I think it's better that Red Hat released the advisory ahead of time.
Did Red Hat discover the hole itself? If not, then the only reason they knew about it was because of their membership in the private list and someone else providing the information to them. Then they turn around and take the info that others provided and stabbed all the other members in the back with it. They even admitted that it was a mistake, and if it wasn't, then they'd start facing the possibility of being shut out of the list and getting caught with their pants down every time a new hole is discovered because they'll never have time to do testing on the fixes that they're rushing out the door.
Also interesting that some of the people applauding Red Hat for their quick disclosure don't seem to realize that Red Hat didn't release their announcement for 13 days after the original vulnerability notice. Something to remember the next time they hypocritically bash a certain other company that also realizes that fixes need to be thoroughly tested against a myriad of different configurations rather than rushing something out the second they hear of it.
The important distinction with Free Software is that those boundaries are extensive, flexible and empowering.
Absolute eyeroll-enducing jibberish. Sounds like it came from a Red Hat spokesman after his first day in Marketing 101.
Richard Stallman is NOT a "socialist" in the classic sense.
And? This argument is as tired as the whole "You label him a liberal like it's a bad thing, but lemme tell you what classic liberalism is really about!" thing. Well that's great, but words evolve, which is why we do things like preface them with the word "classic" to show that we're talking about something else. If someone doesn't use a similar word, how about assuming that they're not talking about the classic type, okay? Anyway, I don't care what term you want to use to refer to Stallman's philosphy, but I think a good summation would be: "People with lots of money and cool stuff are dicks. Let's take it from them and give it to people who don't have it, whether they've ever lifted a finger or not."
RMS -cannot- be "extreme" in his views, any more than he can be purple in them. Rating someone's views, on some imagined continuum, is pure fantasy.
Jesus Christ. Just like with that socialism thing, what's with this semantic mental masturbation you've got going? Or did you get this one from the professor who gave you those after-class tips about "flexible and empowering boundaries?" You're really not going to pretend to be so dense and/or narrow-minded as to not know what is meant when someone is described as "extreme," are you? And no, not the Mountain Dew type, either.
If a person is truly interested in freedom, then why not let RMS have the freedom to express his philosophies, without hinderence or abuse? Why claim a lust for "freedom", provided it is obtained by gagging or limiting someone else's? Is that -really- freedom?
Slamming his philosophy is surely not "gagging or limiting" what he says. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of RMS stories here at Slashdot for him to get his views out. His GPL seems to take away a lot more freedom than I've ever seen taken away from the man himself, especially where his right to speak is concerned.
but the truth of the matter is that RMS has sacrificed a great deal of his personal time producing Free software
Yeah, and we all know how valuable his "personal time" is. The mind boggles thinking about how many hot dates the guy must've passed up.:)
On a > side note, it's > reassuring to see that > horrible editing isn't > just limited to Slashdot > but apparently > is the > standard at all > OSDN sites.
Nah, I wasn't really out to change your mind, and you gave a decent reply, so I have regrets about picking your post out of the dozens I could've chosen to flame. Yours just happened to have the combination of two of my pet peeves here: 1) The whole Company X gets it, Group Y doesn't get it thing. To me, that's been played out here as much as any imagine-a-beowulf-cluster-of-these posts. 2) The idea that Microsoft is bumbling around and doesn't know what they're doing. This even though Microsoft has been wildly successful.
Now, I missed the last sentence of your post, and I see that you acknowledged my second point, in that they're successful in shareholder terms, and that it's a cultural thing you're talking about. I still disagree with it, though I wouldn't have flamed you for it, because I think every public company out there wishes that they were in the same position so that they could do the same things that Microsoft does. And that if they were in that position, people around here wouldn't see their behavior any differently than they view Microsoft now. Anyway, I'm still not trying to change your mind, but you've got my apologies for the flame.
Actually, it's people like you who'll never get it. Microsoft continues to be one of the most successful companies in history, while you sit there pulling your peter at your crappy job and bitch about Microsoft to make yourself feel better. If this is what "not getting it" is all about, I bet Sun and Netscape et al. are hoping that Microsoft hurries up and "gets it" real soon now. Got it? Freakin' hilarious.
I just have to say, that it's so much fun seeing tools like you cry every time Microsoft sticks it to you. Of course, next week, some moronic Slashdot article will have you and your ilk thinking that you've got Microsoft in trouble, at which point they'll make you look like the dumbass Keystone Kops again. It's truly a beautiful thing. Thank you, Microsoft!
I wouldn't consider a sequel important in the grand scheme of things.
Then why, just two sentences later did you say, "GT3, GTA3 and MGS2 are going to be like that ['important'] for the PS2?" Maybe they're just there for decoration, but I was under the impression that those little numbers after the acronyms indicated that they're sequels. Which of course, to you, are unimportant. Unless they're on the system you're pimping for, I guess.
I can't stress how hilarious it is to see Slashdotters, many of whom take pride in the amount of MP3s they've downloaded for CDs they've never bought, self-righteously coming to the defense of the artists that they've been ripping off. Let's note the difference, shall we? While you're more than happy to give a big "Fuck you!" to any band that asks that you quit pirating their music, Microsoft actually asked for and received the bands' permission. Beautiful.
Re:Why the bloody hell does the release day matter
on
Gamecube Hits US Early
·
· Score: 1
The problem with that is that the Xbox gets the big Thursday splash of free publicity in the news about people stampeding to finally get their hands on an Xbox, making it look like some gotta-have product. If Nintendo's going to trickle out the original Cube sales, they have no such story. Of course, I don't think a few days earlier or later will have much of an effect either way, since I'd hope that most people already know which one they're going to get &mdash the $100 price difference would have a lot bigger effect to me than the release schedule.
That said, if I get one, it's going to be the Xbox, and possibly on the release date. I haven't had a console since about 1990 with the NES, and I'm starting to get into the hype a bit, wanting to see all this stuff up and running on my home entertainment system. Hey, sometimes you just wanna have a nice fun toy to slack around with.:)
Man, I just can't believe some techies out there. WTF do you do to have such disposable incomes?
Tip one: If you're going to do work, make sure you get paid for it. Foreign concept around here I know, what with all the brainwashing that Richard Stallman has accomplished. Along the same lines, you could be like Red Hat's Bob Young and get a nice pile of disposable income by getting other suc^H^H^Hpeople to work for you for free.
Good lord. Do you even listen to yourself? What planet do you people live on? How many hours of your lives have you wasted dreaming up these silly fantasies in which every single thing that happens on the planet is about to rain massive destruction down upon the evil Microsoft empire? Seems like it's been going on for about 4 years at this site alone, and it's still as meaningless as it ever was. I can only imagine the bitterness some of you people must feel that your plans never come to fruition. Get out and talk to real people, take a business class or something, and you'll see it's really not all that hard to figure out. Just knock off these pathetically childlike daydreams already because it's long past embarrassing.
But after you're merely arrested/detained/whatever for a crime — i.e., haven't been convicted yet — you already lose some of your rights. You can have your vehicle and drivers license taken away from you before any trial (and for the record, I think this is an unjust practice). I would consider it an invasion of privacy to be strip searched and have my orifices probed when being put into jail to await trial. Do you consider this last example to be unjust? I don't, because I believe that the safety concerns take precedence. Otherwise it would be even easier for people to bring contraband into jail with them.
It's pretty much the way I feel about this current issue, in that there's a strong public safety argument going up against the privacy concerns. From the article, it sounds like they're putting up a clear firewall between the observers and the prosecution team so that any evidence gained through these conversations cannot be admissible in court — if they didn't, there's pretty much no way that I'd ever support this.
So I'm sure someone will say, "Oh yeah, nice ideal, but you know that someone will violate the firewall." To that I can only say that if someone was willing to violate the firewall, what on Earth would stop them from violating the current standard and setting up a wiretap anyway? There are always going to be some bad apples who will go around the law, but the simple fact is that they can already go around the law — this new dictate isn't going to grant the bad apples any new powers that they didn't already have to cross the line. It's a judge's job to throw out any evidence obtained improperly through this system; if there's a bad judge who doesn't, you don't really think that he's going to suddenly right himself and throw out evidence from an illegal wiretap obtained under the current system, do you?
Believe me, I understand about the need to protect against a slippery slope of our rights going away. I used to be a card carrying member of the ACLU until they decided to fight fiercely only for the rights of their pet groups. It bothered me greatly when that boob Manuel Noriega was convicted in part because prosecutors eavesdropped on the conversations between him and his lawyers (which is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier, that this new dictate doesn't give the bad apples any new powers that they didn't already have). I can see why some people are more wary of this than I am, and I respect that people would be against it, but I think it's totally unproductive to not recognize that there are real public safety issues involved with this and instead run around screaming that it's simply a matter of our current leaders wanting to turn the country into a police state. Come on.
What is it exactly that you're so baffled by? Just because you've never seen them only shows your ignorance, since they've been sending these out for years now. As far as being in an obscure place, where would you expect to find it? I always use the direct link to the bulletin list (www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.asp), but if I didn't know how to find it, I think I might try www.microsoft.com/security. And whaddaya know, there's a web page there and the second link on the left is for the Security Bulletin service. How obscure. *ahem*
Red Hat is trying to sell a product that can be downloaded for free. Why again do you expect investors to be lining up behind them? Especially when the only time they've been able to show profitability is by using accounting tricks -- in other words, if they continued "making money" at the same rate, they'd be bankrupt in a number of quarters.
Palm is on a not-so-slow path to www.f---edcompany.com. Everybody realizes that it's in trouble, including Palm itself. If they thought their real troubles spawned from Microsoft getting a favorable settlement, they wouldn't have just shitcanned their CEO.
Hell, Microsoft probably doesn't even plan for world domination, they've gotta be surprised by how easily it continues to be given to them by all these completely incompetent companies that you seem to be in love with. Next up: Sun Microsystems.:)
First off, there's no evidence whatsoever that record sales went up because of Napster. Until the current economic downturn, the entertainment industry, not just music sales, has been booming in the past few years.
I don't really follow the point you made about how the quality of music would be better. The most popular music downloads track with the most popular CD sales. Except for short periods of revolution, like with Nirvana, the most popular music will for the most part be bland because it plays to the least common denominator and tries to emulate the current "big thing." I've long given up on radio for my music, but if people gravitate towards that stuff, it doesn't bother me a bit. If it makes 'em happy, good for them, and it means when I go see my favorite bands live, I can enjoy seeing them up close in an intimate setting instead of jostling for position with 20,000 other people.
Just pretend with me for a second. Let's say that every band on Earth released 96Kb/s bitrate MP3s of every song they've ever done, for free. Not great listening quality, but certainly plenty to tell whether or not you liked the song before you purchased it. Further, pretend that you could cheaply pick and choose online any song you want (instead of buying full albums) to buy and download at full sound quality. As long as there was a price over $0.00 involved, I honestly don't think it would put much of a dent in the number of people looking to download stuff for free via Napster-like services. Do you feel differently?
Too bad the people who just download stuff without ever paying screw them over just as badly. And well, seeing as how nobody put a gun to the artists' heads and made them sign a deal with any particular record company, yet they have absolutely no say in the matter when it comes to people downloading their stuff for free, I'd say that the biggest assholes in this whole situation sure aren't the record companies.
Maybe I am off on this, I am not a programmer or a kernel hacker i am just a simple user..does Linux need this boost from these companies?
Well, judging how the Slashbots cry like stuck pigs every time an article like this comes out, I guess they think Linux needs the boost.
Oh yeah, and I love how Michael completely distorted the article with his strawman argument. No, the author didn't make it out to be a negative because they aren't going 100% to Linux, as Michael wants people to believe. It's a negative because of things like, "only 3 percent see Linux as their primary enterprise server system within three years; 60 percent named Windows" and "'[...] with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey.'" Typical in-denial and pathetic editorializing by Michael again, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Isn't Apache running on 50+% of the web servers out there, with a decent chunk of those being Linux... These guys are clueless..
Without trying to be too insulting here, you sound like one of those clueless people who think that the only reason why servers exist is to face the internet and serve web pages to browsers. You know, the kind of people who think that Netcraft numbers are a measure of the overall server market?
Hey, it's a Hotmail account. If you really can read it, you're welcome to all the college diploma offers and methods of growing your penis 2-4 inches that you find there. Bada-bing!
Gee, making a list of "arbitrary and pie-in-the-sky things I want done to Microsoft because they really steam my britches and I like Linux," and you could only come up with three items? Where's the creativity?
Cute sarcasm, but your post was basically a lot of hot air which never gave a single example of Microsoft using illegal practices to extend its dominance in personal computers into server markets. How were you forced to use NT, 2000, or SQL Server?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's better that Red Hat released the advisory ahead of time.
Did Red Hat discover the hole itself? If not, then the only reason they knew about it was because of their membership in the private list and someone else providing the information to them. Then they turn around and take the info that others provided and stabbed all the other members in the back with it. They even admitted that it was a mistake, and if it wasn't, then they'd start facing the possibility of being shut out of the list and getting caught with their pants down every time a new hole is discovered because they'll never have time to do testing on the fixes that they're rushing out the door.
Also interesting that some of the people applauding Red Hat for their quick disclosure don't seem to realize that Red Hat didn't release their announcement for 13 days after the original vulnerability notice. Something to remember the next time they hypocritically bash a certain other company that also realizes that fixes need to be thoroughly tested against a myriad of different configurations rather than rushing something out the second they hear of it.
The important distinction with Free Software is that those boundaries are extensive, flexible and empowering.
Absolute eyeroll-enducing jibberish. Sounds like it came from a Red Hat spokesman after his first day in Marketing 101.
Richard Stallman is NOT a "socialist" in the classic sense.
And? This argument is as tired as the whole "You label him a liberal like it's a bad thing, but lemme tell you what classic liberalism is really about!" thing. Well that's great, but words evolve, which is why we do things like preface them with the word "classic" to show that we're talking about something else. If someone doesn't use a similar word, how about assuming that they're not talking about the classic type, okay? Anyway, I don't care what term you want to use to refer to Stallman's philosphy, but I think a good summation would be: "People with lots of money and cool stuff are dicks. Let's take it from them and give it to people who don't have it, whether they've ever lifted a finger or not."
RMS -cannot- be "extreme" in his views, any more than he can be purple in them. Rating someone's views, on some imagined continuum, is pure fantasy.
Jesus Christ. Just like with that socialism thing, what's with this semantic mental masturbation you've got going? Or did you get this one from the professor who gave you those after-class tips about "flexible and empowering boundaries?" You're really not going to pretend to be so dense and/or narrow-minded as to not know what is meant when someone is described as "extreme," are you? And no, not the Mountain Dew type, either.
If a person is truly interested in freedom, then why not let RMS have the freedom to express his philosophies, without hinderence or abuse? Why claim a lust for "freedom", provided it is obtained by gagging or limiting someone else's? Is that -really- freedom?
Slamming his philosophy is surely not "gagging or limiting" what he says. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of RMS stories here at Slashdot for him to get his views out. His GPL seems to take away a lot more freedom than I've ever seen taken away from the man himself, especially where his right to speak is concerned.
but the truth of the matter is that RMS has sacrificed a great deal of his personal time producing Free software
Yeah, and we all know how valuable his "personal time" is. The mind boggles thinking about how many hot dates the guy must've passed up. :)
On a > side note, it's > reassuring to see that > horrible editing isn't > just limited to Slashdot > but apparently > is the > standard at all > OSDN sites.
Nah, I wasn't really out to change your mind, and you gave a decent reply, so I have regrets about picking your post out of the dozens I could've chosen to flame. Yours just happened to have the combination of two of my pet peeves here: 1) The whole Company X gets it, Group Y doesn't get it thing. To me, that's been played out here as much as any imagine-a-beowulf-cluster-of-these posts. 2) The idea that Microsoft is bumbling around and doesn't know what they're doing. This even though Microsoft has been wildly successful.
Now, I missed the last sentence of your post, and I see that you acknowledged my second point, in that they're successful in shareholder terms, and that it's a cultural thing you're talking about. I still disagree with it, though I wouldn't have flamed you for it, because I think every public company out there wishes that they were in the same position so that they could do the same things that Microsoft does. And that if they were in that position, people around here wouldn't see their behavior any differently than they view Microsoft now. Anyway, I'm still not trying to change your mind, but you've got my apologies for the flame.
Actually, it's people like you who'll never get it. Microsoft continues to be one of the most successful companies in history, while you sit there pulling your peter at your crappy job and bitch about Microsoft to make yourself feel better. If this is what "not getting it" is all about, I bet Sun and Netscape et al. are hoping that Microsoft hurries up and "gets it" real soon now. Got it? Freakin' hilarious.
I just have to say, that it's so much fun seeing tools like you cry every time Microsoft sticks it to you. Of course, next week, some moronic Slashdot article will have you and your ilk thinking that you've got Microsoft in trouble, at which point they'll make you look like the dumbass Keystone Kops again. It's truly a beautiful thing. Thank you, Microsoft!
I wouldn't consider a sequel important in the grand scheme of things.
Then why, just two sentences later did you say, "GT3, GTA3 and MGS2 are going to be like that ['important'] for the PS2?" Maybe they're just there for decoration, but I was under the impression that those little numbers after the acronyms indicated that they're sequels. Which of course, to you, are unimportant. Unless they're on the system you're pimping for, I guess.
I can't stress how hilarious it is to see Slashdotters, many of whom take pride in the amount of MP3s they've downloaded for CDs they've never bought, self-righteously coming to the defense of the artists that they've been ripping off. Let's note the difference, shall we? While you're more than happy to give a big "Fuck you!" to any band that asks that you quit pirating their music, Microsoft actually asked for and received the bands' permission. Beautiful.
The problem with that is that the Xbox gets the big Thursday splash of free publicity in the news about people stampeding to finally get their hands on an Xbox, making it look like some gotta-have product. If Nintendo's going to trickle out the original Cube sales, they have no such story. Of course, I don't think a few days earlier or later will have much of an effect either way, since I'd hope that most people already know which one they're going to get &mdash the $100 price difference would have a lot bigger effect to me than the release schedule.
That said, if I get one, it's going to be the Xbox, and possibly on the release date. I haven't had a console since about 1990 with the NES, and I'm starting to get into the hype a bit, wanting to see all this stuff up and running on my home entertainment system. Hey, sometimes you just wanna have a nice fun toy to slack around with. :)
Man, I just can't believe some techies out there. WTF do you do to have such disposable incomes?
Tip one: If you're going to do work, make sure you get paid for it. Foreign concept around here I know, what with all the brainwashing that Richard Stallman has accomplished. Along the same lines, you could be like Red Hat's Bob Young and get a nice pile of disposable income by getting other suc^H^H^Hpeople to work for you for free.
Good lord. Do you even listen to yourself? What planet do you people live on? How many hours of your lives have you wasted dreaming up these silly fantasies in which every single thing that happens on the planet is about to rain massive destruction down upon the evil Microsoft empire? Seems like it's been going on for about 4 years at this site alone, and it's still as meaningless as it ever was. I can only imagine the bitterness some of you people must feel that your plans never come to fruition. Get out and talk to real people, take a business class or something, and you'll see it's really not all that hard to figure out. Just knock off these pathetically childlike daydreams already because it's long past embarrassing.
Why would Palm buy Be to give it all away for free? What do they get out of doing that? And how is that "the right thing?"
What's it like working for Burger King?
Hey, just give it another 6-8 months and I'm sure the current batch of Slashdot editors will be able to answer that question.
Hi Patrick, just a quick question.
Can I get you or someone else at VA on record to admit that Open Source as a business model has is a complete and utter failure?
And a sincere welcome to the proprietary, and dare I say, real, world.
But after you're merely arrested/detained/whatever for a crime — i.e., haven't been convicted yet — you already lose some of your rights. You can have your vehicle and drivers license taken away from you before any trial (and for the record, I think this is an unjust practice). I would consider it an invasion of privacy to be strip searched and have my orifices probed when being put into jail to await trial. Do you consider this last example to be unjust? I don't, because I believe that the safety concerns take precedence. Otherwise it would be even easier for people to bring contraband into jail with them.
It's pretty much the way I feel about this current issue, in that there's a strong public safety argument going up against the privacy concerns. From the article, it sounds like they're putting up a clear firewall between the observers and the prosecution team so that any evidence gained through these conversations cannot be admissible in court — if they didn't, there's pretty much no way that I'd ever support this.
So I'm sure someone will say, "Oh yeah, nice ideal, but you know that someone will violate the firewall." To that I can only say that if someone was willing to violate the firewall, what on Earth would stop them from violating the current standard and setting up a wiretap anyway? There are always going to be some bad apples who will go around the law, but the simple fact is that they can already go around the law — this new dictate isn't going to grant the bad apples any new powers that they didn't already have to cross the line. It's a judge's job to throw out any evidence obtained improperly through this system; if there's a bad judge who doesn't, you don't really think that he's going to suddenly right himself and throw out evidence from an illegal wiretap obtained under the current system, do you?
Believe me, I understand about the need to protect against a slippery slope of our rights going away. I used to be a card carrying member of the ACLU until they decided to fight fiercely only for the rights of their pet groups. It bothered me greatly when that boob Manuel Noriega was convicted in part because prosecutors eavesdropped on the conversations between him and his lawyers (which is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier, that this new dictate doesn't give the bad apples any new powers that they didn't already have). I can see why some people are more wary of this than I am, and I respect that people would be against it, but I think it's totally unproductive to not recognize that there are real public safety issues involved with this and instead run around screaming that it's simply a matter of our current leaders wanting to turn the country into a police state. Come on.
What is it exactly that you're so baffled by? Just because you've never seen them only shows your ignorance, since they've been sending these out for years now. As far as being in an obscure place, where would you expect to find it? I always use the direct link to the bulletin list (www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.asp), but if I didn't know how to find it, I think I might try www.microsoft.com/security. And whaddaya know, there's a web page there and the second link on the left is for the Security Bulletin service. How obscure. *ahem*
Red Hat is trying to sell a product that can be downloaded for free. Why again do you expect investors to be lining up behind them? Especially when the only time they've been able to show profitability is by using accounting tricks -- in other words, if they continued "making money" at the same rate, they'd be bankrupt in a number of quarters.
Palm is on a not-so-slow path to www.f---edcompany.com. Everybody realizes that it's in trouble, including Palm itself. If they thought their real troubles spawned from Microsoft getting a favorable settlement, they wouldn't have just shitcanned their CEO.
Hell, Microsoft probably doesn't even plan for world domination, they've gotta be surprised by how easily it continues to be given to them by all these completely incompetent companies that you seem to be in love with. Next up: Sun Microsystems. :)
First off, there's no evidence whatsoever that record sales went up because of Napster. Until the current economic downturn, the entertainment industry, not just music sales, has been booming in the past few years.
I don't really follow the point you made about how the quality of music would be better. The most popular music downloads track with the most popular CD sales. Except for short periods of revolution, like with Nirvana, the most popular music will for the most part be bland because it plays to the least common denominator and tries to emulate the current "big thing." I've long given up on radio for my music, but if people gravitate towards that stuff, it doesn't bother me a bit. If it makes 'em happy, good for them, and it means when I go see my favorite bands live, I can enjoy seeing them up close in an intimate setting instead of jostling for position with 20,000 other people.
Just pretend with me for a second. Let's say that every band on Earth released 96Kb/s bitrate MP3s of every song they've ever done, for free. Not great listening quality, but certainly plenty to tell whether or not you liked the song before you purchased it. Further, pretend that you could cheaply pick and choose online any song you want (instead of buying full albums) to buy and download at full sound quality. As long as there was a price over $0.00 involved, I honestly don't think it would put much of a dent in the number of people looking to download stuff for free via Napster-like services. Do you feel differently?
Too bad the people who just download stuff without ever paying screw them over just as badly. And well, seeing as how nobody put a gun to the artists' heads and made them sign a deal with any particular record company, yet they have absolutely no say in the matter when it comes to people downloading their stuff for free, I'd say that the biggest assholes in this whole situation sure aren't the record companies.
Maybe I am off on this, I am not a programmer or a kernel hacker i am just a simple user ..does Linux need this boost from these companies?
Well, judging how the Slashbots cry like stuck pigs every time an article like this comes out, I guess they think Linux needs the boost.
Oh yeah, and I love how Michael completely distorted the article with his strawman argument. No, the author didn't make it out to be a negative because they aren't going 100% to Linux, as Michael wants people to believe. It's a negative because of things like, "only 3 percent see Linux as their primary enterprise server system within three years; 60 percent named Windows" and "'[...] with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey.'" Typical in-denial and pathetic editorializing by Michael again, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Isn't Apache running on 50+% of the web servers out there, with a decent chunk of those being Linux... These guys are clueless..
Without trying to be too insulting here, you sound like one of those clueless people who think that the only reason why servers exist is to face the internet and serve web pages to browsers. You know, the kind of people who think that Netcraft numbers are a measure of the overall server market?
Hey, it's a Hotmail account. If you really can read it, you're welcome to all the college diploma offers and methods of growing your penis 2-4 inches that you find there. Bada-bing!
Gee, making a list of "arbitrary and pie-in-the-sky things I want done to Microsoft because they really steam my britches and I like Linux," and you could only come up with three items? Where's the creativity?
On behalf of people with a clue everywhere, I'd just like to remind you:
We told you so. :)
Nooo... Ya think?
Cute sarcasm, but your post was basically a lot of hot air which never gave a single example of Microsoft using illegal practices to extend its dominance in personal computers into server markets. How were you forced to use NT, 2000, or SQL Server?