The call centre need integration with the phone system, for example. Various people need MS Project or Visio. Finance need SAP. Marketing and analytics need SAS. The creative team use Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. Yes, a lot of people could get 90% of their job done with a Unix desktop. But that remaining 10% is important, and the missing 10% is different for each department.
I'm sure you will be happy if IBM and the city of Munich find a way around all of that. I know there are free alternatives to all of the above, many of them technically superior.
I prefer IE over Opera, Mozilla (Netscape), and everything else.
Better than mother's milk? How about a sharp stick in the eye? A bed of nails?
Preferring IE over a modern tabbed browser with advert and pop up blocking or on the fly spell checking, right. Astroturf indeed. I hate the "I love IE" trolls.
Tell Bill Gates to send money to Slashdot when he wants to advertise here.
On the plus side, we remove the ability for them to run Internet Explorer, and provide Firefox as their standard browser.
Not a bad start.
We don't let them even see their C: drive, either (amongst other restrictions). Draconian? Yes, but it's the only sane approach for a corporate network. With what we give them, they can accomplish everything they need to get their job done.
Sane? I have my doubts When free OS exist that require far less effort on your part? What exactly do your users need to get their job done? How do you know? Do you realize that by doing all of that you have eliminated almost all of the reasons to run windoze in the first place? Why pay for something you don't want to use? I'd rather have a KDE desktop that I can plug my camera and PDA into. You must have some nasty DOS thing holding you back.
I doubt the site was booby trapped for lynx or wget. Here's the text:/* start */
Why Some Sites Only Work With IE
If you surf the web with a browser like Firefox, Netscape, or Opera, you've probably run into sites that either require Internet Explorer or look very poor in non-IE browsers.
I previously thought this was due to laziness on the part of web developers. Events of the past days have made me think something else may be at play.
I'm a software developer at a very large company. Recently, the company underwent a reorganization. I now work for a different business unit. To make a long story short, this business unit does not give employees permission to install software on their desktop computers. They don't just prohibit it, they flat out prevent it via Windows administrator settings.
This means I have to use the corporation's approved; web browser: Internet Explorer. And, it means I can't even install Firefox or Opera to test my web designs.
Luckily, the team I work with is pushing the corporate bureaucracy to give us more rights to our machines. But I wonder how many people go through that effort, or how many of them succeed? Can policies like this - where the web developer can't even test their site in a non-IE browser - explain why some sites don't work in other browsers?
/* end */
Not much too it. Note that no examination of the page was made for booby traps of any kind. Also a number of "#8271" were removed. The text claims it was generated by word press. spacerook uses apache on linux and is a lunarpages site.
Wow, I'm underwhelmed by those 62 bugs, all of which have been fixed and most of which would never have bothered anyone who turned off javascript in the first place.
Mozilla is a very nice browser, but it's not the kind of fortress most users think it is.
Speak for yourself about fortresses and don't attempt to FUD Mozilla with IE's terrible security record. People with a clue know that Mozilla is orders of magnitude less likely to get them screwed. They do not think that it's perfect, but they do know that the steps taken by the Mozilla team are helpful.
There are now several ways to browse the web, but the Microsoft remains the worst. Mozilla, Konqueror and others have problems but they are free and solutions will come. IE will cost you a minimum of $200 to run and has holes like this that have been known and unfixed for 10 months. You might have files messed with if you run Mozilla on any platform. You WILL be rooted if you use M$.
SCO and Sun do have one thing in common, however: They will both soon be dead because of Linux and the contributions of IBM and others.
Except that you could say the same thing about IBM before they jumped on the Linux bandwagon. Now, instead of dying along with their proprietary hardware, IBM is making billions off Linux. So are HP and others. SCO and Sun could do the same. The proprietary software game has cost everyone a fortune and it's time to end it.
An AC doubts the quality of free software and casts dispersions on the orignial poster based on their interpretation of SGI's line.
SGI seems to dissagree with the AC. From their 2003 SEC Filing:
We are concentrating our research and development efforts on products and technologies that we believe hold the highest growth potential, including global shared memory system architectures, visualization and storage. Our strategy is to derive maximum leverage from these efforts by using a foundation of industry-standard components such as the Intel Itanium family of microprocessors and the Linux operating systems. We also continue to invest, although at a lower rate than in the past, both on a percentage and absolute dollar basis, in our own MIPS microprocessors and IRIX operating system. There are no assurances that we will maintain or create sufficient differentiation to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement of free software to me. SGI is good but they admit that it is difficult to keep up with free software so they are using it to their advantage.
Sun should take a lesson and quit screwing around with Microsoft, SCO and all of that trash. Free software is the future, commercial code is dead. Those who cling to the corpse are likewise dead.
Granted, I don't know if it's patent-worthy, but it is a helpful tool that I've not seen elsewhere.
Of course it's helpful, that's one reason it's an outrage that it's been patented. There are lots of ways to do this and it's a common practice. Oh yeah, that it's obvious and common practice is another reason it's an outrage.
Is Microsoft now going to demand that KDE not distribute similar features with their IDE? Are posters here going to be threatened for recommending "grep TODO *.c > tasklist"? What dorks they are.
BS like this is the death rattle of any IT company. The sooner they go away, the happier everyone else is.
You propose an abuse of software patents as a solution to software patents. How about just telling people how software patents are bad instead?
Even Anne Rand knew that limitless grants of patents places an insurmountable barrier to business. She was slap happy about "products of the mind" too, yet even a dedicated idealog can be walked down a thought experiment and convinced without causing the widespread harm Microsoft is determined to inflict. The case against software patents, where product life spans are shorter than any other field, is even easier to make. The case against pateting business methods and procedures is very simple. These obvious practices are not inventions and do not deserve patent protection.
A nifty feature it is, thanks for the M$ product info! It also happens to be obvious, well known and implemented by everyone. Give me a break and keep M$ advertising off Slashdot unless you pay for it.
Your attempt at making it seem like an innovation is dissappointing even for Microsoft standards. Where's the jargoned up spiel about M$'s new paradigms and methods? That.NET reference and the mention of different languages, as if other compiler collections did not exist is a start. Oh wait, a new method is not something that deserves a patent is it? Now I see part of the problem. Let's see what you have again:
Others may have it, but it's one of those quiet innovations MS has they don't make too much noise about. Like Autocomplete (can't run across a single browser nowadays that doesn't have this).
Noise? Do you mean documentation? M$ surely has enough advertising.
Your claim that Microsoft invented this feature which is just now getting stuck into their products is preposterous. People have been doing this forever and it's outrageous that Microsoft would attempt to steal such an obvious idea from everyone else.
I like the way that KDE's IDE autogenerates html helpfiles and other documentation just like this. I'd like to see those morons at Microsoft try to extort money from anyone who would like to use or distribute KDE. Actually, I would not. I really want them to just take their ill gotten gains and leave the rest of us alone.
I stop mine when I want to play one of the many games that isnt supported under linux.
By all means, keep playing your games. That should not keep you from enjoying free software. Dual boot, or just get an older machine for all of the things that free software does better than Winblows, browsing, email, remote administration, programming, web development, DRM free music, and on and on.
AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it.
You have to wonder what the idiot expected. Every person interviewed seems to be coming out to say Ken is a liar.
No, I'm afraid that Ken will keep going and going as long as Bill hands him money. What's he still got to lose after throwing his reputation away like this?
It would be a waste of time to collect everything before the book is published. First, no reputable publisher would go forward with the publication when every person "interviewed" has come forward to claim they have already been ignored and misrepresented. Second, Ken will just change what he says. Third, everyone has better things to do than worry about than refuting such a sleazebag.
Sadly enough, the stupid thing will be published, people will waste their time writing explaining why none of it is true and some people will still be fooled by it. Oh well.
If linux came on store bought computers pre-installed, you can bet they'd use it. And you can bet many (I think most) would be clicking on spam attachments left and right.
Linux and Mac do come that way, but I don't see their users having problems. Why is that?
My last installation of Windows 2000 had all of those precautions as well, but started to flake out in less than four months. I got Mozilla and used it for browsing and email. The company had a good firewall. I never bothered with media files because I was at work. Hell, I did not even have Office but used Star Office and never used it as a way of sharing information. Something got the box anyway and I started to get crashes every other day.
I've seen plenty of other people with the same kinds of problems. Count yourself as 1 in 100 and keep up whatever laborious stuff you do to keep that box from eXPloding.
Clueless users will not go out of their way to use a certain operating system.... If it were linux, you can be damned sure 80% of linux installations would by horribly spyware infested and virus-ridden.
Not that Mac users are clueless, but why don't they have their share of problems? Why don't I?
I've been running windows 2000 for over 3 years without ever re-installing or getting a single piece of spyware or adware.
That is not credible, unless the thing has been off or never connected to a network. As the case of Windows ATMs being infected though not connected to networks shows, even an air gap is not enough protection. I'd like to know what you have done differently from the hundreds of users I've seen with broken Windows computers, or any of the big corporate networks that constantly get hammered and knocked off line for weeks at a time. Everytime I hear about how much effort those things take to keep up, I sigh.
I said that because spam is expensive and now 80% of it is directly attributable to Microsoft. If you think otherwise, please tell everyone all about it.
Yes, spam affects me personally. Money I send my ISP is going into fighting spam that should not exist instead of providing me a real service. My ISP, Cox, blocks outbound port 25, and I have to put up with their crummy SMTP server performance after two years of problem free Exim use.
There are plenty of other evil and nasty things Microsoft does, but the cost of this failure is obvious and deserve mention when the problem is stated.
either find/fix all the broken M$ boxes or stop home dsl/cable outgoing mail.
SMTP server only is not a solution. Trojans can use SMTP servers just like your home user does. If you are going to cut off users who's email use suddenly spikes, why not just use that as a trigger to block the individual's outbound port 25 instead of forcing people to use your SMTP server?
I asked these questions to Cox tech support when they used your proposed solution. The response was that Microsoft and AOL would blacklist all Cox email if they did not. Looks like a job for trust busters to me, but good luck finding it in writing.
Don't blame the user when there are millions of users of other software who have no problems. This is a Microsoft problem. It is not a Mac problem. It is not a Unix, Linux or BSD problem. It is not a computer problem. It's a Microsoft problem. Somehow, users of other systems get the tools and information they need to avoid the problems Microsoft users have.
Microsoft creates massive problems with poor design and Atrax blames the user and administrators. Administrators who don't have a free software migration strategy should feel some guilt at this point, but it's hard to blame people who trust their vendor. Two years ago, when email nasties first started costing businesses billions of dollars, Microsoft promissed security would be their top priority. Nothing has changed and we should give credit where credit is due.
In anycase, how do you properly configure and protect a Windoze box from itself? Because the vectors are born in services that the user demands, email and web browsing, you can't keep them from getting through. What bandaids to Microsoft's design flaws do you use to keep your machines "clean"? Can you really justify that kind of expense and effort for home users? You have to clean up after them periodically anyway, don't you? When it's all said and done, it's easier for the home user do dual boot something like Mepis and blind that M$ junk by removing network drivers.
The FUD required for such stupid laws is already out there. Bullshit about "security", "liability", kiddie porn and terrorism is common, even here on Slashdot. The US government has already issued warnings about free access. Hopefully, people will have enough sense to realize that no new threat is created by wireless hotspots.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you will be happy if IBM and the city of Munich find a way around all of that. I know there are free alternatives to all of the above, many of them technically superior.
Better than mother's milk? How about a sharp stick in the eye? A bed of nails?
Preferring IE over a modern tabbed browser with advert and pop up blocking or on the fly spell checking, right. Astroturf indeed. I hate the "I love IE" trolls.
Tell Bill Gates to send money to Slashdot when he wants to advertise here.
Not a bad start.
We don't let them even see their C: drive, either (amongst other restrictions). Draconian? Yes, but it's the only sane approach for a corporate network. With what we give them, they can accomplish everything they need to get their job done.
Sane? I have my doubts When free OS exist that require far less effort on your part? What exactly do your users need to get their job done? How do you know? Do you realize that by doing all of that you have eliminated almost all of the reasons to run windoze in the first place? Why pay for something you don't want to use? I'd rather have a KDE desktop that I can plug my camera and PDA into. You must have some nasty DOS thing holding you back.
Why Some Sites Only Work With IE
If you surf the web with a browser like Firefox, Netscape, or Opera, you've probably run into sites that either require Internet Explorer or look very poor in non-IE browsers.
I previously thought this was due to laziness on the part of web developers. Events of the past days have made me think something else may be at play.
I'm a software developer at a very large company. Recently, the company underwent a reorganization. I now work for a different business unit. To make a long story short, this business unit does not give employees permission to install software on their desktop computers. They don't just prohibit it, they flat out prevent it via Windows administrator settings.
This means I have to use the corporation's approved; web browser: Internet Explorer. And, it means I can't even install Firefox or Opera to test my web designs.
Luckily, the team I work with is pushing the corporate bureaucracy to give us more rights to our machines. But I wonder how many people go through that effort, or how many of them succeed? Can policies like this - where the web developer can't even test their site in a non-IE browser - explain why some sites don't work in other browsers?
Not much too it. Note that no examination of the page was made for booby traps of any kind. Also a number of "#8271" were removed. The text claims it was generated by word press. spacerook uses apache on linux and is a lunarpages site.
Mozilla is a very nice browser, but it's not the kind of fortress most users think it is.
Speak for yourself about fortresses and don't attempt to FUD Mozilla with IE's terrible security record. People with a clue know that Mozilla is orders of magnitude less likely to get them screwed. They do not think that it's perfect, but they do know that the steps taken by the Mozilla team are helpful.
There are now several ways to browse the web, but the Microsoft remains the worst. Mozilla, Konqueror and others have problems but they are free and solutions will come. IE will cost you a minimum of $200 to run and has holes like this that have been known and unfixed for 10 months. You might have files messed with if you run Mozilla on any platform. You WILL be rooted if you use M$.
Except that you could say the same thing about IBM before they jumped on the Linux bandwagon. Now, instead of dying along with their proprietary hardware, IBM is making billions off Linux. So are HP and others. SCO and Sun could do the same. The proprietary software game has cost everyone a fortune and it's time to end it.
SGI seems to dissagree with the AC. From their 2003 SEC Filing:
We are concentrating our research and development efforts on products and technologies that we believe hold the highest growth potential, including global shared memory system architectures, visualization and storage. Our strategy is to derive maximum leverage from these efforts by using a foundation of industry-standard components such as the Intel Itanium family of microprocessors and the Linux operating systems. We also continue to invest, although at a lower rate than in the past, both on a percentage and absolute dollar basis, in our own MIPS microprocessors and IRIX operating system. There are no assurances that we will maintain or create sufficient differentiation to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement of free software to me. SGI is good but they admit that it is difficult to keep up with free software so they are using it to their advantage.
Sun should take a lesson and quit screwing around with Microsoft, SCO and all of that trash. Free software is the future, commercial code is dead. Those who cling to the corpse are likewise dead.
Of course it's helpful, that's one reason it's an outrage that it's been patented. There are lots of ways to do this and it's a common practice. Oh yeah, that it's obvious and common practice is another reason it's an outrage.
Is Microsoft now going to demand that KDE not distribute similar features with their IDE? Are posters here going to be threatened for recommending "grep TODO *.c > tasklist"? What dorks they are.
BS like this is the death rattle of any IT company. The sooner they go away, the happier everyone else is.
Even Anne Rand knew that limitless grants of patents places an insurmountable barrier to business. She was slap happy about "products of the mind" too, yet even a dedicated idealog can be walked down a thought experiment and convinced without causing the widespread harm Microsoft is determined to inflict. The case against software patents, where product life spans are shorter than any other field, is even easier to make. The case against pateting business methods and procedures is very simple. These obvious practices are not inventions and do not deserve patent protection.
Your attempt at making it seem like an innovation is dissappointing even for Microsoft standards. Where's the jargoned up spiel about M$'s new paradigms and methods? That .NET reference and the mention of different languages, as if other compiler collections did not exist is a start. Oh wait, a new method is not something that deserves a patent is it? Now I see part of the problem. Let's see what you have again:
Others may have it, but it's one of those quiet innovations MS has they don't make too much noise about. Like Autocomplete (can't run across a single browser nowadays that doesn't have this).
Noise? Do you mean documentation? M$ surely has enough advertising.
Your claim that Microsoft invented this feature which is just now getting stuck into their products is preposterous. People have been doing this forever and it's outrageous that Microsoft would attempt to steal such an obvious idea from everyone else.
I like the way that KDE's IDE autogenerates html helpfiles and other documentation just like this. I'd like to see those morons at Microsoft try to extort money from anyone who would like to use or distribute KDE. Actually, I would not. I really want them to just take their ill gotten gains and leave the rest of us alone.
By all means, keep playing your games. That should not keep you from enjoying free software. Dual boot, or just get an older machine for all of the things that free software does better than Winblows, browsing, email, remote administration, programming, web development, DRM free music, and on and on.
AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it.
You have to wonder what the idiot expected. Every person interviewed seems to be coming out to say Ken is a liar.
No, I'm afraid that Ken will keep going and going as long as Bill hands him money. What's he still got to lose after throwing his reputation away like this?
Next cue is "Net Thug" FUD.
Sadly enough, the stupid thing will be published, people will waste their time writing explaining why none of it is true and some people will still be fooled by it. Oh well.
Linux and Mac do come that way, but I don't see their users having problems. Why is that?
I've seen plenty of other people with the same kinds of problems. Count yourself as 1 in 100 and keep up whatever laborious stuff you do to keep that box from eXPloding.
Not that Mac users are clueless, but why don't they have their share of problems? Why don't I?
I've been running windows 2000 for over 3 years without ever re-installing or getting a single piece of spyware or adware.
That is not credible, unless the thing has been off or never connected to a network. As the case of Windows ATMs being infected though not connected to networks shows, even an air gap is not enough protection. I'd like to know what you have done differently from the hundreds of users I've seen with broken Windows computers, or any of the big corporate networks that constantly get hammered and knocked off line for weeks at a time. Everytime I hear about how much effort those things take to keep up, I sigh.
Yes, spam affects me personally. Money I send my ISP is going into fighting spam that should not exist instead of providing me a real service. My ISP, Cox, blocks outbound port 25, and I have to put up with their crummy SMTP server performance after two years of problem free Exim use.
There are plenty of other evil and nasty things Microsoft does, but the cost of this failure is obvious and deserve mention when the problem is stated.
SMTP server only is not a solution. Trojans can use SMTP servers just like your home user does. If you are going to cut off users who's email use suddenly spikes, why not just use that as a trigger to block the individual's outbound port 25 instead of forcing people to use your SMTP server?
I asked these questions to Cox tech support when they used your proposed solution. The response was that Microsoft and AOL would blacklist all Cox email if they did not. Looks like a job for trust busters to me, but good luck finding it in writing.
In anycase, how do you properly configure and protect a Windoze box from itself? Because the vectors are born in services that the user demands, email and web browsing, you can't keep them from getting through. What bandaids to Microsoft's design flaws do you use to keep your machines "clean"? Can you really justify that kind of expense and effort for home users? You have to clean up after them periodically anyway, don't you? When it's all said and done, it's easier for the home user do dual boot something like Mepis and blind that M$ junk by removing network drivers.
Who'd have thunk it?
That's never been patented, has it? Not while people had sense, that is. It's so surprising that people find new keyboards.