I like how people think that Windows is the only fallible OS. Linux fanboyism will never die.
The grandparent post never mentioned anything about Linux, yet suddenly we have a load of AC roaches crawling out from behind the cupboard accusing him of being a Linux fanboy. Has it ever occured to you that neither Windows nor Ubuntu are suitable for this task since they are consumer targeted low security operating systems. A hardened install of RedHat or a Trusted Solaris install might begin to be suitable with additional measures, however for a weapon system use they should be using a proper secure operating system.
This use, as with many other Windows installs, was a wrong use of Windows, and you people should just give it up and say so. The people who put Windows into this position without adequate mitigating protection should be fired.
You can see it in the picture attached to the article.
I'm one of those idiots that think Windows is a great system. I've been running Windows 7 since it came out.
we can tell.
I have Windows Security Essentials installed and as a developer I visit a lot of places where a virus might lurk but I've NEVER been infected.
That you know of.
I don't trust ANYTHING that's the product of many little unpaid hands!!! Like Linux et all...
Ah, then I know why your windows machine is secure. You don't want to connect to a network for fear that your BSD written networking tools. You have authentication turned off to avoid using Kerberos and then you keep your computer safely locked away in your mother's basement. Still, the only thing I find disturbing is where you go to get your viruses if they aren't computer viruses.
Do you have a SIP client that actually works. I mean, other than in a perfectly groomed office environment with fast LAN and correctly allocated IP addresses all the way through to the SIP gateway? I mean, works as in "provides fully encrypted end to end voice with no more configuration than giving a username and password". Works as in "installs for free and almost instantly on Most Linux distros and has an interconnecting client which also works on Windows and Mac". Works as in "you can seamlessly switch on video and/or conference calling during the middle of a call". Works as in "it's very difficult for some stupid ignorant IT guy to turn off the encryption".
I have never actually seen such a thing. If someone could just provide it they would be able to take over from Skype almost instantly.
If you could make this do automated phone number verification and bypass then it would be a great success. Let people register phone number / name pairs; call them back and have them confirm a code (as Google apps does) and then when someone calls their phone number from that client route it directly to them over SIP.
challenges to research are actively encouraged in some aspects of science whereas they are unfortunately denounced in others. I am glad to see this team inviting others to find the faults if any, now to see this applied to more politically sensitive subjects would be nice
You are not the first person to drop this in to this discussion so I'll answer that. There are two fields that people typically mean by "others" evolution and climate change; the main other ones I can think of are RF radiation risks and cigarette safety. In both of these, I, a layman from each field, have been able to quickly identify fundamentally missing literature from each challenge I have seen. I don't mean "they were wrong"; I don't mean "they misunderstood". I mean, they either failed to find the basic texts of the area they were criticising or they deliberately failed to cite them.
That kind of basic failure would get you marked down in a high school science paper. In a "serious scientific criticism" it's beyond unforgivable. It's rude and a waste of people's time. People who do that do deserve to be denounced, whether they should be tarred and feathered is left as an exercise for the mercy of the average Slashdot reader.
Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only...
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 1
Okay, so let's try again.
In a fully functional language without side effects, we aren't allowed to change anything inside our function. Whilst this is elegant and makes the programming easier and better, it's a bit of a downer when we actually want to use a program to do something. A monad is a work around which lets us get around this. The monad represents a state of the world. If you pass in the state of the world to a function, the function will give you a new world back where the thing you want done has been done. Now, to achieve something you simply write a function which knows how to take the world you have and give you back the world you want. Even better, the monad that you get back can be passed to another function and so you can define a series of functions which will apply in order as steps to get whatever you want done.
Don't be stupid. There will come a point where Apple is at Samsung's mercy. If Samsung then proceeds to actually kill off Apple's product lines and close the company then they will be in the wrong (though we don't actually expect the victim to show much restraint; that's the job of the justice system). If Samsung also used it to shutdown the US economy closing down Microsoft and IBM at the same time then your post might actually be related to the situation. However, most likely they will just ask for money and some limitations on Apples behaviour. Or do you think that having successfully fought off a rapist you should tell the police to just leave him alone?
You seem very frustrated by being called on this? Did your supervisor just give you a ticking off for not? You would do better if you read bits like until the time that the other side stops in the grandparent and didn't just drop them so that you can make up the post you would like to answer instead of having to answer the post that is actually there.
Personally I'm waiting for you to condemn rape attackees for attempting to defend themselves. How dare they try to fight back. After all, fighting is always wrong - right?
No; wrong. If you are attacked you use whatever you have that you need to use to defend yourself up until the time that the other side stops. Samsung has tried the friendly, try to negotiate your way out of it, approach. Apple is out for war and Samsung has no choice but to return fire. Samsung should go nuclear as much as possible. They have 12k patents. Every single one of those that Apple is infringing should be brought up in every location where it plausibly and reasonably can be.
Most likely not; even ignoring the fact that Apple is quite likely to have broken the terms of their RAND agreement (in which case they are completely screwed). The RAND patents are the ones which are fundamental to the standard; ones which you have to have and there is no alternative to. There are lots of patents on things like power optimisation which aren't needed to implement the standard but without which you have a terrible product. This will include a whole load of clever receiver optimisations, processing stuff etc. etc. whcih Apple just will be using.
Given European arrest warrants I was wondering that too. The basic assumption is that if you break the law in a European country they can just ask to have you delivered.. Past experience seems to suggest that you don't actually have to be in the country at the time of your crime.
Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only...
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 1
I still think the Wikipedia explanation is a disaster. It's trying to explain what they are rather than what they do. Let me try one
In a fully functional language without side effects, we aren't allowed to change anything inside our function. Whilst this is elegant and makes the programming easier and better, it's a bit of a downer when we actually want to use a program to do something. A monad is a work around which lets us get around this. The monad represents a state of the world. If you pass in the state of the world to a function, the function will give you a new world back where the thing you want done has been done. Now, to achieve something you simply write a program which knows how to take the world you have and give you back the world you want.
Now this might well show my misunderstanding, so excuse that. However, if I'm right then this is seems to me a much clearer explanation than I have seen in any of the language texts.
Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only...
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 1
Do you know any examples of people doing this in a reasonably big system?
Perhaps Italians who have to live in Italy, just might be subject to Italian no matter where they hosts and are probably strongly represented in the group of people who administrate Italian Wikipedia??
A total ban on communication about or from the Wikileaks site; even a ban on accessing it from a person's home computer would be an unreasonable restraint on free speech since they are discussed everywhere. The documents are loaded, in their original form, on newspaper web sites (and not just "unclassified strories based on the documents"). The US government cannot legally place a ban on that. This is the "secret" that they really don't want you to know.
What this document tells you, beyond the explicit stuff that you can get just by reading it and I have given above is that a) they don't want you to read the documents and b) they'll do what they legally can to get you if you do. I was actually surprised because I had read about the contents of the document in a way which implied it went beyond what is legally possible and interfered with people's home life. It of course does not, they just implied it did and probably even told people that in a plausibly deniable way. Much more important is that the document is addressed to government employees as employees. It's about what the government wants you to do and not do with it's own possessions. That gives them a bunch more freedom to demand things that they could never demand about your property.
You put up a completely different sentence from the one in the document and then you ask me to work on my reading comprehension?? In a situation where I have emphasised the important clause of the exact sentence you misquote. As a response to a posting where I did it where people reading will be able to just directly see what you have done. Where do I get the drugs you take? They are clearly really really good stuff.
I'm not sure that I understand you, but as written it seems that you are restating my point. I'm exactly trying to say that a classified copy (almost certainly) remains classified even if a declassified copy exists.
This requirement applies to accessing or downloading classified information that occurs
using company-owned unclassified computers or employees' personally owned
computers that access unclassified government systems, either through remote Outlook
access or other remote access capabilities that enable connection to government systems. [my emphasis]
This is not a ban on accessing the data. This is a ban on accessing the data using systems you use for government work. The reason is that it could mess up an investigation into where data came from. Imagine, for example, someone accessed the data internally to confirm that it really was classified and then, when caught claimed they downloaded the copy from Wikileaks. This clause means that, even they got away with it, they would be guilty of a security breach.
More important point from that document:
Cleared contractors should neither confirm nor deny the presence of classified information in
articles or websites in the public domain. Doing so may constitute a security violation.
In other words, the investigators are explicitly in breach of this document for giving a clear signal that the particular chosen link is in fact a classified document.
As for the argument where the State Dept. has to admit the stuff is the same thing, that is wrong too. The US gov't has said very clearly to its employees that the wikileaks stuff may contain material that has been classified as secret or above, and to avoid it if you want to keep your job.
A generic warning that you may lose your job because there may be classified information in a group of documents is completely separate from a legal action because of a specific document. Anybody can warn in a reasonable way about almost anything and it has no real legal implication except for meaning that people have no possibility for using ignorance as a mitigating factor if they are found to breach a rule. In order to launch a legal investigation against a person you need a specific accusation of a breach of a specific rule. That means that they are either admitting that this particular link breaches classification rules or they are carrying out an investigation on false pretenses.
The label applies to the document in the state department. It does not apply to the identical but different document in Wikileaks. Imagine, for example, the state department gets a copy of a Chinese military document (e.g. specifications of a newly coming fighter plane). The document will be classified by the state department. Now imagine the Chinese publish the document (e.g. because they want to market the plane). If you take the Chinese document and publish it; tell everyone about it and say whatever you want, the state department can do nothing. Although the information is identical to the classified information this copy is not classified. If, on the other hand, a person from the state department says "oh; we already had that document" then they may well have put a secret source at considerable risk because that person was the only person who could have leaked the document earlier. This is true, whatever the current status of the information in the document.
In other words; the crime is not linking to Wikileaks. There are two potential crimes; the first is transferring information from the government system to Wikileaks. The second and more easily verifiable crime is saying that linking to Wikileaks is a crime because you are thereby admitting that the documents are real State Department documents. The investigators and other people who are claiming to know that this information is classified are the most likely criminals here.
There are loads and loads of really cheap Android phones coming out of Chinese manufacturers. They aren't much available in the US due to Microsoft patent threats, but they do exist and equivalents will come to the USA if they are needed by the market.
This is rediculous. The information is in the open so it's not classified. In fact it's even a security breach. Yes; there is the identical information in a State Department computer. The difference is that the stuff in Wikileaks is unverified. Nobody can prove it's the same stuff as in the State Department computer unless someone from the state department states that it is. In this case, the investigators are the people who should be investigated and charged with leaking the information by the act of announcing an investigation of a person who linked to public information.
The fact that bytes are identical does not mean they have identical meaning. The stuff in Wikileaks should be treated as unclassified. The stuff in the state department should not.
Mod parent up. This has class. ROTFLOL. It's far beyond our normal Microsoft shilling. I'm still not 100% sure this isn't just too far out for humour. It may be a guy who invested all his life savings (and more? a bank loan???) in Microsoft and just desperately, desperately has to believe. Anyway get yourself an account and if you can write shill posts this funny we guarantee to mod you up.
Recently economic downturn has not translated into a collapse in purchase of premium mobile devices. Nokia used to do fine. The reason seems to be that people who can't afford a new car, for example, get their premium kick by buying a new phone. I'm not saying there won't be an effect on Apple; I'm just saying don't count on it. It's more likely that the downward influence will come from Android.
I don't need a flickr app, a facebook app and a photo gallery app [...] The Hub model is far superior to the fragmented app model. [N.B. edited to make it clear what I'm responding to]
This is only true if you assume that all of the development of mobile photo handling on the internet has already happened. Or you assume that you can freeze that development for your system. In that case, photo storage is a commoditised thing. It doesn't make any difference whether you do it on Flikr or Google+. However, this isn't true. E.g. Social network photo storage interlinks the photo to a scary facial recognition system. Other people will start offering automated cropping and rotation correction services etc. etc.
The choice to downplay apps downplays development. It's an attempt to slow the internet down to Microsoft's speed by wiping out the importance of the small companies that drive innovation. I think it will fail.
You are assuming that Microsoft is doing this for logical short term business reasons. In fact the point is that Nokia became one of the companies which started challenging Microsoft seriously. They refused to take on board Windows Mobile and basically Microsoft's fight against Sony and Nokia was what distracted Microsoft and allowed Apple to get ahead. I think Microsoft is out for simple revenge and humiliation. If you assume that Microsoft will survive and be dominant then in terms of long term business logic this is sensible. They will be able to say "look at Nokia; they tried to stand up to us, the realised the futility of this now they are dead; don't make the same mistake".
I think Microsoft is now in the same state as IBM during the 80's. They can't imagine that computing could continue without them. They are trying to control the Mini-computer market and meanwhile their competitors are coming up elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how people think that Windows is the only fallible OS. Linux fanboyism will never die.
The grandparent post never mentioned anything about Linux, yet suddenly we have a load of AC roaches crawling out from behind the cupboard accusing him of being a Linux fanboy. Has it ever occured to you that neither Windows nor Ubuntu are suitable for this task since they are consumer targeted low security operating systems. A hardened install of RedHat or a Trusted Solaris install might begin to be suitable with additional measures, however for a weapon system use they should be using a proper secure operating system.
This use, as with many other Windows installs, was a wrong use of Windows, and you people should just give it up and say so. The people who put Windows into this position without adequate mitigating protection should be fired.
Gawd - why do you do this?
To save you. To save you.
Who said it's a WIndows system anyway.
You can see it in the picture attached to the article.
I'm one of those idiots that think Windows is a great system. I've been running Windows 7 since it came out.
we can tell.
I have Windows Security Essentials installed and as a developer I visit a lot of places where a virus might lurk but I've NEVER been infected.
That you know of.
I don't trust ANYTHING that's the product of many little unpaid hands!!! Like Linux et all...
Ah, then I know why your windows machine is secure. You don't want to connect to a network for fear that your BSD written networking tools. You have authentication turned off to avoid using Kerberos and then you keep your computer safely locked away in your mother's basement. Still, the only thing I find disturbing is where you go to get your viruses if they aren't computer viruses.
other voip systems away from skype
Could you please be specific here, with some idea of how happy they are. We are all open to try any one which doesn't suck.
Do you have a SIP client that actually works. I mean, other than in a perfectly groomed office environment with fast LAN and correctly allocated IP addresses all the way through to the SIP gateway? I mean, works as in "provides fully encrypted end to end voice with no more configuration than giving a username and password". Works as in "installs for free and almost instantly on Most Linux distros and has an interconnecting client which also works on Windows and Mac". Works as in "you can seamlessly switch on video and/or conference calling during the middle of a call". Works as in "it's very difficult for some stupid ignorant IT guy to turn off the encryption".
I have never actually seen such a thing. If someone could just provide it they would be able to take over from Skype almost instantly.
If you could make this do automated phone number verification and bypass then it would be a great success. Let people register phone number / name pairs; call them back and have them confirm a code (as Google apps does) and then when someone calls their phone number from that client route it directly to them over SIP.
challenges to research are actively encouraged in some aspects of science whereas they are unfortunately denounced in others. I am glad to see this team inviting others to find the faults if any, now to see this applied to more politically sensitive subjects would be nice
You are not the first person to drop this in to this discussion so I'll answer that. There are two fields that people typically mean by "others" evolution and climate change; the main other ones I can think of are RF radiation risks and cigarette safety. In both of these, I, a layman from each field, have been able to quickly identify fundamentally missing literature from each challenge I have seen. I don't mean "they were wrong"; I don't mean "they misunderstood". I mean, they either failed to find the basic texts of the area they were criticising or they deliberately failed to cite them.
That kind of basic failure would get you marked down in a high school science paper. In a "serious scientific criticism" it's beyond unforgivable. It's rude and a waste of people's time. People who do that do deserve to be denounced, whether they should be tarred and feathered is left as an exercise for the mercy of the average Slashdot reader.
In a fully functional language without side effects, we aren't allowed to change anything inside our function. Whilst this is elegant and makes the programming easier and better, it's a bit of a downer when we actually want to use a program to do something. A monad is a work around which lets us get around this. The monad represents a state of the world. If you pass in the state of the world to a function, the function will give you a new world back where the thing you want done has been done. Now, to achieve something you simply write a function which knows how to take the world you have and give you back the world you want. Even better, the monad that you get back can be passed to another function and so you can define a series of functions which will apply in order as steps to get whatever you want done.
Don't be stupid. There will come a point where Apple is at Samsung's mercy. If Samsung then proceeds to actually kill off Apple's product lines and close the company then they will be in the wrong (though we don't actually expect the victim to show much restraint; that's the job of the justice system). If Samsung also used it to shutdown the US economy closing down Microsoft and IBM at the same time then your post might actually be related to the situation. However, most likely they will just ask for money and some limitations on Apples behaviour. Or do you think that having successfully fought off a rapist you should tell the police to just leave him alone?
You seem very frustrated by being called on this? Did your supervisor just give you a ticking off for not? You would do better if you read bits like until the time that the other side stops in the grandparent and didn't just drop them so that you can make up the post you would like to answer instead of having to answer the post that is actually there.
Personally I'm waiting for you to condemn rape attackees for attempting to defend themselves. How dare they try to fight back. After all, fighting is always wrong - right?
No; wrong. If you are attacked you use whatever you have that you need to use to defend yourself up until the time that the other side stops. Samsung has tried the friendly, try to negotiate your way out of it, approach. Apple is out for war and Samsung has no choice but to return fire. Samsung should go nuclear as much as possible. They have 12k patents. Every single one of those that Apple is infringing should be brought up in every location where it plausibly and reasonably can be.
Most likely not; even ignoring the fact that Apple is quite likely to have broken the terms of their RAND agreement (in which case they are completely screwed). The RAND patents are the ones which are fundamental to the standard; ones which you have to have and there is no alternative to. There are lots of patents on things like power optimisation which aren't needed to implement the standard but without which you have a terrible product. This will include a whole load of clever receiver optimisations, processing stuff etc. etc. whcih Apple just will be using.
Given European arrest warrants I was wondering that too. The basic assumption is that if you break the law in a European country they can just ask to have you delivered.. Past experience seems to suggest that you don't actually have to be in the country at the time of your crime.
I still think the Wikipedia explanation is a disaster. It's trying to explain what they are rather than what they do. Let me try one
In a fully functional language without side effects, we aren't allowed to change anything inside our function. Whilst this is elegant and makes the programming easier and better, it's a bit of a downer when we actually want to use a program to do something. A monad is a work around which lets us get around this. The monad represents a state of the world. If you pass in the state of the world to a function, the function will give you a new world back where the thing you want done has been done. Now, to achieve something you simply write a program which knows how to take the world you have and give you back the world you want.
Now this might well show my misunderstanding, so excuse that. However, if I'm right then this is seems to me a much clearer explanation than I have seen in any of the language texts.
Do you know any examples of people doing this in a reasonably big system?
Seriously - don't host in Italy, and who cares?
Perhaps Italians who have to live in Italy, just might be subject to Italian no matter where they hosts and are probably strongly represented in the group of people who administrate Italian Wikipedia??
A total ban on communication about or from the Wikileaks site; even a ban on accessing it from a person's home computer would be an unreasonable restraint on free speech since they are discussed everywhere. The documents are loaded, in their original form, on newspaper web sites (and not just "unclassified strories based on the documents"). The US government cannot legally place a ban on that. This is the "secret" that they really don't want you to know.
What this document tells you, beyond the explicit stuff that you can get just by reading it and I have given above is that a) they don't want you to read the documents and b) they'll do what they legally can to get you if you do. I was actually surprised because I had read about the contents of the document in a way which implied it went beyond what is legally possible and interfered with people's home life. It of course does not, they just implied it did and probably even told people that in a plausibly deniable way. Much more important is that the document is addressed to government employees as employees. It's about what the government wants you to do and not do with it's own possessions. That gives them a bunch more freedom to demand things that they could never demand about your property.
You put up a completely different sentence from the one in the document and then you ask me to work on my reading comprehension?? In a situation where I have emphasised the important clause of the exact sentence you misquote. As a response to a posting where I did it where people reading will be able to just directly see what you have done. Where do I get the drugs you take? They are clearly really really good stuff.
I'm not sure that I understand you, but as written it seems that you are restating my point. I'm exactly trying to say that a classified copy (almost certainly) remains classified even if a declassified copy exists.
Crucial point from that document:
This is not a ban on accessing the data. This is a ban on accessing the data using systems you use for government work. The reason is that it could mess up an investigation into where data came from. Imagine, for example, someone accessed the data internally to confirm that it really was classified and then, when caught claimed they downloaded the copy from Wikileaks. This clause means that, even they got away with it, they would be guilty of a security breach.
More important point from that document:
In other words, the investigators are explicitly in breach of this document for giving a clear signal that the particular chosen link is in fact a classified document.
As for the argument where the State Dept. has to admit the stuff is the same thing, that is wrong too. The US gov't has said very clearly to its employees that the wikileaks stuff may contain material that has been classified as secret or above, and to avoid it if you want to keep your job.
A generic warning that you may lose your job because there may be classified information in a group of documents is completely separate from a legal action because of a specific document. Anybody can warn in a reasonable way about almost anything and it has no real legal implication except for meaning that people have no possibility for using ignorance as a mitigating factor if they are found to breach a rule. In order to launch a legal investigation against a person you need a specific accusation of a breach of a specific rule. That means that they are either admitting that this particular link breaches classification rules or they are carrying out an investigation on false pretenses.
The label applies to the document in the state department. It does not apply to the identical but different document in Wikileaks. Imagine, for example, the state department gets a copy of a Chinese military document (e.g. specifications of a newly coming fighter plane). The document will be classified by the state department. Now imagine the Chinese publish the document (e.g. because they want to market the plane). If you take the Chinese document and publish it; tell everyone about it and say whatever you want, the state department can do nothing. Although the information is identical to the classified information this copy is not classified. If, on the other hand, a person from the state department says "oh; we already had that document" then they may well have put a secret source at considerable risk because that person was the only person who could have leaked the document earlier. This is true, whatever the current status of the information in the document.
In other words; the crime is not linking to Wikileaks. There are two potential crimes; the first is transferring information from the government system to Wikileaks. The second and more easily verifiable crime is saying that linking to Wikileaks is a crime because you are thereby admitting that the documents are real State Department documents. The investigators and other people who are claiming to know that this information is classified are the most likely criminals here.
There are loads and loads of really cheap Android phones coming out of Chinese manufacturers. They aren't much available in the US due to Microsoft patent threats, but they do exist and equivalents will come to the USA if they are needed by the market.
This is rediculous. The information is in the open so it's not classified. In fact it's even a security breach. Yes; there is the identical information in a State Department computer. The difference is that the stuff in Wikileaks is unverified. Nobody can prove it's the same stuff as in the State Department computer unless someone from the state department states that it is. In this case, the investigators are the people who should be investigated and charged with leaking the information by the act of announcing an investigation of a person who linked to public information.
The fact that bytes are identical does not mean they have identical meaning. The stuff in Wikileaks should be treated as unclassified. The stuff in the state department should not.
Mod parent up. This has class. ROTFLOL. It's far beyond our normal Microsoft shilling. I'm still not 100% sure this isn't just too far out for humour. It may be a guy who invested all his life savings (and more? a bank loan???) in Microsoft and just desperately, desperately has to believe. Anyway get yourself an account and if you can write shill posts this funny we guarantee to mod you up.
Recently economic downturn has not translated into a collapse in purchase of premium mobile devices. Nokia used to do fine. The reason seems to be that people who can't afford a new car, for example, get their premium kick by buying a new phone. I'm not saying there won't be an effect on Apple; I'm just saying don't count on it. It's more likely that the downward influence will come from Android.
I don't need a flickr app, a facebook app and a photo gallery app [...] The Hub model is far superior to the fragmented app model. [N.B. edited to make it clear what I'm responding to]
This is only true if you assume that all of the development of mobile photo handling on the internet has already happened. Or you assume that you can freeze that development for your system. In that case, photo storage is a commoditised thing. It doesn't make any difference whether you do it on Flikr or Google+. However, this isn't true. E.g. Social network photo storage interlinks the photo to a scary facial recognition system. Other people will start offering automated cropping and rotation correction services etc. etc.
The choice to downplay apps downplays development. It's an attempt to slow the internet down to Microsoft's speed by wiping out the importance of the small companies that drive innovation. I think it will fail.
You are assuming that Microsoft is doing this for logical short term business reasons. In fact the point is that Nokia became one of the companies which started challenging Microsoft seriously. They refused to take on board Windows Mobile and basically Microsoft's fight against Sony and Nokia was what distracted Microsoft and allowed Apple to get ahead. I think Microsoft is out for simple revenge and humiliation. If you assume that Microsoft will survive and be dominant then in terms of long term business logic this is sensible. They will be able to say "look at Nokia; they tried to stand up to us, the realised the futility of this now they are dead; don't make the same mistake".
I think Microsoft is now in the same state as IBM during the 80's. They can't imagine that computing could continue without them. They are trying to control the Mini-computer market and meanwhile their competitors are coming up elsewhere.