Well, if they decide to preempt the judge and break themselves in half, the "MS Apps" company would be more likely to port to Linux and more stuff to the Mac.
Corel ports their stuff anywhere it will sell. Lotus used to port to OS/2 and has full Notes support on the Mac. --
My understanding is that Office is written is some sorta pseudo code so that it can easily be ported. Of course the psuedo code interpreter is more optimized on Windows than the Mac.
(What I don't understand is how certain command errors in Word report "WordBASIC Error". Is part of the program written in WordBASIC?) --
I've been using Word since Mac v3.0, and am far too lazy to learn a new word processor, as a recent run-in with Lotus Word Pro proved.
(I'm the kinda nerd that believes in documentation, so a good word processor is essential. Although, I'm sure the ubernerds just use emacs or latex or code the whole document in raw postscript.) --
So x86 isn't the best processor for all applicaitons. Big Deal - neither is any other processor. Nor do I care about Titanic rendering or RC5 cracking, because those are very specialized applications that I don't do. (I do a little audio, and the tools are all on x86 too.)
You're right about the historical longevity of Macs and Mac applications. I use a Quadra 950 (1990) from time-to-time with Netscape 4 and MS Word 6.0. However, that's a testament to the system design, not the CPU. (People write novels on 386s with WordPerfect 5.1 too.)
Most Mac users I know don't give a crap about what the CPU is called. Those of you advocates who have been repeatedly told since 1993 that sooner or later PPC is going to scale way past x86 were lied to. Maybe in a few years, but not yet, so get over with it. --
Let's say that you've convinced your skeptical IS manager to put some boxes on Linux, but only if you have a support contract, just so everyone feels better.
Here's your options:
(1) SuSe (Who?) (2) Some local consultant that will vouch for Debian or Slackware (Right.) (3) Red Hat (evil) (4) Caldera (more evil) (5) All of the above (bzzz. Not an option.)
OK, the PowerPC and Alpha might have life spans ranging 10 years from today, whereas the x86 might have 5 years tops.
Does that mean that buying a G3 or an Alpha workstation todayis a smarter buy than buying an x86 workstation today?
I think not -- by the time Intel+AMD can't scale x86 anymore (2005?), your old 1999 G3/Alpha will be pretty much obsolete, except to run 1999-era software.
It's like telling someone not to buy a 1999 Mustang because the 2004 Camero is going to kick it's ass. Think about it. --
Are you saying that there's no combination of compiler options and libraries that will not break, no matter the Linux distribution?
The advantage is, with source, you can fix these problems, maybe.
(If you think Windows is bad, look at the MacOS. Everytime they do a.01 patch or a new Mac comes out, 10 major apps break. The users and vendors are just used to it.)
A reasonably well written 16-bit Windows application will run on 3.1 through 2000, OS/2, and probably WINE too. Likewise with DOS apps. You might not have the dancing paperclip, but it will work well enough.
Where as with Unix systems, you're going to have to roll a IFDEF combo and compile for each Unix OS you run across. Look at commercial Unix vendors. Do any of them have support for *all* Unixes? If not and it's so easy, why not? --
By the end of the year, the antitrust trial might be over and Windows 2000 might be out. The hype machine will be in overdrive, and good Unix/Linux press is going to dry up like last week's potroast.
These guys have to sell sexy new stuff to push their ads. Right now, MS has got nothing, so they look elsewhere. Enter Linux. The columnist even dares to hype Unix (in general), a topic that every core market PC Week reader (aka IS Managers) thinks they know all about.
(Of course, most of them haven't touched a Unix box since their college timeshare system in 1981.)
If someone runs into your office and yells "Hackers got into our website", the word in question will mean "crackers" to you, unless you are an ignoramous.
What you are arguing for is either a pedantic internal differeniation ("Janitors" versus "Custodial Engineers" or "Nerds" versus "Geeks") or a political attempt to redefine or reclaim the word (the rap band "Niggers With Attitude").
You probably are attempting the latter, but then I wouldn't call IceCube a nigger either.
Oh, I really remember there were a huge amount of competing commercial offers for {Apache, Sendmail, Bind} when they were released. Care to name one?
I'll bite on this:
Sendmail - There's been hundreds of propretary e-mail products, some of which must pre-date sendmail. How about X.400 systems?
Apache - Lotus Notes predates the HTTP by quite a bit, and does essentially the same thing. There's been other document delivery systems
Bind - Can't name any off hand, but IBM had large internal mainframe networks long ago. Surely they must have had some form of name resolution. SNA? --
What a shock... Microsoft denying the Linux is threatening their position in the market...
Actually, it is sorta surprising In the past Microsoft has been able to paint their competitors as being less powerful, harder to use, or "legacy". Linux is the first competition that is arguably newer, sexier, and more powerful than Windows.
So far MS has being dealing with the "Linux threat" the same way that Novell, IBM, and Sun dealt with the "NT threat", that is, ignoring it or dismissing it.
Which is not to say that MS is that stupid. They usually keep a part-time consultant on site at their big customers. I'm sure these guys are ready to report to Redmond as soon any smell of Linux starts coming in (especially with Samba, cuz SMB licenses are their bread-and-butter.)
--
Who on Slashdot is Stupid enough....
on
Windows ID
·
· Score: 1
MS probably only uses this info for individuals and very small businesses. Big companies (with site licenceses) have their software so hap-hazardly installed that it's impossible for MS to track. Microsoft doesn't really care, if you are paying for it. --
"Full Control" means you can change the ACL, aka you are "owner". Why not make the user's owner? Because some of them will grant "Full control" to "All Users" for what ever reason, and then come back and bitch that there's a security hole -- believe me, it happens.
Your example breaks, because "other" is everyone else, not just "Report Readers". Why expose information to people who are not supposed to have it? Furthermore in an NT domain or an NDS tree, "Other" could be 100,000 or more people that you've got no control over, not just your 8 local users or whatever.
As other's have pointed out, in a large distributed system (like AFS), you need ACLs.
As for Applications which bypass normal OS security, take a look at Lotus Domino -- it has an even more complex ACL model than NT or NetWare does. --
This "feature" was widely publicized when Windows 95 was released, and is somewhat widely known. For those of you who don't use MS software, here's how it works:
(1) When you install Windows, Office, or any other MS software, the setup program has a screen which tells you the GUID. You can also see it from a Help dialog. So, it's existance is no secret.
(If it didn't occur to you that this could be used for tracking, you just never thought about it. Strange because everyone is so MS-paranoid.)
(2) When you use the "Register" program with 95 or NT, or you use an ActiveX thingy on the Win98 "Windows Update", it scans your registry and Windows subdirectory for various competitive products, like WordPerfect or Lotus Notes. (I've heard that it does not upload a list of all installed software - but I have not checked myself.) It also uploads all of your MS GUIDs.
You can actually use the Windows Update site by just refusing to let the Survey ActiveX run. Set your IE security preferences properly.
(3) If you call MS technical support, you will also need to turn over a "Registration Number".
(4) If you attempt to use Microsoft's web support stuff, like the Knowledge Base or downloads, you will need to fill out a standard marketing survey (Do you make computer buying decisions? What industry do you work for?) All of this information is stored in a user profile (cookie-based) which can presumably be associated with your GUID info.
So, nerdboys, if you are using a pirated copy of Windows 98 or MS Office, just don't register it and don't use Windows Update, and certainly don't call technical support. If you would do something that stupid, you deserve to get tracked down.
On the other hand, if you are legit, this all seems like the standard marketing information that every company is trying to get. Kinda cheezy that they don't tell you what's going on, but certainly not a police state tactic, because it is all optional.
As for GUIDs in your Word and Excel documents - just how many of the gazillion Word and Excel documents in existance does Microsoft see? --
I think what we're seeing here is a certain Linux elitism -- "Linux doesn't have ACLs, so there not really useful." Unfortunately this is counter to the experience of thousands of production NetWare and NT administrators.
Seeing an ACL like this is quite common on any NT or NetWare file sharing box:
Report Readers - Read Report Editors - Read/Write Administrators - Full Control
Yes, I know that there are workarounds for the brain-dead Unix permissions, but please let all of us unenlightened system administrators know how the above ACL is not useful "in practice".
(This seems just about as good of a time as any to ask this...)
Does anyone know if there is a way to run Solaris x86 binaries on Linux? I've heard of such things with *BSD, but never with Linux. I'm thinking it might be the quickest/easiest way to get a Lotus Notes client up and running.
(I have Solaris 7 installed on my PC. Any magic libraries that need to be copied? If this is impossible now, could "open source Solaris" help?)
Last time the "SAFE" bill came up, it was completely amended into a police state measure by the time it got out of committee.
We'll see how far "key recovery" goes when the big corporations wake up and realize that "key recovery" means "Give us all of your Lotus Notes IDs, SMIME and Web server certificates." Fascism isn't so fun when it interferes with big business.
Slashdot Mirror
Office is the profit center for MS. If they had Windows only, /. longhairs would have less complaining to do:
Windows 98 $98 (DOS/Win Market Share 80%??)
Windows NTW $198 (5-10%)
Office $600 (90%, including Macs)
Office 2000 $lots more
--
Well, if they decide to preempt the judge and break themselves in half, the "MS Apps" company would be more likely to port to Linux and more stuff to the Mac.
Corel ports their stuff anywhere it will sell. Lotus used to port to OS/2 and has full Notes support on the Mac.
--
My understanding is that Office is written is some sorta pseudo code so that it can easily be ported. Of course the psuedo code interpreter is more optimized on Windows than the Mac.
(What I don't understand is how certain command errors in Word report "WordBASIC Error". Is part of the program written in WordBASIC?)
--
I've been using Word since Mac v3.0, and am far too lazy to learn a new word processor, as a recent run-in with Lotus Word Pro proved.
(I'm the kinda nerd that believes in documentation, so a good word processor is essential. Although, I'm sure the ubernerds just use emacs or latex or code the whole document in raw postscript.)
--
Well, if you go to the bookstore, you'll see a 15 pound set of books called "Windows NT Server Resource Kit", aka, the f*ing manual.
Show me Microsoft marketing that implys you can support NT server without manuals or training. Can't? Then shut your AC piehole.
--
Their support is pretty brain dead, although if you are persistant they might actually get an engineer to try to reproduce the problem.
I can understand why they are brain dead, tho. They get a lot of stupid calls from dolts who didn't RTFM or slept through their MCSE class.
--
So x86 isn't the best processor for all applicaitons. Big Deal - neither is any other processor. Nor do I care about Titanic rendering or RC5 cracking, because those are very specialized applications that I don't do. (I do a little audio, and the tools are all on x86 too.)
You're right about the historical longevity of Macs and Mac applications. I use a Quadra 950 (1990) from time-to-time with Netscape 4 and MS Word 6.0. However, that's a testament to the system design, not the CPU. (People write novels on 386s with WordPerfect 5.1 too.)
Most Mac users I know don't give a crap about what the CPU is called. Those of you advocates who have been repeatedly told since 1993 that sooner or later PPC is going to scale way past x86 were lied to. Maybe in a few years, but not yet, so get over with it.
--
Let's say that you've convinced your skeptical IS manager to put some boxes on Linux, but only if you have a support contract, just so everyone feels better.
Here's your options:
(1) SuSe (Who?)
(2) Some local consultant that will vouch for Debian or Slackware (Right.)
(3) Red Hat (evil)
(4) Caldera (more evil)
(5) All of the above (bzzz. Not an option.)
--
OK, the PowerPC and Alpha might have life spans ranging 10 years from today, whereas the x86 might have 5 years tops.
Does that mean that buying a G3 or an Alpha workstation todayis a smarter buy than buying an x86 workstation today?
I think not -- by the time Intel+AMD can't scale x86 anymore (2005?), your old 1999 G3/Alpha will be pretty much obsolete, except to run 1999-era software.
It's like telling someone not to buy a 1999 Mustang because the 2004 Camero is going to kick it's ass. Think about it.
--
Are you saying that there's no combination of compiler options and libraries that will not break, no matter the Linux distribution?
The advantage is, with source, you can fix these problems, maybe.
(If you think Windows is bad, look at the MacOS. Everytime they do a
--
A reasonably well written 16-bit Windows application will run on 3.1 through 2000, OS/2, and probably WINE too. Likewise with DOS apps. You might not have the dancing paperclip, but it will work well enough.
Where as with Unix systems, you're going to have to roll a IFDEF combo and compile for each Unix OS you run across. Look at commercial Unix vendors. Do any of them have support for *all* Unixes? If not and it's so easy, why not?
--
By the end of the year, the antitrust trial might be over and Windows 2000 might be out. The hype machine will be in overdrive, and good Unix/Linux press is going to dry up like last week's potroast.
These guys have to sell sexy new stuff to push their ads. Right now, MS has got nothing, so they look elsewhere. Enter Linux. The columnist even dares to hype Unix (in general), a topic that every core market PC Week reader (aka IS Managers) thinks they know all about.
(Of course, most of them haven't touched a Unix box since their college timeshare system in 1981.)
--
Can you provide a reference for this claim?
(My understanding was that Win2000 would support more processors, not less!)
--
If someone runs into your office and yells "Hackers got into our website", the word in question will mean "crackers" to you, unless you are an ignoramous.
What you are arguing for is either a pedantic internal differeniation ("Janitors" versus "Custodial Engineers" or "Nerds" versus "Geeks") or a political attempt to redefine or reclaim the word (the rap band "Niggers With Attitude").
You probably are attempting the latter, but then I wouldn't call IceCube a nigger either.
--
Oh, I really remember there were a huge amount of competing commercial offers for {Apache, Sendmail, Bind} when they were released. Care to name one?
I'll bite on this:
Sendmail - There's been hundreds of propretary e-mail products, some of which must pre-date sendmail. How about X.400 systems?
Apache - Lotus Notes predates the HTTP by quite a bit, and does essentially the same thing. There's been other document delivery systems
Bind - Can't name any off hand, but IBM had large internal mainframe networks long ago. Surely they must have had some form of name resolution. SNA?
--
What a shock... Microsoft denying the Linux is threatening their position in the market...
Actually, it is sorta surprising In the past Microsoft has been able to paint their competitors as being less powerful, harder to use, or "legacy". Linux is the first competition that is arguably newer, sexier, and more powerful than Windows.
So far MS has being dealing with the "Linux threat" the same way that Novell, IBM, and Sun dealt with the "NT threat", that is, ignoring it or dismissing it.
Which is not to say that MS is that stupid. They usually keep a part-time consultant on site at their big customers. I'm sure these guys are ready to report to Redmond as soon any smell of Linux starts coming in (especially with Samba, cuz SMB licenses are their bread-and-butter.)
--
Premiere: ???
Quark: ???
AfterEffects: ???
$$$!
--
MS probably only uses this info for individuals and very small businesses. Big companies (with site licenceses) have their software so hap-hazardly installed that it's impossible for MS to track. Microsoft doesn't really care, if you are paying for it.
--
"Full Control" means you can change the ACL, aka you are "owner". Why not make the user's owner? Because some of them will grant "Full control" to "All Users" for what ever reason, and then come back and bitch that there's a security hole -- believe me, it happens.
Your example breaks, because "other" is everyone else, not just "Report Readers". Why expose information to people who are not supposed to have it? Furthermore in an NT domain or an NDS tree, "Other" could be 100,000 or more people that you've got no control over, not just your 8 local users or whatever.
As other's have pointed out, in a large distributed system (like AFS), you need ACLs.
As for Applications which bypass normal OS security, take a look at Lotus Domino -- it has an even more complex ACL model than NT or NetWare does.
--
This "feature" was widely publicized when Windows 95 was released, and is somewhat widely known. For those of you who don't use MS software, here's how it works:
(1) When you install Windows, Office, or any other MS software, the setup program has a screen which tells you the GUID. You can also see it from a Help dialog. So, it's existance is no secret.
(If it didn't occur to you that this could be used for tracking, you just never thought about it. Strange because everyone is so MS-paranoid.)
(2) When you use the "Register" program with 95 or NT, or you use an ActiveX thingy on the Win98 "Windows Update", it scans your registry and Windows subdirectory for various competitive products, like WordPerfect or Lotus Notes. (I've heard that it does not upload a list of all installed software - but I have not checked myself.) It also uploads all of your MS GUIDs.
You can actually use the Windows Update site by just refusing to let the Survey ActiveX run. Set your IE security preferences properly.
(3) If you call MS technical support, you will also need to turn over a "Registration Number".
(4) If you attempt to use Microsoft's web support stuff, like the Knowledge Base or downloads, you will need to fill out a standard marketing survey (Do you make computer buying decisions? What industry do you work for?) All of this information is stored in a user profile (cookie-based) which can presumably be associated with your GUID info.
So, nerdboys, if you are using a pirated copy of Windows 98 or MS Office, just don't register it and don't use Windows Update, and certainly don't call technical support. If you would do something that stupid, you deserve to get tracked down.
On the other hand, if you are legit, this all seems like the standard marketing information that every company is trying to get. Kinda cheezy that they don't tell you what's going on, but certainly not a police state tactic, because it is all optional.
As for GUIDs in your Word and Excel documents - just how many of the gazillion Word and Excel documents in existance does Microsoft see?
--
To follow myself up --
(1) I fully expect that someone will develop "ext3" or whatever that has ACLs and other desirable features within a year or two.
(2) I actually do know the difference between "they're" and "there".
--
I think what we're seeing here is a certain Linux elitism -- "Linux doesn't have ACLs, so there not really useful." Unfortunately this is counter to the experience of thousands of production NetWare and NT administrators.
Seeing an ACL like this is quite common on any NT or NetWare file sharing box:
Report Readers - Read
Report Editors - Read/Write
Administrators - Full Control
Yes, I know that there are workarounds for the brain-dead Unix permissions, but please let all of us unenlightened system administrators know how the above ACL is not useful "in practice".
--
How about a keyboard that isn't so cheap that it feels like it's made of cardboard.
$1000 CPU + $5 keyboard + crappy power supply + flickertron monitor = crappy computer (but that's what folks are selling to the poor ignorant masses.)
The computer industry will regret burning people by saving pennies on the components just so they can afford Intel's high margin CPUs.
(This seems just about as good of a time as any to ask this...)
Does anyone know if there is a way to run Solaris x86 binaries on Linux? I've heard of such things with *BSD, but never with Linux. I'm thinking it might be the quickest/easiest way to get a Lotus Notes client up and running.
(I have Solaris 7 installed on my PC. Any magic libraries that need to be copied? If this is impossible now, could "open source Solaris" help?)
Thanks for any pointers...
Last time the "SAFE" bill came up, it was completely amended into a police state measure by the time it got out of committee.
We'll see how far "key recovery" goes when the big corporations wake up and realize that "key recovery" means "Give us all of your Lotus Notes IDs, SMIME and Web server certificates." Fascism isn't so fun when it interferes with big business.