What is interesting to me is that Microsoft still gets caught cheating in email all these years after the anti-trust scandals. I'm sure their lawyers are pulling their hair out trying to get the managers to stop sending things like this by email. They have a corporate culture of cheating, and they reward it internally, and it is indisputably part of what made them successful, but it has also become such a normal state of affairs that they have problems hiding it. Pretty amusing that such a relatively old technology is their continual downfall.
Talk about making it easy for Chinese secret police as well - we will train Chinese internet users to trust proxies sent to them in anonymous spam. Their government will NEVER think to make their own proxies and anonymous spam to catch users attempting to break the law and bypass their filters.
I would not presume to call them ignorant customers - I am predicting that is the spin MSFT will put on their failure to push Vista. I certainly don't expect them to blame DRM.
AIX and VMS selling as modular systems made sense 20 years ago - it does not make much sense to have all these versions for Vista other than to confuse your customers out of extra cash. The trend seems pretty clear also - one package for workstations, another for servers - with no real difference between the two other than assumptions made at install time. (e.g. OS X, Ubuntu, Red Hat) If you read the old articles from the late 80s you hear a younger Bill Gates dreaming and predicting the time when his OS will be as powerful and as expensive as AIX and VMS. Problem is that the landscape changed in the meantime - there simply is no reason to do so anymore - well, other than the greed to really try to screw your customers.
Microsoft need not worry about OS X, they need to worry about Windows ME all over again. Maybe users don't like DRM, spyware, and inequitable licensing terms after all, but I suspect Microsoft will end up blaming multiple versions confusing their ignorant customers.
I would much rather read a book from OLPC's dual-mode 1200×900 than Intel's 7-inch 800x480 LCD. Even more so if I had to supply the power myself with a human powered generator.
The OLPC has better hardware in a number of key areas - I think the screen is the best example - I would much rather have the OLPC's dual-mode 1200×900 than Intel's 7-inch 800x480 LCD.
It's like they were not even really trying - other than to come up with something that runs a crippled version of Windows to dump on the market.
That is why backups must be created in an open format.
I don't care what the front end is so much as I care if I can restore onto any system with a minimum of fuss. And as ugly and whatever else you want to call tar, it's format is beautiful and simple, accessible with a wide variety of different front ends, and you have to look really hard to find a system that will not be able to read the format. Even WinZip can read and pull files out of the tar format. I prefer not to have a proprietary back up program - but I absolutely insist on the tar format for the actual archive.
For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable.
Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages, those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread usage.(17)
16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.
17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.
For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable.
Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages, those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread usage.(17)
Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos (among others), Microsoft can further impede the use and development of competing middleware. Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by Microsoft Windows can be read only by other Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's middleware cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard), because Windows will reject them....
16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.
17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.
Don't complain now... Microsoft has known about this since December of last year - who knows how long the black hats have been using it?
I'm upset because I am responsible for users running Windows, and although I have set policy forbidding the usage of IE, I can't enforce it because of Microsoft tying the browser to the OS. I can't imagine the fits CIO's at bigger firms are having right now, and even more so at financial institutions (e.g. Wells Fargo), and then what if you were managing the network for someplace like the CIA and you find out about this!?!
I have had someone I cared about die because she could not eat, and was not going to use an illegal drug to help with her pain and loss of appetite. (Even though one of her doctors suggested it.) Would she have lived if she could have finished her cancer treatments? Maybe, but not being to eat because of her other medicines did kill her.
I really just don't see the whole point - I don't wish to take any recreational drugs, but I can not see any problems with any illegal drugs that was not also true of bathtub gin and the alcohol runners and sellers during the US prohibition.
Especially with a wide format screen. Leave it to Microsoft to steal an UI element from Adobe (see Illustrator or anything from the CS suite), and then lock it into the most undesirable position possible (Adobe allows the user to position it's ribbons either horizontally or vertically where ever the user wants) just as wide screen monitors are becoming generally popular.
So it is just Microsoft who is trying to frame this as a MS Office vs. OpenOffice argument, when it really is an Open, multi-vendor format vs a single vendor, obfuscated format argument. Argue formats, not software.
Actually, I just found it - interview with Tony Williams of Microsoft. He would have saved himself a lot of trouble by just reading ESR's free book....
Once again they prove they should really be called MyopicSoft....
If you get a chance check out the co-creator of COM apologizing for his mess in creating the registry - with no idea that many of the problems he still struggles with have been solved by others - it's on the University of Washington channel I think.
Which problems of CS would you like to revisit today?
It is not the user's fault that Windows lacks good privilege separation, it is an architectural decision (mostly tied to performance issues that no longer exist with recent computers that Microsoft choose to work around with the use of threads to avoid new process spawning - sacrificing the idea of multi-user and privilege separation for speed). If you want users to be secure, you have to empower them to be so - and no, that does not mean throwing bandaids on top of a mess. If Microsoft thought they had good security they would be running Windows machines on their own corporate firewalls - instead they are using other's embedded OSes.
And these would be more accurately called Microsoft botnets infected with Microsoft viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
What is interesting to me is that Microsoft still gets caught cheating in email all these years after the anti-trust scandals. I'm sure their lawyers are pulling their hair out trying to get the managers to stop sending things like this by email. They have a corporate culture of cheating, and they reward it internally, and it is indisputably part of what made them successful, but it has also become such a normal state of affairs that they have problems hiding it. Pretty amusing that such a relatively old technology is their continual downfall.
Talk about making it easy for Chinese secret police as well - we will train Chinese internet users to trust proxies sent to them in anonymous spam. Their government will NEVER think to make their own proxies and anonymous spam to catch users attempting to break the law and bypass their filters.
Two things:
I would not presume to call them ignorant customers - I am predicting that is the spin MSFT will put on their failure to push Vista. I certainly don't expect them to blame DRM.
AIX and VMS selling as modular systems made sense 20 years ago - it does not make much sense to have all these versions for Vista other than to confuse your customers out of extra cash. The trend seems pretty clear also - one package for workstations, another for servers - with no real difference between the two other than assumptions made at install time. (e.g. OS X, Ubuntu, Red Hat) If you read the old articles from the late 80s you hear a younger Bill Gates dreaming and predicting the time when his OS will be as powerful and as expensive as AIX and VMS. Problem is that the landscape changed in the meantime - there simply is no reason to do so anymore - well, other than the greed to really try to screw your customers.
I think it is pretty telling that with 90% market share, Microsoft is having problems pushing their new OS on their current customers - even generally uneducated ones that for one reason or another are buying new computers but going through the trouble to stick with Windows XP.
Microsoft need not worry about OS X, they need to worry about Windows ME all over again. Maybe users don't like DRM, spyware, and inequitable licensing terms after all, but I suspect Microsoft will end up blaming multiple versions confusing their ignorant customers.
I heard he is offering his own family recipe for bacon grease gravy in apology though. Now that's good eats!
Would the balancing pad work for movement in a FPS?
I would much rather read a book from OLPC's dual-mode 1200×900 than Intel's 7-inch 800x480 LCD. Even more so if I had to supply the power myself with a human powered generator.
The OLPC has better hardware in a number of key areas - I think the screen is the best example - I would much rather have the OLPC's dual-mode 1200×900 than Intel's 7-inch 800x480 LCD.
It's like they were not even really trying - other than to come up with something that runs a crippled version of Windows to dump on the market.
That is why backups must be created in an open format.
I don't care what the front end is so much as I care if I can restore onto any system with a minimum of fuss. And as ugly and whatever else you want to call tar, it's format is beautiful and simple, accessible with a wide variety of different front ends, and you have to look really hard to find a system that will not be able to read the format. Even WinZip can read and pull files out of the tar format. I prefer not to have a proprietary back up program - but I absolutely insist on the tar format for the actual archive.
I think Slashdot should start a fund to purchase a iPod for Ballmer's Uncle.
From the US DOJ finding that Microsoft purposefully breaks Kerberos interoperability.
----[quoting]----
For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable.
Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages, those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread usage.(17)
16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.
17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.
I was thinking that if there was ever a story needing the tag itsatrap....
From: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00029523.htm
...
For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain
fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those
fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this
is unobjectionable.
Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating
systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft
version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the
purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional
fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a
message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages,
those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply
with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field
may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a
firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread
usage.(17)
Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos (among others),
Microsoft can further impede the use and development of competing middleware.
Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by Microsoft Windows can be read only by
other Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's
middleware cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard),
because Windows will reject them.
16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses
for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented
Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other
implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.
17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft
has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will
Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of
the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version
unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.
Don't complain now... Microsoft has known about this since December of last year - who knows how long the black hats have been using it?
I'm upset because I am responsible for users running Windows, and although I have set policy forbidding the usage of IE, I can't enforce it because of Microsoft tying the browser to the OS. I can't imagine the fits CIO's at bigger firms are having right now, and even more so at financial institutions (e.g. Wells Fargo), and then what if you were managing the network for someplace like the CIA and you find out about this!?!
You're just upset because it does not come in brown. Now that's innovation!
You left the most important past product out. Windows Vista is obviously the successor to Windows ME.
I have had someone I cared about die because she could not eat, and was not going to use an illegal drug to help with her pain and loss of appetite. (Even though one of her doctors suggested it.) Would she have lived if she could have finished her cancer treatments? Maybe, but not being to eat because of her other medicines did kill her.
I really just don't see the whole point - I don't wish to take any recreational drugs, but I can not see any problems with any illegal drugs that was not also true of bathtub gin and the alcohol runners and sellers during the US prohibition.
Especially with a wide format screen. Leave it to Microsoft to steal an UI element from Adobe (see Illustrator or anything from the CS suite), and then lock it into the most undesirable position possible (Adobe allows the user to position it's ribbons either horizontally or vertically where ever the user wants) just as wide screen monitors are becoming generally popular.
Calm down Steve, you guys got over Windows ME, this will pass also.
- OpenOffice
- Star Office
- Google Docs & Spreadsheets
- KOffice
- Scribus
- Abiword
- ajaxWrite
- Zoho Writer
- Ichitaro
- IBM's Lotus/Domino
- IBM Workplace
- Mobile Office
- Gnumeric
- Neo Office
- Hancom Office
- WordPerfect???
So it is just Microsoft who is trying to frame this as a MS Office vs. OpenOffice argument, when it really is an Open, multi-vendor format vs a single vendor, obfuscated format argument. Argue formats, not software.Actually, I just found it - interview with Tony Williams of Microsoft. He would have saved himself a lot of trouble by just reading ESR's free book....
Once again they prove they should really be called MyopicSoft....
If you get a chance check out the co-creator of COM apologizing for his mess in creating the registry - with no idea that many of the problems he still struggles with have been solved by others - it's on the University of Washington channel I think.
Which problems of CS would you like to revisit today?
Exactly, what is the difference between the copy of a CD or DVD for my car, and the one I make to give or sell to a friend?
The answer is: Actions that can not be monitored from the computer, and sorry, but I refuse to get a **AA monitoring camera embedded into my forehead.
I got mine the first day (almost did not wait) and got the 8th to last unit - but still have not been able to get a second nunchuck!
It is not the user's fault that Windows lacks good privilege separation, it is an architectural decision (mostly tied to performance issues that no longer exist with recent computers that Microsoft choose to work around with the use of threads to avoid new process spawning - sacrificing the idea of multi-user and privilege separation for speed). If you want users to be secure, you have to empower them to be so - and no, that does not mean throwing bandaids on top of a mess. If Microsoft thought they had good security they would be running Windows machines on their own corporate firewalls - instead they are using other's embedded OSes.
And these would be more accurately called Microsoft botnets infected with Microsoft viruses.