I'd love to have a > 3 lb. tiny subnote for browsing and veggin' on the couch... but for a real productivity machine, the iBooks still wins out for me. Still, wouldn't mind playing around with one!
Try looking in to the Sony PictureBooks, or the ultra-tiny Sony U-series, Fujitsu P-series, Toshiba Libretto, or many others.
I've been very happy with my PictureBook C1X (the original, with a Pentium MMX 266Mhz processor, before the Crusoe even existed) for years. I'm only now considering replacing it. And then, I'm only considering the Fujitsu P-2000, because it's almost the same size, and it has a bulit-in Combo DVD/CD-RW drive. (The one flaw with the picturebook: No built-in optical drive, and only one PC Card slot, so I could have optical OR network, but not both.)
Correction, I finally found where it says that.11g and.11b each get their own speeds. Apparently it CAN multiplex between CCK and OFDM. Hrm. You lean something new every day.
Okay, I didn't even realize the joke until I typed in the subject line. So, does anyone know what Vera looks like? The Bitstream fonts, I mean. Having high-quality good looking fonts is nice and all, but I'd like to know what they look like. Is there a sample picture of them anywhere? I haven't been able to find one.
Okay, it's 8 years old, so it's irrelevant, but still, the most revealing comment to me is:
The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard.
And it makes perfect sense! New versions should not be about bug-fixes. Being told to "Upgrade" should never be a valid response to someone complaining about a bug. Gates isn't saying bugs are in their on purpose, he isn't saying their good. He isn't saying they're in there because that's what sells. He's saying bugs are bad, bugs should be gotten rid of in any given version, and that a new version isn't about bug fixes, it's about new features. Isn't that what a new version SHOULD be?
Some software companies are bad at that. Some companies <cough, Intuit, cough> *DO* insist that to fix a bug, you must upgrade. That is stupid.
1. From www.apple.com/airport, footnote 2: To achieve maximum speed of 54 Mbps, all users must use AirPort Extreme Cards.
2. From www.apple.com/airport/specs.html, footnote 4: The AirPort Extreme Base Station defaults to 802.11b mode when users of AirPort Cards or other Wi-Fi certified 802.11b products join the network.
What that means: If a single AirPort/802.11b computer connects, the ENTIRE NETWORK goes to 802.11b mode. It cannot speak both.11b and.11g at the same time.
Basically,.11b uses CCK encoding (Complimentary Code Keying), and.11g uses OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing.) An access point can't use both encoding schemes at the same time. So it will run happily only using OFDM for 54Mbps speeds. But as soon as a single CCK device enters the network, the access point, td therefore, ALL clients, revert to CCK. And CCK tops out at 11Mbps. That is why the AP Extreme offers three modes. "802.11g Only" is so that this doesn't happen. The AP will just ignore.11b clients, and let all.11g clients talk at full speed (OFDM only). "802.11b Compatible" makes it run in.11g mode UNTIL A.11b CLIENT CONNECTS, then it drops to.11b (OFDM, with capability to drop to CCK.) "802.11b Only" always works in.11b mode (CCK only.)
I can't even find the quote you list anywhere on the page.
Oh, yeah, and how the hell was my original comment 'redundant'? Overrated maybe, but how was it redundant? The original article, nor the post I replied to (which was also marked redundant) mentioned anything about this.
No, it says that a single.11b card on your mostly.11g network will make the entire network (all clients) drop to.11b speeds.
This is common of all.11g implementations I have seen so far. So, for example, if/when I go to.11g in my home, I'll have 54Mbps. But, if my neighbor, who is using.11b, happens to get near enough with his laptop to connect to my network (happens all the time right now, he hooks onto mine, I hook onto his,) then all of MY computers will drop to 11Mbps, just because one single.11b client has connected to the base station.
So, when I go.11g, I guess I'll have to lock my neighbor out. (Too bad, in my neighborhood, we've got about 5 WAPs within 6 houses of each other, and we all leech off each other, as some of us connect to our neighbor's WAP better than to our own at certain points of our property.)
Just remember that you have to write the notebook computer manufacturer, *NOT* Microsoft. Microsoft says that because you are buying an OEM copy of it, you have to talk to the OEM. With some OEM's, you have to be persistent.
The Microsoft Office keyboard has app-fwd and app-back keys, as well as dedicated cut, copy, and paste. Plus, it shows the most common uses of the F-keys, instead of 'F3', it says 'Open'. Plus, it has a scroll wheel, for those who want to scroll a few lines at a time without using the mouse. Plus, things like having an extra backspace (as well as open and close parenthesis) above the number pad. You can click here for Microsoft's page on it.
There are a few companies that make clones of this keyboard now, complete with scroll wheel. I don't know the names of any of the clones, all of the ones I have seen are by very generic companies.
No, it was a native 2300 on Yahoo auctions. (Yahoo auctions seems to be full of rip-off artists, I've noticed. This is the second time I've gotten burned in three auctions on Yahoo. At least I have either not paid, or gotten my money back.)
Wow, I recently won an auction for a Duo 2300 (which can not run X via XPostFacto. You're thinking of the 2400) for a little over $100. Unfortunately, the seller bagged on me, even cancelling my bid so I couldn't give him bad feedback.
The 2400s, however, are still VERY expensive. Until the new 12" G4, the 2400 was the smallest 'full featured' notebook Apple made.
And I've been looking for Wallstreet's, too. If you know of one for about $200, let me know!
...you can buy a used clamshell iBook for just a little bit more...
According to Low End Mac's iBook Deals page, the original 300MHz iBook, with only 32 MB of RAM, a 3GB hard drive, and CD-ROM drive (i.e. the original stock configuration) is selling for $678 from used computer stores.
Pricewatch shows one 366MHz model for $595 (and it even has a whopping 64MB of RAM, and a 6GB HD.)
The cheapest one that sold in the past few weeks on eBay was a 300Mhz/64MB RAM/6GB HD model for $410.
Now, I'm not one to nit-pick, but "a little bit more" should be less than twice as much. Heck, even 50% more isn't "a little bit" anymore. If I could get an old iBook for about $300, I'd have one.
Huh? If someone can steal my hard drive, I assume he could just as well simply steal my whole computer.
Yes, that example doesn't hold up too well for a conventional desktop (even less so for a laptop.) But, what about a server? That rack mounted server is really hard to get out (and so big that someone would probably notice it,) but that hot swap drive is easy. Just pop it out, stick it in your pocket.
Okay, my take, based on working knowledge of 'trusted' computing and hardware design (I used to be a support enginner in Intel's server division,) is as follows:
'Trusted computing' relies on the fact that every component is known to be secure. Of course 'secure' is a cagey term, but in this case, it means that the end application knows that nothing is interfering with it. The uses vary, from DRM to financial transactions, to other uses we haven't thought of. But, there are three main pieces in a trusted system:
1. The hardware. The hardware needs to be 'trusted' in that we are certain that there is no hardware tampering or eavesdropping going on (of course, this applies only the the internals of the computer, a packet sniffer, or even a keyboard monitor, would be external, and ouside the scope of monitoring,) and to make sure that the machine is the machine it's supposed to be. This really started with Intel's Pentium III adding a processor serial number. The point of that (as with Palladium) was that each machine could be positively identified. If you had previously made that computer 'trusted', then set it so that only trusted machines could perform a said transaction, we could guarantee that the end user is who he says he is, from a hardware standpoint. This new BIOS is much the same way. Each board with this BIOS will be able to say "Yes, I am the motherboard that was here when this software was installed, so yes, I am the same computer." Obviously, this has implications for hardware failure, even moreso than Windows XP's activation problems.
2. The OS. The OS must have support for trusted computing. It must be able to partition off the 'trusted' applications from the untrusted ones. It must be able to encrypt the contents of the drive, and only allow trusted applications to access protected data, and only allow trusted applications to access the 'trusted' part of memory. (So as to disallow one program from sniffing the program files, memory, or data transport streams of a protected application.) This would probably see alot of use by multiplayer online games, as they could make certain that no third-party applications that reside on the game-running-PC could be used to cheat. (As with some of the 'god map' programs for Everquest.) Again, this does not protect the data stream once it leaves the computer, an encrypted network connection would be required. Obviously, for the OS parts to work, users must log in to the system with a username and password at least. Biometric security would be better, so as to more certainly guarantee that the user is who he says he is.
3. Applications. The entire purpose of 'trusted computing' is the applications. Applications that need to know that the user is who he says he is, and that is done by both the OS and the hardware. As with the game example above, other uses are financial transactions (for example, you could set it so that only your computer has access to your bank account records, so that even if someone stole your hard drive, and your username and password, they still wouldn't be able to get at your data,) and DRM. It makes a perfect DRM vehicle, as now the labels can enforce the one-computer rule. A downloaded file would refuse to play without the original application, OS, and hardware.
The question is if these systems can boot a non-trusted OS? Of course they can! You won't be able to use trusted features (for example, your bank's online account access wouldn't work,) but you could use it just fine for applications that don't use MS' Palladium. Just like the Pentium III's serial number could be disabled, and all you lost was access to the (very few) programs that required it.
Well, I can specifically remember an incident walking home from school while I was in first grade (I'm now 26.) That is the oldest memory that I am certain of. It was some older students playing on the playground equipment, faking that one of them was hurt badly, and I refused to run to the principal for help (to me, it was obvious that they were yanking my chain.) Well, after I had gotten a few dozen yards away, they yelled out "Oh, no! He's dead! You killed him!" Even though I knew they were playing around, it still left an indelible memory.
I have some specific mental images of places and actions from when I was around 5, but nothing that I can declare to be certain memories. (Babysitter's house, a couple kindergarten memories, etc.)
I have vague recollections (could be 'implanted memories') of the house my parents lived in when I was born, and moved out of when I was 4. For example, I haven't been in the house since, yet I vaguely remember the view out what was my bedroom window. I do not 100% trust the memories of that house, though, because my family did talk about that house later, so I could just be 'remembering' their descriptions. For example, I seem to remember the house having rampant spider infestations, which my older sister concurs with; yet my parents insist that that house was fairly spider-free, and that it was the apartment they lived in before I was born (but after my sister was,) had spider problems. So I'm probably just transferring my sister's misplaced memory.
NB. this is not unlike all the Compuserve / AOL links that got shipped with Win95/98/ME to sit beside the MSN icon; an antitrust suit was threatened by the other ISPs and MS allowed the competing ISPs space on the default desktop.
That is a good example. In that case, Microsoft SETTLED, by allowing those ISPs to have their icons on the desktop. They were not forced into it by the government. In this case, the government has declared that Microsoft must include someone else's technology. That means that Microsoft has to agree to Sun's license, wether they feel like it or not. Heck, Sun could now change their license to say that anyone who implements it in their operating system must give sun the entire source code to the core of the operating system. It wouldn't matter for Linux, it's already open. It wouldn't matter for OS X, as Darwin is already open. But, it could be used to force MS to give up their source code; as the government has just mandated that MS acquire a license for Java.
Again, I would have no problem with the government forcing MS to remove their faulty Java implementation. I would have no problem with MS being required to pop up a dialog box saying 'you must have Java installed to run this, please click the link below to be taken to www.sun.com to download it - warning, this link takes you to a website outside of Microsoft's control'. That would be just fine. But FORCING a company to include a competitor's product, with no end user choice, is wrong. Yes, no end user choice. The government has just declared that Java is a legally mandated part of Windows.
To quote the judge "If.NET proves itself to be a better product than Java, it should -- and will -- predominate in the market." But that's not true. If the govt. forces MS to include Java, Java will win just because it's already in use. There are alot of standards that fail just because another starndard was already in place, even though the new one is better. I'm not saying.NET is better than Java, I honestly have no idea; I'm just saying that the government is now showing prejudice FOR Java, rather than showing indifference.
Okay, so I may not have picked the perfect analogy, but it still shows the silliness of this ruling. As for having a dealer install a system with the specifications you want? You can do that with computers, too. See Walmart/Lindows for a high profile example; and most small shops will put Linux on for you as well.
Still, my main point is the fact that the U.S. government has just crossed the most invasive line yet. Restricting tech to include, removing already included tech, and demanding separation of tech is one thing. Demanding INCLUSION of a tech that is made by a different company is totally different.
I run my own business, and if the goverment said I couldn't do something, that would be okay, if annoying. If they said I had to do something a certain way, that would be obnoxious, but still acceptable. If they said I absolutely have to use one certain product, made by one specific company, to do it, that's a problem.
General Motors, Inc. (GM) has been ordered to install Sony brand stereo systems, compatible with the XM satellite radio network, in all new vehicles. GM's custom radios, which use the incompatible Sirius satellite radio network, were declared to be an illegal use of monopoly power in one market (automobiles) to influence another market (satellite radio standards.)
That's what this announcement sounds like to me. Java isn't a legally required piece of technology, there is no reason Microsoft should be FORCED to include it. I, for one, would rather see Microsoft drop ALL Java from their OS than have this ruling go through.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft's tactics, and even agree with the judge that Microsoft is including a 'broken' form of Java specifically to encourage people to use.NET. But, that doesn't mean a court should have the right to force MS to INCLUDE a competitors product. They shouldn't be allowed to PREVENT it from working, but they shouldn't have to include it, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. As I not only live in Portland (the city Vera Katz is mayor of) but I happen to know her. (I went to school with her son.)
Try looking in to the Sony PictureBooks, or the ultra-tiny Sony U-series, Fujitsu P-series, Toshiba Libretto, or many others.
I've been very happy with my PictureBook C1X (the original, with a Pentium MMX 266Mhz processor, before the Crusoe even existed) for years. I'm only now considering replacing it. And then, I'm only considering the Fujitsu P-2000, because it's almost the same size, and it has a bulit-in Combo DVD/CD-RW drive. (The one flaw with the picturebook: No built-in optical drive, and only one PC Card slot, so I could have optical OR network, but not both.)
Correction, I finally found where it says that .11g and .11b each get their own speeds. Apparently it CAN multiplex between CCK and OFDM. Hrm. You lean something new every day.
Okay, I didn't even realize the joke until I typed in the subject line. So, does anyone know what Vera looks like? The Bitstream fonts, I mean. Having high-quality good looking fonts is nice and all, but I'd like to know what they look like. Is there a sample picture of them anywhere? I haven't been able to find one.
Okay, it's 8 years old, so it's irrelevant, but still, the most revealing comment to me is:
And it makes perfect sense! New versions should not be about bug-fixes. Being told to "Upgrade" should never be a valid response to someone complaining about a bug. Gates isn't saying bugs are in their on purpose, he isn't saying their good. He isn't saying they're in there because that's what sells. He's saying bugs are bad, bugs should be gotten rid of in any given version, and that a new version isn't about bug fixes, it's about new features. Isn't that what a new version SHOULD be?
Some software companies are bad at that. Some companies <cough, Intuit, cough> *DO* insist that to fix a bug, you must upgrade. That is stupid.
1. From www.apple.com/airport, footnote 2:
.11b and .11g at the same time.
.11b uses CCK encoding (Complimentary Code Keying), and .11g uses OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing.) An access point can't use both encoding schemes at the same time. So it will run happily only using OFDM for 54Mbps speeds. But as soon as a single CCK device enters the network, the access point, td therefore, ALL clients, revert to CCK. And CCK tops out at 11Mbps. That is why the AP Extreme offers three modes. "802.11g Only" is so that this doesn't happen. The AP will just ignore .11b clients, and let all .11g clients talk at full speed (OFDM only). "802.11b Compatible" makes it run in .11g mode UNTIL A .11b CLIENT CONNECTS, then it drops to .11b (OFDM, with capability to drop to CCK.) "802.11b Only" always works in .11b mode (CCK only.)
To achieve maximum speed of 54 Mbps, all users must use AirPort Extreme Cards.
2. From www.apple.com/airport/specs.html, footnote 4:
The AirPort Extreme Base Station defaults to 802.11b mode when users of AirPort Cards or other Wi-Fi certified 802.11b products join the network.
What that means: If a single AirPort/802.11b computer connects, the ENTIRE NETWORK goes to 802.11b mode. It cannot speak both
Basically,
I can't even find the quote you list anywhere on the page.
Oh, yeah, and how the hell was my original comment 'redundant'? Overrated maybe, but how was it redundant? The original article, nor the post I replied to (which was also marked redundant) mentioned anything about this.
Okay, beige G3 rev a, no problems, iMac rev b, no problems. I'd try it on my PMac7300, but it can't run 10.2.
No, it says that a single .11b card on your mostly .11g network will make the entire network (all clients) drop to .11b speeds.
.11g implementations I have seen so far. So, for example, if/when I go to .11g in my home, I'll have 54Mbps. But, if my neighbor, who is using .11b, happens to get near enough with his laptop to connect to my network (happens all the time right now, he hooks onto mine, I hook onto his,) then all of MY computers will drop to 11Mbps, just because one single .11b client has connected to the base station.
.11g, I guess I'll have to lock my neighbor out. (Too bad, in my neighborhood, we've got about 5 WAPs within 6 houses of each other, and we all leech off each other, as some of us connect to our neighbor's WAP better than to our own at certain points of our property.)
This is common of all
So, when I go
Just remember that you have to write the notebook computer manufacturer, *NOT* Microsoft. Microsoft says that because you are buying an OEM copy of it, you have to talk to the OEM. With some OEM's, you have to be persistent.
The Microsoft Office keyboard has app-fwd and app-back keys, as well as dedicated cut, copy, and paste. Plus, it shows the most common uses of the F-keys, instead of 'F3', it says 'Open'. Plus, it has a scroll wheel, for those who want to scroll a few lines at a time without using the mouse. Plus, things like having an extra backspace (as well as open and close parenthesis) above the number pad. You can click here for Microsoft's page on it.
There are a few companies that make clones of this keyboard now, complete with scroll wheel. I don't know the names of any of the clones, all of the ones I have seen are by very generic companies.
Okay, I'll bite...
How does 10,000,000,000 - 8,000,000,000 = 2,921,600,000 ? Shouldn't it just be 2,000,000,000?
No, it was a native 2300 on Yahoo auctions. (Yahoo auctions seems to be full of rip-off artists, I've noticed. This is the second time I've gotten burned in three auctions on Yahoo. At least I have either not paid, or gotten my money back.)
Wow, I recently won an auction for a Duo 2300 (which can not run X via XPostFacto. You're thinking of the 2400) for a little over $100. Unfortunately, the seller bagged on me, even cancelling my bid so I couldn't give him bad feedback.
The 2400s, however, are still VERY expensive. Until the new 12" G4, the 2400 was the smallest 'full featured' notebook Apple made.
And I've been looking for Wallstreet's, too. If you know of one for about $200, let me know!
Yeah, when they have a couple days left on eBay, they're still reasonably priced. The cheapest final price was the $410 one, though.
According to Low End Mac's iBook Deals page, the original 300MHz iBook, with only 32 MB of RAM, a 3GB hard drive, and CD-ROM drive (i.e. the original stock configuration) is selling for $678 from used computer stores.
Pricewatch shows one 366MHz model for $595 (and it even has a whopping 64MB of RAM, and a 6GB HD.)
The cheapest one that sold in the past few weeks on eBay was a 300Mhz/64MB RAM/6GB HD model for $410.
Now, I'm not one to nit-pick, but "a little bit more" should be less than twice as much. Heck, even 50% more isn't "a little bit" anymore. If I could get an old iBook for about $300, I'd have one.
Yes, that example doesn't hold up too well for a conventional desktop (even less so for a laptop.) But, what about a server? That rack mounted server is really hard to get out (and so big that someone would probably notice it,) but that hot swap drive is easy. Just pop it out, stick it in your pocket.
Okay, my take, based on working knowledge of 'trusted' computing and hardware design (I used to be a support enginner in Intel's server division,) is as follows:
'Trusted computing' relies on the fact that every component is known to be secure. Of course 'secure' is a cagey term, but in this case, it means that the end application knows that nothing is interfering with it. The uses vary, from DRM to financial transactions, to other uses we haven't thought of. But, there are three main pieces in a trusted system:
1. The hardware. The hardware needs to be 'trusted' in that we are certain that there is no hardware tampering or eavesdropping going on (of course, this applies only the the internals of the computer, a packet sniffer, or even a keyboard monitor, would be external, and ouside the scope of monitoring,) and to make sure that the machine is the machine it's supposed to be. This really started with Intel's Pentium III adding a processor serial number. The point of that (as with Palladium) was that each machine could be positively identified. If you had previously made that computer 'trusted', then set it so that only trusted machines could perform a said transaction, we could guarantee that the end user is who he says he is, from a hardware standpoint. This new BIOS is much the same way. Each board with this BIOS will be able to say "Yes, I am the motherboard that was here when this software was installed, so yes, I am the same computer." Obviously, this has implications for hardware failure, even moreso than Windows XP's activation problems.
2. The OS. The OS must have support for trusted computing. It must be able to partition off the 'trusted' applications from the untrusted ones. It must be able to encrypt the contents of the drive, and only allow trusted applications to access protected data, and only allow trusted applications to access the 'trusted' part of memory. (So as to disallow one program from sniffing the program files, memory, or data transport streams of a protected application.) This would probably see alot of use by multiplayer online games, as they could make certain that no third-party applications that reside on the game-running-PC could be used to cheat. (As with some of the 'god map' programs for Everquest.) Again, this does not protect the data stream once it leaves the computer, an encrypted network connection would be required. Obviously, for the OS parts to work, users must log in to the system with a username and password at least. Biometric security would be better, so as to more certainly guarantee that the user is who he says he is.
3. Applications. The entire purpose of 'trusted computing' is the applications. Applications that need to know that the user is who he says he is, and that is done by both the OS and the hardware. As with the game example above, other uses are financial transactions (for example, you could set it so that only your computer has access to your bank account records, so that even if someone stole your hard drive, and your username and password, they still wouldn't be able to get at your data,) and DRM. It makes a perfect DRM vehicle, as now the labels can enforce the one-computer rule. A downloaded file would refuse to play without the original application, OS, and hardware.
The question is if these systems can boot a non-trusted OS? Of course they can! You won't be able to use trusted features (for example, your bank's online account access wouldn't work,) but you could use it just fine for applications that don't use MS' Palladium. Just like the Pentium III's serial number could be disabled, and all you lost was access to the (very few) programs that required it.
hehe.. And YOUR post got the mod up... Oh, the irony!
Well, I can specifically remember an incident walking home from school while I was in first grade (I'm now 26.) That is the oldest memory that I am certain of. It was some older students playing on the playground equipment, faking that one of them was hurt badly, and I refused to run to the principal for help (to me, it was obvious that they were yanking my chain.) Well, after I had gotten a few dozen yards away, they yelled out "Oh, no! He's dead! You killed him!" Even though I knew they were playing around, it still left an indelible memory.
I have some specific mental images of places and actions from when I was around 5, but nothing that I can declare to be certain memories. (Babysitter's house, a couple kindergarten memories, etc.)
I have vague recollections (could be 'implanted memories') of the house my parents lived in when I was born, and moved out of when I was 4. For example, I haven't been in the house since, yet I vaguely remember the view out what was my bedroom window. I do not 100% trust the memories of that house, though, because my family did talk about that house later, so I could just be 'remembering' their descriptions. For example, I seem to remember the house having rampant spider infestations, which my older sister concurs with; yet my parents insist that that house was fairly spider-free, and that it was the apartment they lived in before I was born (but after my sister was,) had spider problems. So I'm probably just transferring my sister's misplaced memory.
That is a good example. In that case, Microsoft SETTLED, by allowing those ISPs to have their icons on the desktop. They were not forced into it by the government. In this case, the government has declared that Microsoft must include someone else's technology. That means that Microsoft has to agree to Sun's license, wether they feel like it or not. Heck, Sun could now change their license to say that anyone who implements it in their operating system must give sun the entire source code to the core of the operating system. It wouldn't matter for Linux, it's already open. It wouldn't matter for OS X, as Darwin is already open. But, it could be used to force MS to give up their source code; as the government has just mandated that MS acquire a license for Java.
Again, I would have no problem with the government forcing MS to remove their faulty Java implementation. I would have no problem with MS being required to pop up a dialog box saying 'you must have Java installed to run this, please click the link below to be taken to www.sun.com to download it - warning, this link takes you to a website outside of Microsoft's control'. That would be just fine. But FORCING a company to include a competitor's product, with no end user choice, is wrong. Yes, no end user choice. The government has just declared that Java is a legally mandated part of Windows.
To quote the judge "If
Okay, so I may not have picked the perfect analogy, but it still shows the silliness of this ruling. As for having a dealer install a system with the specifications you want? You can do that with computers, too. See Walmart/Lindows for a high profile example; and most small shops will put Linux on for you as well.
Still, my main point is the fact that the U.S. government has just crossed the most invasive line yet. Restricting tech to include, removing already included tech, and demanding separation of tech is one thing. Demanding INCLUSION of a tech that is made by a different company is totally different.
I run my own business, and if the goverment said I couldn't do something, that would be okay, if annoying. If they said I had to do something a certain way, that would be obnoxious, but still acceptable. If they said I absolutely have to use one certain product, made by one specific company, to do it, that's a problem.
That's what this announcement sounds like to me. Java isn't a legally required piece of technology, there is no reason Microsoft should be FORCED to include it. I, for one, would rather see Microsoft drop ALL Java from their OS than have this ruling go through.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft's tactics, and even agree with the judge that Microsoft is including a 'broken' form of Java specifically to encourage people to use .NET. But, that doesn't mean a court should have the right to force MS to INCLUDE a competitors product. They shouldn't be allowed to PREVENT it from working, but they shouldn't have to include it, either.
Especially since they already had a main story about the DSL division going under.
Yeah, there are lots of rumors that DirecPC/DirecWay will be slashed, too, but not yet.
Whoops, they just corrected it.
Well, the employees of a company I used to work for, DirecTV Broadband, got fired for the holidays...
Slashdot found out before some of the EMPLOYEES did...