MS hasn't raised the price of Windows since Windows 95.
There's been free office suites for awhile, but they're still doing poorly.
Mozilla is good, but it's not an IE killer yet.
Lindows is practically whoring itself to get onto desktops. In a few months, we'll see if they are still "mainstream"
MS hasn't yet been sentenced, so it's not yet complete.
As for SQL server and sybase SQL Server has not been based on Sybase since SQL 6.5. SQL 7 was completely rewritten and SQL 2K had major portions rewriten from SQL 7, even.
When things like this are out, why would anyone buy a Palm? The only thing Palm devices have is power consumption, but how hard it is to stick the device on a charger once every 3-4 days. Hell, I have to recharge my cell phone every day, so that's a pretty weak excuse.
Perhaps it's good to think about this from other perspectives. The building construction industry is a good analogy to software. The people with the money have rediculous demands. Architects and engineers design it and then the project manager has works with them to estimate its cost and time. He has to know the business side, the engineering side, and the construction side.
Construction is chock full of suprises, delays, and inconveniences just like software development. If you want to be a good software development project manager, take a look at one of those guys and see what skills they have and try to mimic that.
I'd bet they have experience in business, design, and construction, but mostly in construction.
I don't think you'll find many people fresh out of college with a business degree go into the project management business without having some practical experience with construction or design.
However, this is unfortunately the case in software development.
I thought that the newer versions of Linux had awesome hardware support "better than Windows XP" I've heard.
Why, then, is it so hard to get Linux running on a ThinkPad which, as I understand, has fairly standard hardware?
I thought the days of spending days trying to get Linux running on common hardware were over!
(this is not intended as a troll, I'm genuininely interested. Is it because Linux hardware detection isn't quite there yet, or is it because IBM is using weird hardware, or is it something else altogether?)
Once the cable companies and DSL companies start doing this to consumers and consumers get all bent out of shape and finally realize that bandwidth is very, very expensive still, maybe things will start getting done in Congress.
The problem is that AT&T and the like are sitting on huge piles of bandwidth and are only letting it trickle out so they can keep charging their exhorbitant(sp?) rates.
The worst part is, Congress just rolls over and lets them do whatever they want and even helps them get rid of competition.
We need to commoditize the bandwidth market and prevent 3-4 big, colluding companies from controlling it all and extorting the consumers for rediculous sums of money.
If you look at the whole story of what happened to Enron, they were gearing up for major acquisitions in the bandwidth trading business.
They raised billions and shifted debt to attrat investors. They spent billions in the market trying to forge industry alliances.
When AT&T and the like finally walked away from the table, Enron was sitting with billions in hidden debt that they could hide no longer. The calls started coming in and the house of cards collapsed.
Had the big telcos not colluded to prevent commoditization, then Enron perhaps would still be around today. Crooks, thieves, and felons, but still around.
And damnit, my first post WAS NOT OFFTOPIC!
As long as major companies like AT&T are gobbling up smaller companies, and Congress is removing all semblance of competition, these companies will continue to gobble up all the bandwidth until just a few companies own it all.
And as long as that is the case, they are going to purposely keep supply short so bandwidth prices remain high which renders broadband-to-the-home just about as useless or expensive as it is today.
If these companies would open up their pipes, or at least 10% of the bandwidth they're holding back, the prices would plummit and having a 10mbps 2-way connection to the house would be cheap.
These companies are actively resisting commoditizing bandwidth. That's the major reason Enron collapsed. Enron was known for commoditizing non-traditional markets. They bet the whole company on trading bandwidth as a commodity and all the big telcos shut them down.
Apparently AT&T and the like prefer colluding with their "competitors" to reduce supply and keep prices rediculously high.
I saw a documentary on bridges on the History channel and they were talking about the current #1 bridge (in Kobe, Japan) and they said that it's so long, that the main towards that hold the suspension cables are not parallel. The tops point out, away from each other significantly DUE TO THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH! Sweet.
Man, this Sicillian bridge will curve even more than that!
Taiwan is upset over MS licensing fees? That's laughable. Piracy is rampant in Taiwan. They hardly pay for any of their software, so again, I ask what licensing fees?
The problem here is that the major bandwidth providers (namely AT&T, SBC, Quest, and a few others) are purposely keeping supply low. There are many new technologies and there is more than enough fiber to make tons of more bandwidth available, but then prices will plummet. If they can gradually release new bandwidth as demand increases, they can keep charging the same rates without extra cost. They are colluding to keep prices artificially high and there is a huge barrier to entry which prevents upstrats from setting the situation straight through natual means.
They have resisted commoditizing bandwidth (which is what caused the Enron collapse, by the way) which has helped preserve their monopoly on continental bandwidth supply.
This is only the first example of price gouging. They keep people used to the idea by claiming that people are using more than their "fair share". That's BS. I pay for a cable modem which has X amount of bandwidth. I use X amount of bandwidth, why should I be charged more just because some guy doesn't use his money wisely?
There is no "fair"ness here. They just want to keep upping and upping the price while not increasing bandwidth. Eventually, there will be a large consumer backlash as other technologies arise or as people can no longer afford the rediculous rates, but the telco companies don't care. They will have made their millions and then they will increase capacity to make everyone happy again, and the process will continue. This is the same pattern the telcos have followed since the 60's. First with intra-state LD, then with interstate LD, then with international, now with cell phones and internet.
The real scary part of this blurb is that Eminem is ranked #2 at something. There are enough people out there that take him seriously. Now THAT is scary...
This is the main problem. People don't want to think of embryos as human because it's too horrible to think about what's happening to them. It's easier to think of them as a lump of cells despite scientific fact than to admit what they really are.
Everyone knows what they really are, but they delude themselves to avoid the responsibility they have to humanity and their own children.
This has nothing to do with religion, I am not religious and I am insulted that you would try to write off my arguments in such an ignorant and childish way.
Embryos are humans whether you want to admit it or not. They may not be concious or intelligent yet, but they will be. Infants aren't really intelligent, they aren't capable of living on their own and they aren't capable of reason. There isn't much difference between an 8-celled embryo and an infant.
Saying that an infant is not a human 5 seconds before "birth" and it IS a human 5 seconds after is semantical and stupid.
I'm also insulted by the ignorant people who try to say that us pro-lifers want to defend sperm. Come on. You're not all that ignorant. It's obvious the difference between sperm, egg, and embryo. Sperms are not capable of reproducing on their own, surviving more than 4-5 days or growing into complete humans. Embryos are, by definition humans. They have all the chromosomes, they are animals and living organisms.
If you read the a biologist's definition of "living organism" and embryo will meet and exceed it.
But this is all semantics. People don't want to accept their personal responsibility when they have a baby or think about defending a clump of cells. What this ammounts to is us abandonning the weak. Simply because an embryo can't defend itself, we throw it away. That's not fair. This argument can be extended to disabled or retarded people as well. In fact, the eugenicists have already done that. Margaret Sanger, founder and patron saint of Planned Parenthood advocated eugenics and removing "stupid" and "feebleminded", not to mention jews, blacks, and other racialy "unclean" people.
You have all been brainwashed into accepting the slaughter of millions of innocent lives for the sake of avoiding personal responsibility. You think it's ok because it would burden society too much to keep these "unwanted" children. Perhaps we should kill all the mentally retarded individuals too because they place a burden on society.
This whole argument is rediculous. All of you know when life begins and you choose to not accept it because to accept it would mean accepting all the horrible realities of our society. Grow up and understand how life works.
I was going to say a similar thing, thank you for putting my ideas so elloquently onto the Internet. =)
I do have one thing to add. While I think that scientists won't go so far as to use actual live-born humans, I do think that inventing some type of incubator or mechanical womb is not that far fetched.
I can see in the near future embryos being grown to various ages for use in cultivating organs and whatnot.
Under current law, as long as they're not "born" (whatever the definition of that is), they are not afforded human rights in this country.
I believe this is wrong. Purely from an ethical and moral standpoint (not religious). The devaluation of human life in our society will take us down a long and dark road. We already have an active eugenics movement (Planned Parenthood, read the writings of its founder, Margaret Sanger) and it won't be long before someone is determining who is fit to have children.
While it may not be the easiest way, we as humans must recognize the rights of an individual human being from one cell to adulthood to death. The argument of being unborn is rather weak since many premature children grow to be healthy. Besides, why should a human with less cells than another human be considered non-human? A child has less cells than an adult, why do children have rights, but not infants in the womb? The only difference is one has more cells than the other.
People love to brush off arguments of life because it makes life inconvenient and forces people to live up to their responsiblities to their own children or to humanity (in this case for the scientists). If it makes a scientist's life more difficult because he/she must use adult stem cells or placental stem cells, then so be it. Humanity can not afford to sacrifice it's own for short term gains when other means exist.
Mods, you may disagree with me. You may hate me, but please search your heart and don't mod me as troll simply because you disagree with me. Thank you.
This is very slightly off topic, but remember how the FCC required Time Warner to open it's cable internet lines to allow ISPs other than RoadRunner?
Well, I seem to recall that the FCC gave Time Warner 1 year. Also, IIRC, that was well over a year ago, and I still have no choice of ISP on my cable line. WTF happened here?
It sounds like what might happen in the next few years is that companies like Clear Channel will do what they say they don't and only start playing the artists that they have on tour or promote.
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
The US government is trying to deny it and hide its existance, and then someone "suddenly" finds the architect and he starts freely talking about it? I doubt it.
Big surpise this article comes from Register who has made it its sole purpose to badmouth MS.
Anyhow, it's unfortunate that the Register is so shortsighted. People love to say how the XBox is losing money, or can't possibly ever make a profit, or how Live will fail, etc.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
It's unfortunate that the Register is on such a crusade that they can't see the forest from the trees.
Hint: If you make a product that targets only Microsoft software, and then Microsoft decides it doesn't want to pay you anymore and you go out of business, it's probably not Microsoft's fault, it's probably your own lack of forsight.
If you look, the "ten new vulnerabilities" are actually the ones they released back in 2000 and 2001. For example, the HTR buffer overflow, and the ISAPI buffer overflow.
IIRC, the HTR overflow was the one Code Red exploited, and if you remember, that was in 2000 and early 2001 (ant to some extent, today).
The fact of the matter is, this is a convenience roll-up patch that captures all IIS patches for all platforms (NT4SP6/IIS4, Win2K/IIS5, WinXP/IIS5.1) to date.
Before, you used to have install all the patches seperately which was a pain. Now it's just one patch.
It's long overdue, but I'm glad it's finally here.
Perhaps by "new" Microsoft means "since IIS was released".
I mean, it'd be nice if ZDNet at least TRIED to hide it's bias against MS and it's agend to ebarass them.
For example, the comment/article about the "10 new security vulnerabilities in IIS!"
What ZDNet fails to tell you, the obvious, is that what MS released was a "Cumulative Patch for IIS" which is all the patches released since IIS 4 was released.
Rather than installing a Win2K server and then having to track down the dozen or so patches, you can just apply this.
There have not been any new vulnerabilities in IIS since May 2001. Almost a year ago!
(Note: there has been a 1 or 2 vulns. found in Index Server and one or two in SMTP, both optional components of IIS, and not related to the web-serving W3SVC portion).
Oh yeah, WSH is sweet too, however, I didn't think it appropriate to mention it since we were just talking about shells.
However, for any of you Unix/Linux guys just getting started in Windows, you might take a look at it. It's very powerful compared to basic shell scripting. It's kinda like perl in some respects (in terms of how and when it's used, and by some functionality, not by language itself)
I use Win2K/XP and Linux a lot, and I like cmd.exe much better than bash for day-to-day stuff.
While BATCH file scripting in Win2k/XP is pretty powerful, it's very ugly. Bash/csh scripting is much easier and has a few other features that you can't do with BATCH.
Like I said, however, I think cmd.exe is much easier and powerful as a shell than bash.
For example, the tab completion is much more helpful and logical than Bash. When you hit tab, if there's more than one file/dir that matches the string, it'll select the first one. If you continue to hit TAB it'll cycle through the options. If you hit SHIFT+TAB, it'll reverse cycle.
Bash just sits there and beeps stupidly. Eventually it'll show you a list of options, but that's less helpful, IMO.
First, they oversell their bandwidth like crazy and make up all sorts of lame excuses for why they can't provide the service as specified in their contract (but never give credits... oh no!). Their latency sucks (although, it's gotten slightly better in the past few months), and they **STILL** haven't opened their networks despite being ordered to by the FCC as part of the AOL merger.
Where is my Cable modem ISP choice, Time Warner? Why aren't you in court explaining why you didn't live up to your contractual obligations both to your customers and to the FCC?
Slashdot Mirror
Fighting .NET is stupid. .NET is a great technology, it's an ECMA standard.
.NET == MyServices == Palladium which is not the case.
I understand the fear of Hailstorm/MyServices (which is now dead, MS gave up on it), Palladium, etc.
It seems that the project leaders here are misinformed since they seem to think that
Support Mono, not dotGNU!
Just a few questions/facts:
MS is raising prices? Where do you see this.
MS hasn't raised the price of Windows since Windows 95.
There's been free office suites for awhile, but they're still doing poorly.
Mozilla is good, but it's not an IE killer yet.
Lindows is practically whoring itself to get onto desktops. In a few months, we'll see if they are still "mainstream"
MS hasn't yet been sentenced, so it's not yet complete.
As for SQL server and sybase SQL Server has not been based on Sybase since SQL 6.5. SQL 7 was completely rewritten and SQL 2K had major portions rewriten from SQL 7, even.
When things like this are out, why would anyone buy a Palm? The only thing Palm devices have is power consumption, but how hard it is to stick the device on a charger once every 3-4 days. Hell, I have to recharge my cell phone every day, so that's a pretty weak excuse.
Perhaps it's good to think about this from other perspectives. The building construction industry is a good analogy to software. The people with the money have rediculous demands. Architects and engineers design it and then the project manager has works with them to estimate its cost and time. He has to know the business side, the engineering side, and the construction side.
Construction is chock full of suprises, delays, and inconveniences just like software development. If you want to be a good software development project manager, take a look at one of those guys and see what skills they have and try to mimic that.
I'd bet they have experience in business, design, and construction, but mostly in construction.
I don't think you'll find many people fresh out of college with a business degree go into the project management business without having some practical experience with construction or design.
However, this is unfortunately the case in software development.
I thought that the newer versions of Linux had awesome hardware support "better than Windows XP" I've heard. Why, then, is it so hard to get Linux running on a ThinkPad which, as I understand, has fairly standard hardware? I thought the days of spending days trying to get Linux running on common hardware were over! (this is not intended as a troll, I'm genuininely interested. Is it because Linux hardware detection isn't quite there yet, or is it because IBM is using weird hardware, or is it something else altogether?)
Once the cable companies and DSL companies start doing this to consumers and consumers get all bent out of shape and finally realize that bandwidth is very, very expensive still, maybe things will start getting done in Congress.
The problem is that AT&T and the like are sitting on huge piles of bandwidth and are only letting it trickle out so they can keep charging their exhorbitant(sp?) rates.
The worst part is, Congress just rolls over and lets them do whatever they want and even helps them get rid of competition.
We need to commoditize the bandwidth market and prevent 3-4 big, colluding companies from controlling it all and extorting the consumers for rediculous sums of money.
If you look at the whole story of what happened to Enron, they were gearing up for major acquisitions in the bandwidth trading business. They raised billions and shifted debt to attrat investors. They spent billions in the market trying to forge industry alliances. When AT&T and the like finally walked away from the table, Enron was sitting with billions in hidden debt that they could hide no longer. The calls started coming in and the house of cards collapsed. Had the big telcos not colluded to prevent commoditization, then Enron perhaps would still be around today. Crooks, thieves, and felons, but still around. And damnit, my first post WAS NOT OFFTOPIC!
As long as major companies like AT&T are gobbling up smaller companies, and Congress is removing all semblance of competition, these companies will continue to gobble up all the bandwidth until just a few companies own it all.
And as long as that is the case, they are going to purposely keep supply short so bandwidth prices remain high which renders broadband-to-the-home just about as useless or expensive as it is today.
If these companies would open up their pipes, or at least 10% of the bandwidth they're holding back, the prices would plummit and having a 10mbps 2-way connection to the house would be cheap.
These companies are actively resisting commoditizing bandwidth. That's the major reason Enron collapsed. Enron was known for commoditizing non-traditional markets. They bet the whole company on trading bandwidth as a commodity and all the big telcos shut them down.
Apparently AT&T and the like prefer colluding with their "competitors" to reduce supply and keep prices rediculously high.
I saw a documentary on bridges on the History channel and they were talking about the current #1 bridge (in Kobe, Japan) and they said that it's so long, that the main towards that hold the suspension cables are not parallel. The tops point out, away from each other significantly DUE TO THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH! Sweet.
Man, this Sicillian bridge will curve even more than that!
Rockbox: Didn't Al Gore start this company?
Taiwan is upset over MS licensing fees? That's laughable. Piracy is rampant in Taiwan. They hardly pay for any of their software, so again, I ask what licensing fees?
The problem here is that the major bandwidth providers (namely AT&T, SBC, Quest, and a few others) are purposely keeping supply low. There are many new technologies and there is more than enough fiber to make tons of more bandwidth available, but then prices will plummet. If they can gradually release new bandwidth as demand increases, they can keep charging the same rates without extra cost. They are colluding to keep prices artificially high and there is a huge barrier to entry which prevents upstrats from setting the situation straight through natual means.
They have resisted commoditizing bandwidth (which is what caused the Enron collapse, by the way) which has helped preserve their monopoly on continental bandwidth supply.
This is only the first example of price gouging. They keep people used to the idea by claiming that people are using more than their "fair share". That's BS. I pay for a cable modem which has X amount of bandwidth. I use X amount of bandwidth, why should I be charged more just because some guy doesn't use his money wisely?
There is no "fair"ness here. They just want to keep upping and upping the price while not increasing bandwidth. Eventually, there will be a large consumer backlash as other technologies arise or as people can no longer afford the rediculous rates, but the telco companies don't care. They will have made their millions and then they will increase capacity to make everyone happy again, and the process will continue. This is the same pattern the telcos have followed since the 60's. First with intra-state LD, then with interstate LD, then with international, now with cell phones and internet.
The real scary part of this blurb is that Eminem is ranked #2 at something. There are enough people out there that take him seriously. Now THAT is scary...
This is the main problem. People don't want to think of embryos as human because it's too horrible to think about what's happening to them. It's easier to think of them as a lump of cells despite scientific fact than to admit what they really are.
Everyone knows what they really are, but they delude themselves to avoid the responsibility they have to humanity and their own children.
This has nothing to do with religion, I am not religious and I am insulted that you would try to write off my arguments in such an ignorant and childish way.
Embryos are humans whether you want to admit it or not. They may not be concious or intelligent yet, but they will be. Infants aren't really intelligent, they aren't capable of living on their own and they aren't capable of reason. There isn't much difference between an 8-celled embryo and an infant.
Saying that an infant is not a human 5 seconds before "birth" and it IS a human 5 seconds after is semantical and stupid.
I'm also insulted by the ignorant people who try to say that us pro-lifers want to defend sperm. Come on. You're not all that ignorant. It's obvious the difference between sperm, egg, and embryo. Sperms are not capable of reproducing on their own, surviving more than 4-5 days or growing into complete humans. Embryos are, by definition humans. They have all the chromosomes, they are animals and living organisms.
If you read the a biologist's definition of "living organism" and embryo will meet and exceed it.
But this is all semantics. People don't want to accept their personal responsibility when they have a baby or think about defending a clump of cells. What this ammounts to is us abandonning the weak. Simply because an embryo can't defend itself, we throw it away. That's not fair. This argument can be extended to disabled or retarded people as well. In fact, the eugenicists have already done that. Margaret Sanger, founder and patron saint of Planned Parenthood advocated eugenics and removing "stupid" and "feebleminded", not to mention jews, blacks, and other racialy "unclean" people.
You have all been brainwashed into accepting the slaughter of millions of innocent lives for the sake of avoiding personal responsibility. You think it's ok because it would burden society too much to keep these "unwanted" children. Perhaps we should kill all the mentally retarded individuals too because they place a burden on society.
This whole argument is rediculous. All of you know when life begins and you choose to not accept it because to accept it would mean accepting all the horrible realities of our society. Grow up and understand how life works.
I was going to say a similar thing, thank you for putting my ideas so elloquently onto the Internet. =)
I do have one thing to add. While I think that scientists won't go so far as to use actual live-born humans, I do think that inventing some type of incubator or mechanical womb is not that far fetched.
I can see in the near future embryos being grown to various ages for use in cultivating organs and whatnot.
Under current law, as long as they're not "born" (whatever the definition of that is), they are not afforded human rights in this country.
I believe this is wrong. Purely from an ethical and moral standpoint (not religious). The devaluation of human life in our society will take us down a long and dark road. We already have an active eugenics movement (Planned Parenthood, read the writings of its founder, Margaret Sanger) and it won't be long before someone is determining who is fit to have children.
While it may not be the easiest way, we as humans must recognize the rights of an individual human being from one cell to adulthood to death. The argument of being unborn is rather weak since many premature children grow to be healthy. Besides, why should a human with less cells than another human be considered non-human? A child has less cells than an adult, why do children have rights, but not infants in the womb? The only difference is one has more cells than the other.
People love to brush off arguments of life because it makes life inconvenient and forces people to live up to their responsiblities to their own children or to humanity (in this case for the scientists). If it makes a scientist's life more difficult because he/she must use adult stem cells or placental stem cells, then so be it. Humanity can not afford to sacrifice it's own for short term gains when other means exist.
Mods, you may disagree with me. You may hate me, but please search your heart and don't mod me as troll simply because you disagree with me. Thank you.
This is very slightly off topic, but remember how the FCC required Time Warner to open it's cable internet lines to allow ISPs other than RoadRunner?
Well, I seem to recall that the FCC gave Time Warner 1 year. Also, IIRC, that was well over a year ago, and I still have no choice of ISP on my cable line. WTF happened here?
It sounds like what might happen in the next few years is that companies like Clear Channel will do what they say they don't and only start playing the artists that they have on tour or promote.
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
The US government is trying to deny it and hide its existance, and then someone "suddenly" finds the architect and he starts freely talking about it? I doubt it.
Big surpise this article comes from Register who has made it its sole purpose to badmouth MS.
Anyhow, it's unfortunate that the Register is so shortsighted. People love to say how the XBox is losing money, or can't possibly ever make a profit, or how Live will fail, etc.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
It's unfortunate that the Register is on such a crusade that they can't see the forest from the trees.
Hint: If you make a product that targets only Microsoft software, and then Microsoft decides it doesn't want to pay you anymore and you go out of business, it's probably not Microsoft's fault, it's probably your own lack of forsight.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to read them.
If you look, the "ten new vulnerabilities" are actually the ones they released back in 2000 and 2001. For example, the HTR buffer overflow, and the ISAPI buffer overflow.
IIRC, the HTR overflow was the one Code Red exploited, and if you remember, that was in 2000 and early 2001 (ant to some extent, today).
The fact of the matter is, this is a convenience roll-up patch that captures all IIS patches for all platforms (NT4SP6/IIS4, Win2K/IIS5, WinXP/IIS5.1) to date.
Before, you used to have install all the patches seperately which was a pain. Now it's just one patch.
It's long overdue, but I'm glad it's finally here.
Perhaps by "new" Microsoft means "since IIS was released".
I mean, it'd be nice if ZDNet at least TRIED to hide it's bias against MS and it's agend to ebarass them.
For example, the comment/article about the "10 new security vulnerabilities in IIS!"
What ZDNet fails to tell you, the obvious, is that what MS released was a "Cumulative Patch for IIS" which is all the patches released since IIS 4 was released.
Rather than installing a Win2K server and then having to track down the dozen or so patches, you can just apply this.
There have not been any new vulnerabilities in IIS since May 2001. Almost a year ago!
(Note: there has been a 1 or 2 vulns. found in Index Server and one or two in SMTP, both optional components of IIS, and not related to the web-serving W3SVC portion).
Why does ZDNet lie so flat-out like this?
Oh yeah, WSH is sweet too, however, I didn't think it appropriate to mention it since we were just talking about shells. However, for any of you Unix/Linux guys just getting started in Windows, you might take a look at it. It's very powerful compared to basic shell scripting. It's kinda like perl in some respects (in terms of how and when it's used, and by some functionality, not by language itself)
Oh man, cmd.exe is awesome.
I use Win2K/XP and Linux a lot, and I like cmd.exe much better than bash for day-to-day stuff.
While BATCH file scripting in Win2k/XP is pretty powerful, it's very ugly. Bash/csh scripting is much easier and has a few other features that you can't do with BATCH.
Like I said, however, I think cmd.exe is much easier and powerful as a shell than bash.
For example, the tab completion is much more helpful and logical than Bash. When you hit tab, if there's more than one file/dir that matches the string, it'll select the first one. If you continue to hit TAB it'll cycle through the options. If you hit SHIFT+TAB, it'll reverse cycle.
Bash just sits there and beeps stupidly. Eventually it'll show you a list of options, but that's less helpful, IMO.
First, they oversell their bandwidth like crazy and make up all sorts of lame excuses for why they can't provide the service as specified in their contract (but never give credits... oh no!). Their latency sucks (although, it's gotten slightly better in the past few months), and they **STILL** haven't opened their networks despite being ordered to by the FCC as part of the AOL merger.
Where is my Cable modem ISP choice, Time Warner? Why aren't you in court explaining why you didn't live up to your contractual obligations both to your customers and to the FCC?