Why do people still use the Palm OS?
I mean, I can understand that most of you probably hate Microsoft, but I mean c'mon, the IPaq is so much better in every regard over the PalmOS. I suppose price might be the major issue, but other than the two above-mentioned issues, is there anything that the PalmOS does better than PocketPC?
MS' implementation of Kerberos is 100% compliant with the v5 protocol of Kerberos as specified by MIT.
MS makes use of the "Vendor Specific" area of the ticket to add features for Win2KWin2K systems (Group policy, multiple group memberships, explicit denial of permissions, certificates, etc).
A Win2K server can authenticate a Unix Kerberos client without any difficulty. Likewise, a Win2K client can authenticate to a Unix server without any problem.
MIT provides some test clients and servers and Win2K worked 100% with these.
The "Bastardization" you refer to is not a bastardization at all since MIT provide for "Vendor Specific" functionality such as this.
If/when Linux implements Group Policy (never?), then it can use this functionality. Otherwise, that information just gets discarded. Who cares? Unless you're running a Win2K client, you don't care about that information anyhow and it just gets ignored.
Kerberos is supported very well on Windows 2000 (and XP/.NET) and Solaris. Last time I checked, kerberos support on Linux was luke warm, but that may have changed and I may not have been looking in the right place.
Despite the myths, Win2K kerberos is 100% compatible with Unix kerberos. If you're using Windows 2000 servers and Windows 2000 clients, there's some extra stuff they pass in a "Vendor Specific" section of the Kerberos ticket. Unix systems will ignore this and can authenticate with a Win2K server.
Likewise, Win2K clients can authenticate against a Unix kerberos server. The Win2k clients won't be able to take advantage of the Win2K ADS features (like Group Policy or multiple group membership) but if you have a Unix server, you're probably not using these features anyhow.
- LDAP
Active Directory for Windows uses LDAP to communicate. Unix and Linux hosts can authenticate against it.
I don't think, however, that Windows clients can authenticate against a Unix LDAP server without special software on the Win2K boxes.
If you go Novell NDS, however, you not only add a third or fourth OS (and why would you want to add Novell? It sucks compared to Windows, Linux, and Solaris), but you have to start installing their stupid software on all or most of your boxes. It's a nightmare you don't want.
Another alternative is NIS. There are 3rd party NIS vendors that make NIS GINAs for Windows 2000. NIS is pretty hairy and less favorable than Kerberos or LDAP.
If I were you, I'd probably go Kerberos assuming that Linux kerberos support has grown up lately.
LDAP isn't a bad alternative assuming that you don't mind having a Windows 2000 server control the authentication for your systems.
MS has given several pieces of source and standards to the community. They were instrumental in the development of SOAP and Web Services. IBM helped and shared about 50% of the design and standards.
MS is almost completely responsible for XML Schema.
MS has submitted C# and CIL to ECMA for standardization which is more than Sun has ever done with Java.
MS has released the source to their CLR and system libraries for.NET
MS has contributed several ideas and technologies to Apache. For example, web folders and Front Page.
MS has supported and worked with some of the people related with FreeBSD on several occasions.
Like I said earlier, MS has demonstrated a willingness to work with open source and contribute. They, like nearly all corporations, hate the GPL because it is the manifesto of a militant minority of Open Source dogmatists.
I feel similar that GPL is ruining Open Source by creating an atmosphere similar to that which they fight (a tight, locked in community where you are not free to do as you will with your source).
Licenses like Apache (or other BSD licenses) allow free use and sharing of code without any restrictive or dogmatic licenses.
To me, that seems much more preferable and allows the free flow of ideas and concept without locking anyone into a particular methodology or concept.
The reason Novell, Netscape and other Microsoft competitors failed is because they bet their entire company on a single feature.
Novell constantly touted file and print sharing and refused to move or change that M.O.
When Microsoft finally beat them at that feature, Novell was left holding nothing. They hadn't innovated or added features.
Novell was king and sat on its pot of gold and refused to move until MS knocked it off and then Novell had nothing.
Netscape was the same way. They hadn't made any major improvements in the 4.x versions of Navigator while MS was continually redoing and improving IE. Look at IE 3 compared with 4, compared with 5.
In all that time, Netscape only had NS 4 with a few minor revisions and NOTHING new. No wonder they failed, they just sat on their pot of gold and refused to budge.
MS, however, will not fall to the same fate because they are constantly improving Windows and adding new features or improving old ones.
Samba has been around for quite awhile and has not made a significant dent in MS' marketshare. In fact, Windows' market share continues to grow. Linux's growth is only against Unix, not against Windows.
Unlike what Slashdot posters would have you believe, MS loves the idea of open source and an open development community. They have been posting more and more of their standards online.
However, MS is clear that they do not like rabid liberal OpenSores Militancy as defined in the GPL. They like people to have choice and the GPL represents the same kind of lock-in that MS you to do in the Bad Old Days.
MS freely supports FreeBSD and other BSD-style licensed products.
First, it's Java which always has severe performance issues on all platforms but Windows (for some odd reason).
Second, it's just more of Sun's lowest-common-denominator strategy of do nothing particularly well, but do everything poorly or equally. Don't take advantage of any platform's perks. Just plod along and go with the worst of every platform.
There is a reason why we have diverse gaming platforms. And it's not simply because no one thought of unifying them.
Considering all of those IBM ads, and the participation of every major computer manufacturer, the GNU-Linux system has indeed become a crown jewel of capitalism.
Huh? Free software is inherently communist/socialist. There is no capitalism in developing something for free, not charging for it and allowing everyone else to use it. I think it's a page in Karl Marx's book as a matter of fact.
This is part of Scott's effort to turn around Sun Microsystems and prevent the rapidly increasing downhill slide that the company is experiencing.
Apparently, Sun's largest source of revenue is from suing Microsoft. This latest $1Billion will help run Sun for another year or so until they figure out another reason to sue MS.
Oh yeah, and they want MS to disclose all their own intellectual property becuase, as you know, Sun needs all this to continue to make their Java VM crash more frequently on Windows.
Businesses getting upset that other businesses are stealing from them! How horrible the BSA is!
Would you guys listen to yourselves? You make it seem like the BSA are nazis. Are the police geshtapo for raiding a car theft ring?
Keep in mind, these companies are using copyrighted software without having paid for it. Whether or not you think copyrights are good or bad, the fact remains, that software is a product and these businesses have stolen many millions of dollars worth of this product.
Yes, yes, I know, it's another argument for free software, but until free software takes off, you still have to pay for software.
Since the police seem uninterested in investigating software theft, what other alternative do these software companies have to prevent theft?
The software industry is like the old west. There's not enough law enforcement to prevent bank robberies or gold theft, so the businesses have to take matters into their own hands.
What a misguided headline. IIS will not "die" anytime soon, because it's a really good product.
"But what about all the security problems?"
Look back, you'll see almost 100% of the "security problems" that have plagued IIS recently have not been IIS at all, but ISAPI extensions to IIS. The core of IIS has actually been pretty stable and secure for some time now.
Anyhow, kudos to Apache for another great product, but saying it spells the death for IIS is rather humorous.
As to the "Microsoft has already given up...": this poster is severly misguided. It's obvious he has no clue about what he's talking about.
Ok, first, XP Home is missing many features of XP pro, this is by design.
Second, the "non-standard IIS" in XP Pro is another lie. "Personal Web Server" (aka IIS lite) has been around for a long time. It ran on Win95, 98, and NT 4 Pro (among others). Win2K Pro shipped with "IIS" but it was a restricted versions, not unlike PWS. Windows XP Pro ships with the same deal that Win2K Pro did.
Perhaps this poster should check his facts before further embarassing himself.
Of course the register will post it because it sounds bad for MS, but please show me a programming language for which you cannot write a virus.
Java? Nope. You can use JNI and do anything. Java Applets are less restricted, sure, but in general you can.
.NET is a framework that allows you to write applications that can do, among other things, move, deleted, or edit files.
If you have that capability, then you can write viruses.
This is sensationalism at its worst, but not a new low for the Register, as they take any excuse (and I mean any, just look at this story) to try to bash MS.
I'm suprised they didn't try to claim that MS invented the concept of a "virus".
It's interesting that it's taken scientists so long to realize this simple concept.
A society based on shame and individual responsibility is one that lasts. Thoughout human civilization, people who have not participated properly were either harshly shamed or severly penalized. This forced people to take more responsibility for their actions, and work harder for the common good.
Unfortunately, this feeling was often abused by the rulers or religious leaders of the day who manipulated people into giving more money or their rights.
The personal-responsibility-based society has gotten humanity through some of its toughest times. And now, technology has allowed us to descend into a society of no personal-responsibility where people can make poor descisions and still get away from it (abortion for accidental pregnancies, welfare for fiscal irresponsibility, etc) whereas earlier, people would've had to deal with their problems and encurred hardship. Others saw this hardship and it helped to keep them in line.
We are in a me-me-me entitelist society which, IMHO is tearing at the fabric of our civilization. Eventually, there will be more dependents than producers and there will be an uprising or revolt towards a personal-responsibility-based society and civilization will once again flourish.
This can be avoided if we can change our minds and our views on ourselves and our role in society. As scientists and sociologists start rediscovering already-discovered truths of civilization, perhaps the mindset of the populous will also change.
Microsoft has been getting better. Many of the current IIS exploits aren't in IIS at all, but in ISAPI extentions like Index Server (Code Red exploited this), and HTTP Printing in Win2K. Almost all of the exploits released last year and this year could've been blocked by simply following MS' security checklist.
Needless to say, sysadmins apparently don't read checklist, follow best practices, or pay attention to alerts. I have seen real movement from MS (on their site, in comments on NT BugTraq, and in other places) that they take this security stuff seriously now, and they are coming out with some good tools (they're even subcontracting them to get them faster and by security companies who have a better track record) to help automate patch downloading and installation, scanning of network resources for missing patches, remote deployment of patches (for those 500 web servers you have in your datacenter), and various checker tools which will basically verify the security checklists for you.
Apparently MS realizes they made a wrong decision in their approach to security (trusting the sysadmin's dilligence), and they are making strong strides to change this now, and in the future.
I know many of you dislike MS, but you must give them at least that.
My guess is that this doesn't have much (any) to do with the technical superiority (or inferiority) of Linux, and more with fears that there are NSA links inside Windows or other closed software. It's more like "well, this is our only choice". I know I'll get flamed for this, but search your feelings, you know it to'be true.
Now can I get a GameCube and, just like my Nintendo 64 get a plethora of games developed for it. Just a sample of the many games for the GameCube:
Mega Super Mario
Mega Super Mario II
Mega Super Mario III
Mega Super Mario Collection
Mega Super Mario IV: The Adventures of Toad
Mega Super Pokemon
Mega Super Pokemon II
Mega Super Pokemon III: Together with Mega Super Mario
Mega Super Mario Party
Mega Super Mario Party II
Mega Super Mario Party III: Pokemon Edition
Mega Super Zelda
Mega Super Zelda II: The Quest for Pokemon
Mega Super Mario Kart
Mega Super Mario Kart II: The Quest for Zelda
Mega Super Mario V: We're Running Out of Ideas
Super Mario Classic
Mario Classic Collection
Zelda Classic Collection
Pokemon Classic Collection
Oh yeah, and one or two 3rd party games, but that's about it.
No thanks, I'll be buying an XBox with real games and real creativity. I'm not blowing my money on another worthless, technologically inferior Nintendo product.
It looks like Chistopher is complaining about a few points, to which Jeshua replies and proves Chistopher wrong (i.e. "No where I have I taken credit for porting the software. Where is the word 'ported' mentioned?").
I guess I miss Chistopher's argument, as Jeshua pretty much set him straight. Jeshua is also right. Chistopher knows nothing about Jeshua. Jeshua could be a huge OSS contributer in a bunch of other projects.
Sounds like Chistopher is a crybaby and doesn't felt he got his way for some reason, so now he's quitting.
... the headline is completely misrepresentative of the actual content of the article and the readily available facts of the matter.
The real truth is that if you want to use Microsoft's.NET My Services (Calendar, contact-list, document storage, etc) in YOUR application, you can license it from MS for a fee.
Last I checked, there are companies who actually charge people for the use of their software, I don't think this is anything new.
As always, the real truth is that developing for.NET is free and always will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people still use the Palm OS? I mean, I can understand that most of you probably hate Microsoft, but I mean c'mon, the IPaq is so much better in every regard over the PalmOS. I suppose price might be the major issue, but other than the two above-mentioned issues, is there anything that the PalmOS does better than PocketPC?
More ignorant BS.
MS' implementation of Kerberos is 100% compliant with the v5 protocol of Kerberos as specified by MIT.
MS makes use of the "Vendor Specific" area of the ticket to add features for Win2KWin2K systems (Group policy, multiple group memberships, explicit denial of permissions, certificates, etc).
A Win2K server can authenticate a Unix Kerberos client without any difficulty. Likewise, a Win2K client can authenticate to a Unix server without any problem.
MIT provides some test clients and servers and Win2K worked 100% with these.
The "Bastardization" you refer to is not a bastardization at all since MIT provide for "Vendor Specific" functionality such as this.
If/when Linux implements Group Policy (never?), then it can use this functionality. Otherwise, that information just gets discarded. Who cares? Unless you're running a Win2K client, you don't care about that information anyhow and it just gets ignored.
The two main options you have are:
- Kerberos
- LDAP
Kerberos is supported very well on Windows 2000 (and XP/.NET) and Solaris. Last time I checked, kerberos support on Linux was luke warm, but that may have changed and I may not have been looking in the right place.
Despite the myths, Win2K kerberos is 100% compatible with Unix kerberos. If you're using Windows 2000 servers and Windows 2000 clients, there's some extra stuff they pass in a "Vendor Specific" section of the Kerberos ticket. Unix systems will ignore this and can authenticate with a Win2K server.
Likewise, Win2K clients can authenticate against a Unix kerberos server. The Win2k clients won't be able to take advantage of the Win2K ADS features (like Group Policy or multiple group membership) but if you have a Unix server, you're probably not using these features anyhow.
- LDAP
Active Directory for Windows uses LDAP to communicate. Unix and Linux hosts can authenticate against it.
I don't think, however, that Windows clients can
authenticate against a Unix LDAP server without special software on the Win2K boxes.
If you go Novell NDS, however, you not only add a third or fourth OS (and why would you want to add Novell? It sucks compared to Windows, Linux, and Solaris), but you have to start installing their stupid software on all or most of your boxes. It's a nightmare you don't want.
Another alternative is NIS. There are 3rd party NIS vendors that make NIS GINAs for Windows 2000.
NIS is pretty hairy and less favorable than Kerberos or LDAP.
If I were you, I'd probably go Kerberos assuming that Linux kerberos support has grown up lately.
LDAP isn't a bad alternative assuming that you don't mind having a Windows 2000 server control the authentication for your systems.
MS has given several pieces of source and standards to the community. They were instrumental in the development of SOAP and Web Services. IBM helped and shared about 50% of the design and standards.
.NET
MS is almost completely responsible for XML Schema.
MS has submitted C# and CIL to ECMA for standardization which is more than Sun has ever done with Java.
MS has released the source to their CLR and system libraries for
MS has contributed several ideas and technologies to Apache. For example, web folders and Front Page.
MS has supported and worked with some of the people related with FreeBSD on several occasions.
Like I said earlier, MS has demonstrated a willingness to work with open source and contribute. They, like nearly all corporations, hate the GPL because it is the manifesto of a militant minority of Open Source dogmatists.
I feel similar that GPL is ruining Open Source by creating an atmosphere similar to that which they fight (a tight, locked in community where you are not free to do as you will with your source).
Licenses like Apache (or other BSD licenses) allow free use and sharing of code without any restrictive or dogmatic licenses.
To me, that seems much more preferable and allows the free flow of ideas and concept without locking anyone into a particular methodology or concept.
The reason Novell, Netscape and other Microsoft competitors failed is because they bet their entire company on a single feature.
Novell constantly touted file and print sharing and refused to move or change that M.O.
When Microsoft finally beat them at that feature, Novell was left holding nothing. They hadn't innovated or added features.
Novell was king and sat on its pot of gold and refused to move until MS knocked it off and then Novell had nothing.
Netscape was the same way. They hadn't made any major improvements in the 4.x versions of Navigator while MS was continually redoing and improving IE. Look at IE 3 compared with 4, compared with 5.
In all that time, Netscape only had NS 4 with a few minor revisions and NOTHING new. No wonder they failed, they just sat on their pot of gold and refused to budge.
MS, however, will not fall to the same fate because they are constantly improving Windows and adding new features or improving old ones.
Samba has been around for quite awhile and has not made a significant dent in MS' marketshare. In fact, Windows' market share continues to grow. Linux's growth is only against Unix, not against Windows.
Unlike what Slashdot posters would have you believe, MS loves the idea of open source and an open development community. They have been posting more and more of their standards online.
However, MS is clear that they do not like rabid liberal OpenSores Militancy as defined in the GPL. They like people to have choice and the GPL represents the same kind of lock-in that MS you to do in the Bad Old Days.
MS freely supports FreeBSD and other BSD-style licensed products.
Just so ya'll are clear...
Another failed idea by Sun...
First, it's Java which always has severe performance issues on all platforms but Windows (for some odd reason).
Second, it's just more of Sun's lowest-common-denominator strategy of do nothing particularly well, but do everything poorly or equally. Don't take advantage of any platform's perks. Just plod along and go with the worst of every platform.
There is a reason why we have diverse gaming platforms. And it's not simply because no one thought of unifying them.
I'm a RoadRunner customer and AOL/TimeWarner still has yet to open their network to someone other than RoadRunner.
IIRC, the deadline was one year from the merger, and I think it's been well over that. So, WTF?
Considering all of those IBM ads, and the participation of every major computer manufacturer, the GNU-Linux system has indeed become a crown jewel of capitalism.
Huh? Free software is inherently communist/socialist. There is no capitalism in developing something for free, not charging for it and allowing everyone else to use it. I think it's a page in Karl Marx's book as a matter of fact.
Notice that the server is a Win2K AS box running on an OC-48.
I'm sure it's getting hopelessly slashdotted, yet, I have two downloads running (the DivX and the WMA version) and both are running at 40+KB/s.
Who says Windows can't run with the big boys?
Good job, Drestin (haven't seen you on COMNA in awhile...)
-daz
P.S.- Thanks for converting from that awful SlowTime crap!
This is part of Scott's effort to turn around Sun Microsystems and prevent the rapidly increasing downhill slide that the company is experiencing. Apparently, Sun's largest source of revenue is from suing Microsoft. This latest $1Billion will help run Sun for another year or so until they figure out another reason to sue MS. Oh yeah, and they want MS to disclose all their own intellectual property becuase, as you know, Sun needs all this to continue to make their Java VM crash more frequently on Windows.
Businesses getting upset that other businesses are stealing from them! How horrible the BSA is!
Would you guys listen to yourselves? You make it seem like the BSA are nazis. Are the police geshtapo for raiding a car theft ring?
Keep in mind, these companies are using copyrighted software without having paid for it. Whether or not you think copyrights are good or bad, the fact remains, that software is a product and these businesses have stolen many millions of dollars worth of this product.
Yes, yes, I know, it's another argument for free software, but until free software takes off, you still have to pay for software.
Since the police seem uninterested in investigating software theft, what other alternative do these software companies have to prevent theft?
The software industry is like the old west. There's not enough law enforcement to prevent bank robberies or gold theft, so the businesses have to take matters into their own hands.
*bubble bubble bubble from the bong*
Someone's been smoking a *little* too much Argentinian "coffe".
What a misguided headline. IIS will not "die" anytime soon, because it's a really good product.
"But what about all the security problems?"
Look back, you'll see almost 100% of the "security problems" that have plagued IIS recently have not been IIS at all, but ISAPI extensions to IIS. The core of IIS has actually been pretty stable and secure for some time now.
Anyhow, kudos to Apache for another great product, but saying it spells the death for IIS is rather humorous.
As to the "Microsoft has already given up...": this poster is severly misguided. It's obvious he has no clue about what he's talking about.
Ok, first, XP Home is missing many features of XP pro, this is by design.
Second, the "non-standard IIS" in XP Pro is another lie. "Personal Web Server" (aka IIS lite) has been around for a long time. It ran on Win95, 98, and NT 4 Pro (among others). Win2K Pro shipped with "IIS" but it was a restricted versions, not unlike PWS. Windows XP Pro ships with the same deal that Win2K Pro did.
Perhaps this poster should check his facts before further embarassing himself.
... Linux isn't Unix?
Is this news?
Of course the register will post it because it sounds bad for MS, but please show me a programming language for which you cannot write a virus.
Java? Nope. You can use JNI and do anything. Java Applets are less restricted, sure, but in general you can.
.NET is a framework that allows you to write applications that can do, among other things, move, deleted, or edit files.
If you have that capability, then you can write viruses.
This is sensationalism at its worst, but not a new low for the Register, as they take any excuse (and I mean any, just look at this story) to try to bash MS.
I'm suprised they didn't try to claim that MS invented the concept of a "virus".
It's interesting that it's taken scientists so long to realize this simple concept.
A society based on shame and individual responsibility is one that lasts. Thoughout human civilization, people who have not participated properly were either harshly shamed or severly penalized. This forced people to take more responsibility for their actions, and work harder for the common good.
Unfortunately, this feeling was often abused by the rulers or religious leaders of the day who manipulated people into giving more money or their rights.
The personal-responsibility-based society has gotten humanity through some of its toughest times. And now, technology has allowed us to descend into a society of no personal-responsibility where people can make poor descisions and still get away from it (abortion for accidental pregnancies, welfare for fiscal irresponsibility, etc) whereas earlier, people would've had to deal with their problems and encurred hardship. Others saw this hardship and it helped to keep them in line.
We are in a me-me-me entitelist society which, IMHO is tearing at the fabric of our civilization. Eventually, there will be more dependents than producers and there will be an uprising or revolt towards a personal-responsibility-based society and civilization will once again flourish.
This can be avoided if we can change our minds and our views on ourselves and our role in society. As scientists and sociologists start rediscovering already-discovered truths of civilization, perhaps the mindset of the populous will also change.
So, anyone want to start putting numbers on the time it'll take before .NAP files are cracked?
Somewhere between 1-2 hours is my guess =)
Will the app becalled "DeNAP"?
Microsoft has been getting better. Many of the current IIS exploits aren't in IIS at all, but in ISAPI extentions like Index Server (Code Red exploited this), and HTTP Printing in Win2K. Almost all of the exploits released last year and this year could've been blocked by simply following MS' security checklist.
Needless to say, sysadmins apparently don't read checklist, follow best practices, or pay attention to alerts. I have seen real movement from MS (on their site, in comments on NT BugTraq, and in other places) that they take this security stuff seriously now, and they are coming out with some good tools (they're even subcontracting them to get them faster and by security companies who have a better track record) to help automate patch downloading and installation, scanning of network resources for missing patches, remote deployment of patches (for those 500 web servers you have in your datacenter), and various checker tools which will basically verify the security checklists for you.
Apparently MS realizes they made a wrong decision in their approach to security (trusting the sysadmin's dilligence), and they are making strong strides to change this now, and in the future.
I know many of you dislike MS, but you must give them at least that.
$9.95 is pretty steep. Unfortunately, that seems to be the magical number on the Internet. The maximum minimum people are willing to pay per month.
Also, why is it ok if companies like Ximian try to make money, but when others (like MS, for example) try, then they are evil, dastardly corporations?
But the whole point of passport was to provide a single continous logon throughout the MSN suite of web sites.
Why is Zone.com any different?
My guess is that this doesn't have much (any) to do with the technical superiority (or inferiority) of Linux, and more with fears that there are NSA links inside Windows or other closed software. It's more like "well, this is our only choice". I know I'll get flamed for this, but search your feelings, you know it to'be true.
- Mega Super Mario
- Mega Super Mario II
- Mega Super Mario III
- Mega Super Mario Collection
- Mega Super Mario IV: The Adventures of Toad
- Mega Super Pokemon
- Mega Super Pokemon II
- Mega Super Pokemon III: Together with Mega Super Mario
- Mega Super Mario Party
- Mega Super Mario Party II
- Mega Super Mario Party III: Pokemon Edition
- Mega Super Zelda
- Mega Super Zelda II: The Quest for Pokemon
- Mega Super Mario Kart
- Mega Super Mario Kart II: The Quest for Zelda
- Mega Super Mario V: We're Running Out of Ideas
- Super Mario Classic
- Mario Classic Collection
- Zelda Classic Collection
- Pokemon Classic Collection
Oh yeah, and one or two 3rd party games, but that's about it.No thanks, I'll be buying an XBox with real games and real creativity. I'm not blowing my money on another worthless, technologically inferior Nintendo product.
It looks like Chistopher is complaining about a few points, to which Jeshua replies and proves Chistopher wrong (i.e. "No where I have I taken credit for porting the software. Where is the word 'ported' mentioned?").
I guess I miss Chistopher's argument, as Jeshua pretty much set him straight. Jeshua is also right. Chistopher knows nothing about Jeshua. Jeshua could be a huge OSS contributer in a bunch of other projects.
Sounds like Chistopher is a crybaby and doesn't felt he got his way for some reason, so now he's quitting.
If that's not it, what'd I miss?
... the headline is completely misrepresentative of the actual content of the article and the readily available facts of the matter.
.NET My Services (Calendar, contact-list, document storage, etc) in YOUR application, you can license it from MS for a fee.
.NET is free and always will be.
The real truth is that if you want to use Microsoft's
Last I checked, there are companies who actually charge people for the use of their software, I don't think this is anything new.
As always, the real truth is that developing for