First - the announcement is that several manufacturers will be able to develop processors for customized versions of the various M$ embedded OS versions. I've read a lot of the posts and responses about them and it seems like half the people haven't even read it and are assuming this is about M$ installing Win2k on a slot machine. ARM, Intel and MIPS will be doing so, but isn't this really just a way for M$ to free themselves from their current architecture needs in regards to those platforms? Hardly scary news since they've been struggling to grow out their marketshare here anyways...
Second - it seems that ANY announcement by M$ will inevitably bring out any idiot from the woodwork to mention the BSOD, M$ controlling something, or how this is just another example of the man trying to keep us down.
Please, it doesn't matter if M$ donates $500M to charity or if they plan to port Office to Linux, there's always some damned *bigger* plot behind it. Yes, M$ is competitive, but it begins to sounds like whiny children after a while that need to go to the bathroom. Even worse, most of the jokes are endlessly recycled and brought up again and again.
What implication does it REALLY have for M$ to have more manufacturers for their embedded products? CE/PocketPC hasn't been a huge success (in terms of market share) in handhelds, so why is M$ being bashed and not Palm or Handspring? M$ doesn't lead in databases, so shouldn't it be Oracle that we're bashing?
Of course not, it's always M$ even though they only dominate consumer platform dekstops. Hell, we should be bashing Sun for dominating servers, right? What about bashing Sun for it's death-like grip on Java and not allowing it to be controlled by a body like ECMA?
Let's not be paranoid...
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies?
...tada.wav
BSOD!
Just curious - what API's are you referring to that M$ won't release public docs on, or is that what you've read several thousand times from other people?
Both C# and the CLI have both been submitted to the ECMA org. Sun has yet to do this, and this model, together, is a very viable alternative to Java (which Sun will not release it's grip on), plus has some performance gains.
Sun's failure in standardizing Java will be either an M$ or IBM gain. Their licensing costs are rediculous...
When is everyone going to realize that Outlook is not just a mail client? The groupware features of Outlook (on an Exchange backend) are what make Outlook an interesting offer. DHTML/POP3/SMTP/Address books are all great and fine, but that's just a basic need for a simple mail client (they've been built into Outlook Express, Eudora, etc. for a while). Providing these features doesn't approach groupware, it approaches the minimum requirements that people *expect* from a mail program.
What *really* needs to happen is for someone to take the initiative on providing an extensible messaging environment that enables you to offer directory services, calendaring, addressing, forms, event handling, messaging, and VOIP across a corporate environment. SMTP and POP3 just aren't going to meet this need. Those types of features are what separate a mail program from a groupware environment.
Instead, what I really think people are looking for is not so much an Outlook killer (after all, it is in fact only a client) but an Exchange killer. And that needs to be cross platform or else you'll only have minor adoption rates - supporting Linux just won't do (even for the server). I find it hard to get impressed with another "me-too" mail program wanting to be groupware.
Gates has, quite opposite to the point you attempted to conjure up in your completely useless post, put forth over $15B this year into donations.
Seeing as he has a net worth of about $60B or so, I don't think that's "a very, very tiny percentage of his income."
You don't have to like M$, but don't speak about something you know absolutely nothing about. BTW, how large was the last donation you made?
Before you start to discredit others for their philanthropic endeavors, you should really look at what they're doing (and what the money is being used for) instead of being such an ass.
The funny thing about this is that you never even assumed the opposite... what if the city LEGALLY did not have those licenses?
It's not uncommon for that situation to get out of hand - my feeling is that if the city is missing that much in M$ software licenses, something funny is up, and the IT people weren't keeping up with the software licenses.
Regardless of if you think the city should use M$ software or not, M$ software is not free. You should pay for it if you use it, and if you don't want to, go install yourself a copy of whatever *nix you prefer.
But also keep in mind that this is *not* an option for most companies or large government locations. Most need to have the familiar toolsets such as Word an Excel whether or not the average slashdot user cares to admit it or not.
On top of that, no matter how nice StarOffice ever becomes, it's still not going to be familiar to the average person. This also doesn't take into account a *nix OS, which generally is far too complex for the average user, GUI or not.
I find it funny that in a story like this that I haven't seen a post that says, "you know, if the city needs to use M$ software, then yes, they should pay for and maintain their licenses". Instead you see posts along the lines of "they should use linux because it's, like, free".
Guys, Oracle offers the same deal for their application licensing. You can pay for x years of licensing after which you must pay to renew your license.
Of course it has a lower introduction cost for a product that is unbelievably expensive (8i for example), but you end up paying more in the long run.
This is not new, but a trend towards the ASP model. Everyone from Oracle to Mercury is offering it in some form or another.
You're right. Boeing is unable to make any technology decisions for themselves.
You have basically responded with no real data, but instead your personal beliefs. Unless you have a specific example of the 9am "implosion" every morning I suspect you're not really providing anything more than rumor.
In addition, the last time I checked if a security hole is found in ANYTHING you want to patch it. And the last time I checked this applies to anything programmed by people.
And the last time I checked, you could find patches at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current. asp. Only a very lazy IT person would not keep up to date on their software.
Anyone with that attitude shouldn't be administering a network, because that's dangerous.
Wow, a system that was built before M$ absorbed it runs a different OS? WOW!
Hotmail needs a light architecture as it doesn't provide what Exchange provides. That's like saying a F1 driver should use a Cavalier because they're both cars.
anything has security holes if not administered and set up correctly. many large corps run exchange without the problems you're describing (boeing for example).
I could care less if Wistler never crashed, the idea of handing over control of my software functions to a remote server house by M$ gives me the willies, as it should for everyone else.
Hrm. And why would M$ want control of your computer? And can you explain to me why this is so much less secure than telnet?
I was working with M$ when Win2k was released (and I was also in charge of a product that was an early adopter of Win2k as well), and can definately say 100% that there was *never* an announcement not to use it in production. Fud fud fud...
Slashdot Mirror
First - the announcement is that several manufacturers will be able to develop processors for customized versions of the various M$ embedded OS versions. I've read a lot of the posts and responses about them and it seems like half the people haven't even read it and are assuming this is about M$ installing Win2k on a slot machine. ARM, Intel and MIPS will be doing so, but isn't this really just a way for M$ to free themselves from their current architecture needs in regards to those platforms? Hardly scary news since they've been struggling to grow out their marketshare here anyways...
Second - it seems that ANY announcement by M$ will inevitably bring out any idiot from the woodwork to mention the BSOD, M$ controlling something, or how this is just another example of the man trying to keep us down.
Please, it doesn't matter if M$ donates $500M to charity or if they plan to port Office to Linux, there's always some damned *bigger* plot behind it. Yes, M$ is competitive, but it begins to sounds like whiny children after a while that need to go to the bathroom. Even worse, most of the jokes are endlessly recycled and brought up again and again.
What implication does it REALLY have for M$ to have more manufacturers for their embedded products? CE/PocketPC hasn't been a huge success (in terms of market share) in handhelds, so why is M$ being bashed and not Palm or Handspring? M$ doesn't lead in databases, so shouldn't it be Oracle that we're bashing?
Of course not, it's always M$ even though they only dominate consumer platform dekstops. Hell, we should be bashing Sun for dominating servers, right? What about bashing Sun for it's death-like grip on Java and not allowing it to be controlled by a body like ECMA?
Let's not be paranoid...
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies?
...tada.wav
BSOD!
Just curious - what API's are you referring to that M$ won't release public docs on, or is that what you've read several thousand times from other people?
Both C# and the CLI have both been submitted to the ECMA org. Sun has yet to do this, and this model, together, is a very viable alternative to Java (which Sun will not release it's grip on), plus has some performance gains.
Sun's failure in standardizing Java will be either an M$ or IBM gain. Their licensing costs are rediculous...
What does .Net have to do with "pricing itself out of the market"? .Net is a framework... please research before making such statements.
When is everyone going to realize that Outlook is not just a mail client? The groupware features of Outlook (on an Exchange backend) are what make Outlook an interesting offer. DHTML/POP3/SMTP/Address books are all great and fine, but that's just a basic need for a simple mail client (they've been built into Outlook Express, Eudora, etc. for a while). Providing these features doesn't approach groupware, it approaches the minimum requirements that people *expect* from a mail program.
What *really* needs to happen is for someone to take the initiative on providing an extensible messaging environment that enables you to offer directory services, calendaring, addressing, forms, event handling, messaging, and VOIP across a corporate environment. SMTP and POP3 just aren't going to meet this need. Those types of features are what separate a mail program from a groupware environment.
Instead, what I really think people are looking for is not so much an Outlook killer (after all, it is in fact only a client) but an Exchange killer. And that needs to be cross platform or else you'll only have minor adoption rates - supporting Linux just won't do (even for the server). I find it hard to get impressed with another "me-too" mail program wanting to be groupware.
Your post defines ignorant.
Gates has, quite opposite to the point you attempted to conjure up in your completely useless post, put forth over $15B this year into donations.
Seeing as he has a net worth of about $60B or so, I don't think that's "a very, very tiny percentage of his income."
You don't have to like M$, but don't speak about something you know absolutely nothing about. BTW, how large was the last donation you made?
Before you start to discredit others for their philanthropic endeavors, you should really look at what they're doing (and what the money is being used for) instead of being such an ass.
This has nothing to do with *nix or Windows.
The funny thing about this is that you never even assumed the opposite... what if the city LEGALLY did not have those licenses?
It's not uncommon for that situation to get out of hand - my feeling is that if the city is missing that much in M$ software licenses, something funny is up, and the IT people weren't keeping up with the software licenses.
Regardless of if you think the city should use M$ software or not, M$ software is not free. You should pay for it if you use it, and if you don't want to, go install yourself a copy of whatever *nix you prefer.
But also keep in mind that this is *not* an option for most companies or large government locations. Most need to have the familiar toolsets such as Word an Excel whether or not the average slashdot user cares to admit it or not.
On top of that, no matter how nice StarOffice ever becomes, it's still not going to be familiar to the average person. This also doesn't take into account a *nix OS, which generally is far too complex for the average user, GUI or not.
I find it funny that in a story like this that I haven't seen a post that says, "you know, if the city needs to use M$ software, then yes, they should pay for and maintain their licenses". Instead you see posts along the lines of "they should use linux because it's, like, free".
Guys, Oracle offers the same deal for their application licensing. You can pay for x years of licensing after which you must pay to renew your license.
Of course it has a lower introduction cost for a product that is unbelievably expensive (8i for example), but you end up paying more in the long run.
This is not new, but a trend towards the ASP model. Everyone from Oracle to Mercury is offering it in some form or another.
Business as usual.
You're right. Boeing is unable to make any technology decisions for themselves.
. asp. Only a very lazy IT person would not keep up to date on their software.
You have basically responded with no real data, but instead your personal beliefs. Unless you have a specific example of the 9am "implosion" every morning I suspect you're not really providing anything more than rumor.
In addition, the last time I checked if a security hole is found in ANYTHING you want to patch it. And the last time I checked this applies to anything programmed by people.
And the last time I checked, you could find patches at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current
Anyone with that attitude shouldn't be administering a network, because that's dangerous.
And nobody has ever hacked a *nix architecture, right? Hrm.
At least be truthful.
Wow, a system that was built before M$ absorbed it runs a different OS? WOW!
Hotmail needs a light architecture as it doesn't provide what Exchange provides. That's like saying a F1 driver should use a Cavalier because they're both cars.
anything has security holes if not administered and set up correctly. many large corps run exchange without the problems you're describing (boeing for example).
Somehow I doubt you've ever developed a single thing in XML or XSLT.
So what you're saying is that you'll use a less than adequate tool to do the job simply because of some bias against M$?
:)
Use the better tool instead of spending so much time complaining. And if you don't like anything out there, write your own
Hrm. And why would M$ want control of your computer? And can you explain to me why this is so much less secure than telnet?
Which is worse - the paranoid or M$?
Interesting - do you have proof that it would cost $200K or are you just using some number that you think sounded nice and big?
Having both MS and Linux on my site today, I'm going to make a big guess that you really have no idea what Linux costs to implement.
Gee, it's free, right?
Last time I checked you could run Win2k before it was released. And people are running OSX now.
Or didn't you notice that part?
Corel, without the upcoming cash infusion, probably has around $17M in cash on hand. That doesn't last long with 1000 employees...
The $56M will help go a little longer, but you're making a judgement based not off of financial data, but your personal belief about Corel's products.
every time there have been holes in windows m$ releases a patch or update within days. very rarely do major problems just get left alone.
I was working with M$ when Win2k was released (and I was also in charge of a product that was an early adopter of Win2k as well), and can definately say 100% that there was *never* an announcement not to use it in production. Fud fud fud...
BTW, Hotmail isn't a moneymaker...