Hey Fucknut, you do realize that I said released from Linus' clutches to the 2.6 Maintainer (Andrew Morton) not released to the public. I know it's released to the public.
The point I was making is that Linus has yet to start working on Kernel 2.7 and it is seriously about time. . .
Re:In general, Microsoft seems sloppy.
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
Am I alone in picturing J. Jonah Jameson (Peter Parker's boss) when reading dialogue like this?
IMO a government using OSS is almost a waste because even if they do find a bug or add an enhancement, do you think they will release it back into the community? NO.
Umm... You know that thing called Beowulf Clustering? Well as I recall that was a creation of NASA, a government institution.
FNAL has released a whole distribution, based off of RHEL with a few tweaks and fixes not yet in RHEL. Their url is fnal.gov, just to give you a clue . ..
As a Government employee, I can tell you that our policy is to release modifications and improvement because it lowers support costs. We don't want to have to keep patching and updating code when it can be included upstream and maintained as a community.
I'm sorry, but if you want to bitch about contributions perhaps you need to go bug that company with the multicolored half eaten fruit as their logo. After all, they used a crapload of OSS in their latest operating system and still had the nerve to go after small time developers for using the Aqua look in open source projects.
Steve Jobs is a real piece of work-- he soaked Apple on the NeXT buyout, then leveraged Apple's IP suits to convince Microsoft to subsidize his ideas, simultaneously killing most of the fruits of Apple's R&D.
Although Steve did really screw Apple, no one was worse than Mr. PepsiCo himself Gil Amelio. He thought that much like the soda industry, the more brands and flavors you have the more population you can reach.
During his reign he had so many different types of Mac's aimed at so many different targets, that no one knew what was good and what was underpowered crap. This combined with Microsoft discontinuing Office for Mac for a while lead to Mac's market share dropping big time.
In hindsight, he probably could have done a lot better if he stuck to the tried and true PHB style of synergizing core business components.
Also, Apple's cash reserves weren't that bad that they couldn't have bought those licenses out themselves, were they?
Yes they were that bad. As I recall, they were on the brink of dying and Microsoft bailed them out in exchange for placing IE on the desktop. Remember, this was around the time Microsoft starved Apple of any Office Applications (4.1 was out for Mac, which was not very compatible with Office 7/95 on the PC) and people weren't even considering Apple an option for any REAL work due to that.
For further information on this, I'd recommend checking out "Triumph of the Nerds". A real good Docudrama about the rise/fall of Apple.
I think Apple was actually upset that the clones were competing on the basis of being faster & cheaper. Power, for example, were shipping machines with recently announced PPCs faster than Apple could manage to, and were thus eating into Apple's high-end sales, rather than just competing at the low end, where Apple wouldn't have minded losing some market share in order to build the total user base for the OS. Much more of a hit to profits that way.
From what I recall, Power was using overclocking technology to push the existing CPU's of the time to nearly twice their original speed. In essence the machine was faster and cheaper because it was using a slower processor.
That's not too bad of a way to compete, but when the aftermarket mods for Motorola for doubling your speed, (think old school Pentium Overdrive CPU's) you could only do it on Apples.
Either way, soon as Microsoft bailed them out with 100 mill cash, they bought their competition and killed them off.
I don't see any law that threatens to make it illegal to send content from one node on the network (or peer) to another node - hence, peer to peer. I've never seen bittorrent threatened when used to distribute legal content, though sites like suprnova are walking a fine line by encouraging it as a means for piracy.
There are already copyright laws that forbid the transfer of infringing data without permission. Why create a new law that even mentions p2p when this is already illegal.
I hate the idea of legislation without purpose. Just more bullshit that can come back and bite us in the ass . . .
Microsoft does not sell IE. They gain no direct profit from people's use of it, so you have to wonder what their motive is here. Let's assume that "good" and "evil" are subjective and emotive words that have no relevance to this discussion, ok?
Go to 'Help, About . ..' under AOL, KaZaA, or any other program out there that embeds IE legally. It specifically states the word "Licensed from Microsoft" as in these companies bought a license for Internet Explorer. Maybe in bizarro world, these licenses aren't direct profit. Let's not forget the indirect profit either, like when a misspelled url lands us at the advertiser supported msn.com aren't either.
If you read Joel Spolsky's API war article, some perspective may be gained. Microsoft wishes only to discourage Web developers from moving away from the IE platform. If developers move away, Microsoft no longer has control over web development, and can no longer keep new technologies on the fringe.
Bullshit perspective. The developers may move away, but all that will do is shy away over 90% of the Web Browsing population. For any ad supported or donation supported site, that could be instant death. Keep Joe Six-Pack retarded about all things computer and IE will continue to be the dominant browser because it's on the Windows Desktop labelled "Internet".
If everyone stops using IE and moves to Mozilla/Opera/whatever, Microsoft's loss in revenue is exactly zero.
Ad revenue is big for MSN. Everytime an IE user misspells a web site, you end up on a search engine with banners. This generates $$$ for MSN.
In addition there are licensing fees for IE's third party use. In About under KaZaA it use to state that IE was licensed from Microsoft and is embedded into the software. AOL too embeds the software into it's client software, all of those spell out major revenue for Microsoft.
There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
[sarcasm] And we all know those chinese will pirate anything . . . [/sarcasm]
Aha! It's not just me. I've brought this point up a few times on Slashdot, but people tell me it's a figment of my imagination and that I'm a linux zealot . . .
Penguin Computing does this kind of stuff for a living. I think they are an all open source shop, too... There may be others, too.
As a Systems Engineer who has worked with a number of vendors, I would say that Penguin is the bottom of the barrel in service and quality control.
We have five clusters at our facility, the slowest of which is on the top500 in the 150 range. We've tried big and small vendors.
Penguin is the absolute worst. No two scsi hard disks had the same firmware version, the raid controller was DOA, etc. We buy/borrow a node from each vendor and evaluate them before buying clusters, and out of all the vendors the Penguin is the one that would crash or hang all the time. After months of trying, they were never able to get this going properly. Regardless of the fact that we shipped it back twice and were told each time that we'd get back a whole new machine (it wasn't).
I would personally recommend Appro, IBM or Western Scientific in that order. Service and quality hardware are their game.
There ought to be a Windows worm that goes out for the next few months that silently enables Automatic Updates to the agressive apply and reboot when available. Then self terminate in 2 months.
I'd consider that a public service, even more so if you can disable the ability to EVER disable automatic updates.
OK, so if Microsoft comes out with an antivirus product, what incentive do they have to immunize Windows-based computers against worms that attack their competitors? (i.e. Google vs MSN Search).
Because MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN and the Department of Homeland Security are always spouting about Internet Explorer and security exploits. Not having an active approach against those would be suicide for Microsoft.
I doubt a great many large organizations or governments (IE Customers) would appreciate Microsoft altogether ignoring major explotis and viruses because they affect the competition.
I know this for a fact, and already our site is mostly Linux (my hostname ends with.gov).
Essentially, version 1.0 is a best guess at what the customer wants. Version 2.0 is started even before the customer sees the 1.0 version. Finally, customer feedback is incorporated into the 3.0 version and things might actually start getting useful.
Damn, they're at over 2003 tries and still can't build a server not owned by a script kiddie worm overnight. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Fucknut, you do realize that I said released from Linus' clutches to the 2.6 Maintainer (Andrew Morton) not released to the public. I know it's released to the public.
The point I was making is that Linus has yet to start working on Kernel 2.7 and it is seriously about time. . .
Am I alone in picturing J. Jonah Jameson (Peter Parker's boss) when reading dialogue like this?
Might want to add "Kernel 2.6" to that. Not released to the public, just pried from Torvald's clutches and handed to the official 2.6 maintainer . . .
IMO a government using OSS is almost a waste because even if they do find a bug or add an enhancement, do you think they will release it back into the community? NO.
.
Umm... You know that thing called Beowulf Clustering? Well as I recall that was a creation of NASA, a government institution.
FNAL has released a whole distribution, based off of RHEL with a few tweaks and fixes not yet in RHEL. Their url is fnal.gov, just to give you a clue . .
As a Government employee, I can tell you that our policy is to release modifications and improvement because it lowers support costs. We don't want to have to keep patching and updating code when it can be included upstream and maintained as a community.
I'm sorry, but if you want to bitch about contributions perhaps you need to go bug that company with the multicolored half eaten fruit as their logo. After all, they used a crapload of OSS in their latest operating system and still had the nerve to go after small time developers for using the Aqua look in open source projects.
Steve Jobs is a real piece of work-- he soaked Apple on the NeXT buyout, then leveraged Apple's IP suits to convince Microsoft to subsidize his ideas, simultaneously killing most of the fruits of Apple's R&D.
Although Steve did really screw Apple, no one was worse than Mr. PepsiCo himself Gil Amelio. He thought that much like the soda industry, the more brands and flavors you have the more population you can reach.
During his reign he had so many different types of Mac's aimed at so many different targets, that no one knew what was good and what was underpowered crap. This combined with Microsoft discontinuing Office for Mac for a while lead to Mac's market share dropping big time.
In hindsight, he probably could have done a lot better if he stuck to the tried and true PHB style of synergizing core business components.
Also, Apple's cash reserves weren't that bad that they couldn't have bought those licenses out themselves, were they?
Yes they were that bad. As I recall, they were on the brink of dying and Microsoft bailed them out in exchange for placing IE on the desktop. Remember, this was around the time Microsoft starved Apple of any Office Applications (4.1 was out for Mac, which was not very compatible with Office 7/95 on the PC) and people weren't even considering Apple an option for any REAL work due to that.
For further information on this, I'd recommend checking out "Triumph of the Nerds". A real good Docudrama about the rise/fall of Apple.
I think Apple was actually upset that the clones were competing on the basis of being faster & cheaper. Power, for example, were shipping machines with recently announced PPCs faster than Apple could manage to, and were thus eating into Apple's high-end sales, rather than just competing at the low end, where Apple wouldn't have minded losing some market share in order to build the total user base for the OS. Much more of a hit to profits that way.
From what I recall, Power was using overclocking technology to push the existing CPU's of the time to nearly twice their original speed. In essence the machine was faster and cheaper because it was using a slower processor.
That's not too bad of a way to compete, but when the aftermarket mods for Motorola for doubling your speed, (think old school Pentium Overdrive CPU's) you could only do it on Apples.
Either way, soon as Microsoft bailed them out with 100 mill cash, they bought their competition and killed them off.
I don't see any law that threatens to make it illegal to send content from one node on the network (or peer) to another node - hence, peer to peer. I've never seen bittorrent threatened when used to distribute legal content, though sites like suprnova are walking a fine line by encouraging it as a means for piracy.
There are already copyright laws that forbid the transfer of infringing data without permission. Why create a new law that even mentions p2p when this is already illegal.
I hate the idea of legislation without purpose. Just more bullshit that can come back and bite us in the ass . . .
Now I could be wrong but at the SP2 download page, I see the following:To me this looks like a redistribution license to anyone who is has multiple computers on a network and is either an IT professional or developer.
Microsoft does not sell IE. They gain no direct profit from people's use of it, so you have to wonder what their motive is here. Let's assume that "good" and "evil" are subjective and emotive words that have no relevance to this discussion, ok?
.' under AOL, KaZaA, or any other program out there that embeds IE legally. It specifically states the word "Licensed from Microsoft" as in these companies bought a license for Internet Explorer. Maybe in bizarro world, these licenses aren't direct profit. Let's not forget the indirect profit either, like when a misspelled url lands us at the advertiser supported msn.com aren't either.
Go to 'Help, About . .
If you read Joel Spolsky's API war article, some perspective may be gained. Microsoft wishes only to discourage Web developers from moving away from the IE platform. If developers move away, Microsoft no longer has control over web development, and can no longer keep new technologies on the fringe.
Bullshit perspective. The developers may move away, but all that will do is shy away over 90% of the Web Browsing population. For any ad supported or donation supported site, that could be instant death. Keep Joe Six-Pack retarded about all things computer and IE will continue to be the dominant browser because it's on the Windows Desktop labelled "Internet".
If everyone stops using IE and moves to Mozilla/Opera/whatever, Microsoft's loss in revenue is exactly zero.
Ad revenue is big for MSN. Everytime an IE user misspells a web site, you end up on a search engine with banners. This generates $$$ for MSN.
In addition there are licensing fees for IE's third party use. In About under KaZaA it use to state that IE was licensed from Microsoft and is embedded into the software. AOL too embeds the software into it's client software, all of those spell out major revenue for Microsoft.
There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
[sarcasm] And we all know those chinese will pirate anything . . . [/sarcasm]
Aha! It's not just me. I've brought this point up a few times on Slashdot, but people tell me it's a figment of my imagination and that I'm a linux zealot . . .
There aren't many DeLoreans out there.
That's because everytime anyone driving a DeLorean hits 88 mph, it travels back in time . . .
I'd suggest using a combo of https and webdav on the Linux box and Karen's replicator on the Windows side to keep consistancy.
It's about as close as you can get to rsync on Windows without resorting to cygwin, plus it can run non-stop as a service.
Hope this helps.
Penguin Computing does this kind of stuff for a living. I think they are an all open source shop, too... There may be others, too.
As a Systems Engineer who has worked with a number of vendors, I would say that Penguin is the bottom of the barrel in service and quality control.
We have five clusters at our facility, the slowest of which is on the top500 in the 150 range. We've tried big and small vendors.
Penguin is the absolute worst. No two scsi hard disks had the same firmware version, the raid controller was DOA, etc. We buy/borrow a node from each vendor and evaluate them before buying clusters, and out of all the vendors the Penguin is the one that would crash or hang all the time. After months of trying, they were never able to get this going properly. Regardless of the fact that we shipped it back twice and were told each time that we'd get back a whole new machine (it wasn't).
I would personally recommend Appro, IBM or Western Scientific in that order. Service and quality hardware are their game.
There ought to be a Windows worm that goes out for the next few months that silently enables Automatic Updates to the agressive apply and reboot when available. Then self terminate in 2 months.
I'd consider that a public service, even more so if you can disable the ability to EVER disable automatic updates.
1GB = 1000MB, 1GiB = 1024MiB was absolutely correct.
What in the hell do the Men in Black have to do with anything on this thread?
OK, so if Microsoft comes out with an antivirus product, what incentive do they have to immunize Windows-based computers against worms that attack their competitors? (i.e. Google vs MSN Search).
.gov).
Because MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN and the Department of Homeland Security are always spouting about Internet Explorer and security exploits. Not having an active approach against those would be suicide for Microsoft.
I doubt a great many large organizations or governments (IE Customers) would appreciate Microsoft altogether ignoring major explotis and viruses because they affect the competition.
I know this for a fact, and already our site is mostly Linux (my hostname ends with
Maybe they should call it "Wrath of the Sith" or something. That way it won't be referred to as Star Wars ROTS . . .
Link
Headers can be faked, OS fingerprints are a little harder. According to Netcraft, besides BSD dying, www.ilovebees.com is running on Windows 2000.
Valuable is the man who shits ram . . .
Essentially, version 1.0 is a best guess at what the customer wants. Version 2.0 is started even before the customer sees the 1.0 version. Finally, customer feedback is incorporated into the 3.0 version and things might actually start getting useful.
Damn, they're at over 2003 tries and still can't build a server not owned by a script kiddie worm overnight. . .
'Enforce' SPF so that you cannot send to hotmail at all if you dont 'have' an SPF record.
It's going to be tough for hotmail to send to other hotmail users because hotmail.com has no spf records.
$ host -t txt hotmail.com
$
More surprisingly, hotmail does not.
r2d2$ host -t txt aol.com
aol.com text "v=spf1 ip4:152.163.225.0/24 ip4:205.188.139.0/24 ip4:205.188.144.0/24 ip4:205.188.156.0/23 ip4:205.188.159.0/24 ip4:64.12.136.0/23 ip4:64.12.138.0/24 ptr:mx.aol.com ?all"
r2d2$
r2d2$ host -t txt hotmail.com
r2d2$
Looks like hotmail needs to practice what they preach.