I think it is much more important that they fix the latency more than the bandwidth problem. The picture quality right now is acceptable. And it will improve.
But latency is a much harder problem.
I wonder how many satellites this has to bounce off of? Won? Too?
Each satellite is abou 23,000 miles out. And 22,300 miles back. Then the reporter gives an answer. Then the answer goes another ~50,000 miles. Round trip distance: about 100,000 miles.
Now let's see, at the speed of light, this is how many seconds? 0.6? Now add in all the processing time of video compression latency. This is probably even more time than just the distance to the friggin satellite(s).
No wonder they ask a question and it takes 3 seconds before the remote reporter's lips start moving. And they get into "interruption wars" and "courtesy wars" due to the extreme latency.
Why would they waste high quality feeds on the sub-standard reporting they broadcast?
Don't you get it? It isn't the quality of information or reporting that matters. (That's why Dan Rather has a job.) Didn't you watch the movie (I think it was titled) Broadcast News?
It's all about impression. And fluff. Appearance. Not substance.
It just needs a pretty gui. People who have deep thoughts about human psychology and user interface need not apply.
If you're compressing pr0n with mpeg-4, then you can use an asymetric compression such as mpeg-4, since you don't care if the compression takes ten times as long as the decompression.
A design goal of some compression algorithms is to spend a disproportionately large amount of horsepower in compression to make decompression easy for 386 machines with low-end web browsers. But the compresser guys can use high end equipment.
Now apply this algorithm to a jello-vision situation and it doesn't work. Some parts of a video might take longer to compress and some parts take less time to compress. But on a live feed, you can't have extra slow portions of compression, because the data is comming in live and you end up missing frames.
Someday Linux will have the problem of apps (Netscape, AOL, RealPlayer, etc.) all fighting over control of file extensions.
That is because Linux still uses the same primitive mechanism of using filename extensions to indicate both concepts of
What is in a file
and What application to launch
A few months ago there was an article and big discussion about metadata. Given the way slashdot readers reacted to that, I predict that Linux will fall into exactly the same set of traps.
[Those who won't learn from history are doomed to re-implement it.]
On a Mac, without special 3rd-party hack programs (like ResEdit or Snitch), it CANNOT BE DONE AT ALL
Incorrect. Open desired application. From within application, File menu, Open, open the desired file. Now without making any changes to the file, re-save it in the same place with same filename.
Now the file's icon changes to that of the desired application. It now is "associated" with the new app.
This wasn't the most efficient approach, but it was the most obvious. The Mac often wastes computer resources and keystrokes at the expense of saving "brain-strokes". Although, often, if you look deeper, there are numerous shortcuts to do the same thing more efficiently.
I have many differnet mp3 players, and jpeg viewers all installed. I click on one jpeg file and it opens Photoshop. I click on another jpeg file and it opens GraphicConverter.
Those who won't learn from history are doomed to re-implement it.
It's the kee-jerk solution to 90% of all pre-MacOS X problems:
reeeeeebbbbuild the deeeeeesktop.
This will have the effect of changing the icons from soundjam icons to plain white icons. But it won't fix his problem.
The solution is to change the file creator to point to a different application. Don't change the file's type, just it's creator. The file is still mp3 data, even though you want to open it with a different app. Thus you change the type, and leave creator alone.
This dll doesn't make any exotic system calls. It opens some old proprietary databases with read only file access. Then the VFP program can call the dll to extract rows from the tables.
It was compiled in Delphi 3 because the original proprietary database was in Pascal. Therefore making it easy to port this old dos code into a delphi dll. Again, all it does is open files read-only, and read bytes out of the file. No exotic calculations. No odd system calls, etc. It just reads bytes out of files, interprets the proper old proprietary format, and returns typed values such as ints, dates, strings, etc.
Maybe delphi 3 doesn't generate properly written dlls? But it is a commercial compiler that was no doubt used by many thousands of people.
The DLL has been deployed for years. It works on every os up to Win2K. On Win2K it doesn't merely crash the application, but it hard crashes the machine.
many of todays so
called RISC machines have more powerful instruction sets, with for example three operand
instructions with multiple addressing modes.
Are you sure about the addressing modes?
I have not surveyed a lot of RISC designs. But as I recall, one basic feature was that there were very few instructions that could load and store to memory, and a limited number of memory addressing modes.
The three operands make sense. But aren't the risc instructions predominantly all register-to-register with a very large number of registers? A few register-to-memory instructions, and then you optimally schedule in your register-to-memory instructions at cricual points, rather than having to take where they fall "inside" of the CISC instruction? Basically you write several ops to "build" a CISC instruction. Then you take the overall stream of instructions and optimally schedule operations to keep all functional units busy. This is done in the compiler statically, rather than by trying to rearrange instruction execution dynamically in hardware, thus needing even more hardware. I've only read up on all of Apple's PPC propaganda during the early 90's, so I'm no expert here.
Back to addressing. Yes, I don't expect to see RISC instructions with an addressing mode such as: preindexed, double indirect, added to a register, indirected, then postindexed by another register and added to the phase of the moon.
"Do you have any hard numbers to confirm this?? RISC processors at the same speed as a CISC processor are typically SLOWER because they do LESS work per instruction than a CISC processor. "
Less work per instruction, not less work per clock cycle.
RISC, with simpler design, are easier to put more functional units onto a chip of the same size with the same technology to deposit the same number of transistors per chip. Therefore RISC can do multiple instructions per clock with proper instruction scheduling. That is, as long as you can keep all the functional units busy. Thus, the compiler's instruction scheduling can make the difference between lousy and excellent RISC performance.
Not only can you not run the Finder, which provides a gui file manager, but you can run MPW which provides a command line environment.
Need to shut down the somputer? Type Shutdown. Need to reboot? Type shutdown -r. Want to launch another application, just type it's pathname -- even if it is a standard mac gui app. Need to copy files, list directories, edit files, run compilers, make, link, pipe long series of commands together? MPW has equivalents to sed and other tools. MPW has been around on the Mac since 1986!
The point being: you don't need to run the Finder. Most people simply find it more productive. (Except when you need to use regular expressions to select some files, and don't happen to have MPW around.)
All the gui programs still run fine with no finder. The Finder is not the window manager. The finder is simply another gui program which draws icons on the desktop, lets you explore your disks, copy files, launch applications by clicking, move files to the trash folder by dragging icons, etc.
For comparison, Win2K crashes much more nicely on a machine with 256 Mb than one with only 192 Mb.
[Anecdote... So my office mate takes this Visual FoxPro application that has run for years, and runs it on Win 2K, 1 GHz, 256 Mb, and it crashes -- HARD! Blue screen. No option to continue. Must physically power off the machine. But only on some W2k, never on NT. We trace the problem down to using a DLL written in Delphi 3 that has been in use, and deployed in the field for years. Win95,98,ME,NTwks,NTserver,etc. Yeah, W2K is stable. The app didn't die, the whole machine died! And in the process takes some files along with it. In one case, destroying a user's Outlook mailbox.]
I just installed 256 MB of ram in my linux box. It cost me $36 -- delivered to my door -- including shipping.
I suppose I could hear users from the 80's say that Linux is a memory pig. It takes megabytes of ram!
As you say, KDE runs very nicely with plenty of ram. And the goal of having a computer is to make ME productive -- not some esoteric concern about the efficiency of the computer.
Of course, some people enjoy tinkering and fiddling with their computer -- just as some people do with their cars. I use a car as transportation -- not a toy to fiddle with. And there is nothing wrong with people who do the latter. It's just not most people's game.
My point is that to make me productive I don't care how much memory or megahertz it needs -- as long as it runs on reasonable hardware. (Yes, a vague term, I know.) Which I'll psuedo-define as a computer I can get for $500, w/o monitor. In a few years this $500 computer will come with 4 GB of RAM standard, and people on Slashdot will complain because some super productive tool uses up over 1 GB of RAM!, and therefore should not be used.
I don't think that's what you're saying (i.e. the parent post), this is just a general funny observation on the state of some faction of slashdot.
Maybe a better question is why Linux broke out of the "toy" os niche.
Then you would have better insight as to why there might be a next os to break out of the "toy" niche.
If another os does go from "toy" to "mainstream", then it will likely be because it addresses some real or perceived shortcomming in the range of presently available OS choices. Please don't misinterpret me. It's not that I wish to get modded down for suggesting that Linux isn't absolutely perfect in every conceivable way. I merely suggest that you re-read my first two sentences above.
Eventually Linux's age will show. It won't be as nimble at adapting to technological innovation. An ever growing monolithic kernel could eventually lead to either: [1] instability or [2] slowdown in development in order to maintain stability of a growing code base. [This prospectus contains forward looking statements, blah, blah, blah.]
Other approaches could become more attractive, or less objectionable. For example, ever increasing hardware speed can be a great compensator for a more abstract, less efficient, but easier to grow design approaches.
What I'm saying is that there is a huge inertia to overcome for a new os to go mainstream. The new approach must solve a problem that people want solved. (ala Linux vs. MS) Otherwise, people aren't motivated to change and the newcommer remains niche. And as in the free vs. ms choice, the problem to be overcome is not necesseraily or purely a technical problem.
Would a steady stream of fedex trucks be in violation of zoning laws?
Maybe I'm selling something. Maybe those trucks are making deliveries?
Do the zoning laws actually try to distinguish as to whether I'm receiving or shipping 1 million miniature anatomically correct Cmdr. Taco dolls? Or do the laws limit the number of fedex trucks?
Should it be illegal for me to post on Slashdot and say that I have ten million dollars worth of palm pilots located at:
123 Silly Street
Nowhere Nebreska, 69999
Should it be illegal for me to auction off the above mentioned items on e-bay?
I would point out that the zoning laws predate the internet, and the ability to tell 1 million people that I would like for them to please break into my house. I need the insurance claim.
So leaving out your e-bay example, is there anything else wrong with the zoning laws as written? Aren't they reasonable, as is?
Re:Different types of niche operating systems
on
Niche Operating Systems
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
niche operating systems for PCs,...can be divided into two categories
They can be divided into one category: illegal operating systems.
As much as you resist Microsoft, you must admit that they currently OWN the desktop OS market for businesses.
I readily admit that MS owns the desktop.
That's the very reason they must be resisted.
Otherwise, we'll end up in a MS-only world, controlled by a company that knows no business model other than how to leverage monopolies in order to: raise prices, create new monopolies, and eliminate competition.
The MS-only road that you would so quickly go down leads to somewhere that I don't want to go today. (or tomorrow)
Follow this paragraph to it's logical conclusion. I do believe in using the right tool for the right job. And I agree that MS has an advantage in speed of developing dynamic content for MS-only clients, on an internal network. But if I must use an external network, or support non-MS clients, then I must either [1]learn other tools, or [2] learn where the line in MS tools is between MS-only crap and generic stuff. [And it is in MS's interest to keep this line hidden, or at least blurry.] [And approach 2 doesn't address security.] So, if I have an investment in a non-MS solution for developing dynamic content, then this solution is just as good a solution for an internal network of MS-only clients. In my scenerio, I think the MS-only advantage is less than you suggest. Therefore, the MS-only solution is really only significantly more appealing if you have invested in learning the MS way, and not invested in learning the generic way. So I disagree with your original conclusion that MS is the right tool for the job, even the job of internal-only, MS-only clients. Because of my different perspective (already know other solutions) in approaching the problem.
Thank you for your recent ammouncement that (someday) you will secure IIS.
Enclosed please find a blank, signed check.
When a more secure IIS is ready, please fill in the amount on the check, deposit it, and then ship me the new IIS. I'm patient. I'll wait until it's ready.
I know you're working very hard and that the benefit of end users is the number one concern of Microsoft.
Remember that IIS has an intrinsic advantage in delivering dynamic application content to desktops.
Really? To any desktops? Or just to Windows desktops?
I would never put MS technology in the DMZ
Me niether.
but then again, my company couldn't survive without our MS web based thin applications internally.
But this sounds like it reinforces my first point. MS stuff is nicely integrates with other MS stuff. Maybe that's what you mean by "has an intrinsic advantage". And if you wouldn't put it in a DMZ, then that leaves only the internal applications you mention.
I must disagree with your [previous poster] statement about not considering running IIS at all
Well, maybe in this scenerio IIS would be okay. An internal application, quickly developed, and integrated with other MS stuff. (I'm assuming Windows-only on the desktop. But that could be wrong.)
SuSE deserves to have the opportunity to compete. As do a lot of others.
Most startups aren't profitable overnight. Maybe not even for awhile. Linux has to struggle against both MS, the small market share of Linux (at present), other distro vendors, the general economic downturn, and the legacy of the dot-bombs.
If any company had to be profitable overnight to survive, without investors being willing to invest, and wait for their roi, then no Linux companies would probably exist, including Red Hat.
SuSE deserves to survive. Yes. They have an excellent product. (The only one I use.) Excellent engineering. And they deserve a chance (for awhile) to compete, be profitable, and survive in a capitalistic way. Any company in SuSE's, RH's, or Mandrake's position has a lot going against them. I wish them all well.
If they can't make it, then they don't deserve to survive.
[Extra Credit Question. Should infants be expected to survive on their own? How long should they be dependant on the resources of others who hope they'll grow up and be able to compete on their own and fend for themselves?]
"Hi honey. I'm sorry I'm late. The car died again, so I'm taking the shuttle."
"Ummm, ok dear" (Wife pulls up GPS data on the internet) "huh? HONEY? WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN ORBIT!?!"
How about...
What are you doing at [Insert female acquaintence]'s house? For the past 3 hours?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is much more important that they fix the latency more than the bandwidth problem. The picture quality right now is acceptable. And it will improve.
But latency is a much harder problem.
I wonder how many satellites this has to bounce off of? Won? Too?
Each satellite is abou 23,000 miles out. And 22,300 miles back. Then the reporter gives an answer. Then the answer goes another ~50,000 miles. Round trip distance: about 100,000 miles.
Now let's see, at the speed of light, this is how many seconds? 0.6? Now add in all the processing time of video compression latency. This is probably even more time than just the distance to the friggin satellite(s).
No wonder they ask a question and it takes 3 seconds before the remote reporter's lips start moving. And they get into "interruption wars" and "courtesy wars" due to the extreme latency.
Why would they waste high quality feeds on the sub-standard reporting they broadcast?
Don't you get it? It isn't the quality of information or reporting that matters. (That's why Dan Rather has a job.) Didn't you watch the movie (I think it was titled) Broadcast News?
It's all about impression. And fluff. Appearance. Not substance.
It just needs a pretty gui. People who have deep thoughts about human psychology and user interface need not apply.
(Score: -1 - Obvious)
They need to use an MPEG-4 based codec instead
But they need real-time video compression.
If you're compressing pr0n with mpeg-4, then you can use an asymetric compression such as mpeg-4, since you don't care if the compression takes ten times as long as the decompression.
A design goal of some compression algorithms is to spend a disproportionately large amount of horsepower in compression to make decompression easy for 386 machines with low-end web browsers. But the compresser guys can use high end equipment.
Now apply this algorithm to a jello-vision situation and it doesn't work. Some parts of a video might take longer to compress and some parts take less time to compress. But on a live feed, you can't have extra slow portions of compression, because the data is comming in live and you end up missing frames.
That is because Linux still uses the same primitive mechanism of using filename extensions to indicate both concepts of
A few months ago there was an article and big discussion about metadata. Given the way slashdot readers reacted to that, I predict that Linux will fall into exactly the same set of traps.
[Those who won't learn from history are doomed to re-implement it.]
On a Mac, without special 3rd-party hack programs (like ResEdit or Snitch), it CANNOT BE DONE AT ALL
Incorrect. Open desired application. From within application, File menu, Open, open the desired file. Now without making any changes to the file, re-save it in the same place with same filename.
Now the file's icon changes to that of the desired application. It now is "associated" with the new app.
This wasn't the most efficient approach, but it was the most obvious. The Mac often wastes computer resources and keystrokes at the expense of saving "brain-strokes". Although, often, if you look deeper, there are numerous shortcuts to do the same thing more efficiently.
The mac handles this with no problem.
I have many differnet mp3 players, and jpeg viewers all installed. I click on one jpeg file and it opens Photoshop. I click on another jpeg file and it opens GraphicConverter.
Those who won't learn from history are doomed to re-implement it.
What if I need to install Corel Office, Word, and Star Office?
What if it is not an acceptable option for me to have only one ".doc" handling application?
[Exercise for non-Mac users: What if multiple applications use the ".doc" suffix but store different, incompatible types of data in it?]
It's the kee-jerk solution to 90% of all pre-MacOS X problems: reeeeeebbbbuild the deeeeeesktop.
This will have the effect of changing the icons from soundjam icons to plain white icons. But it won't fix his problem.
The solution is to change the file creator to point to a different application. Don't change the file's type, just it's creator. The file is still mp3 data, even though you want to open it with a different app. Thus you change the type, and leave creator alone.
This dll doesn't make any exotic system calls. It opens some old proprietary databases with read only file access. Then the VFP program can call the dll to extract rows from the tables.
It was compiled in Delphi 3 because the original proprietary database was in Pascal. Therefore making it easy to port this old dos code into a delphi dll. Again, all it does is open files read-only, and read bytes out of the file. No exotic calculations. No odd system calls, etc. It just reads bytes out of files, interprets the proper old proprietary format, and returns typed values such as ints, dates, strings, etc.
Maybe delphi 3 doesn't generate properly written dlls? But it is a commercial compiler that was no doubt used by many thousands of people.
The DLL has been deployed for years. It works on every os up to Win2K. On Win2K it doesn't merely crash the application, but it hard crashes the machine.
many of todays so called RISC machines have more powerful instruction sets, with for example three operand instructions with multiple addressing modes.
Are you sure about the addressing modes?
I have not surveyed a lot of RISC designs. But as I recall, one basic feature was that there were very few instructions that could load and store to memory, and a limited number of memory addressing modes.
The three operands make sense. But aren't the risc instructions predominantly all register-to-register with a very large number of registers? A few register-to-memory instructions, and then you optimally schedule in your register-to-memory instructions at cricual points, rather than having to take where they fall "inside" of the CISC instruction? Basically you write several ops to "build" a CISC instruction. Then you take the overall stream of instructions and optimally schedule operations to keep all functional units busy. This is done in the compiler statically, rather than by trying to rearrange instruction execution dynamically in hardware, thus needing even more hardware. I've only read up on all of Apple's PPC propaganda during the early 90's, so I'm no expert here.
Back to addressing. Yes, I don't expect to see RISC instructions with an addressing mode such as: preindexed, double indirect, added to a register, indirected, then postindexed by another register and added to the phase of the moon.
"Do you have any hard numbers to confirm this?? RISC processors at the same speed as a CISC processor are typically SLOWER because they do LESS work per instruction than a CISC processor. "
Less work per instruction, not less work per clock cycle.
RISC, with simpler design, are easier to put more functional units onto a chip of the same size with the same technology to deposit the same number of transistors per chip. Therefore RISC can do multiple instructions per clock with proper instruction scheduling. That is, as long as you can keep all the functional units busy. Thus, the compiler's instruction scheduling can make the difference between lousy and excellent RISC performance.
Not only can you not run the Finder, which provides a gui file manager, but you can run MPW which provides a command line environment.
Need to shut down the somputer? Type Shutdown. Need to reboot? Type shutdown -r. Want to launch another application, just type it's pathname -- even if it is a standard mac gui app. Need to copy files, list directories, edit files, run compilers, make, link, pipe long series of commands together? MPW has equivalents to sed and other tools. MPW has been around on the Mac since 1986!
The point being: you don't need to run the Finder. Most people simply find it more productive. (Except when you need to use regular expressions to select some files, and don't happen to have MPW around.)
All the gui programs still run fine with no finder. The Finder is not the window manager. The finder is simply another gui program which draws icons on the desktop, lets you explore your disks, copy files, launch applications by clicking, move files to the trash folder by dragging icons, etc.
For comparison, Win2K crashes much more nicely on a machine with 256 Mb than one with only 192 Mb.
[Anecdote... So my office mate takes this Visual FoxPro application that has run for years, and runs it on Win 2K, 1 GHz, 256 Mb, and it crashes -- HARD! Blue screen. No option to continue. Must physically power off the machine. But only on some W2k, never on NT. We trace the problem down to using a DLL written in Delphi 3 that has been in use, and deployed in the field for years. Win95,98,ME,NTwks,NTserver,etc. Yeah, W2K is stable. The app didn't die, the whole machine died! And in the process takes some files along with it. In one case, destroying a user's Outlook mailbox.]
I just installed 256 MB of ram in my linux box. It cost me $36 -- delivered to my door -- including shipping.
I suppose I could hear users from the 80's say that Linux is a memory pig. It takes megabytes of ram!
As you say, KDE runs very nicely with plenty of ram. And the goal of having a computer is to make ME productive -- not some esoteric concern about the efficiency of the computer.
Of course, some people enjoy tinkering and fiddling with their computer -- just as some people do with their cars. I use a car as transportation -- not a toy to fiddle with. And there is nothing wrong with people who do the latter. It's just not most people's game.
My point is that to make me productive I don't care how much memory or megahertz it needs -- as long as it runs on reasonable hardware. (Yes, a vague term, I know.) Which I'll psuedo-define as a computer I can get for $500, w/o monitor. In a few years this $500 computer will come with 4 GB of RAM standard, and people on Slashdot will complain because some super productive tool uses up over 1 GB of RAM!, and therefore should not be used.
I don't think that's what you're saying (i.e. the parent post), this is just a general funny observation on the state of some faction of slashdot.
Maybe a better question is why Linux broke out of the "toy" os niche.
Then you would have better insight as to why there might be a next os to break out of the "toy" niche.
If another os does go from "toy" to "mainstream", then it will likely be because it addresses some real or perceived shortcomming in the range of presently available OS choices. Please don't misinterpret me. It's not that I wish to get modded down for suggesting that Linux isn't absolutely perfect in every conceivable way. I merely suggest that you re-read my first two sentences above.
Eventually Linux's age will show. It won't be as nimble at adapting to technological innovation. An ever growing monolithic kernel could eventually lead to either: [1] instability or [2] slowdown in development in order to maintain stability of a growing code base. [This prospectus contains forward looking statements, blah, blah, blah.]
Other approaches could become more attractive, or less objectionable. For example, ever increasing hardware speed can be a great compensator for a more abstract, less efficient, but easier to grow design approaches.
What I'm saying is that there is a huge inertia to overcome for a new os to go mainstream. The new approach must solve a problem that people want solved. (ala Linux vs. MS) Otherwise, people aren't motivated to change and the newcommer remains niche. And as in the free vs. ms choice, the problem to be overcome is not necesseraily or purely a technical problem.
Would a steady stream of fedex trucks be in violation of zoning laws?
Maybe I'm selling something. Maybe those trucks are making deliveries?
Do the zoning laws actually try to distinguish as to whether I'm receiving or shipping 1 million miniature anatomically correct Cmdr. Taco dolls? Or do the laws limit the number of fedex trucks?
Should it be illegal for me to post on Slashdot and say that I have ten million dollars worth of palm pilots located at:
123 Silly Street
Nowhere Nebreska, 69999
Should it be illegal for me to auction off the above mentioned items on e-bay?
I would point out that the zoning laws predate the internet, and the ability to tell 1 million people that I would like for them to please break into my house. I need the insurance claim.
So leaving out your e-bay example, is there anything else wrong with the zoning laws as written? Aren't they reasonable, as is?
niche operating systems for PCs, ...can be divided into two categories
They can be divided into one category: illegal operating systems.
SSSCA
BeoPlex?
As much as you resist Microsoft, you must admit that they currently OWN the desktop OS market for businesses.
I readily admit that MS owns the desktop.
That's the very reason they must be resisted.
Otherwise, we'll end up in a MS-only world, controlled by a company that knows no business model other than how to leverage monopolies in order to: raise prices, create new monopolies, and eliminate competition.
The MS-only road that you would so quickly go down leads to somewhere that I don't want to go today. (or tomorrow)
Follow this paragraph to it's logical conclusion. I do believe in using the right tool for the right job. And I agree that MS has an advantage in speed of developing dynamic content for MS-only clients, on an internal network. But if I must use an external network, or support non-MS clients, then I must either [1]learn other tools, or [2] learn where the line in MS tools is between MS-only crap and generic stuff. [And it is in MS's interest to keep this line hidden, or at least blurry.] [And approach 2 doesn't address security.] So, if I have an investment in a non-MS solution for developing dynamic content, then this solution is just as good a solution for an internal network of MS-only clients. In my scenerio, I think the MS-only advantage is less than you suggest. Therefore, the MS-only solution is really only significantly more appealing if you have invested in learning the MS way, and not invested in learning the generic way. So I disagree with your original conclusion that MS is the right tool for the job, even the job of internal-only, MS-only clients. Because of my different perspective (already know other solutions) in approaching the problem.
Dear Microsoft,
Thank you for your recent ammouncement that (someday) you will secure IIS.
Enclosed please find a blank, signed check.
When a more secure IIS is ready, please fill in the amount on the check, deposit it, and then ship me the new IIS. I'm patient. I'll wait until it's ready.
I know you're working very hard and that the benefit of end users is the number one concern of Microsoft.
Your loyal lackey,
MCSE guy.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Well.... yes you can (but should you?)
Just ask Congress.
[So busy worrying about whether we could, not stopping to consider whether we should, and all that.]
Remember that IIS has an intrinsic advantage in delivering dynamic application content to desktops.
Really? To any desktops? Or just to Windows desktops?
I would never put MS technology in the DMZ
Me niether.
but then again, my company couldn't survive without our MS web based thin applications internally.
But this sounds like it reinforces my first point. MS stuff is nicely integrates with other MS stuff. Maybe that's what you mean by "has an intrinsic advantage". And if you wouldn't put it in a DMZ, then that leaves only the internal applications you mention.
I must disagree with your [previous poster] statement about not considering running IIS at all
Well, maybe in this scenerio IIS would be okay. An internal application, quickly developed, and integrated with other MS stuff. (I'm assuming Windows-only on the desktop. But that could be wrong.)
No one 'deserves' to survive. It's capitalism
Okay, then, how about....
SuSE deserves to have the opportunity to compete. As do a lot of others.
Most startups aren't profitable overnight. Maybe not even for awhile. Linux has to struggle against both MS, the small market share of Linux (at present), other distro vendors, the general economic downturn, and the legacy of the dot-bombs.
If any company had to be profitable overnight to survive, without investors being willing to invest, and wait for their roi, then no Linux companies would probably exist, including Red Hat.
SuSE deserves to survive. Yes. They have an excellent product. (The only one I use.) Excellent engineering. And they deserve a chance (for awhile) to compete, be profitable, and survive in a capitalistic way. Any company in SuSE's, RH's, or Mandrake's position has a lot going against them. I wish them all well.
If they can't make it, then they don't deserve to survive.
[Extra Credit Question. Should infants be expected to survive on their own? How long should they be dependant on the resources of others who hope they'll grow up and be able to compete on their own and fend for themselves?]
"Hi honey. I'm sorry I'm late. The car died again, so I'm taking the shuttle." "Ummm, ok dear" (Wife pulls up GPS data on the internet) "huh? HONEY? WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN ORBIT!?!"
How about...
What are you doing at [Insert female acquaintence]'s house? For the past 3 hours?