic, Gates is living in a dream world. In ten years, there will be Linux, Symbian, and Mac OS XI. People will be saying "Microsoft what, Microsoft who?" Linux has got traction, the mobiles have rejected MS, and Apple is revitalised and being imaginative again.

      MS is losing credibilty, losing friends in high places, and people who shouldn't know anything about computers are appalled at the consequences of using Windows.

      At this point, I would like everyone to rush off and contribute to an open-source project to finish them off.

    41. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks to SP2 we have a worthless, buggy, problematic firewall which yields no benefit whatsoever, turned on all the time by default! yay.

      Are you saying it doesn't work? 'Cause in my tests, it seems to consistently deny connections from externally, which is, after all, the point. It will prevent pretty much any external worm attack, in fact. I think that's hard to describe as "yields no benefit whatsoever".

    42. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't be working for MS ever because you are a substandard, lazy and agressive employee. Bullshit slashdot all you want, I can see SIX different performance reviews and they all agree on one thing: your work stinks, you cannot accept criticism and you are not a team member. Things may be different in your head, whatever... Posting AC again for obvious reasons...

    43. Re:800lb Gorilla by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not every corporation.

      I've worked in a 120,000-employee corporation in 2002, and almost every single person I met there actually had a clue. There was no political bullshit, we had clear objectives and reasonable timelines, the only hassle was that it'd take a few days to get specific software and hardware.

      A colleague of mine worked for a subsidy of IBM last year, and told me it was the same way there, no bullshit, no slacking and no sloppiness, of course that makes only two small examples, but that's just to say such generalizations are bad overall.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    44. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me something, Sherlock, how do you plan on being rich when every single employer you ever apply to will talk to ME before giving you a job?

    45. Re:800lb Gorilla by kantai · · Score: 1

      The patch set up the firewall by default. That's what it did to "break" those programs. Can you seriously say that Joe User doesn't benefit from this?

    46. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tell me something, Sherlock, how do you plan on being rich when every single employer you ever apply to will talk to ME before giving you a job?"

      Possibly, because employers like me wouldn't even bother talking to anyone at a dying dinosaur of a company filled with worthless bureaucratic asshats like yourself?

    47. Re:800lb Gorilla by Kaotiq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could not agree more.

      Worked for start ups, worked for companies that have been taken over by large companies, call me crazy but the larger the organisation the worse it gets, I read somewhere they compared multinational corporations to vampires, they take over smaller organisations for their fresh blood, they like vampires couldn't live without it.

      K.

      --
      Be wary of strong drink, it can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.
    48. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your sig is mistranslated "Cogito cogito" cannot mean "I think that I think" etc. It can only mean "I'm thinking, I'm thinking" or "I think and I think", etc.

    49. Re:800lb Gorilla by darth_linux · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the company who knows the most about putting spyware in its products would know the most about how to block them. It makes sense, in M$'s world, that any other competition (including those that spy on a user) be stifled by "creating" a similar product.

      --
      Power to the Penguin!
    50. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Software engineers are ethical, except when it comes to calling themselves engineers. If bridge engineers built bridges the way "software engineers" build software, we'd all be hurting!

    51. Re:800lb Gorilla by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, not at all. If bridge engineers were forced to call their bridges "done" when they weren't, THEN we'd have serious problems.

      As it is, serious mission critical software developed by honest companies generally works well, as do bridges. Software sold by sleazy business folk is sold before the engineers are satisfied with its quality, and it always "collapses."

      All that is to say, engineers aren't the ones releasing unfinished software that doesn't work right.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    52. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ok, I was really just mocking Microsoft and its money-grabbing attitude. I haven't heard an engineer say such things, but I can imagine them saying them.

      It's not really hard to provide a case where Microsoft has made end users pay for a bug fix:

      Look at Windows 98 Second Edition.

      What was this, other than a 'bug-fix' upgrade? The only feature added was Internet Connection Sharing, the rest was to make it stable. Those who had the first (highly unstable and crappy) edition had to pay for an upgrade to the second edition.

      And what about Internet Explorer? Microsoft is now saying that it will not provide a stand-alone version of IE, but that it will be integrated within Longhorn. Those who want a bug fix for IE will therefore have to upgrade to Longhorn.

      You have to remember, Microsoft is not as tactless as SCO, it is one smart and cunning company.

      Who knows what individual suggested these things? Maybe it was good old 'generous' Bill himself, forcing an audit onto US schools one moment, and giving free software to third-world schools the next?

      Anyway, I'm sure that you can understand, from the above points, why I am of the opinion that it would be likely for a software engineer at Microsoft to come out with such things.

    53. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It [ Windows Firewall ] can be turned off in software quite easily.

      So can every other software firewall. Your point?

    54. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      It can be turned off in software quite easily.

      For that to happen, you must already have malware on your system. Attempting to do anything with a firewall at this stage is commonly known in security circles as "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted."

    55. Re:800lb Gorilla by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Look at Windows 98 Second Edition.

      What was this, other than a 'bug-fix' upgrade? The only feature added was Internet Connection Sharing, the rest was to make it stable. Those who had the first (highly unstable and crappy) edition had to pay for an upgrade to the second edition."


      Err. I was under the impression that SE was more than just 'internet connection sharing". I'm not claiming to be all that knowledgable about it, but I'm fairly sure they had something a little more signficant with it. I'm thinking something to do with USB... or how it handles a certain device. Eh. I dunno.

      Though I agree that it wasn't the most exciting update in the world, don't forget that they had SP1 for 98 that was a free download.

      "And what about Internet Explorer? Microsoft is now saying that it will not provide a stand-alone version of IE, but that it will be integrated within Longhorn. Those who want a bug fix for IE will therefore have to upgrade to Longhorn."

      I see where you're coming from. However, I think we're only getting part of the picture here. First off, I don't think this precludes MS fixing security related issues. XP may not get new features, but that's a different scenario. Second is that Longhorn is a new beast. IE for Longhorn is very likely going to be a very different animal, at least on the software side of it, than it is for XP. Remember their vector based GUI? If the new IE supports that to any competent level, then how could they possibly make that XP compatible?

      "Anyway, I'm sure that you can understand, from the above points, why I am of the opinion that it would be likely for a software engineer at Microsoft to come out with such things."

      Hmm... no, not really. Frankly, I think Bill's a more likely suspect. Software engineers, at least the ones I've met, wouldn't want to buy software like that, let alone make it. I've actually heard comments like "Ever feel like we're riding in the getaway car?", quoting Dilbert.

      I'm not trying to be difficult or overzealous in my point. Just a bit of a hard sell, ya know?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    56. Re:800lb Gorilla by Euler · · Score: 1

      That's not how a software firewall is supposed to work. Either Microsoft doesn't get it, or they are trying to dumb it down so the average user feels like they are protected, but really aren't.

      Software firewalls can either block outgoing connections from spyware or untrusted apps to keep data leaking out of your machine from within. Just get Zonealarm or equivalent, and your problems are solved. Programs must ask for permission before accessing the network. MS firewall didn't ever seem to do this when I tried it. Software firewalls can also actively filter content coming and going through known connections like HTTP. But this isn't as foolproof.

      Microsoft's firewall, in my experience, does nothing except take you machine off the network. Big deal I can get the same effect by unplugging my ethernet cable, thank you.

      To make a firewall that 'keeps people from breaking into my machine' is asinine. If you don't want someone accessing a service, you turn it off or change it's configuration to deny specific external hosts. If there are holes in the OS that a hacker can exploit, then a firewall is only a band-aid, that may or may not work. And it isn't any help if you actually intend to run services on you machine.

    57. Re:800lb Gorilla by Curate · · Score: 2, Interesting
      To make a firewall that 'keeps people from breaking into my machine' is asinine.
      Um, no. That is the primary purpose of a firewall. It is your first line of defense. It won't necessarily (shouldn't be) your last though.

      If you don't want someone accessing a service, you turn it off or change it's configuration to deny specific external hosts.
      Yes, turning it off is recommended if you don't need it at all, but if you need it (e.g. for local machines) then it's not a solution. Most services aren't configurable enough to allow/deny specific hosts. If they were, they would essentially have their own mini firewalls builtin. You think that's better than having one centrally managed firewall?? Also, denying specific hosts is not the same as dropping packets. It's generally preferable to drop packets so as to appear "invisible" rather than deny connections, which not only confirms your existence but allows for straight denial of service attacks against your machine or even reflexive denial of service attacks against another machine.

      If there are holes in the OS that a hacker can exploit, then a firewall is only a band-aid, that may or may not work.
      The most secure setup involves layers of security, and that is what Microsoft has been preaching recently. It's pretty hard to argue that removing layers of protection is better. Don't you wear your seatbelt even though there's also an airbag?

    58. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Software firewalls can either block outgoing connections from spyware or untrusted apps to keep data leaking out of your machine from within. Just get Zonealarm or equivalent, and your problems are solved. Programs must ask for permission before accessing the network. MS firewall didn't ever seem to do this when I tried it. Software firewalls can also actively filter content coming and going through known connections like HTTP. But this isn't as foolproof.

      This kind of filtering is pointless. It is trivially easy for any malware that gets onto your system to work around this kind of protection, usually by subverting an existing application in order to make it happen. E.g., write a suitable piece of javascript to a temporary file, then open it with internet explorer.

      Assuming it actually helps is akin to sticking your head in the sand. It only helps you against incompetently written script-kiddie style attacks. And even those, I suspect that there's quite few that ZoneAlarm et al won't pick up.

      Microsoft's firewall, in my experience, does nothing except take you machine off the network. Big deal I can get the same effect by unplugging my ethernet cable, thank you.

      If you don't actually need your network, I'd recommend taking that route. MS's firewall allows all outgoing access, though, so it isn't equivalent.

      To make a firewall that 'keeps people from breaking into my machine' is asinine. If you don't want someone accessing a service, you turn it off or change it's configuration to deny specific external hosts. If there are holes in the OS that a hacker can exploit, then a firewall is only a band-aid, that may or may not work. And it isn't any help if you actually intend to run services on you machine.

      Please, tell me how I can configure MS's RPC implementation to only allow connections from localhost without using a firewall? I certainly don't trust that service not to have a large number of unknown holes that any remote host could access to gain local administrative access over my computer if I left it open, yet I need it for local operations on my machine. Oh, and if you can find a way to exploit those holes remotely through MS's firewall, I'll be _very_ impressed. Like I said, it'll stop any remote worm from spreading to me (unless I initiate a connection out to let it in).

    59. Re:800lb Gorilla by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heck, Mr Gates himself faces the very same spyware problem.

      He uses Firefox.

    60. Re:800lb Gorilla by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Why do they chose to leave so many doors open?

      To create a market for products?

      I love to pick on MS as much as anyone and they certainly get enough money to accept the brickbats thrown at the them, but this is just another demonstration of how monopoly position puts them into a situation where MS simply cannot win from criticism of unfair market manipulation.

      If they write anti-spyware software after the others in the market, they'll be accused of using their insider position unfairly.

      If MS wrote anti-spyware software first, any use of their OS position in any way whatsoever to promote deployment would be considered unfair.

      The only way for MS to free itself from accusations of unfairness is to submit a complete, free and open specification of the win32 API to a standards body. And to promise that any version of MS application for x years will run on any implemenation conforming to the API.

      But I think they'll elect to suffer the accusations for the money they get by holding the specifications closed.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    61. Re:800lb Gorilla by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      In any organisation with more than two people in it, there will be politics. The more people, the worse it will be. There are steps that management/owners can do to reduce the level of politics, but not eliminate it. Any time you have people competing for something (jobs, bonuses, promotions), there will be politics involved. It's just human nature to try to puff oneself up and/or lower the competition via backstabbing (rumours, false reports, etc.). Even the nicest of us will do some of this - only the truly uncaring will purposefully do it.

      Despite the comments above, I would say that even IBM has some - although compared to other similarly sized organisations, it seems to have less than average, in my extremely limited experience. There is a lot of BS, slacking, incompetence, sloppiness, and political maneuvering. But I would say it's more than the inverse of the MS claim: less than 1/10th of the people. Of course, the fact that there have been a few rounds of layoffs in the last few years really helped to trim some of the fat. The problem always is when the fat is already promoted - it's a lot harder to lay off someone who has received promotions. So, I'm sure IBM managed to trim some meat, but definitely has trimmed a fair bit of fat. And this helps keep the politics down - at least at the peon level. The PHBs still have lots to share.

    62. Re:800lb Gorilla by nege · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple - its not about building a better product at all. You have to see that there is no correlation between good software and successful software. MS can make more money writing bad software. It would cost them a lot of money to actually do a re-write of the system, which is really what they need at this point. Also, as a sweet little side benefit a mini industry has come about as a result of their insecure OS - the spyware / anti-spyware and virus / anti-virus mostly revolve around the Windows OS. Sure, a lot of it has to do with number of users, but you have to admit that its just plain easier to write virus code for a system that lets you execute it via the web browser!

    63. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The implication one gets from your post is that you certainly aren't one of those "with a clue" and instead are your typical corporate-brained ass-sucking lackey that's happy in their management-induced silo coma.

      One thing that's generally true about large corporations is that only about 10% of the employees are doing anything that really matter strategically and actually understand what the business is. The rest are shuffling papers around, playing political games, while maintaining old revenue streams and spouting the party line.

    64. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm fairly sure they had something a little more signficant with it. I'm thinking something to do with USB... or how it handles a certain device.

      Either way, is that worth paying out an upgrade for?

      don't forget that they had SP1 for 98 that was a free download.

      I don't think that this makes any difference. If a service pack had already been provided free and yet Win98 still sucked badly (which it did), surely Microsoft could have released a further free update with just bug fixes, and released Win98 SE as a chargeable upgrade.

      Frankly, I think Bill's a more likely suspect.

      I would have to agree.

      Software engineers, at least the ones I've met, wouldn't want to buy software like that, let alone make it.

      Neither would I, and I certainly wouldn't work as a software engineer at Microsoft. I guess you have to make some kind of ethical compromise to actually work at the place. I am aware that there are nice guys working for Microsoft though, and I wouldn't want to say that everybody working for the beast is evil!

      I'm not trying to be difficult or overzealous in my point.

      I can tell, and my hat is off to you for your manners.

    65. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft makes the anti-spyware product exactly for that reason, 90% (rough estimate) of the windows users have no idea what spyware is. The fact that spyware gets installed by the user or hack itself into a security vulnerability of another program or even the operating system doesn't mean anything to them. 'Their computer needs to be secure'. And for that illusion they will pay dearly.

      As for the other 10% of the users, they are not following the license agreement if they seek out and remove the spyware and vuln's themselves, so the keep quiet.

      The result is you get a new program installed which does nothing except give you an anoying pop-up to show you it is there and it has 'found' a spyware program. If it looks slick it sells and that is the only thing that matters.

    66. Re:800lb Gorilla by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the only hassle was that it'd take a few days to get specific software and hardware.

      That's a hassle?!?! Sheez-Ma-neez! friend. A few days.... Wow. Where is this heaven on Earth you're working at?

    67. Re:800lb Gorilla by justins · · Score: 2, Informative
      Eeerrrr, if they really wanted to do something about it why not change the way the write software so that it is not so easy for outsiders to hack into their products and dump unwanted code onto their clients machines? This would efectively cut down on virii as well as spyware, trojans etc... Why do they chose to leave so many doors open?

      Perhaps it's because they realize that whatever doors you're talking about do not matter, and that most users install malware on their computers themselves, often after clicking through the EULA for it.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    68. Re:800lb Gorilla by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I worked specifically for MSN Ads, and everywhere I looked (I also talked to my friends in other departments) I found sloppy coding practices, FUD, and general CYA-motivated B.S.

      You expected the ad department to house the really competant and moral people in the organization? Besides, you're talking about the ad department of a branch of Microsoft that is essentially an afterthought. You were working with the losers.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    69. Re:800lb Gorilla by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      Here's a story about how good is the MS Firewall:

      Enter a website that has some kind of streaming video.

      POP! A dialog jumps out and says "Microsoft firewall has stopped iexplore from accesing the web blah blah blah: What do you want to do?" (Block/Unblock/Ask Later). (WTF is "ask later" on a firewall?)

      Anyway, while me and my friend were thinking about it, the streaming video started playing behind that dialog. Congratulations, you could have been rooted while thinking what to click!

    70. Re:800lb Gorilla by ajp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First problem: you worked for MSN Ads. Can you think of a more bullsh*t division at Microsoft? You talked to your friends in other departments. Where? MSN Gaming Zone? X-Box? Maybe even Microsoft Money?

      Microsoft has some solid coding divisions just like any big company. And Microsoft has some BS departments just like any big company. Is it any surprise that a division which "ships" every month is filled with sloppy coding practices, FUD and general CYA-motivated BS?

      My area of Microsoft happens to be filled with people who could code the smirk off of almost any slashdotter. I work with people who have been in the business longer than most of the MSN Ads people have been out of diapers. And they are at Microsoft primarily because they are brilliant.

      I'm sorry your experience at Microsoft was so disappointing and wish you well elsewhere but I can assure you that my time at MS has been quite intellectually fulfilling.

    71. Re:800lb Gorilla by ecko3437 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have used OS X Panther. I don't find it any easier to use than Windows XP is.

      OS X comes free with any new Mac? I should hope so, with the outrageous prices they charge for hardware. It's my belief that what's holding Apple back from real mainstream use in the PC world is that it's just too expensive. When I see a decent Apple for $800 who's model series isn't four years old, I'll buy.

      --
      -Eric Smith
    72. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they choose to leave those security holes in, its just they have grown arrogant enough that they think "serious Q&A doesn't matter, the proles will buy it as long as it looks pretty and sorta works for the first few weeks." Thye don't spend the time really trying to make their own software break, so they never find the security holes.

    73. Re:800lb Gorilla by cooley · · Score: 1

      I'm probably gonna come off sounding like a jerk here, but OSX definitely isn't "free" any more than Windows comes "free" with a new Gateway PC; you are paying for it, it's just not itemized on the bill, and you don't have the opportunity to say that you don't want it.

      It's closer to compulsory licensing than it is to "free".

      Personally, I think it'd be cooler if I could buy a new Mac for $100 less, minus the software, and run some Linux or BSD flava on it; however, that's not an option. People always talk about the MS "tax" on their new computers; Apple is doing the same thing. Granted, it's a little different since they're also the hardware maker (as opposed to MS telling Gateway or whatever that they must include it on their PCs in order to get good OEM pricing), but the outcome for the consumer is the same.

      --
      Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
    74. Re:800lb Gorilla by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That depends on what and where the connections are coming from. If you compromise windows rpc, you compromise the firewall.

    75. Re:800lb Gorilla by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Yes, turning it off is recommended if you don't need it at all, but if you need it (e.g. for local machines) then it's not a solution."

      The point is that turning on the MS firewall is the same as turning off those services whether you need them or not. And it's not flexible enough to fix.

      Not having a network connection to other systems is a good way to assure that network services wont work eh?

    76. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm really, really, REALLY sorry you had to work in MSN anything, much less MSN ads.

      Microsoft has a core of REALLY talented developers -- but they aren't in MSN. They are in Windows, SQL, and the Developer Tools division (C/C++/C#/.NET/etc.). Sure, you can occasionally find a good developer in other teams, but not often.

      MSN, as a development team, is shit, and pretty much always has been. I worked for about 4 years in Windows and LOVED it. Awesome developers, even some really awesome architects and managers. But for some stupid reason, I transferred to an MSN property (not going to say which one) for a few years. It was SO BAD that I got majorly burnt out, and left the company. I intend to go back -- it really is a good place, and Microsoft needs developers that are both talented and community-minded (which I consider myself to be) -- but no way no how will I ever step foot in any MSN property again.

    77. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I interned at Microsoft on the Windows team and have to say I had the near opposite impression. It was hardly perfect, but I've interned and worked full-time now at some other companies with recognizable names and have to say the team I was part of had pretty decent coding practices and some dedicated people, at least a couple of whom definitely knew what they were doing.

      Nonetheless, what you've said may be very true. Microsoft is a huge and I'm sure from group to group the general atmosphere and practices probably vary almost as much as it does from one company to another. That's my two cents.

    78. Re:800lb Gorilla by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Cowards Inc is hiring? WOW, where do I apply?

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    79. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      basicly ya couldn't handle the heat of making 6 + figures so ya got out of the kitchen. this is what we call swallowing your pride & admitting that you are not smart enough to go with the flow & let the little things in life slide.

    80. Re:800lb Gorilla by Curate · · Score: 1

      The point is that turning on the MS firewall is the same as turning off those services whether you need them or not.
      No, it is not the same thing. Like my original post says -- and you even quoted this part -- LOCAL MACHINES can still access those services even as the firewall blocks remote machines from accessing them. Firewalls are useful.

    81. Re:800lb Gorilla by Elminst · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that the only way to turn off the Firewall is AFTER you have malware?

      Sorry, but that is complete and utter falsehood.
      Any user with administrator rights can turn off the SP2 firewall in the control panel. Having or not having malware is irrelevant.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    82. Re:800lb Gorilla by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Please name the company. Good companies should be praised by name. In fact I might want to submit a resume.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    83. Re:800lb Gorilla by robochan · · Score: 1

      Eeerrrr, if they really wanted to do something about it why not change the way the write software so that it is not so easy for outsiders to hack into their products and dump unwanted code onto their clients machines?...

      Microsoft has had 20+ years (and a large portion of the money that exists in the world) to work on their security. They've achieved nothing but failure.

      I have a question:
      Is it because they're inept or is it by design?

      A year or so ago, Microsoft CTO Craig Mundie stated that "customers wouldn't pay for it until recently" when asked why it's taken so long for Microsoft to take security into their forefront.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    84. Re:800lb Gorilla by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Firewalls yes, your speaking of how the firewall is supposed to work. It doesn't work properly 99% of the time.

      The way it's supposed to work is that local apps are able to access the services they need and selected hosts can access selected ports on the system. The way it really works is you turn on MS firewall, you get the "your network cable has been unplugged" notification in your system tray. 99% is dramatizing of course, my actual experience has been closer to 60%.

      The MS firewall or any software firewall running on windows is a poor idea and not a secure solution for a home, certainly not for a home business, and should be illegal for anything more serious.

      As a general rule of thumb, NEVER rely on anything that depends on MS software for security. That goes double for actually relying on MS software to BE THE SECURITY!

    85. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I believe what happened there was your streaming media app fell back to a transport that was permitted by your firewall rules-- like HTTP, rather than a more efficient streaming transport (which timed out from its point of view).

      Hardly "you could have been rooted while thinking what to click".

    86. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm - obviously not the same IBM I work for. After outsourcing to IBM, nearly 1/3rd of the staff quit within 1 year due to the poor conditions.

      The software tools we have been forced to use are abysmal. Jobs that used to take 2 mins to raise now routinely take 15 mins. Communication is very bad - it usually consists of "oops, we forgot to tell you that this was promised to the customer last week".

      All IBM is interested in is "standardisation". They don't care if the customer has better ways and means. If any of you are potentially going to be outsourced to IBM - RUN!

      I'm very disillusioned - IBM is not at all what I expected it to be. I'm fairly sure I'm going to be the next one to walk...

    87. Re:800lb Gorilla by DuctTape · · Score: 2, Funny
      9/10 people I met didn't know what they were doing, but they were too good at political maneuvering for it to matter.

      Gee, sounds like Dell. Most of the business cards people there had that I ever saw during my short stint at Dell were from fellow Dell employees. I think they traded them like baseball cards. I would have gotten promoted there before I left, but I didn't have enough Dell business cards.

      Seriously, tho, not enough people that mattered knew me. At least I got out before the first layoffs came.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    88. Re:800lb Gorilla by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      That was TotalFinaElf, the Holding division, in the IT departement in charge of LAN services. I miss working there sometimes, there were friendly contractors and non intrusive home-brewn managers, and they had the cheapest and best quality cantine I've ever eaten at.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    89. Re:800lb Gorilla by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Or he could actually enjoy his job and be working on meaningful work. I know its shocking, but some of us do get to do that, even working for large corporations. There's bullshit everywhere, but it doesn't have to affect you if you don't let it.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    90. Re:800lb Gorilla by djwavelength · · Score: 1

      Maybe it wasnt the streaming video that was trying to connect, but someother part of the software, that just gave up after the connection timed out?

    91. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said that the bridge should be designed against a bunch of highly determined people who are hell bent on undermining it. Otherwise, I don't think you'd need to deploy police at the Brooklyn Bridge everytime there is a terrorist alert, or the WTC wouldn't have collapsed due to fire.

    92. Re:800lb Gorilla by Moofie · · Score: 1

      http://www.smalldog.com/product/12653399

      Here's an iBook for $859. Not that I really think you'll buy it...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    93. Re:800lb Gorilla by ecko3437 · · Score: 1

      Nice find, but I was talking about *new*. ... I will have to look over that... sounds nice. :D

      --
      -Eric Smith
    94. Re:800lb Gorilla by Moofie · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I bought my Powerbook from Small Dog. I got a great deal, and it's a great computer. Zero remorse.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    95. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My suggestion would be "cogito ergo cogito"...

    96. Re:800lb Gorilla by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And for that matter, if people stop using third party software firewalls and everyone uses the inbuilt one, malware writers will only have one firewall they need to turn off or change the ruleset of.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    97. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      Given that MS firewall doesn't block outgoing connections, I sincerely doubt this actually happened like that. Maybe it was some other software doing it?

    98. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that the only way to turn off the Firewall is AFTER you have malware?

      Sorry, but that is complete and utter falsehood.
      Any user with administrator rights can turn off the SP2 firewall in the control panel. Having or not having malware is irrelevant.


      That's hardly a fair complaint. I've never seen any firewall, at all, that can't be switched off by the administrator. This is the way it should be. Do you want software running on your computer, preventing you from performing some actions, where there is nothing you can do to disable it?

    99. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      If you compromise windows rpc, you compromise the firewall.

      How would you compromise Windows RPC while the firewall is preventing external connections to it (as it does by default)?

    100. Re:800lb Gorilla by julesh · · Score: 1

      Which is why it's a good thing that MS firewall doesn't have all of the features of competitive products -- people will still install those if they think they want the additional features.

    101. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and what about Alexa?

    102. Re:800lb Gorilla by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      But since when have MS products ever been as good as, or had an equivalent feature set, to their competitors products. The fact that it comes by default will make people use it and not bother to look for anything better. Also as the popularity of alternatives decreases, many people will forget there ever was an alternative atall.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    103. Re:800lb Gorilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My experience is almost opposite of what you describe. I never worked at MS, but I used to work in a group that, roughly speaking, wrote a specially modified version of linux. Everyone there was from a hardcore unix background. When I started there, I was also a hardcore Microsoft hater. However, I was surprised to find that about a half dozen of the the people there had worked at MS as interns. Every one of these had a basically positive view of MS and regretted not being able to continue at MS.

      I also met a few people from Microsoft Research. These are not the people who develop MS commercial products, although they sometimes interact with the product development people. Microsoft Research supports a large fraction of the very best, most creative, computer scientists in the world. There are some very, very smart people there.

      The next big surprise was that all of the people working in that group of hardcore unix people held Linux in low regard. One day I sent a message over the internal email system that people misinterpreted as my saying that the Linux kernel was great. They all jumped down my throat saying basically, "No, no! Linux is a piece of shit." On the other hand, everyone understood that their work would be difficult, if not impossible, if it weren't for open source. But that's a different point.

      I'm sure there are specific people and groups in Microsoft that do a bang-up job, but I think they are much fewer in numbers than they were 20 years ago (before I was born).
      I doubt that things were better 20 years ago. Possibly in terms of energy or optimism, but not in terms of competence. MS really botched everything it did in the 1980's. Once MS started raking in money like it fell off trees in fall, it hired most of the best developers in the industry. That was around 1990. It's now probably closer to the opposite of what you say. Nowadays, there's probably pockets of people here and there outside MS who can compete with MS (for a while), but on the whole, MS has the best people in the industry.

      One of the guys in that group I worked in was in fact hired away by Microsoft. He's now developing Windows. Far from being cynical or sloppy, this guy was totally dedicated to computer science. He'd often work late, without pay, to study the latest research in networking, operating systems, security, etc. And I'm not talking about browsing Slashdot or slinging the lingo or something superficial -- he was the real thing. He had also developed a number of ingenious systems himself.

      So, my attitudes changed a lot. My guess is that Microsoft is probably one of the brightest environments for commercial programming.

      Given this, if you want to know why Windows has always shipped with absurdly weak security, it's not because people at Microsoft know less about security and OS's than the shit-for-brains mob who develop Linux. It's really pretty simple. When you've made 100 billion dollars doing something one way, you kind of want to keep doing that. When Microsoft stops making money doing what they're doing, they'll start thinking about doing something else.

    104. Re:800lb Gorilla by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      I believe it was through here-- http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=875 352&product=windowsxpsp2kb

      I'm a little fuzzy on it, since the relevant list of applications that stopped working was taken off the MSDN site. An article was posted here about the list when it was first discovered, in fact. Sorry I can't do anything more, but the info seems to have dried up a bit.

    105. Re:800lb Gorilla by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      What about the other non-public networks? 192.168.0.0-192.168.255.255? 172.16.0.0-172.31.255.255?

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    106. Re:800lb Gorilla by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      on slackware

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    107. Re:800lb Gorilla by shaitand · · Score: 1

      dunno, since the firewall is tied to windows RPC that would depend on what bugs are found in windows RPC tomorrow.

      Who knows, next we might find that 3 pings at the correct offset intervals with the correct amount of data to the correct port number, cause windows RPC to internally overflow/self destruct in a manner that opens the firewall wide open.

      More likely though they'll just infect you via IE (Internet Executable-loader) and have their spyware nuke the firewall or simply initiate communications.

    108. Re:800lb Gorilla by megarich · · Score: 1

      Yea some people are like that. But wouldn't it make sense for ms, since after all this is their OWN software being affected, to find out maybe a common demonitar or how adaware works and fix those portions of windows, rather than just adding yet another app out there to detect these things?

  2. Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gee Bill, what about Mac OS? Considering how good that OS is these days, not to mention the Mac hardware, you probably shouldn't turn your back on it in a dark alley. I think it'll be here 10 years from now.

    1. Re:Mac OS? by bladx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, i agree

      what's the deal? my summer internship (a school district) uses macs like crazy.. of my experience (and i know, it is not very much) mac os x has, by far, been the most stable OS i have had to use in the workplace. i'm not sure why it would go away so suddenly.

    2. Re:Mac OS? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 4, Informative

      People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. That "wizard" over at PCMag, John Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at where that prediction has gone.

      *tears out another Dvorak article, wipes, and flushes it down the toilet*

    3. Re:Mac OS? by thedogcow · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, No, No.

      You see in 10 years, when Longhorn is finally released, this OS will have copied all of the features of OS X therefore really reducing the options to Linux and Longhorn.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    4. Re:Mac OS? by beacher · · Score: 1

      I think Mac OS will still be around and I definately see Linux gaining some serious ground. I think LongHorn / DRM will start to get some animosity and it'll cause people to reconsider what Microsoft's real system shoudl be named.
      Completely Restrictive Application Portal. When someone says Hey! Get This CRAP off my system!, you know what they mean.

    5. Re:Mac OS? by heptapod · · Score: 2, Funny

      If Longhorn is going to be a copy of OSX then won't it be a BSD clone with a pretty interface? The options would be reduced to Linux and a variant of BSD.

    6. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore it. Bill is obviously trolling.

    7. Re:Mac OS? by mini+me · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe he is planning on buying Apple? Which would mean that MacOS would become Windows.

    8. Re:Mac OS? by GFLPraxis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. That "wizard" over at PCMag, John Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at where that prediction has gone."

      Uh...this year is the twentieth anniversary of MacOS. I don't think they were predicting the death of MacOS and Apple 2 decades ago...unless they were predicting the death of MacOS the instant it came out. lol

      Though your point is correct (above is just a nitpick)- people have been predicting the death of MacOS for a while, and Apple's stocks have been shooting through the roof since OS X came out. lol.

      Check out the Apple Death Knell...
      http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.s html

    9. Re:Mac OS? by belmolis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As hardware gets cheaper and more powerful and becomes a commodity, Apple is likely to have an increasingly difficult time selling its own line of expensive machines. With the Mac OS now a layer on top of Unix, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually gives up reserving its software for its own hardware and begins to sell Mac OS as a GUI and software bundle on top of Linux, essentially a commercial counterpart to Gnome or KDE.

    10. Re:Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That "wizard" over at PCMag, John Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at where that prediction has gone.

      I met Dvorak recently, and I have to say, he's very difficult to talk to. He's one of those guys who has no ability to just listen. A poor quality in a journalist. I found it very frustrating. His opinions aren't total crap, though. I think he's wrong WRT Mac OS, but he would have been right if Apple hadn't finally gotten a real OS by now. Until X, the OS was a toy, inferior even to Windows. Now it's for real, and it's serious. Microsoft has a long way to go if they hope to rival it.

    11. Re:Mac OS? by microbox · · Score: 1

      Mac OS is a flavour of Unix these days, so I think it got dumped in with Linux by the micro-marketing-bots that do Gate's homework.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    12. Re:Mac OS? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for
      > almost 2 decades now. That "wizard" over at PCMag, John
      > Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at
      > where that prediction has gone.

      Almost? He's been there right from the start with his way off base 'predictions'. He's a troll, and it gets him paid.

      "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
      -John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

    13. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If OSX was going to provide any extention to Apples market share then it would at least look like it was going to by now. NB: Google has OSX at 3% since 2000.

    14. Re:Mac OS? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The falling price of components will also drive down the prices of Macs. There will always be a market for higher end computers, with actual though put into design and implementation, with the unified vision of a central authority. In fact, the rise of Linux and other open-sourced operating systems will only help Apple integrate Macs with other common OSs, as standards will be truly open. If Linux had the marketshare to define standards, that would open the door to any number of competitors who could make inter-operative software. A rise in the Linux platform's popularity (at the expense of Microsoft's marketshare) would only help smaller players gain traction. While the future of PowerPC is uncertain, depending largely on IBM's dedication to it, Apple and the MacOS are bound to have markets well into the future. If a company can assure tight integration and thoughtful design of hardware and software, there will always be those willing to pay a premium for a premium user experience.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    15. Re:Mac OS? by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 4, Informative

      As hardware gets cheaper and more powerful and becomes a commodity, Apple is likely to have an increasingly difficult time selling its own line of expensive machines.

      Rolls Royce still manages to sell cars.

    16. Re:Mac OS? by tonywong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because Mr. Gates doesn't perceive Apple as being an OS vendor unto themselves. He looks at Apple as the premier research division of Microsoft.

      I'm only semi-kidding.

      OK. I'm not.

    17. Re:Mac OS? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Gee Bill, what about Mac OS? Considering how good that OS is these days, not to mention the Mac hardware, you probably shouldn't turn your back on it in a dark alley."

      Except it cannot be installed on Intel based machines, something the market seems to want 10's of millions of. Linux and Windows are not stuck on that platform.

      " I think it'll be here 10 years from now."

      Sure it'll be here. The quesiton is, will it even remotely be a competitor to Linux or Windows? If Linux + Windows = 98%, doesn't the statement, in all practicality, hold true?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    18. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I got my 17" powerbook, I priced out a comparable dell - with you added all the things that apple included (wifi g, dvd burner, bluetooth), the apple was cheaper. Plus, I get 4 hour battery life, kick-butt looks in a smaller package, and a light-up keyboard. Please, put an end to the myth that it's more expensive!

    19. Re:Mac OS? by LochNess · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mac OS X is NOT based on Debian, or any other flavor of Linux. It is based on BSD, a flavor of Unix.

    20. Re:Mac OS? by setagllib · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quite a clueless thing to say. As the sharp knife above me pointed out, it's a BSD fork, specifically of FreeBSD 4.x some time ago. It imports fixes from FreeBSD, and FreeBSD imports fixes from it. Apparently the core kernel was replaced by Mach instead, but the userland is all still there, and they make no attempt to hide it. They couldn't have sprung for GPL'd software (would they want to, anyway? The FreeBSD base is much more solid, already a Complete Operating System, no more hacking-together needed) because of the restrictive licensing it imposes, wheras the BSD license only retains author recognition.

      Why would it be based on Debian? Not only is its kernel not Linux (so no, MacOSX is not Linux either, again), and not only does the GPL make it impractical, but it wouldn't really make sense anyway, since Debian's real unique functionality is apt*, something completely useless in this case since no Linux binaries would run under MacOSX.

      They could also have sprung from NetBSD (or OpenBSD?), which would probably have been easier since it already supported their architecture pretty well, but I'm sure they had their reasons.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    21. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not FreeBSD? OS-X already has a BSD base which is far superior to Linux in any case!

    22. Re:Mac OS? by atlasheavy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know this is off-topic, but... The Supreme Court of the United States Box? What in the world is that? Some sort of large wooden crate filled with nine elderly law-wranglers?

      --

      iRooster, the Mac OS X a
    23. Re:Mac OS? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But he's right about the death of MacOS if not the company that produced it. Now Apple is selling a fork of BSD with a lot of their custom application code on top of it. That they call it version 10 of MacOS is a lie. It would have been more honest to call it by a totally new name, and reset the release number to 1.0. If OSX on BSD is a release of MacOS than Wine on Linux is a release of Windows.

      There were very good reasons to predict the death of MacOS. It had a *LOT* of problems that were not fixable such that the only real fix was to start over with something new - which is exactly what Apple ended up doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great product, and the magnitude of the task they did proved that people at Apple do in fact know how to do more than just make pretty interfaces that impress artists, and that they really do have people with impressive skills on staff (which surprised me, frankly). I like what they've done in their new OS. I just don't like that they did a marketing lie by calling it another release of MacOS.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    24. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until X, the OS was a toy, inferior even to Windows.

      And from that toy sprung forth revolutions in photo, print and video graphics. The toy seems to have served many industries very well.

    25. Re:Mac OS? by Fulkkari · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, right. Just because you only buy low-end machines doesn't mean everyone do the same. Macs are pretty popular in the media industry and have a group of very loyal fans. Unless they are going down, I doubt Apple is going down either.

      I don't see any reason for Mac OS to be a GUI on top of Linux either. First of all, it would be yet an other transition. Secondly, they wouldn't win anything at it. Linux kernel doesn't have all the stuff the Darwin kernel has. I think it's ridiculous that you are suggesting that they would switch a nice kernel that they have complete control over to a third party kernel they don't have control over which doesn't even have the same features.

      Don't get me wrong. Linux is okay and I use it too, but the truth is that it's being hyped way to much. Linux is not superior in any way as some people (like you) seem to think. Soon these people will learn that there are alternatives to Linux also. It isn't just Windows or Linux.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    26. Re:Mac OS? by Allnighterking · · Score: 1

      I don't see that happening quite that way. The why being the advantages the UI takes of the features of the MACH kernel. If you used Linux without the linux kernel it would be... well.... Unix, but not Linux (Remember Linux is a Kernel the rest is GNU) However on a variant. The concept of selling OSXI on x86 platform would rock. Now that could / should be done. But it would severly damage there sale of MAC's as a hardware platform. However there is always Darwin. Darwin plus Apple UI magic might have interesting effects.

      --

      I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

    27. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrible example. Rolls Royce is now a brand name for BMW. It is not the company it once was.

      As someone once said, "Slashdot. News For Nerds. Stuff that Matters. Failed Car Analogies".

    28. Re:Mac OS? by yanestra · · Score: 1
      As hardware gets cheaper and more powerful and becomes a commodity, Apple is likely to have an increasingly difficult time selling its own line of expensive machines. Rolls Royce still manages to sell cars.
      Yes, but they're owned by German carmaker BMW.
    29. Re:Mac OS? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Well then BMW still sells cars even though Hyundais are cheaper and hondas are more reliable.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    30. Re:Mac OS? by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I once read an article about the CEO of harley davidson. In that he said "harley davidson is not a motorcyle company, it's a fashion company".

      Apple is the same way. Apple sells products that people buy because they want to be "cool".

      Now just because something is cool that does not mean it sucks. Both Harleys and Macs are great products that just also happen to be very fashionable.

      AS long as apple can define "cool" it will do just fine, whether it's selling computers or earphones does not matter all that much.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    31. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yhbt. yhl. hand.

    32. Re:Mac OS? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Actually, the BMW analogy is better.

      People are looking at things like G5 and thinking "home machine". Sure, not everyone - you can buy a PC for much less.

      It could be that long term, Windows could end up losing share. Macs appeal to the aesthetics (like they look nice in your lounge) whilst Linux is what geeks want. If I wanted a machine for just surfing the web, word processing, email and I didn't want every game under the sun, I'd seriously consider a Mac.

    33. Re:Mac OS? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      "Yes, but they're owned by German carmaker BMW."
      Does this mean you would turn down a free Rolls Royce? Would you see some value in owning one?
      (I have never owned a Mac but I would not mind having one. Of course, a dual Opteron running Gentoo Linux would be more fun - my current AMD64 is pretty neat.)

    34. Re:Mac OS? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      I have not used OSX to any great extent and cannot offer any useful comments on:
      "Linux kernel doesn't have all the stuff the Darwin kernel has."
      I believe that the development and improvement of Linux will increase much faster than that of "MacOS" or Windows and that the "4.0 Linux kernel" will be much better and more powerful than "OS12" or "Windows XYZ".

    35. Re:Mac OS? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I love the quotes around "mouse", as if it were a steaming pile of crap or something.

    36. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh.... wouldn't it be funny if MacOS lives longer than Dvorak... :-D

    37. Re:Mac OS? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      I think that development of the *BSD OSs will lag behind Linux. I believe that if Apple wants to maintain a "current" OS it will have to be based on Linux rather than BSD.
      One might argue that the Linux kernel + "GNU" applications (+ Apache, sendmail, KDE, etc.) will become too big (e.g. bloated and slow). To the extent that this happens (if it does), I believe that source based distributions which make it easy for users to select the parts of Linux they need (e.g. Gentoo) will become more important and useful. Imagine if Apple let users select the parts of Linux they want/need and added their own "GUI magic" on top. (Of course, Apple would have GPL/LGPL problems - maybe Apple would become open source?)

    38. Re:Mac OS? by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      os x has, by far, been the most stable OS i have had to use in the workplace.

      Does that include Linux? I use Linux exclusively at both home and work and I would struggle to make any stability comparisons amoungst any OSes that stay up for such long periods of time. In my (limited) experience, OS X and Linux seem to be on par with eachother when it comes to stability. Obviously OS X is easier for the average user to use, so that where it wins.

      I'm a big fan of *nix based OSes and I think Apple have made a good call with moving to a BSD-based platform. I agree that Microsoft seem to be overlooking Apple if they think they'll be gone in 10 years - it has seemed to me recently that OS X is rapidly gaining popular support.

    39. Re:Mac OS? by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the Mac OS now a layer on top of Unix, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually gives up reserving its software for its own hardware and begins to sell Mac OS as a GUI and software bundle on top of Linux, essentially a commercial counterpart to Gnome or KDE.

      I think they would be completely missing their target market if they did that. People who buy Macs are getting them because they "Just Work". One of the big reasons why they "Just Work" is because Apple has complete control over the hardware they're using, they can test the software on exactly what the end-user will be using it on and make sure it all works. Furthermore, they can test upgrades on hardware identical to what the end-users are using.

      Whilest it's possible that they may eventually ditch BSD in favor of Linux if it looks like Linux will be beneficial for them, I doubt they will ever start shipping it as a stand-alone piece of software rather than a soft/hardware combo.

    40. Re:Mac OS? by r_j_prahad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *tears out another Dvorak article, wipes, and flushes it down the toilet*

      I can't believe any knowledgeable human would risk almost certain death and disfigurement by intentionally allowing a Dvorak article to come into direct physical contact with their anus. The only other person believed to have done this was a gentleman by the name of Goatse, I think. You might be able to find him with a Google search....

    41. Re:Mac OS? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Additionally, a large market of open-source software would take some of the focus off x86 processors. We all know that x86 is an aging architecture, and it's a pain for the chip manufacturers to keep the backward compatability. With open source software, pretty much all the userspace software, and a large chunk of the kernel can be quickly recompiled for new architectures and you can ditch the backward compatability. This would make CPU design simpler, cheaper, and more efficient.

      Look at the PDA industry - they aren't goverened by a single big software company only supporting one architecture, if a PDA manufacturer sees a better architecture then they usually have no significant problems with dropping their current one in favor of it without worrying about hardware compatability. I'm sure that if the desktop computer industry was able to pick and choose their architectures we would be in a much better position.

      It's also worth noting that different CPU architectures suit different problems, and having the choice allows you to pick the best hardware for the job.

    42. Re:Mac OS? by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MacOS X is "Darwin plus Apple UI magic". I suppose maybe you meant to say Darwin x86 plus Apple UI magic. The point of Apple selling MacOS on Mac computers is that they get to control the whole widget. As such Apple gets to add all sorts of nice little features into the OS that they know specifically will work in x number of machines.

      Quartz Extreme is an excellent example. By the time Jaguar was released most of the current Macs would support it out of the box, by 2003 all Macs sold supported QE. Since Apple was deciding to replace their long used Rage 128s with Radeon and GeForce GPUs they were able to add a very useful feature to the OS that all shipping systems would be able to utilize. Tiger is going to utilize the advanced shader programmability of newer Radeon and GeForce GPUs in two systems called CoreImage and CoreVideo. By the time Tiger ships most if not all Macs being sold will support these features out of the box, many systems sold right now can support these features.

      Writing their OS for commodity PCs would pretty much remove that ability. When it wouldn't be guaranteed all of their customers would be able to see the new features it wouldn't be worth while to even add such features. It took Microsoft a long time to get USB and hot plugging working right in Windows. Since so few people had USB ports on their computers there was little impetus to fix USB functionality in the OS. Apple on the otherhand was replacing ADB on their systems with USB and their USB support was pretty exceptional. It's taken Microsoft a long time to get their WiFi support up to a moderately useful level because for long time no PCs were really shipping with WiFi capabilities. Apple however rolled out with extremely good WiFi support because their systems were shipping with WiFi capabilities built in.

      When a single company builds the hardware their OS is going to run on they tend to have excellent support for their hardware. Linux from any particular distribution is very hit-or-miss with hardware from particular vendors. Even HP doesn't support every bit of hardware in their laptops that have Linux as an OS option. They only support what SuSE and Red Hat support. Apple supports every piece of hardware on any Mac capable of running the OS.

      OSX for commodity PCs would not be the same OSX that runs on Macs. Without spending hundreds of millions of compatibility testing it would be exceedingly difficult for Apple to support the range of hardware that Microsoft does. As we've seen with Linux, hardware vendors do not want to write drivers for any OS but Windows and they're usually none too cooperative in releasing specs for their products.

      As such Apple would have to pick up the slack or hope they could get thousands of programmers to contribute homegrown drivers. In the first case they would have to spend lots of money to make sure a huge range of hardware worked properly and in the second they would have a slew of half-complete drivers shipping with the OS. Spending a lot of money supporting the menagerie of PC hardware would make selling OSX for PCs unprofitable in the extreme and shipping half-complete drivers and only offering partial functionality for people's hardware would kill their sales and make the whole enterprise unprofitable.

      No one is going to switch to MacOS X-x86 if their hardware isn't likely to run properly. Developers aren't going to bother supporting an OS on another architecture that only a few people use, fewer of which even want to buy their products. You don't see many commercial Linux applications for Linux/PPC or Linux/MIPS. Microsoft killed their Windows NT ports because few third parties bothered porting their applications to non-x86 archtectures even though the OS environment was the same. Vis à vis don't hold your breath waiting for Apple to release OSX for PCs.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    43. Re:Mac OS? by theJerk242 · · Score: 1

      In art schools they use macs more than anything else. So as long as there are pretenious art students on the planet Earth, the longer Mac OS will stick around.

      --
      Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
    44. Re:Mac OS? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      RTFA. The article says that the major players would be Linux and Windows, not the only players. Apple isn't interested in being a big player; they're interested in being a high margin high profit player.

    45. Re:Mac OS? by WiseWeasel · · Score: 1

      It matters to people who love the MacOS... OS makes a huge difference in computer use, much moreso than motorcycle manufacturer to riding. Riding a Honda is a lot more similar to riding a Harley than using MacOS is to using Windows or Linux (for most computer users, at least). Operating Systems are so complex, and so widely different, that losing choices can have a huge impact on people's use of computers. It would be a shame for any of the OS choices to disappear, as they each feed on the ideas and advancements made by the others. If Apple were to stop making the MacOS, they would become completely irrelevant to all of their users. It's not a question of "cool" or image, but of implementation and legacy of innovation and quality. Everything Apple does is completely secondary to the MacOS itself; however, a significant part of the user experience of a Mac is related to having a tightly controlled hardware platform with stringent quality control and usability guidelines. While the current state of operating systems and applications (including the web) is largely taken for granted, we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for the original 128k Mac running System 1.0 (along with the Lisa before it). Today, Apple still makes the best designed OS widely available, and continues to push usability and end user empowerment to new levels. It doesn't do so in a vacuum, but does still have the focus necessary to recognize good ideas and discard or improve mediocre ones.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    46. Re:Mac OS? by HyperCash · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it sounds like it was one that came with a Mac.

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    47. Re:Mac OS? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      In a manner of speaking, actually yes... ;-)

    48. Re:Mac OS? by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      Yeah, notebooks are often made of "special" ultra-proprietary parts that make them (and replacement parts) expensive. That's true for most vendors.

      With "normal" computers it's a little bit different, though. I just upgraded my motherboard/CPU for about 200 Euros - try that with a Mac.

      Isn't it ironic that Macs are "throwaway and buy a new one" computers while in the real world it's exactly the opposite and expensive stuff is made to last?

    49. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft's strongest, most skillfully-wielded, and most often used PR tactic when in a volatile or vulnerable market position is to trick the press and the public into believing that certain competitors simply don't exist. It makes life easier for both Microsoft and those that believe everything they say.

    50. Re:Mac OS? by r3dx0r · · Score: 1

      just add another note here http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.s html
      and move, nothing to see but little billy rambling again...

    51. Re:Mac OS? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Macs are ALREADY pretty much on a parity with name-brand PCs. The eMac is about the same cost as the Hewlett-Packard machine with similar capabilities - except the eMac comes with a display (and no untidy trails of cabling), but the HP machine doesn't.

      I saw PCWorld advertising on TV (they are a 'box-shifter' style of retail outlet), and the entry level Dell laptops they were selling were going for roughly the same price as an Apple iBook with similar capibilities.

      It's only if you compare a G5 tower with a generic no-brand PC tower you see a price difference - but comparing the £400 PC tower with a dual G5 PowerMac tower is hardly comparing like with like.

    52. Re:Mac OS? by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 1
      I believe that the development and improvement of Linux will increase much faster than that of "MacOS" or Windows and that the "4.0 Linux kernel" will be much better and more powerful than "OS12" or "Windows XYZ".
      Actually, Darwin has quite a few cool ideas that would be nice in the Linux kernel like IOKit (object oriented driver system) or the unified system to launch service that should be in Tiger. Given the huge number of Linux drivers, those are the kind of changes that Apple can pull off but a near to impossible to do in the Linux world.

      You also have to realise that, all in all, kernel are not that important anymore, what is important are libraries and applications. At this level, the differences between OS X and Linux are not that large anyway, as most Linux libraries and applications can run on OS X.

    53. Re:Mac OS? by loic_2003 · · Score: 1

      I just bought a 64bit computer with a 17" flatscreen monitor, 512RAM, Bluetooth, wireless and a seriously good OS for £700. It's called the new iMac, btw and I think it's a very reasonable price for what you get. They were even doig a special offer where I got an HP printer for £5, normally they're £70+. Macs really aren't expensive any more, it's a myth.

    54. Re:Mac OS? by mwa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
      -John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

      If you're trying to discredit Dvorak, this is a bad example. The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history. People used to fly through applications using TAB and function keys. Although they usually still can, they don't.

      Try waiting for a bank teller, loan processer, application taker, or yout typical computer user to do anything now and it's tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, tap, tap, tap, reach, slide, click, .... just to move focus to the next text box. I find myself silently screaming TAB, dammit, TAB! TAB to the button and hit ENTER!

      What's worse is I'm finding applications that no longer implement focus shifting with tab. "Web apps" are notoriusly bad. Worse yet is where most workspaces "have room" for the mouse. Mousing literally causes in pain in my neck in my workstation.

      AFAIC, there's still no evidence that people actually want to use a mouse. They simply don't know of any other way.

    55. Re:Mac OS? by clawDATA · · Score: 0

      McBSD

      --
      "This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
    56. Re:Mac OS? by StupidKatz · · Score: 2, Informative
      The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history. People used to fly through applications using TAB and function keys.


      Your opinion depends on the assumption that all computer users would know about the shortcut keys from the get-go. Admittedly, I don't like using the mouse PERIOD when it comes to anything application related (I was losing hair rapidly until I discovered SHIFT+F10)... but having access to decent menus and a mouse cuts the learning curve dramatically. A user with a mouse can still still be vastly more productive than a user without a computer (or the knowledge to use one).

      Let's not even start on the REAL reason I use a mouse: games.
    57. Re:Mac OS? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Damn, I wish I still had my mod points. I know the frustration of watching people laboriously execute commands with a mouse that would have taken a quarter of the time with a keyboard.

      Still, I use a mouse, and have no disdain for it. Each device has it's strengths and weaknesses. If I want to open a console, I don't navigate through menus, I hit Ctrl-F12. But I wouldn't dream of using only a keyboard to navigate through all the myraid links and menus of the web.

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    58. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      But I wouldn't dream of using only a keyboard to navigate through all the myraid links and menus of the web.

      You obviously don't use a Mozilla browser. Find as you type is usually faster than moving the mouse and clicking a link.

    59. Re:Mac OS? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

      Gotta love that Preview button.

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    60. Re:Mac OS? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fallacy in your argument is that Macs last longer than PCs. I'm sure there will be a few who will say "But I had my 386 for 12 years and it still runs Typing Tutor great!". However, most Mac users replace their computers every 4-5 years*. Most PC users replace theirs every 2-3 years*. Over a lifetime, I'd say owning a Mac is much cheaper.

      * Based on everyone I know.

      YMMV

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    61. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google? You mean the Zeitgeist which no longer lists OSes because, by their own admission, it wasn't a reliable statistic?

      On a few sites that I run (none of which are technical in nature), I see 87% Windows, 8% Mac, 5% Linux. 74% IE, 14% Mozilla, 10% Netscape, 2% Other. This is for 2 million pageviews in Sept.

      Obviously, this is just one site....

    62. Re:Mac OS? by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      There are a number of reasons why gates does not consider the Mac OS as importantly as Linux.

      * Apple market share has fallen every year in the last 10 years. This is because while sales have remained steady, everyone else in the business has seen considerable growth.

      * Apple has no presence in India and China.

      * The iPod of which apple has sold approximatly 3 million devices todate is the only reason Apple posts a profit. Its PC business does not appear to be a great success.

    63. Re:Mac OS? by Brendor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is important to remember that before Windows 95 (some would say 2000) all of Microsofts' OSes were less than toys . . .

    64. Re:Mac OS? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Just a thought---perhaps it takes that extra year to save enough disposable income to pay for the more expensive Mac? (For equivalent performance sure the mac's cheaper, but Joe Sixpack doesn't do that. eMacs start at 800, Dell desktops start at 400, and that entry level machine does 99% of what an avg. user wants)

      Presuming a PC last 3 years and a mac lasts 5, buying two PCs comes out cheaper, AND halfway through you start using a better machine.

      Now depending on how inept the user is you should probably add service and tech support fees in there too, but that's a tossup; as a % of total users i've experienced, a fair portion of mac users seem to complain that something "just doesnt work" just like their PC counterparts

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    65. Re:Mac OS? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      You mean you think people will upgrade their $600 PC when it gets obsolete?

      Not me. I'll sell it or let it rot in the closet (most likely since the cost of getting my data off it is more than it's worth) and buy a new one.

      Both Macs AND PCs are trending towards the "throw away and buy a new one" ethos. And that makes sense because ALL components of new computers are improving all the time. My PowerMac G5 uses different memory, different disk drives and different graphics cards than the G4 it replaced.

      D

    66. Re:Mac OS? by scarolan · · Score: 1

      I doubt Apple will drop the price on their computers just because of lower component costs. The high-end Macintosh has always cost around $3000 USD, as far back as I can remember. Back in 1984, the original Macintosh sold for $2495.00. Now you can buy a dual G5 processor Powermac for around the same price, or a little higher if you go for top-of-the-line. There is a danger of underpricing an item and devaluing it in the mind of your customers. Apple/Macintosh computers have an amazing resale value compared to wintel boxes - the ones I've seen selling on ebay go for nearly 80% of original price compared to wintel computers.

    67. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyundais have recently become reliable too, by the way.

    68. Re:Mac OS? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      Well, the actual quote from the article was quite a bit less alarming:

      He did say though that "fast forward 10 years, the two leading OS technologies will be Linux and Windows" hinting that most others (Sun, Mac?) will be eclipsed from the main business scene.

      I would certainly argue that the Mac is eclipsed from the main business scene, since it was never there to begin with.

      That doesn't mean the Mac's going to die; it just means he doesn't think it will be adopted by the masses.

      If he can control malware, he's probably right. With malware spinning out of control, as it is today, I think a lot of smaller businesses, with less hidebound IT departments, are going to look very closely at alternatives. So I see a big opening for both Linux and MacOS, with MacOS having the advantage of better consumer appeal.

      Let's see how we do in the future. Bill Gates is not paid the big bucks to say his operating system's going to lose market share, that's for sure.

      D

    69. Re:Mac OS? by juiceCake · · Score: 1

      The problem with personal experience stories is that they can differ. At the print company I freelance for they are split 50/50 in terms of platforms for production (Mac/Windows). The Macs are very problematic, particularly with crashing (and yes they are running OS X.) That said, I've freelanced for other companies where there Windows boxes have been equally problematic. My Windows box hasn't any problems. The strength of personal experience is that you use what you like, and you're productive with whatever platform works for you and suits your personal preferences. Fortunately, where I freelance, there is no animosity or tension based on what platform someone uses. It's the people that count. I'm not sure Bill realizes that either.

    70. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It's an entirely new product. But calling it Mac OS builds on the mindshare that existed prior to its release. That's exactly the same reason we had Windows, Windows NT, and Windows CE -- completely different products with the same name.

    71. Re:Mac OS? by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All well and good, but you forgot the #1 reason I love my mouse: the scroll wheel. The single greatest innovation in input devices.. I've seen multi-directional scroll wheels now (tilt left and right)... mmm.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    72. Re:Mac OS? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Mac machines are too expensive for most home use.

      The cheapeset Mac is eMac, at $799 for the basic model, with a CRT screen

      Wheras it isn't hard to find any other brand computer for $500 or less.

      As good as Apple Mac OS and PPC machines are, most people aren't going to spend $300 if they don't have to unless they get a _very_ convincing argument. Even if they wanted the eMac, it is hard to justify that much money. In fact, a lot of people simply don't have that much money to spare. Whereas gamers wouldn't blink at $200 for a new graphics card or monitor, $200 is a lot of money to some people. If you want an increased installed base, you also have to reach the people that can't afford much or can't justify that much for a computer they don't use much.

      I know there is a value proposition where your expenses are, constant virus and spyware checks, and the cost of virus removal, but I haven't seen Apple promote this aspect well.

    73. Re:Mac OS? by jedimark · · Score: 1

      Dont forget there is a Darwin port that runs on x86, not that it's near 100% perfect yet, but it's the very same core. You can build an OS with the same principles as Linux on top of OpenDarwin.

      And who is to say Linux wont someday shift to a microkernel design, along with all the other neat stuff that makes MacOS X (very) cool?

    74. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good way to get a bad paper cut, vato!

    75. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, when you say you see no evidence of people wanting to use a mouse, you're completely disregarding the computing population other than the "geeks." It's a lot easier for most people to visually perform a task, with several starting points. That's what a mouse + menu bar achieves. It's not a big deal to me to memorize CTRL-N, ALT-F4, CTRL-F4, ALT-TAB, CTRL-TAB... but it's just ridiculous to ask someone who casually uses a computer to do that. "Pointing" is one of the most basic forms of communication. The mouse allows a person to do that.

      I won't argue the intelligence level of those who prefer mouse or the productiveness of someone good on keyboard vs. someone good on mouse, but the mouse has served a good purpose. Just because you don't prefer it, doesn't make it pointless. But then again, this is Slashdot.

      Others have also made good points - gaming and design software.

      0. Don't read the article
      1. Assume the poster right
      2. Consider what /.ers think
      3. Ignore others
      4. Make that fucking lame Soviet Russia comment for the billioneth time
      goto 0

    76. Re:Mac OS? by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The mouse and pretty pictures to click on is like a set of training wheels for the computer. With bikes, the training wheels eventually come off. With computers, most users learn one way to do things (probably on a post-it on the monitor). If the first way they learn is the most inefficient possible then so be it.

      A GUI that has been throughly embedded with keyboard shortcuts can be just as fast as the terminal apps of old. The problem is that most people will never discover them or see the point of them.

    77. Re:Mac OS? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a Harley and a Hoover?

      The position of the dirtbag.

    78. Re:Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      Linux kernel doesn't have all the stuff the Darwin kernel has. I think it's ridiculous that you are suggesting that they would switch a nice kernel that they have complete control over to a third party kernel they don't have control over which doesn't even have the same features.

      You make it sound like Mac OS is more "advanced" than Linux. While Linux has its share of problems, it also supports plenty of things that Mac OS does not. And given Steve Jobs' bullheadedness, Mac OS may never support some things that Linux does.

      Take, for example, the most obvious of things - 64 bit addressing. Linux has supported it for a while, but it's still a gleam in Mac OSes eye. Actually, I think they're in alpha test right now. How long has the Mac had a 64 bit processors? Years. And they still don't support them for real. I love Mac OS, but let's not think that Mac OS is truly as far along as Linux. It's quite frankly not as mature as Linux, given how long it's been running in its current form.

      Each OS supports things the other doesn't, so you can't really say which is best, or most advanced. But, I can tell you that the Mac OS GUI is downright primitive compared to, say, KDE or Gnome. More polished, perhaps, but it's got a long way to go in the features department. For example, when you open a window in Mac OS, it doesn't look for open space on your desktop, it just plops the window on top of others, forcing you to move it. KDE/Gnome find the best placement for new windows. Obvious. Mac OS doesn't support snap, which means that if you want to place two windows right next to each other, you have to move them a pixel at a time until it's just right. A real hassle. KDE/Gnome use snap, which causes windows to automatically stick to each other when they get within a few pixels. Again, an obvious improvement. One that's been out there forever, and Mac OS *should* support, but doesn't. I can go on for a long time with this stuff, but you get the point.

      And don't think I'm Apple-bashing here. I'm not. In fact, I'm typing this very message on a PowerBook. But they do have a long way to go to beat out the Linux/X combination.

    79. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The complaint with Mac pricing is not that you aren't getting your money's worth. It's that there aren't great options for the low-end. iMac's and eMac's are still more expensive then low-end PC's. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't include a monitor. Those who don't want to buy a combined unit have the PowerMac as an option, but those are too expensive. If they had some kind of low-end G5 PowerMac that was priced like the iMac's, I'd be willing to buy that.

    80. Re:Mac OS? by ProfFalcon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, see, "TAB to the button and hit ENTER" is not the best way either. Hitting enter sometimes will choose the "default" button, not necessarily the current button. If you want to hit the current button consistently, you should change your statement to "TAB to the button and hit SPACE."

      Hitting enter has resulted in some of the most irritating calls my service desk has had to deal with. The people who are smart enough to use the keyboard are the ones less likely to listen to the responses from the service desk because they are obviously smart enough to know better.

      If you're going to preach using the keyboard (like I do), preach it right.

      OK, I feel better now.

      --
      Simply stating [Citation Needed] does not automatically make you insightful or brilliant.
    81. Re:Mac OS? by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Before they made a bar popup at the bottom (I get a brief slowdown when the thing comes up), and before they had it look for text by default.

    82. Re:Mac OS? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      "Presuming a PC last [sic] 3 years and a mac lasts 5, buying two PCs comes out cheaper, AND halfway through you start using a better machine."

      Well, maybe not better, but arguably faster, depending mostly on if you had to upgrade Windows too. :-)

      Hehe.

      I guess that's getting less likely as the Microsoft product cycle slows to a crawl.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    83. Re:Mac OS? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meh. Until OS X those were just toy revolutions in toy industries, inferior even to cave paintings.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    84. Re:Mac OS? by jkujawa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, that's funny, isn't it?

      MacOS Classic was, technically by the standards of modern operating systems, a toy. But damn if it didn't win in a lot of respects *despite this*.

      I came from the Amiga. Watching a Mac attempt to multitask was _so painful_. But it was certainly pretty.

      Now, I've got a windows machine for doom and half life, and a linux fileserver, neither of which I love -- and two macs, which I spend most of my computing time on. I even find ways to use my PowerBook at work (I write code that crunches weather data. It runs on linux, but my visualization and debugging stuff runs on the mac.)

    85. Re:Mac OS? by iphayd · · Score: 1

      I met, and drank, with him at a party last year, then heard him talk the day after at Gnomedex 3 (Viva Des Moines!!). He had no objectivity when dealing with any sort of issue, including restaurants he had never visited. He also came off as a pompous prick, which was how he spoke as well.

    86. Re:Mac OS? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      " Mac OS doesn't support snap, which means that if you want to place two windows right next to each other, you have to move them a pixel at a time until it's just right. A real hassle."

      First, wow that's anal (but nothing personal). And second, having windows snap to each other to fill every pixel of available desktop space is soo Windows 1.03. I'd hardly call that progress. However, I'll admit that some people want an experience that's more clinical while others want an experience that's more organic.

      My only gripe with window management in OS X is that you can't lock the desktop in the 'exposed' mode, so you can watch all your ichats and the progress of an operation at a glance. You know - like being able to zoom out on an infinite virtual desktop. My other gripe is that you can't interact with a non focused window without holding down the command key. I wish the click focus followed the mouse like the scroll-wheel focus does (not necessarily like the venerable window focus follows mouse in X).

      So yeah, window placement and window snapping are pretty weak examples, especially when (by design) windows open up with the previous shape and position you closed them at, not some nebulous 'best fit' locale.

      I'm sure you can provide better examples of more innovative window management then these.

      Oh and finally -- how do powermacs and xserves address 8 gigs of ram without 64-bit addressing? I don't really keep up with the Darwin development. I guess I can google around for that answer.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    87. Re:Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      That's pretty funny. I had dinner and drank with him too. The topic of the dinner was supposed to be particular subjects, and all he could talk about was food and wine while he ate rather lavishly on someone else's dime. Every time the subject was gently moved to the topic supposedly at hand, he moved it back to food and wine. He was clearly just there for a freebie.

    88. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I'm still trying to figure out the preferences to switch it back to the old way. It seems this last Firefox release took several steps back with the IE-copying information and find bars. Ah well, Mozilla 1.7.3 still has the traditional find as you type.

    89. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    90. Re:Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      especially when (by design) windows open up with the previous shape and position you closed them at, not some nebulous 'best fit' locale.

      Actually, they don't. If they did, I'd be happy. I use 3 terminals simultaneously, side by side, and they must be placed precisely or they don't fit. And they do not go to their previous placement, by any stretch. I have 6 virtual desktops (using Desktop Manager), each with its own use. It's kind of sorry that Mac OS doesn't even support a notion of virtual desktops, and that they leave it up to third parties to fix.

      how do powermacs and xserves address 8 gigs of ram without 64-bit addressing?

      The Apple marketing materials sneakily make it seem like the OS truly supports 64 bit addressing, when in fact it doesn't. You can put in 8 gigs of RAM, but no single process can actually use it all. The OS uses it for caching, and multiple processes can share it, but that's as far as it goes. Individual processes can only address 32 bits of that 64 bit space, so no one process can actually address all the RAM in the machine. So if you have some serious computing to do that requires more than a few gigs of RAM, you're pretty much stuck using Linux on AMD Opteron. Apple is testing 10.4, which I believe actually allows true 64 bit addressing by applications.

    91. Re:Mac OS? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
      Whilest it's possible that they may eventually ditch BSD in favor of Linux if it looks like Linux will be beneficial for them, I doubt they will ever start shipping it as a stand-alone piece of software rather than a soft/hardware combo.

      I can't see Apple switching from BSD to Linux. The problem is the license, conforming to the GPL would likely present more difficulties for Apple in building the closed-source components on top of than the BSD license does.

      And technically, Mac OS X is sold as stand-alone software, but it won't run on anything but Apple hardware. If you're running Jaguar and want to upgrade to Panther, you go out to the store (or web site) and buy it.

      --
      End of Line.
    92. Re:Mac OS? by sharkey · · Score: 1
      The mouse has become the single most non-productive enhancement to computing in history.

      If you think that's bad, check this out.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    93. Re:Mac OS? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      x86 is an aging architecture? You do know that RISC style computation is older, right? And with the way things are now, no, it's really not much problem to be backwards compatible. case: AMD. The new Athlon64's and such are very RISC'y inside, they just have a simple translation layer on the outside. And there has been a lot of research done... RISC isn't the panacea it's fans seem to think it is. It's really not faster in most cases.
      Besides, isn't choice good?

    94. Re:Mac OS? by Fulkkari · · Score: 1

      The parent post I replied to suggested that Mac OS X could be sold as a counterpart to KDE and Gnome. I wanted to point out that Mac OS X isn't just a pretty GUI on top of Darwin. As Aqua and other parts of OS X utilizes unique features (and implementations) of Darwin, you can't tear them appart as easily as the parent suggests.

      I do agree with the points you made.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    95. Re:Mac OS? by PudriK · · Score: 1

      I agree. Since it is fairly easy to support almost any monitor, not to mention you don't have to replace them with the same frequency as the computer, I can't understand why Apple doesn't make basic box. You figure with their design they could keep the form factor small and cheap, and could snap up people upgrading from PC who could keep their old monitors.

    96. Re:Mac OS? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      You know I really don't think that Apple lives or dies by the OS. Clearly they are branching out to online music, ipods and other "home entertainment" type of things. Call it geek chic.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    97. Re:Mac OS? by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      And from that toy sprung forth revolutions in photo, print and video graphics. The toy seems to have served many industries very well.

      You can do lots of things with toys. My old Commodore 64 was referred to in high school, by a kid who had an Amiga, as a toy. On that toy, I wrote a couple of computer games that I'm *still* proud I thought up, as well as a sound effect generator I've gotten emulators specifically to be able to run.

    98. Re:Mac OS? by robochan · · Score: 1

      ...A poor quality in a journalist...

      I believe that's the first time I've ever seen Dvorak referred to as a journalist.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    99. Re:Mac OS? by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      What mice have given us is discoverability.

      I'm working at a Domino's Pizza at the moment, and their ordering system is *awful*. It's still one of those character-mode systems where there are a dozen keys, some undocumented, that you have to know to use it. No one explained to me what all these keys do, or why, when the screen says to press Help to list toppings, I actually have to press Home, or that F10 goes to the main menu and F8 lists side orders.

      If I was using a mouse (and a GUI - the two are almost inseparable), then there would probably be checkboxes for toppings and listboxes for sides. People who already know the system might be slowed down if they had to use a mouse... but then again, nothing's preventing the application's developers from implementing hotkeys for each control, in addition to the "standard" keyboard interface.

    100. Re:Mac OS? by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      All well and good, but you forgot the #1 reason I love my mouse: the scroll wheel. The single greatest innovation in input devices.

      Um, how about the mouse? Or the keyboard for that matter? Or even the joystick? Scroll wheels work as a useful adjunct to one or all of these things, but you can't do much with *just* a scroll wheel.

    101. Re:Mac OS? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      x86 is an older architecture than PowerPC. It doesn't matter that some RISC processor might have existed prior to x86; the issue is that the current Mac processors are a newer architecture than is x86.

      Translation layers throw out some of the advantages of RISC. In particular, they do not allow the compiler to manage the instructions properly. The primary point of RISC is to shift the burden of optimization from the processor to the compiler. Using a CISC translation layer prevents the processor from taking full advantage of the RIS and pipelining.

    102. Re:Mac OS? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't it ironic that Macs are "throwaway and buy a new one" computers while in the real world it's exactly the opposite and expensive stuff is made to last?

      Macs are clearly made to last. One of my clients still runs its business off of Macs that are 6 years old. They've upgraded the memory and the peripherals over the years, but those workhorses are still plodding. Admittedly, they are now starting to look at new stuff which can run OS X ;-)

    103. Re:Mac OS? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      As I understand the RAM issue... it is a limitation to use 32-bit addressing, but it is not a showstopper UNLESS you MUST have all 8 to 16gb (even though they don't claim it, I've read it will still work with 8 2gig dimms) in ram at once. I.e. you can mmap as much as you like to a file and then deal with the roughly (not quite) 4 gig window to that data (per process, which could be parallelized depending on the nature of the application) while the kernel caches whatever of that file it can in the remaining system ram. Sure that's a kludge, and one day soon I'm pretty confident that all libs/frameworks and what not will support 64-bit addressing. I hate to sound like an apologist when I say it doesn't really affect me :) But yeah, if you need both 64bit math and an architecture with $10,000 or more worth of ram, use AMD64.

      " I have 6 virtual desktops (using Desktop Manager), each with its own use. It's kind of sorry that Mac OS doesn't even support a notion of virtual desktops, and that they leave it up to third parties to fix."

      I was doing this too until expose'. And I would rant and rave and howl about why on earth Apple didn't include a VWM, like they obviously had with Nextstep, and could have obviously implemented themselves as the couple third party guys have demonstrated). I just kinda got used to expose and stopped using the vwm as a way to manage stack of windows open, you know instead of farming them all to different workspaces.

      Anyhow. I can see I agree with you. To solve your terminals all next to each other problem: You are right, fresh generic terms from terminal app don't remember their shape or location... however, saved terminals do. So, a solution to your situation is to move each terminal where you like it, then each one to a .term file. When you need to fire them all up again, just double click those .term files and they will pop up right where you left them. If it's an issue of moving them one pixel at a time ... consider the neat accessibility feature of zoom... carefully turn it on by typing cmd-alt-8 once, wait a sec then use cmd-alt-= to zoom in, then drag the windows around with your increased level of per pixel placement, then cmd-alt-8 again to turn it off.

      Hope I could help. Cheers.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    104. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to try it with a Mac, because my computers are still working fine. No upgrades needed.

      For reference, I'm referring to a pair of four-and-a-half-year-old Power Mac G4s that are still going strong, and that we're going to be using for at an absolute minimum another year, probably 'till they break. The expensive stuff (Macs) are meant to last, and "normal" computers are throw away and buy a new one, even if you're just swapping motherboards and CPUs.

    105. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does this myth that Macs are expensive persist?

      A base level eMac gives you a 17" monitor, Ethernet, FireWire, and a 64MB ATI graphics card, for AU$1200.

      A base level Dell gives you a 17" monitor, no Ethernet (extra $50), no FireWire (extra $100), onboard video sharing the main RAM (extra $150 for a video card), for a base price of AU$1000.

      So for a pre-built machine with the same features, you pay $100 more for the Dell.

      And a home-built biege box is only cheaper when you don't take into account the amount of time spent assembling and troubleshooting, which, if calculated on an hourly basis, can easily approach the cost of components. This might be news to you, but most people are quite happy to let someone else build and test a machine for them and pay for the service, because it is easier, quicker, and comes with a warantee.

      "I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually gives up reserving its software for its own hardware and begins to sell Mac OS as a GUI and software bundle on top of Linux"

      Really? Everyone else would be, since part of what Apple sells is reliability, which is impossible if you're trying to support every chipset under the sun. Sure, OS X doesn't support every piece of crud hardware: THAT'S THE POINT! Cheap, dodgy hardware with poorly written software conflicting with mobo chipsets is the curse of Windows, and always has been. Linux adds to this the need for lot of research on the user's part to determine compatability. But if something has a little blue smiley face on it (or a big blue X), you can pretty much be certain that it WILL work with any Mac. That in itself is worth paying extra for, except that as previously established, you don't pay any extra.

      Which platform costs more now?

    106. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My other gripe is that you can't interact with a non focused window without holding down the command key. I wish the click focus followed the mouse like the scroll-wheel focus does

      Funny, this is one of the "features" I hate most about Windows. Click focus should never follow without special intervention. If it follows, you'll end up doing things to a background window when you bring it to focus unless you click a nonactionable area.

    107. Re:Mac OS? by heffrey · · Score: 1

      Shift+F10 is great - if the app responds to it. Just discovered that Firefox on Windows doesn't. Anyone know a good reason? Perhaps the Firefox people should be a bit more standards compliant.

    108. Re:Mac OS? by joshbosh · · Score: 1
      When I got my 17" powerbook, I priced out a comparable dell - with you added all the things that apple included (wifi g, dvd burner, bluetooth), the apple was cheaper.

      The PowerBook may have been cheaper than a Dell sold at retail price, but when I buy Dell laptops, I pay 30-40% less than retail using coupons and discounts that I find at FatWallet. The best non-academic deal I've ever seen for a PowerBook is a $150 rebate, which is insufficient.

      FatWallet Forums: Search

    109. Re:Mac OS? by bladx · · Score: 1

      ah, yes, good point.. we do use some linux boxes where i worked, and they worked seamlessly for what we were using them for.. mostly LDAP-related things for students, etc. i agree with you about the uptime and stability of linux, and *nix-based OSes ... i tend to just use windows for design-related things now.. and even so, i did a lot of that on my temporary ibook during the summer. i guess one of the issues is cost.. between OS X and linux.. i guess operating costs or whatever will mean that using anything in the workplace will cost something.. if not time

    110. Re:Mac OS? by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      The zoom feature isn't too helpful for me, but saving the terms to a .term is an excellent idea. In fact, I put that into my startup. Many thanks for that one. That solves the problem for console sessions, at least, but not necessarily other apps. No biggee, seems I'm whittling away at most of the minor issues I have with the Mac GUI.

      Not that fond of expose, though. Helpful for finding lost windows, but I still love Desktop Manager too much.

    111. Re:Mac OS? by bladx · · Score: 1

      the mac os x crashing bit is weird.. i wonder what is being used as far as software, both for the OS and whatever else is running on it. the laptop i used running the latest version of mac os x (server) did not have any major problems that i remember.. i would say "no problems" but i can't remember if there were or not. suffice to say.. the laptop had an uptime of 40 days, before i gave it a rest, and shut it down. during the whole summer, there wasn't a point where the machine crashed and had to be restarted.. i was surprised

    112. Re:Mac OS? by DarkManaX · · Score: 1

      No kidding; look at any of the creative fields; ad design/marketing, animation, production, etc... all use Mac... toy? I think not. Kinda like when people say "those guys and their toys" in reference to tools that are used to build things.

    113. Re:Mac OS? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Personally, I *loathe* snap. I sometimes don't want to place things right next to each other; sometimes I want overlap, or to leave a bit of dead space, but not much. Snap fucks that up. It annoys me a lot more in Photoshop, where someday I will learn the way to turn it off, but it annoys me just as much with window placement.

      Just one of those little things.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    114. Re:Mac OS? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      "Given the huge number of Linux drivers, those are the kind of changes that Apple can pull off but a near to impossible to do in the Linux world."
      You trade the freedom to use lots of different hardware (Linux) for the convenience of using Apple hardware. Deciding which is better is personal.

      "kernel are not that important anymore"
      I have difficulty agreeing with this comment. Certainly there may be a great deal of interoperability between Linux and OSX (perhaps ignoring the GPL in some cases) but this is not the same as saying that the particular kernels are not important. If your comment were correct, would we need Free Darwin? (Also here and here.)

      As the Linux kernel progresses (adding more improved journaled file systems, better smp support, better use of resources, etc.), I believe the same applications which run under Linux and OSX will run better under Linux. (A related example is Quake3; it runs much faster under Linux than under Windows. Sometime Windows (applications) run faster under wine than under Windows. I do not know how OSX and Linux compare in this regard. However, OSX has an extra layer which probably does not help speed things up.)

    115. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a non tech site I run (fitness) shows 1.56% Mac, 1.12% Linux, 0.51% other and rest windows. BTW the owners of the site/business use macs, so it should be unfairly biased....

    116. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am shocked! You are right! ... wow. Perhaps someone should mention this to them.

      On the other hand, at least this is in an app which I use the mouse almost exclusively, thanks to gestures and rocker navigation. ;) I can even overlook the focus-grabbing issues. Even with this blemish, Firefox is still far and away the superior choice for me.

    117. Re:Mac OS? by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have complained that it's actually not consistent unless you hold down command. For example, the minimized itunes window will let you click the forward - back - pause etc without first raising the window, while it will ignore the raising/focussing click in other places. I'd like the option to tell the gui that when I click something, I want it to react, even if it's below something else; My reasoning being that windows in OS X have plenty of 'handle room' at the top and bottom of the window to permit deliberate raising.

      So anyhow. I'm saying I love that you can move, interact and shape a window without raising it by command-clicking, but I hate that it's not consistent when you don't hold down command.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    118. Re:Mac OS? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Besides, isn't choice good?

      That was exactly my point - ATM because the world is governed by Windows (which is x86-only), most people are forced into using x86 hardware even if they're not using Windows because non-x86 hardware is not especially mainstream, so it's expensive. If the world revolved around open source software then IMHO we would have much more choice because a wider range of hardware would be supported, bringing down the price of alternative architectures. So you could choose what was best for you.

    119. Re:Mac OS? by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 1
      "Given the huge number of Linux drivers, those are the kind of changes that Apple can pull off but a near to impossible to do in the Linux world." You trade the freedom to use lots of different hardware (Linux) for the convenience of using Apple hardware. Deciding which is better is personal.
      I was not arguing about ideological question like open vs closed, or free or not, simply pointing out technical innovation that the Darwin kernel has, and Linux has not.
      kernel are not that important anymore" I have difficulty agreeing with this comment. Certainly there may be a great deal of interoperability between Linux and OSX (perhaps ignoring the GPL in some cases) but this is not the same as saying that the particular kernels are not important. If your comment were correct, would we need Free Darwin? (Also here and here.)
      Actually, I think that Free Darwin is exactly an example that shows that Kernels are not that important. Free Darwin is not a different kernel, it is simply the Darwin kernel shipped with GNU user-land programs (the same than Linux). What people use, see and care for are the user-land programs - if they want the GNU user-land, they can install it.

      Actually, I don't know who needs Free Darwin, I don't even know if people actually use it. People who want to install GNU programs and libraries usually rely on less political and more practical distributions, like fink, or open darwin (which is done with some help from Apple) or even gentoo's portage.

      A related example is Quake3; it runs much faster under Linux than under Windows. Sometime Windows (applications) run faster under wine than under Windows.
      I don't think that characterizing the performance of an operating system by the performance of a game that relies little on the operating system's service is very relevant. I suspect that Quake performance is heavily influenced by the quality of the graphic card's driver more than anything else.
      However, OSX has an extra layer which probably does not help speed things up.)
      What extra layer? Are you talking about the Mach micro-kernel? The BSD layer and the Mach kernel are running in the same memory space, so the overhead is limited. Also this separation between Mach kernel and BSD personality make the design of the kernel cleaner. This might or not be an advantage in the future, it is difficult to decide now, but there must be a reason people from the Hurd are trying to build a similar architecture...
    120. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because OS X is better than Windows doesn't mean it'll be around in 10 years. Think of Mac OS X as the Betamax of the 21st Century.

      Why do you think Jobs hasn't made any ads for OS X? Why is everything focusing on his music products? Simple: He's transitioning from a computer company to a device company, a la Sony. Computers will be secondary, if they're around at all.

      Jobs has a legal obligation to maximize shareholder returns; his music division 0wns the market after just a year or two, while his computers have been struggling for 20 years to no avail. He has a legal obligation to ditch his worst products and allocate those resources toward more profitable ventures. It's obvious that Apple can grow better elsewhere.

      And finally, Bill and Steve are reportedly buddies. Bill undoubtedly knows something we don't.

    121. Re:Mac OS? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      But that's exactly what I was talking about when I called it a "marketing lie".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    122. Re:Mac OS? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1
      WRT Mac OS

      Are these acronyms really necessary? I guess it's easier to type WRT than to type "with regard to" but for thos of us out there who might not have ever seen that acronym (myself included) it makes your post a little more difficult to read, IMHO. However, IANAL so YMMV.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    123. Re:Mac OS? by Teampoop · · Score: 1

      Someone once said to me "once you define something as cool, it instantly looses it"..

      --
      -- the end
    124. Re:Mac OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so Gates has his point of view.

      What I don't get, why would he disregard GNU/Hurd?

      Lack of insight, really. How could anyone ever take this guy seriously?

      -- aRTee

    125. Re:Mac OS? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • With the Mac OS now a layer on top of Unix, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually gives up reserving its software for its own hardware and begins to sell Mac OS as a GUI and software bundle on top of Linux, essentially a commercial counterpart to Gnome or KDE.
      It's a nice idea but I doubt it'd happen unless Jobs drops dead suddenly. Even then it's iffy, Apple likes being in control of the hardware as well as the software so they're not going to be keen on giving that up.
  3. I hate to say it by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    but if Bill Gates says it too, it must be true:

    *BSD is Dying! (And will have died in 10 years)

    Just had to get that out of the way.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:I hate to say it by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      but if Bill Gates says it too, it must be true: *BSD is Dying!
      It's already a nonfactor as far as BG is concerned.

      That said, Linux fills a niche that could otherwise have been filled almost as well by a free / open BSD. (I say "almost" because the license of BSD has lead to fragmentation that created an opening for Linux).

    2. Re:I hate to say it by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      (I say "almost" because the license of BSD has lead to fragmentation that created an opening for Linux).

      The irony is strong in this one...

    3. Re:I hate to say it by regcrusher · · Score: 0

      BSD is dying???

      With Windows.. the blue screen of death will never die!

    4. Re:I hate to say it by OverlordQ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      BTW, [myg0t]steelcap is my bitch.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    5. Re:I hate to say it by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      A nonfactor, eh - so BG doesn't care about Apple anymore, then? They're the biggest distributer of BSD out there.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're the biggest distributer of BSD out there."

      1) There a vendor , not a distributor.
      2) They dont sell BSD , they use the BSD license flaw and renamed it Mac OS X ( That what they sale and offer )

    7. Re:I hate to say it by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Microsoft is, they use BSD code in all of their OS's, including Windows.

    8. Re:I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been saying that for the last five years.

    9. Re:I hate to say it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Haha! When I saw the headline, that was my very first thought too :)

      Um... if BSD is dying, and Windows contains BSD code, what does this mean? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:I hate to say it by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X *IS* BSD, with a lot of extra stuff on top - just like, say, putting out a version of BSD with Xfree86 on it is still putting out BSD.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  4. Oh the cosmic justice... by rune2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hit by his own security vulnerabilities! I can just picture Gates running Ad Aware... heh maybe someone should suggest that he switch to using Linux and Firefox!

    1. Re:Oh the cosmic justice... by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      I'd love to be in that conversation:

      thephotoman: So, tell me, why aren't you using Firefox yet?

      Bill Gates: Because I PWN TEH INTARWEB! PH33R MY 1337 $$$!

      tpm: *rolls eyes*

      BG: As long as everybody uses MY browser, I have EVERYTHING they own!

      tpm: *calls the police, the SEC, and publishes a tape of the converastion on the internet*

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  5. 640K is enough.... by Mastadex · · Score: 1, Interesting

    THis is the same man (Borg?) that said 640K is enough for everyone. and now hes claiming 2OS is enough for the whole world...

    I just lost faith in humanity...

    --
    A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
    1. Re:640K is enough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey

      got to get something right......!:)

    2. Re:640K is enough.... by Osrin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Didn't Tom Watson (founder of IBM) once claim that the world only needed 5 computers, and he was the man to build them?

    3. Re:640K is enough.... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, if you did your research, you'd find out that he never said that. He's not an idiot, and only an idiot would make a definate statement about the evolution of tech.

      I'm too tired to find the links right now, but a minute or 5 of google should clear it up for ya.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    4. Re:640K is enough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not an idiot, and only an idiot would make a definate statement about the evolution of tech.

      The man who bought the code that became MS-Dos and setting the standard in inadquate legacy garbage for 20 years? You are right, he's not an idiot, he's a business man.

    5. Re:640K is enough.... by Surazal · · Score: 1

      > Didn't Tom Watson (founder of IBM) once claim that the world only needed 5 computers, and he was the man to build them?

      Well, judging by the way things went in those days, he probably did build the next five computers ever manufactured. He probably got a little blindsided by the sixth one when the next guy took over, though. ;^)

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    6. Re:640K is enough.... by PopCulture · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, Tom Watson was born in the 1870's :)

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    7. Re:640K is enough.... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Didn't Tom Watson (founder of IBM) once claim that the world only needed 5 computers, and he was the man to build them?

      Yes, and at the then current price/performance curves he was right.

      Of course this was (even before) back when a mechanical calculator cost about a thousand bucks and a thousand bucks was worth a thousand bucks. Now you've got 4-function calculators (with bad buttons) at give-away prices.

      Change the price/performance curves and the definition of "enough" changes.

    8. Re:640K is enough.... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "THis is the same man (Borg?) that said 640K is enough for everyone."

      No.

      "and now hes claiming 2OS is enough for the whole world..."

      He didn't say that either. I'll give you a hint: The word 'enough' doesn't appear anywhere in that sentence.

      "I just lost faith in humanity..."

      Everybody who voted to have Bill Gates solely represent humanity, raise your hands.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:640K is enough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, if you did your research, you'd find out that he never said that. He's not an idiot, and only an idiot would make a definate statement about the evolution of tech.

      "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.", Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943

      I was under the impression that Mr Watson wasn't an idiot (no more than Mr Gates, anyway), but here he goes making rash statements about the evolution of tech.

      Also see Moore's 'Law', which is a somewhat definite statement about the evolution of tech from a non-idiot.

    10. Re:640K is enough.... by CrazyMalaysian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here you go: http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_mem ory.html There are far too many misinformed people out there.

    11. Re:640K is enough.... by CrazyMalaysian · · Score: 1

      Darn, bad link.

      http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_m em ory.html/

      Remove the space in "memory", i cant seem to remove it myself.

    12. Re:640K is enough.... by fgb · · Score: 1

      As so many other people have pointed out, he never actually made this statement. But what if he had? Would he have been so wrong?

      Consider that, at the time, most software ran quite well within 128K. 640K was, indeed, enough for anyone.
      Saying that "640K should be enough for anyone" is not the same as saying "640K will always be enough for anyone".

      Another typical example of this kind of thing is when Thomas Watson, Jr. was reported to have said the world would never need more than six computers. Well, at the time, computers were huge, room-sized monsters. Let me ask you. How many huge, room-sized computers are in use today. I may be incorrect, but I would bet that the number is not far from six.

      The point I am making is that people often repeat these quotes in order to show that those quoted did not know what they were talking about. But the only thing they are showing is that *they* do not understand the context in which those statements were (allegedly) made.

    13. Re:640K is enough.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      That's still not a link.
      This is the link.

    14. Re:640K is enough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he didn't say it. But say it enough and it's true, right? Find the cite. And not a cite to a cite, the cite. Come on, I fucking dare you.

    15. Re:640K is enough.... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Moore's Law has been changed, and if you do a little research on it, you'll see that Moore admitted that the "Law" may need to be adjusted every 10 years or so.

      And the IBM guy may not have been an idiot, but he was born in the 1870's.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    16. Re:640K is enough.... by Rary · · Score: 1

      And you'll notice that he made that statement in 1943. You'll also notice that the statement is not "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers ever." What he said was probably quite true at that time.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  6. No Mac OS? What will the Mac Business Unit Think? by thedbp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is Bill telling his employees in the Mac Business Unit that all their hard work is going to be for nothing? Is he planning on shutting down the MacBU, an that's why he's saying Mac OS won't be around?

    man, that's really f-ed up. Maybe the Windows Office team are getting jealous of how good the Mac version of Office is getting and are planning on burning the MacBU to the ground...

  7. Mac-Tel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If Apple ever releases a PC version of OSX, M$ is screwed. But that won't happen now, will it?

    1. Re:Mac-Tel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard plausible rumors that the wizards at Apple already have a PC version of OS X locked up in the lab.

      I DO wonder just what would happen if Steve decided to let his Big Kitties out...

    2. Re:Mac-Tel? by bot24 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is, most software is PC(x86) or Macintosh(OSX) compatible. However, PC means x86 machine with Windows, and Macintosh means PPC machine with OSX. x86 OSX would have the same problem that plagues Linux n00bs: Linux compatible could mean x86, PPC, IA64, ARM, SH3, etc. Having always thought of their computer being a Windows PC or a Mac, and know running Linux, they wonder why PackageX-PS2.rpm won't run on their computer.
      Another problem would be that there are differences between the architectures enough that source code may require changes before it will execute correctly. There would be no software that would run on your x86 OSX machine. Companies would most likely need to port their applications before OSX-x86 would be useful.
      This might be secretly happening right now. NDA companies that develop major products for your OS and have them start porting. Don't let the MBU know or their might be an in company leak.

    3. Re:Mac-Tel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's strategy is to make money selling HARDWARE not software. They would be committing suicide as a company, and OSX is hardly a wooden stake for Windows.

    4. Re:Mac-Tel? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "If Apple ever releases a PC version of OSX, M$ is screwed. But that won't happen now, will it?"

      Um, what makes you think millions of people would suddenly drop money into a Mac OS for PC? And when I say millions, I mean 'enough to screw MS'.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Mac-Tel? by tholomyes · · Score: 1
      Companies would most likely need to port their applications before OSX-x86 would be useful.

      As someone who frequents multiple hardware platforms, judging by how quickly many applications have been ported over from the BSD and Linux world over to OS X, I don't think this would be a major obstacle. Especially since many of the most useful applications on OS X are open source or provided by Apple themselves. Most Linux enthusiasts I know are really rather fond of OS X itself, if not the price of the hardware, and just wish they would put out an x86 version of it.

      Rumor has it that Apple does keep an up-to-date x86 build of OS X in house, probably because, as someone mentioned above, staying reliant on the PowerPC might be folly. On the other hand, the X-Box 2 is reportedly going to be using a PowerPC G5, and one would think that Microsoft would be sticking with some sort of Windows-based kernel on their own gaming platform, so we'll see which way the chipset pendulum swings.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    6. Re:Mac-Tel? by raodin · · Score: 1

      The NT kernel had a PPC (and MIPS, and Alpha) version in the past, I doubt the outcome will be any different now.

    7. Re:Mac-Tel? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Think they'll use it in 32 bit mode like NT on the old alphas?

      It would be hilarious to see MS stick a broomhandle up the ass of the xbox2. :D

      --
      It's been a long time.
    8. Re:Mac-Tel? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      and one would think that Microsoft would be sticking with some sort of Windows-based kernel on their own gaming platform

      Windows is supposed to run all sorts of applications, why do you need a whole multitasking OS if you only run one program at a time? And you KNOW what it is going to be.

      Of course, I'm not an OS or game programmer, so I am probably wrong about this.

    9. Re:Mac-Tel? by TheInternet · · Score: 1

      There would be no software that would run on your x86 OSX machine. Companies would most likely need to port their applications before OSX-x86 would be useful

      This really isn't an issue for most modern Mac OS X Cocoa apps. For the most part, they don't make assumptions about the underlying architecture. As other will probably point out elsewhere, Next apps ran on multiple hardware achitectures just fine. I can't really speak to Carbon (Photoshop).

      - Scott

      --
      Scott Stevenson
      Tree House Ideas
  8. OS X and FreeBSD by ValiantSoul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market

    Um...Mac OS X is only getting better and more switchers from Microsoft, and FreeBSD is still running a lot of servers around the world (and ones that don't go down).

    I predict that in 10 years from now, Microsoft will be dead, linux and FreeBSD will feed off of each other making both extremely good choices (FreeBSD for server, linux for desktop). Then the competition will be between Mac OS X and linux for the desktop.

    1. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Hiro2k · · Score: 1

      If had mod points I would give them too you for this is the same prediction I would have made. :D

    2. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, in the spirit of the parent, I present my shocking theory:

      In 2014, Linux will be the Unix of the 21st century. OpenVMS will run on every moderate sized box, and MS Windows 2012.L (linux version... AIX admins will get this one) will be an X client/server for remote control of all the other boxes.

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    3. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually believe this, you must never had heard of a concept in physics called "Momentum," the product of mass and velocity. I'm not sure what Microsoft's product will be like, but it'll be a product of its velocity and mass.

    4. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

      Then you must be unfamiliar with the term "bankruptcy." If linux and Mac OS X take all the users from Windows, Microsoft will have nothing until it eventually spends all of its money and goes bankrupt.

    6. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      and FreeBSD is still running a lot of servers around the world

      Fool, everyone knows BSD is dying.
      /ducks

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by ValiantSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      FreeBSD may be "dying" if by dying you mean not gaining very many new users. None the less, even if it is dying, that does not deny it of currently running quite a few servers including Yahoo and many more.

      FreeBSD by the way is gaining more users, just at a slower pace than linux. Take a look here[netcraft.com]

    8. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by pappy97 · · Score: 1

      "Then the competition will be between Mac OS X and linux for the desktop."

      If it comes to that, then simply isn't it Mac vs. PC?...after all, we can't install OS X onto an x86 system

      Mac is for rich people, and PC is for the rest of us...

    9. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Um...Mac OS X is only getting better and more switchers from Microsoft, "

      Lets do a reality check: Even though Mac OS X has been getting lots of attention, the Macintosh installed base is still declining.

    10. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop parrotting the Netcraft thing. FreeBSD is losing users because they insist on keeping assholes like Darling Smorgrav in their developers list.

    11. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by Lee_in_KC · · Score: 1

      Um...Mac OS X is only getting better and more switchers from Microsoft

      So when can I expect to be able to put OS X n my PC? Oh that's right, never. You're mixing a hardware choice with an OS choice. Not really apples to apples.

      ....and FreeBSD is still running a lot of servers around the world (and ones that don't go down).

      Ones that don't go down ... as opposed to the ones that always go down I guess? I have Windows-based servers that have been running for years (2+) in an isolated environment. When can I expect then to crash?

      The fact is the stability of a server is directly related to the ability of the support staff. A group of poorly-trained BSD admins will do a worse job and produce a crappier result than a group of highly-trained Windows admins.

      I predict that in 10 years from now, Microsoft will be dead, linux and FreeBSD will feed off of each other making both extremely good choices (FreeBSD for server, linux for desktop). Then the competition will be between Mac OS X and linux for the desktop.

      I'll take that bet. I predict that IT people that know how to use the best took for the situation and the task at hand will survive while people that will "only use Xxxx" will be back flipping burgers.

    12. Re:OS X and FreeBSD by vettemph · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, I predict that competition itself will be dead 10 years from now. Mac and linux will co-exsist in a peaceful rainbow filled future.

      PS. I also predict that Mac OS X will be dead 10 years from now, but before you get your aqua colored panties in a bunch, Mac OS XV will be going strong.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  9. Gates is wron! by SaidinUnleashed · · Score: 0, Troll

    I predict that the only OSes left in 10 years will be MacOS an Linux!

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
  10. Microsoft is planning to offer it's own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    anti-spyware software? Does this mean that when it's run that it will offer remove Windows? If so, this will be the first good thing to come from Microsoft.

  11. Optimistic Gates? by chrispyman · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's quite interesting that he expects Linux to still exist 10 years from now. I thought that he expected that his SCO henchmen would actually be able to succeed in killing Linux.

    1. Re:Optimistic Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is also pesimistic: he believes Windows will still exist...

    2. Re:Optimistic Gates? by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Evil intentions though he may have, Gates isn't an idiot. He may not like it, but he can see that SCO has made a complete cock-up of its anti-Linux scam.

    3. Re:Optimistic Gates? by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      The man is vicious, not stupid.

      SCO's got only so much time left (I think it was something along the line of 90 days) to prove they actually have an argument regarding Linux. And I don't think the court's buying it anymore; they are already telling SCO to start talking, or Summary Judgement will hit like a ton of bricks.

      Once the Summary Judgement falls, SCO can kiss their Linux claims goodbye forever, leaving a contract dispute (which was begun as a direct result of the above claims). And it's pretty obvious what the finding will be; barring some macabre miracle.

  12. silly me by squarefish · · Score: 0, Troll

    but I thought windows was spyware before anyone was even using the term for other software.

    I don't know if the registration system could fall any other name....

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  13. Excellent. by nickjl · · Score: 1

    Just yesterday I was thinking, "It would be a good thing if Microsoft would stick an anti adware/spyware thing in Windows and have it run by default". Lo and behold, they seem to have taken my mental suggestion.

    1. Re:Excellent. by pmazer · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should patent it before they get the chance

    2. Re:Excellent. by benna · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Too bad microsoft will probobly just charge spyware companies a fee to have their crap not get blocked.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Excellent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just yesterday I was thinking, "It would be a good thing if Microsoft would stick an anti adware/spyware thing in Windows and have it run by default". Lo and behold, they seem to have taken my mental suggestion.


      Hey, how about you use your mental powers for some real good. Start thinking, "Boy, Microsoft should release Windows GPL then fade from existence," for about 10 hours a day, and who knows what could happen!
  14. ...and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    those two operating systems will be running on Tablet PCs with 64k RAM and DRM. Oh and BOB.

  15. Nuclear Reactor Market?? by civilengineer · · Score: 2, Funny

    "We ourselves are not going after the e-voting market or the nuclear reactor control market," Gates said.

    Who is the leader in the Nuclear Reactor Control market right now ? (I mean, what OS is running in nuclear reactors? I for one hope it's not Windows ME)

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in France they run linux. I don't know about the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is no OS per se, on critical systems. Most are embedded devices running proprietary code, and usually just enough to perform the function they were designed to do.

      When you hear reports of computer troubles at nuclear plants, it's more likely to be SoBig.x trashing the mail server, than slammer causing a SCRAM.

    3. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding? I'm the coward from below, and can only speak for the Kings 'Old' colonies, but I must say I'm amazed they use linux in control systems. It certainly is hardened enough, but I recall when Y2K was looming large and we were worried about specialty 486's causing reactor protective functions, only from their watchdog timers (literally, they were only used as counters)

    4. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Who is the leader in the Nuclear Reactor Control market right now ?


      Mainly human beings..
      The "computers" are used for monitoring and for safety functions, they are embedded systems. I know the plant I worked at had a protection system that ran on a three channel redundant system built around the 8088. We actually did troubleshooting with a signature analyzer to compare to known good values. Of course I've been out of the field for 6 years so maybe computers have been retro-fitted into the systems but I doubt it.

    5. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by killpog · · Score: 1

      Well-trained human beings that THINK. We hope.

    6. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Ahh, reminds me of my first PC, with a little note in the Windows 95 manual about not using it for controlling nuclear reactors...

      Gives the Chernobyl virus a whole new meaning, don't it?

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    7. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      It was one of Microsofts targets for WinME. The ME actually stands for MEltdown.

      The plan was to make a zombie army of Doom. We where saved because it was so unstable nobody could install it at all.

    8. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Odds are, reactor control is done by PLCs, and you probably wouldn't even recognise the OS on it as an OS. After that, the interface could be windows PCs, but nothing is really at risk, providing that the PLCs are well programmed.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    9. Re:Nuclear Reactor Market?? by VTBassMatt · · Score: 1

      The Tennessee Valley Authority's reactors run VMS on Alpha. (Well, OK, the monitoring and remote control systems run VMS on Alpha; as other posters have said, the control room itself is a hardware control board driving embedded PLCs and such.)

  16. Hyperbole? by mikeophile · · Score: 1

    However, it is better to have such technologies around and hope for the best, rather than not publishing online music or movies just out of fear that someone will crack their security. In the first case you have some piracy and some sales, on the second case you only end up with piracy.

    Yeah, because piracy has pretty much eliminated the sale of music and movies.

    In fact, there is only one sale of any given title anymore and that person just uploads it to the net.

    1. Re:Hyperbole? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I don't see your point... what he said is completely reasonable IMHO. If you publish online and someone cracks your protection you get some sales and some piracy online. On the other hand if you don't publish online all online copies are piarated. Therefore, as he points out its better to take the risk and publish online.

  17. oh god ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... here come the mac zealots ...

    1. Re:oh god ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What?
      You got something aginst Macs?
      Well do you punk?!

    2. Re:oh god ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It... it looks like they're slinging their one button mouses around!

    3. Re:oh god ... by LoadWB · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could be worse... a bunch of us Amiga-zoids could start preaching about the release of OS4, and how AmigaOS could only get better in the next decade.

      Now, please excuse me while I go cry a little...

    4. Re:oh god ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mice." We sling our "one-button mice" around, you fucking cretin.

    5. Re:oh god ... by maximilln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be worse... a bunch of us Amiga-zoids

      I miss my Amiga 500, with its startup-sequence, and it's MagicWB (was that really just an icon set?), and it's NeXT-like toolbar, and my Supra28 accelerator (which burned out), and it's 1.3/2.04 ROM switcher (which also burned out), because Pirates! didn't work under 2.04, and the Guru meditation errors, and my side-mounted hard drive controller with 8 mb of 1x8 SIMM memory, and the Fat Agnus 1 mb vid mem expansion, and it's standard RCA-out jacks for stereo sound, and its 1024x768x24 video resolution for high res IFF images, and... and... and...

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    6. Re:oh god ... by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      ...OOOS (buffer overrun in your JPEG software? plug in a new class implementation! Whaddya mean you can't do that in Winduhs?)...

    7. Re:oh god ... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1
      here come the mac zealots ...

      That made me think of the scene in Starhip Troopers where they are isolated in that tiny fort and hoards of screeching aliens stampede towards them.

      Screeeeee!

    8. Re:oh god ... by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      MagicWB was/is a full Workbench replacement. Check it out here:

      http://www.sasg.com/mwb/index.html

      I only used it once on my '030/40MHz Amiga 500. I went back to Workbench. I understand it worked/s and looked/s much better on an AGA system. I have since moved on to a 4000 (sorrowfully only a 40MHz '040) and a 1200 (also only 40MHz '040,) so perhaps it will work and look better than the OS3.9 Workbench. But then, I seem to recall that OS3.9's WB has integrated in a lot of the same features.

    9. Re:oh god ... by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny... the Mac folks probably think of themselves as the troopers... a small, elite, well-equipped group with expensive gear hopelessly defending themselves against the onslaught of a giant, expendable, (spam) zombie horde with better market share.

      When you then factor in how the brain bug sucked all of the knowledge out of the humans... well, I guess the question becomes who among the MS management is the brain bug?

      STOP ME BEFORE I CONTINUE THIS HORRIBLE ANALOGY ANY FURTH....UNNNGGGggghhhaaaaaaa!

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  18. huh? by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

    Large, under-regulated corporations pose a challenging contemporary threat to civil privacy interests --- esp on the net. Its confusing --- maybe even a little orwellian --- to contemplate Microsoft as some kind of champion of privacy interests. Isn't the MS drive for market share and support of the proprietary software as dangerous to civil liberties as spyware?

    --
    I'm laughing at clouds.
  19. Seems to be the american way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why spend the man power fixing his faulty product when you can use 1/2 the time time and just create a bandaid fix!!

    1. Re:Seems to be the american way by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Kind of like the Treaty of Versailles...

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  20. prostoalex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.

    The only thing I see is in the OsNews article where Bill Gates is quoted to say "fast forward 10 years, the two leading OS technologies will be Linux and Windows." But "leading" is very different from "only". Nowhere does it say all other OSs will disappear.

    prostoalex, YOU must substantiate your statement NOW. Or are you spreading more anti-MS FUD??

    1. Re:prostoalex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on...mod the parent up...add an update to the story because the article summary is totally unsubstantiated bovine fecal matter...I know this is Slashdot where people love to make Microsoft and Bill Gates look like crap, but come on...this borders on libel!!!

  21. spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, so MS is going to release a program to erase Windows from my system?

  22. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs must be laughing his ass off right now... ;)

  23. Apple & BSD clichés by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."
    Hmmm. Is this proof that Apple & BSD are dead, or not????
  24. Anti spyware? by News+for+nerds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If MS just a bit disclose the hidden places of OS to the very owners of OS/PC, spyware will be immediately found and killed. Just make those HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run keys and other obscure parts more open and clear to users. Make non-technologically-competitive pieces of OS components open source. Don't lie to your own consumers.

    1. Re:Anti spyware? by Ark42 · · Score: 0

      Paste this into a .reg file and run it:

      REGEDIT4

      [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\ Cu rrentVersion\Run]
      [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mi crosoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Run]
      [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Mic rosoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Run]
      [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Micr osoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run]
      [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mic rosoft\Windows\Cu rrentVersion\Explorer\ShellExecuteHooks]
      [HKEY_LO CAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Explorer\ShellExecuteHooks]

      The -key deletes the entire key and all its values, then the next line will re-create an empty key in its place. Your system will run fine with nothing starting up and nothing hooking the explorer process. I'm sure there are other keys but these 3 are big.

    2. Re:Anti spyware? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      The -key deletes the entire key and all its values, then the next line will re-create an empty key in its place. Your system will run fine with nothing starting up and nothing hooking the explorer process. I'm sure there are other keys but these 3 are big.
      ... and watch as people start complaining because their Gateway keyboard stops letting them play CDs using the "Play" button on it. Or check their email.

      Your solution needs to be more discriminatory.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    3. Re:Anti spyware? by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Windows XP supports all those silly buttons without any extra software having to run in the background.
      Sure it could be more discriminatory, but it will not ruin anybody's system to clear out those keys.
      What would be really helpful though is something like just the startup tab of msconfig that also shows things like ShellExecuteHooks and such, but also looks at a repository on microsoft.com to try to determine with md5sums or something what each program is, or at least if its a valid MS process or not.

    4. Re:Anti spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't work anyway, for at least three reasons.

      1. You missed RunServices, which is sorta common to use these days.
      2. You would have to kill the relevant processes at the same time. Modern spyware will see that you've deleted its run value, and simply add it back.
      3. Browser Helper Objects.

    5. Re:Anti spyware? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Windows XP supports all those silly buttons without any extra software having to run in the background.

      No, it doesn't. Not on all keyboards, on all systems. And not for all buttons.

      Don't forget; this isn't a question of changing the way existing things work so that they work the right way and do the right things - it's a matter of coming up with a solution which works even if there is plenty of software out there that does things wrong.

      The name of the game is compatibility and robustness. Elegance and correctness are secondary.

      Clearing out those keys may well ruin someone's system - remember, most people don't know how their system works enough to repair the damage.

      As for your other suggestion... isn't that what most anti-Spyware software does?

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    6. Re:Anti spyware? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      msconfig

      Any list reading help desk will tell you about it.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    7. Re:Anti spyware? by Ark42 · · Score: 1


      This is all a dirty compared to just running SpyBot, but if you want to just delete the registry keys and hit the power button, most things won't rewrite themselves to the registry quick enough. Or you could just use safemode to do this.

    8. Re:Anti spyware? by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Most antispyware programs seem to be like virus scanners, not just a tool that lets you see *everything* that starts up. I'm more interested in seeing what programs are starting up then I am what silly cookies spybot thinks are bad and what orphaned registry keys it thinks may belong to a long-gone program.
      For now, the best solution I have found is to bookmark a few common registry keys in regedit, and just google for the .exe name if I don't recognize it.

    9. Re:Anti spyware? by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Well, a huge number of the keys do have a very spiffy frontend, although the frontend isn't Microsoft's...

      http://www.x-setup.net/

    10. Re:Anti spyware? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Last time I had to do a virus/spyware purge (mobo upgrade, re-installed windows, u get the idea) I just found it easier to kill all the processes first than hit the power button. Of course, I'm one of the few that takes the time to remember what processes are supposed to be running, and it doesn't help if any Windows processes get modified, but it's better than clearing the registry and resetting.

    11. Re:Anti spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother can barely understand the concept of quitting an application; how do you suppose that you make these visible in a user visible manner?

      It was nice how in XP SP2, there is a list of running BHOs, but chances are that if you understand enough to look in there, you understand enough to download Ad-Aware and run it.

  25. Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There will be a number of OSS which will be around. In addition, ALL of the closed source will be sold to others. OS's make their real money (except for MS's) after it is put into maintence mode. Good example was hp-3000. Lost money at the OS level until it was put into mainence mode. Then it made big bucks for HP. Likewise, vms makes a lot of money for HP.

    Apple, by being based on OSS, may be spared that death, but hard to tell.

    All most certainly all the the closed Unixs will be in maintence mode or dead. What ever aspects of them that were interesting will be done in Linux.

    While BSD will almost certainly be around, I doubt that it will capture a big market. Nobody can really take the chance of MS swooping in and killing them.

    But Linux and Windows will probably be the 2 gorrillas.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      In the event that your prediction and not Bills ends up being true then I doubt very much that MacOS survives because it's based on OSS. In such an event MacOS would survive for (oddly enough) some of the same reasons why it nearly died. It would survive because it's got a small, intensely loyal user base, and it's tied tightly to the hardware it's designed to run on.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    2. Re:Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Al right, Let us say that you are right.
      It is based on loyal users.
      if the market shrinks, can Apple stay up with a normal OS on its own? No, Not really. It is costly to do OS work. Just about every company loses money on OSs (save MS) until it goes into maintence mode. If OSX goes that direction, the the OS is dead. But if the application levels drop, many customers will likely have no choice but to move.

      While I admire the loyal Mac User, it will be the OSS aspect of it that will save it. It will allow Apple to add several new applications when a popular application has left it. Also, it allows the company to keep the costs down. That will be important.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by SwellJoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OS's make their real money (except for MS's) after it is put into maintence mode.

      For me to buy this, I'm going to have to see some concrete examples. Got any links?

      Seems like Solaris has made money for Sun without being in maintenance mode. Same for MS. Same for Red Hat, Wind River, QNX, Palm, IBM (who have made more money and lost more money on operating systems than just about anybody), etc...

      I have nothing to back up my statements other than vague assertions but then you haven't presented anything other than vague assertions either, so I reckon that's fair.

    4. Re:Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Apple, by being based on OSS, may be spared that death, but hard to tell.

      It's easy to tell. Name one reason why Mac OS will die.

      (there are none)

      There are reasons it won't be the number one OS, but absolutely no reason for it to die. All the 'pundits' that claim Mac OS is doomed don't realize that there's a market for more than one consumer/desktop OS.

    5. Re:Just Linux and Windows???? Not likely by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While I do not have links off the top of my head, I have worked at both IBM and HP. Both places were well aware of how much profit/loss Sun made on Solaris. None of the companies that you mentioned made money on an active OS (save for MS). All profits were made on either service, or on service and hardware.

      One example is OS/2. When Uncle Lou took over IBM, we were losing money hand over fist on it. Many of us wanted to OSS it. Uncle Lou stopped that stuff. It took a while, but in time, IBM accepted that OSS was a good thing. The only reason why OS/2 is not OSS at this point, is because, they have a large number of support contracts. In essence, it is finally making a profit (from what I have heard, a pretty one at that).

      Another example is Red Hat. The bulk of their money is not made on the OS. It is made on the support contracts, contractors, education, etc that they offer. IBM is moving to Linux specifically because the OS is such a drain on the company. If they can get all hardware to run with one OS, then their profits go WAY up.

      As to solaris, assume that it made a profit. Why did Sun remove a profitable unit by dropping Solaris X86? Also, they offered x86 up for free at one point (back in the 90's). Likewise, if so profitable, why did they not move over to other CPUS? And why has MS not moved all over? It is because it is expensive to support it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  26. RTFA! by kcarlile · · Score: 5, Informative
    He doesn't (at least as mentioned in the OSNews piece) say that there will be ONLY two OSes left. I quote:
    He did say though that "fast forward 10 years, the two leading OS technologies will be Linux and Windows" hinting that most others (Sun, Mac?) will be eclipsed from the main business scene.
    That's not saying that MacOS or *BSD or Sun or anything else will be dead and gone. FUD (unintentional or not) from the poster, methinks...
    1. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet more proof (not that more was needed) that Slashdot is a fucking ridiculous joke. The only thing this site is worth is trolling a bunch of socially retarded dipshits.

    2. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said!

    3. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mainframes and mini computers will ceise to exist or is he talking only about the desktop space? I can't foresee OS/400 or z/OS kicking the bucket any time soon.

    4. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically nothing will change. Novel point of view.

  27. Too much control? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I tend to be that last one to state that Microsoft has too much control over ancillary markets, I was rather disturbed by XP SP2s inability to recognize several third party Anti Virus products and cotinue to warn about the vulnarbility of the system. One wonders what F-Prot and Command-com antivirus need to do to get on the "trusted" AV list at Microsoft.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Too much control? by rincebrain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Submit one meeellion dollars, USD.

      Duh.

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    2. Re:Too much control? by blowdart · · Score: 1
      wonders what F-Prot and Command-com antivirus need to do to get on the "trusted" AV list at Microsoft.

      Plug into a published (long before beta1) API, using WMI/WBEM. Even Symantec still haven't got it fixed for some versions of their pile of poo scanner.

    3. Re:Too much control? by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      One wonders what F-Prot and Command-com antivirus need to do to get on the "trusted" AV list at Microsoft.

      I'm wondering if I really want anything that's on Microsoft's trusted virus list.

      Microsoft has too many irons in the fire, too many deals going on, planned, projected, for them to have any intention of cutting back to what is required for a trusted base. And whatever Microsoft doesn't, the OEMs will.

      Actually we use F-PROT. Multi-user setup is simple and effective. Seems competent enough and distinctly less annoying than Norton.

    4. Re:Too much control? by spectecjr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Plug into a published (long before beta1) API, using WMI/WBEM. Even Symantec still haven't got it fixed for some versions of their pile of poo scanner.

      They do have it working. The really scary thing is that they actually explicitly PREVENT it from reporting to Windows the status of the AV software. If you try to change that, it pops up a window which says (something along the lines of) that "Norton AV is monitoring your system", and there's a check box which says "Report status to other systems (recommend that you DO NOT do this)".

      Kind of shitty of them really. Especially as you have to go through hoops to get their LiveUpdate system to automatically download AV signature file updates - it's not enabled by default.

      Lame lame lame lame lame.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    5. Re:Too much control? by JKR · · Score: 1

      Just another reason why I won't run AV software on the desktop. _I_ don't need it, and my systems and networks are actually _more_ stable without it. None of my machines, nor the networks that I administer, have EVER had a virus.

      Jon.

    6. Re:Too much control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norton has discontinued its WMI update, so it is no longer an option. LiveUpdate is the default, fyi.

    7. Re:Too much control? by FortranDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see the reason why they prefer you not let Windows know. It could be possible for a virus to check on this (through Windows) to see if NAV is running or not. Knowing if NAV is running would be helpful. Not knowing leaves the virus writer guessing.

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    8. Re:Too much control? by Kenja · · Score: 1
      "Just another reason why I won't run AV software on the desktop. _I_ don't need it, and my systems and networks are actually _more_ stable without it. None of my machines, nor the networks that I administer, have EVER had a virus."

      How would you know that you dont have a virus if you dont check for them? Also, F-Prot and Command are VERY light weight, running in around 1MB of RAM. Unlike the anti-virus software you get at CompUSA they dont cause any problems with the system or other software.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    9. Re:Too much control? by JKR · · Score: 1

      I have had some very bad experiences with antivirus software that hooks the 16 bit subsystem (NTVDM processes). We're not talking no-brand crap here either.

      You don't need AV software to know that your machines aren't, for example, spamming the world. I have a Linux mail server and I watch the goddamn logs.

      You don't need AV software to "protect" Internet Explorer; I have a Linux server running a filtering proxy which amongst other things kills Javascript at source, and an administrative lockdown on ActiveX controls.

      It's all bullshit, driven by people who want to sell you AV software. But then, I work for a small company where everyone has a clue.

      Jon.

  28. Sounds bad to me. by rincebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me, or does this sound like a revenue service waiting to happen?

    I submit that Microsoft will only judge as spyware products which either install themselves without explicit permission, or products which are not owned by companies who pay Microsoft.

    I hate to be so cynical, but I've been burned by too many Microsoft "features" [in recent memory: IE upgrades only available to XP users, and a Windows ME setup CD refusing to install to a FAT16 partition formatted by its own boot disk] to believe much of what they say.

    Just my $0.02 USD.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
    1. Re:Sounds bad to me. by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Cynical hell, we need a mod level of "Digustingly Accurate", it would be above insightful.

      If M$ OS wasn't so easy to crack into to add this crap, there would be no spy/ad/malware, and no need of Ad-Aware and Spybot(by the way, everyone needs both, they each miss thing the other gets).

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  29. Re:Bill Is ALWAYS Right by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

    You guys are all still using >64k of RAM right?
    I think that is quite a safe assumption. Not too many PCs ship with 32kb of RAM these days. Heck many pocket calculators probably have >64k RAM.

  30. Finally, Microsoft is thinking clearly! by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gates said Microsoft will offer software to detect malicious applications and that the company will keep it up-to-date on an ongoing basis.

    I don't think people need software to detect these malicious applications; when their home pages get set to http://www.pornomonkeysonmeth.com and their 3.2 Ghz processor is pegged at 100% trying to open up Notepad, I think they're already well aware that malcious applcations are present on their system.


    CNET's News.com has an article that says Microsoft plans to offer its own anti-spyware software.

    Microsoft has also gone public with their newest strategy: develop software that will prevent maltware from being installed in the first place, instead of merely detecting its presence. They have codenamed this software "Linux", and it will be offered free of charge to all existing customers.

    1. Re:Finally, Microsoft is thinking clearly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think people need software to detect these malicious applications; when their home pages get set to http://www.pornomonkeysonmeth.com and their 3.2 Ghz processor is pegged at 100% trying to open up Notepad, I think they're already well aware that malcious applcations are present on their system.

      You've not done tech support, have you?

    2. Re:Finally, Microsoft is thinking clearly! by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

      >>I don't think people need software to detect these malicious applications;
      >>when their home pages get set to http://www.pornomonkeysonmeth.com
      >> and their 3.2 Ghz processor is pegged at 100% trying to open up Notepad,
      >>I think they're already well aware that malcious applcations are
      >>present on their system.

      >You've not done tech support, have you?


      Sure I have! I actually fielded the issue I mentioned in my original post -- you can read more about it here.

    3. Re:Finally, Microsoft is thinking clearly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their 3.2 Ghz processor is pegged at 100% trying to open up Notepad, I think they're already well aware that malcious applcations are present on their system.

      You must not work with the computer-illiterate very often. They describe their computer as "slow," "sick," or "not working right." The ones I've come across couldn't even figure out what 100% processor usage would mean, much less why it shouldn't be doing that while trying to open Notepad.

      Most people have no idea that they have spyware until one of the holes opened up by that program allows a virus to be installed, and the anti-virus software pops up with a blaring red window (assuming they don't click through automatically like they do with web popups) that causes them to freak out. Then they call me, and I have to spend the next five hours finding out what viruses they have, locating a solution, and then removing all the spyware that made it possible in the first place.

    4. Re:Finally, Microsoft is thinking clearly! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      In my experience they generally assume at that point that their computer is getting old and/or worn out, and figure it's time to buy a new one.

      I think the Win32 malware industry has been propping up hardware sales in that manner to a degree most of us would find astounding.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  31. Bill Gates says... by spiritraveller · · Score: 0
    that you're all a bunch of f-ing retards for caring what Bill Gates says!

    Or at least, that's what he would say if he were honest.

    1. Re:Bill Gates says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that what Bill Gates says _does_ matter. Even if what he says is complete hokum, it matters, because Microsoft its indeed the big 800 lb. gorilla and if he says our bananas needs a service pack/security update then all of us will have to take the loving probing rump-ready ministrations of this hairy gorilla, whether we eat bananas, Lemons XP, linux oranges, or Apples. We should all pay attention to Gates, and from that worry for our future.

    2. Re:Bill Gates says... by bsartist · · Score: 1

      you're all a bunch of f-ing retards for caring what Bill Gates says!

      Actually, you'd have to ride the short bus to not care what he says. Know your enemy. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. (Feel free to chime in with your own favorite cliché here.)

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    3. Re:Bill Gates says... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      Know your enemy.

      He's not my enemy. I use linux, but if it never beats out Gates' empire, that won't keep me from going to sleep at night.

      Gates does not rule the world. He has a lot of influence in computer software... but only in proprietary computer software.

      What he says is not necessarily what he thinks. And what he thinks is not necessarily important anyway.

    4. Re:Bill Gates says... by bsartist · · Score: 1

      He's not my enemy. I use linux

      Then you're his enemy.

      You can love him, hate him, or feel ambivalent about him, as you wish. But only a fool ignores him.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    5. Re:Bill Gates says... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      ...talk about FUD!

  32. Re:Bill Is ALWAYS Right by bot24 · · Score: 0

    Um... You meant 64k right?

  33. Thank Goodness! by eflester · · Score: 1

    My favorite quote from the InfoWorld article: "We ourselves are not going after the e-voting market or the nuclear reactor control market," Gates said.

  34. No shit by Tyndmyr · · Score: 0
    Anti spyware software? So quick of MS! Heck, everyones already done it...its about time they jumped on the bandwagon, and do what they do best...copy working software. Forgive my bitterness...

    Only linux and windows eventually? Of course. What else is there...mac, which we all know is becoming a less unique os(not a bad thing, tho)...and what, suns os? I just dont see any other major os besides linux and windows at the moment...its an easy prophesy to make.

    --
    Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
  35. The Road Ahead,,,, by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 0

    Did not have Internet.

    Enough said.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Can you explain your random jumble of words to me?
      I don't understand your message.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by Sir+Haxa1ot · · Score: 1, Informative

      He was claiming that the "The Road Ahead", Bill Gates' first book of the "visionary" type, did not have any vision for Internet in it, thus implying that Gates should not be treated as visionary whose predictions are always 100% correct.

    3. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      ... Who claimed he could see the future?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    4. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The poster probably intended you to read it as if the subject line was the start of the sentence (I hate it when people do that, BTW), so it should read:

      The road ahead
      did not have Internet.

      And, yes this is evidnece of Bill's inability to predict anything.

      But you were right that in this particular case, what people are claiming Bill said isn't what he actually said. He said Linux and Windows would be the only *LEADING* OS's, not that they would be the only OS's at all. Now of course, since what it means to be a "leading" OS is a jumbled, undefined mess, What Bill said is fairly vague and meaningless.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was hid inability to see the present that was more at issue. The book came out around the time of the popular explosion in internet use. It shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone a. involved in the computer industry and b. awake.

      A decade earlier and he wouldn't have looked so stupid.

    6. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      And the book was written over how long? And was sent to editors when? A magazine is written 2 or 3 months before it's published. How long does a book take?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    7. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so intent on defending BG? I find that curious.

    8. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by DashEvil · · Score: 1

      He's clearly not defending Bill Gates. He's trying to sort through specific issues in what you said that don't make sense to him.

      I mean, either you definitely have Bill Gates in the wrong or you don't. If you do, answering his questions is a simple matter. If you don't, well, then his question asking dismantled some disinformation. Good for him.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    9. Re:The Road Ahead,,,, by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your comment. I think that Bill Gates gets a tough rap here on /.

      And I'm jealous of his trampoline room.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  36. Same old Bill Gates. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than look at how the crap gets installed and dealing with THAT, let's talk about software to remove the crap AFTER it gets installed.

    Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there.

    Not to mention this will be another DAILY download update along with:
    #1. Security updates
    #2. Anti-virus signatures

    1. Re:Same old Bill Gates. by hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there."

      The easiest analogy to use to explain this is "disease". It actually fits pretty well in the Windows environment, with "infections" from trojans, viruses, worms, and malware.

      There are two approaches, depending on whether you are utopian-driven (Free Software and the likes) or profit-driven (large corporate pharmaceutical companies):

      1. Do you spend your time, effort, and dollars trying to prevent disease from the start? This has the longer-lasting effect and fosters more good will in the rest of the community. Or..
      2. Do you spend your time, effort, and dollars coming up with a "pill" that will reduce the symptoms you feel after you've been infected with the disease.

      Most pharmaceutical companies choose the latter, because it keeps their revenue coming in strong, as long as the disease continues to exist and affect people.

      Most Free Software people (and other utopians) have the opposite view. Cure the problem by treating the cause, and you won't have to worry about treating the symptoms.

      I don't even have to remind you where Bill Gates and Microsoft stand on this issue. Any time they see some way to edge in a few more profit margin points, they go for it:

      • System diagnostics (edging out Norton years ago)
      • System defragmentation
      • File compression software (lost suit against Stac Electronics)
      • Firewall software
      • Anti-virus
      • Anti-spyware
      • ...and so on

      They will do whatever it takes, to keep people putting their dollars behind Microsoft products, even if it pisses off one of their own partners in the process.

  37. No... by Viceice · · Score: 1

    Dispite my dislike for the Mac OS, I must say that the Mac itself has quite a following and i seriously doubt it will taper off into oblivion in 10 years.

    Unless Steve Jobs dies sometime in the next 10 years and his sucessor is a total idiot.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  38. He's right by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gates makes the point, which is correct, that UNIX is losing marketshare, not Windows. If anything, scientists/network admins are moving to a combination of Linux and Mac just because UNIX-creators (*cough* Sun *cough*) haven't innovated in years.

    The battle for desktop supremacy, however, is already won. I like the fact that I can run UNIX apps on my iBook, but I just built a tower for Windows. There's just too much breadth of software to shift away from the platform. MS has also come up with some good stuff recently (.NET, which in some cases is what Java should've been) that cement their hold.

    Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening. I think people are finally settling on the fact that UNIX is a rock-solid server, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great desktop. Whether it's Windows or some other windowing system that wins the crown, I'm not sure, but classic UNIX is pretty much finished.

    1. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun has inovated, maybe not directly related to Unix (but they are releasing theres as Free Software are they not?
      But who created Java? Who bought Star Division and released OpenOffice.org? I could go on.

    2. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      classic UNIX is pretty much finished.

      If by classic Unix you mean a twisty maze of multiple fragmented implementations all slightly different, you are correct. In fact, that's Bill's point. It's being replaced by Linux. The BSDs are following in the footsteps of the SysV derivatives, constantly forking, but are at least keeping together by being able to make periodic code imports from each other. (Actually, Linux is even more forked than the BSD's, but the nature of Linux means that those forks don't look like forks. They look like patchsets and branches and SELinux style speciality kernels. But they are all Linux)

      If by classic Unix you mean X and command line then you haven't been around long enough (or done enough research) to know what classic Unix is. It's evolved alot over the years, and will continue to evolve. But the "seperate tools do seperate things, everything is a file, and the pipe unifies it all" philosophy of OS design is only growing not shrinking.

    3. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun innovated - it just failed to make any money from it's innovations.

      Disagree on buying StarDivision and releasing OO.o as an innovation by the way. Buying and releasing a clone is hardly innovative - a good competitive tactic when you think your main competitor is Microsoft - but not innovative.

    4. Re:He's right by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "unix", do you mean it the way people in the computer industry normally use the term, or do you mean the way people talk about it when they know lawyers are listening? I ask because your statement only makes sense if Linux isn't included in your term "UNIX" - and really the only people who view it that way are the old guard who don't want to let go of the old days, lawyers who have to watch out about the use of trademarked words, or people trying to spread fud about the death of unix, which is easier if your stats don't include linux.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why haven't the UNIX people inovated in years? Well, how would you feel if you spent three years on something, release it, and then have twenty clones appear on fucking Sourceforge the very next day?!

      Open Source Software Kills Innovation!

      LOL!

      [/FUD]

      Okay, bye-bye then.

    6. Re:He's right by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The battle for desktop supremacy, however, is already won.

      There is no 'won', there is only 'winning' (or if you really want, 'won for now'). Windows might be king forever, but it's not likely at all.

      Hardware and OS's are going to continue to evolve and as time goes on, I think the specific OS you chose is going to become less and less important.

      Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening. I think people are finally settling on the fact that UNIX is a rock-solid server, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great desktop.

      Who are these 'people' you are talking about? I guarantee you that more people today use Unix as their desktop OS than have ever in the past, and that number is growing.

      Whether it's Windows or some other windowing system that wins the crown, I'm not sure, but classic UNIX is pretty much finished.

      What do you mean by 'classic UNIX'? Solaris, Linux, OS X and BSD are modern Unices. I could just as easily say 'classic Windows' is pretty much finished, and be just as correct.

    7. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's just too much breadth of software to shift away from the platform.

      If you are speaking about your own situation, what software are you talking about? If it's software in general, I disagree -- as far as personal computing is concerned, the only area in which Linux and Mac OS are not viable platforms is gaming.

    8. Re:He's right by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1
      Really there are two OSes on the market these days: Windows and Unix. Everything falls into those two catagories (okay a small number of machines still running MacOS 9.x or less). While Linux may technically be "Unix-like". For the realities for 99.9% of the world, I know that is only 80% of /., It looks like Unix, acts like Unix, therefore...

      Mac OSX IS Unix based off of the BSD system. Its just BSD with commcial software like Adobe and MS Office ported to it and a easy to use interface via Aqua. One thing I have learned through working in business is that people don't care how 'cool to nerds' it is or how evil Microsoft is or anything like that, all they care about is having a computer that works. AT the end of the day a computer is a tool. And its not helping the business if the tool is broken like anyother peice of machinery. If its Windows or Linux, they don't really care so long as it works and easy to use. I could go on a huge rant why, for technical reasons, I like Unix and even DOS over Windows. Mainly because system files don't move much from version to version...unless its Red Hat. Again...another flamewar, some other time.

      Where Unix is taking the hit is in the Server Market. Its cheaper and (in theory) more reliable to run clustered or parallel(sp?) commodity x86 boxes running Linux. Cheaper? Yes. Better? Not always, but that's another flame war. Is Apple going to be viable in that market? Not widely. I've helped one small video production company install and trained them on OSX server with a 1TB Raid-5 server, but they had been using Macs for years and things looked familiar and they could understand it because they were use to it. Sure, could have spent 1/2 to 1/3 for a DELL, but how much in terms of training and support would it have cost them?

      Where I don't see Linux taking off is still the desktop market. I see Apple being the leader in the Unix desktop market and still a distant second to home and business markets. Many of the engineers and graphics people I know have been switching to Apple the past couple years from SUN and SGI workstations. Especially after the introduction of the PowerPC 970's (G5's). Graphics because smaller studios can run Maya, Final Cut, and Adobe products all on one platform. Engineers because even a fully decked out G5 is cheaper than their current SUN workstations. Apparently porting from SUN to Darwin hasn't been too bad. But I am sure there are some horror stories out there. I've seen many people running SUN workstations that cost between $16k - 30k now on more powerful dual G5 machines that were $8k maybe $14,000 if they got dual 23" HD displays (which outside of video production folks, I've never seen).

      I used Linux about 5 years ago then made the leap on the server side to *BSD (Free and Open) and then two years ago bought an iBook. Probably will go back to Apple even if they do cost a premium. Why? By what's made Apple sucessful: creating a product that works and also looks cool. I don't play games anymore and working with everyone elses computer problems (I am a consultant) it is nice to have a laptop (now a powerbook G4 1Ghz) that can run Windows via Virtual PC, MacOS, and a Unix Shell on one machine. Its also nice to come home to a working unit to check email and read Slashdot. And yes, I will pay extra money up front for quality because the less time I work on my stuff: the more time I have for those billable hours!

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    9. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you mean that "clones" show up before you get to market. These days, both Sun and MS still from whereever.

    10. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Mac OSX IS Unix based off of the BSD system.

      Technically the trademark "Unix" is only given out by the Open Group to those systems based on the original AT&T code I believe.

      BSD is therefore not really "Unix" in the true sense, although it is certainly closer to the AT&T Unix (by virtue of the Berkeley/AT&T settlement) than Linux ever was.

    11. Re:He's right by ztwilight · · Score: 1

      Also, one would think UNIX refugees coming to Mac would boost the platform on the desktop. Not happening.

      Hmmm... FINK, which allows me to run all kinds of Linux software on my Mac, blows your argument completely out of the water. Then there's the thousands of Linux projects which added Mac OS X targets to their Makefiles. Oh, and having tons of crappy software for Windows doesn't make it a good operating system.
      --
      Who moved my sig?
    12. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please pass the crack you have been smoking to the person on the left.

    13. Re:He's right by thepoch · · Score: 1

      Gates makes the point, which is correct, that UNIX is losing marketshare, not Windows.

      If I remember correctly, MS made WinNT POSIX compliant so that it could market their OS as a UNIX alternative. That was their main goal, to drive migration from UNIX to Windows.

      So it seems every UNIX server switching to Linux or Mac OSX is a piece that Windows lost out on.

    14. Re:He's right by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There's just too much breadth of software to shift away from the platform.
      If you are speaking about your own situation, what software are you talking about? If it's software in general, I disagree -- as far as personal computing is concerned, the only area in which Linux and Mac OS are not viable platforms is gaming.
      Exactly. Windows has been obsolete for me for a long time. I only maintain a Windows install for the same reason most people don't switch. Legacy applications which translates mostly to games.

      Even then, more and more I find myself not needing to reboot into Linux. ZSNES works better in Linux than Windows with its native OpenGL support. ePSXe works just as good in Linux as in Windows. Mupen64 emulates many n64 games. Not as good as Windows/PJ64 but still damn good.

      If I could WINE Subspace/Continuum and FUO, I'd never touch windows again. A few years ago, my list of apps would have been much bigger.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    15. Re:He's right by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "Hmmm... FINK, which allows me to run all kinds of Linux software on my Mac, blows your argument completely out of the water."

      I run Fink too. Great program... for UNIX people. I mention Fink to "regular" Mac users and they shrug their shoulders. Running LaTex, to them, is not a driving point for the platform.

    16. Re:He's right by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's look at a few things outside gaming that I recently had trouble doing on Mac/UNIX.

      1.) Video encoding: I was looking for a program that decrypted DVDs, encoded them in DivX and compressed audio stream into MP3 all in one shot. Linux had these tools separately. Mac didn't have very many tools at all (although I could download a few through Fink). Windows had no less than a dozen tools to choose from. Plus, it was faster. I don't know what optimizations they are using, but encoding on my Athlon 64 3200 box is flat out faster than on my G5 dual-processor 1.8.

      2.) Audio: I've bought a ton of protected music from iTunes music store (about 150 songs) and wanted to convert them to MP3. Linux had no tools to do this. Mac had a few, but they didn't work well and actually cut off a second or two of music on each song. Windows had a program, i-Opener, that ran through the entire library and decrypted everything. Worked fine.

      3.) Basic Word processing: OpenOffice is better than it's ever been before, and Office for Mac is ok (if a little slow), but I still can't get a program other than Microsoft Word for Windows to actually read most of the .doc files out their correctly. This is mostly MS's fault, but when 99.9% of the people you work with rely on Word, you've got to support them.

    17. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you are talking abouty "*NIX" (Unix, Linux, BSD), it has been losing marketshare.

      Windows is now over 50% for server shipments, which is pretty frightening considering that they've historically been under 30%. Furthermore, there's no real movement towards "*nix on the desktop", so it all adds up to a declining base.

      (Before anyone mentions OS X, Apple's sales have been absolutely flat for years and their marketshare will soon be below statistical error levels.)

    18. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something to consider: MacOS X has a lower marketshare than classic MacOS had in the 1990s.

      Furthermore, the vast majority of OS X users are the same people who ran OS 9, and would be running OS X even if it wasn't based on Unix at all. These people are Mac users, not Unix users.

      So, MacOS X is hardly the shining example of the popularity of Desktop Unix. It's basically just another option for the 1% of the market that cares.

    19. Re:He's right by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      1. Marketshare for servers shouldn't be measured by number of units sold, but by number of people served by the units sold. I serve 100 people with a big machine and you serve 80 people with 4 smaller machines, the marketshare ratio is 100:80 ( = 5:4), not 1:4.

      2. OS preinstalled with machine != OS actually in use after installation. Why bother buying a server with Linux on it when you can just install the OS afterward for the same price, and probably would want to *anyway* to make the setup conform to your local company standards? When one OS is typically distributed by shipping it with the machine, and the other one is typically distributed by applying it afterward, to assume that the preinstalled OS comparasins is an accurate measure of marketshare is a bullshitter's tactic.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  39. In other news... by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 5, Funny

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Association of Wolves, Foxes, and Stoats today announced that they would be launching a new initiative, providing security services for hen-houses and rabbit hutches nationwide.

    "We're pleased to be able to expand our influence and provide this much needed security," said B. B. Wolf, the association's president-elect. "It's important to recognize that a crisis does exist, and who better to determine appropriate measures than us?"

    In a separate interview, Mr. Wolf, accompanied by some of the association's external board members, forecast that given the popularity of coyotes in the western states, wolves, foxes, stoats, and coyotes would be the only mid-range predators in ten years. "Sure, you're gonna have your bears for the big stuff, and we might get some insignificant competition from barn cats and raccoons," said Wolf, "but I don't forsee any other real competition in the field other than the coyotes. And frankly... well, the coyotes show some innovation, but we really don't think they can compete on our playing field. Plus, they have fleas."

    For more information on the National Association of Wolves, Foxes, and Stoats, please contact Jack Valenti, press secretary.

    --

    Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

    1. Re:In other news... by rts008 · · Score: 0

      If I only had some mod points... You got pts. for funny, but should get more for Insightful!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:In other news... by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the thought, rts...

      Wouldn't it be great if the anti-spyware initiative accidentally exposed all the "phoning home" that Microsoft's own products do?

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  40. Note that Bill Gates got hit by an adaware... by antdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in the CNET's News.com article:

    "This malware thing is so bad," he said in a speech at the Computer History Museum here. "Now that's the one that has us really needing to jump in."

    It's also a problem that has affected Gates personally. He said his home PCs have had malware, although he has personally never been affected by a virus.

    "I have had malware, (adware), that crap" on some home machines, he said.

    --

    Heh!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Note that Bill Gates got hit by an adaware... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has been working on an anti-malware project for a while now, but they were recently force to start from scratch when it was found to be uninstalling Windows XP.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  41. Wow, talk about lack of faith. by d3ity · · Score: 1

    "We ourselves are not going after...or the nuclear reactor control market..." Ahh, so even the great Bill Gates doesnt trust the stability/security of windows THAT much. I'd trust my slack box to run my reactor...now where are those dilithium crystals...

    1. Re:Wow, talk about lack of faith. by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Neither Windows, Linux nor MacOS are designed for that level of reliablity. Other people have reported that it says so right there in XPs EULA (I don't have Windoze, so can't check)

      Only a fool would say otherwise, and whatever else you may say, Bill Gates is no fool.

    2. Re:Wow, talk about lack of faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing your not in charge or we would have meltdowns on our hands. You don't run a normal operating system on a mission critical system. You need a real-time operating system. Which linux, windows and anything with a GUI are not.

    3. Re:Wow, talk about lack of faith. by kliment · · Score: 1

      How about real-time linux? It seems to be pretty much there. It would need some pretty reliable hardware to run on though.

  42. Sif by higgo6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would cry if mac os x died. While I think it's rather silly since more people are turning away from ms. Mac os X and linux are the OS's gaining grounds. Lest Not Forget Firefox's impact on everything!

  43. Another choice quote from DEC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
    -- Ken Olsen (1926- ), President, Digital Equipment, 1977

    I have a 21066 myself, I want to get another newer model though. Here's another good one...

    "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 18 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons"
    -- unknown, Popular Mechanics, March 1949

    1. Re:Another choice quote from DEC... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      My HP 55 calculator had almost exactly the same specs as ENIAC, memory, word size, stored program steps.

      Suddenly I feel kinda old.

  44. MS doesnt need to make anti Adware products... by Viceice · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Although progress is being made against spam and viruses, Gates said the adware and malware problem is getting worse.

    "This malware thing is so bad," he said in a speech at the Computer History Museum here. "Now that's the one that has us really needing to jump in."

    It's also a problem that has affected Gates personally. He said his home PCs have had malware, although he has personally never been affected by a virus.

    "I have had malware, (adware), that crap" on some home machines, he said.


    Maybe somebody ought to introduce him to Mozilla. I can say for certain that 99.99% of all Ad and MalWare infections are because of IE and ActiveX. I've not seen a pop up of a piece of crap ware for more then a year now, ever since I started using Mozilla.

    Microsoft doesn't need to make anti adware products. All they need to do is either replace IE or make IE as secure as Mozilla, then keep updating it and the problem will go away. An Adware program will only add to the bloat.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    1. Re:MS doesnt need to make anti Adware products... by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      "I can say for certain that 99.99% of all Ad and MalWare infections are because of IE and ActiveX."

      Wrong.

      99.999%. ...seriously though: I would expect a lot are coming through email attachments and shitty things such as Precision Clock, that thousands-of-cursors thing, filesharing programs such as KaZaa, etc.

  45. What an endorsement by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can pretty much spin this as "see even Bill Gates says Linux will be around ten years from now".

    This should give pointy hair bosses pause in claiming that Linux is just too risky.

    What a huge step to be so publicly recognized as the most prominent threat to MS for an OS that is not controlled by any one cooperation.

    In the end it will be inevitable that an OS becomes a commodity. MS tries to fight hard against this by building up the OS to do everything short of singing and dancing for you but I don't think that will save them in the long run.

    1. Re:What an endorsement by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

      building up the OS to do everything short of singing and dancing for you

      True. You have to install not just the OS, but MS Office to get clippy.

    2. Re:What an endorsement by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      First, they ignore you. Complete.

      Then, they laugh at you. Complete.

      Then, they fight you. In progress.

      Then, you win. Pending.

    3. Re:What an endorsement by thebatlab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sick of seeing this Ghandi comment. Who ever said it works all the time? It's not a divine decree or anything. I mean, have we forgotten the other part of this?

      First they ignore you
      Then they laugh at you
      Then they fight you
      Then they crush you

      How's it any different? Oh right, his shows that the little guy gets ignored, laughed at, then fights and wins the day. "Oh, those evil bastards will rue the day they ever laughed at me!"

      It's good to keep up the hope but don't live by someone words as if it's already shown the outcome and we're all just waiting for it to come true.

    4. Re:What an endorsement by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      If you say so, but if we can code by someone else's libraries, why can't we live by someone else's words? Reinventing the wheel is not only a bad idea in software. If it works, then go with it.

      More importantly, can you demonstrate the deviation from this pattern in this case?

    5. Re:What an endorsement by quax · · Score: 1

      My reason to believe that it rather goes along the Ghandi line is the fact that usually every new technology follows a certain life time cycle.

      At the beginning a new technology creates a new market and premium prices can be charged until competition shows up. Over time the competition drives the prices down until the product becomes a mere commodity sold pretty much at marginal cost (think of light bulbs, telephone services, pocket calculators).

      Microsoft managed to escape this fate by building artificial barriers of entry for the competition. (Not allowing PC makers to bundle OS/2 with Windows etc. We all know the long list of anti-competitive practices.)

      This way MS kept the OS so long from becoming a commodity although the knowledge how to build an OS has been so wide spread that even an hobbyist community was able to create a superior OS.

      Now it is pay-back time. You can outsmart the market forces only for so long.

    6. Re:What an endorsement by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      These aren't words to live by. They're an ideal mindset for the little guy. It's not about reinventing the wheel here. It's about not getting lax about things and just assuming that his words ring true for everything.

      And I can't demonstrate the deviation from the pattern since my deviation was only the end result. Winning vs losing. Only time will tell on that but I think it's foolish to simply assume you'll win no matter how stacked the odds seems to be.

    7. Re:What an endorsement by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      They're stacked? Aside from patent issues, which are starting to get notice in the more mainstream organizations, we're talking about a movement that has no central authority. Once again, I would like to know HOW this differs.

      More importantly, this is not laziness, any more than is NOT changing your stance every time the wind blows.

      I believe FOSS will win out in the end, despite the efforts MS puts into their opposition of it. If you don't agree with that, I respect you for it, but I will respectfully disagree.

  46. You're all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of you have got it right........... in 10 years Gnu/Hurd will be the only operating system ;)

  47. Precision (or lack thereof) in writing by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Just to nitpick your nitpick...

    You wrote: "Uh...this year is the twentieth anniversary of MacOS. I don't think they were predicting the death of MacOS and Apple 2 decades ago...unless they were predicting the death of MacOS the instant it came out. "

    I wrote: "People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. "

    Note: "almost 2 decades" < 20 years. There's nothing *factually* or technically incorrect about what I wrote; technically, I didn't say people were predicting Apple's demise upon MacOS's release (although, probability states that there likely were still one or two people doing so. I think we can ignore those loonies though :-) ).

    1. Re:Precision (or lack thereof) in writing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: "almost 2 decades" < 20 years. There's nothing *factually* or technically incorrect about what I wrote; technically, I didn't say people were predicting Apple's demise upon MacOS's release (although, probability states that there likely were still one or two people doing so. I think we can ignore those loonies though :-) ).

      They were indeed there. in fact, Dvorak is one of those people who after using a mac, and using a mouse, claimed that it was small, underpowered, not much use to anybody, and that "there is no evidence people will want to use this device" when referring to the mouse. That was within the first months of the mac arriving in January 84.

  48. Get your facts correct by poohsuntzu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bill never said that (the 64k bit). A simple google search will solve that. Stop spreading a myth that you never took the time to research.

    --
    "We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
    "Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
  49. What a politicaaly contrived statement by microbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market

    What a politically contrived statement. He can't say "only windows" (read monopoly), so their must be at least 1 other OS, and people would laugh if an open source operating system wasn't included.

    Now all of a sudden he takes the wind out of the sails of the Linux zealots, and appears all controversial. Yep... in 10 years it there will be Windows and *nix, just like today.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  50. My prediction... by JeffTL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is that everything will basically be Unix by then. Yes, even Windows, if it still exists as such. Hey, even Apple is using BSD anymore -- the handwriting is on the wall for nonstandard systems like Palm OS ...and Windows... in anything bigger than a basic cell phone, as embedded Linux in such devices as TiVo becomes more commonplace.

    But on a more article-based note, as has already been said, it seems that the OS comment is a basic "*BSD is dying" troll.

  51. Gates is wrong by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.

    I have quite another vision of future. 10 years forward, there will be 11354 variants of Linux only on the market, all the same. Or perhaps he did mean a flea market? That's where I would seek for Windows then.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  52. Re:Bill Is ALWAYS Right by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

    You meant you meant 640k right?

  53. And... by microbox · · Score: 1
    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  54. No, No by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

    See, he's saying that OS X will be Linux instead of BSD in ten years.

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  55. Actually, Google Vs Microsoft more likely by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1144882004

    The above link has three pertinant quotes.

    "Microsoft's fortunes grew with personal computers or, more specifically, supplying the software for what used to be called "IBM-compatible PCs". It is easy to forget that 20 years ago there were a number of standards competing for dominance. (Of the others, only Apple survives.)"

    "Google knows it cannot remain just a search engine company, because that leaves it vulnerable if someone else comes along and does it better. That is why it keeps adding services. The best publicised has been its proposed e-mail service, Gmail, which has upset privacy activists because it will include advertising based on the content of the e-mails. But it is likely to prove extremely popular because it will make searching through e-mail much easier and quicker, and because it offers a gigabyte of storage. For most users, that means they will never have to delete another e-mail. "

    "But Microsoft is vulnerable if a competitor shifts the focus away from the PC and on to the internet. And we all know the company most capable of that."

    Take that all to the extreme - If network centric computing and a company like google go to the logical conclusion of their efforts, subsuming encyclopedia software (remember encarta?), email, games and eventually word processing and other applications into an always on, globally available internet technology that would free you from not just your desktop but from even needing a permanent computer of your own, wouldn't the most logical thing to beat be problems with privacy?

    After all, if you can eliminate "spying" on a distributed system like that, then you've aready eliminated spyware as a matter of course (maybe by using thin clients and making all the intelligence and security reside in the server and communication layers).

  56. Keep it updated, eh? by HungSquirrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gates said Microsoft will offer software to detect malicious applications and that the company will keep it up-to-date on an ongoing basis.

    Now the only question is what Microsoft feels to be a good update schedule for their anti-malware software. Are we going to see once a month release cycles that detect spyware that has been out for six months the way they wait six months to release patches for known vulnerabilites on Windows Update?

    --
    $ whatis themeaningoflife
    themeaningoflife: not found
  57. What's left in 10 years by Quiberon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A free one and a non-free one. What they're called, who knows. The free one will successively drive out the non-free one, though.

    1. Re:What's left in 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an imbecile. People were saying the same thing ten years ago, and Linux is still nowhere near ready for the desktop.

    2. Re:What's left in 10 years by hacker · · Score: 4, Informative
      "Don't be an imbecile. People were saying the same thing ten years ago, and Linux is still nowhere near ready for the desktop."
      And exactly what code, dollars, or time have you contributed to that effort?

      Linux is, and has been ready for the desktop for at least 5 years or more. I've been using it full-time on my desktops and workstations here for at least 7 years.

      Don't blame the kernel for the lack of userland applications. The peripherals, ports, and external devices are all supported (and in fact, more devices and peripherals are supported under the current 2.6.8.1 Linux kernel than on Windows and OSX combined).

      Linux was never "meant" for the desktop. That is the job of distribution manufacturers and userland application authors. Talk to them. The rest of us "desktop Linux users" are waiting for them to catch up.

      This isn't a race against Microsoft. Linux solves my needs, and gives me much more flexibility and power and choice than the alternative OS that might run on my hardware.

      Incidentally, Windows and OSX don't support 90% of the hardware out there that Linux has happily been running on for several years to over a decade. See my previous post for a more-complete list.

    3. Re:What's left in 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And exactly what code, dollars, or time have you contributed to that effort?"

      Irrelevant. You need to understand that the vast majority of people have neither the time, nor the inclination, nor even the skills to "contribute to an effort" to help their desktop hold its own against proprietary OSes in terms of usability and polish. And that's a good thing. Personally, I'd rather my heart surgeon focus on medicine than code.

      "Linux is, and has been ready for the desktop for at least 5 years or more."

      Indeed Linux may be adequate for desktop use, but there are superior solutions available. As I indicated in my followup post, desktop Linux distros pale in comparison to proprietary systems such as Mac OS X.

      "Linux was never 'meant' for the desktop. That is the job of distribution manufacturers and userland application authors."

      I think it's fair to say desktop environments like KDE and Gnome are meant for the desktop. And it should be clear by now that the open source community, for whatever reason, hasn't been up to the challenge of creating an environment that matches proprietary OSes in terms of, again, usability and polish.

      Stop apologizing for Linux's shortcomings. Acknowledge the myriad problems with desktop Linux. Then, and only then, can you begin to perhaps solve them.

    4. Re:What's left in 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the other AC.

      Have you heard the saying, "Mac and Windows have advocates. Linux has apologists."?

      That's what you make me think of.

    5. Re:What's left in 10 years by oliderid · · Score: 1

      5 years ago, distro like SUSE 5.3 were on the market.

      I tested every single distro SUSE and others put on the market for the fun of it. I only decided to switch to linux on my professional Desktop less than a year ago (SUSE 9.1) . It simply cost nothing compare to the stuff i needed on windows.

      But It is a geek desktop.

      To be ready for the lambda desktop, you don't just need a super stable OS, you also partnerships with companies making printers, video cards, USB devices, etc.

      I had a great pain to install a simple HP all-in-one printer and I still cannot use a LaCie USB HD because it crashed my PC each time I use it.

      I do know that it's not linux fault. Linux can only be compatible with companies making linux drivers or at least sharing some codes.

      It will change corporate companies are pushing Linux and I'm sure they will convince third parties to be compatible with their new flagship OS.

      But when you say "ready for the desktop", lambda users won't care who's wrong or right, they simply want to plug their new device on, and enjoy it.

      It is not ready for the lambda user.

  58. Mac-Tel?-Apple Dreams and x86 Nightmares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " If Apple ever releases a PC version of OSX, M$ is screwed. But that won't happen now, will it?"

    This sems to be a common wet dream amoungst x86 PC users (you never hear Apple users lusting after a x86 machine). I recommend you buy an Apple and just get it over with. You'll be happier. Apple will be happier. The only ones who wouldn't be happy is those with a heavy investment in all things x86.

    1. Re:Mac-Tel?-Apple Dreams and x86 Nightmares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a G4 Powerbook running Panther, but that is besides the point. Say Apple released an x86 version... they could raise the price for it so they make a significant profit off of it.

    2. Re:Mac-Tel?-Apple Dreams and x86 Nightmares. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      The only ones who wouldn't be happy is those with a heavy investment in all things x86.

      Or have a limited supply of money.

  59. Paranoia by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, and Symmantec and McAffee are secretly making all the computer viruses so they can sell anti-virus software.

    Sounds like you need to get your tinfoil hat resized again.

    1. Re:Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the smart, moneymaking tactic...

    2. Re:Paranoia by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Symmantec and McAffee"

      While there is no shortage of people who believe just that, those aren't exactly companies with a rock solid history of nothing but underhanded, slimy, and unethical practices like MS.

      There are few universal truths. But here are a couple. If there is something bad that could be done, people will accuse Microsoft of doing it, whether there is evidence or not. 99% of the time, those people are right ;)

    3. Re:Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you ever wonder why an unknown virus will rip through world wide networks in a couple of days?

      Well, IMHO, its cuz they give props and sometimes $$ to people for giving them the source of their virus FIRST.

      Without the participation of the virus writers, McAfee and Symantec get pummelled. This is why "heuristic scanning" doesn't do shit when an unknown virus comes along.

    4. Re:Paranoia by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      Elimination of the concept "conflict of interest": triumph of the coïncidence theorists.

    5. Re:Paranoia by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, and Symmantec and McAffee are secretly making all the computer viruses so they can sell anti-virus software.

      Believe it or not, this was common knowledge 10 years ago even before NATAS (first true polymorphic virus) came out. Just skip the Norton part. Norton was a hardware hacker who wrote excellent IBM PC books. Maybe you don't know, but at the time, McAffee was an antivirus MONOPOLY. And there were about 50 new virus strains appearing EACH MONTH. Don't you think that's a little *suspicious*? Think about it. Creating your own market. This ain't new at all.

      Of course, in those times, you couldn't get infected by opening a normal document. Viruses were only the result of doing some "unhealthy" activity (warez). So if a company did something such as writing viruses, they might have (secretly) be appraised by governments.

      Things are different now. Viruses are written by either anarchists or script kiddies, and against specific targets (Outlook, IE6, etc). Writing viruses is now no longer profittable for a company.

      But please remember: There WAS a time...

  60. FreeBSD by kiwirob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 10 years from now I predict I will still be using FreeBSD on my desktop and probably MacOS on my Powerbook.

    Apart from the Dell machines I have reciently purchased for my company for a web developer who needed photoshop dreamweaver etc I'd not have a single windows pc in my office. With the speed in which Eric Laffoon is pushing along Quanta and having it built into base KDE I can see a time very soon when I will make Quanta my only development platform, intergration with CVS etc just makes it a great choice for PHP and web development.

    For mail I use Evolution and simply love it. Forget about all the virus problems that Outlook has.

    In fact the only thing I think windows has going for it is Photoshop. I've tried the gimp and sorry but it just isn't there yet for me, but in 10 years time I'm darn sure it will be!!!

    Say good night Bill, you are history!!!

    1. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So grab a USB mouse, plug it into that Powerbook and use the Mac version of Photoshop.

    2. Re:FreeBSD by loco_0wnz · · Score: 1, Troll

      Remember who the parent is quoting here... the same person that said 640k ought to be enough for anybody.

  61. Gates on spyware by gamekeeper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now wait a minute,,
    in the article, Gates states "Operating systems like Linux (Red-Hat) require capable system administrators to maintain.. I want to do away with that"

    Does that mean that Windows sysadmins are less capable or will be less capable in the future??

    Doesn't that say alot for their fearless Leader??
    Doesn't that say alot for his Great intelligence( or lack thereof).

    You tell me what you derive from this statement, much less the article..???

    Gk.

    1. Re:Gates on spyware by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      All he is implying is that Windows is so cool that you don't *need* to be capable to administrate it. Not that it hurts if you are.

      > Doesn't that say alot for their fearless Leader??

      It would if it was true.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    2. Re:Gates on spyware by gamekeeper · · Score: 1

      I am glad someone feels the way I do. I think this statement is Verrrrrry inflamatory to both Windows sysadmins, to which I know ALOT of Verry tallented ones, but I also know alot of DIM ones too.. But from an Exec's point of view, It means Less money spent on staffing, BUT it also implies that when it all hits the fan, no one will or should be capable of resolving the situation.. Excpet for the microsopht elite. To which is contradictory to the statement's true nature. Do does this make the whole Windows thing an OXYMORNON??? Or just moronic?? Gk

    3. Re:Gates on spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gates dumb, makes ya wonder..\
      Atleast Hitler praised his own in some special yet twisted way..

      Usually intelligent animals realize what being loyal to their own means in life..

      Well.. Whats billz excuse??

  62. hmm by TCaM · · Score: 1

    I wonder if theirs will detect alexa like most others seem to.

  63. WARNING: It's really a divide + conquer strategy by argoff · · Score: 1

    Good example was hp-3000. Lost money at the OS level until it was put into mainence mode

    I don't think it's about maintenance and service, but more about controll of the market. MS knows damn well that Linux will not be the only other one out there - but they want to get everyone else ganging up on Linux. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy.

  64. 800lb Gorilla-Chutes and Ladders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "MS PHB: "Congratulations, you just got promoted.""

    So in other words the MS engineer keeps his job even in difficult outsourcing times. While everyone else is... Who's the stupid one again?

    1. Re:800lb Gorilla-Chutes and Ladders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, what is, "The PHB, Alex?"

      /default answer, anyway.

  65. Bill knows he's lying, and heres why by argoff · · Score: 4, Interesting


    As I said in another post, I think he knows darn well Linux isn't going to be the only other arround. He's just trying to get everyone else to gang up against Linux. It is a brilliant strategic move on behalf of MS, and a classic divide and conquer strategy. He's trying to do the same thing between redhat and novell too.

    1. Re:Bill knows he's lying, and heres why by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 2, Funny
      As I said in another post, I think he knows darn well Linux isn't going to be the only other arround. He's just trying to get everyone else to gang up against Linux. It is a brilliant strategic move on behalf of MS, and a classic divide and conquer strategy. He's trying to do the same thing between redhat and novell too.
      I'm sure this is true, but open sourcer's need not worry, so long as you have a strong FOSS community about your OS, it will live, so despite the periodic articles *BSD, and all the other non-linux open source OS's look plenty strong to me.
      But don't worry we should still see lots of X is dying stories :-P.
      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    2. Re:Bill knows he's lying, and heres why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      given that Gates has never made an accurate prediction in his life...

      Maybe he's hoping that Linux will die. By saying that it will be around in 10 years, he's secretly hoping it won't. None of his other predictions have come true :)

      Ahhh, the road ahead (* chuckle *)

      PS This is not a serious posting. If you take it so, feel free to flame all you like :)

      AC

  66. Message to SUN by flibberdi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>
    10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.
    >>

    stirring the pot are we? ;)

    He can't say "10 years forward Windows will be the only OSs left in the market." now can he?? (remember the european court has a ruling coming soon). He could say "10 years forward Macintosh and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market." but that would send too many to the mac sales rep. Whatever he puts in the "[any-os] and Windows will be the only OSs.." the "Linux" choice is the smartest, it will push (further) Schwartz and McNealy to launch their attack on RedHat . My guess is that he had those brainwashed to belive that LINUX is the threat to them, and if they would get back to former greatness, they could still get the high-end server market - "and between us [he put his arms around them, tilts his head and smiles], we don't plan to pursue the server market, we belive the desktop is our thing, you know, china and the expanding market" As they embraced the idea, he padded them on their backs and forwarded a bunch of cash as a part of a "bigger deal" and laught to himself.

    1. Re:Message to SUN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is a threat to Sun. Sun spent the late 1990's and early 2000's trying to compete with Microsoft - technologically and legally. Meanwhile, Linux on x86 was bit by bit eating into Sun's server share and now Sun - a hardware company - is reduced to selling competitors hardware and competitors software, rebranded with the "Java" name (diluting the Java brand all the while) in order to keep it's head above water. Sun is realizing that Linux is not Sun's friend just as it realizes that open sourcing anything is just giving it away to IBM.

  67. Windows?!? by linolium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you think they should improve their operating system's security before they sell additional anti-spyware software? This just seems like another way to coax more money out of consumers..

    1. Re:Windows?!? by Epidemical · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't that what Microsoft's business model is all about?

    2. Re:Windows?!? by turkmenistani · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Microsoft releasing anti-spyware software would be similar to Ford offering a fire extinguisher upgrade to the Pinto

    3. Re:Windows?!? by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

      I've heard that suggested so many time, but it's just not right.

      You cant prevent USERS from clicking "okay" on an "Install this plugin to view this webpage!" popup. You just can't do anything about that.

      Having a program update it's reference files and do a low-level scan done by windows every night seems to me like the only way Joe Sixpack is going to have a relatively clean machine.

  68. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by westyx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    uhuh. which is why microsoft is opening up the source code to windows to said countries (like china).

    backdoors don't work too well if the target can see them.

  69. DON'T CLICK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Um, that's not why you'd be modded troll.

  70. good thing overall to have MS force (good) things by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    hey slashdot people. the mindless masses are just UNINFORMED and dont know better. look at the things MS has forced people (included in the OS)to use over the years:

    - defragger (do you think people would actually LOOK for one?!?!)
    - firewall (SP2)
    - backup
    - disk cleanup
    - anti-virus

    just think of MS as a distribution channel where %80 of people are tuned into it.

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  71. Re:Bill Is ALWAYS Right by NotClever · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I use a lot more than 64k of RAM. What's your point?

    --
    Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
  72. Hyperbole?-Black Tuesday. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Yeah, because piracy has pretty much eliminated the sale of music and movies."

    All P2P pirates better get down on hands and knees and, pray that doesn't happen. Wouldn't want you all to have a Black Tuesday, now would we?

  73. I thought the Persidential debates would be Dumb by gamekeeper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One other thing,, If Gates says he wants to do-away with capable sysadmins. Does that mean he wants a bunch of Zombie/Drone/Cookie Cutter type people to follow his lead BLINDLY? If so, what does that say for the people inventing the Next Generation of MS products?? Will they also be like the type of peole I described above, if so what would that mean about the quality of products that come from MicroSopht? Not to mention if ther are some pretty capable people out there to which Bill says he will not cater to, or "He wants to DO-away with." Whats going to happen to the state of security to which Microsopht employs within their products? From an IT point of view I would be scared to think that My skills may be done away with to use these products.. does this mean that only a handful of MS employees will eventually control the enterprise?? Since Bill wants to do away with US. Does that mean that MS will be outsourcing it's admins in house.. Meaning if an issue arises, an exec or Admin assistant would call Microsopht's Helpdesk?? Would a Microsopht Desk top support engineer come to the desq in a day or so to resolve the situation?? If so how capable would he be,, truly?? According to Bills statement probally not verry.. makes ya think.. gk.

  74. Parent is a link to goatse.cx image. by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 0, Troll

    The link is to:
    http://www.google.com/url?surl?sa=D&q=http%3A %2F%2 Fwww.aderkach.org%2F%3F=sch

    Which of course resolves to:
    www.aderkach.org/?=sch

    which along with the usual imagery also causes my Firefox to spaz around the screen effectively requireing a crash out of Firefox to end.

    Interesting how its does that.

    It's particularly interesting to see the damage that page does to IE, even with Googlebar & Proximitron on full alert...

    1. Re:Parent is a link to goatse.cx image. by TelJanin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      which along with the usual imagery also causes my Firefox to spaz around the screen effectively requireing a crash out of Firefox to end.

      It's javascript. Stop letting pages move your windows around.

  75. prostoalex-"/."- The Entertainment Channel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have news for you. Slashdot isn't about News for Nerd, or things that matter. Slashdot is about entertainment. We come here and grimace and groan, and make funny faces at each other. That's ALL.

  76. the future is uncertain... Thank goodness by whistl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reminds me of when the head of DEC said (a long time ago) that in the future, the world would only have something like 10 (mainframe) computers. He never foresaw microcomputers.

    10 years ago, we were all cursing Windows 3.1, because it was so unstable. Very few of us even heard of Linux. No one, at that time, thought it would be as critical to our lives as it is today.

    I predict that in 10 years, "personal computers" won't be the center of our computing universe, like they are today. We'll all have moved on to something completely different. WHo knows what that will be?

    Nobody today can possibly guess what our future computers will be like. But I sure hope whatever they are, they don't ALL come from the tiny little imagination of money grubbing jerks like Bill Gates. And if it does, God help the rest of us.

    --

    Patrick Wolfe

    "Stress is when you wake up screaming, and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet"

  77. Re:No Mac OS? What will the Mac Business Unit Thin by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    Is Bill telling his employees in the Mac Business Unit that all their hard work is going to be for nothing? Is he planning on shutting down the MacBU, an that's why he's saying Mac OS won't be around?

    We are after all talking about the same mac that made the switch from the 680x0 to power pc and then an os switch to BSD. Not that these were not good choices, but they sorta expect the mac users to be buying new computers, macs or otherwise every 3 years.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  78. Re:No Mac OS? What will the Mac Business Unit Thin by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Is Bill telling his employees in the Mac Business Unit that all their hard work is going to be for nothing? Is he planning on shutting down the MacBU, an that's why he's saying Mac OS won't be around?"

    I dunno, I'll consult my Magic 8 Ball.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  79. Application Space by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    BTW, something to pay attention to is the application space. If you look at closed apps, they are coming under a lot of pressure. Below them they have OSS offering an increasingly better apps for free. Above or beside them, they have MS moving in.

    Good example is Intuit. Intuit is losing money and customers on its' Quicken. Money is offered for free on MS to compete against Quicken. In addition, MS recently bought another company that is about business book keeping (forget it's name). From below, there is gnucash, kmoney, etc who put some pressure but not really. But they are getting better and most likely in the next year will be offering competition.

    The only thing that keeps Intuit alive is TurboTax. The problem is that about 1/2 of the tax programs out there are owned by BG and are designed to eat away at TurboTax. My understanding is that they are succedding.

    Once Intuit feels pressure, they will move to quit supporting platorms as that is expensive. At that point, they will drop Mac, ignore Linux, and support MS only. At that point, Intuit is dead. MS will be able to target just them. And mac will be out a good program.

    Of course, some amount of customers will have to leave the app space unless Gnucash has succeeded in coming up. In addition, it will require a company to support the turbotax portion that is now missing. I am guessing that the company will not be from the USA, but will get the job done right. By the time that Intuit realizes that they have a real competitor in space other than MS, it will be too late.

    Likewise, the same for adobe. They are being hemmed in and do not recognize it. They will shortly have no choice but to pull products from Mac OSX, but every time they do, MS just undermines them.

    The best bet for these companies is to expand to Linux while they have a good name and they do not have huge competition. If they do not, the apps space will get filled up and prevent them from moving. In the end, each of these apps will wether and die as a MS only apps

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  80. Re:No Mac OS? What will the Mac Business Unit Thin by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I dunno, I'll consult my Magic 8 Ball."

    Hey! It says Outlook not so good! Amazing!

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  81. When we need 2 Gig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do have Bill Gates on record as saying he cannot see how anyone will ever need more than 2G RAM. So, let's wait another ten years and see if he says he never said that either?

  82. Nostradamus he ain't by GomezAdams · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Why get your knickers in a knot over anything Gates says. His success rate with his other big predictions is lower than pecking chickens or a psychic mule calling presidential elections, forecasting hurricanes, and Super Bowl winners.

    If he expects M$ Windows to be still be a viable choice in 10 years than he had best get his gang of coders to fixing all the security holes in M$ products. Otherwise within five years the script kiddies and spammers will totally own the M$ environment, enough major corporations will follow IBM and other IT shops in converting to the Linux desktop that ordinary users will start to clamor for preloaded Linux boxes so they can be compatible with their work environment. There will always be enough of us dedicated Contraians that UNIX(tm),the BDSs, and other alternatives will still be there "just because".

    Another prediction (from the pecking chickens) is that in five years Longhorn will have so many delays that the features will be scaled back even more to get to market that someone at M$ marketing will name the next version of Windows(tm) "Shorthorn".

    --
    Too lazy to create a sig...
  83. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Fancia · · Score: 1

    Unless I'm mistaken, that was one of China's conditions for buying - and then they decided not to use Microsoft's software.

    --

    Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
  84. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >It is a well known fact that all versions of MS-Windows
    >have backdoors built in, allowing US spy agencies to
    >heck into, do something funny, and/or sabortage the
    >"enemy system"

    Uh. It's not a fact, well-known or not. It's speculation promoted by the paranoid masses.

    Stop being a tard.

  85. Apple DOES have a hard time selling its machines. by solios · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look at the problems with powerbook displays and iBook logic boards. Apple CAN'T compete on price so they HAVE to slash QUALITY to get even CLOSE.

    I own and admin a shitload of macs- ranging from a quadra 650 to G5s. The only macs I have that have BROKEN are one of the two G4s I admin, thirteen of the fifteen iMacs I admin, and BOTH of the G5s I admin (one blew a hard drive, the other the logic board and video card).

    All my beige Macs are rock motherhumping solid. Never had a problem with any of them, ever. This candy colored aluminum crap, on the other hand, is- at BEST- consumer grade. :(

  86. Windows kills jobs now? by ion_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article (emphasis mine):

    As to how Microsoft is going to beat Linux according to Gates, it seems to be via its software's value, rather than the price. Bill Gates is trying to create software that needs little maintainance and little support. By doing so, he hopes to cut down the number of IT administrators needed on companies (a good admin costs overall up to $200,000 per year for a given company here in the Bay Area, for example). On the other hand, Linux rivals (e.g. Red Hat) are making money primarily by support calls and require capable administrators. Gates hopes to elliminate this need.

    Wasn't it supposed to be Linux that kills jobs?

    1. Re:Windows kills jobs now? by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      "overall up to $200,000 per year"
      A really good (PhD in Math) financial mathematician makes up to $500,000/year here (and the cost of living is SO much less) - Black-Scholes type models (of options) (and "math magic") are very valuable.

      Our university produces "tons" of BA/BS CS graduates whose only jumior/senior high level OS is Linux (Debian). I believe this is common at many universities. I do not think there is/will be a shortage of people who know Linux. (By the way, who can afford to live on $200,000/year in San Jose or SF or even Oakland? Have you looked at housing costs? In 1959 a very nice house in Palo Alto cost less than $20,000. Check out the prices now. If (new) Stanford faculty cannot afford to buy a house (other than in the faculty ghetto) closer than Santa Rosa, something is wrong.)

    2. Re:Windows kills jobs now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only windows was as good as the latest Firefox.
      I just upgraded Firefox Browser. Click, check for upgrades. Even on a 33K dialup, the upgrade/fix took about 5 seconds. Exceeded my expectations.
      The Firefox crew rocks - looks like, smells likes a windows product, only much better. If *nix lifts its game to this level of perfection, OS will become a generic commodity.
      SP2 only delivered 1/2 a filewall, took an iceage to install, and did not really fix core problems - JPEG's anyone?
      Good software is not technology, but just clever and directed programming. Relative to other stuff out there, MS has lost the plot. MS is being phased out like a well worn safety blanket.

    3. Re:Windows kills jobs now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no. we've always been at war with Eurasia.

  87. Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Say you buy a new car, drive it out of the shop down the hill only to find that the brand new car with all the shining new features is missing steering and brakes. Then after you have crashed, your kids have been buried and you have after 2 years of legal battles and medical recovery the car company comes around and fixes the brakes. Would you then still feel you have something to complain about?

    There are two kinds of people who complain about MS. Those with somekind of hatred towards MS for whatever reason and those who of us who are tired of the constant delays, promised features that are moved to the next version and just plain shoddy code.

    It is like with IE, geezus MS how long is it going to take to get proper PNG support. Or with AMD, exactly what is taking so long to get 64bit support out? Linux and BSD got it now for ages, are opensource developers really that much better and more motivated?

    The list goes on, Longhorn? The next big thing? Well not really, features and improvements are being dropped left right and center until what is left over is still just another point upgrade and not the much needed rewrite that windows needs.

    If I need something done and you do it without being asked then I will be gratefull. If I ask you to do something and you do it then I will thank you. If I have to keep nagging you for years to do something and then finally you do it in a half-assed way then I am going to think your a fucking asshole.

    Get married and you will find that this is pretty normal human behaviour.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your wife nagging you too? :-)

    2. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by kantai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Horrible analogy.

    3. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is like with IE, geezus MS how long is it going to take to get proper PNG support

      I don't care.

      I wanna know how long it'll take before they realise that routing all the controls through the radio and having the car stop and open all the doors if a hitchiker in a blue shirt and trousers flags you down is a bad idea. And that requiring the hitchiker to be wearing a police jacket and nice shoes as well isn't much of an improvement.

    4. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by Reziac · · Score: 0

      "If I need something done and you do it without being asked then I will be gratefull. If I ask you to do something and you do it then I will thank you. If I have to keep nagging you for years to do something and then finally you do it in a half-assed way then I am going to think your a fucking asshole."

      As you say this is pretty much normal human behaviour; opensource developers, who often suffer from that last condition, should also take note.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of people who complain about MS. Those with somekind of hatred towards MS for whatever reason and those who of us who are tired of the constant delays, promised features that are moved to the next version and just plain shoddy code.

      I consider myself to be neither. I admire some aspects of Microsoft, and I am a former employee. And, as far as proprietary software vendors go, their software is pretty good.

      But my opposition to Microsoft as a company comes from two sources-- 1) The products are often marketed for markets where they are not optimal (i.e. Microsoft has a hard time saying "No, we don't make the best product for X market, technologically) and more importantly
      2) I value my freedom. I don't like restrictive EULA's and so I don't use Microsoft or any other proprietary software. I don't even use Acrobat Reader or Realplayer on Linux.

      One thing I have said time and time again is that Linux continues the commoditization revolution that was started by Compaq and Microsoft (and later Phoenix). One thing about Linux is that it embraces and extends Microsoft's OS market strategy, and it does a better job at this than Microsoft.

      Also because of the way that the market works, I think in 15 or 20 years, Windows will have less market share than FreeBSD....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    6. Re:Reason is obvious if you translate it to cars by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Actually, microsoft came out with a 32bit os a year after the first 64bit os's came out. So in order for microsoft to make a 64bit os, we have to wait for a truly innovative company to come out with a 128bit os, and then wait a year for ms to catch up with the step behind.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  88. Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now if we could get the ISV's to put spyware under one tree:
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windo ws\Curr entVersion\SPYWARE\Run

  89. the linux stawman by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    MS wants to build up linux as a threat, while ignoring Macs. That way when they get pressed for anti-competitive behavior again they can hold up linux and say "look, look!" Its very much in their interest to pretend linux is some big desktop threat (its not.) They also do not want to do free advertising for Apple so they avoid mentioning them. Smart, but evil. Sadly, the linux crowd buys this hook, line, and sinker.

  90. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by ppanon · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was just a ploy so they could get a copy of the source for their cyber warfare department.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  91. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by g0qi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a well known fact that all versions of MS-Windows have backdoors built in, allowing US spy agencies to heck into, do something funny, and/or sabortage the "enemy system".

    Listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot. I know Microsoft Windows code is closed-source. But here's a fundmental fact that nobody understands- it's open-source to every employee working under windows in Microsoft. That's about 14000+ employees mind you, and they belong to every nationality you can think of, even those you can't spell. Maybe their livelyhood depends on them keeping quiet, but I'm sure you are the one spreading FUD around.

    Stop scaring the people. Stop this nonsense. I'm surprised you didn't find a place for terrorists in your comment somewhere.

    --
    Yea. I know.
  92. You might want to check that again by 0racle · · Score: 1

    You might want to check some of those well known "facts" Before they make you seem like a runner up for the tinfoil hat of the year award. No matter what you feel about Microsoft, if the NSA is going to have MS and other US corporations add backdoors to their code, are they really going to be dumb enough to leave it named NSAKEY in plain sight in the registry? Incidentally, how many believe this 'theory' also install the SELinux additions to make their Linux more secure. You might want to go ahead and check who puts that together.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:You might want to check that again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly, but i would check WHAT they put together... (If i use (SE)linux)

  93. Mac OS X by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    BSD is dieing, Bill Gates Confirms!

  94. Could BSD have been Linux? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    I think not. Simple fact is that BSD was there before Linux. So if BSD could have been Linux it had the chance.

    The BSD license is liked by MS but hated by most other businesses. After all BSD is a license to take my/the companies work without ever having to give back. The GNU license wich Linux uses forces you to give back. Sure you can work from my work but in turn I will benefit from your work on my work. A giant communist or at least very socialist developement.

    BSD is not to be ignored and its license makes it less of an obstacle to get bits adopted. BUT it cannot be used for shared developement as it invites for anti-social behaviour with people only taking.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Could BSD have been Linux? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      The problem was not the BSD licence, it was the lawsuit.

      Incidentally, I tried Linux in the very early days. It did not work, so I switched to BSD, and have used it ever since! It worked, and was what I wanted/needed. I use both FreeBSD and NetBSD for different reasons (on different hardware). Would you take your teenage daughter and her friends out in the same vehicle you use to take the sheep to market?Oh, you are geeks, sorry...

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Could BSD have been Linux? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      You are missing two important things. First of all, at the time Linux was released BSD was in the middle of a lawsuit and it was uncertain as to whether it would remain legal to use it. Secondly, there was no x86 version of BSD available. 386BSD was released in February '92, 6 months after Linux 0.01. GNU Hurd was released about the same time.

      As a happy BSD user (FreeBSD on the server, OS X on the desktop), I don't really care how many people use Linux. Linux is nothing more than a kernel, and it implements well documented UNIX/POSIX interfaces, so I can easily run software developed for it on my preferred platforms.

      As an operating systems researcher, GNU/Hurd has a lot more potential than Linux in the long run, and is just now starting to get to a usable state. Hopefully the incorporation of OSKit drivers will enable it to catch up with Linux in terms of hardware support.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Could BSD have been Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think not.

      Perhaps you need an education.

      Simple fact is that BSD was there before Linux. So if BSD could have been Linux it had the chance.

      Simpler fact - BSDi fought AT&T Unix copyrights and won during the timeframe you are choosing.

      The BSD license is liked by MS but hated by most other businesses.

      Really? Most consumers do not READ licenses, let alone like them.

      After all BSD is a license to take my/the companies work without ever having to give back.

      Yes, this allows the users of GPLed code to do the same. Yet, for all the talk of 'giving' - the act of GPLing BSD code then improving that code is not a giving act, is it?

      The GNU license wich Linux uses forces you to give back

      And the Final part of your education - Virgin WebPlayer. Used Linux, yet didn't use the GPL in the licence.

      Consider yourself schooled.

  95. Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well... here is something else that people say:
    a) Windows should provide it because it's their responsibility to be secure
    b) Windows bundling anti-spyware software puts anti-spyware folks out of business because no one will buy it because the bundled is too easy to just use it.

    So... yet another case where Microsoft will be damned if they do it and damned if they don't. I'm sure it will be feed for all the "M$" bashers no matter which way it goes.

    1. Re:Damned if you do... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      No, a) should read: Windows should fix the problems that allow such programs to be necessary.

    2. Re:Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 1

      a) should read: Windows should fix the problems that allow such programs to be necessary.

      Maybe this is the fix that you mention? In any case, spyware isn't limited to only Windows. It'd be easy to write one for just about anything if it were worth the time. Windows has them because everybody has Windows. There's no point in writing one for, say, the C64 because so few people use them on a daily basis.

    3. Re:Damned if you do... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd like to see how such a program would manage to install itself on the sly in Linux, and from then on run automatically every time the computer starts.

      Spyware itself isn't the problem, it's the stealth-installing variety (in quantity) that does the crippling.

    4. Re:Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 1

      Well... do it the way that happens most of the time on a Windows box. Have a non-tech savvy user run some application from the web or from an email. That application is a trojan or an "installer" that copies the spyware to a file named something not readily noticable at first glance, like something called ..bashrc. Modify the user's .bashrc so that the first thing it does is run the ~/..bashrc, but you can do it in such a way that it looks like it's supposed to be there (throw a couple ENV vars into the invocation to confuse the non-tech savvy, for example). Now you have a program that will run every time a shell is started.

    5. Re:Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 1

      Another place where we've played tricks on folks is to make a directory in their home called ... and then put what you want in there. When we played tricks on folks, we'd move all of their home directory contents into there, so when they 'ls' nothing shows up, but nothing is lost because it was just moved.

    6. Re:Damned if you do... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the need to use shells were the biggest fear of your typical user. .bashrc is out.

      On a side note, there is the possibility of an executable being placed in the home directory and session parameters being changed to autoload the appropriate executable on login.

      However, since there are a goodly number of different desktops, each of which has it's following, and it's own method of autoloading processes at login, the writers would have a particularly... interesting task ahead of them.

      Add to this the fact that if such things appear, there's likely to be at least one forum, newsgroup post, website, or knowledgebase that will show a user how to use top to find the offending program and kill it.

      This also doesn't change the fact that the majority of spyware doesn't install through user error, but through ActiveX controls on the web browser, often completely invisible to the user. Since there are also several available browsers in a single distribution, that's another point of effort that a spyware writer would have to work around. Between Mozilla, Opera, Epipheny, Konqueror, and Netscape, distributed over three different full desktop systems (GNOME, KDE, and XFCE), applying to various OSes (Linux isn't the only OS that has the above software products)...

      Well, it would take a considerable amount of work to manage to write spyware, and find a way to install it invisibly.

      As for bad user habits, that's not Windows' fault, and not (directly) the spyware writers' faults, either.

    7. Re:Damned if you do... by fitten · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the need to use shells were the biggest fear of your typical user. .bashrc is out.

      Doesn't .bashrc get loaded when you log in, even if logging in through xdm or something? If not, there *is* some way of loading up stuff depending on your GUI. Just figure out if you're in KDE or Gnome and put yourself in the session restore script (like when you log in, the windows you had open before are opened for you again automatically). If not there, then there is *some* way to do it. All you have to do is get them to run the trojan one time. Anyway, it *is* possible, even if a little work. The main reasons why these things are written for Linux are:
      1) Not enough of an impact even if you did write one. (Too small of a percentage of the computers out there)
      2) Unless you really spend a lot of time writing it, it's easily diagnosed and fixed because the user base of Linux right now are mostly tech-savvy. The majority of the Windows user base is not tech-savvy.
      3) People aren't going to write these things for Linux because I think most of the virii writers are pro-Linux and they don't want to create bad PR for Linux, they want to create bad PR for Windows.

    8. Re:Damned if you do... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1
      2) Unless you really spend a lot of time writing it, it's easily diagnosed and fixed because the user base of Linux right now are mostly tech-savvy. The majority of the Windows user base is not tech-savvy.



      Of course, there is a lot of tech-savvy people using Windows. The difference is that there's only so much tech to be savvy to... the rest is hidden behind NDAs, copyright, and just plain obfuscation... never mind the percentage which is shareware and commercial software.

      The same cannot be said about Linux or the BSDs, or even Mac OS X, where the information to the inner workings are available.

      3) People aren't going to write these things for Linux because I think most of the virii writers are pro-Linux and they don't want to create bad PR for Linux, they want to create bad PR for Windows.



      I didn't want to make the point myself, but since you made it for me, I'll thank you. ;)

  96. Oh, right. by haxor.dk · · Score: 1

    "Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."

    Is this along the same line as when Ballmer said i 1995 that "Apple and the Mac OS is irrelevant from now on"? (paraphrased)

    Oh, the powers of the oracle!

  97. Gates predicts by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
    Gates [...] claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.

    From the man who failed to predict the Internet revolution half a year before it happened, we now get a 10-year prediction...

    If there is one thing Microsoft is good at, it is running AFTER the facts, and throwing a lot of money at them to catch up.

  98. My prediction by Magickcat · · Score: 1, Insightful
    and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."

    In ten years time, I predict Windows will be just a bad memory.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  99. Admission of M$'s unreliability by ynotds · · Score: 1
    The full context from the bottom of the linked Infoworld article:
    E-voting has an inherent issue in that the voting public demands a high degree of certainty with the technology. "We ourselves are not going after the e-voting market or the nuclear reactor control market," Gates said.
    makes that little admission a lot more significant.

    It would appear to be a straightforward admission that M$ is incapable of delivering technologies embodying "a high degree of certainty".
    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  100. Could you imagine the president saying this??????? by gamekeeper · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Could you imagine A REAL PRESIDENT (BUSH DOES NOT COUNT). Saying something like this?? If we put great policies in place, why would we need our tallented millitary to enforce them?? Thats like (scratching head) "lets just drop an A-bomb and get it done. Therefore, why would we need ground troops to fight? Forget the rammifications of our actions. Our resolve is great and absolute. No need to have the tallent and intelligence to back it up.. It's the final measure, the only measure, and the best measure.. After this look at all the money we can save by not sending in the troops, the cleanup's and the loss of OUR lives.. " Verry powerful application of Bills statement in a real world situation. Ya, sure it makes sense.. RRIGHT. Not.. Gk.

  101. Crap by melted · · Score: 4, Funny

    If _BillG_ has to run anti-malware programs, everyone else is in _deep_shit_.

  102. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by killjoe · · Score: 1

    "Stop scaring the people. Stop this nonsense. I'm surprised you didn't find a place for terrorists in your comment somewhere."

    May be one of those thousands of employees belongs to al-quada and wants to slip in some malicious code. It would be difficult but I would not say that it's impossible.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  103. Is OS X really not worth mentioning by pearljam145 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If any of you did look at the WWDC keynote by Steve Jobs, I am sure you guys would have realized by now that this entire discussion is unnecesssary. Come on, the next version of OS X (Tiger) that releases NEXT YEAR has features that Bill Gates still plans to implement in his version of Longhorn. I was astounded to hear that the OS X API would support calls that would process stuff directly on the GPU. Searchlight will deliver what everyone has been waiting for. Even today, almost a year after Panther was released, when I show a Windows user Expose', they are amazed to see such innovation. Microsoft is a company that heralded COM and DCOM as the best thing that happened to mankind since computing was developed. But today with .NET, MS says that COM is for losers. How long will be be before they do the same with .NET? I agree change is the only constant, but come on this is taking it a bit too far.

  104. Hmmm... more like... by ztwilight · · Score: 1

    Fedora and Debian will rule the market. With BSD ruling the server market.

    --
    Who moved my sig?
    1. Re:Hmmm... more like... by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      Gentoo will be the real Gem. (Fedora Core 2 and Debian are cool too.)
      *BSD? Probably a hobby project (unless MS throws money at it).

  105. "I have had malware, (adware), that crap" on some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "I have had malware, (adware), that crap" on some home machines, he said.

    i would like to know, did he reinstall the os or
    use regedit and/or use some free antispyware
    software or buy a mac ...?

  106. In 10 years, I wonder what big cat... by mtec · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the Mac OS will be code-named after. I mean - there's only so many cats. Next one's Tiger and we're doing about 1 per year, that's 10 more cats!!

    Lessee... Lion, um - Leopard, Cougar, Gepard... uh.. Thundercat?
    Jobs better hope for divine intervention.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  107. Linux:Microsoft::Kids:Establishment by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing that someone who has been working at a large company worries about more than a bunch of new fresh, stubborn, idealistic faces who is willing to devote all their time to work coming in and taking over. That's true even in the existing system.

    Microsoft is a very large company. It has an established hierarchy, and people who have worked for years to reach their positions, and now have guaranteed status. They're concerned about someone walking in and taking what they've spent a long time getting and rely on.

    Linux is a loose network of some of the most devoted-to-work people, who want to stir things up and change the world, even if it results in a lot less money for them. It is a hypercompetitive meritocracy -- you can't work up any type of "status" that you can live off for years (well, maybe if you work at IBM).

    Microsoft/Linux is just another example of a neverending struggle. It's just a little more blatant than most.

    1. Re:Linux:Microsoft::Kids:Establishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linux is a loose network of some of the most devoted-to-work people, who want to stir things up and change the world, even if it results in a lot less money for them. It is a hypercompetitive meritocracy -- you can't work up any type of "status" that you can live off for years (well, maybe if you work at IBM).

      I take you meant more than a kernel when saying 'Linux', because otherwise you're delusional, dude. Try subscribing to netdev mailing list and you will see a hierarchy in all its glory and that ..

      It has an established hierarchy, and people who have worked for years to reach their positions, and now have guaranteed status. They're concerned about someone walking in and taking what they've spent a long time getting and rely on.

  108. Dvroak = professional troll by mrklin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's your fault for getting upset by Dvorak. He is a professional troll. His job is to get various groups riled by his words which generate readership ("What will that idiot say next?") and thus generate revenue (subscriptions, magazine sales, ad revenue, etc). Dvorak is very good at what he is being paid to do. You provided a perfect example.

    1. Re:Dvroak = professional troll by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Dvorak is very good at what he is being paid to do. You provided a perfect example.

      All that does not make Dvorak less deserving of vitriol and hate. Especially considering that he masquerades as a journalist and there are people that actually listen to him.

      Someone should seriously kick his as IRL. Heh :D

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    2. Re:Dvroak = professional troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I used to have an Apple software sampler CD which featured a pair of audio tracks on it: One by Jean-Louis Gassee, and the other by John Dvorak. Damn, I wish I still had that thing. I'd rip it 'n put it up in a heartbeat.

      Oh well...

  109. Gates is probably right. . . by alizard · · Score: 1
    about 2 operating system families surviving the shakeout.

    The bad news for him is that Windows probably won't be one of them.

    Windows is already the most expensive component in a low-end computer system. When Linux is "good enough", vendors will be happy to bundle it instead of Windows on their new computer systems.

    1. when distros are bundled with enough software to get a typical home/office user going (Why isn't mplayer bundled with FC2? Why does it take hours of research to find that one can clone HDs with dump?)
    2. when the installation problems are solved (yes, apt-get / yum / urpmi are good enough, when one can find an application which is of actual use which can be installed by them)
    3. When some sort of conversion facility is available to make it possible to run Windows drivers for peripherals so we don't have to deal anymore with vendors who offer nominal support for Linux, i.e. Red Hat 7.

    Just about every major vendor except MS is throwing billions of dollars a year at the problem of making Linux "good enough", in addition to the efforts of Open Source developers.

    Anyone who's tried, say, RH9 followed by FC2 knows how far Linux has gone in just a year. I see no reason why this progress shouldn't continue.

    We will see "good enough", and I'd be very surprised if we were still asking "when will Linux be ready for the home or SOHO user?" even a year from now.

  110. Hmmm.. In 10 years... by ztwilight · · Score: 1

    An easy way to see where we're going is to see where we've been. 16 years ago, I loved the mac for it's graphic interface and hated DOS for it's lack of intuitive commands. Eight years ago, I hated Windows for it's cheap user interface and loved the mac for it's ease of use, and was intrigued by BeOS as a fast, graphically-savvy OS. Nowadays, I hate Windows due to the fact that my favorite software is as buggy as you can possibly imagine, it's command-line lacks any real umph forcing me to resort to cygwin, and the UI is still cheap looking. The Mac is better than ever, not to mention more stable and more technical than ever. Linux is also a favorite system and I can get massive amounts of work done on it. QNX also has recently crossed my path with an amazing stability that puts even Debian Linux to shame. BSD is included as well as a great server OS. On a day-to-day basis I use several Linux distros. In the next few months I may find myself jumping between 10 different Linux distros every day, running them simultaneously on the same system as virtual machines, etc. So - 16 years ago (2 OS's). 8 years ago (3 OS's). Now - depending on opinion, 5 OS's. Then I could say that based on the sequence, in eight years I will be using 13 different OS's.

    --
    Who moved my sig?
  111. There is always a plan by antibios · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At first it seemed like an odd thing to say. Here is the owner of Microsoft not only admitting that Linux was going to be around in 10 years, but that it was going to be a leading OS. It struck me as kind of strange, and very unlike the MS FUD that I am used to. So why? What is the motive behind this? After a little thought it seemed obvious. Out of all the other OS's around Linux is the only one that they think that they have got a full proof plan to defeat. When it comes to MacOS and Sun they have trouble with a definite plan, but when it comes to Linux it is simple. So here are my thoughts. We all know the rule that there are only ever two options in computers, the first and second place in the software chain for any application are the only two real opportunities that a majority of companies look at. Now we are seeing that the two major players in the future are going to be Linux and Microsoft. So what does this mean? It means that Linux is going to help MS crush Apple and Sun, (especially Sun) and then when it comes down to the crunch, it will be Linux and MS as the major players left standing (I'm not trying to write off the other OS's, I'm just pointing out where we seems to be going now). So in my opinion what is going to happen is that MS is going to promote Linux as the alternative, MS is going to quietly and discretely push Linux as a serious threat and make people look closer at it and hopefully convert the MacOS and the Sun crowd across. When Linux starts to take a major foothold in the MS fort and starts to force other OS's out of the market they then turn around with a massive amount of patents and slam Linux into a legal nightmare, leaving users in limbo and scared. They then have no alternative but to turn to Windows, and the master plan has all been played out. Now am I being too pessimistic?

  112. My vision of the future... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    I don't have enough money to wipe my ass with $100 bills (or, more accurately, $100,000 checks), but I see the computing world 10 years from now being dominated by Linux and OSX. Linux will eventually be easy enough to use, maintain, configure, etc. that it will fullfill the computing needs of 90% of all users. You could argue it could do it now, but to be honest, there are still some things that need addressing (most notably printing and package installation, in my opinion, but that's another discussion).

    Anyways, in 10 years Linux will probabyl be there, and hardware will be cheap enough that a $100+ (or even a $45 OEM bundle) Windows license will be too large a % of total cost that a free Linux will look very, very attractive (again, already there, for a lot of us).

    There will always be those who want something super easy to use, maintain, configure, not to mention soemthing pretty and chic. OSX or whatever Apple will be calling it then will be there to fill that need and sell expensive albeit very nice computers that practically run themselves.

    MS will be around of course, but Windows will be gone, at least as a packaged product. They will sell licenses to companies to develop DirecX games, and will still sell Office except it will be Microsofts GOffice, and be an internet based office suite hosted up by Google (the only way they could compete with OpenOffice). Also they will give away an XWindows manager that has the MS name all over it, just to help keep the brand in people's minds. They will still make very nice mice and keyboards, and be a financially healthy company, diversified into home entertainment products like XBox and Ultiamte TV, etc, but Windows will be gone.

    I can hope any ways. :)

  113. And what about freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing how many people would give up control of their data and apps just to avoid spyware. Come on! I remmember some years ago when the net was a geekier place, and Oracle's net computer idea dropped on the floor with blood comming out of its jugular vein... But now, people think it's a good idea. Why?

  114. I don't really see that by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Hardware has continually gotten cheaper for many years now, and Apple's market share has actually grown over the last few. People actually do want to buy those $3000 cinema displays, or a $3000 dual-G5 box. Now I personally don't, but even I ended up buying a $1300 (with student discount) 12" powerbook, because even for the money it's one of the best laptops around. Frankly I've yet to find a PC laptop that wasn't at least one of: 1) heavy; 2) unreliable; 3) ugly. The few PC laptops that can hold a candle to powerbooks in reliability (some of the IBM Thinkpad stuff, for example) aren't any cheaper anyway.

  115. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Hey I have a better argument. Suppose there is a secret 'back door' in windows for the CIA/FBI/NSA to come in and spy on you in your parent's basement downloading Brittney Spears pr0n. Given that fact, why would they them use it themselves? Most government agencys use some flavor of Windows. Do you really think that the NSA, for example, is going to use an OS that is known to have a backdoor built into it?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  116. password sol'n already exists by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    Password technology, meanwhile, needs to be succeeded by smartcard or biometric technology, Gates said.
    no not really. the password solution is already developing:
    all your passworded accounts point back to a central email address whose password you control.
    effectively, this is just making things go in the direction of "one password for everything".

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  117. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    And if I were China, I would want to compile that source and then those are the binaries I run because I would anticipate a shell game of some sort.

    I suspect that what actually happens is that MS reveal portions of the code, without the supporting infrastructure to compile it successfuly.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  118. In other words... by Linker3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me translate for you: "Our software leaks like a sieve....so we're going to start selling corks..."

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  119. Beowulf clusters of Windows ? Its just plain wrong by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    Yep in one of the articles referenced Gates says that their investigations into grid computing are using Beowulf clusters of windows machines. Ugghh! Shudder. The thought of it makes me wanna puke.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  120. Re:Your mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Heh. What part of that was supposed to be offensive?

  121. It's worth RTFA, folks by hopethishelps · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Bill Gates' comments as reported are insightful. He may be a bad person, but he is certainly not a stupid person.

    He understands the history of Unix better than most Unix companies did, and the anti-Linux strategy he describes makes business sense. (Of course, he also has anti-Linux strategies based on barratry, manipulation of legislatures by thinly-concealed bribery, etc but you can't blame him for not discussing those.)

    One thing that worries me about the Linux vs Windows scene today is that there are too many Linux cheerleaders who loudly proclaim that Linux' victory is inevitable. Gates is smart enough to take the threat seriously, and his team may be smart enough to beat it. He's certainly one hell of a lot smarter than the Linux cheerleaders.

    A good start for Linux advocates would be to do what Gates has clearly done: understand the opponent's strategy.

    1. Re:It's worth RTFA, folks by Malor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By and large, it doesn't matter.

      Linux and other free software does not depend on the destruction of Windows to survive. It is not driven by a profit motive and cannot be attacked on that front. Windows' market share is irrelevant. On an economic basis, free software is unkillable.

      The only real threat is legislation and/or patents. Keep that under control, and free software will prosper.

      So mamy people get into this 'Linux versus Windows' thing, and get emotionally invested in it... but really, it doesn't matter. What free software is doing is changing the nature of the game, so that Windows has to play on free software's turf, rather than the other way around.

      Microsoft is a smart company. They have more money than God. Windows isn't going to go away EVER, at least not in our lifetimes. But, aside from legislation, there's nothing they could really do anymore to lock out free software; the hue and cry if they tried would be vast. People just aren't going to buy DRM-enabled hardware unless they control the keys. If they'd done this kind of thing five years ago, it might have worked, but at this point Linux et al are too entrenched, and cannot be killed at a system or hardware level.... any attempt to do so would be a commercial failure.

      Microsoft has to adapt to a world with a lot of great free software, not the other way around.

    2. Re:It's worth RTFA, folks by hopethishelps · · Score: 1
      Microsoft is a smart company.... But, aside from legislation, there's nothing they could really do anymore to lock out free software

      Not clear. They're going to try pretty damn hard to lock it out by means of software patents. It's possible they will succeed.

      the hue and cry if they tried would be vast.

      The hue and cry will be about the same size, from mostly the same people, as the hue and cry that opposed DMCA. So I'd expect it to have the same effect, i.e. none.
    3. Re:It's worth RTFA, folks by VE3MTM · · Score: 1

      Even patents and legislation mainly only affect its large-scale adoption with businesses. Think about it: even if corporations start enforcing key patents, they will never go after individual users. They will, however, prey on large adopters.

      As long as there are developers working on it, open source software will never die, but it can be pushed aside, into a kind of shady underground status, which is a worse fate than death.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
  122. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by HyperCash · · Score: 1

    Well....I suppose it depends on how you want to look at it. :) Seeing how easy it is to hack windows boxes to begin with I don't think that any of the US's spy agencies would have a hard time doing so.

    --HC

    --
    So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
  123. Mr. Mackey on Spyware and OS Competition by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    Um kids, you see, Spyware's bu-aaaad.

    And let me tell you about OS Competition now. you see kids, OS Competition's bu-aaad.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  124. Did everyone miss the critical point? by Syre · · Score: 4, Informative
    Bill Gate's critical point in this interview, and how he intends to compete against Linux in the server market is actually something to be concerned about.

    From the OSNews article:

    As to how Microsoft is going to beat Linux according to Gates, it seems to be via its software's value, rather than the price. Bill Gates is trying to create software that needs little maintainance and little support. By doing so, he hopes to cut down the number of IT administrators needed on companies (a good admin costs overall up to $200,000 per year for a given company here in the Bay Area, for example). On the other hand, Linux rivals (e.g. Red Hat) are making money primarily by support calls and require capable administrators. Gates hopes to elliminate this need.
    This is a real issue. Red Hat and the Linux companies have little incentive to make products which require less support, because this could cut into their support contracts.

    Microsoft then can show a lower TCO by putting lots of resources into making management easier and do-able by lower level cheaper employees.

    They could win (at least temporarily) with this strategy if we aren't careful (and don't get administration on Linux to be as easy and automated as possible).

    1. Re:Did everyone miss the critical point? by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft has a long way to go to make Windows as low-maintainance as UNIX, whether that UNIX system is built on a Linux kernel or not. When they converted Hotmail to Windows it took them a couple of tries, and they ended up using UNIX tools to support and maintain the server farms via their Interix "BSD on NT" product. Their internal white paper on the process makes the point that if it were anyone but Microsoft doing it the license fees they charged for Interix at the time would have been significant. They later re-released Interix as a free download (as of Services for UNIX 3.5).

      Red Hat and the Linux companies have little incentive to make products which require less support

      I called Microsoft for support once. They asked me for my credit card number first thing. I've already ranted on /. about what their "support" did after that, but if anyone wants to convince me that Microsoft has any less incentive to make support a profit center than Red Hat they've got a lot of work ahead of them.

    2. Re:Did everyone miss the critical point? by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the OSNews article:
      As to how Microsoft is going to beat Linux according to Gates, it seems to be via its software's value, rather than the price. Bill Gates is trying to create software that needs little maintainance and little support. By doing so, he hopes to cut down the number of IT administrators needed on companies (a good admin costs overall up to $200,000 per year for a given company here in the Bay Area, for example). On the other hand, Linux rivals (e.g. Red Hat) are making money primarily by support calls and require capable administrators. Gates hopes to elliminate this need.


      Someone has already created software that needs little maintenance and support. It's called Mac OS X (frankly, even the old Mac OS was much more reliable compared to then-current incarnations of Windows). Corporate IT departments ignored it, partly because it required the purchase of new hardware, but mostly because it makes having a large IT staff superflous-- and IT managers like the empires they build and the power they wield over an organization that depends on rickety shit like Windows that always needs an army of admins to keep it running.

      Anyone who has admin'd a mixed network of decent size will tell you that the number of Windows problems they saw dwarfed the number of Mac problems, even when the Macs were years old and the PCs were brand-new, and even when the Macs outnumbered the Windows machines. I've seen it myself. At my last job, the company went from being an all-Mac shop to running Windows everywhere but in the design studio. For a period of time when it was all-Mac, I was the sole admin of over 100 machines and my biggest problem was finding a good book to read between help calls. As soon as some 98 and NT machines landed on users' desks, we needed to add two more people to the IT staff and we could still barely keep up.

      Even if it's coming from Microsoft (and that's making the hefty assumption that they can actually produce a Windows that is low-maintenance), I have a hard time believing that these corporate IT guys will willingly buy something that will effectively lessen their power within the corporation.

      ~Philly

    3. Re:Did everyone miss the critical point? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I recently logged into a customer's UNIX-based voicemail system to be told it's uptime was 853 days.

      Also about 4 years ago, I experienced for myself the urban myth of forgotten Novell Netware servers. I had to go to a customer's site to update a DLL on our telephony application on the server - it took the customer over an hour to find the machine which was a 386 in a forgotten corner of the comms room beneath about an inch of dust - it was still happily running and had been up for who knows how long.

      Microsoft has a LOOOOONNNGGG way to go before it gets anywhere near those types of uptimes for Windows.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  125. er, um, uh TRON, QNX? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Wrong, a reminder. Doubt Windoze will ever catch TRON,http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci030522 .html and wouldn't discount QNX going 10 yr either. Windoze is already the pimple on the hardware gorilla's rear. Linux/*BSD is just going to pop it.

  126. We need a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only takes a geek level imagination to imagine someone comes out from the dark and buys the communities like KDE, GAIM, GIMP, XMMS and couple of other Kool opensource apps and build a linux distro for sell! Man just imagine that! What we need is a guy with too much cash in the hand here. The gorilla sense of Bill Gates is really really getting off hand.

  127. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by arcanumas · · Score: 1
    i don't really believe that there is a back door , but your argument is not convincing.
    If the NSA/FBI had enough power to force a back door into the Windows code, wouldn't they have enough power to force a special version without back doors for them?.

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  128. Hmpf. by Baka_kun · · Score: 0

    so now their gonna make money off the holes in their own system. hmm great idea. "hey, what are you doing man? - im making hte new patch for itnernet explorer! - Why? Stop doign that and make anti spyware programs instead, so we can make money off it!"

  129. Microsoft's security reputation by kholburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My reaction to Microsoft offering its own anti-spyware is the same as my reaction to the MS firewall in XP SP2: Would you trust Microsoft for your security?

  130. Well... by pab89 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I asked BonziBuddy and he says not to get an anti-spyware solution.

  131. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing how easy it is to hack windows boxes to begin with I don't think that any of the US's spy agencies would have a hard time doing so.

    Given the amazing incompetence they displayed over their treatment of 9/11, the anthrax attacks that followed, the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the whole WMD issue in Iraq, I can only say that I don't share your confidence... frankly we'd probably do better to fire the whole CIA and hire script kiddies instead.

  132. Ten years from now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, just in time for the release of Longhorn!

    *Ducks*

  133. ...something different with this competitor by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Interesting
    He also said that MS has seen many other competitors, including IBM & OS/2, Borland, Apple etc and have survived them all, and he doesn't see something different with this competitor

    Has Gates lost it? Nothing different with this competitor? Except that it's more about a movement. People will spring up to replace others and build on the work done before.

    1. Re:...something different with this competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to his last psychic evaluations, he lost totally his mind

  134. You, Sir, are a Fuckwad by Zen+Punk · · Score: 2, Funny
    Who are you, Cheif Asshole at the Global Ministry of Jobs?

    Just what is your vendetta against this kid? Why are you resorting to name-calling over some performance reviews?

    Methinks you are the one bullshitting Slashdot, although I can't imagine why. This guy actually showed his badge. Why should anyone beleive that you are HR at Microsoft?

    Hmmm...well, actually, the readings on the asshole-meter match up quite nicely with the levels for "Microsoft Administration"....

    I guess you're the real deal.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  135. Welcome to Slashdot. by Zen+Punk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Home of the Bad Analogy.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  136. One quote of worthy reference by cephalien · · Score: 1

    I noticed that one of Gates' most interesting points references the value of the software if you consider piracy.

    Considering that, he says, it truly comes down to the worth of the product, and that is something I greatly dispute.

    As a long time linux and windows user, I've gotten past the flash of geek 'pride'. I dislike MSFT intensely, but yet I still use their OS willingly, despite the numerous flaws (and yes, shoddy code). I have an iBook, which I love immensely, and I have two various Linux boxen. However, WinXP is still my primary OS. Why?

    Games. Argue all you like, but until I can pop a copy of any brand-new game I want into my Linux or Mac machines, I'll keep XP. I'll even -pay- for it (not that I have to worry about that for a while, thank you Longhorn), but from what I see in the people I know, that's often the sole sticking point.

    Make that easy, and people will forget (or at least be a lot less critical) of a lot of Linux's other problems.

    --
    If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
  137. Poor Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could he say this after Sun has made all nicey nicey with MS and started attacking Red Hat? (for MS or for themselves or a combo?)

    Oh, wait, the sun also rises doesn't it?

    A Nony Mouse

  138. anti-spyware product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would make sense for Microsoft to make an anti-spyware product, after all, they should (but may not) know the most about how to protect Windows from spyware.

    gosh, all you have to do is uninstall the messenger programs on your computer & wala, no more spyware but we already knew this didn't we.

    I would also think that given the sheer amount of brainpower that they could apply to the task that they would put forth a good product.

    they did but the cx base is brain dead, not microsoft.

    But, they have not been known as innovaters in the application world (I know, some would say in the OS world as well). then you design a better os with app's as well, but no, you would rather complain.

    Anyway, I wonder how the other folks who make and sell (or give away) anti-spyware software will react to the 800lb gorilla's entrance into their domain?

    like it matters. damn people, grow up!

  139. Re:the future is uncertain... Thank goodness by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    We can't predict the future, but we can still guess. The most likely scenario is that we try to fix some of the problems with personal computing today, and evolve some of the newer technologies. One problem is that while we have access to the internet everywhere we go, we still don't have access to our personal data unless we drag them around on laptops, CDs, iPods, or run sshd or ftp on our personal computers (too 1337 for most lusers).

    So we can imagine that networks are still going to be important, and portability of some sort. Mobile phones and PDAs can't be used for many of the most common computer tasks (word processing, photoshop). How about pseudo-dumb terminals? Plug you smartcard into a computer in New New York and read the email stored on your computer in New Los Angeles. About the same as Sun Ray terminals, but on a global scale. Windows would probably not play a major part in this future.

    Or maybe you can use the phone as a "storage device" (either directly or using the phone company's server, or your own), and get your $HOME from that via Bluetooth v.12 when you use the terminal at the library.

    Or we can continue using what we use these days. It's "good enough", so why upgrade?

  140. The reality of what MS is... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    They are a marketuing company first and formost, a software developer second or third (law might be their second, as it applies to marketing).

    Who do they market to?

    Anyone and everyone who can either make them money or influence their incomming finances.

    We all know truth in advertising is lacking at MS.

  141. Photoshop by sanyacid · · Score: 1

    >In fact the only thing I think windows has going for it is Photoshop.

    I am using Photoshop 7 on Linux without any problem. Try Wine.

  142. Windows good for spyware collection ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... and study ... because if there's anybody who knows about spyware, and has LOTS of access to it ...

  143. Maybe not you, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but I just built a tower for Windows. There's just too much breadth of software to shift away from the platform."

    Yea, and you'll pay for every bit of it too, right?

  144. The Mouse by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've noticed that a lot of retail companies still use ancient mainframe and SCO Unix-based applications. Seeing a well-trained sales associate look stuff up on one of those systems in microseconds is quite a joy.

    It's especially interesting because the user interface looks clunky -- but well-trained people with experience on the system can still use it far faster than anything new.

    I remember thinking the same thing when I saw my company's old accounting system, which we had to dump for a Windows-based solution because it wasn't Y2k compliant. It took about 10 times as long to enter data on the new system than the old.

    It should be profoundly embarrassing to us that we have largely regressed in the speed in which an experienced user can work.

    D

    1. Re:The Mouse by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      Seeing a well-trained sales associate look stuff up on one of those systems in microseconds is quite a joy.

      But how long did it take him to acquire that information? How many mistakes did he make on the way to that wonderous proficiency?

      It should be profoundly embarrassing to us that we have largely regressed in the speed in which an experienced user can work.

      Not quite so -- I can use word processors much faster now than most people, because I've learned about CTRL-Arrows for skipping around text much faster, Shift-Arrows for highlighting text, CTRL-C, X and V for Copy, Cut and Paste, CTRL-Z for undo, and Tab and Shift-Tab for moving between controls.

      Most Windows programs use these keys, but because it's *possible* to get by using just the mouse and menus, most people do just that, so there are a lot fewer experienced, as in speedy, users. Most people learn just as much as they need to get by. I can't honestly blame them.

    2. Re:The Mouse by mwa · · Score: 1
      But how long did it take him to acquire that information? How many mistakes did he make on the way to that wonderous proficiency?

      That's a very good point, but the "give 'em a mouse and let them click way" results in less training and more lost productivity in the long term. You always hear "But Windows is so easy to use!" I think that's a misconception. Windows is easy to learn, to "get by with" as you say, but not "easy to use."

      A little post-use training would go a long way. "Ok class, now that you know where to click on which menu to do what, try hitting Alt-F. See the "File" menu open? Now press the down arrow and you can select a file operation. But wait, there's more! Press the right arrow and you go to the next menu. You can select any menu item from anywhere without reaching for the mouse."

      A 1/2 hour "Ways to work without a mouse" class would greatly improve the efficiency and productivity of people who use computers and applications for routine tasks.

    3. Re:The Mouse by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      Windows is easy to learn, to "get by with" as you say, but not "easy to use."

      That's not how it went with me. All of my skill came from my own research and experimentation. But then again, maybe I shouldn't hold myself to be a typical case in this.

  145. TAB, dammit, TAB by DrJay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'cause Tab is really helpful in Photoshop....

    --
    ______ This mind intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:TAB, dammit, TAB by mwa · · Score: 1
      'cause Tab is really helpful in Photoshop....

      Sarcasm tags noted and appreciated, but I'd make the same argument in reverse.

      Graphics, CAD, and like applications are far more productive with a mouse (or other "pointing device"). Once in that mode, however, every function should be available through the same device. The point is not so much that a keyboard is better than a mouse; It just tends to be in the situations where I get frustrated.

      The point is that any given application's interface shouldn't require the user to swing their arm back and forth between different input devices. Further, they usually don't but user's are conditioned to think "that's the way it works", mostly because companies train their employees to "use" applications when it's a better long-term investment to teach them to be productive in applications they use regularly.

    2. Re:TAB, dammit, TAB by ManxStef · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes it is! (It's the key that hides all the open palettes and toolbox, leaving just the image you're working on unhindered by clutter. Shift-tab does this but leaves the toolbox up.)

      Seriously though, sarcasm aside, Photoshop and other graphics applications are pretty nasty to use with a mouse. Yes, they are. For instance, try using a PS on a Mac for a week with your favorite mouse (say, a Logitech 3 button USB), then switching over to a PC (re-plugging your mouse). Ewww, different mouse acceleration!

      OK, that's not really fair, but my reasoning is that you'd be much better off using a pointing device such as a graphics tablet** that maps 1:1 to the control surface area (you can tweak this in the driver settings usually). Then you get no wierd surprises, no strange acceleration, and an intuitive controller that behaves in a consistent manner.

      **Yes, I am biased: I love my Wacom Intuos2 pad. Of course, they had to announce a new version a month after I buy the fricken thing, with funky modifier keys and a zoom-strip built into the pad - dammit! ;)

  146. eh? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Please, put an end to the myth that it's more expensive!

    For MOST people, Macs are indeed far more expensive. I just got my wife a laptop(... running XP, *sniff* -- she was running Linux up to now...), and a comparable Mac would have been 50% more expensive, with less memory and a smaller display.

    In fact, in her situation, the Mac offering didn't even include a DVD burner or wifi, while the PC included wifi.

    Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Macs are terribly overpriced, just overpriced for the majority of people. There's nothing wrong with that, and indeed, I would recommend a Mac over a PC in a lot of situations.

    Just as examples... I'd recommend a Mac for people who aren't saavy enough to keep a clean 'doze machine, or people who ARE saavy enough to take advantage of the nice Unix underpinnings of OS X.

    In fact, considering that something insane like 50% of all Windows PCs connected to the 'net are acting as spam relays... Maybe Macs ARE comparatively cheaper! :D

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  147. Re: more obvious if you translate back to software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem you analogize is a direct result of an illegal monopoly. It is not THAT M$ drags its heels, it's that M$ CAN drag its heels and still extract a premium from the market. This is a key difference between monopoly and free market.

    It's not that they do evil, but that they are in a position to do evil without consequence as a monopoly. There is no material reward for them to play nice, because material rewards flow ONLY from maintaining the monopoly. An employee who figures out a way to make it harder to defect from M$ deserves a promotion, but an employee who figures out a way to ease the customer's experience is just eccentric, irrelevant to the actual business of making money.

    This is distinctly different from a free market where easing a customer's experience improves customer loyalty and increases the likelihood that you'll make a profit.

    The only way you can help M$ to do a better job is to bring them back into the free market by breaking their monopoly. Don't buy computers with M$ products pre-installed. Don't let your boss do so. Make sacrifices to break the monopoly and your children will inherit a better computing experience.

  148. Interesting that Bill G desires demise of Mac OS X by michaeldot · · Score: 1

    Maybe MS's chairman is not so money conscious after all if he wants to see Mac OS X die. Consider this: Microsoft writes, sells and generates a tidy sum of money from their software on a Mac, immeasurably more than the money they make from Linux, for which they write and sell no software.

    In fact, some estimates put it that when an iMac is purchased along with the Mac version of Office, Microsoft actually makes more on the sale than Apple. The reason? Even though the iMac is $1000 and Office is $300, the margins on hardware manufacture are about 20% but for software they are 80-90%. (That's also why Microsoft is worth more than any hardware maker in the industry.)

    In essence, Bill G is saying he doesn't care if this Mac revenue dries up. But that's a rather expensive way of putting an end to those thorn-in-the-side zealots who are always saying Mac OS X is better than Windows. Why should he care about those under this "delusion" if MS still makes $$$ when a "competitive" product is sold? Even if by some miracle Mac OS X got to 10% of the market, that's 4x more healthy Mac revenue for Microsoft.

    Financially, it would be in Microsoft's interest to eat humble crow and ensure Mac OS X does survive - after all, they make more money out of it than a PC running a ripped off copy of Windows + Office, even if the latter does swell the marketshare numbers.

  149. love-hate by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    He really doesn't like Steve Jobs does he...

    Maybe he should talk to his psychiatrist about this?

    --
    realkiwi
  150. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sell Macs, and the damn things are too expensive.

    Let me put it to you this way: I have a $1350 emachines laptop that processes more audio plugins than a dual 2 ghz G5 tower. There's something seriously wrong with their architecture, and no one is admitting it.

    Having said that, I still prefer to sell the Macs because of the OS. Simply put, I get less tech support calls. I know a reason it's so stable is because their hardware platform is very specific, so I see them partnering with HP or more likely IBM and selling x86 boxes with the apple OS installed. You could charge $300 for the OS and still be cheaper (and faster) using an Athlon 64 or dual opteron.

  151. proof that *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll admit that I'm posting from a BSD device, and that I have purchased 6 BSD devices for my organization over the past few years, but I am painfully aware that it is dying.

    What's my proof? I have a scrapbook of clippings of articles dating back to the dawn of time saying so. It's on my shelf next to the scrapbook of clippings about how Macs must die because they are more expensive than PCs.

    It's not that I can afford more expensive shit, it's that I can't afford the consequences of cheap shit.

  152. RTFA, but beware of the spin... by argent · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates' [...] understands the history of Unix better than most Unix companies did

    I'm sure he does, he's responsible for a lot of it. But he never actually talks about the history of UNIX as it really happened, either back in the early '80s when Microsoft was the biggest UNIX vendor in the market, or the '90s when independent UNIX implementations really started taking off. I've been to Microsoft's own museum, and there's nothing in it about Microsoft's own UNIX... even though at one point there were more people using it than all the other implementations combined.

    So... he's personally responsible for a lot of the fragmentation he's complaining about.

    Another thing he glosses over is this "Linux versus UNIX" competition: it's nothing of the kind. Linux is not something different from UNIX, it's just a popular and really quite traditional implementation of a UNIX kernel. He's just taking the "Linux cheerleaders" slogans and twisting them to his own use. This isn't deep understanding, it's denial.

    Speaking of denial: "Spam is down from a factor of 10 from where it was a year ago," Gates said.

    What this means is "Microsoft put in a spam filter a year ago, so I quit seeing as much." Microsoft's internal spam filter isn't very deep (there's been discussion about it on Microsoft's blogs, and it's been referenced in /.).

    Spam is definitely up from a year ago. I've recently had to add another layer of filtering here because the RBLs I've been using aren't good enough to keep out the botnet-sourced spam. If you use qmail, look up my "amberlist" program on Freshmeat.

    And: Technologies that have been surprising in that they have not had wide adoption include speech recognition and ink-based computing

    They were cheerleading this stuff in 2000 when I visited the Microsoft campus for the first of what became their annual "Mobius" shindigs. It wasn't compelling back then, and I don't anticipate it taking over any time soon.

    Finally: Microsoft will provide a malware cure to address issues such as adware, he said

    Bill: putting the browser in the center of the GUI and making it responsible for security is a bad idea. It was a bad idea in 1997, it's a bad idea now, it'll still be a bad idea in 2007 (or whenever) when Longhorn comes out. Give it up, split IE up into isolated components that can be called safely from applications, please...

  153. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're shooting for Linux to be the only operating system in existence. See, we're looking to eradicate your entire way of life. It was personal when it started, but now it's just good business. It's just good business for us to utterly crush what's left of you.

    Anyways, back on topic, Macintosh is still going to be around. Dunno how much longer Jobs is going to be, but I think Apple still does some actual innovation; man, they do some FUNKY shit over there.

    ---

    So, to recapp:

    1. Crush MSFT.
    2. Revamp the world.
    3. Evolve.

  154. In 10 years: Deerstalker and Mac OS XXVIII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In ten years, I'll have a server running something named after some type of hat (straw boater, watchcap, sombrero, pillbox, ...) and a laptop (at least 17" screen) running an OS with a numbering scheme like the Superbowl. Those will be the OSes for work.

    If Windows fits in at all, it will be to run my television at home, which may be incompatible with Deerstalker and XXVIII, because ABC-NBC-CBS-TimeWarner-Sony will ONLY allow their DRMed content to be run on M$ - approved devices.

    M$ has only one chance for long-term survival: force you to use their product by making it impossible to get something you want without it. This is ALL they're really thinking about. Public statements by Gates are caca.

    1. Re:In 10 years: Deerstalker and Mac OS XXVIII by base3 · · Score: 1

      You're half right. You'll be running the DRMd, locked down OS of the day. But your *hat OS, if you can run it at all, will be running on antique "pre-ban" hardware. Future PCs and servers, to protect the security of the Fatherland and the profits of the *AA, will require any software from the OS on up to be signed with an endorsement key by Microsoft and whatever company they keep alive to be able to say there's competition (maybe Apple).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  155. Insurance by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I just want to chime in here. I'm NOT one of the 'OS X on x86!!!' fanboys, but I have a few points of the matter:

    1. Maintaining x86 compatability in-house is trivial if done from the get-go. This is essentially insurance in the case of...

    PowerPC vendors (motorola and IBM) stop being friendly or providing adequate product.

    or

    commodity prices on x86-64 hardware drop to such low levels that Apple has to jump to AMD to remain at all viable.

    If Apple DID switch to x86-64, you can bet that they'll sell an OS that only works on Apple-branded open-firmware-based AMD x86-64 boxes. Just because Apple switches to x86 doesn't mean you can go out and buy a copy to slap on your Dell. Features like the seamless audio support, quartz extreme, single-image-fits-all, and boot options from open firmware (read: target mode/netboot) are all things that will nescesitate specific hardware.

    Apple saves a LOT of money and time by not having to have drivers for every chipset out there, they can only have a great OS at this time if they control the hardware it runs on.

    Overall, I don't really mind what architecture the OS runs on. I really do like PPC for the cool-running CPUs, but the recent stuff out of AMD seems to do just as well in that department.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Insurance by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

      Despite my futzed formatting I tried to stress the idea that OSX on commodity x86 hardware would be ridiculous. If Apple switched wholesale to x86-64 processors yet kept the systems as a whole Macs-with-OpenFirmware the situation would be much different. Such systems would still be Macs, as you said the PowerPC processor is not what makes a Mac a Mac.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  156. Re:"I have had malware, (adware), that crap" on so by base3 · · Score: 1

    He probably had Dave Cutler come to his house and clean it up. Billionaires, even ones that once had technical knowledge, don't much with REGEDT32.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  157. Is that desktop OS? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    There will be more then 2 in 10 years.. But he might be right about the 2 MAIN desktop OS's..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  158. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by fmaresca · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ok. But:
    1- 14K+ employees workin in the OS? I don't think so.
    2- 14K+ employees can read and understand the code? Again I don't think so.
    2- With only two or three hackers working in the compiler(s) is enough to make a backdoor that is not visible in the source, and present in every OS.

  159. BB! BB! BB! by Performaman · · Score: 0

    But will it protect against MS' own spyware?

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  160. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is complete bullshit. I priced it out too. The 17 inch powerbook, with its lower quality screen, and slower CPU was $1500 more expensive than a dell with a similar config. The dell had a faster CPU and much better display, as well as a better video card. The powerbook had a longer battery life, and didn't way as much, but apart from that was less than or equal to the dell in all ways but price.

  161. A shocking admission. by twitter · · Score: 1
    With all of Bill Gates' money and all of Microsoft behind him, Bill Gates still needs a third party application and has to run it himself! You would expect the average CEO to have someone filtering their calls, mail and everything else. This was not enough to keep him from being hit. Nor is the combined expertise of every support tech at Microsoft's disposal. Who can expect to do better with Windows?

    At the same time, poor little me has no problems using Linux. That's with my crap hardware and free software and zero staff or commercial support. The default Mepis install has built in spam filtering for Kmail and Kmail is bright enough to not load binary crap sent through the internet. The biggets and bloatiest of crap, macromedia's non free garbage and real player 8, have yet to get me owned though they work seemlessly through Konqueror and Mozilla, which are both more feature filled than IE. You would think a set up like that would be raped regularly, but there have been no problems in more than a year of use like that. While apt-get upgrading is a chore with unstable, especially with all that customization, it's worked and continues to work. It never crashes and I only have to turn it off when the electricity to the house fails. If I had 1/100th of Bill Gate's money, I could hire someone to filter my spam folder and administrate the box after hours so that what little pain there is to using it would go away.

    What he's admitted is that Windoze is a pain in the ass. Can you imagine trying to do tech support for big dogs?

    "Mr. President, there are some things you can't click in your email. There's a list here to help you remember ...."

    "Your honor, I'm afraid something from a web site you visited has infected your computer and I'll have to fix it today. It should only take an hour or so ...."

    "Your patented hair cut looks good today, Mr. Trump, but I'm afraid that something is wrong with the LAN ..."

    One thing I can't imagine telling them is that they will have to run anti-virus and anti-malware software or why their new fancy computer does not run as fast as the 468 they had ten years ago.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:A shocking admission. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical sycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

      I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or Mepis or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

      If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

      To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. This is an article about email disclaimers. The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx, because "is teh free".

      Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

      Here's that drive-by advocacy and FUD in motion: twitter goes on about some topic and then drops the usual "oh and M$ is teh evil" because "WMP phones home" or some such. Called on his FUD, he then claims that WMP stores every song and movie you've ever played in a file, somewhere. Pressed further, he just sort of slithers out of sight, his FUD-spreading complete. This is not about some Microsoft technology that nobody likes anyway; it's about lying for the sake of lying. Way too many of his posts are exactly like this one.

      More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one. Or this one.

      Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

      M

    2. Re:A shocking admission. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are such a bore.

  162. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by mindriot · · Score: 1
    May be one of those thousands of employees belongs to al-quada and wants to slip in some malicious code. It would be difficult but I would not say that it's impossible.

    May be one of those millions of open-source developers belongs to al-Quaeda and wants to slip in some malicious code. It would be difficult but I would not say that it's impossible.

    So there. Your argument does not work.

    And besides, can we please cut this completely off-topic terrorist paranoia crap?

  163. My OS predictions by plopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in 2014 we will be running Windows XP, SP7.

    Seriously, they are having problems writing Windows for AMD64. While open source OSs chug along. Will linx run on mainframes? It already does. Will windows run on mainframes? It probably will never make it. As long as there is a spectrum of hardware Windows with its sloppy architecture, coding and design will be locked into to the low end of the market. billg is out of touch, or just plain doing market speak (same thing really).

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  164. it's simple: by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    Such a backdoor wouldn't be obvious. If you were trying to slip a backdoor into anything, you'd do it as something that appears to be a mistake, like the vulnerability that made MSBlast possible. Nothing looks intentional, by the code, so it's easy to deny if anyone makes accusations.

    If the NSA uses Windows--God help us--they could patch that particular vulnerability by use of a simple firewall.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  165. But Windows already HAS anti-spyware capability! by gfecyk · · Score: 1

    It's called "The Limited User."

    At least current and supported versions of Windows have this. Even home users with XP Home can use this powerful safety guard built into Windows since Win2K effortlessly. It's all the other software vendors, who write apps not designed for current versions of Windows, I'm worried about!

    http://www.pan-am.ca/newsletter/

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
  166. don't know why this was modded "Funny" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's good advice.

  167. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by lubricated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    very few employees actually see ALL the source code for windows.

    --
    It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  168. Former Microsoftie Perpsective by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I worked at Microsoft for three years, and the intern got it about right. I will comment on specifics to the extent I am able.

    I worked as a Developer Support Technical Router and our job was to triage, route and/or resolve technical support incidents relating to a wide variety of products ranging from IIS and SQL to Visual Studio, Windows API issues, etc. We also handled misrouted calls from other departments in the same fashion. I was told going in that it was easy to get hired into other departments, but of my 100 or so co-workers, I think only 3 or 4 got hired out to other departments within those three years (I am not counting pilot programs that ended up being sort of lateral moves, etc). It is very likely that this change was due to changing economics (.com bubble bursting) but this meant that there were a number of highly overquallified people working in this department.

    Like any other large corporations, all performance is based on numbers relating to work done with respect to your job. I ended up doing some competitive analysis work for other departments and then being told that this was a "a distraction from my core goals" because although I met these goals I did not do so by more that other people on my team. Among my accomplishments:

    1) I helped frame the discussion which lead to the inclusion of a POP3 server in Windows Server 2003.

    2) The suggestion for taking SFU to Linuxworld was mine, though other parties funded it.

    3) I provided other advice on how to compete with Linux, including the arguments that SFU needs a fully kerberized Telnet or SSH client capable of encrypted sessions, and that it needs to be bundled with the server OS.

    But this was not appreciated because it was "not my job."

    I would not go back there if offered another job.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Former Microsoftie Perpsective by mnmn · · Score: 1

      I feel for you.

      I'm working at my first job which is a 100-person mfg company, just one of two IT guys. Plenty of paid-lunches, I get to choose the hardware, develop reports and fool with the erp system. I felt works being appreciated quite alot here, considering its a management-heavy place (show your apprecaition, by the book).

      There is also appreciation where you get to know EVERYONE personally. I know the names of most peoples spouses, met their kids and know their habits. Delegating a job to me is as hard as getting your best friend to do your work.

      Personally I'd rather work someplace larger, with maybe less personalization and appreciation against more pay and larger-scale work.

      No I dont want to work for MS unless the figure on the table is 6 digits.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  169. but, there is a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is simple. Apple doesn't port to PCs. PC vendors do. Apple licenses the OS to, say, HP. They do the port to their own hardware and provide all the capabilities Apple does. Plus, if they want to provide something new they can.

    Would HP do it? Well, it isn't a hard job because the OS uses the Darwin kernal for "hardware". So, they just have to port Darwin, and prototypes of that are done. HP would need to provide tech support and stuff. But, as a licensee of a port of the OS and key technologies they would have much more freedom to innovate and differentiate if they wished.

    1. Re:but, there is a solution by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

      PC vendors buy aluminum frames with motherboards and power supplies attached to them. Once they have those they stick processors, memory, imaged hard drives, and whatever other components their customers ordered or that product line contains in those frames and slap some panels and a logo on the outside. There is practically no true product development or actual research ever performed by these companies.

      PC vendors running on razor thin margins are not ever going to do their own development work. Few of them stick with a given hardware component for a significant period of time so by the time an adequate driver was written they'd be shipping a different component in their new hardware.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  170. "Blah blah blah blah blah," that's all I hear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same old Microsoft.

    They sold you the disease (an OS highly susceptible to malware), now they want to sell you the cure (anti-malware software).

    They sold you the disease (an OS that requires tons of maintenance, and ballooned your IT staff and budget), now they want to sell you the cure (a new OS that requires much less maintenance, and will put people out of work and save you money).

    They sold you the disease (the current/previous version of Windows), now they want to sell you the cure (the next version of Windows).

    Anyone else see a pattern here?

  171. How to treat good people by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    You sez:

    "Recommend the good guys for jobs where
    you work and you will slowly squeeze out
    the back stabbers"

    The one thing I've learnt all these years in office politics is this :

    For good guys, find good jobs for them inside
    or outside of the company.

    Jobs that can tap into and treasure their
    talents.

    For back-stabbers, get them very high-paying
    job, outside of the company.

    Jobs that pay high, but you know they
    won't last.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  172. The Ten Steps to self-awareness by chevycwby · · Score: 1

    Well, at least he is starting to admit the linux is a big player. No wonder he is dumping core in his pants. Could this be Mr.Gates has been going to one too man AA meetings, following the 10 steps and re-evaluating his life? What a joyous day. BEER FOR EVERYONE!

  173. [bill gates] has no clothes! by sevinkey · · Score: 1

    They probably have no idea of what I've seen happen with apple over the last few years in our IT dept

    They said I got to choose my OS when I started in 2001... and of course "mac" got me rediculed prety bad, as I expected anyway :)

    Now in 2004, in a deptartment of 12 I know of 5 people that bought powerbooks, and two more with imacs.

    I don't think I trust Bill Gates' assessment of the future here....

  174. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah. It's not like Windows source is at all difficult to come by. If they wanted it for cyber-warfare they'd have done so covertly.

  175. depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Try working this way with 5 or 6 apps open.

    Also everything is not text based, try doing some Cad work. You can do it with only the keyboard, but then the person standing behind you will be silently screaming MOUSE, dammit, MOUSE! MOUSE to the line and Click it!

  176. Re:Apple DOES have a hard time selling its machine by Drakino · · Score: 1

    Slashed quality? How so?

    The iBook problem wasn't even found until users had the product for several months, if not years. Apple is good enough to admit problems like this and fix any one they see. This is costing them money, not saving them anything, and it wasn't due to them slashing quality in the iBook.

    The Powerbook display issue was out of their control too. The company who assembled the screens was putting the spacers in the wrong place, causing pressure on the screen over time to form the white spots. Once again an issue that takes time to show up, so Apple has once again of their own free will decided to fix any they see with that issue.

    All in all, the new Powerbooks are built way better then the Titanium ones. No flimsy screen hinges to break, no paint to chip and overall a better build then the old.

  177. Eye-pleasing colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  178. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes but millions of other people look at the open source code. It just has be caught by one person and it's over. In fact every patch gets posted on the listserves.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  179. Yeah, MacOS sucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Until X, the OS was a toy, inferior even to Windows."

    Because:

    It was so easy to hack over a network...?

    It had so many viruses, numbering possibly even into the double digits after 16 years of development...?

    It suffered from DLL hell...?

    The "Desktop Database" and type/creator code was so much more prone to file-type spoofing than the "three letters at the end of the name" approach...?

    You needed to re-install it every 6 months to keep it stable...?

    It was prone to spy/adware that needed risky registry editing to remove...?

    You couldn't add or remove device drivers by simply dragging a file into or out of the system folder...?

    Said extensions didn't have human-readable names for easy identification, and therefore easy system optimization...?

    The HFS+ disk format couldn't handle large volumes...?

    It was prone to buffer overrun exploits...?

    I could go on, but the only real issues with the old OS were the use of co-operative rather than pre-emptive multitasking (and that was only a problem with programs that didn't multitask at all), and the lack of protected memory (but then, in reality it doesn't matter whether its the OS or an application crashes if I've still lost the last half hour's work. Rebooting just adds an extra 2 minutes. Big deal).

    Macs have always had less down-time, and a lower total cost of ownership than Wintels, which has made them the platform of choice in production work for many years. Avid/Digidesign didn't even bother attempting to use the PC as the basis of their systems until quite recently, yet there are Avid systems based on 68040 proc Macs that have been and still are in constant use. ProTools thrived on the Mac, but the PC-only TripleDAT died a miserable death: coincidence, or a measure of reliability?

    The old MacOS is a toy if you believe the only use for computers is the study of computer science. But for production work, even the obsolete OS is still a potent platform.

    1. Re:Yeah, MacOS sucked... by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head:

      but the only real issues with the old OS were the use of co-operative rather than pre-emptive multitasking (and that was only a problem with programs that didn't multitask at all), and the lack of protected memory

      An OS is a toy without real multitasking and virtual memory. Not to say hokey OSes can't have good apps, but that doesn't change the fact that they're primitive. These two features of any modern OS are what makes a *real* OS. It's not just for computer science, it's for: apps that can't kill each other with bad pointers, or just simply seriously corrupt each other's memory space; demand paging, so your app doesn't have to fit entirely into memory with all the others, and so it runs with decent speed; scheduling, so two things can happen at once; etc. Unix was the only way to go for serious computing until Windows and Mac supported these fundamental minimum requirements of a decent OS. And Unix has been doing these basic things since before the Mac or Windows even existed.

      Of course, an OS can suck even with these features, which is why Windows is, even now, totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

  180. Similar to wiping autoexec.bat, etc. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of thing is just asking for trouble. I prefer to just routinely monitor my registry keys manually. If I did what you suggested, my mouse wheel would cease to function, plus my anti-virus would not start up. And that's only a couple keys. I'd hate to think how much trouble that would cause on some of the newer PCs these days....

  181. Re:the future is uncertain... Thank goodness by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

    Calling Bill Gates a "money-loving jerk" is far from fair. He and his wife give away billions every year. It's fine to not like Microsoft's business practices, but not Gates.

  182. Anti-spyware from MS by angulion · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we finally can get rid of Mediaplayer?

    (it sends home info on what DVDs etc. you watch - ie. spyware)

  183. He's right about one thing... by kjots · · Score: 1

    Yes, Linux (or it's successor) will be a dominant OS in ten years time. Windows will not.

  184. Not all engineers by klagermkii · · Score: 1

    Engineers quite often do release software that they're "happy with" which shortly thereafter turns out to be a buggy POS.

    Sometimes they just don't have the skill to test it properly, or are bored with the project and don't mind just handing the problem on to QA/Support because it "kind of works".

    While a lot can be lain at the feet of the PHBs of this world, not everything is managements fault.

    1. Re:Not all engineers by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      While a lot can be lain at the feet of the PHBs of this world, not everything is managements fault

      Yes it is. Regardless of what engineers may or may not want, the truth is that releasing defective software on an unsuspecting world is the responsibility of management, and if they choose to not dedicate resources of sufficient magnitude and quality to the task of producing a quality product, it's their fault. Period. Engineers don't lay down company policies: management does. Management decides what level of quality is acceptable: often not in so many words but by how much they invest in the development and testing processes. I've met a lot of managerial types over the years that paid vast amounts of lip service to the ideal of high quality, but then refused to provide the necessary prequisites to deliver that quality. Why? Because it costs money, and its cheaper to just ship the product and let the customers serve as unpaid quality assurance personnel.

      The fact that a particular engineer or developer is bored with a project or just doesn't feel like working on it any longer is irrelevant. I've gotten tired of projects myself at times (at my current job I've been in charge of the same application for five years straight.) But I'm not permitted to slack off just because I'm bored. If the people in charge tolerate that kind of behavior then they are still responsible. And, if the quality control department passes that engineer's half-baked project on to production, that means that they screwed up as well. But that's immaterial. It's the guys in the expensive suits (the ones that get the fat management paychecks with lots of zeroes on them who make all the big decisions) that are at fault because they (unlike that engineer) have the power to set up an overall system that creates quality. It's not that hard, but it does take time and money.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  185. Dear Microsoft customer: by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Our spyware detection system shows that currently you have 43 spywares installed on your computer. (Click to remove)

    Oh, by the way. We also detected you running 23 illegitimate copies of commercial software.
    (Click to remove)

    Ah, forgot! We also detected you having watched some illegal pr0n / downloaded illegal warez.
    (Click to surrender, we already called the police)

  186. You forgot Poland! by pjwhite · · Score: 1
    "Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market."
    Hey, you forgot <strike>Poland</strike> FreeBSD!
  187. Improve security? Ha! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly. Microsoft wouldn't charge for its antispyware software. This is just their way of working out their problems.

    Which do you think takes more development time/dollars? Writing a spyware cleansing program or rewriting an operating system so it's less venerable to begin with.

    It's just a band-aid for an open wound.

    Plus, now how about some passing the buck on the responsiblity dept?

    MSExec: "What? The customer's Windows XP was overrun by spyware? That's horrible! Why weren't they using our free anti-spyware program we provide on our website? Sounds like a lack of proper PC maintenence on their part."

  188. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ooooooooh, burn... good stuff.

  189. Microsoft is dying by bgeer · · Score: 1
    Gates is noting that Linux is taking over, and claims that 10 years forward Linux and Windows will be the only OSs left in the market.

    So basically, MS has been studying OSS for 5+ years, and all they have come up with is "FreeBSD is dying"? They are so out of touch it's not even funny anymore.

  190. Twitter: Life and times of a petulant cock-gobbler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.

  191. 10 years frem now... by martin · · Score: 1

    There'll still be Unix (tm) based systems and Mainframe/OS390 stuff lying about.

    The amount of spend required to redo all the m/f stuff etc won't be done, esp for all t he big boys with terrabyte size DB's...

  192. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
    1- 14K+ employees workin in the OS? I don't think so.

    Last accurate figures we have date from late 2000 and suggest there were 5000 odd people working on Windows (that includes testers and documenters, iirc). They hit management limits at that point, but apparently since then were able to scale the project up even further meaning there's probably about 6000-7000 full time employees working on Windows now.

  193. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. We have very defined Chinese Walls between divisions in order to keep the code "pure". IE guys aren't given access to Notepad.exe, for example unless it's okayed by managers higher up in both divisions. That way if a backdoor or a virus is put into Notepad.exe, we have it narrowed to 5 people at most and problems will not spread to other areas. It's basic QA.

    And if you're worried about backdoors, you REALLY should look into Apple -- just a hint from a guy who's been on the inside.

  194. Bill Gates on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill: What are you guys working on today? MS Engineer #1: We are working on more bug fixes for our beta OS, er I mean XP. MS Engineer #2: Yeah, we have an idea how to fix everything for good, but we will need some help from the guys down in legal. Bill: Will it make me lots of money and squash more competition? MS Eng #1: Sure thing Bill! We're going to make a proprietary version of linux that works with all our MS apps. MS Eng #2: Yeah, Linux is the answer to all our prayers. We will finally have a product that works. Bill: Hmmm, sounds interesting. I think if I have legal work on it we can probably eliminate all the open source versions as copyright infringment on our patented version. Get to work on it now. I have to return to the Bat-Cave to write my next prophesy.

  195. Care to explain? by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Why is the analogy so horrible? Sounds logical to me. And to the fool who moderated the comment "insightful", could you explain where the insight is in the parent post's two-word assessment? I see no insight at all--only opinion.

    In my opinion the automotive analogy is accurate, if not boring and unimaginitive (we must be well in our second decade of comparing software with cars by now--oh well I can be accused of the same thing at times). Anyways, Windows XP SP2 really is a lot like the foot dragging and secret recalls of the automotive industry. It is fortunate that the resulting incompetence in the software industry does not directly result in grave injury or loss of life.

    Honestly when thousands of Ford Pintos and GM Trucks were put out on the road that could explode on impact in what would otherwise be non-fatal accident, and Ford and GM KNEW about these flaws for months and years and DELIBERATLY avoided fixing thr problem on the advice of bean counters (more money to fix than to settle lawsuits), how do you think that helped their reputations?

    Hell, when you think of it, if Microsoft Windows was a car it WOULD be the Ford Pinto. It would be "good enough" to get the job done, but not all that reliable and if you were a bit reckless it could prove more hazardous to your life than other cars. It took may years--maybe over a decade--for Ford to recover, and people still remember the flammable Ford Pinto. Resale values of Ford cars largely stink to this day mostly because of reputation (Escort, Tempo and Crown Victorias are comparatively worthless when matched up against other makes). Is it any wonder Toyota and Honda largely displaced Ford in that market? Even when Ford tried to learn from their mistakes consumers remained skeptical.

    Yeah, a lot of /.ers will never have a good thing to say about Microsoft. However there are good reasons to be critical or pessimistic about everything MS does right now because they have an abysmal track record of late. MS had to be dragged kicking and screaming into addressing security issues that the Linux distro companies were pushed to address FIVE YEARS BEFORE (open ports, services enabled by default, etc). And when they finally address these issues, they did it in a half-assed, slapdash way in releasing SP2. It butts heads with other firewall and anti-virus software. It changes a whole pile of default behaviours all at once. It alters APIs that MS used themselves and published as OK for other developers to use.

    The problem is that at this point, it is all MS can do until Longhorn. It was a colossal screw-up on their part--The stuff implemented in XP SP2 should've mostly been in place in the initial release of Windows 2000. Security issues should've been addressed promptly as they were encountered, rather than all at once. MS should've kept ISVs in the loop throughout the process, to make sure they do not write "bad software".

    Ignorance is no excuse--the early signs of a looming security crisis were there five years ago and as I said before, Linux distros were addressing security already by then. The first article I heard the term "spyware" in was one I read in the SPRING OF 2000. And Microsoft is only addressing the problem NOW?

    Shame on MS for sitting on TENS OF BILLIONS in cash for years, and ignoring such problems until they become crises.

  196. How NSA access was built into Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help information" [Local Link] trapdoor into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software systems had been deliberately crippled.

    Full text here

    http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5 263/1.html

  197. Re:Windows itself _IS_ Spyware ! by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    But here's a fundmental fact that nobody understands- it's open-source to every employee working under windows in Microsoft. [Emphasis added]

    Under Windows. Interesting choice of preposition. Some of those countries have a bit of appreciation for what it means to be under some regime.

    If Microsoft is at all concerned with its "Intellectual Property", I cannot image that the source, all of it, is always available to all employees all the time.

    It's hardly incredible that, in cooperation with some three-letter agency, there are some built-in back doors which are known only to a select few.