I am *hoping* that you're not advocating security through obscurity?
No, but one of the frequently used arguments about why Open Source is not supposedly not secure is that it is much easier to find security holes with source code than without.
Now just how stupid is that? If you can get the Windows source code, the "security through obscurity" position is blown out of the water. And you still don't get the benefit of community patches and such.
But the problem with that is that the main reason companies/people/organizations use Windows is that it's familiar to them and compatible with all their stuff, so making it not backwards compatible would be stupid.
OK, re-reading wikipedia make me realize I was wrong about the complete rewrite. But wasn't it supposed to completely disposed of legacy cruft (and even backwards compatibility)?
I didn't say it won't route around damage. But it is now very slow to. IE has had a majority marketshare since, what? 1999? It is slowly dying, but it has been nearly a decade. If it weren't for the Eternal September, it probably wouldn't have ever gained a majority marketshare.
With ODF we have much the same situation. It just isn't spreading with the same speed it would have without n00bs on the Internet.
The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).
This isn't your average single user license, it is a giant license. It is more cost effective (I forget the name of the program that we're using) to have this than it is to get just out of band support for a variety of licenses.
A friend of mine has one of those (apparently he knows someone that works at MS). He refers to it as a "Corporate License".
Contrary to popular opinion we've looked at (non-Microsoft funded) the evidence and it would appear to cost more to migrate to a different OS at this time with the support contracts, the effort involved, and the additional toll on the help desk.
Two (or three) words: Vendor Lock-In.
Maybe a slow phase-in among the more tech-savvy?
Start pushing FOSS apps (if you haven't already) such as Firefox, OOo, Thunderbird, etc.
I'm not seeing any public documentation showing the reasoning but (and I *am* a fan of Linux in many areas) hopefully you can find something if you look hard enough.
I'll look around.
Driver issues was one of the things that abounded as the existing hardware wasn't supported entirely.
What about now?
And I assume you were looking at Fedora/RHEL because of the compatibility with the CentOS servers? Presumably, SLED/SUSE/openSUSE would work together equally well. Maybe their hardware support is better?
Corporate customers want OS that looks and performs like windows 2000, is as secure as XP and doesn't cause excess load on their IT departments.
It's not that hard to make XP (or even Vista) look like 2000. And I think you can even toggle the relevant settings while slipstreaming service packs so you don't need to do 30 minutes worth of tweaking afterwards on each machine.
Slashdot Mirror
But I want my Wraiths, Firefox^H^H^Hbats (genuine typo), Dropships, Defilers, Scourge, Dragoons, etc.
Is there any possibility of there being an official port of StarCraft 1 to StarCraft 2's game engine?
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos/another guy" that I love so much goes out the window if I actually voted for the shmuck.
I see this a lot. Who's Kodos?
Kibo for President!
Sound's like someone has read the Unix-Hater's Handbook
I am *hoping* that you're not advocating security through obscurity?
No, but one of the frequently used arguments about why Open Source is not supposedly not secure is that it is much easier to find security holes with source code than without.
MS has maintained Security Through Obscurity in their source code by making it so obtuse.
Yes, because there is absolutely no way the Chinese representative could copy it.
Now just how stupid is that? If you can get the Windows source code, the "security through obscurity" position is blown out of the water. And you still don't get the benefit of community patches and such.
Matter of fact, at this moment there is 2ft of snow not more than 40 miles from my house on the Rockpile.
Hah. I'm still getting mid-80's
But the problem with that is that the main reason companies/people/organizations use Windows is that it's familiar to them and compatible with all their stuff, so making it not backwards compatible would be stupid.
Apple pulled it off. Twice.
OK, re-reading wikipedia make me realize I was wrong about the complete rewrite. But wasn't it supposed to completely disposed of legacy cruft (and even backwards compatibility)?
I didn't say it won't route around damage. But it is now very slow to. IE has had a majority marketshare since, what? 1999? It is slowly dying, but it has been nearly a decade. If it weren't for the Eternal September, it probably wouldn't have ever gained a majority marketshare.
With ODF we have much the same situation. It just isn't spreading with the same speed it would have without n00bs on the Internet.
...the Internet treats censorship (on MS's part) as damage and will, naturally, route around it.
Ever since the Eternal September started, the Internet has been less inclined to route around technical damage such as IE and .doc
The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).
Probably because IE6 is irrelevant.
We can hammered and argue the logic of our thinking in person.
Sounds like someone already did.
...expecting any organization to completely rewrite their code for the next version of a major product is ridiculous.
Wasn't that supposed to be exactly what was going to happen with Vista?
This isn't your average single user license, it is a giant license. It is more cost effective (I forget the name of the program that we're using) to have this than it is to get just out of band support for a variety of licenses.
A friend of mine has one of those (apparently he knows someone that works at MS). He refers to it as a "Corporate License".
Contrary to popular opinion we've looked at (non-Microsoft funded) the evidence and it would appear to cost more to migrate to a different OS at this time with the support contracts, the effort involved, and the additional toll on the help desk.
Two (or three) words: Vendor Lock-In. Maybe a slow phase-in among the more tech-savvy?
Start pushing FOSS apps (if you haven't already) such as Firefox, OOo, Thunderbird, etc.
I'm not seeing any public documentation showing the reasoning but (and I *am* a fan of Linux in many areas) hopefully you can find something if you look hard enough.
I'll look around.
Driver issues was one of the things that abounded as the existing hardware wasn't supported entirely.
What about now?
And I assume you were looking at Fedora/RHEL because of the compatibility with the CentOS servers? Presumably, SLED/SUSE/openSUSE would work together equally well. Maybe their hardware support is better?
Oh, a little over 10 years ago.
Corporate customers want OS that looks and performs like windows 2000, is as secure as XP and doesn't cause excess load on their IT departments.
It's not that hard to make XP (or even Vista) look like 2000. And I think you can even toggle the relevant settings while slipstreaming service packs so you don't need to do 30 minutes worth of tweaking afterwards on each machine.
Any idea when 2.8 will come around? Currently it looks like they are still focusing on 2.6.x
...we're comfortable with what we have and haven't any reason to change at this time.
Money. Less spent on MS licenses means more for useful projects.
At least you can clean this, unlike paper books.
The Sony Reader can. As can the Hanlin eReaderand many more