Nope, thats not how law generally works in this country. If I am walking down the street and see some guy about to kill another guy with a hammer to the head I am under no legal obligation to attempt to dissuade or stop the would be killer. The same principle applies throughout all of American style-law, and I can't think of any exceptions where a person has an affirmative duty to thwart crime or criminals.
Well obviously its a better deal to buy the whole suite if you want more than two components. But I have had many occasions where it was better to make the end-users PC less cluttered and stick with just what they wanted. Its not a terrific value, but really, Excel is a really nice piece of software. Probably the best in the whole package. It works well and is really just a solid piece of software in many regards.
Anyways, with MS the best option to find another options. If all else fails though, Excel is probably worth the money.
WEll.. you can actually buy Excel seperately as well. Also PowerPoint, Access, and Outlook.
I was pretty surprised to hear the claims in that article. I have over time purchased for clients all the components of Office seperately. And all at retail operations.
The thing of it is here, basically, this guy is an ad for "server-based computing" or aka Thin Client computing. Really, literally, it's not much to do with Linux. He could get the same benefits from a Windows-based thin-client network*.
Side note: he'd still be dealing with MS, which I understand is his prime motivation.
This guy is a big time thin client convert, that's for sure. But he's also not mentioned any of the downsides.
For example, if there is a server failure - hardware or software - everyone (or whoever is running terminal sessions from that box) is down.
For example, a minor mistake in admining that server will reverberate throughout the entire office.
For example, maintenance cannot easily be done incrementally throughout the day, but rather, must now be done off hours lest it affect the entire office.
There are good and bad sides to thin-client computing. He gave only the good ones. Just an FYI.
1. Join machines to domain (XP/2k/NT).
2. Move machines into an Active Directory OU.
3. Create a Group Policy Object that limits what executables they can run, what icons they have on their desktop, and force them to use a specified profile.
4. Create a profile with the correct start menu items, desktop items, etc etc. Set permissions to disallows changes by normal users.
5. Have a regular user login to the locked down machine.
The whole process takes about 20 minutes. You can restrict virtually everything you can think of. The best thing to really lock them down is to allow them to only use whitelisted executables.
It sounds like the guy in question didnt really know much how to admin a Windows network.
My understanding is that it doesnt matter what the code is itself, but rather, the concept used to implement SMP.
If that is the case, you can rewrite it a hundred times but if it operates under a standard principle that SCO claims ownership of then the effort is wasted.
Better patch distribution because as opposed to code red, the mechanism for automatically downloading the patch and installing it has been in circulation for nearly 12 months. Between Windows Update being built into Windows and the patch-server whose name I just cant remember being released this issue was patched and those patches distributed to more people quicker. Granted, the issue is going to get nasty and I dont doubt that.
"Advance" notice as what? An exploit was already in the wild. That's not advance notice, thats just notice.
This worm shows a lot. MS's whole operation on this has been vastly smoother than Code Red.
Right, but lets be clear here. That isnt what is going on. What is going on is one person hacks the code and passes it on to hundreds of people.
That's the bottom line. Hacked code, distribured via the Web, reprogrammed en masse.
br
How many people do you think are really personally hacking these systems - decompiling the code, stepping over the bad parts, recompiling? A handful if that many.
The software that hackers are using to reprogram the cards is in fact illegaly copied. One person hacked it, uploaded it to the Web in some form, and now others are programming their cards with the same hacked code. That's copyright infringement.
If I personally buy a system, and personally hack that one card, and then use the hacked code, thats legal except for the DMCA provision against circumventing access control.
But clearly, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that hacked code is floating around and being programmed wholesale in a ready-made fashion. That is a violation of copyright.
At the end of the day, DRM is a fad. MS has some iniatives to support it as a hedge - ie, if Congress forces it down our throats MS is ready to be the provider. Elsewise, they realize that digital media is what drives their sales - music, MP3s, DVDs, and the Internet is what causes people to buy PCs and therefore patronize MS.
And FYI, don't be so sure about Apple jumping on the DRM bandwagon. It seems unlikey now, but if the law comes down, they'll be on board.
However, there are tons of people who enjoy fixing or finding bugs, and provide hundreds of man hours of testing a day
That isnt always the case. Code can get into the kernel that hasnt been reviewed by anyone for more than a brief few seconds. And after that it can be an indefinite time before that code is reviewed again. If it is sexy code, yeah, it will get seen. If it is mundane, or routine, chances are no one will look at it until they suspect a problem.
The OSS world is quickly reaching a conclusion. For a long time, stability was how Linux could eat MS's lunch. But I haven't seen a single person who can straight-face deny the marked and vast improvement in MS products stability. They have for years now been systematically refining and improving Windows and including tools and using methods to improve stability and reliability. 10 years ago NT4 was properly laughed for being an instable piece of crap. Now, Win2003 is so much better it is a *rare* company who will stay away simple for reliability purposes.
The next big battle is going to be security. MS has been working on that too. These are issues MS is working on taking from the OSS world. People ought not count MS out. They are viciously improving thier product and initiating stategies to remove the issue from the table.
Take this latest MS worm issue. Way less severe than previous issues, much better patch distribution time, and generally a much more smooth operation.
But back on topic: about your issues with Win2k crashing with certain apps. I have experienced none of what you talk about, but do not be fooled into thinking that other OS's don't have the same problems. Win2k crashing for legacy apps isn't a good thing, but in the end, its pretty acceptabe considering the level of emulation that must take place to run 16-bit real mode code on a 32-bit protected mode OS. I've crashed Linux with dosemu before as a point of reference. Additionally, it is hard for you to know what caused Windows to crash. In essence, an app that is allowed to write data to devices that run in the kernel could potentially crash the system. The same goes for just about all OS's who run drivers in kernel mode (including how most of the Linuxes work).
Your experience confirms what MS is saying. The applications you consistently run cause Win2k to crash. It is obvious they simply do not function correctly. Bad apps can cause a system to crash on Windows. It is also true that a bad app can cause Linux and *BSD to panic.
But not the software in it. Hacking a SmartCard involves someone copying the software off the card, modding it, and copying it back to the card (or more maybe lots of people).
Because patents on software are bogus, whether it hurts Linux, Microsoft, or just the entire tech industry. No matter how you slice it, patents are evil.
The biggest line items in virtually every single budget in the whole country are welfare programs for the poor.
Medicare, Social Security, and the Dept. of Agriculture (foodstamps) are the biggest line items in the federal budget (minus interest payments, which are the largest).
In the state government, Medicaid is usually the largest item. In Maine (my state) it is the largest by a wide, wide margin.
In my county, the largest line item by far is the county hospital, which writes off approximately 40% of its operating budget in charity care.
In my town, the largest line item is Dept. of Human Services followed closely by Child Welfare.
Your claim is just not passable, and really, doesn't pass the laugh test. Protecting one office building (which, by the way, gives all kinds of value to individuals who may in fact be poor - like jobs for instance) from looting and fire does not offset the millions of individuals who enjoy the same protections plus social welfare.
To steal the words of Justice Potter Stewart, we may not be able to precisely define unfair exploitation of a monopoly, but we know it when we see it.
How unsprising that you'd say that. Any legal system based on imprecise definitions and "know it when I see it"-ism is a sham. Period. End-of-story.
The US legal system is a sham. This MS ruling is in fact a sham, and I will tell you exactly why: [A] the case is politically motivated and [B] the facts make the ruling impossible. Specifically, before the MS anti-trust trial, Microsoft spent virtually nothing on lobbyists. They made no endorsements, and they made no donations. They had no support. Clinton personally shook down MS execs for re-election donations, and shortly after he was rebuffed the anti-trust stuff started up full geared. As for [B], MS never has had a monopoly in desktop operating systems. And they still don't. Everything they said about competition breathing down their necks was true and is true more so today. OSS alternatives stand poised to crush MS into the ground. Big MS patrons like Wal-Mart and even Dell (not to mention enemies like IBM) stand ready to crush MS's windpipe.
It was a scam, and it is a scam. The monopoly laws that exisit cannot possible be valid in a market based on the sale of intellectual property. In essense, monopoly is *impossible* when dealing with intellectual property. As the OSS world has shown, nothing MS can do can monopolize the intellectual capital required to make an operating system. This isn't oil, its bits on a disc.
The idea of MS even technically ever being able to be a monopoly is so fundamentally flawed as to be impossible. Perhaps if operating systems where mined and MS owned all the mines yes. But until then, an operating system is the product of effort and knowledge, and MS can never monopolize that, and can therefore never monopolize a market.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, thats not how law generally works in this country. If I am walking down the street and see some guy about to kill another guy with a hammer to the head I am under no legal obligation to attempt to dissuade or stop the would be killer. The same principle applies throughout all of American style-law, and I can't think of any exceptions where a person has an affirmative duty to thwart crime or criminals.
Well obviously its a better deal to buy the whole suite if you want more than two components. But I have had many occasions where it was better to make the end-users PC less cluttered and stick with just what they wanted. Its not a terrific value, but really, Excel is a really nice piece of software. Probably the best in the whole package. It works well and is really just a solid piece of software in many regards.
Anyways, with MS the best option to find another options. If all else fails though, Excel is probably worth the money.
One by one, here you go:
p ?siteID=10876
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/productInfo.as
WEll.. you can actually buy Excel seperately as well. Also PowerPoint, Access, and Outlook.
I was pretty surprised to hear the claims in that article. I have over time purchased for clients all the components of Office seperately. And all at retail operations.
The thing of it is here, basically, this guy is an ad for "server-based computing" or aka Thin Client computing. Really, literally, it's not much to do with Linux. He could get the same benefits from a Windows-based thin-client network*.
Side note: he'd still be dealing with MS, which I understand is his prime motivation.
This guy is a big time thin client convert, that's for sure. But he's also not mentioned any of the downsides.
For example, if there is a server failure - hardware or software - everyone (or whoever is running terminal sessions from that box) is down.
For example, a minor mistake in admining that server will reverberate throughout the entire office.
For example, maintenance cannot easily be done incrementally throughout the day, but rather, must now be done off hours lest it affect the entire office.
There are good and bad sides to thin-client computing. He gave only the good ones. Just an FYI.
That is odd. Because you can go out and buy Word seperately from Office.
I did it for a client last week at Staples. That whole thing smells fishy.
It is a very simple process.
1. Join machines to domain (XP/2k/NT).
2. Move machines into an Active Directory OU.
3. Create a Group Policy Object that limits what executables they can run, what icons they have on their desktop, and force them to use a specified profile.
4. Create a profile with the correct start menu items, desktop items, etc etc. Set permissions to disallows changes by normal users.
5. Have a regular user login to the locked down machine.
The whole process takes about 20 minutes. You can restrict virtually everything you can think of. The best thing to really lock them down is to allow them to only use whitelisted executables.
It sounds like the guy in question didnt really know much how to admin a Windows network.
That's a lie. They are still patching it as of now.
My understanding is that it doesnt matter what the code is itself, but rather, the concept used to implement SMP.
If that is the case, you can rewrite it a hundred times but if it operates under a standard principle that SCO claims ownership of then the effort is wasted.
This is of course assuming you're paying them tens of thousands of dollars per year for a support contract.
Liar liar.
Phone calls are paid per-incident, or in groups. Its something like $245 an incident or something.
Calls related to security are free.
Its overwhelmed because of that, I am sure.
The effects are way less severe. Way less downtime, way better patch distribution. Way, way better publication of hte issue and the resolution.
The flaw is equally nasty to all others - its the handling that is better.
Better patch distribution because as opposed to code red, the mechanism for automatically downloading the patch and installing it has been in circulation for nearly 12 months. Between Windows Update being built into Windows and the patch-server whose name I just cant remember being released this issue was patched and those patches distributed to more people quicker. Granted, the issue is going to get nasty and I dont doubt that.
"Advance" notice as what? An exploit was already in the wild. That's not advance notice, thats just notice.
This worm shows a lot. MS's whole operation on this has been vastly smoother than Code Red.
Right, but lets be clear here. That isnt what is going on. What is going on is one person hacks the code and passes it on to hundreds of people.
That's the bottom line. Hacked code, distribured via the Web, reprogrammed en masse.
br How many people do you think are really personally hacking these systems - decompiling the code, stepping over the bad parts, recompiling? A handful if that many.
The software that hackers are using to reprogram the cards is in fact illegaly copied. One person hacked it, uploaded it to the Web in some form, and now others are programming their cards with the same hacked code. That's copyright infringement.
If I personally buy a system, and personally hack that one card, and then use the hacked code, thats legal except for the DMCA provision against circumventing access control.
But clearly, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that hacked code is floating around and being programmed wholesale in a ready-made fashion. That is a violation of copyright.
At the end of the day, DRM is a fad. MS has some iniatives to support it as a hedge - ie, if Congress forces it down our throats MS is ready to be the provider. Elsewise, they realize that digital media is what drives their sales - music, MP3s, DVDs, and the Internet is what causes people to buy PCs and therefore patronize MS.
And FYI, don't be so sure about Apple jumping on the DRM bandwagon. It seems unlikey now, but if the law comes down, they'll be on board.
MS is number 2 server, but almost 100% of the CC thefts are from MS
Care to back that up with a link, source, or other credible method?
However, there are tons of people who enjoy fixing or finding bugs, and provide hundreds of man hours of testing a day
That isnt always the case. Code can get into the kernel that hasnt been reviewed by anyone for more than a brief few seconds. And after that it can be an indefinite time before that code is reviewed again. If it is sexy code, yeah, it will get seen. If it is mundane, or routine, chances are no one will look at it until they suspect a problem.
The OSS world is quickly reaching a conclusion. For a long time, stability was how Linux could eat MS's lunch. But I haven't seen a single person who can straight-face deny the marked and vast improvement in MS products stability. They have for years now been systematically refining and improving Windows and including tools and using methods to improve stability and reliability. 10 years ago NT4 was properly laughed for being an instable piece of crap. Now, Win2003 is so much better it is a *rare* company who will stay away simple for reliability purposes.
The next big battle is going to be security. MS has been working on that too. These are issues MS is working on taking from the OSS world. People ought not count MS out. They are viciously improving thier product and initiating stategies to remove the issue from the table.
Take this latest MS worm issue. Way less severe than previous issues, much better patch distribution time, and generally a much more smooth operation.
But back on topic: about your issues with Win2k crashing with certain apps. I have experienced none of what you talk about, but do not be fooled into thinking that other OS's don't have the same problems. Win2k crashing for legacy apps isn't a good thing, but in the end, its pretty acceptabe considering the level of emulation that must take place to run 16-bit real mode code on a 32-bit protected mode OS. I've crashed Linux with dosemu before as a point of reference. Additionally, it is hard for you to know what caused Windows to crash. In essence, an app that is allowed to write data to devices that run in the kernel could potentially crash the system. The same goes for just about all OS's who run drivers in kernel mode (including how most of the Linuxes work).
Your experience confirms what MS is saying. The applications you consistently run cause Win2k to crash. It is obvious they simply do not function correctly. Bad apps can cause a system to crash on Windows. It is also true that a bad app can cause Linux and *BSD to panic.
Okay, you can claim that, but that is simpy not the law, nor has it ever been - DMCA or not.
Copyright predates SmartCards.
Once you buy hardware, you own it
But not the software in it. Hacking a SmartCard involves someone copying the software off the card, modding it, and copying it back to the card (or more maybe lots of people).
The hardware yes, but the softare? Nope.
Because patents on software are bogus, whether it hurts Linux, Microsoft, or just the entire tech industry. No matter how you slice it, patents are evil.
Don't forget, GWBush campaigned on the promise of ending the MS trial as soon as possible.
Suprisingly, a politican followed through.
Except you are nuts if you think this is the end of the case.
Even if appeals fail, $500M is a big chunk of change. Congress will be the stop after appeals are exhasuted...
Nope.
The biggest line items in virtually every single budget in the whole country are welfare programs for the poor.
Medicare, Social Security, and the Dept. of Agriculture (foodstamps) are the biggest line items in the federal budget (minus interest payments, which are the largest).
In the state government, Medicaid is usually the largest item. In Maine (my state) it is the largest by a wide, wide margin.
In my county, the largest line item by far is the county hospital, which writes off approximately 40% of its operating budget in charity care.
In my town, the largest line item is Dept. of Human Services followed closely by Child Welfare.
Your claim is just not passable, and really, doesn't pass the laugh test. Protecting one office building (which, by the way, gives all kinds of value to individuals who may in fact be poor - like jobs for instance) from looting and fire does not offset the millions of individuals who enjoy the same protections plus social welfare.
Wrong. The good hospitals are private. The rich get the good care. Everyone else gets the crap.
To steal the words of Justice Potter Stewart, we may not be able to precisely define unfair exploitation of a monopoly, but we know it when we see it.
How unsprising that you'd say that. Any legal system based on imprecise definitions and "know it when I see it"-ism is a sham. Period. End-of-story.
The US legal system is a sham. This MS ruling is in fact a sham, and I will tell you exactly why: [A] the case is politically motivated and [B] the facts make the ruling impossible. Specifically, before the MS anti-trust trial, Microsoft spent virtually nothing on lobbyists. They made no endorsements, and they made no donations. They had no support. Clinton personally shook down MS execs for re-election donations, and shortly after he was rebuffed the anti-trust stuff started up full geared. As for [B], MS never has had a monopoly in desktop operating systems. And they still don't. Everything they said about competition breathing down their necks was true and is true more so today. OSS alternatives stand poised to crush MS into the ground. Big MS patrons like Wal-Mart and even Dell (not to mention enemies like IBM) stand ready to crush MS's windpipe.
It was a scam, and it is a scam. The monopoly laws that exisit cannot possible be valid in a market based on the sale of intellectual property. In essense, monopoly is *impossible* when dealing with intellectual property. As the OSS world has shown, nothing MS can do can monopolize the intellectual capital required to make an operating system. This isn't oil, its bits on a disc.
The idea of MS even technically ever being able to be a monopoly is so fundamentally flawed as to be impossible. Perhaps if operating systems where mined and MS owned all the mines yes. But until then, an operating system is the product of effort and knowledge, and MS can never monopolize that, and can therefore never monopolize a market.