What exactly is the difference between giving away OpenOffice and giving away Microsoft Office?
The difference is that Sun is giving OpenOffice away to everybody, while MS is giving away MS Office only to some priviledged few huge and publicly visible organizations while forcing lots of small organizations or individuals (via OEM) to buy their products.
This behaviour (bootlicking the big guys while raping the little guys) is what ticks people off.
Companies go out of business for many reasons. Their choice of word processor isn't one of them.
Actually, the only company that I know personally and used ASP went out of business last year (all other companies I know use either PHP or have only static pages).
Of course Microsoft was not the only reason, but in that case it was the primary reason. The company was selling credit-card connectivity (to be used with online-shops) and lost many customers because of the bad security of IIS, also the company was a little - well incompetent. (I had to tell them that the referer sent by a browser can't be trusted. They sell so-called secure payment and didn't know that the referer can be faked.)
It works both ways: Microsoft drives up costs and is bought mostly by incompetent people (especially on servers). Incompetence is a major reason for corporate failure.
Microsoft might merely be a symptom, not the reason for that companie's failure.
The Slammer worm or the numerous IIS worms have hit a lot of companies, including MS itself. A company stupid enough to use MS IIS and/or MS SQL probably doesn't have a backup solution at hand (only MS-software is good, right?) and such a worm can essentially shut the company down for days or even weeks. And such interruptions can easily lead to the company failing.
To go back on topic: I run a business - I don't have any employees yet (and won't for some years) but as soon as I have any and someone thinks any one-vendor solution (like MS) is better when a multi-vendor standard solution (like Linux) is available he will get fired immedeately. One-vendor solutions should be avoided at all costs, it's bad for business to be dependent on any other company.
Because any website can pop up a fake window with a little GIF of a lock in the corner.
How can a website possibly fake the lock-icon which happens to be on the toolbar?
But those dog names will be stored somewhere secure, that they can't access, so you know if you see them that your own computer is generating that data.
Actually I think it's either a desperate try to distract users from real security problems (like the millions of servers that get infected each year despite MS being only a minor player on SQL and webservers, or the even more desktops...) or it's a clever plan to complete the big database in Redmond with the last thing they don't know about you yet: The names of your dogs.
So far, I haven't heard about any "websites faking lock icons and doing nasty stuff", but even though Apache is a much larger target, all big worms hit IIS.
I think somebody at Redmond still treats security as a 100% pure PR-problem. Just do anything about security, no matter how stupid the idea is, as long as it's from Microsoft, there will always be simple minds that will say:
Exactly. Welcome to the world of a geek... if they can't think of a use for them to use it, no one else should either.
I'm not telling anybody, I just provide an explanation why tablet PCs just aren't selling (there were about 100 times more laptops sold than tablet PCs since the (re)introduction of the tablet PC by MS. If there were any special demand for tablet PCs and people waiting for them, sales would have skyrocketed during the first months - didn't happen.) And it's also nothing new, tablet PCs have been on the market as early as the beginning 90's. All failed. Now I agree that there is a very limited niche market for it, but it's certainly not "the next big thing" which was what MS wanted us to believe.
The tablet PC was just Microsoft's "hype of the month" that will revolutionize computing. This PC-with-built-in-phone (what's it called again?) is this month's hype that will revolutionize computing. Or Microsoft's mobile Internet-toilet (no joke) will revolutionize computing and the next month some other we-are-so-innovative idea will revolutionize computing.
The most staggering thing is that people still believe it.
Exactly my feelings. Some people seem to think that a pencil is a more "natural" way of inputting data than a keyboard, but in reality both are "unnatural" tools and we have to born with knowledge of either tool.
For text, a keyboard is much better and faster than handwriting, the only thing where a pencil is great is sketches, pictures, etc. - but only very few people need that.
Your statement is as blind as the one that supports Microsoft without thinking first. Perhaps the reason that "only mass-infections" hit MicroSoft software is simply because they are the biggest target?
If you think that 11% and 25% is "the biggest target" then you are even dumber than I thought.
Hell that was the whole point of my post - MS is the most insecure system everywhere - at the desktop (where they are indeed the biggest target) but also on servers (where they are a small and shrinking player among much bigger players.)
Fact:
Microsoft is not the biggest target at webservers and SQL, yet they were the ***ONLY*** ones affected by mass-infections (like 100k+ infections, the most serious Linux worms affected a few thousand machines, if that - nowhere near the millions of Microsoft boxes affected by the various worms)
I take it from your attitude that you're not a programmer, or if you are, you have some sort of access to a magical AI that fixes every miniscule bug for you. Bear in mind that this lawsuit is potentially dangerous for every kind of programmer, not just the noodleheads at MS.
I'm so sick of you MS bootlickers (yes, that's exactly what you are).
MS SQL has 11% marketshare (according to MS themselves), yet the only mass-infection hit it and not somebody else. Coincidence?
IIS runs only 25% (and sinking) of webservers, yet ALL mass-infections so far hit it and none Apache which runs over 60%.
It's a fact that MS software comes with a higher risk than anything else. No system is perfectly secure, true, but if you really think that MS software is equally secure as anything else, especially GPL software, then you are living in a dreamworld.
So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers.
Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?
no one likes talking about this, but I'd imagine that many of those lindows machines being sold are being taken home, run once or twice as a linux machine , and then wiped and installed as a windows machine.
Probably, but also many will find out that just using the preinstalled apps is easier than to hassle with installing Windows, installing MS Office, installing ICQ, installing a virus scanner, etc. etc.
If you are not a gamer, Linux is perfectly usable as a desktop, and in many respects easier than Windows (because it comes with so many preinstalled (or easily available through Click-n-Run) applications - no CDs, no installs, no hassles)
But even if almost all Microtel boxes would end up with Windows - This also benefits us because it shows that there is a market for non-Windows-preloaded boxes and gives us hope that other PC-vendors will no longer force us to pay for Windows we don't use anyway.
The DLP mirrors always swivel because they can either be "on" and "off". To show a shade of grey or any non-white and non-white color, the mirrors have to swivel accordingly.
First, the Word formats are not fully documented, second the Word formats are no standard because they change all the time which is a pain, third no Word document can really be reliably read by anything other than the exact same version of Word, other versions or other programs "usually" work, but fail often enough.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that Sun is giving OpenOffice away to everybody, while MS is giving away MS Office only to some priviledged few huge and publicly visible organizations while forcing lots of small organizations or individuals (via OEM) to buy their products.
This behaviour (bootlicking the big guys while raping the little guys) is what ticks people off.
Actually, the only company that I know personally and used ASP went out of business last year (all other companies I know use either PHP or have only static pages).
Of course Microsoft was not the only reason, but in that case it was the primary reason. The company was selling credit-card connectivity (to be used with online-shops) and lost many customers because of the bad security of IIS, also the company was a little - well incompetent. (I had to tell them that the referer sent by a browser can't be trusted. They sell so-called secure payment and didn't know that the referer can be faked.)
It works both ways: Microsoft drives up costs and is bought mostly by incompetent people (especially on servers). Incompetence is a major reason for corporate failure.
Microsoft might merely be a symptom, not the reason for that companie's failure.
The Slammer worm or the numerous IIS worms have hit a lot of companies, including MS itself. A company stupid enough to use MS IIS and/or MS SQL probably doesn't have a backup solution at hand (only MS-software is good, right?) and such a worm can essentially shut the company down for days or even weeks. And such interruptions can easily lead to the company failing.
To go back on topic: I run a business - I don't have any employees yet (and won't for some years) but as soon as I have any and someone thinks any one-vendor solution (like MS) is better when a multi-vendor standard solution (like Linux) is available he will get fired immedeately. One-vendor solutions should be avoided at all costs, it's bad for business to be dependent on any other company.
I think the priorities at Redmond are a little bit mixed up.
How can a website possibly fake the lock-icon which happens to be on the toolbar?
But those dog names will be stored somewhere secure, that they can't access, so you know if you see them that your own computer is generating that data.
Actually I think it's either a desperate try to distract users from real security problems (like the millions of servers that get infected each year despite MS being only a minor player on SQL and webservers, or the even more desktops...) or it's a clever plan to complete the big database in Redmond with the last thing they don't know about you yet: The names of your dogs.
So far, I haven't heard about any "websites faking lock icons and doing nasty stuff", but even though Apache is a much larger target, all big worms hit IIS.
I think somebody at Redmond still treats security as a 100% pure PR-problem. Just do anything about security, no matter how stupid the idea is, as long as it's from Microsoft, there will always be simple minds that will say:
Makes sense
Mod parent up: +1 funny please.
I'm not telling anybody, I just provide an explanation why tablet PCs just aren't selling (there were about 100 times more laptops sold than tablet PCs since the (re)introduction of the tablet PC by MS. If there were any special demand for tablet PCs and people waiting for them, sales would have skyrocketed during the first months - didn't happen.) And it's also nothing new, tablet PCs have been on the market as early as the beginning 90's. All failed. Now I agree that there is a very limited niche market for it, but it's certainly not "the next big thing" which was what MS wanted us to believe.
The tablet PC was just Microsoft's "hype of the month" that will revolutionize computing. This PC-with-built-in-phone (what's it called again?) is this month's hype that will revolutionize computing. Or Microsoft's mobile Internet-toilet (no joke) will revolutionize computing and the next month some other we-are-so-innovative idea will revolutionize computing.
The most staggering thing is that people still believe it.
For text, a keyboard is much better and faster than handwriting, the only thing where a pencil is great is sketches, pictures, etc. - but only very few people need that.
Those affected a few thousand computers, probably less. - That's nothing compared to the millions affected by IIS and MS SQL worms.
11% is small compared to Oracle and IBM-DB2 (about 30% each), 25% is small compared to Apache (over 60%)
If you think that 11% and 25% is "the biggest target" then you are even dumber than I thought.
Hell that was the whole point of my post - MS is the most insecure system everywhere - at the desktop (where they are indeed the biggest target) but also on servers (where they are a small and shrinking player among much bigger players.)
Fact:
Microsoft is not the biggest target at webservers and SQL, yet they were the ***ONLY*** ones affected by mass-infections (like 100k+ infections, the most serious Linux worms affected a few thousand machines, if that - nowhere near the millions of Microsoft boxes affected by the various worms)
I'm so sick of you MS bootlickers (yes, that's exactly what you are).
MS SQL has 11% marketshare (according to MS themselves), yet the only mass-infection hit it and not somebody else. Coincidence?
IIS runs only 25% (and sinking) of webservers, yet ALL mass-infections so far hit it and none Apache which runs over 60%.
It's a fact that MS software comes with a higher risk than anything else. No system is perfectly secure, true, but if you really think that MS software is equally secure as anything else, especially GPL software, then you are living in a dreamworld.
Everyone who wants his scripts to work out of the box without having to install 2 or 3 add-on packages first?
Linux runs already about half of all servers. No serious vendor is willing to cut out that market.
Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?
Probably, but also many will find out that just using the preinstalled apps is easier than to hassle with installing Windows, installing MS Office, installing ICQ, installing a virus scanner, etc. etc.
If you are not a gamer, Linux is perfectly usable as a desktop, and in many respects easier than Windows (because it comes with so many preinstalled (or easily available through Click-n-Run) applications - no CDs, no installs, no hassles)
But even if almost all Microtel boxes would end up with Windows - This also benefits us because it shows that there is a market for non-Windows-preloaded boxes and gives us hope that other PC-vendors will no longer force us to pay for Windows we don't use anyway.
It's just a matter of time until somebody (other than the author as he doesn't want to) writes a nice graphical config-tool for it.
Xvid, because it is the closest to the official MPEG4 standard and open source (and OSS never dies).
Popularity = Chances of seeing it on P2P networks = about zero for Sorenson
Maybe you can post some html-code or link that crashes a halfway recent version of Mozilla?
(Or were you just trolling?)
It's not just XP, it's all Windows versions.
No offense, but many Alpha-products are perfectly comparable to ultra-mature Microsoft products like IE or MSOffice.
Especially Phoenix/Firebird/Mozilla-Browser/whateveritscalled now which is very stable at least on my installation.
Now I don't say they don't have a point, but unless we know the exact way this test was conducted, the results are not really useful.
First, the Word formats are not fully documented, second the Word formats are no standard because they change all the time which is a pain, third no Word document can really be reliably read by anything other than the exact same version of Word, other versions or other programs "usually" work, but fail often enough.
"Common knowledge"? If that's common knowledge why are Windows-servers at hosters usually more expensive than Linux-servers?
Costs are shifted from licensing to support
Let's assume for a minute that this completely unproven claim is correct:
So licensing costs (taxed in Washington state) are shifted to support (taxed in New York).
Now please explain why New York should not do it.
So all public schools that "undercut" the market for private schools are illegal?
This law exists only in the phantasy of MS-apologists. The government is very well allowed to compete with private companies.