Actually MS is *very* sensitive about employees looking at open sourced code (particularly viral licenses such as the GPL). I would imagine that the employees looking at things like Linux source are doing so for reporting purposes only, and do not share their knowledge with the product groups.
I, wanting cheap karma, can compress data to 1/25th of original size... but it only works on slashdot articles, which are highly compressable due to the large amount of redundant data.
Put "Bare bones PC's" into Google (or just go to NewEgg for that matter). Of course you can build your own car or computer. We're talking about reliable manufacturers of computers which have everything but the OS.
As an MSDN subscriber you are only supposed to use that software for development purposes only. This is why as a business you can buy machines with no OS if you plan on having a site (MSDN or otherwise) license. If you want to use your machine for both work and personal, you DO need a seperate OEM or retail version of Windows.
Can you get naked laptops from a resonable/reliable manufacturer?
Can you get naked cars (i.e. no engine) from a reasonable/reliable manufacturer? An engine is not a tax just as much as an OS is not a tax. Each is one of the most critical parts of their respective products. If you don't want MS, buy Apple. If you don't want Apple, buy an Ubantu laptop.
I know it sounds wrong now, but in 1997 it was true. Back then, Internet Explorer was the best web browser on the Mac; Netscape Communicator had become a bloated... So the whole "abusing monopoly to crush competition" thing was really just Netscape using the legal system to make up for it's pathetic excuse for a browser? I couldn't agree more (and I was diehard Netscape until Communicator was released... and even then it took me a while to make the switch to IE).
... or they run through rigorous tests since they have to answer to millions of customers on millions of different system configurations. I'm not saying that MS shouldn't be faster about patching, but they have improved their turnaound and there's only so much you can do if you care about rigorous quality assurance.
I suppose that is better than MS assurances that they extensively tested the fix before release.
This quite far from the truth. Reading source code will not find the integration problems that can come up when you release a patch on millions of machines with different configurations.
These third party programmers are too [censored] lazy to use the browser that I have set up as default.
The problem is not with developers who want to launch a webpage from their application - most applications properly do this so that your browser of choice is used. The problem is when you want to embed certain functionality such as what's found in MSHTML. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this from a technical standpoint. The problem comes when the browser application (IE) is required even though only core components are needed. In Vista we will still get MSHTML, but we won't need the actual browser.
So, while not bulletproof, you really think that XP SP2 is not significantly more secure than previous versions of Windows? If so I would beg to differ. Actually, with the rate of security holes being found in OSX of late, I wouldn't be surprised XP SP2 and OSX were almost equal on this front.
"Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.
Gambling is any behavior involving risking money or valuables on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one's ability to do something. Those who do understand mathematics and probability are those who usually win. The state lottery, for example, is a tax on those who don't understand math. Casino's gamble just as much as their customers. But like already mentioned, there are games like poker in which you play another player. The better player offers gambles much like the casino offers gambles; they have a long term expectation (i.e. they make profitable gambles). The stock market is similar to this but more interesting because it's not simply zero sum like most gambling. It can be positive sum or negative sum which makes choosing what gambles to take a bit more complex.
If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.
The thing is, they indirectly do tax internet gambling. If you win big and withdrawl that money there's an electronic trail. Sure, most people do not claim gambling winnings, but the IRS has 5 years to find that trail. Any significant amount of money will eventually be noticed. Sure, the government would like to tax it both ways (tax the business recieving the money, and the players who win the money), although I'm sure this bill started because of the concern about the "tearing the moral fibers of America" that online gambling causes.
Why not a C# notepad, mspaint, explorer.exe, taskmgr, regedit etc? All of those would be great in.Net and would show MS's customers that MS is behind.Net 100%. As it looks to me,.Net is the "soup of the day" at MS..Net will be replaced in 3-5 years with something else that will require MS customers to re-purchase their development tool chain. You are absolutely right in that MS should rewrite the "basics" like notepad and mspaint. Not because of.NET, but because these apps desperately need updating. There are already 3rd party.NET replacements for these, but MS needs to jump on it. However, you can't be farther from the truth with regards to.NET being replaced in 3-5 years just because notepad isn't written in.NET. Important enterprise applications like Biztalk Server and CMS have at least in part been ported to the.NET platform. Media Center is written in.NET. Parts of Visual Studio and Visual Studio Team System is written in.NET. This is all fairly public information - if I were internal at Microsoft I could probably list a lot more. So while I agree that MS needs to rewrite a lot of tooling in their OS (whether or not using.NET), I do not think that the lack of Vista.NET applications points to Microsoft not having a huge commitment with.NET and looking to replace it with Yet Another Platform to sell to everyone in a few years.
I don't sell MP3 because I don't sell data, I sell product.
I hate to break it to you, but CD's are just a medium to hold data. Your music is still a bunch of 0's and 1's. The only difference is the pamphlet, CD case, and the physical CD itself. Either way, you're product *is* data.
No, it's still extortion. I know the typical/. mantra is that MS did evil by adding features to their OS without adding cost. I know that people believe it's black-and-white antitrust for giving huge discounts to OEM's for volume license agreements in which all machines sold had Windows instead of some niche OS that has zero relevance to the OEM's marketshare. But the reality is that governemnt should never have this much heavy handed control over business, and the EU is essentially stealing US dollars on the backs of the underdogs. Do you really think the consumer or BeOS will get a dime of this? Please. Keep the government out of this. IBM switching to Linux and Apple taking on the home market are all I need to see that we have a healthy and competitve marketplace without government intervention.
Email is NOT for:
Sending binary copies of document XYZ
Not for archiving every piece of information that's communicated
Exactly. We have over 3,500 accounts using Exchange with only an 80MB limit. Many people complain, but our company has set up multiple file sharing options (one that's P2P based as well as a central file share which works with BITS (Binary Intelligent Transfer Service)). The only way to encourage users to limit usage is to provide them with the proper tools and know-how to transfer files w/o using email.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package.
I couldn't have said it better myself. None of what these governments are doing are good for the consumers.
Finding exploits like this takes time, intelligence, and often understanding of the software in question. Especially in a well-crafted system, you have to know how the system works in order to circumvent it.
I agree, but I still think that the OP's point is extremely valid: it is still significantly harder to develop a secure system than it is to break it.
Does anyone here still prefer and use older versions like Office 2000?
No. Actually, I used Star Office up until 2003. The main reason was security with Outlook. Outlook 2003 was a complete rewrite and I have since upgraded from Eudora. The other tools are rather "bleh" in comparison to 2000 or 97, so I guess I would agree with you there. Nevertheless, from what I've seen in 2007, there's a lot of nice changes to make things more usable. This is very important to a "non-proficient" Office user like myself. We'll see if these changes have much of an impact. A few select people are beta testing Office 2007 now and are loving it, so I may be next on the bandwagon.
I "only" have 1.5Mbps downstream connection. I don't want to wait 3-5 hours to download a high quality video. I also don't want my connection virtually hosed for half an evening. I would rather take a few minutes to walk or drive to the nearest blockbuster and load it up in less than a minute. I would probably need a connection with a solid 8Mbps downstream before I would consider the download times reasonable. Then again, for HD-DVD content, we're probably talking about 20GB+ in which case 8Mbps is way too slow. It's a great ideal to download content over broadband, but the infrastructure just isn't there.
I know plenty of ex-MSFT employees who left to work for ISV's for various reasons. Just because you enjoy.NET development doesn't mean that you want to be working on a MSFT product..NET development may not have even been the reason for joining this other company (actually, it probably had little to do with it). He probably found a great opportunity with an ISV that he finds interesting which also happens to utilize.NET as their platform.
... bundling security software to protect the operating system that should be secured in the first place, does not strike me as monopolistic abuse.
Well, niether does bundling a tool to accomplish the most commone use case on a computer these days (i.e. the browser), but we know how well that went over. Additionally, no OS is secure enough to not require the added defense of a virus scanner.
Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service?
Yes. It's not extortion because Microsoft doesn't create viruses. Consider if Schlage, a door lock maker, started making a burgler alarm. While Schlage may do their best to create a very secure door lock, one knows that it's possible to cirvumvent that lock. An alarm system is simply another layer of security. Security in the computing world is all about "defense in depth". While (contrary to/. opinion) Microsoft is working hard to prevent virus writers from writing viruses, they are also offering a defensive tool that can defend and remove viruses should they be written.
Sadly many companies do not realize that spending 150K per person on two programmers is more efficient than spending 85k per person on 10.
Even if this is true (which it may be, but I think it's a bit of an exaggeration at best), there aren't enough 150K developers available. And let's not get into the "dynamic vs. static" language war - modern static languages provide a lot of flexibility and power for talented developers to wield.
Subscribers have access to support personal that can help assist them with analyzing their system and determining A) if it's worth the risk to hotfix now and B) if there's any potential issue with the hotfix that could affect their particular configuration (e.g. hotfix is tested and working most configurations but it fubars something wierd on Exchange boxes). This type of end-user attention costs money, and that's what the subscribers are paying for.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually MS is *very* sensitive about employees looking at open sourced code (particularly viral licenses such as the GPL). I would imagine that the employees looking at things like Linux source are doing so for reporting purposes only, and do not share their knowledge with the product groups.
I, wanting cheap karma, can compress data to 1/25th of original size... but it only works on slashdot articles, which are highly compressable due to the large amount of redundant data.
Put "kit cars" into Google...
Put "Bare bones PC's" into Google (or just go to NewEgg for that matter). Of course you can build your own car or computer. We're talking about reliable manufacturers of computers which have everything but the OS.
As an MSDN subscriber you are only supposed to use that software for development purposes only. This is why as a business you can buy machines with no OS if you plan on having a site (MSDN or otherwise) license. If you want to use your machine for both work and personal, you DO need a seperate OEM or retail version of Windows.
Can you get naked laptops from a resonable/reliable manufacturer?
Can you get naked cars (i.e. no engine) from a reasonable/reliable manufacturer? An engine is not a tax just as much as an OS is not a tax. Each is one of the most critical parts of their respective products. If you don't want MS, buy Apple. If you don't want Apple, buy an Ubantu laptop.
I know it sounds wrong now, but in 1997 it was true. Back then, Internet Explorer was the best web browser on the Mac; Netscape Communicator had become a bloated...
So the whole "abusing monopoly to crush competition" thing was really just Netscape using the legal system to make up for it's pathetic excuse for a browser? I couldn't agree more (and I was diehard Netscape until Communicator was released... and even then it took me a while to make the switch to IE).
... or they run through rigorous tests since they have to answer to millions of customers on millions of different system configurations. I'm not saying that MS shouldn't be faster about patching, but they have improved their turnaound and there's only so much you can do if you care about rigorous quality assurance.
I suppose that is better than MS assurances that they extensively tested the fix before release.
This quite far from the truth. Reading source code will not find the integration problems that can come up when you release a patch on millions of machines with different configurations.
These third party programmers are too [censored] lazy to use the browser that I have set up as default.
The problem is not with developers who want to launch a webpage from their application - most applications properly do this so that your browser of choice is used. The problem is when you want to embed certain functionality such as what's found in MSHTML. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this from a technical standpoint. The problem comes when the browser application (IE) is required even though only core components are needed. In Vista we will still get MSHTML, but we won't need the actual browser.
So, while not bulletproof, you really think that XP SP2 is not significantly more secure than previous versions of Windows? If so I would beg to differ. Actually, with the rate of security holes being found in OSX of late, I wouldn't be surprised XP SP2 and OSX were almost equal on this front.
"Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.
Gambling is any behavior involving risking money or valuables on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one's ability to do something. Those who do understand mathematics and probability are those who usually win. The state lottery, for example, is a tax on those who don't understand math. Casino's gamble just as much as their customers. But like already mentioned, there are games like poker in which you play another player. The better player offers gambles much like the casino offers gambles; they have a long term expectation (i.e. they make profitable gambles). The stock market is similar to this but more interesting because it's not simply zero sum like most gambling. It can be positive sum or negative sum which makes choosing what gambles to take a bit more complex.
If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.
The thing is, they indirectly do tax internet gambling. If you win big and withdrawl that money there's an electronic trail. Sure, most people do not claim gambling winnings, but the IRS has 5 years to find that trail. Any significant amount of money will eventually be noticed. Sure, the government would like to tax it both ways (tax the business recieving the money, and the players who win the money), although I'm sure this bill started because of the concern about the "tearing the moral fibers of America" that online gambling causes.
Why not a C# notepad, mspaint, explorer.exe, taskmgr, regedit etc? All of those would be great in .Net and would show MS's customers that MS is behind .Net 100%. As it looks to me, .Net is the "soup of the day" at MS. .Net will be replaced in 3-5 years with something else that will require MS customers to re-purchase their development tool chain. .NET, but because these apps desperately need updating. There are already 3rd party .NET replacements for these, but MS needs to jump on it. However, you can't be farther from the truth with regards to .NET being replaced in 3-5 years just because notepad isn't written in .NET. Important enterprise applications like Biztalk Server and CMS have at least in part been ported to the .NET platform. Media Center is written in .NET. Parts of Visual Studio and Visual Studio Team System is written in .NET. This is all fairly public information - if I were internal at Microsoft I could probably list a lot more. So while I agree that MS needs to rewrite a lot of tooling in their OS (whether or not using .NET), I do not think that the lack of Vista .NET applications points to Microsoft not having a huge commitment with .NET and looking to replace it with Yet Another Platform to sell to everyone in a few years.
You are absolutely right in that MS should rewrite the "basics" like notepad and mspaint. Not because of
I don't sell MP3 because I don't sell data, I sell product.
I hate to break it to you, but CD's are just a medium to hold data. Your music is still a bunch of 0's and 1's. The only difference is the pamphlet, CD case, and the physical CD itself. Either way, you're product *is* data.
Still just a slap...
/. mantra is that MS did evil by adding features to their OS without adding cost. I know that people believe it's black-and-white antitrust for giving huge discounts to OEM's for volume license agreements in which all machines sold had Windows instead of some niche OS that has zero relevance to the OEM's marketshare. But the reality is that governemnt should never have this much heavy handed control over business, and the EU is essentially stealing US dollars on the backs of the underdogs. Do you really think the consumer or BeOS will get a dime of this? Please. Keep the government out of this. IBM switching to Linux and Apple taking on the home market are all I need to see that we have a healthy and competitve marketplace without government intervention.
No, it's still extortion. I know the typical
Email is NOT for:
Sending binary copies of document XYZ
Not for archiving every piece of information that's communicated
Exactly. We have over 3,500 accounts using Exchange with only an 80MB limit. Many people complain, but our company has set up multiple file sharing options (one that's P2P based as well as a central file share which works with BITS (Binary Intelligent Transfer Service)). The only way to encourage users to limit usage is to provide them with the proper tools and know-how to transfer files w/o using email.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel all these "governments" view Microsoft as a cash cow and are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Honestly, the definition needs to be redifined. What Linux, Apple and Microsoft is selling (or giving away for free) is not just an OS, but a complete package.
I couldn't have said it better myself. None of what these governments are doing are good for the consumers.
Finding exploits like this takes time, intelligence, and often understanding of the software in question. Especially in a well-crafted system, you have to know how the system works in order to circumvent it.
I agree, but I still think that the OP's point is extremely valid: it is still significantly harder to develop a secure system than it is to break it.
Does anyone here still prefer and use older versions like Office 2000?
No. Actually, I used Star Office up until 2003. The main reason was security with Outlook. Outlook 2003 was a complete rewrite and I have since upgraded from Eudora. The other tools are rather "bleh" in comparison to 2000 or 97, so I guess I would agree with you there. Nevertheless, from what I've seen in 2007, there's a lot of nice changes to make things more usable. This is very important to a "non-proficient" Office user like myself. We'll see if these changes have much of an impact. A few select people are beta testing Office 2007 now and are loving it, so I may be next on the bandwagon.
I "only" have 1.5Mbps downstream connection. I don't want to wait 3-5 hours to download a high quality video. I also don't want my connection virtually hosed for half an evening. I would rather take a few minutes to walk or drive to the nearest blockbuster and load it up in less than a minute. I would probably need a connection with a solid 8Mbps downstream before I would consider the download times reasonable. Then again, for HD-DVD content, we're probably talking about 20GB+ in which case 8Mbps is way too slow. It's a great ideal to download content over broadband, but the infrastructure just isn't there.
I know plenty of ex-MSFT employees who left to work for ISV's for various reasons. Just because you enjoy .NET development doesn't mean that you want to be working on a MSFT product. .NET development may not have even been the reason for joining this other company (actually, it probably had little to do with it). He probably found a great opportunity with an ISV that he finds interesting which also happens to utilize .NET as their platform.
... bundling security software to protect the operating system that should be secured in the first place, does not strike me as monopolistic abuse.
Well, niether does bundling a tool to accomplish the most commone use case on a computer these days (i.e. the browser), but we know how well that went over. Additionally, no OS is secure enough to not require the added defense of a virus scanner.
Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service?
/. opinion) Microsoft is working hard to prevent virus writers from writing viruses, they are also offering a defensive tool that can defend and remove viruses should they be written.
Yes. It's not extortion because Microsoft doesn't create viruses. Consider if Schlage, a door lock maker, started making a burgler alarm. While Schlage may do their best to create a very secure door lock, one knows that it's possible to cirvumvent that lock. An alarm system is simply another layer of security. Security in the computing world is all about "defense in depth". While (contrary to
Sadly many companies do not realize that spending 150K per person on two programmers is more efficient than spending 85k per person on 10.
Even if this is true (which it may be, but I think it's a bit of an exaggeration at best), there aren't enough 150K developers available. And let's not get into the "dynamic vs. static" language war - modern static languages provide a lot of flexibility and power for talented developers to wield.
Subscribers have access to support personal that can help assist them with analyzing their system and determining A) if it's worth the risk to hotfix now and B) if there's any potential issue with the hotfix that could affect their particular configuration (e.g. hotfix is tested and working most configurations but it fubars something wierd on Exchange boxes). This type of end-user attention costs money, and that's what the subscribers are paying for.