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."
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*
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
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.
To be fair, Tom Watson was born in the 1870's :)
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
'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.
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?"
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.
Nader-2004
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.
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
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.
Mac OS X is NOT based on Debian, or any other flavor of Linux. It is based on BSD, a flavor of Unix.
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.
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.
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
Actually Microsoft is, they use BSD code in all of their OS's, including Windows.
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"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
From the OSNews article:
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).
Here you go: http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_mem ory.html
There are far too many misinformed people out there.
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".
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.
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
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
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.
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
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".
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
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...