Slashdot Mirror


Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009

buzzardsbay writes "Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009. It's important to note that these aren't the opinions of the magazine or its editors. The list comes from folks who work in IT, mostly technology resellers, who are out in the field selling, installing and maintaining this stuff. If there were ever canaries in the tech coal mine, they'd be these service and solution providers who live and die by the slightest shift in the markets. Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size. Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising." What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

291 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

    1) Novell
    2) NetApp
    3) Checkpoint
    4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
    5) Salesforce.com
    6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
    7) Sun, no surprise there
    8) Citrix
    9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
    10) VMware

    1. Re:The list by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you believe the "Channel Insider" predictions, this is more a list of the companies that are highly unlikely to go out of business in 2009.

      Summary of article:
      "Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

    2. Re:The list by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

    3. Re:The list by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      And on that list, only Sun is sinking. (You know that will be the byline in every traderag when it happens.)

      The rest of the selections are idiotic.

    4. Re:The list by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any suggestions on a good AV package for windows then?

      Note: I agree, McAfee home is disappointing, but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is nice.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:The list by lekker+biltong · · Score: 5, Funny

      0. SCO

    6. Re:The list by edsousa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not funny your comment.. More like insightful and tells the story on one line.
      My first impression reading that article (can I say it is an article? I think that flash slideshows are not articles) was that my Engrish tricked me, but no...

    7. Re:The list by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

      It sounds like you didn't read the article, but in this case, that's a compliment, not a criticism. The article was an unbelievable waste of time, and although it was in a "top 10 list, countdown to 1" style, there was no payoff at the end.

      Anyway, for each of those 10 companies, their conclusion was basically, "not likely to go away".

      I want my 5 minutes back.

    8. Re:The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Sun sets; it doesn't sink. You insensitive clod!

    9. Re:The list by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I'm no math expert, but if three are tied for sixth place, should't sun be in 9th, not 7th?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:The list by xaositects · · Score: 1

      clamav

    11. Re:The list by Amarok.Org · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Summary of article:
      "Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

      Exactly... my first thought when reading these was, "Should they really be contradicting their readership and alienating their subscribers?" I mean, I'm all for journalistic integrity, but when's the last time a publication had any?

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    12. Re:The list by winkydink · · Score: 1

      It's free, but you get what you pay for.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    13. Re:The list by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

      All of them seem to be leaping over sharks at the moment.

      AVG and Avast! are both still usable if you disable all that heavy-handed link scanning.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know... I guess it's somewhat interesting that lots of people believe these companies will fail. If nothing else, it says something about their PR challenges. People aren't as likely to purchase products from companies they feel have an uncertain future.

    15. Re:The list by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't agree: it found stuff that Norton and Panda couldn't. On the other hand, it lacks online cheking, so it's great to use as a backup AV only, for full system scans.

    16. Re:The list by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      1) Novell
      2) NetApp
      3) Checkpoint
      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
      5) Salesforce.com
      6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
      7) Sun, no surprise there
      8) Citrix
      9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
      10) VMware

      Are you fucking kidding me?? This looks like a highly biased wishless from a FOSS advocate, instead of a likely scenario. I hate proprietary crap as much as the next slashdotter, but c'mon people, let's be realistic.

    17. Re:The list by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Yeah! That's just what I came here to report. What kind of crap is that? Do they just want to run around asying that their readers, and survey respondents, and survey designers are complete crap?! What a waste of time.

    18. Re:The list by lpevey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.

    19. Re:The list by Amarok.Org · · Score: 1

      Interesting perspective... a [potentially] tongue-in-cheek analysis to absolve them of retribution from shareholders and advertisers...

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    20. Re:The list by killmenow · · Score: 1

      ...but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is nice. Rephrase to: but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is bearable. It's certainly better than a lot of alternatives. But we use it at our offices (not my choice) and we've had a significantly high number of problems due directly to bugs in the mcshield.exe service. As for decent AV package for windows (home) use, I recommend Avast! But then, I'm a pirate, so...well, you know...

    21. Re:The list by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What is interesting is the numbers, which indicate most people can't decide on who is actually in trouble. About 1 out of 4 respondents think Novell is in trouble, which they have been since MS Windows 3.11 for networks made their extremely convoluted product a absolute non player in the SOHO market. How many years ago was that? Almost before we SOHO became everyday market speak. Somehow they survive. Maybe in SCOX is allowed to spend all of Novells money on litigation, they may not be able to recover from that. In other words, 75% of the people thing they will be ok.

      The we get to AMD, Sun, Citrix, Symantec, where about 1 out of every 6 people think these companies will fail. Certainly these companies have problems, but each has products that could keep or gain marketshare. Some mght be in trouble, again, those that align themselves with MS, such as AMD and Symantec, are at the whim of MS, which can be dangerous, but, OTOH, about 85% of the respondents believe that these companies will be ok.

      Then there is VMWare, in which a whopping 89% predict stability. They might be in trouble if a traditional OS continues to be utilized as a base OS, rather than relegated to guest status. On wonder why one would want MS Windows eating up resources with IE and Media Player and all the other stuff that gets loaded in, when one could run a custom version of *nix and VMWare, and then run MS Windows as a guest OS only when needed. I am sure for many with enterprise licenses to MS Windows, running it might virtual windows might make sense, but 90% of the respondants indicate that VMware has the better idea.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    22. Re:The list by wcb4 · · Score: 1

      The only problem with clamAV is the lack of on access scanning capability. I don't mind running a scan every so often, but its much nicer when the file is scanned as I access it.

      --
      I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
    23. Re:The list by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      I don't think SCO will die in 2009. Perhaps a better assessment would be "finally realize they died years ago".

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    24. Re:The list by turbidostato · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "It's free, but you get what you pay for."

      Yes. You get to be free of viruses.

    25. Re:The list by duguk · · Score: 3, Informative

      ClamAV, but no live scanning. AVG is what I recommend for most customers; it's pretty decent but not amazing.

      For testing individual files; I highly recommend trying Virus Total. Upload a single file and they'll test it with a LOAD of different antivirus programs. Worth it for those small files you don't trust.

    26. Re:The list by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want my AV scanner to scan every file on my machine everytime I use them or write to them. It's a horrible waste of disk performance - and it DOES affect disk performance.

      I scan things with ClamAV when I download them and that's about it. Works for me.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    27. Re:The list by argiedot · · Score: 1

      I have found Avira useful. Be warned that it is nagware, though. Every time you update definitions it will post a full screen splash screen.

    28. Re:The list by schwinn8 · · Score: 1

      You could simply disable the linkscanner (and then tell it's panel that it's "ok" that it's not on) or not-install it during the custom installation process. It doesn't bother me anymore! Besides that, I can't stand Avast's interface... it's just plain confusing and annoying. What's with the "VCR" style panel?!

      That being said, I have used AVG on many machines, and it works pretty well. I also disable the automatic daily scan, as it seems rather unnecessary to do this daily. What's more, it prevented me from getting bitten by the recent issue of a false-positive detection of a windows file. Keep in mind, most free virus scanners seem to have high false-positive rates.

      A good reference for AV detection rates is http://www.av-comparatives.org/

    29. Re:The list by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      AVG comes to mind from grisoft

    30. Re:The list by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      One wonders why they didn't just put Microsoft, Cisco, and Oracle on the list. Jebus, I know all of those companies have hit a rough patch of some kind or another, but do you really think Symantec, VMWare, and freaking McAfee are going down? They as much as admit it in the summaries for each one, pretty much every one says "Highly unlikely" or something to that effect.

    31. Re:The list by MyrddinBach · · Score: 2

      We are currently switching from Symantec to Vipre by Sunbelt Software. We used to use a combination of Symantec and Counterspy (by Sunbelt) and anytime there was an issue Counterspy caught it and symantec did nothing.

      Vipre seems to do a really good job without hogging resources. Take a look at it if you need an enterprise solution.

    32. Re:The list by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.

      If you have that many viruses on your system, I think that scrapping the whole thing and buying a new hard drive is the only solution for you. ...it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    33. Re:The list by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      Sophos. Their support is outstanding, license terms extremely reasonable, their management tools excellent, and the software itself is of exceptional quality.

      I don't work for Sophos. I transitioned our company from Symantec to Sophos on a Windows network of about 300 desktops/laptops and servers. Initial scans can be about as resource intensive as a Symantec scan was, but 99% of the time I don't even notice it's there. So far I've only had it interfere with proper operation of a program a couple times over a period going on three years (literally about two times), and when it does you receive a very clear message that it blocked something.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    34. Re:The list by Ngarrang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

      Cool. Thank for saving the click.

      1) Novell

      Odd. SUSE Linux is a popular product with many tie-in deals. They will be fine.

      2) NetApp

      Overpriced products easily duplicated with FreeNAS or any number of products at a fraction of the cost.

      3) Checkpoint

      Too many corporate support deals to go away quickly.

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      5) Salesforce.com

      Won't go away, but may have to scale back the development staff. Their product is too close to helping SaaS succeed.

      6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.

      AMD is stable. Juniper I could see going away.

      7) Sun, no surprise there

      Sun is a good company. Why do people harp on them?

      8) Citrix

      Their product is licenses by MS and integrated into Windows Server. I just don't see them going away.

      9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)

      This is wishful thinking. Despite many years of bad product, their tie-ins with OEMs keep them afloat.

      10) VMware

      Now this is just crazy talk. VMware is a good product with a strong user base and good support. The free solutions simply don't compare in scope and flexibility.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    35. Re:The list by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      You mean that you're not suppose to spread rumors about a company being sold so you can short it's stock??? What's the world coming to?

    36. Re:The list by debrain · · Score: 3, Funny

      I note that SCO is not on that list ... it's like a cockroach, it'll survive nuclear holocaust.

    37. Re:The list by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 4, Informative

      How quickly people forget that AVG was the same company that spammed the internet for 2 weeks pretending to be IE, and then deleted user32.dll thinking it was a virus after a bad update from their servers.

      Nod32 for the win. now.

      (And I still have 5 valid licenses for AVG that I PAID for and will not use)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    38. Re:The list by Schwartzboy · · Score: 1

      I think that the answer to both questions lies with Google and other similar searching technologies. In many cases, I will skim the results of a Google or other search because a bit of summary information is included in the result listing, and I find that it sometimes helps me to make better guesses as to which link is best to follow if I skim those summaries before I click. If these sorts of "reports" don't have much more content than what you just posted, many people who might otherwise click through to TFA based on the title would read the summary, see part of all of the list, and say "oh, so it's total BS then" and never make that click. Fewer eyeballs on the site itself, less ad revenue, bad bad bad. Ergo, Flash and Javascript, which as I understand it is difficult or impossible the current major search providers to pull much of anything useful from to use in a summary.

      --
      "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
    39. Re:The list by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had AVG on my mom's computer, was rather disappointed compared to McAffee enterprise.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    40. Re:The list by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I've used both (I put Avast on my mom's computer when she had me build one for her a while ago).

      I can't say I was impressed by it over McAffee, both 7.5 and 8 have worked fine without any issues on my systems.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    41. Re:The list by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm beginning to believe there's no such thing as a good antivirus...

      The reasons Norton and McAffee don't qualify should be obvious...

      AVG was nice until version 8. Then it decided it wanted to start acting like Norton (Slows system, misses a lot)

      Antivir might be tolerable (still misses some, but that nag screen is a dealbreaker)

      Clamav is close, but others already mentioned the lack of on-access (I'd be prefer on-write) scanning.

      How depressing.

    42. Re:The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly. My constant irritation comes from the fact that the readers (and suppliers of said survey) of those magazines come from a vast majority of SA's who "claim" they are executives and have no say or understanding whatsoever in the market. Anyone who bases anything on the value of FREE magazines is not thinking clearly. Think I'm mistaken? Why not put a review of the stupid things people thought of in 2009 when 2010 turns the corner. In fact, where are 2008, 2007 etc... predictions that were grossly inaccurate. The only thing these articles do is hurt vendors who work hard at making a good name for their employees. Stop listening to marketing all the time and just work.

    43. Re:The list by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          Don't blame an innocent computer for the failure of it's operator.

          Scrap the operator, and give the computer to someone who can properly care for it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    44. Re:The list by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      This one is highly unlikely. The federal government recently spent a ton of money on McAfee's host-based security solutions. If they were smart, however, they might consider ditching their consumer-level stuff (it's crap...not saying the enterprise stuff is a lot better, but well....)

    45. Re:The list by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      You can set any AV program with realtime scanning to only scan on write, then tell it only to scan the temporary download directory (which varies based on what browser you use).

      This gives you the best of both worlds...everything you download is automatically scanned, but disk performance isn't affected very much.

      For full safety, you should add on-access scanning to removable drives. Unfortunately, I don't know of any AV product that allows you to configure it for "on-access" for only some drives/directories.

    46. Re:The list by Mantrid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you tried NOD32 from eset? Been using that for a year or two now, doesn't take up a lot of space and is fairly unobtrusive. (Their heuristics aren't the best, and I usually shut that part down).

    47. Re:The list by Zerth · · Score: 1

      It's nice, except it hogs 100 megs of ram and its definitions are unfortunately about 3 days to late to prevent anything my users will catch.

      I had to block any mail from UPS except for employees actually in shipping because everyone else kept opening fake UPS invoices instead of just forwarding them to the right person(who would have deleted them because it didn't fit the correct format).

      Blocking them, of course, pissed off anyone tracking a personal package.

    48. Re:The list by pimij · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a classic example of a traffic generator. Create a controversial post and get it on slashdot:
      - watch your traffic skyrocket
      - profit!

      Really - what a crap article.

    49. Re:The list by CrossChris · · Score: 1

      Any suggestions on a good AV package for windows then?

      There's no such thing!

    50. Re:The list by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      They couldn't be on the list because they no longer count as a tech company.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    51. Re:The list by Ngarrang · · Score: 3, Funny

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      This one is highly unlikely. The federal government recently spent a ton of money on McAfee's host-based security solutions. If they were smart, however, they might consider ditching their consumer-level stuff (it's crap...not saying the enterprise stuff is a lot better, but well....)

      Like I said...illicit money. ;)

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    52. Re:The list by iwein · · Score: 1
      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    53. Re:The list by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I don't think VMWare should even be mentioned in here, I know the product, and how much clients rely on it...for those that do....I can tell you it will not be one of the bankrupt companies of 2009.

      McAfee yes cuz they suck, Symantec no, cuz they got too many other things going on...
      Juniper yes... as salesforce and maybe even citrix...although doubtful..
      Novell, well we know the story..
      Checkpoint, wait Ill have to check and get back to you on that one...
      AMD, the only true competitor to Intel, doubtful again

    54. Re:The list by Erbo · · Score: 1

      Another vote for Avira AntiVir here. I learned about it from my ex-wife, who learned about it from her Finnish friends. Yes, it pops up the ad window when it updates, but it's a small price to pay for an anti-virus package that (a) works, (b) is far more usable than McAfee, and (c) I don't have to pay for AGAIN every year. One of these days, I may have to send them some money and get rid of the ad windows...

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    55. Re:The list by fm6 · · Score: 1

      As it said in TFA, the list comes from readers. So yeah, it is a FOSS wishlist.

      Except maybe for Sun, which is actually big in the FOSS world. (Guess its problems are so bad even its fans can't ignore them.) Which is my excuse to reply to this comment:

      Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size.

      I don't know about AMD, but Sun is not that big any more, for a multitude of reasons that don't need repeating. It's so small these days, it's market capitalization is actually less than its assets!

      In ordinary times, Sun would be close to the end, since it's worth more broken up than as a working concern. But to buy up all those assets would take more capital than is available right now.

      Here's what I think will happen. The CEO will resist any changes as long as he can, but he's already reorganized the company so that the parts with market value (especially development software) are in separate divisions. Some of these business are small enough to buy without outside leveraging. Google probably has the cash, and they already employ a lot of Sun's Java alumni, so they're an obvious customer for the development tools.

      That leaves a core hardware business that really has no value as part of a bigger company. Nobody wants to branch out into SPARC computers, and any potential purchasers already sell x64 computers. But these businesses actually make money — not a lot, and not across the board, but they do.

      So you take the money from the sale of the software businesses, add it to Sun's huge cash reserves, and maybe you have enough money to take the company private. Do that, and you're no longer at the mercy of stockholders pressuring you to do dumb stuff to "enhance value". On that basis, Sun could soldier on indefinitely, though as a minor player.

    56. Re:The list by interploy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009.

      Nice of them to include "falter" in their list. In this financial climate it makes it about impossible for their "predictions" to fail.

    57. Re:The list by 16384 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm currently using Avast! exactly because of the problems you mention. I can't stand Antivir due to all the nagging, was using AVG before, but not anymore. Avast! has some annoyances (spinning icon, some nagging notifications) but they can be disabled by editing a configuration file.

    58. Re:The list by Brandano · · Score: 1

      What? No SCO?

    59. Re:The list by earlymon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make an excellent point. To carry it a step further, all we know is that a publication claims that their readers think this.

      This sort of thing raises interesting ethical questions with respect to stock trading, as well.

      What's inside information? Where is the accountability?

      Perception is often as important as substance - in some cases, more so.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    60. Re:The list by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Gahh - McAffee is the only "Enterprise" AV I'd want less than Symantec, unless of course, you count things like malware AV2009...

      Generally speaking, I've been slightly impressed with VIPRE demos, and in single install uses rather impressed with Comodo IS, but Comdo isn't exactly much of an AV, instead being a HIPS and Firewall, though it does have some AV capibility. I will say their Enterprise console isn't much good without AD, so it is really Enterprise targetted, though they were adding some workgroup capibility.

      I'd like to see Antivir, their free product is really good at finding baddies - and Bitdefender Linux is ok in their boot CD, so I'd be interested to hear about them as well.

      We're currently on the lookout for a new AV over Symantec, so it will be interesting to see how everyone compares. I personally think we all will need HIPS / whitelisting, so something like Comodo, Cisco endpoint security or perhaps drivesentry?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    61. Re:The list by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      If you are running Windows as your host OS, Microsoft's offering is free, and good enough compared to VMWare.

      If you are running MaxOSX as your host OS, Parallels is better.

      That leaves people running Linux as their host OS. Xen is probably better in at least some circumstances.

    62. Re:The list by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's more interesting that anyone puts enough weight on the opinions of some magazine's subscribers to the point of thinking those opinions are even remotely meaningful.

    63. Re:The list by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Worth it for those small files you don't trust.

      Have you tried not running those small files?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    64. Re:The list by duguk · · Score: 1

      So you've never downloaded a file you've been slightly suspicious of? Even just a Word Document from someone you're not sure you should trust? Rather than losing out, or chancing one virus scanner to get it right, surely it's better to scan it with something than nothing?

      Hell, it scans it with 38 virus scanners (a-squared, AhnLab-V3, AntiVir, Authentium, Avast, AVG, BitDefender, CAT-QuickHeal, ClamAV, Comodo, DrWeb, eSafe, eTrust-Vet, F-Prot, F-Secure, Fortinet, GData, Ikarus, K7AntiVirus, Kaspersky, McAfee, McAfee+Artemis, Microsoft, NOD32, Norman, Panda, PCTools, Prevx1, Rising, SecureWeb-Gateway, Sophos, Sunbelt, Symantec, TheHacker, TrendMicro, VBA32, ViRobot, and VirusBuster), for free, which you're probably not willing to run on one PC all at the same time; and I wouldn't suggest installing all those at the same time either.

      Why not try the site, and consider the reasons why it might be useful, rather than complaining? Maybe you're trying to be funny, in which case I think you've missed the point of humour.

    65. Re:The list by wsanders · · Score: 1

      Is that list sorted by popularity, or by the number of years that prognosticators have been predicting that company will go out of business?

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    66. Re:The list by Fozzyuw · · Score: 1

      I've been using AntiVir for a couple years now. I love it. Primarily because it's free, secondarily because it's free, and finally, it's got a really small footprint.

      Given that it does pop-up a "buy now!" ad every time it updates is fine with me. I can deal with that once a day or so. Otherwise, it's not terribly expensive to buy it.

      Though, I'd like to try clamav. I hear good things about it.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    67. Re:The list by Cally · · Score: 1

      Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Although I'm rather surprised that Checkpoint being comprehensively pwned and having the VPN-1 source hawked on Full Disclosure didn't pick up more press attention.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    68. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well what I was trying to say is that even if the subscribers are morons, that doesn't make the poll completely meaningless. This poll might not give you the slightest hint about the health of the companies it's talking about, but the public perception of these companies might be considered meaningful information.

      After all, you could take a poll of morons asking, "who's would make the best president of the US?" and it might not give you any indication of who would make the best president. Depending on the year, however, it might give you a pretty good idea about who will be the next president.

    69. Re:The list by F3V0H1B · · Score: 1

      libelous predictions most of the so called candidates to declare bankruptcy are doing fine.

    70. Re:The list by lupis42 · · Score: 1

      I often download stuff that *might* be a virus, but I've found that generally, anything I'm actually suspicious of isn't worth opening. I don't even run Windows based AV software anymore, since I find re-installing Windows to be far too routine on all the machines that run it, and all the important stuff resides on more locked down *nix boxes, where I have been less lenient with execute permissions.

    71. Re:The list by Cally · · Score: 1

      Clam's a death trap.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    72. Re:The list by duguk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're running the risk of infecting other people without decent antivirus software y'know. I do know how you feel, on-access stuff does seem to slow down systems a lot.

      Sounds like you need a decent snapshot system to save re-installing, mind you by the time you come to use it, all the old software needs updating anyway. I'd stick to *nix boxes.

      Still, that site *is* good for testing little files you're slightly suspicious of, rather than being unsure. Hell, I use it sometimes just cos I'm wondering what exactly is in some viruses, and what antivirus packages detect it, and what they think it is. I'm not a sponsor of virustotal.com or anything, I just think it's kinda cool and useful.

    73. Re:The list by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Norton Corporate was actually pretty good when I was deploying AV solutions for my work. I don't know how their 'consumer' editions are, but the corporate edition rocked in roll-out simplicity, user edit lockouts (if you're anal enough to enforce it), and yes, if you don't want things like scan on read, you can choose to only scan on write if you like.

      --
      Bye!
    74. Re:The list by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Why would news of possible sale drop the share price? Generally, if a public company is bought, the shareholders have to agree to the terms.

      No, a better way would be to start rumors that a certain chic company's messianic CEO has a terminal illness.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    75. Re:The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      VMWare?? Ok, disclaimer time - I am currently doing research in virtualization. But seriously, who thinks that virtualization will die out? VMWare is a leading player in the virtualization game and will continue to be so.

      There's even talk of running entire data centers using virtual machines and watching temperatures for hot spots. When a certain group of computers in close proximity start rising in temperature, the networked monitoring system can shuffle them around to provide a stable power and heat distribution.

      This kind of stuff is just the tip of the virtualization iceberg. Desktop virtualization is probably just an expensive toy, but server virtualization may get much bigger very quickly.

    76. Re:The list by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      'Anti-virii'(-whatever...) is a complete waste of resources and your money. If you are getting virusses then you should look at the cause of the problem in the first place. THAT is the only real anti-virus solution. Wheter it's a missing firewall, insecure settings, your OS, whatever...

      --
      Here be signatures
    77. Re:The list by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. You're assuming that popular opinion has a lot to do with who gets elected, or what companies survive. That's rarely true.

      For instance, who gets elected president isn't up to popular opinion, but the mass media. Yes, the people in general get to pick between the final two, but the ones who actually run are chosen by the media, creating a false dichotomy: "your guy sucks!" "no, your guy sucks more!".

      With tech companies, it's a little different, but the fact is still that companies can be deeply unpopular, and still do just fine. For instance, one company on this list was CA (Computer Associates). Who actually LIKES their products? Even the article says their products and service suck, yet they do billions in revenue. Same goes for Symantec, which this article also says has crappy products.

    78. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For instance, who gets elected president isn't up to popular opinion, but the mass media.

      Talk about false dichotomies-- who gets elected is a result of popular opinion, even if popular opinion is caused by the media's coverage.

      Anyway, that was just supposed to be an example of something: when someone answers a question, their answer may be wrong, but it might still have some meaning. It just might not have the meaning that the answerer intended it to have.

      Now clearly the people answering these questions aren't giving correct answers, and obviously their opinions don't have a direct causal relationship with the failure of those companies. On the other hand, their answers still might have meaning. For example, you could just treat it as a measurement of public opinion of these companies. If lots of people think you're going to fail, it could perhaps be a sign that people aren't happy with your products, or else maybe that people just haven't heard your name lately. The companies' marketing departments might care about that sort of thing. A bystander might find that interesting.

      Beyond that, general opinion of these companies can have an effect on these companies' future success. People are less likely to buy enterprise products of a company when that company's future is in doubt, since people generally want long-term support. Bad perception can cause funding to dry up, stock prices to drop, and business deals to fall through.

      Now I wouldn't come close to claiming that being on this list will cause a company to fail. But just because the list doesn't have that particular meaning doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

    79. Re:The list by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      OSX
      Linux
      Solaris
      BSD

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    80. Re:The list by biocute · · Score: 1

      NOVL 3.89 -0.11 (-2.75%)
      NTAP 14.18 -0.57 (-3.86%)
      CHKP 21.06 -0.07 (-0.33%)
      MFE 31.48 +0.10 (0.32%)
      CRM 30.85 -0.68 (-2.16%)
      JNPR 17.07 -0.57 (-3.23%)
      CA 18.28 -0.14 (-0.76%)
      AMD 2.52 -0.17 (-6.32%)
      SUN 41.23 -0.92 (-2.18%)
      CTXS 22.34 -0.22 (-0.98%)
      SYMC 13.58 -0.02 (-0.15%)
      VMW 23.75 -1.28 (-5.11%)

    81. Re:The list by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Who modded my comment as a troll? Obviously somebody is not happy that an open source solution might gain some ground on a proprietary one, so they modded me down. All I can say is that Slashdot used to be a much better place years ago.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    82. Re:The list by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you're missing is that, especially for enterprise software products, popular opinion isn't important, because the users are not the ones making the purchasing decisions. The people making purchasing decisions for that crap are CTOs and other management types, who choose overpriced "solutions" after being wined & dined (and possibly bribed or laid) by the vendor salespeople. Then the low-level employees get to suffer with using the software, but their opinions aren't important.

      It's much like politics, where Congresscritters are much more concerned with lobbyists' opinions than with their constituents'.

      As for companies like Symantec, they also don't rely on popular opinion that much since they rely on getting themselves forced onto consumers' computers with special OEM contracts.

    83. Re:The list by afidel · · Score: 1

      My responses:

      1)Bank bailout
      2)doubt it
      3)huh?
      4)Please!
      5)Whatever, you don't dump your ERP/CRM platform because of a downturn
      6)Possible, unlikely especially with a growing fed, possibly (almost likely unfortunately)
      7)Bank bailout
      8)Not a chance
      9)unlikely
      10)HAHAHAHA

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    84. Re:The list by afidel · · Score: 1

      EVERY AV vendor has had at least one semi-major screwup in the last decade. McCafee, Trend, Symantec, F-Secure, Sophos, etc they've all managed to screwup Windows with an overly aggressive DAT update somewhere along the line. That's why I use to suggest Sophos to clients, they were UK based so the generally had DAT updates for the Asian plague dejur by the time the east coast woke up and we subscribed to a couple of sites where we would find out if they had a bad DAT before the clients got into the office so the harm could be avoided. Unfortunately their engine and updates got so bad they were beat by a number of the free scanners so it was hard to justify paying their fairly high prices.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    85. Re:The list by anothy · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    86. Re:The list by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Then there is VMWare, in which a whopping 89% predict stability. They might be in trouble if a traditional OS continues to be utilized as a base OS, rather than relegated to guest status. On wonder why one would want MS Windows eating up resources with IE and Media Player and all the other stuff that gets loaded in, when one could run a custom version of *nix and VMWare, and then run MS Windows as a guest OS only when needed. I am sure for many with enterprise licenses to MS Windows, running it might virtual windows might make sense, but 90% of the respondants indicate that VMware has the better idea.

      If there is any company that is safe in that list it's VMWare. I firmly believe that we will reach a time in the next 5-8 years where all hardware will operate a Hypervisor layer, possibly built into the HW itself. VMware already works with hardware manufacturers such as IBM, HP and DELL to put VMWare ESX Embedded onto servers at the factory. VMware have done a brilliant marketing manoeuvre around Microsoft by making VMware Server and VMware ESXi (installable) free and then charging for the more complex management software (VMware's Virtual Infrastructure). This makes the cost of entry into VMware based Virtualisation very low and the gains for this quite high.

      This of the article was written by an MS shill, which explains why the failure of VMware is at the top. It is more likely in the next 5-7 years the MS will no longer be the king of the IT hill, they will be knocked off by VMware which seems to know how to produce decent products and how to market that to businesses. MS wont die, but it wont be the power it once was, just like IBM now compared to back in the 80's.

      VMWare is not going anywhere. Symantec isn't either as much as I'd hate to say it (Backup Exec, which is a total piece of crap, is still embedded in the minds of PHB's as the only backup solution).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    87. Re:The list by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      Can we quickly run through which of those other solutions have features equivalent to VMotion?

      (Seriously, I seem to recall Xen or KVM was working towards something like that but don't know the status. I don't believe MS's free solution nor Parallel's non-free one has anything remotely Enterprise-suitable.)

      I've got Parallels on my Macbook Pro right now, and it's fine for my purposes, but I really can't imagine anyone running production data center virtual machines with it.

    88. Re:The list by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      2) NetApp

      Overpriced products easily duplicated with FreeNAS or any number of products at a fraction of the cost.

      Are people really running petabytes of enterprise-class storage on FreeNAS? Don't get me wrong, FreeNAS and others like it are great products for tier 3 and maybe even tier 2 storage, but for serious high-availability storage clusters?

    89. Re:The list by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is that, especially for enterprise software products, popular opinion isn't important, because the users are not the ones making the purchasing decisions. The people making purchasing decisions for that crap are CTOs and other management types...

      What you might be missing is that those CTOs and management types might just be the very people responding to this poll, especially if the cluelessness of the answers is any indication. If the vote were really based on general populous, then lots of those companies wouldn't be on the list. What laymen would think to vote for VMware or Juniper?

    90. Re:The list by Verity_Crux · · Score: 1

      1) Novell

      Odd. SUSE Linux is a popular product with many tie-in deals. They will be fine.

      Are you kidding? You think a Linux distro with a few commercial tie-ins will hold a company of several thousand people? Their Mono work is the same way -- there just isn't much of a revenue model for it.

      I confess I had to laugh out loud when I saw that Novell was first on the list. 17 years ago Novell had a few billion dollars in the bank. They thought "we should go spend this money on some cool word processing and internet companies". I guess that gives MS 17 years.

    91. Re:The list by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      "Almost before we SOHO became everyday market speak."

      *confused eyebrows* .... I think Novell has already become irrelevant, but I have no clue what SOHO is.

    92. Re:The list by B4tm4n · · Score: 1

      There is not a company in there that I think will go away in 2009. A headline to crank up CPM, and the ads were more valuable than the content of the article. I mean, it is hard to beleive that they missed Nortel, who should be on this list. Support for product is answered by people who cannot speak the language of their customers, let alone English. What's an IP address? It doesn't say here in the script! Can you help me read Mr. Customer? Word around town is that they can't afford to dole out any more packages and their crown jewels are for sale. The Canadian Department of National Defense is eying up their R&D headquarters in west end Ottawa. It will be sad day in Ottawa when the government takes over the last Nortel site. Was that a Right Angle Turn, Mr. Roth? I think you picked the wrong turn at Albequerque dude. Here's to Northern Telecom/Bell-Northern Research/Nortel Networks, what used to be a good place to work.

    93. Re:The list by jericho77 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, the two companies you hope meet their end are both virus protection. I agree, but my reason is I don't think they work. Wonder why most people think/hope they will end?

    94. Re:The list by MojoStan · · Score: 1

      Avast! has some annoyances (spinning icon, some nagging notifications) but they can be disabled by editing a configuration file.

      I think it's worth mentioning the required yearly re-registration (to receive a year-long license key by E-mail) of avast! Home Edition. This is probably not that annoying to the average Slashdot reader, but this might be a problem if you install it on Grandma's computer.

      Besides that, I think avast! is a fine product. Avira is also fine, but has the most annoying nag screen. AVG is fine, but has two major (temporary) fuckups in its history (linkscanner and the false positive system file).

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    95. Re:The list by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Yea, I didn't say otherwise. I only said that I don't like real-time scanning, not that I preferred ClamAV in any way. ClamWin is excessively slow scanning things. AVG is a close second. Symantec is pretty fast.

      Why should I scan removable devices? The only removable devices I use are my own removable devices..

      At least with Symantec AV (Corp) you can select inclusion or exclusion lists for files to scan. You can only set "On access" or "On Write" globally, but you can pick just certain folders to scan. Of course, because all on-access type scanners have a filesystem shim, you won't completely avoid the performance hit on things you're not scanning but it will be a small hit.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    96. Re:The list by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      yea their choice to use a pointless time wasting flash slide show really destroyed their credibility.

    97. Re:The list by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      A "good company" is not the determinant for survival. Sun may be "good", but they have dwindling revenue, and their primary software products are free.

    98. Re:The list by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 1

      I think it's worth mentioning the required yearly re-registration (to receive a year-long license key by E-mail) of avast! Home Edition. This is probably not that annoying to the average Slashdot reader, but this might be a problem if you install it on Grandma's computer.

      I'm not sure I'd be leaving Grandma's computer without a checkup for over a year, even with precautions taken there's always a chance something bad will slip through the cracks. It's an excuse to visit too ;)

    99. Re:The list by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

      How about Kaspersky or the paid version of Antivir?

    100. Re:The list by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Is that an offer to create a mod for Fallout 3? ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    101. Re:The list by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I'm not not disagreeing with you. I keep an AV around just to keep up my usual level of paranoia (last virus was in 98), but trying to convince other people to have a sufficient level of paranoia is a little challenging. An AV is at least one more line of defense/warning system.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    102. Re:The list by thexile · · Score: 1

      The federal government recently spent a ton of money on McAfee's host-based security solutions. If they were smart, however...)

      They will ask for a bailout.

    103. Re:The list by Monkey · · Score: 1

      Probably because, other than the listing of the CVS tree, this claim has been completely unsubstantiated to date.

    104. Re:The list by Zebano · · Score: 1

      Actually I find a decent solution is to just emulate winXP in VMWare and replace my backup image weekly. I also keep an image of a clean install available if there's something I miss that corrupted my backup. I only use the emulator for my web browsing, but due to the speed of my current hardware, considering moving all my activities into it (alternatively I could just start ghosting my install weekly and avoid the performance hit of the virtual machine).

      --
      You hate your job? There's a support group for that. It's called "everybody" and they meet at the bar. -Drew Carey.
    105. Re:The list by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      My clients don't get bogus UPS messages because they're caught by MailScanner. Of course, you can also implement SMTP-level scanning and only accept messages allegedly from someone@ups.com if they originate on UPS's own servers. Filtering based on From: addresses alone is meaningless since they're easily forged.

      Most of the common viruses distributed by email or weblinks are executables, usually even .exe files. I don't let my clients get exe's by mail (MailScanner) or over the web (squid). The local IT people have rights to get them, but ordinary users, never.

      Infections do happen, but usually it's because someone brings in a laptop or USB stick with something nasty on it.

    106. Re:The list by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Why should I scan removable devices? The only removable devices I use are my own removable devices..

      Because it's possible that whatever virus scanning system that was running when the files were written on the removable drive missed something.

      Basically, you need to scan every file that comes in to your computer. A really good AV scanner algorithm would notice the volume ID of the removable drive and keep some sort of checksum of all files written to it. Then, when you put the drive back in, it would only scan files that aren't in the "already scanned before it was copied there" list, and only on access.

      Part of the problem with AV is that most of it doesn't try to optimize its work, and so you have performance issues. If the AV did an initial scan and checksum of all executable files, then hooked all writes, you'd never have to worry about it slowing down opening most of your executables, because they would be on the "already scanned and they haven't changed" list. There are lots of optimizations that could be done, including better user control over exactly what is and is not scanned.

    107. Re:The list by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Checksums would still give a nice big performance hit because you'd have to read-in the entire file first, calculate a checksum, and then compare it to the one on file. Sounds like a hit to me.

      Let's be real about this. The biggest problem today isn't viruses. It's spyware. Something that the top virus scanners still have a spotty history picking up.

      I haven't gotten a virus on any of the machines I use for years, and the last one was a piece of shit spyware that hid itself as a rootkit. It didn't do anything except show me ads.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  2. An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009.

    Wrong. Everyone falters at some point. You could probably make a claim that 60% of companies will "falter" this year and be able to point to some debacle, low quarter or misstep to claim you were accurate. Hell, in one of the many fields it's in, Microsoft will falter in 2009--I guarantee it. From the actual article:

    In the Channel Insider 2009 Market Pulse Survey, we asked solution providers which vendors they thought would go out of business or be acquired in 2009.

    So you're underscoring just how stupid the people that filled out this survey are. Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

    The Channel Insider Prediction at the bottom of these reveals just how unlikely every single one of these predictions comes across as. They predominately disagree with every single reader prediction.

    It means that not only are we, the readers, being presented with completely contradictory statements on every page but every single statement is unfounded and backed up by nothing. No market saturation analysis or even talk of operations and profits. Market cap and revenue are good indicators but they don't mean everything.

    Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising.

    "Not so surprising?" Tell me, what has changed so dramatically for 2009 that makes you say that these companies will be acquired or go under?

    So tell me, what is a list of reader predictions dealing with the finances and markets of tech companies doing on a 'news for nerds' site?

    What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

    Ah, the coup de grÃce for this article ... I'm certain that the Slashdot community will proffer only on the most unbiased and strongly founded suggestions for this objective question.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

      See the error in that analogy now?

      --
      Property is theft.
    2. Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by wizzat · · Score: 1

      Yes, because sun does alot more than Linux does. Sun will not be going out of business.

    3. Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by doti · · Score: 1

      Sun goes under every day... .. just to rise again the next day.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    4. Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! by Cally · · Score: 1

      Sun? I'll take that bet. I'd be more surprised if they /weren't/ involved a takeover (hostile or not) by this time next year.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  3. Not Very Interesting by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same sort of stuff we hear on Slashdot every day. The actual evaluation at the end of nearly every entry says, "Not very likely".

    Though I do think that Sun needs to expand their product strategy or face extinction. Their current high-end market may be lucrative, but it's continually being eaten away at by cheaper and cheaper equipment.

    Personally, I think Sun would do well to enter the desktop market. Their Mad Hatter system was a good first try, but they abandoned it before it had a chance to mature! (Speaking as one of Sun's customers who paid money for the software just to be left out in the cold.)

    1. Re:Not Very Interesting by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Desktop market? You must be joking.

      Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.

      The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:Not Very Interesting by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      I deeply hope that AMD won't falter. They still offer some really great equipment at low prices. For example some Sempron CPUs sell at $23.and can be had with a decent MB and fan for about $100. And that includes enough power for HD home video etc.. I'm aware that almost all at Slashdot run a bit more power than that but I mention it as an indicator of value of products sold by AMD. If one has a hard drive laying about one can still set up a strong Athlon unit for about $200. We need AMD.

    3. Re:Not Very Interesting by pseudonomous · · Score: 1

      They are, it's called "OpenSolaris".

    4. Re:Not Very Interesting by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux.

      I keep thinking that Sun should seriously take a shot at the high-capacity low-cost storage market. They seem to have some really good ideas behind the "Thumper"-type solutions, but they're still priced way WAY too high.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Well now they're doomed! by ivoras · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How would you feel if you were the owner or a shareholder of one of companies so prominently set to fail? Self-fulfilling prophecies all around. Given how sensitive to subjective perception these things are, it's by now probably enough for a company's name to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "bankrupt" for it to really do so.

    --
    -- Sig down
    1. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

      1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
      2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
      3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
      4. Company X collapses
      5. Hack says 'I told you so'

      STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

      --
      FGD 135
    2. Re:Well now they're doomed! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

            1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
            2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
            3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
            4. Company X collapses
            5. Hack says 'I told you so'

      STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

      You're looking at this wrong.

      6. Convince viable companies to pay you not to write about them in step 1.
      7. Profit.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If companies are losing credit due to newspaper articles instead of semi-reliable sources such as credit history or earnings reports (for public companies) then there is a bigger problem than telling writers to "Shoosh." If the company is profitable and current on its debts, only a foolish lender would turn down their business. Now, if a company is already millions in the hole, and SHOULDN'T be credit worthy, if a newspaper expose about their board of directors droping millions on yachts, hookers and blow; I'd say the media is doing what it is really "supposed" to do... that is give the public truthful information to make us all make better decisions. In either case, the fault lies on the part of the lenders for having previously extending credit to the unworthy, or for being foolish lenders in trusting an Op-Ed piece over emperical data.

      However, I could see PHBs reluctant to purchase their products if they believe they will be sold out and potentially have a sharp decrease in product lines, quality or most-importantly, support quality on their existing purchases. However, there is nothing to say that any company at the drop of the hat won't see off a division or exit a market, and I'd do a little more research before changing a vendor... particularly a one we've had good experience.

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    4. Re:Well now they're doomed! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      VMWare is a big one on that list. A lot of companies are using VMWare products in one way or another, so I wouldn't count it's death so lightly.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Well now they're doomed! by rthille · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AMD not of value? Are you insane? Why do you think Intel invests so much in making their chips better/faster? Hint, it's because they have competition...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    6. Re:Well now they're doomed! by larien · · Score: 1
      Sounds very much like the recession.

      Pundits say recession is looming, people panic & spend less, cut costs, etc, etc, economy shrinks due to lowered spending, recession hits.

      The term is "self-fulfilling prophecy", I believe.

    7. Re:Well now they're doomed! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What businesses in the UK that have gone bust were actually viable?

    8. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Cally · · Score: 1

      How would you feel if you were the owner or a shareholder of one of companies so prominently set to fail?

      If you're still invested in stock at this point then you're toast already (unless you're trying to come in at the bottom but peaked too early, or you're investing over three or four decades, in which case your exposure to any one company should be pretty small.)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    9. Re:Well now they're doomed! by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Ok, I may have exaggerated when I said perfectly viable. But I find it hard to believe that Northern Rock, RBS, Woolworths, Whittard, Adams, Wedgwood, MFI, etc. would all have ended up in the situations that they now find themselves in and in such sudden and chaotic circumstances if their worsening situations hadn't been publicised by the media.

      --
      FGD 135
    10. Re:Well now they're doomed! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Most of those companies went bust before anyone heard about it. And hardly any of them are actually viable. The credit crunch has just kicked them over the edge they've been leaning over for several years.

  6. No problem by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'll just release 2010 ahead of schedule.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:No problem by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      We have to finish testing 2010RC1 first. Should take about 50 weeks.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  7. Thanks Slashdot! by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Funny

    So THIS is where I find out I'm being downsized?

  8. Virtualization by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    Both EMC/VMWare and Sun Microsystems (VirtualBox) are on the list. Does anybody honestly think that Microsoft will rule the virtual machine market? I think it's one or the other.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Virtualization by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to see /.'s predictions on that, especially with regards to VMWare. In my own ad hoc findings, it is true that Microsoft shops are leaning towards HyperV but isn't that to be expected? I find non Microsoft shops to be leaning towards VMWare. What are you finding?

    2. Re:Virtualization by Amouth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Vmware isn't going any place.. to have them on the list just shows how much of a joke this is

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Virtualization by Ignacio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless Citrix or Red Hat ends up ruling it.

    4. Re:Virtualization by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Basically the story states Visualization and Security will suffer during this period.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Virtualization by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      I heard here were going from MS visualization to VMWare.
      I don't know if we even considered MS HyperV.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    6. Re:Virtualization by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      From a database perspective, both Microsoft and Oracle have their own virutalization products and their support for their databases on VMWare is sketchy at best.

      Perhaps that will cut into VMware's market a bit.

    7. Re:Virtualization by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Citrix (XEN). Apparently, only one VM software will survive this year. And its the VM software that is newest, and only comes with MS Windows Server, 2008. Apparently, everyone is upgrading their Server OS this year..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    8. Re:Virtualization by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're mixed. All the desktops are on Microsoft. The servers are on a mix of Linux, BSD, and Microsoft. However, one of the admins has decided that Unix "isn't worth the hassle" (read: it doesn't work with all the proprietary junk he wants to throw into the system) so our installed base of Unix servers has been slowly dwindling.

      Anyways, we're on VMWare virtualization products exclusively. Hopefully we can keep it that way. That same admin has been trying to talk up "How much better the Microsoft virtualization products have gotten" lately.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:Virtualization by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

      (Blatant plug, but it's all open source software so what the heck ...)

      Don't forget Red Hat's KVM. Been part of the Linux kernel for about 2 years, and now supports pretty well all the "enterprisy" virtualization features you could need.

      And Red Hat are developing a nice GUI management interface which scales to managing 1000s of nodes.

      Rich.

    10. Re:Virtualization by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I work at a Microsoft shop (providing outsourced IT support). We prefer HyperV when rolling out Server 2008 and SBS 2008 boxes for three main reasons.

      1. It's available by adding it as a service.

      2. It's easy to perform backups from the host and all VMs using the built in backup service.

      3. Should something go wrong, it's all contained in the Microsoft realm. Thus, troubleshooting with MS dramatically reduces the "finger pointing" problem.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Virtualization by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      At least there's a GPL version of virtualbox. Lacks a few of the fancier features, but nothing that couldn't be added on by hungry programmers. And even without those features it's still does virtualization (the core of what a vm app should do)

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    12. Re:Virtualization by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      VMWare is too expensive for all but the largest companies. Small companies are not going to pay a few grand per server for VMWare.

      Frankly, I see QEMU / Xen / KVM ruling the roost in the small / medium business category.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    13. Re:Virtualization by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh? MS now offers full support for any MS product running on ESX 3.5, this is a very big deal for VMWare as a lot of shops that were a bit shy for support reasons now don't have that excuse. MS had to do this to avoid getting beaten up by the EU (and possibly a Dem DOJ) over HyperV. Btw Citrix Xen, Suse Xen and Cisco WAAS are also certified.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    14. Re:Virtualization by mjwx · · Score: 1

      it is true that Microsoft shops are leaning towards HyperV but isn't that to be expected? I find non Microsoft shops to be leaning towards VMWare. What are you finding?

      Many Microsoft shops are already using VMWare, almost no VMware shops are considering hyper-V. I work in a Microsoft house (I'm not proud of it but its better then being unemployed) and we switched away from MS Virtual Server to VMware server and soon ESXi server. We're not really large enough to be paying for VMWare VI3 and Microsofts free/low cost aren't even worth considering.

      VMware have made it easy to migrate from an old VPC/Virtual Server infrastructure to a VMware server/ESX infrastructure. To the best of my knowledge MS isn't doing the same.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Virtualization by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      You don't have to pay a few grand per server for VMware.

      You can get ESXi for free, and if you're concerned about the cost of the management infrastructure you can buy third-party management tools on an ad-hoc basis that provide much of the functionality of VI3. That way you can get in for a lot less money.

      Now, having said that if you get beyond 2 physical servers, and want to get into the whole "vmotion" capability stuff then you need VI3 and shared storage. Then, of course your costs DO increase exponentially.

      However, if you're in the position to buy good shared storage (like a SAN... iSCSI being the low entry cost point these days) and suitable hardware, you're not going to balk at licensing costs.

      Look at where I work. We're a Windows shop but we have VI3 across the board. We have 11 physical servers running dual quad core CPU's across three locations (datacenters). As of this morning we have 168 virtual machines and enough "slack" in our infrastructure that we could lose 4 of the physical machines and still only then be hurting for headroom. Add to that this entire farm is managed by one person (me, though the actual guest machines are mostly administered by others) and you can probably tell that we get great economies of scale.

      Oh, and more to your point about licensing for VMware. Well, we can offset that; we buy a Windows Datacenter license per host, which allows us to have an unlimited number of guests on each host (check the licensing... this is valid!). In this way we have paid a little more for a Datacenter license than we would for an Enterprise license, but we have more than made up that licensing cost AND the licensing cost of VMware by savings in hardware cost, electricity, management cost, space and a bunch of other numbers that you really have to run in a production environment to get a feel for.

      Can you imagine the cost of 168 physical servers, all cranking all day long... all with maintenance costs, power costs, cooling costs and hardware replacement issues? Not to mention the cost per license for Windows (160 of these machines are Windows Server, a mix of Standard and Enterprise)? We did the cost/benefit analysis and chose VMware.

      We're also NOT one of the truly huge companies out there... we definitely are in the medium business range. I agree your point about small businesses, but more often than not they're going to use whatever their consulting company tells them to. Most small businesses, even with on-site admins rely on one or two vendors for their support, hardware, engineering and so forth. Whatever their vendor says to use, they're probably going to pay for.

      For my needs, I found QEMU to be limited, XEN to be a pain in the rear to work with and KVM to be just too complex. I don't fear complexity; I've been a UNIX guy for years as well as a Windows guy (and Gentoo at home, of course ;) ) but when it comes to just getting the job done, VMware has it down. If I need a new host I just rack the hardware, install ESX and add it to my VirtualCenter management. Once there, it's pretty much hands off unless I need to patch the infrastructure. Right there, the tools are built-in, too; UpdateManager is a really powerful tool for managing a system like this.

    16. Re:Virtualization by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      LOL... and if it gives you any idea about the flexibility all this buys us, the number of VM's rose from 168 to 169 in the time it took me to write this little tirade :)

  9. Can I be the first to ask by ericrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

    1. Re:Can I be the first to ask by danieltdp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides the fact that I agree with you, I will explain the reason: flash make things pretty and the masses don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible. For the majority of the users, flash is not a problem.

      After that, allow me to say that I hate flash. Even more because it doesn't work properly on my job workstation. Too bad we are minority on the internet wild and people simply don't care.

      --
      -- dnl
    2. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

      Now there is a company I would like to see go out of business. Unfortunately, Adobe appears to be doing just fine.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    3. Re:Can I be the first to ask by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Simple reason: Suppose you work for one of those companies and you just went and bought an iPhone? Would you like to read that your company is "at risk" after spending that money.

      eWeek is actually doing all those iPhone users a favor. We should thank them.

    4. Re:Can I be the first to ask by rusl · · Score: 2

      Because it is a flashy article without substance.

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    5. Re:Can I be the first to ask by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I think there's two real reasons:

      1) They have a flash developers and he needs something to do.
      2) By embedding the information in flash it makes it take more effort to copy the information out.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    6. Re:Can I be the first to ask by _ivy_ivy_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Besides the fact that I agree with you, I will explain the reason: flash make things pretty and the masses don't want information.

      Fixed it for you.

    7. Re:Can I be the first to ask by i_ate_god · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing wrong with Flash. There is everything wrong with using Flash in stupid ways. Youtube is not a stupid way to use Flash, this slideshow is.

      Instead of blaming the gun, blame the person who used it. It's better that way.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    8. Re:Can I be the first to ask by ardle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Correction:

      flash make things pretty and managers don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible.

      ;-)

    9. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Yes, youtube IS a stupid way to use flash. Flash != video player.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    10. Re:Can I be the first to ask by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Youtube's sucess speaks otherwise. The simple fact is that the vast majority of systems have some working version of Flash on them. Youtube leverages this fact to the extent that rather than worrying about system architecture, browser, installed codecs, etc, it simply plays a video in flash. It doesn't look great, but it works almost everywhere and for the quick/stupid content present on Youtube the quality is mostly sufficient.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, youtube IS a stupid way to use flash. Flash != video player.

      Maze of stupid embedded in-browser video player plugins < Flash as video player
      Maze of stupid video codecs < Flash as video player
      Being forced to separately download movies and play them in external programs SO VERY MUCH < AND FAR MORE ANNOYING AND UNNECESSARY THAN Flash as video player

      Yes, I know you can probably name eighty hojillion embedded in-browser video player plugins, each with their own cocktail of codecs, probably a tenth of which actually work (both plugins and codecs). The fact that you can name so many and they are all incompatible with each other acts against your case.

    12. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Now there is a company I would like to see go out of business. Unfortunately, Adobe appears to be doing just fine.

      Agreed; I'm pulling my hair out trying to get their automated silent deployment of CS4 to work predictably.

    13. Re:Can I be the first to ask by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      My name is Steve, I run a company that makes a product that competes with Flash, and I approve this message.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    14. Re:Can I be the first to ask by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      Well, the plethora of video sites that use flash as a successful delivery medium for video care to disagree.

      In fact, after seeing Google Video, Metacafe, and Youtube, and then to say "FLASH IS NOT A VIDEO PLAYER" is just a form of technological blindness on your part.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    15. Re:Can I be the first to ask by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Missed that "not".

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    16. Re:Can I be the first to ask by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      I ended up giving up with CS3. I can get it to deploy nicely, do it on user machine -> fail! I figured for 2 users, it just wasn't worth my time. The lacky is cheaper!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  10. The list by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 2, Informative

    10. VMWare
    9. Symantec
    8. Citrix
    7. Sun
    6. AMD
    6. CA
    5. Salesforce.com
    4. McAfee
    3. Checkpoint
    2. NetApp
    1. Novell

    Why is this in Flash? Why did that page need javascript?

  11. So much for RTFA by Paul+Carver · · Score: 5, Informative

    I usually RTFA but in this case there doesn't appear to be an article. There's a bit of an intro but no list of companies that I can see.

    1. Re:So much for RTFA by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Fail article is fail.

      What is it with websites wanting to use flash for everything when wysiwyg works fine?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  12. "Anti" Virus by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The scumbags who make the popups that tell you that your computer's been infected and needs to buy their product or OMG you'll lose all your family photos and pr0n! Such low-life tactics should be amptly rewarded with a swift chapter eleven - or should be, at least in my opinion.

    1. Re:"Anti" Virus by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      More like a swift trial and long prison sentence. Fraud is a felony.

    2. Re:"Anti" Virus by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Considering that most fraudulent software companies rarely get fined more than they made in their unscrupulous practices, I'll agree with your idea and raise you one massive class-action suit :)

    3. Re:"Anti" Virus by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      If the government was doing its job then these companies would have their assets sized and their owners fined. After a second offence they should be jailed for a good long time.

      For some reason politicians don't seem to want crooks to get what is coming to them.
      I guess for most of them it would be digging their own grave.

  13. Re:Superbowl in 2025. by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pats.

    "Pats?" I haven't heard of them ... are they like a team of sexually indeterminable players?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  14. Sites that are going to die in 2009 by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sites that code cluelessly and need javascript and flash to display a simple list will die first (hopefully, I am not so sure). Topping the list is http://www.channelinsider.com/

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Sites that are going to die in 2009 by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I predict a growth in marketshare for this site.... They're starting to master the "sensationalistic troll" article, so they should be gaining impressions despite the poor layout and navigation.

      I bet you hadn't even heard of them until now.

    2. Re:Sites that are going to die in 2009 by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

      Sites that code cluelessly and need javascript and flash to display a simple list will die first

      Die is such a powerful word. Whatever happened to just saying that they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

  15. Not Very Accurate by zwekiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can you expect a list based on reader predictions to be accurate? Moreover, how can you expect the list to be taken seriously when the "Insiders" contradict the majority of the reader predictions?

    While people can be quite intelligent, allowing the mob to make investment picks based on rumours they read on Blogspot is simply ridiculous. If many analysts couldn't see the collapse of Bear Sterns coming before the last week, I doubt that these readers have the technical skills to predict the collapse of these companies a year in advance.

  16. And if we're really lucky.... by david_thornley · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO!

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. if AMD went under by wjh31 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    would they take ati with them, or would ati be sold off. And if AMD went under what would that mean for intel in terms of monopoly rules, and to nvidia if ati went with them

    1. Re:if AMD went under by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the early 90's it was Apple. Sun is a perennial favorite now. I never read one of these things saying Hayes or Zeos would get bought or go under. Where's my Hayes DSL adapter?

      Zeos merged with Micron and now they are Crucial and MPC. Now guess who's in chapter 11? MPC/Micron is.

      What poll foresaw Digital going to Compaq or Compaq going to HP? Magitronic sure seems to have failed. eMachines was bought. Alienware is owned by Dell.

      These polls are silly. Some of these companies have more cash reserves than small countries have budgets. There's always a risk of a company large or small failing, but this poll means nothing.

    2. Re:if AMD went under by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      More importantly, if they split AMD into fabs and design, what happens if their FAB company doesn't have the lowest bid to mass produce their chips? What happens if Intel submits the lowest bid?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:if AMD went under by British · · Score: 1

      Depends, is it an ATI All-in-Wonder(tm) bankruptcy?

    4. Re:if AMD went under by Trashman · · Score: 1

      If ATI isn't sold off, they would likely be spun off as a separate entity.

      --
      Do not read this .sig
  18. I wish by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Watching CA and Symantec die would be kind of satisfying, if only from a "revenge for all the problems your shitty fucking products have given me over the years" perspective.

    Doubt it, though.

    1. Re:I wish by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      I want CA to go away, dam there freaking Directory server system. Maybe my companey will get the Sun Directory server if CA folds, atleast there support for it is GOOD.

  19. Only one choice by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Creative Labs.

    Have they released a good product in this millenium?

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:Only one choice by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Informative

      (disclaimer: I do not work for Creative nor have I received compensation from them in any way)

      X-Fi Expresscard

      Zen Vision:M

      These two products alone are wonderful. The former is one of a few Expresscard audio interfaces available, and it sounds awesome. The latter is what the iPod should be - natively supports MPEG 1/2/4, DivX, XviD, virtually every audio format except APE, FLAC, and M4P (but does do M4A).

      Their customer service is utter crap, as we can gather from the daniel_k fiasco, and even the $30-$50 "bench fee" for items reqiring service under warranty. However, I will say that they do have some solid products and have a solid lineup of MP3 players that are quite competitive to the iPod.

      Joey

    2. Re:Only one choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, I use their speakers & soundcards in every system I have. So, maybe. :)

    3. Re:Only one choice by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      They've actually got some new whiz-bang chip that is supposed to do -anything-... General, audio, video... Anything. I can't imagine it works all that well, so I expect you are right about their impending doom. I mean, there's a reason that all the chips so far specialized in their area.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:Only one choice by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      Creative Labs.

      Have they released a good product in this millenium?

      Yes!

      Now if only they'd release some drivers that work so we can use it..

    5. Re:Only one choice by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      No, but that isn't hurting their sales.

      Gamers (their target market, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise) almost uniformly bitch about Creative's shitty drivers, or the lackluster hardware--but there aren't many good alternatives, especially when games sound best with Creative's EAX enabled.

      Once some other outfits start being able to emulate EAX worth a crap (Asus, I'm hoping you come through with the Xonar) expect to see their market share plummet.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Only one choice by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I bought a Zen V Plus over a year ago, and I am very happy with the product. I'd like to thank Anything But iPod for the recommendation.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    7. Re:Only one choice by altek · · Score: 1

      Oh so you haven't seen the "Zii" unveilin and learned how "stem cell computing" from Creative is going to change "everything you know" and "better lives beyond our imagination".

      Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up:

      http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/02/creative-sheds-some-hype-on-zii-stem-cell-computing/
      http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/08/creative-unveils-zii/

      --
      THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
  20. Re:Superbowl in 2025. by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

    Sox

  21. Lamest list ever by jd.schmidt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why make a list of companies that will "go out of business", then hedge by saying they might be bought up, then finish with, well we don't think much of this is likely.

    Reminds me of a skit I saw once.

    Interviewer: You have an facinating new book called, "Was Hitler Welsh?" Well was he?
    Author: After exhaustive study, I can confidently say, no he wasn't.

  22. *My* Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK, here goes:

    10)HP
    9)eBay
    8)Nintendo
    7)Adobe
    6)Red Hat
    5)Amazom.com
    4)IBM
    3)Microsoft
    2)Apple
    1)Google :D

    1. Re:*My* Predictions by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I'd agree. The top 5 companies are very expensive to run. They have lots of employees, advertisers to pay, lots of computers to run. Amazon, Apple, IBM and MS all sell items in boxes. Paper is expensive so that will eat into their bottom line and they may have to lay off employees or reduce sales to lower the effect of box prices. Apple's logo is of an apple. Since Apples are biodegradable it says a lot about the company's own outlook. Apple has best laptop sales, IBM sold it laptop division. Bad outlook for IBM.

      I disagree with Google. They have an advantage over #2 through 4: apparel sales. T-Shirts and other similar items can better ride the economic downturn, since they have a predictable wear-out rate and are easily serviceable at low cost to the customer. These sales, which will probably amount to $500.00 year-on-year, rising 1% from previous, will far exceed analysts' expectations and continue an upward trend relative to the rest of the market.

      Otherwise, good list. Just give some more thought to Google next time! ;)

      Missing from list and I'd say #1 Sony: Read to crash and burn! http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/01/1946222&from=rss

    2. Re:*My* Predictions by anothy · · Score: 1

      that's the readers comments. here's my rendition of the analysts comments, with about as much information, validity, and utility as those in the article:
      10) maybe. put on watch list.
      9) unlikely.
      8) unlikely.
      7) unlikely.
      6) unlikely.
      5) unlikely.
      4) unlikely.
      3) unlikely.
      2) unlikely.
      1) unlikely.
      you're welcome. your "readers comments" are, as always, free. i'll take my analysts' paycheck now.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    3. Re:*My* Predictions by sheph · · Score: 1

      That looks more like my stock portfolio. Are you sure???

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  23. Demise *not* predicted ... by golodh · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nonsense.

    Those who read the article will see that the survey hedges in every way possible and that the above list is _not_ a list of companies that people expect to see disappear. It's a list of companies that people discussed, looked up the turnover of and then wrote noncommittal "analysis" next to.

    Please Anonymous, if you're going to try and summarize the article for those too lazy to click on a link, at least make sure you get it right. This is rubbish.

    1. Re:Demise *not* predicted ... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Those who read the article

      Are you CRAZY, man? This is Slashdot. No one reads the articles. Next you'll be expecting people to spell correctly and know the difference between "your" and "you're."

  24. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you want to include a Mac in the mix, you have to do the latter, as the former doesn't support Mac OS X as a host or guest.

    Why would anyone want to include Mac OS X as a guest? Apple goes out of their way to make it not run on things that aren't Macs. Why would someone then adopt it as a virtualized guest?

  25. where is ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Apple? They've been going out of business for YEARS!!!

    And why isn't SCO on that list? Isn't it about time they die already?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  26. The list is the opposite by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    If you actually go through the list, the comments on all of the companies listed state they're not going out of business in 2009.

    What was the point of this again?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  27. Its too hard to RTFA. by olddotter · · Score: 1

    Slide decks should not go on the web. That is just sick and way too time consuming.

    NetApp going down, would surprise me.

  28. I happen to work for a listed company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently spoke to a director of sales.

    His sales pipeline is double the one he had last year, because customers have decided to stop fooling around with start ups that will probably be out of business next year, and go with known brand names.

    I'm not giving any more details because I'm not very familiar with insider trading laws, and don't want to get in trouble. But anyone who thinks that larger companies that sell into the IT marketspace are in trouble, clearly have no clue about what's really going on.

  29. A Flash slideshow? by asv108 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'm sorry, but how did this make to the front page? The selections on the list are wrong or obvious, but the list itself is a freaking flash slideshow with only 1 item per slide! The editors need to do their jobs.

  30. 9) Symantec (I really hope not) by markdowling · · Score: 1

    Not because they don't deserve to rot in hell for the bloat that is NAV, but because they just bought Messagelabs.

    1. Re:9) Symantec (I really hope not) by wilhelm · · Score: 1

      And also because they bought Veritas a few years back.

  31. Dvorak named AMD his 10 bagger for 2009 by Benji+Minoskovich · · Score: 1

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-10-bagger-pick-2009/story.aspx?guid=D82F39D6-90CC-442A-AECF-FC1C7CE9BD1C&dist=SecMostCommented Which means he thinks the stock could sell for $20 in 2009 (10x current share price, which was ~2 when the article was written). I'm not saying this is a realistic prediction (I hope it is since I'm a shareholder), but just goes to show how meaningless these stupid predictions are. Just like this summer when nearly everyone was predicting $200+/barrel oil.

    1. Re:Dvorak named AMD his 10 bagger for 2009 by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's GREAT news for AMD, it is now assured that they will NOT go under in 2009. Damn and I was worried that a slowing economy combined with the Corei7 Xeon's in 2H were going to be too much for them, guess I was wrong =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Dvorak named AMD his 10 bagger for 2009 by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      Just like this summer when nearly everyone was predicting $200+/barrel oil.

      Only because they didn't predict the current global downturn, oil is down only because demand is down, and that low demand is temporary.

      As soon as the global economy reaches its previous high water mark, oil will go up too. Why? Because when the world's economy is going full tilt, the world can't find/pump enough oil to meet demand. $200 per barrel oil is still coming, its just been delayed by a couple of years.

  32. Except for NetApp by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    The NetApp vs Sun lawsuit over ZFS isn't going the way NetApp would like it to ...

    http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/index.jsp

    To the contrary, NetApp may end up like SCO vs Novell, where the initial complainant ends up owing the respondent. Sun could very well end up both pwning AND owning NetApp.

    As for the antivirus companies - I wish, but there will always be *some* "useful fools" around, and people whose financial self-interest aligns with enabling them to stay dumb and foolish.

    1. Re:Except for NetApp by incrowd · · Score: 1

      The NetApp vs Sun lawsuit over ZFS isn't going the way NetApp would like it to ...

      http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/index.jsp

      To the contrary, NetApp may end up like SCO vs Novell, where the initial complainant ends up owing the respondent. Sun could very well end up both pwning AND owning NetApp.

      As for the antivirus companies - I wish, but there will always be *some* "useful fools" around, and people whose financial self-interest aligns with enabling them to stay dumb and foolish.

      According to a post on a Sun website

      And, guess what, if you look on NetApp's website they disagree!

      http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2008/11/lawsuits-and-fo.html

      Neither of these are likely to be good sources of information. It's quite possible that prior art will deal with all the patents in play by both companies.

      Pete

    2. Re:Except for NetApp by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Sun is "running the clock" because the longer the clock runs, the more NetApp patents will be invalidated, and the fewer they'll have to deal with in court.

      Keep in mind that NetApp doesn't mention that the last time they sued another country over IP, they also lost and had to pay. Quite a business model -

      1. leave company to start new company,
      2. sue former employer for IP infringement
      3. lose.

      If NetApp were sure their patents would hold up under review, they'd have no problem with letting the reviews all run their courses, since that would make winning much easier, as well as letting them claim more ongoing damages. It also doesn't help that they tried to license the patents that Sun is now countering with from the company that Sun bought.

      The simple fact is that their market is in trouble - people are cutting back, shifting what they do have to buy to more commodity hardware/software solutions, etc. They won't be around in 5 years.

  33. Re:AMD is too something to fail by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Hell, Via is still muddling through in both of those markets, and they're much smaller than AMD.

  34. Worst article ever by RetroRichie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the worst post ever. Even according to the article itself the most likely percentage is 25? How does that qualify as "Won't Survive 2009?" Waste of time.

  35. My predition: Apple by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Just got a mini this weekend, first mac ever. Everything I touch always seems to die so I predict they'll be gone before we pop the corks on '10.

    I've tried using this power for good by giving Bush a hug but the Secret Service wouldn't let me through the rope line.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  36. Where's SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or are they counting it as already gone (since it seems to be a zombie now...)?

    1. Re:Where's SCO by dasunst3r · · Score: 1

      Novell can use a bailout. They can just collect the $ 11M judgment going for them when SCO lost the case.

  37. Title is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you actually read closely, the article discusses companies that could go out of business. So it's a list of major tech companies whose businesses are being buffeted by some force and for whom 2009 is going to be a rough year, one that they might not live through if they're careless. The "insider predictions" are all confident that the companies will live, and even the "reader predictions" predict at best a 20% chance in failure. So one can assume that only one, maybe two, of these companies (at most) will actually go under this year.

  38. Why flash? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    C'mon, folks. You've been watching the news in the last, say, two decades and you're asking "why flash"?

    Didn't you notice, the less content one has to present, the more you have to put into the presentation to cover it up.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Most of those companies aren't in big trouble by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Big companies with real products and a user base can hang on for a long time. Unisys is still around. NCR (National Cash Register), amazingly, is still around, and still selling cash registers (now "Point of Sale Workstations"). Most of the names on the list, like CA, Sun, VMware, and Novell, still have an installed base to service. They can shrink and remain profitable.

    I'd look for collapses in advertising-funded companies. We'll probably see some of the social networks go bust. Companies that get most of their revenue from Google ads are at risk. Marchex (the people with "www.90210.com" and hundreds of thousands of similar junk domains) have had their stock drop from 25 to 5. Expect to see free hosting sites, free mail services, and free blog services shut down.

    I did a list like this back in the dot-com area, based strictly on cash-flow analysis. That was quite accurate. It's easy to do this analysis for money-losing startups. The definition of "dead" used was "stock dropped 90%". From a stockholder perspective, that's "dead", even if some vestige of the company hangs on. That's was quite common with overfunded startups, by the way. Some of them succeeded, some of them went bust, but many of them become what VCs call "zombies"; they could generate enough revenue to cover their costs, but they couldn't pay back the money invested in them.

    1. Re:Most of those companies aren't in big trouble by captaindomon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only is NCR still around, I would place them in the top 5 cash register manufacturers. And when you start adding up the numbers, there is a LOT of money in the retail cash register market. a LOT. And retailers are the kind of people that don't want to rock the boat; they just want to use a system they know has worked for 50 years, so they will continue to buy from NCR heavily for the forseeable future.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    2. Re:Most of those companies aren't in big trouble by afidel · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard NCR also has a kickass retail BI database/mining suite for large retailers. I've never personally seen it but I'm going by reputation.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  40. 1. Channel Insider by rev_deaconballs · · Score: 1

    For having the most annoying way to read a story. Honestly, after reading this story who would go back to that website. I do give them credit for going against the grain and not making judgments based on the history of the companies or sound logic.

  41. Come back in 2010 by FishandChips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Several of the names on that list crop up every time the doomsters gather for another round. In any case, there's nothing wrong with being "sold off". Sometimes that's the making of a company which now has access to capital and markets it would never have had on its own. The only thing one can say for certain is that no one know what's going to happen, and one can say with some degree of likelihood that if some big names do falter in the next two or three years then among them will be some names that have never been on a a Doomsday list because everyone thought were fine. There'll be a lot of execs out there sitting on some awkward secrets (read: big holes appearing in the balance sheet and the banks unwilling to refinance) or some awkward legal claims (read: massive damages for corporate IT scams the victims have so far kept secret for fear of affecting their sales and stock price).

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  42. Re:Well that's it by theascended · · Score: 1

    And Cisco (I think they deserved to be named since Juniper is mentioned specifically).

  43. Re:Superbowl in 2025. by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

    Revs

    Hey, unlike the Sox, at least they actually play football, even if not the American variety.

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  44. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Are you really that dim or are you just having a bad day?

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  45. AMD can't go down as that will give intel to much by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    AMD can't go down as that will give intel to much power. Just look at core i7 LOCKED in to intel chipsets. Do you really want to have $300 low end cpus with $250 - $300 low end MB?

  46. Perfectly viable companies don't collapse by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When credit dries up. Only companies which are overly dependent on credit, collapse.
     

    --
    Deleted
  47. Nortel by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    More likely than any other on the list.

    1. Re:Nortel by Mad+Leper · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. Nortel will either implode or be sold off in pieces by the end of the year. Word is that yet another round of layoffs is coming; with so few employees working there already it's like watching a snake eating its own tail...

    2. Re:Nortel by Better.Safe.Than.Sor · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      --
      It's all history, man. -anon
  48. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by jargoone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bad day or not, what's the real benefit of running OS X as a guest? Sure, it's good for some people on the desktop, and if that's your use, you probably have a Mac already.

    Virtualization is mostly used for servers. What "server" tasks can OS X do that Linux/Solaris/Windows can't do better?

  49. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to nitpick, but VMWare Fusion runs on the Mac OS host, and as of version 2.0, Fusion now supports Mac OS X Server as a guest operating system. Your VMWare knowledge is about 6 months stale.

  50. More like... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    What Pepsi is to Coca-Cola. And vice versa.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  51. Re:Well that's it by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

    and Intel

    --
    If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  52. Voters are complete morons... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    I don't know why, but company buy-out/sale isn't a demise of the company, to start out.

    And to end, IMHO, all of those companies will be ok thru 2009... Unless they blunder naturally, but that no company is full-proofed...

  53. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anything you can do, Mac can do better. Mac can do anything better than you.

  54. Infinite refresh? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

    What
    What is
    What is with
    What is with the
    What is with the infinite
    What is with the infinite refresh?
    ???

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  55. Re:The list(is horrible) by pha3r0 · · Score: 1

    Ummm I would say bad headline, but it really is the article that does not follow it's own headline.

    Of the 10 companies listed there is only one they note as possibly selling in 2009 (Novell) and they say it highly unlikely they will just go under. So then this is really just a bad end of year lazy editor story. Move along.

    On another note, I have only ever taken the pains of looking at one other story from CI (Ad's are bad, Flash is worse.) and it was just as bad as this one.

  56. If AMD goes Intel will have a problem by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but some times and soon...

    Someone will notice that Intel has beccome a full-scale monopoly that does indeed prevent other competitors from entering the market and competing.

    With AMD, Intel has a nice biopoly which it can easily and truthfully claim competition(not fair market competition mind you). AMD is all too happy to allow this and even lend a helping hand sometimes.

    If AMD goes then someone will pick up the pieces, and if they don't eventually you'll get back to monopoly litigation. Might not happen within the year, but it will eventually happen. That sort of litigation can force Intel to split and worse.

    1. Re:If AMD goes Intel will have a problem by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but some times and soon...

      Someone will notice that Intel has beccome a full-scale monopoly that does indeed prevent other competitors from entering the market and competing.

      With AMD, Intel has a nice biopoly which it can easily and truthfully claim competition(not fair market competition mind you). AMD is all too happy to allow this and even lend a helping hand sometimes.

      If AMD goes then someone will pick up the pieces, and if they don't eventually you'll get back to monopoly litigation. Might not happen within the year, but it will eventually happen. That sort of litigation can force Intel to split and worse.

      Meanwhile, CPU prices will return to the levels witnessed in the late 1990's when Intel was basically able to charge what they liked as there was no meaningful competition from the Pentium to the Pentium III. Processor advancements will stagnate much as they did with the Pentium IV.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:If AMD goes Intel will have a problem by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      How do you know the stagnation hasn't started happening already?

      bi-opoly does allow for some innovation in the effort to keep ahead of the other guy but it requires far less than if you have many competitors.

    3. Re:If AMD goes Intel will have a problem by mjwx · · Score: 1

      True, but a decent processor can still be bought for A$150, under a monopoly I sincerely doubt this would be the case.

      At least under a duopoly/bi-opoly situation you still have at least minimal advancements, under a monopoly there does not need to be any innovation, only a way to make your customers by the newest model.

      Yes, I know the "duopoly is better then a monopoly" is a poor excuse but realistically the CPU market wont see any new players for some time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  57. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by OnlineAlias · · Score: 2, Funny

    It can "look and feel" better....

  58. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Filesharing to Macs?
    Netbooting?
    Portable home directories for Macs?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  59. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Running OS X as a guest would be perfect for a linux- or windows-based web developer who wants to test out how their client-side code runs on a mac.

    Or for a mac software developer who wants to maintain multiple versions and configurations of OS X to test their software against.

    Or for windows users who want to try out OS X on their existing expensive hardware, without having to lay waste to their existing installation, or fork out a sizeable chunk of money for more hardware.

  60. Re:I Vote For Oracle by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    I've read some racist comments on Slashdot before, but you get points (figurative points) for sheer animus.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  61. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No it can't.

  62. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

    Bad day or not, what's the real benefit of running OS X as a guest?

    The same reason that running Windows XP as a guest is a useful thing: serving (and controlling) virtualized desktops.

    VMware's version is View. <rant>When will companies remember that they need to give their products a "Googleable" name?</rant>

  63. Re:Well that's it by nschubach · · Score: 1

    and Adobe

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  64. Re:AMD can't go down as that will give intel to mu by doti · · Score: 1

    It won't. Don't worry.

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  65. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by iwein · · Score: 1

    Good thing parent wasn't talking about VMWare. Granted, the information is interesting, but it has little to do with the parent's statement.

    --
    Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
  66. What Hype! by robnator · · Score: 1

    none of the companies mentioned are predicted to 'fail' -- one possible and one plausible

    some monkey should be spanked for generating spurious traffic.

    --
    "If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
  67. False Advertisting by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Go through the list - most of the companies they say they expect WILL survive.

  68. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes it can!

  69. Re:Well that's it by nschubach · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Microtel Gooscobe, Inc. How may I help you?

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  70. Searching for VMware View by tepples · · Score: 1

    The same reason that running Windows XP as a guest is a useful thing: serving (and controlling) virtualized desktops.

    VMware's version is View. <rant>When will companies remember that they need to give their products a "Googleable" name?</rant>

    Probably as soon as Microsoft changes the name of Word to something else. In other words, you search for VMware View the same way you search for Microsoft Word.

    1. Re:Searching for VMware View by libcrypto · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone google for MS word? I don't remember ever doing that. Well.. maybe once when I forgot the password for that password protected document. Other than that..

  71. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

    Did I mis-sunderstand the thread of the conversation? Ah well. You win some, you loose some.

  72. Somebody is talking through their hat by pugugly · · Score: 1

    Interesting (Okay, just plain odd)that they went to the trouble of polling their readers, but said they disagreed with every prediction.

    Either their readers don't know what they're talking about, or they don't - {G}.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  73. ClamAV: Plugins... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    it lacks online cheking, so it's great {...} only {...} for full system scans.

    Don't forget the plugins, etc.

    You can also use clamav to check typical "arrival points" :
    - most downloading software (peer-2-peer clients, etc.) offer the possibility to run a specified command once a download has arrived. Thus you can check your torrents with clamav upon completion.
    - several plugins for FireFox like Safe Download, Download Scan, Download Statusbar, etc.. all offer "scan upon download completion" too.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  74. SCO and CA merger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now there would be the ultimate in scary zombie companies of they would ever merge.

  75. This was one seriously stupid article by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2

    and the headline is completely wrong - the article lists ONE company that MIGHT go out of business or be acquired and also speculates that Novell MIGHT be acquired (by whom? Who knows?)

    Total garbage. Don't waste your time.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  76. Hog Exhaust! by WeBMartians · · Score: 1

    ...and that's an insult to the hog!

    Some of these companies you may not like; some you'd hope they would just go away. Wishing isn't going to make it so. I see at least two firms whose booked orders for 2009 are such that they'll have no trouble surviving ... and one of those would drag at least two other, not listed, major firms down.

    This is just gross incompetence and/or somebody who's desperate to make some cash on a "put."

  77. Re:AMD can't go down as that will give intel to mu by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    If you look at 2 equivalently priced systems side by side, AMD may have a little less power, but a whole lot less heat as compared to an Intel system.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  78. Symantec by JSmooth · · Score: 2, Informative

    bias: I use to work for Symantec 3 years ago.

    I always love this one. I was at Symantec for almost 7 years. I never even saw Norton products. Yes they use to be crap (have gotten aLOT better recently but I still don't run them) but Symantec has a huge stake in the Enterprise networks. I guess most people who bother to respond think their network of 500 users is big. This past year as a consultant working with Symantec products the average network I was in was 70,000+ seats.

    John Thompson was smart. 9 years ago he realized the consumer AV space was going to get crowded. The merger with Veritas took longer than was hoped for but now things are going gang busters and most of the Symantec partners have more work than they now what to do with. Sym has dozens of key pieces of software all over the security spectrum. You may not like Norton but don't count them out.

  79. F----dcompany? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

    Anyone else look at this and think "Gee, someone should start Fuckedcompany.com about ten years ago?"

    Wish it was still around...

    --
    The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  80. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Would you like a 5 minute argument or the full course of eight.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  81. Best part of the article by anothy · · Score: 1
    that bit, overall. totally worthless. just one interesting comment in the entire thing, and i think it's only interesting because of how exactly backwards they got it:

    Despite its alliance with Microsoft, Novell hasn't been able to rekindle the fortune of its glory days.

    "Despite"? I think they misspelled "Because of". note to the entire industry: getting in bed with Microsoft will kill you! there's simply no protection strong enough for whatever they're carrying.

    --

    i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  82. Re:KVM (disambiguation)? by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 1

    Yes it can, yes it caaaaaaan!

  83. WHAT AN UTTER BUNCH OF CRAP by scurvyj · · Score: 1

    Who compiled this garbage?? What are they trying to do, spook the market??

    All these companies will power through 2009 and 2010 like nothing happened.
    After that however.....
    VMWare - vm systems are giving way to container based systems, unless they can get hardware companies fully on board.
    All spyware firms - as MS Crashware is removed gradually from the market and everyone's laptops run embedded linux or are Apple OSX based, we wont need this crap.
    The rest of them.... who knows. Sun always survive somehow, somebody somewhere always needs big servers.

    I'd be somewhat concerned about Apple though - their server software is a disaster (it is, don't bother arguing for the sake of it). Their laptops are great, but they'd better keep going down that pricing curve or the little embedded jobbies are going to leave them for dead. They brought out a phone about 3-5 years too late for it to matter and are about to get/are getting stomped in that market. Nobody cares about mp3 players anymore, they are cheap commodity items and anyone who pays over $250 for one is an idiot. So, whats that leave them with?

  84. Juniper?!? by kullnd · · Score: 1

    I am very disapointed to see Juniper on that list, not as though that list really means shit. Juniper is finally releasing products that I can actually use in the environments that I work. Personally I'd rather work with their equipment over Cisco's equipment any day of the week. It's still on the expensive side, but you get more bang for your buck when you compare their products next to Cisco... One thing I wish they would come out with is a line of switches that's just a step down from the EX line --- They are nice, but I really don't need 20 layer 3 switches in a network of 20 switches. JUNOS rocks.

    --
    +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  85. Which is why they use GNOME. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    People saying Sun does not have expertise writing user friendly GUIs don't know what they are talking about.

    There is not such a thing as an user friendly GUI, what we have is commonly used GUIs, being popular means people have less reluctance to use something, no matter how hideous or complicated it is.

    Sun uses GNOME in Open Solaris which is a modern, flexible, usable GUI. There is no reason for a computing literate person to be unable to use it.

    If you have been using something else for years then this will not seem "user friendly", if this is your first experience with a desktop environment you could not care less and will use Open Solaris productively.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  86. Re:new to slashdot? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Oh, beleive me. My main PC has been running Linux (Slackware, then Ubuntu) for the past 7 years. But I keep a Windows partition around for games, and that's the one I'm trying to protect (and since I'm gaming, "features" that break that are deal-breakers: Nortion/AVG dragging the system through concrete, Antivir popping up the stupid focus-snatching nag screen in the middle of Ranger-spiking Jade Quarry, etc...)

  87. Virtualizaton is not just for servers. by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

    To answer your question specifically: I have a 2 core linux box with 8 G ram. But Mac+iTUnes is the best way to work with my iPod.

    I run a copy of WinXP in VirtualBox just so that I can run two applications: Whizfolders -- an outliner tool that has no real equivalent in unix -- and IMatch a photo management tool that has features that I can't find in a unix tool.

    Anyone who is writing software for multiple OS's needs an easy way to test that code on those same multiple OS's

    --
    Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  88. Missing option by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    Microsoft

    Oh, wait, this is about TECH companies. My bad.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  89. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    Check your sig. It just MIGHT have something to do with it....

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  90. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    But, my sig is not my comment.

    Also, my sig is completely accurate.

    So, once again, why are people modding my comments as trolls?

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  91. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    Check your assumptions. You'll find that at least one of them is wrong.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  92. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    OK, I'll check:
    My sig is not my commment. That's true.
    When I masturbate, I usually think about GW Bush. That's true as well.

    So, Mr. Firewall, please tell me what is wrong according to your fantasy world.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  93. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    Check ALL of your assumptions. You've missed quite a number of them.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  94. And the winner is .... NORTEL by gcalkin · · Score: 1

    And it is not even on the list :)

    --
    Pick me, I'm clean
  95. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, I assumed that the people reading my post weren't giant cocksuckers. That must be the trouble.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  96. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    And you can't figure out why you're getting modded as a troll. Breathtaking, absolutely breathtaking.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  97. Re: Who modded my comment as a troll? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    I considered it possible that you're a complete moron who can't tell when he's getting fucked with. It's still a viable theory.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!