Oh come on. Sandbox software like Flash should never have an unhandled exception. It's Macromedia's fault that IE had to catch the exception, not vice versa.
All for the sake of the 0.02% of macro-writers out there
While not many people write macros ad-hoc, the document "OnLoad" or "Autostart" type functionality is used by a large portion of the market. This is due to large corporations who tie their document management system, or custom Excel toolbars into all documents via this mechanism. MS biggest fault was not in giving it's customer this much needed functionality, it was in not requiring the macros to be signed before invocating by default. This was a lesson they learned the hardway.
But you can't look at a limited market like Apple has and say "See, if only MS had done it this way". Because Apple would have bent over to the large corporate customers as fast as MS did.
When a 200k seat install customer calls you up and says "Look, we need a way so we can tag all our documents, and each time they get loaded check to make sure a newer version doesn't exist in the document management system...." you're going to do whatever you can as fast as you can for that client.
Don't forget MS and most other companies were BLINDSIDED by the internet. When MS thought of security, they thought of closed loop networks and the 'security' of Dial-In/RAS on NT boxes. They didn't think of mail worms, or MS Word based virii. Unix came from an environment where it was second nature to worry about being rooted. Windows did not. Two OS, built for two very different purposes, and grew up in two very different neighboorhoods. One's poor and street smart, the other rich and oblivious to the dangers out there.
wake up and realize that Microsoft has decidedly turned away from security in favor of whiz-bang features that look good printed on the software box
..cough..cough.. A/UX... cough cough
Anyhow, thats just the troll trash in you talking. Seriously, you give MS too much credit, in them knowing the danger the future held for their features. You have to think of WHEN the built these features, and how new they were to networking security in general. My guess is most of the deadly code was written in 1995. Legacy support carried it in all versions from then on. MS biggest achiles heel is legacy support. But it's how they managed to keep their install base, and grow it.
Also, MS software engineers, like most other software engineers, put too must trust in the end user. This used to be a common pitfall for all sorts of software. When MS Office went mainstream, it took millions in usability study and mentoring of the Office architects to convey to them just how stupid most of the users are. It wasn't until they understood that did we start seeing dialog boxes pop up and ask "Are you sure!?!?!" which up until then was a GUI no-no (see Inmates Are Running the Asylum).
Look over the CERT advisories and some Virii databases for the past 10 years, and you'll get a sense of the number of software packages that had (in hindsight) blantently dangerous features. Hell, look at all the holes and security failures in CISCO software. The backbone of the Internet.
And apple isn't immune. What's scary is, for the most part, Mac users know less about their OS then windows users (partly because the OS does such a good job at user-friendliness). My friends that use Macs are mostly in Graphics/Design/Publishing. They are a social-engineering nightmare in terms of protection for trojans. Luckily, so far, they are rarely targeted.
now, it's Win2k Server running dedicated applications, databases, or simple file/print/authentication services.
We don't always patch immediately because these servers can be spread out all over the US. Security isn't an issue because of the closed network and filters.
Kutaragi sees PS2 as Sony's Trojan horse. The idea is that consumers will bring the device into their living rooms to play WipeOut and Crash Bandicoot and end up using it for all kinds of broadband entertainment. If everything goes according to Kutaragi's plan, PlayStation will lead Sony in a transformation from a producer of games, gadgets, CDs and movies to a "broadband delivery company." Future versions of the console will still give you games, but also music, online shopping, even interactive services. Already Sony has signed a deal with J.P. Morgan to deliver home banking through the PS2.
Ken Kutaragi has always had this plan for the PS2. He just couldn't convince Sony to ship it with Ethernet built in. Where as Xbox's Allard went to the mat to ship with the extra cost.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with Microsoft running my game server code for me; as others have mentioned, they probably won't do that good a job. And who will the customers blame? Me
You've got it backwards. If i'm trying to play HALO over the Xbox network, and it's dog slow, who am I mad at (think console gamer mentality)? I'm mad at MS, because this is their console/system. Bungie is nothing more than some label on my DVD case.
Also, what MS is fixing to do here is coup EA. By offering to essentially run an ASP model with developers, they are allowing the little 20 person shops that sprouted up all over Austin and other places, to compete with the big boys. "Hey guys, give us your servers and we'll handle the hosting for, just write your game to use this common user-tracking API and we'll pay you based on how much your service is used".
What Sony is going to have, is a fractured network, where only the big boys can afford the have their systems spread out enough to prevent brutal latency issues and bottlenecks.
So Apple can produce both it's own Hardware and Software/OS. SUN can do the same. IBM can do the same. But if MS does it, it's Dr. Evil and the fate of the free world is at stake.
Come on. Give it up. Think down the road, in 500 years do you think anyone will even care? This will all pass, and people 500 years from now will not likely know the name of the manufactuer of their central house OS anymore than they know the brand of toliet bowl they use.
It will essentially run in a tunnel through the existing infrastructure
GASP! Sounds like they plan on using TCP/IP as a BACKBONE to run some HIGHER LEVEL - PROPRIETARY PROTOCOL over it to their DATACENTERS. I bet the bastards plan on having high-speed direct links between datacenters to prevent the Internet itself from being a bottle neck for there customers THOSE CRAZY NETWORK ENGINEERS AT MS! How dare they think this through! How dare they learn from Origins Ultima Online, Sony's Everquest, and the other doze MMORPG that had painfull starts and data center nightmares.
but at some point in the future, there's no reason that they couldn't migrate on to something else, say a wireless network that had its own protocols, address scheme, etc
EGADS You're right! That's the point of www.teledesic.com and why bill invested in them so long ago! They are going to spend billions ot get a LEO sat constenllation in the air, offering the world high speed anywhere/anytime internet access, and then they will cut off their own legs and force users of their system to only interact with other users of their system. Because Compuserve and AOL and even early MSN all proved that CLOSED NETWORKS BEAT THE INTERNET EVERYTIME! i mean, not like i ever leave the *.msn.com domain structure.
Bill Gates has been kicking himself in the ass for the last 10 years because he didn't discover the internet soon enough to dominate it,
I can tell you read his books. You speak with perfect clarity on the matter. Not like those others that simply read The Register and rehash the viewpoint of a disgruntled poorly paid writer.
and he's got to be salivating at the idea of an essentially private user space that he controls lock stock and barrel
Do you think Sony salivates over Sony Station? Wouldn't Bill be salivating over The Zone right now? How about the old HEAT network and some of those other gaming lobbies. MMMmmmmm those were profitable weren't they!
Do you think EA's going to be any different with their OWN proprietary lobby system running ontop of PS2? The difference will be you pay them directly, and every other publisher you use an online game with PS2.
If he pursued this for all it was worth, he could do it with his other $39 billion... I wonder what kind of return on his investment he would eventually get?
Nothing, he'd lose 39 billion. He'd make more money leaving it in the bank than he ever would on an lame Dr. Evil plan like you thought up here.
I wonder what you and some others around here would do if he DID take his billions and do something like wire every community with it's own community computer lab. Praise him as the Carnegie of our time? Doubtfull, more likely bitch that the computers ran windows. Or worse, act as though you are, and have always been, entitled to it.
Attention Bidders: Please be advised that this experience may be utilized for up to one year from the close of this auction. And that the proceeds of this auction (All profits Generated from this sale) will go to benefit "The Deane F. Johnson Alzheimer's Foundation" that supports "The Motion Picture Fund" and "Harry's Haven" (A specialized unit of "The Motion Picture Home" devoted to the care and well-being of patients in the entertainment industry suffering with Alzheimer's). The unit "Harry's Haven" was named in memory of Harry Demsky, Kirk Douglas's father in recognition of Mr. Douglas's generous support.
So you get a 1 year window of opportunity for who knows what the final bid is (my guess is the reserve is atleast 25mil) of which the profits (it's 20mil according to the spaceadventures.com site, so say 5mil profit) goes to benefit a foundation that supports a fund, that really supports a specialized unit that's purely dedicated to support patients (in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ONLY) that suffer with a very specific diseas.
WTF ARE THEY SMOKING, AND CAN I BRING SOME OF THAT TO THE ISS WITH ME!?!?!?
I know this is Slashdot, and so I shouldn't be surprised to see a comment such as this posted by an individual with hearsay information and token knowledge of a system they simply bought on a computer. Now before i follow my temptation to make this a flame, i'll switch to trying, as a somewhat expert in this field, answer some of your (Valid) concerns.
As for "windows in many of it's flavours is unstable..." well, any OS in any of it's flavor can be unstable. I and many in my profession happen to have Win2k (and in the past used NT boxes) that ran for months if not years. Stable, chugging a long, doing what we needed them to.
My guess is, you 'using it mostly for gaming' means running win9x flavor with flaky video drivers and even flakier game code (JohnC's code exluded from that statement). Still, win9x is old tech, and not very good. Win2k has run all my games for the last 2 years it seems to me.
As for MS witholding interfaces, please, show me where they did that.. which interfaces were these? what did they control? You have the win32 API, you got WINE that implements it, most things run fine in WINE... where is the problem?
As for MS not wanting people to Clone windows... well no shit. I'd be pretty pissed if someone cloned any of the software systems I built and sold to customers. And I'd be 10x more piss if they used the gov't to force me to make it easy for them to clone my stuff. Monopoly argument aside for now, my point is merely to persuade you (and others) to focus on what MS has REALLY done wrong, and not parlay it into vapor acusations.
Also, you or I (well I know I could, not sure if you are a programmer or not)could build (copy, clone, duplicate) MS Office. You have a few options on how (reverse engineer it, closed-room reengineer it), but the Win32 API won't prevent you from doing so. Office ain't all that.
What you should have been asking about cloning is more along the lines of the Middleware software. Like MSMQ. Which is thrown in Win2k 'for free'. Something I doubt IBM and MQSeries enjoys.
Well, can't believe I spent this much time on this little statement of yours. I supposed i'm easily trolled. But honestly, if you are going to have MS as your enemy and preach on/. about it, know WHY you they are your enemy.
I'm curious. As someone who's been programming against the win32 API for a long time now, what precisely in your opinion is not properly documented by any of the SDK's?
Granted I don't use all aspects of the API, so perhaps parts of it are poor, but the parts I use are highly documented, examples given, and all sorts of other goodies. This is what dragged me, and many hundreds of thousands of other developers into the MS world where we make a good living building solutions to business problems.
If M$ had the power to 'accidentally' disconnect EAs online games, then EA would not be able to make free decisions about what games are made for the Xbox, and so would be bound into supporting M$ for ever, even if it made more economic sense for them not to.
I think what MS wants to prevent, is in a year from now, people like you going "GOD DAMN, XBox Madden Online is DOG SLOW. F#$%ING MS SUCKS, THEIR NETWORK IS KRAP!" when in fact, it's EA's servers that can't handle the load (look back: Ultima Online History).
A large portion of console owners recognize games as "MS Games, Sony Games, and Ninetendo Games" they rarely known the actual game company that produced the game they play. Nor do they care. So when the game doesn't work the way they expect, especially an on-line game, it's MS|Sony|Nintendo FAULT!.
Also, your threat of 'accidental' server disconnection is like Worldcomm 'accidentally' shutting down competiors that may use UU.Net for hosting. Or say, they 'accidentally' block router traffic going through their networks to competitors sites. Yes it's possible, hell it's easy... but contracts, and agreements make it excessivly costly in penalities/lawsuits.
And besides, if you read the article, EA was bitching about customer privacy. It's a load of crap aimed at using the press to strong arm some part of the negotiation we aren't privy too. Its more likely this has something to do with royalties. EA's no better than your vision of MS. Ask any of the companies the ate.
Graphics are client side, that wouldn't be boging down the servers. The chocobo may have 10k polygons, but to the server, it's nothing more than an object with an ID and some unique properties.
H.323 nearly killed this whole application space. It's overly complex and typical of an offspring from ITU-T. Think of it as the "Telco guys" solution to all this.
SIP is from IETF, mixes much better with typical Internet scenarios (NAT, firewalls...etc). It's also far easier to code to.
SIP is the future, it is what is enabling the VOIP dialtone provider boom (it really is a boom, it's just hard to tell).
For example, right now, in less than 10mins, you can go to www.denwa.com, give them your credit card info, and get a SIP dialtone. That includes a DID number (phone number basically, they offer several area codes), optional voice mail, and pretty much any call feature you can think of (as if you owned your own PBX).
You can use a software based SIP device to make/receive calls, or you can use a VOIP/SIP enabled phone (like the Cisco 7960 you see in Fox's 24). You can also buy a FXS/FXO device and enable any POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) phone (generally not worth the cost).
Anyone who pays for a Cable Modem and pays the telco for phone lines should consider dropping the telco completly, and instead signing up for a SIP Dialtone. It really is that easy.
NT solved the multiuser processing and Terminal Services solved the headless box problem.
I think many people are so upset with MS about the practices that occured in the past, they are blind to the changes in NT/Win2k in the last 5 years. And MS has always catered to the Developers, and the developers (who develop those million of applications average Joe and Jane use in the office) are whats keeping Joe and Jane from jumping to Linux.
People can make fun of VB and MS Access and VBA/Office developers all they want, but they pull in serious money and solve many business problems with relatively little code.
.Net (if the vb/office developers can 'grasp' it) will only server to legitimize their work (when ported to it).
Private citizen who happened to be able to co-write the paper with the software engineer behind the IBM Cryptographic Co-Processor used as the primary engine of this little 'vault'.
Gee, I wonder if IBM is hoping ISPs and Gov't will need say, 50k of these little chips... oh.. and the licensing to use the software.
Private "Corporate" Citizen more like it. This isn't being done out of the kindness of one stundents heart, this is about money. It always is.
SOAP standard makes it easy to filter/block SOAP calls. But the key is, you can do it per-interface and per-method.
SOAP clients send their data using M-POST, which mandates the server understand the Interface URI header, and the method-name header.
This should allow network admins to restrict/allow specifically what they desire, and not force them to have to turn off SOAP through a firewall as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. Sandbox software like Flash should never have an unhandled exception. It's Macromedia's fault that IE had to catch the exception, not vice versa.
While not many people write macros ad-hoc, the document "OnLoad" or "Autostart" type functionality is used by a large portion of the market. This is due to large corporations who tie their document management system, or custom Excel toolbars into all documents via this mechanism. MS biggest fault was not in giving it's customer this much needed functionality, it was in not requiring the macros to be signed before invocating by default. This was a lesson they learned the hardway.
But you can't look at a limited market like Apple has and say "See, if only MS had done it this way". Because Apple would have bent over to the large corporate customers as fast as MS did.
When a 200k seat install customer calls you up and says "Look, we need a way so we can tag all our documents, and each time they get loaded check to make sure a newer version doesn't exist in the document management system...." you're going to do whatever you can as fast as you can for that client.
Don't forget MS and most other companies were BLINDSIDED by the internet. When MS thought of security, they thought of closed loop networks and the 'security' of Dial-In/RAS on NT boxes. They didn't think of mail worms, or MS Word based virii. Unix came from an environment where it was second nature to worry about being rooted. Windows did not. Two OS, built for two very different purposes, and grew up in two very different neighboorhoods. One's poor and street smart, the other rich and oblivious to the dangers out there.
..cough..cough.. A/UX... cough cough
Anyhow, thats just the troll trash in you talking. Seriously, you give MS too much credit, in them knowing the danger the future held for their features. You have to think of WHEN the built these features, and how new they were to networking security in general. My guess is most of the deadly code was written in 1995. Legacy support carried it in all versions from then on. MS biggest achiles heel is legacy support. But it's how they managed to keep their install base, and grow it.
Also, MS software engineers, like most other software engineers, put too must trust in the end user. This used to be a common pitfall for all sorts of software. When MS Office went mainstream, it took millions in usability study and mentoring of the Office architects to convey to them just how stupid most of the users are. It wasn't until they understood that did we start seeing dialog boxes pop up and ask "Are you sure!?!?!" which up until then was a GUI no-no (see Inmates Are Running the Asylum).
Look over the CERT advisories and some Virii databases for the past 10 years, and you'll get a sense of the number of software packages that had (in hindsight) blantently dangerous features. Hell, look at all the holes and security failures in CISCO software. The backbone of the Internet.
And apple isn't immune. What's scary is, for the most part, Mac users know less about their OS then windows users (partly because the OS does such a good job at user-friendliness). My friends that use Macs are mostly in Graphics/Design/Publishing. They are a social-engineering nightmare in terms of protection for trojans. Luckily, so far, they are rarely targeted.
Let me guess, skipped the English 101 because you thought ENG stood for engineering....
now, it's Win2k Server running dedicated applications, databases, or simple file/print/authentication services.
We don't always patch immediately because these servers can be spread out all over the US. Security isn't an issue because of the closed network and filters.
So, they simply do their job and chug a long.
and lets not forget:
Ken Kutaragi has always had this plan for the PS2. He just couldn't convince Sony to ship it with Ethernet built in. Where as Xbox's Allard went to the mat to ship with the extra cost.
You've got it backwards. If i'm trying to play HALO over the Xbox network, and it's dog slow, who am I mad at (think console gamer mentality)? I'm mad at MS, because this is their console/system. Bungie is nothing more than some label on my DVD case.
Also, what MS is fixing to do here is coup EA. By offering to essentially run an ASP model with developers, they are allowing the little 20 person shops that sprouted up all over Austin and other places, to compete with the big boys. "Hey guys, give us your servers and we'll handle the hosting for, just write your game to use this common user-tracking API and we'll pay you based on how much your service is used".
What Sony is going to have, is a fractured network, where only the big boys can afford the have their systems spread out enough to prevent brutal latency issues and bottlenecks.
So Apple can produce both it's own Hardware and Software/OS.
SUN can do the same.
IBM can do the same.
But if MS does it, it's Dr. Evil and the fate of the free world is at stake.
Come on. Give it up.
Think down the road, in 500 years do you think anyone will even care? This will all pass, and people 500 years from now will not likely know the name of the manufactuer of their central house OS anymore than they know the brand of toliet bowl they use.
GASP! Sounds like they plan on using TCP/IP as a BACKBONE to run some HIGHER LEVEL - PROPRIETARY PROTOCOL over it to their DATACENTERS. I bet the bastards plan on having high-speed direct links between datacenters to prevent the Internet itself from being a bottle neck for there customers
THOSE CRAZY NETWORK ENGINEERS AT MS! How dare they think this through! How dare they learn from Origins Ultima Online, Sony's Everquest, and the other doze MMORPG that had painfull starts and data center nightmares.
EGADS You're right! That's the point of www.teledesic.com and why bill invested in them so long ago! They are going to spend billions ot get a LEO sat constenllation in the air, offering the world high speed anywhere/anytime internet access, and then they will cut off their own legs and force users of their system to only interact with other users of their system. Because Compuserve and AOL and even early MSN all proved that CLOSED NETWORKS BEAT THE INTERNET EVERYTIME! i mean, not like i ever leave the *.msn.com domain structure.
I can tell you read his books. You speak with perfect clarity on the matter. Not like those others that simply read The Register and rehash the viewpoint of a disgruntled poorly paid writer.
Do you think Sony salivates over Sony Station? Wouldn't Bill be salivating over The Zone right now? How about the old HEAT network and some of those other gaming lobbies. MMMmmmmm those were profitable weren't they!
Do you think EA's going to be any different with their OWN proprietary lobby system running ontop of PS2? The difference will be you pay them directly, and every other publisher you use an online game with PS2.
Nothing, he'd lose 39 billion. He'd make more money leaving it in the bank than he ever would on an lame Dr. Evil plan like you thought up here.
I wonder what you and some others around here would do if he DID take his billions and do something like wire every community with it's own community computer lab. Praise him as the Carnegie of our time? Doubtfull, more likely bitch that the computers ran windows. Or worse, act as though you are, and have always been, entitled to it.
So you get a 1 year window of opportunity for who knows what the final bid is (my guess is the reserve is atleast 25mil) of which the profits (it's 20mil according to the spaceadventures.com site, so say 5mil profit) goes to benefit a foundation that supports a fund, that really supports a specialized unit that's purely dedicated to support patients (in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ONLY) that suffer with a very specific diseas.
WTF ARE THEY SMOKING, AND CAN I BRING SOME OF THAT TO THE ISS WITH ME!?!?!?
I know this is Slashdot, and so I shouldn't be surprised to see a comment such as this posted by an individual with hearsay information and token knowledge of a system they simply bought on a computer. Now before i follow my temptation to make this a flame, i'll switch to trying, as a somewhat expert in this field, answer some of your (Valid) concerns.
/. about it, know WHY you they are your enemy.
As for "windows in many of it's flavours is unstable..." well, any OS in any of it's flavor can be unstable. I and many in my profession happen to have Win2k (and in the past used NT boxes) that ran for months if not years. Stable, chugging a long, doing what we needed them to.
My guess is, you 'using it mostly for gaming' means running win9x flavor with flaky video drivers and even flakier game code (JohnC's code exluded from that statement). Still, win9x is old tech, and not very good. Win2k has run all my games for the last 2 years it seems to me.
As for MS witholding interfaces, please, show me where they did that.. which interfaces were these? what did they control? You have the win32 API, you got WINE that implements it, most things run fine in WINE... where is the problem?
As for MS not wanting people to Clone windows... well no shit. I'd be pretty pissed if someone cloned any of the software systems I built and sold to customers. And I'd be 10x more piss if they used the gov't to force me to make it easy for them to clone my stuff. Monopoly argument aside for now, my point is merely to persuade you (and others) to focus on what MS has REALLY done wrong, and not parlay it into vapor acusations.
Also, you or I (well I know I could, not sure if you are a programmer or not)could build (copy, clone, duplicate) MS Office. You have a few options on how (reverse engineer it, closed-room reengineer it), but the Win32 API won't prevent you from doing so. Office ain't all that.
What you should have been asking about cloning is more along the lines of the Middleware software. Like MSMQ. Which is thrown in Win2k 'for free'. Something I doubt IBM and MQSeries enjoys.
Well, can't believe I spent this much time on this little statement of yours. I supposed i'm easily trolled. But honestly, if you are going to have MS as your enemy and preach on
-me
I'm curious. As someone who's been programming against the win32 API for a long time now, what precisely in your opinion is not properly documented by any of the SDK's?
Granted I don't use all aspects of the API, so perhaps parts of it are poor, but the parts I use are highly documented, examples given, and all sorts of other goodies. This is what dragged me, and many hundreds of thousands of other developers into the MS world where we make a good living building solutions to business problems.
-me
I think what MS wants to prevent, is in a year from now, people like you going "GOD DAMN, XBox Madden Online is DOG SLOW. F#$%ING MS SUCKS, THEIR NETWORK IS KRAP!" when in fact, it's EA's servers that can't handle the load (look back: Ultima Online History).
A large portion of console owners recognize games as "MS Games, Sony Games, and Ninetendo Games" they rarely known the actual game company that produced the game they play. Nor do they care. So when the game doesn't work the way they expect, especially an on-line game, it's MS|Sony|Nintendo FAULT!.
Also, your threat of 'accidental' server disconnection is like Worldcomm 'accidentally' shutting down competiors that may use UU.Net for hosting. Or say, they 'accidentally' block router traffic going through their networks to competitors sites. Yes it's possible, hell it's easy... but contracts, and agreements make it excessivly costly in penalities/lawsuits.
And besides, if you read the article, EA was bitching about customer privacy. It's a load of crap aimed at using the press to strong arm some part of the negotiation we aren't privy too. Its more likely this has something to do with royalties. EA's no better than your vision of MS. Ask any of the companies the ate.
Graphics are client side, that wouldn't be boging down the servers. The chocobo may have 10k polygons, but to the server, it's nothing more than an object with an ID and some unique properties.
H.323 nearly killed this whole application space. It's overly complex and typical of an offspring from ITU-T. Think of it as the "Telco guys" solution to all this.
SIP is from IETF, mixes much better with typical Internet scenarios (NAT, firewalls...etc). It's also far easier to code to.
SIP is the future, it is what is enabling the VOIP dialtone provider boom (it really is a boom, it's just hard to tell).
For example, right now, in less than 10mins, you can go to www.denwa.com, give them your credit card info, and get a SIP dialtone. That includes a DID number (phone number basically, they offer several area codes), optional voice mail, and pretty much any call feature you can think of (as if you owned your own PBX).
You can use a software based SIP device to make/receive calls, or you can use a VOIP/SIP enabled phone (like the Cisco 7960 you see in Fox's 24). You can also buy a FXS/FXO device and enable any POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) phone (generally not worth the cost).
Anyone who pays for a Cable Modem and pays the telco for phone lines should consider dropping the telco completly, and instead signing up for a SIP Dialtone. It really is that easy.
-Malakai
NT solved the multiuser processing and
Terminal Services solved the headless box problem.
I think many people are so upset with MS about the practices that occured in the past, they are blind to the changes in NT/Win2k in the last 5 years. And MS has always catered to the Developers, and the developers (who develop those million of applications average Joe and Jane use in the office) are whats keeping Joe and Jane from jumping to Linux.
People can make fun of VB and MS Access and VBA/Office developers all they want, but they pull in serious money and solve many business problems with relatively little code.
.Net (if the vb/office developers can 'grasp' it) will only server to legitimize their work (when ported to it).
HAH! I say
Private citizen who happened to be able to co-write the paper with the software engineer behind the IBM Cryptographic Co-Processor used as the primary engine of this little 'vault'.
Gee, I wonder if IBM is hoping ISPs and Gov't will need say, 50k of these little chips... oh.. and the licensing to use the software.
Private "Corporate" Citizen more like it. This isn't being done out of the kindness of one stundents heart, this is about money. It always is.
SOAP standard makes it easy to filter/block SOAP calls. But the key is, you can do it per-interface and per-method.
SOAP clients send their data using M-POST, which mandates the server understand the Interface URI header, and the method-name header.
This should allow network admins to restrict/allow specifically what they desire, and not force them to have to turn off SOAP through a firewall as a whole.
Intuitive Linux