From the article you linked, some choice comments:
A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:4, Insightful) by hairyfeet (841228) Friend on Tuesday February 17 2009, @12:54AM (#26882807) Journal
I been saying it and saying it that the DRM in Win7 hadn't been turned on and that is why they are getting good performance out of it now. Vista Beta 1 ran great for me too, but that was the pre DRM version. All of this DRM crap has to monitor you to keep "criminals" like the owner of the PC from doing as they like 24/7/365. All of that monitoring takes up CPU and RAM that could have been used for your stuff.
Mark my words, what we are seeing here is the tiniest tip of the turd iceberg that is Win7, AKA Vista the second edition. It will go down in flames as folks find out it is a big pile of stink just like Vista. That is why just yesterday I had a customer literally throw money at me saying "make this %^&^&$ POS Vista go away! I don't want to see this thing again until XP is on it!". So mark my words, Linux guys. Be getting your A games ready. Be doing everything you can to fix the little irritants like Winprinters because when Vista7 goes down in flames you are going to have a LOT of POed folks looking for a new direction. And Apple is just too damned expensive for John Q. Average. So this is your shot, make it count. I doubt seriously after Win7 goes down in flames that Ballmer will have a job and the next guy they bring in will probably be one of the MS Office guys and he will go back to dull and boring business OSes(Oh,Lord,please let it be so!) so you guys probably won't get a third at bat.
I for one would like some healthy competition to make the marketplace more fair so don't miss your shot,make it count. Because a moron as stupid as Ballmer only comes around once in a lifetime and you don't want to miss it.
How did that work out for you, hairyfeet? Care to tell us?
Also, a bunch of comments that people are going to stick to XP or to Ubuntu because of the draconian DRM in Windows 7.
Expect more of the same (sticking with Windows 7 till eternity!) and the 'sky is falling' comments in this article below too. Meanwhile Windows 8 gets released and promptly cracked and sells record numbers like Windows 7 did and MS continues to make record profits.
How come a otherwise intelligent and skeptical bunch of geeks suddenly lose their cool and get all hot worked up over nothing over 'M$' mystifies me. It would be hilarious to an outside observer if it weren't sad.
>However given the history of MS pushing for more anti-piracy features of the OS itself such concerns are not neccesarily FUD
Concerns are different from FUD claims. The article takes a patent filing and then extrapolates it to Windows and makes up it's own fears about what Windows *could* be. I don't see how is that a concern and not FUD. Is there any other source for this 'concern' ?
There's also a good possibility that the recently-surfaced fast booting patent could come into play as well. If Microsoft does indeed have designs on using a remote server to push OS code to systems at boot time, that code would be a very clever place to embed activation-related programming. Even if a crack was discovered, it would be neatly undone during a subsequent start-up sequence — similar to the way Microsoft's now-idle Windows Steady State could turn back the clock an entire Widows installation after rebooting."
Who writes this crap? Companies come up with patents all the time. Doesn't mean that they're going to be implemented. Even Chrome OS doesn't come close to booting from the cloud. And Windows has had updates to the Activation checking code in Windows updates since a long time.
Works well for baiting Slashdotters though.
PS: I am no shill, the closest I was to Microsoft was when I was in Seattle, interviewing for Amazon for a Linux based position. My posting history is like that because it's fun to point out the other side of things.
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.
What's up with the all the shill accusations? What should I call you? A freetard? Or an iFangirl?
False. Google's proposal had federal data on servers alongside other US government customers. Not alongside private customers.
Go read the documents of the case instead of blindly following Slashdot and Groklaw, you will find a it's a different world out there.
In the summer of 2009, during his development of the draft Project Plan, Mr. Corrington met with both Google and Microsoft to discuss the Unified Messaging project, and to understand the capabilities of the companies’ respective cloud offerings. AR 150, 184. At the time, Microsoft offered two different models of the Business Productivity Online Suite (“BPOS”) – BPOS-Standard, a multi-tenant, public cloud, and BPOS-Dedicated, a single-tenant Case 1:10-cv-00743-SGB Document 42-1 Filed 12/27/10 Page 10 of 64 - 6 - cloud with infrastructure that is dedicated solely to one organization.2 In contrast, Google only offered Google Apps, a multi-tenant, public cloud with infrastructure that is shared among various cloud users. During DOI’s meeting with Microsoft in August 2009, Microsoft confirmed that it could provide a cloud with infrastructure dedicated solely to DOI. AR 184. The record establishes that Google did not, and would not, provide DOI with this same assurance during their meeting with DOI in the summer of 2009. AR 150. Consistent with DOI’s initial market research, the September 28, 2009 version of the draft Project Plan proposed that DOI utilize Microsoft’s dedicated cloud offering to deliver a single email system to all DOI users. AR 1098. The Department’s research at that point in time had revealed that BPOS-Dedicated was the only available cloud solution that met this requirement....
On February 18, 2010, Mr. Corrington, along with Mr. Bernard Mazer, DOI’s Chief Information Officer (who at the time was the CIO for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and Mr. Andrew Jackson, DOI’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology, Information and Business Services, met with Google officials, including the company’s Vice President of North America, regarding the planned Unified Messaging project. AR 85, 150. During the meeting, Case 1:10-cv-00743-SGB Document 42-1 Filed 12/27/10 Page 12 of 64 - 8 - Google advised DOI that Google would not offer a single-tenant cloud. AR 150 (“no single tenant offering would be available”)....
On April 28, 2010, Mr. Corrington and Mr. Mazer attended a Google Apps Summit for government IT leaders to learn more about the cloud offering that Google could offer to DOI. AR 97-98, 150. After the presentation, Mr. Mazer and Mr. Corrington shared certain security concerns that DOI believed required the Department to implement a cloud solution with a dedicated infrastructure. The Google officials responded by objecting to the premise that DOI required a dedicated cloud, and again refused to offer DOI a dedicated cloud. AR 150...
However, when DOI specifically asked Google about whether the company was able to provide the service on a dedicated infrastructure, Google again replied that it was “incapable of supporting a dedicated solution and proceeded to argue against the merits of a dedicated infrastructure.”...
After the meeting, on June 17, 2010, Google sent another letter to DOI that argued that the Department was defining its requirements too narrowly and continued specifically to object to DOI’s expressed preference for a dedicated cloud with a physically isolated computing infrastructure. AR Tab 5....
In February 2010, Microsoft publicly announced plans to offer BPOS-Federal, a cloud computing solution specifically for the Federal govern
Then why do we have the misleading article, summary and misleading headline here? "turns out MS didn't have certification"? Huh? When did MS ever claim to have certification? It's just made up by Groklaw.
Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.
No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).
That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?
If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.
Your post exemplifies how Groklaw FUDs gullible people into believing nonsense. First of all the headline, summary and Groklaw are flat out twisting the facts about 'it turns out MS is the one without certification' as if MS claimed it, which it never ever did, at any point. Groklaw is the one lying by implying that MS said it's offering was FISMA certified. If you're quoting the summary, then you're the one that's being misled.
You're the one that needs to read, and not read just Groklaw even if you think it's a good source, because it's not and it's blindly anti MS biased and will twist and hide facts to support anything anti-MS and will cheerlead the other side and hide all their faults regardless of merits.
If you do so, you will see that Google wanted to throw federal data along with other private customers' data in the same servers and infrastructure. So if there was a breach because of the private customer, federal data would be compromised and told the DOI to shove it when it was objected. MS agreed to have a dedicated infrastructure for the DoI (the reason it was more expensive) so the DoI notified that it was restricting bids to resellers of MS's offering. AFTER all this, Google announced Apps for Govt with a separate cloud for Federal, State and County government data(which the DoI may not be still happy with because of State data getting intermingled).
You have atleast twice claimed that this is paid FUD. However, I fail to see anywhere where you have actually proved TFA wrong except cast doubts on it.
They seem to have made a mistake (genuine maybe) that GPLv3 prohibits commercialization. But what is true is that the terms are a little onerous(like handing over signing keys, patent grants etc.) compared to GPLv2 which seems to be the reason that Apple doesn't want to be in a position where it can't use its own contributions, especially with iOS where it banned GPLv3 apps from app store.
So if you think it's paid FUD, what do you think is the reason for Apple not shipping Samba or to stop contributing to GCC? Why should one trust your word over Apple Insider which atleast *seems* to have developer and insider connections?
There are almost always better things that failed in the market than what succeeded or won . The point here is in terms of creating jobs and benefit to the US economy, I dont' see how Hotmail was more defective than the alternatives in this context except in hypothetical situations.
I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish the contributions of India, or Indians, to the modern business/tech landscape.
I could make a similar list of American contributors to the landscape. Would you want to see what you would lose there? Because that is the argument being made: Americans are choosing other fields because of a lack of opportunity.
Hotmail founder was India born
Is that supposed to be a selling point?
I don't think Visas should be eliminated or any other such thing, however we're facing a jobs crisis so importing talent shouldn't be necessary.
That list in not about Indians, it's about Indian Americans. That is a key difference because most of the individuals would've held a work permit and student visas at some point.
And don't let your irrational hate of MS get in the way of appreciating Hotmail. Before it was bought by MS, it was the first widespread free webmail company(causing other competitors to rise) and used to run off FreeBSD (before gettign switched to Windows Server/IIS by MS). What's wrong with Hotmail being a good thing?
It's not shortsighted, what percentage of the total number that we've imported with the H-1B visas have gone on to such heights? And how many Americans have gone onto do significant things in the field? The point is that by drowning out the homegrown talent with such wage depressing strategies you end up with an equally short sighted situation where there's a disincentive to Americans to even bother to try, because it's not cost effective to get the degrees necessary to compete.
Plus, what about the other folks like Einstein and Werner von Braun who were already hot shots when they immigrated here? It must be possible to come up with a reasonable compromise where they have to come under the normal process unless they really are filling a position which would otherwise go unfilled.
Can you calculate the number of jobs and wealth in the community that these people above have created? And contrast that with the number of temporary H1Bs granted...
The root of the problem is the extreme backlog of a decade or more for visa numbers and the onerous rules of the process. The rules assume that a new applicant can easily replace someone with multiple years of experience and knowledge of the company operations that the immigrant gained. This is the reason that companies have to do this or risk shipping someone who is extremely valuable (to the company, atleast) out of the country and replacing them with someone fresh and new(we all know how painful this is to a company to lose valuable talent). The nonsense rules are the problem and the cause for the things you mentioned.
>I went back to school and now I'm in the medical field, hopefully they don't start giving visas out to doctors.... aw crap [workpermit.com]
The article is overwhelmingly shortsighed. Some of the people(just Indians, forget about Europeans who contributed so much) who would have been not been able to do what they did:
A small incomplete list from Wiki: Ajit Hutheesing : Founder, Chairman and CEO of International Capital Partners Inc Ali Pabrai : Entrepreneur Amar Bose : Founder of Bose Corporation Sashi Reddi : Founder CEO, AppLabs (World's #1 Software Testing company) Arjun Gupta : Silicon Valley venture capitalist Ashwin Navin : Co-Founder and President of BitTorrent, Inc. Bharat Desai : Founder of Syntel Gagan Palrecha : Entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal : Internet Entrepreneurs Mukesh Chatter : Businessman Lakireddy Bali Reddy : Landlord, restaurant owner,owns more than 1000 apartments in California M.R. Rangaswami : Founder of Sand Hill Group and Corporate Eco Forum Murugan Pal : Founder and CTO of SpikeSource Narendra Patni: Founder of Patni Computer Systems Naveen Jain : Founder of InfoSpace and Intelius Pradeep Sindhu : Co-Founder and CTO of Juniper Networks Preetish Nijhawan : Co-Founder of Akamai Technologies. Ram Shriram : Co-Founder of Junglee.com and board member at Google Rohini Srihari : Founder of Cymfony and Janya Sameer Parekh : Founder of C2Net Sanjiv Sidhu : Founder of i2 Technologies Somen Banerjee: Founder of Chippendales Suhas Patil: Founder of Cirrus Logic Vivek Ranadive : Founder, Chairman and CEO of TIBCO Software Vinod Gupta : Founder and Chairman of InfoUSA Inc. Vinod Khosla : Co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Venture Capitalist Ajay Bhatt : Co-Inventor of the USB. Chief Client Platform Architect at Intel Ajit Varki : Physician-scientist Amit Singhal : Google Fellow, the designation the company reserves for its elite master engineers in the area of "ranking algorithm". Anil Dash : Blogger and technologist Raj Reddy : Founder of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, winner of the Turing Award. Arun Netravali : Scientist. Former President of Bell Labs. Former CTO of Lucent. A pioneer of digital technology including HDTV and MPEG4. Arvind Rajaraman : Theoretical physicist and string theorist Satya N. Atluri : Aerospace and mechanics C. Kumar N. Patel : Developed the carbon dioxide laser, used as a cutting tool in surgery and industry. Khem Shahani : Microbiologist who conducted pioneer research on probiotics, he discovered the DDS-1 strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus Deepak Pandya : Neuroanatomist Arjun Makhijani : Electrical and nuclear engineer who is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research George Sudarshan : Physicist, author - first to propose the existence of Tachyon Kalpana Chawla : Female NASA Space Shuttle astronaut, and space shuttle mission specialist Krishna Bharat : Principal Scientist at Google - Famous for creating Google News. Jogesh Pati : Theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland, College Park. Krishan Sabnani : Engineer and Senior Vice President of the Networking Research Laboratory at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs in New Jersey Mahadev Satyanarayanan : Computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Pioneered research in mobile and pervasive computing Mani Lal Bhaumik : Contributor excimer laser technology. Narinder Singh Kapany : Engineer, called the "Father of Fiber Optics". Noshir Gowadia : Design engineer Om Malik : Technology journalist and blogger Pramod Khargonek
"Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app," Apple's statement read. "Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30% share that it does today for other In-App Purchases," the company said.
Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
So now Apple will demand 30% of your internet and cable bill or pull this App?
>Users have a choice to buy Android or Apple. And according to the latest stats -- Android has about an equal share of the smart phone market in the U.S. as Apple (27% vs. 25%).
What about developers? They don't have much choice according to the links you provided, similar to the OEMs those days.
>Has Apple ever told a developer that they couldn't write an app for competing devices? MS threatened OEM's with higher prices if they bundles Netscape
Ah, now that you finally got it, a subtle switch of argument from the App subscription rules to the App sales rules. Anyway, I will bite
The new rules won't take full effect until June. WIll be interesting to see if Amazon and Netflix relent or tell Apple to shove it(iUsers won't be happy to see Apple pull Kindle and Netflix). Most users dont' know and don't care about DRM, but if it affects them, they will be mighty pissed. Anyway it's not an easy switch from a 2 year contract with AT&T or Verizon and the otherwise nice Apple hardware.
"iUsers" have made a choice to be "iUsers" and to spend over 17x as much buying apps. Apple must be doing something right...
Microsoft must have done something right to get 90%+ share... right? Windows and IE6 users made that choice right? Why did they get smacked for it?
And before you say 'monopoly according to the law', your own link(and other recent articles saying Apple had 93% of the tablet market) proves that the App store has a monopoly on app sales for mobile developers. Isn't Apple leveraging their monopoly to disadvantage Kindle to push iBooks and Netflix to push ITunes streaming? This is worse than Microsoft with IE6, they just bundled the browser, neither prevented Netscape from running on Windows nor demand 30% of Netscape's revenue. So shouldn't the same rules apply to Apple as well?
>So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,
The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge.
See how one 30% is not the same as the other one?
There, it can't be any simpler than that, unless you are intentionally try to act dense, in which case I give up.
Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.
You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....
They can't be too happy with this news and might be thinking it is intentional to close the HTML5 loophole for subscription apps.
Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?
Umm, users can opt to pay for ad free content, 30% of which Readability keeps. Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much. The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website.Where do iUsers and Readability go if the App Store doesn't carry it? There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android.
All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can.
People who need to attack ad hominem anonymously* because of not being able to talk about content shouldn't be posting comments.
*That's a stretch considering even registered accounts are pretty anonymous, maybe you didn't want to sully your real account with this garbage comment?)
There are a lot of 3rd party apps that are way better on Windows than iTunes. Just see Safari vs. Chrome on Windows, and you might find that Apple can suck even if you can't admit it.
You are the one with blinders on. What if Netflix/Amazon says that, if a user buys a iDevice because of them(if they install Netflix/Kindle and log in to iDevice with their account), they deserve a 30% of the cost price of the iDevice? And enforce it with strict DRM? Would that be fair since they're causing many people to buy the iDevices?
Apple's move might result in higher prices for the user, how is it fair to them then?
If that makes me a blind Apple hater, you're a deaf iNumbnut with an iBodyPart in your ears.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article you linked, some choice comments:
A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:4, Insightful)
by hairyfeet (841228) Friend on Tuesday February 17 2009, @12:54AM (#26882807) Journal
I been saying it and saying it that the DRM in Win7 hadn't been turned on and that is why they are getting good performance out of it now. Vista Beta 1 ran great for me too, but that was the pre DRM version. All of this DRM crap has to monitor you to keep "criminals" like the owner of the PC from doing as they like 24/7/365. All of that monitoring takes up CPU and RAM that could have been used for your stuff.
Mark my words, what we are seeing here is the tiniest tip of the turd iceberg that is Win7, AKA Vista the second edition. It will go down in flames as folks find out it is a big pile of stink just like Vista. That is why just yesterday I had a customer literally throw money at me saying "make this %^&^&$ POS Vista go away! I don't want to see this thing again until XP is on it!". So mark my words, Linux guys. Be getting your A games ready. Be doing everything you can to fix the little irritants like Winprinters because when Vista7 goes down in flames you are going to have a LOT of POed folks looking for a new direction. And Apple is just too damned expensive for John Q. Average. So this is your shot, make it count. I doubt seriously after Win7 goes down in flames that Ballmer will have a job and the next guy they bring in will probably be one of the MS Office guys and he will go back to dull and boring business OSes(Oh,Lord,please let it be so!) so you guys probably won't get a third at bat.
I for one would like some healthy competition to make the marketplace more fair so don't miss your shot,make it count. Because a moron as stupid as Ballmer only comes around once in a lifetime and you don't want to miss it.
How did that work out for you, hairyfeet? Care to tell us?
Also, a bunch of comments that people are going to stick to XP or to Ubuntu because of the draconian DRM in Windows 7.
Expect more of the same (sticking with Windows 7 till eternity!) and the 'sky is falling' comments in this article below too. Meanwhile Windows 8 gets released and promptly cracked and sells record numbers like Windows 7 did and MS continues to make record profits.
How come a otherwise intelligent and skeptical bunch of geeks suddenly lose their cool and get all hot worked up over nothing over 'M$' mystifies me. It would be hilarious to an outside observer if it weren't sad.
>However given the history of MS pushing for more anti-piracy features of the OS itself such concerns are not neccesarily FUD
Concerns are different from FUD claims. The article takes a patent filing and then extrapolates it to Windows and makes up it's own fears about what Windows *could* be. I don't see how is that a concern and not FUD. Is there any other source for this 'concern' ?
From the summary:
There's also a good possibility that the recently-surfaced fast booting patent could come into play as well. If Microsoft does indeed have designs on using a remote server to push OS code to systems at boot time, that code would be a very clever place to embed activation-related programming. Even if a crack was discovered, it would be neatly undone during a subsequent start-up sequence — similar to the way Microsoft's now-idle Windows Steady State could turn back the clock an entire Widows installation after rebooting."
Who writes this crap? Companies come up with patents all the time. Doesn't mean that they're going to be implemented.
Even Chrome OS doesn't come close to booting from the cloud. And Windows has had updates to the Activation checking code in Windows updates since a long time.
Works well for baiting Slashdotters though.
Here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SoftchoiceOppMotforJonAdminRecord.pdf
PS: I am no shill, the closest I was to Microsoft was when I was in Seattle, interviewing for Amazon for a Linux based position. My posting history is like that because it's fun to point out the other side of things.
Huh, Microsoft only repeated what the DoJ said:
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles
representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that
Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.
What's up with the all the shill accusations? What should I call you? A freetard? Or an iFangirl?
False. Google's proposal had federal data on servers alongside other US government customers. Not alongside private customers.
Go read the documents of the case instead of blindly following Slashdot and Groklaw, you will find a it's a different world out there.
In the summer of 2009, during his development of the draft Project Plan, Mr. ...
Corrington met with both Google and Microsoft to discuss the Unified Messaging project, and to
understand the capabilities of the companies’ respective cloud offerings. AR 150, 184. At the
time, Microsoft offered two different models of the Business Productivity Online Suite
(“BPOS”) – BPOS-Standard, a multi-tenant, public cloud, and BPOS-Dedicated, a single-tenant
Case 1:10-cv-00743-SGB Document 42-1 Filed 12/27/10 Page 10 of 64
- 6 -
cloud with infrastructure that is dedicated solely to one organization.2 In contrast, Google only
offered Google Apps, a multi-tenant, public cloud with infrastructure that is shared among
various cloud users. During DOI’s meeting with Microsoft in August 2009, Microsoft confirmed
that it could provide a cloud with infrastructure dedicated solely to DOI. AR 184. The record
establishes that Google did not, and would not, provide DOI with this same assurance during
their meeting with DOI in the summer of 2009. AR 150.
Consistent with DOI’s initial market research, the September 28, 2009 version of
the draft Project Plan proposed that DOI utilize Microsoft’s dedicated cloud offering to deliver a
single email system to all DOI users. AR 1098. The Department’s research at that point in time
had revealed that BPOS-Dedicated was the only available cloud solution that met this
requirement.
On February 18, 2010, Mr. Corrington, along with Mr. Bernard Mazer, DOI’s ...
Chief Information Officer (who at the time was the CIO for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
and Mr. Andrew Jackson, DOI’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology, Information and
Business Services, met with Google officials, including the company’s Vice President of North
America, regarding the planned Unified Messaging project. AR 85, 150. During the meeting,
Case 1:10-cv-00743-SGB Document 42-1 Filed 12/27/10 Page 12 of 64
- 8 -
Google advised DOI that Google would not offer a single-tenant cloud. AR 150 (“no single
tenant offering would be available”).
On April 28, 2010, Mr. Corrington and Mr. Mazer attended a Google Apps ...
Summit for government IT leaders to learn more about the cloud offering that Google could offer
to DOI. AR 97-98, 150. After the presentation, Mr. Mazer and Mr. Corrington shared certain
security concerns that DOI believed required the Department to implement a cloud solution with
a dedicated infrastructure. The Google officials responded by objecting to the premise that DOI
required a dedicated cloud, and again refused to offer DOI a dedicated cloud. AR 150
However, when DOI specifically asked Google about whether the company was able to ...
provide the service on a dedicated infrastructure, Google again replied that it was “incapable of
supporting a dedicated solution and proceeded to argue against the merits of a dedicated
infrastructure.”
After the meeting, on June 17, 2010, Google sent another letter to DOI that ...
argued that the Department was defining its requirements too narrowly and continued
specifically to object to DOI’s expressed preference for a dedicated cloud with a physically
isolated computing infrastructure. AR Tab 5.
In February 2010, Microsoft publicly announced plans to offer BPOS-Federal, a
cloud computing solution specifically for the Federal govern
Then why do we have the misleading article, summary and misleading headline here? "turns out MS didn't have certification"? Huh? When did MS ever claim to have certification? It's just made up by Groklaw.
Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.
No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).
That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?
If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.
Your post exemplifies how Groklaw FUDs gullible people into believing nonsense. First of all the headline, summary and Groklaw are flat out twisting the facts about 'it turns out MS is the one without certification' as if MS claimed it, which it never ever did, at any point. Groklaw is the one lying by implying that MS said it's offering was FISMA certified. If you're quoting the summary, then you're the one that's being misled.
You're the one that needs to read, and not read just Groklaw even if you think it's a good source, because it's not and it's blindly anti MS biased and will twist and hide facts to support anything anti-MS and will cheerlead the other side and hide all their faults regardless of merits.
If you do so, you will see that Google wanted to throw federal data along with other private customers' data in the same servers and infrastructure. So if there was a breach because of the private customer, federal data would be compromised and told the DOI to shove it when it was objected. MS agreed to have a dedicated infrastructure for the DoI (the reason it was more expensive) so the DoI notified that it was restricting bids to resellers of MS's offering. AFTER all this, Google announced Apps for Govt with a separate cloud for Federal, State and County government data(which the DoI may not be still happy with because of State data getting intermingled).
You have atleast twice claimed that this is paid FUD. However, I fail to see anywhere where you have actually proved TFA wrong except cast doubts on it.
They seem to have made a mistake (genuine maybe) that GPLv3 prohibits commercialization. But what is true is that the terms are a little onerous(like handing over signing keys, patent grants etc.) compared to GPLv2 which seems to be the reason that Apple doesn't want to be in a position where it can't use its own contributions, especially with iOS where it banned GPLv3 apps from app store.
So if you think it's paid FUD, what do you think is the reason for Apple not shipping Samba or to stop contributing to GCC? Why should one trust your word over Apple Insider which atleast *seems* to have developer and insider connections?
No, they pulled that app after their fanbois protested.
There are almost always better things that failed in the market than what succeeded or won . The point here is in terms of creating jobs and benefit to the US economy, I dont' see how Hotmail was more defective than the alternatives in this context except in hypothetical situations.
I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish the contributions of India, or Indians, to the modern business/tech landscape.
I could make a similar list of American contributors to the landscape. Would you want to see what you would lose there? Because that is the argument being made: Americans are choosing other fields because of a lack of opportunity.
Hotmail founder was India born
Is that supposed to be a selling point?
I don't think Visas should be eliminated or any other such thing, however we're facing a jobs crisis so importing talent shouldn't be necessary.
That list in not about Indians, it's about Indian Americans. That is a key difference because most of the individuals would've held a work permit and student visas at some point.
And don't let your irrational hate of MS get in the way of appreciating Hotmail. Before it was bought by MS, it was the first widespread free webmail company(causing other competitors to rise) and used to run off FreeBSD (before gettign switched to Windows Server/IIS by MS). What's wrong with Hotmail being a good thing?
It's not shortsighted, what percentage of the total number that we've imported with the H-1B visas have gone on to such heights? And how many Americans have gone onto do significant things in the field? The point is that by drowning out the homegrown talent with such wage depressing strategies you end up with an equally short sighted situation where there's a disincentive to Americans to even bother to try, because it's not cost effective to get the degrees necessary to compete.
Plus, what about the other folks like Einstein and Werner von Braun who were already hot shots when they immigrated here? It must be possible to come up with a reasonable compromise where they have to come under the normal process unless they really are filling a position which would otherwise go unfilled.
Can you calculate the number of jobs and wealth in the community that these people above have created? And contrast that with the number of temporary H1Bs granted...
The root of the problem is the extreme backlog of a decade or more for visa numbers and the onerous rules of the process. The rules assume that a new applicant can easily replace someone with multiple years of experience and knowledge of the company operations that the immigrant gained. This is the reason that companies have to do this or risk shipping someone who is extremely valuable (to the company, atleast) out of the country and replacing them with someone fresh and new(we all know how painful this is to a company to lose valuable talent). The nonsense rules are the problem and the cause for the things you mentioned.
>I went back to school and now I'm in the medical field, hopefully they don't start giving visas out to doctors.... aw crap [workpermit.com]
Ya right..healthcare cost is not high and needs to go up...
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/indian-doctors-help-fill-us-health-care-needs
Huh, how is 103,584 "close enough" to 370K ?
Or 105,314 to 360k ?
Or 130,497 to 387K?
Or 116,927 to 407K?
joke--> Maybe you need some STEM education? :) /joke
The article is overwhelmingly shortsighed. Some of the people(just Indians, forget about Europeans who contributed so much) who would have been not been able to do what they did:
Don't forget a bunch of companies that have Indian CEOs and have had them as CEO and founders. Hotmail founder was India born...
Co-Founder of Sun.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla
Motorola CEO: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/8/motorola-cellphone-ceo-sanjay-jha
Father of Pentium chip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Dham
A small incomplete list from Wiki:
Ajit Hutheesing : Founder, Chairman and CEO of International Capital Partners Inc
Ali Pabrai : Entrepreneur
Amar Bose : Founder of Bose Corporation
Sashi Reddi : Founder CEO, AppLabs (World's #1 Software Testing company)
Arjun Gupta : Silicon Valley venture capitalist
Ashwin Navin : Co-Founder and President of BitTorrent, Inc.
Bharat Desai : Founder of Syntel
Gagan Palrecha : Entrepreneur
Gurbaksh Chahal : Internet Entrepreneurs
Mukesh Chatter : Businessman
Lakireddy Bali Reddy : Landlord, restaurant owner,owns more than 1000 apartments in California
M.R. Rangaswami : Founder of Sand Hill Group and Corporate Eco Forum
Murugan Pal : Founder and CTO of SpikeSource
Narendra Patni: Founder of Patni Computer Systems
Naveen Jain : Founder of InfoSpace and Intelius
Pradeep Sindhu : Co-Founder and CTO of Juniper Networks
Preetish Nijhawan : Co-Founder of Akamai Technologies.
Ram Shriram : Co-Founder of Junglee.com and board member at Google
Rohini Srihari : Founder of Cymfony and Janya
Sameer Parekh : Founder of C2Net
Sanjiv Sidhu : Founder of i2 Technologies
Somen Banerjee: Founder of Chippendales
Suhas Patil: Founder of Cirrus Logic
Vivek Ranadive : Founder, Chairman and CEO of TIBCO Software
Vinod Gupta : Founder and Chairman of InfoUSA Inc.
Vinod Khosla : Co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Venture Capitalist
Ajay Bhatt : Co-Inventor of the USB. Chief Client Platform Architect at Intel
Ajit Varki : Physician-scientist
Amit Singhal : Google Fellow, the designation the company reserves for its elite master engineers in the area of "ranking algorithm".
Anil Dash : Blogger and technologist
Raj Reddy : Founder of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, winner of the Turing Award.
Arun Netravali : Scientist. Former President of Bell Labs. Former CTO of Lucent. A pioneer of digital technology including HDTV and MPEG4.
Arvind Rajaraman : Theoretical physicist and string theorist
Satya N. Atluri : Aerospace and mechanics
C. Kumar N. Patel : Developed the carbon dioxide laser, used as a cutting tool in surgery and industry.
Khem Shahani : Microbiologist who conducted pioneer research on probiotics, he discovered the DDS-1 strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus
Deepak Pandya : Neuroanatomist
Arjun Makhijani : Electrical and nuclear engineer who is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
George Sudarshan : Physicist, author - first to propose the existence of Tachyon
Kalpana Chawla : Female NASA Space Shuttle astronaut, and space shuttle mission specialist
Krishna Bharat : Principal Scientist at Google - Famous for creating Google News.
Jogesh Pati : Theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Krishan Sabnani : Engineer and Senior Vice President of the Networking Research Laboratory at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs in New Jersey
Mahadev Satyanarayanan : Computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Pioneered research in mobile and pervasive computing
Mani Lal Bhaumik : Contributor excimer laser technology.
Narinder Singh Kapany : Engineer, called the "Father of Fiber Optics".
Noshir Gowadia : Design engineer
Om Malik : Technology journalist and blogger
Pramod Khargonek
Windows Phone Marketplace fastest to hit 10,000 app milestone
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/windows-phone-marketplace-fastest-to-hit-10000-app-milestone/5596
App stop is empty? Stop shilling for mod points by posting BS.
From http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle
"Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app," Apple's statement read.
"Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30% share that it does today for other In-App Purchases," the company said.
Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
So now Apple will demand 30% of your internet and cable bill or pull this App?
>Users have a choice to buy Android or Apple. And according to the latest stats -- Android has about an equal share of the smart phone market in the U.S. as Apple (27% vs. 25%).
What about developers? They don't have much choice according to the links you provided, similar to the OEMs those days.
>Has Apple ever told a developer that they couldn't write an app for competing devices? MS threatened OEM's with higher prices if they bundles Netscape
They would if they could. Stuff like this comes to mind http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1633249/Apple-Bans-Android-Magazine-App-From-App-Store?from=rss
Ah, now that you finally got it, a subtle switch of argument from the App subscription rules to the App sales rules. Anyway, I will bite
The new rules won't take full effect until June. WIll be interesting to see if Amazon and Netflix relent or tell Apple to shove it(iUsers won't be happy to see Apple pull Kindle and Netflix). Most users dont' know and don't care about DRM, but if it affects them, they will be mighty pissed. Anyway it's not an easy switch from a 2 year contract with AT&T or Verizon and the otherwise nice Apple hardware.
Obviously, that's not happening....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html [cnet.com]
"iUsers" have made a choice to be "iUsers" and to spend over 17x as much buying apps. Apple must be doing something right...
Microsoft must have done something right to get 90%+ share... right? Windows and IE6 users made that choice right?
Why did they get smacked for it?
And before you say 'monopoly according to the law', your own link(and other recent articles saying Apple had 93% of the tablet market) proves that the App store has a monopoly on app sales for mobile developers. Isn't Apple leveraging their monopoly to disadvantage Kindle to push iBooks and Netflix to push ITunes streaming? This is worse than Microsoft with IE6, they just bundled the browser, neither prevented Netscape from running on Windows nor demand 30% of Netscape's revenue. So shouldn't the same rules apply to Apple as well?
>So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,
The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge.
See how one 30% is not the same as the other one?
There, it can't be any simpler than that, unless you are intentionally try to act dense, in which case I give up.
You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....
Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?
Umm, users can opt to pay for ad free content, 30% of which Readability keeps. Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much. The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website.Where do iUsers and Readability go if the App Store doesn't carry it? There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android.
All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can.
People who need to attack ad hominem anonymously* because of not being able to talk about content shouldn't be posting comments.
*That's a stretch considering even registered accounts are pretty anonymous, maybe you didn't want to sully your real account with this garbage comment?)
There are a lot of 3rd party apps that are way better on Windows than iTunes. Just see Safari vs. Chrome on Windows, and you might find that Apple can suck even if you can't admit it.
You are the one with blinders on. What if Netflix/Amazon says that, if a user buys a iDevice because of them(if they install Netflix/Kindle and log in to iDevice with their account), they deserve a 30% of the cost price of the iDevice? And enforce it with strict DRM? Would that be fair since they're causing many people to buy the iDevices?
Apple's move might result in higher prices for the user, how is it fair to them then?
If that makes me a blind Apple hater, you're a deaf iNumbnut with an iBodyPart in your ears.