"as I really could care less if you make rich businesses pay"
does irk me some, as "businesses" that get hit with fraud
1. either pass those costs on to consumers (or other businesses which deal with consumers - our whole society is based on CONSUMING), which ultimately affects you and me.
or 2. pay employees less because they have to 'eat' the cost associated with the fraud. If you worked at one of those 'rich businesses' you'd probably care very much if you were going to get paid less (or NOT get the pay increase you deserve - same thing in the long run) due to fraud.
The complaint about Linux from most people regarding 'consumer apps' like Quicken is NOT that they don't come preinstalled but that they're not available at all.
The original poster to this thread was stating that
1. people complain that linux doesn't have consumer apps
2. there are a ton of programs that come with linux
Anyone that complains about #1 is stupid because of #2. I submitted that installing dozens of editors doesn't make up for the fact that many 'consumer apps' just don't exist at all - nothing to do with installed vs. not.
I think you already made the distinction in your post which the author made as well -
There are NOT enough 'consumer apps'.
Many linux distros install too many 'programs' by default.
A 'consumer app' would be something like Quicken. A 'program' which typically gets installed with linux is something like vi. vi is fine, but does the *average* user need vi, emacs, pico, etc. installed by default? If linux is to ever gain a large marketshare of everyday desktop users (not necessarily a good goal, but it's one many people have in mind) this kind of stuff doesn't need to be installed.
We just tried to install Mandrake 7.2 on a box the other day. Even though we SPECIFICALLY told the installer to NOT put Gnome on, it put *some* gnome packages on anyway. We SPECIFICALLY told it that we didn't have a printer, yet we watched while some printer support packages were installed. The installer obviously knew enough about our system to let us do a graphical install, but it would not/could not set up X to work with our video card.
OK, I'm devolving into installation issues, not package-bloat issues, but I think the distinction between 'consumer apps' and generic 'programs' is pretty obvious.
My brother got 999,999 and the game stopped. He was, I dunno, maybe 8 or 9 at the time, and this was on an original VCS (not even a 2600 - got it before the switched the naming convention!)
This may have been addressed already, but I can't see it amidst all the posts, so I'll ask (again).
If I enter into a EULA with a company re: a game, and years later that company ceases to exist, is the EULA still valid? Who'd prosecute me for, say, reverse engineering the game (prohibited in the EULA right now)?
Could I reverse engineer Frantic Freddie or Miner 2049'er now and use their sprite 'jumping man' code?
for the.jp site. The cnet article didn't say too much about it, and the ricoh site is slow as all get-out...:(
Anyone got any mirrors of this?
The cnet article DID mention taking a picture, 'converting to HTML' and uploading to your website automatically. I wonder if it'll break it up for you ala fireworks, or just make a static ' and tags.
The part of the flash movie I saw asked
'can you create and edit at the same time?'
or something to that effect - meaning edit footage as it's happening. Not sure how I'd go about that, or why. I don't normally know what edits I want to make to video until after I've got everything.
If people really want to try Opera, they'll try this version. At least this 'trial' won't time out. Mine timed out, and I was *close* to paying for it, but I couldn't bring myself to spend $40 for it. $20 yes. $30 maybe. $40 - couldn't do it. I realize they've got development and expenses, etc., but it wasn't *that* good of a browser, comparitively speaking, going against two 'free' ones.
Yes, I've paid for IE already, in the form of paying for Windows, but it wasn't extra cash coming out of my pocket later.
Konqueror is becoming pretty useful too under linux, so my desire for 'another' browser under Linux isn't strong enough to pay for a Linux opera right now either.
They've probably heard it before, but if it was just priced lower, they'd probably sell more copies. I don't mind the $10 I spent on a cheap CDROM game if it sucks and I never play it again. If I spend $50 on something, and don't use it, I don't feel as good about the experience.
I partially agree. For some people, Linux seems like it's 'catching up' because of the USB and larger SMP capabilities. For others, tho, who need a solid web server that doesn't crash, it's MS who is 'catching up' to others with W2k. Some places don't need all the config utilties - often because with a bit of training/experience, Linux is, in some respects, easier to configure (again, not necessarily 'out of the box', but after awhile)
Why would you compare it to NT? W2k is the latest standard from MS. 2.4 will probably fare quite well against NT as a web server, but W2k has been out for months. Comparing a brand new product (2.4) against NT (fairly old) is just not a fair comparison.
This wasn't really intended to be 'funny' as it was modded, although I do realize the idea of copy protection might cause a few smiles some place. I'm not 100% advocating copy protection, but it still seems to me that if they really were interested in cutting down piracy, they'd pursuit this angle more. It would be cheaper in the long run to force more purchases than it would be to spend $ to track down illegals, but...
As someone else pointed out, no protection means that they increase market share, as they have done so much in the past few years.
Also, it does seem this is probably more about Office than the OS. The OS is starting to be effectively copy protected more with newer distributions of CDs from OEMs - most new machines you get now only include the OS as part of a 'backup/recovery' CD. The OS doesn't exist independantly of the rest of the 'default' installed system. Yes, it'll help if you completely mess up your system, but you can't take that disk and use it with VMWare, for example. Even though you've paid for a copy of Windows, they are severely restricting how and where you can run it.
For example, I can't take my HP Paviliion copy of Windows 98 and install it on a different system, even though the license I agreed to says I can move the OS to another machine if I delete it from the first.:(
I wonder if they would accept simple receipts of the machines they purchased, if in fact those machines came preinstalled with the software they are currently using (Win98/NT/Office/etc).
For example, I'm not sure where my Win98 license is, but it came preinstalled on my laptop, purchased from HP. Because you CAN'T buy this particular HP laptop WITHOUT Win98, shouldn't that be enough proof?
Obviously we don't know where this city bought their systems from - presumably if they got Dell systems with MS stuff preinstalled, that should prove enough licensing. I'm also pretty sure that presumption would be wrong.:)
MS just seems insidious to me regarding licensing in general. If they were REALLY concerned about piracy, wouldn't they invest in some form of copy protection? I can remember copy protection back in the days of the Apple II and C64 - (Mr Nibble, anyone?). Making unauthorized copies back then, you at least had to make *some* effort!
I agree with another poster - it's not phrased properly, and may give a wrong impression. It may have been intended to be an illustration that *linux* is free to programmers, but *MS* isn't. (tho with the ms developer program, it seems it may almost be free!)
1. Not sure if I'd say Java is 'open' and 'non-proprietary'. There are apparently a lot of things developers would like to see in Java, but Sun is not implementing. I don't know specifics offhand, but one of the guys here does a lot of Java stuff and fills me in on the details now and then. Yes, you can see code, and yes, it's cross-platform, but I wouldn't say 'non-proprietary'.
It's proprietary to Sun's specs. There just happens to be a large enough user base out there to make it seem common.
2. A lot of packages don't, either. Or if they do, it's more 'java bandwagon' hopping than true support. Our latest experience is with the Adobe Acrobat 'bean'. Adobe seems intent on making it as hard as possible to do PDF work on non-MS platforms (no acrobat 4 for unix, for start) and the 'bean' they released is pretty low quality.
They had a press release in summer 1999 saying how they were supporting Java through this PDF bean thing - the code we see in the Java itself is all marked 1998, and it's not been updated since.
Not saying all developers are like this, but do some research before jumping into Java - just because people say 'works with Java!' doesn't mean it actually does.
4. There are some inconsistencies we've come across between platforms that don't lend themselves to 'write once run anywhere' java mythology. Keyboard issues, for one. Also, Windows Java support is different than Linux, for example. I'm sure it can all be 'worked around', but it's not simple. (these are more 'graphic' issues, perhaps not important for server-side java work).
1. Not all platforms support 'binary RPMs'. Many platforms I still gotta get the source and compile. Lord help me if one damn file is not where the package expects it to be, as I'll get cryptic error messages. If one more person tells me to read the 'man' page, I'll scream. The 'man' page was written by someone who ate/slept and breathed the project back in 1996 and isn't around any more (not 100% true, but I've seen it enough to bother me).
2. If you READ the article, it says 100% Linux apps, not 100 Linux apps. Someone got it wrong above.
3. I was talking about MS support. I've had decent support with open source stuff, but it's not universal. Open source (OS) is not a cure-all for all types of apps. Trying getting support from an OS project - if you get a response, *often* (not always) you get 50 'rtfm's from people who don't bother to read your inquiry, then you get people who bitch at you that your platform is wrong (get debian, not redhat, etc.) and that, just as you said, you're 'too stupid'. Excellent way to build a user base.
If by paying $79 I can occasionally get someone on the phone who can tell me how to get an app working with a beta of XR1146-whatever, excellent. I'll pay. My time is more valuable doing real work than poring over some crap docs written by someone whose attitude is they don't give a rat's ass if I use their product or not.
Back to RPMs for a moment - why, if I'm too stupid to use them, are graphic RPM front-ends being written at all? Is everyone else too stupid to use RPM as well?
What was it? The fact that I mentioned I'd support a company that charged for apps? Or perhaps the notion that 'not everything needs to be open source'?
I'll modify my point some - not everyone WANTS things for free. Regardless of quality, many end users want to pay - they might think it buys them security, or peace of mind, or continued development, or whatever. And perhaps that's the only way some people CAN contribute. We can't all code new kernel hacks. But many of us could contribute to the development of Linux by financially supporting those who can and do develop new Linux apps.
By capitalizing on this premise, I think Chilliware will do good for themselves AND just possibly demonstrate to other companies that there is a viable opportunity in porting other Apps to Linux. I'd love to see Quicken or Quickbooks for Linux. I might end up using some other package later, but I'm drawn to the brand. Not everyone wants just a car - even if it functions the same - some people want a specific *brand* of car. Same thing with many end-users, imo.
We use Linux for development and hosting, but most of the people here still use Windows as their main desktop for day-to-day apps. I'd love to be able to have apps like what they're talking about - contact management, for one, and don't mind paying a reasonable price for them, as long as they're (1) usable and (2) supported should we need that.
Not EVERYTHING needs to be open source!
This is precisely the kind of options I think the Linux community needs. We don't all feel like downloading RPMs or source code, make install, etc. If this company makes a distro that they'll make apps for that look good, install easily and have good functionality and decent prices, these guys will do well!
Yeah, and when I submitted this news to slashdot, they rejected it - twice.
It was taken/assigned to a company in China, and the damage seemed to last about 24 hours or so. No ftp.adobe.com, no cgi.adobe.com, no store.adobe.com. Pretty much dead in the water except for marketing fluff on the website.
Repeated calls to various levels at Adobe were just stonewalled. After 3 hours, I got a few calls back from various people with varying degrees of knowledge of the situation. No one would explain *exactly* what happened, but 2 confirmed that it did involve a Chinese company.
I'd be wary of dealing with a company that had so many levels of apparently clueless people as the main line public contacts.
Re:system requirements
on
Watch Camera
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad I kept my copy of Windows 87 around - I always knew there was more life left in it.
Good detective skills, but...
The URL to login to these places also has an.exe file extension in it - not unheard of, but seems more Windows-ish. The header info could simply be meant to throw casual hackers off the scent.
We will probably never know, unless someone at site-secure.com actually spills the beans.
Wired and Bugtraq both mentioned a czech site
that can attempt several hacks against ASP pages, showing the source code. Many people have their user/pass in the code. This, coupled with the fact that SQL Server 7 (and 6.5, not sure about 2000) have no ability to filter requests based on IP address, means that anyone with Enterprise manager can hook right up to your SQL database. OK, companies with firewalls in place are immune, but not everyone uses firewalls - especially shared hosting environments. They HAVE to leave the thing open for their clients to connect from the outside. The ONLY thing keeping those people secure is the user/password combo. If that's viewed, they are compromised.
There is one exploit example at http://www.aspsourcecode.com, with a link to the czech site there as well.
The stats page Moody pulled his numbers from ALSO shows *IE* (one package!) having more reported bugs than all of RedHat 5.2. If he actually believes these numbers are accurate, why support a company that makes ONE PRODUCT with more reported bugs than an entire OS?
I can't recall this aspect being discussed too much in these past few threads... Does anyone think that perhaps sometimes reviews are lame NOT because someone got a free CD in the mail, but because the reviewer doesn't actually know much about what to write about?
Someone reviewing a shiny new copy of RH6.2 might very well say 'gosh, neat package, loads nice, etc.', whilst ignoring the fact that 6.2 STILL doesn't include a bug fix for a particular problem pointed out in 5.2. (Not sure if this is true or not - just trying to illustrate the point)
Personally, I wouldn't feel qualified to write in-depth reviews of most packages. If I felt the need to publish something, I would state up front the limitations of my previous experience in that particular field ("I've not used a spreadsheet before, but Excel seems pretty cool!"). Letting the readers know about my background would help them understand how relevant my opinions/experiences will be to someone with their background.
No, I've no idea if it will be or not, but the recent reporting of outages at Hotmail play right into MS' hands. We've all read the statements 'if NT is so good, why is hotmail not running on NT?', etc. Well, they may be planning this. First, instill some panic that the system is starting to not handle things well. We will probably see some responses from MS at some point stating that "BSD is OK, but we knew it could never scale, etc", and that they've silently been planning a migration to W2k, and it'll be rolling out "soon". Could it happen? Of course it could. They've got the money to make it happen, even it if meant thousands of servers. They're doing that multi-terabyte geomap thing to prove how scaleable SQL server is, this makes perfect sense. I just don't see them keeping Hotmail on non Windows servers much past this year (hope I'm wrong) - it hurts their credibility too much when trying to convince large customers to use their software.
Will linkguard be monitoring these various searchengines/portals/whatever? Seems to me many of the 'broken links' I find are actually links from places like Yahoo, Lycos, Hotbot, etc. Perhaps if these companies did periodic link checking, many 404s would be eliminated from the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably doesn't mean much, but Oracle running on what OS? Sun? NT? W2k? Linux? Thanks for any more insider light you can shed on this.
Almost not worth replying to, but
"as I really could care less if you make rich businesses pay"
does irk me some, as "businesses" that get hit with fraud
1. either pass those costs on to consumers (or other businesses which deal with consumers - our whole society is based on CONSUMING), which ultimately affects you and me.
or 2. pay employees less because they have to 'eat' the cost associated with the fraud. If you worked at one of those 'rich businesses' you'd probably care very much if you were going to get paid less (or NOT get the pay increase you deserve - same thing in the long run) due to fraud.
The complaint about Linux from most people regarding 'consumer apps' like Quicken is NOT that they don't come preinstalled but that they're not available at all.
The original poster to this thread was stating that
1. people complain that linux doesn't have consumer apps
2. there are a ton of programs that come with linux
Anyone that complains about #1 is stupid because of #2. I submitted that installing dozens of editors doesn't make up for the fact that many 'consumer apps' just don't exist at all - nothing to do with installed vs. not.
I think you already made the distinction in your post which the author made as well -
There are NOT enough 'consumer apps'.
Many linux distros install too many 'programs' by default.
A 'consumer app' would be something like Quicken. A 'program' which typically gets installed with linux is something like vi. vi is fine, but does the *average* user need vi, emacs, pico, etc. installed by default? If linux is to ever gain a large marketshare of everyday desktop users (not necessarily a good goal, but it's one many people have in mind) this kind of stuff doesn't need to be installed.
We just tried to install Mandrake 7.2 on a box the other day. Even though we SPECIFICALLY told the installer to NOT put Gnome on, it put *some* gnome packages on anyway. We SPECIFICALLY told it that we didn't have a printer, yet we watched while some printer support packages were installed. The installer obviously knew enough about our system to let us do a graphical install, but it would not/could not set up X to work with our video card.
OK, I'm devolving into installation issues, not package-bloat issues, but I think the distinction between 'consumer apps' and generic 'programs' is pretty obvious.
My brother got 999,999 and the game stopped. He was, I dunno, maybe 8 or 9 at the time, and this was on an original VCS (not even a 2600 - got it before the switched the naming convention!)
This may have been addressed already, but I can't see it amidst all the posts, so I'll ask (again).
If I enter into a EULA with a company re: a game, and years later that company ceases to exist, is the EULA still valid? Who'd prosecute me for, say, reverse engineering the game (prohibited in the EULA right now)?
Could I reverse engineer Frantic Freddie or Miner 2049'er now and use their sprite 'jumping man' code?
for the .jp site. The cnet article didn't say too much about it, and the ricoh site is slow as all get-out... :(
Anyone got any mirrors of this?
The cnet article DID mention taking a picture, 'converting to HTML' and uploading to your website automatically. I wonder if it'll break it up for you ala fireworks, or just make a static ' and tags.
The part of the flash movie I saw asked 'can you create and edit at the same time?' or something to that effect - meaning edit footage as it's happening. Not sure how I'd go about that, or why. I don't normally know what edits I want to make to video until after I've got everything.
Am I just too linear in my thinking?!?!
If people really want to try Opera, they'll try this version. At least this 'trial' won't time out. Mine timed out, and I was *close* to paying for it, but I couldn't bring myself to spend $40 for it. $20 yes. $30 maybe. $40 - couldn't do it. I realize they've got development and expenses, etc., but it wasn't *that* good of a browser, comparitively speaking, going against two 'free' ones.
Yes, I've paid for IE already, in the form of paying for Windows, but it wasn't extra cash coming out of my pocket later.
Konqueror is becoming pretty useful too under linux, so my desire for 'another' browser under Linux isn't strong enough to pay for a Linux opera right now either.
They've probably heard it before, but if it was just priced lower, they'd probably sell more copies. I don't mind the $10 I spent on a cheap CDROM game if it sucks and I never play it again. If I spend $50 on something, and don't use it, I don't feel as good about the experience.
I partially agree. For some people, Linux seems like it's 'catching up' because of the USB and larger SMP capabilities. For others, tho, who need a solid web server that doesn't crash, it's MS who is 'catching up' to others with W2k. Some places don't need all the config utilties - often because with a bit of training/experience, Linux is, in some respects, easier to configure (again, not necessarily 'out of the box', but after awhile)
Why would you compare it to NT? W2k is the latest standard from MS. 2.4 will probably fare quite well against NT as a web server, but W2k has been out for months. Comparing a brand new product (2.4) against NT (fairly old) is just not a fair comparison.
This wasn't really intended to be 'funny' as it was modded, although I do realize the idea of copy protection might cause a few smiles some place. I'm not 100% advocating copy protection, but it still seems to me that if they really were interested in cutting down piracy, they'd pursuit this angle more. It would be cheaper in the long run to force more purchases than it would be to spend $ to track down illegals, but...
:(
As someone else pointed out, no protection means that they increase market share, as they have done so much in the past few years.
Also, it does seem this is probably more about Office than the OS. The OS is starting to be effectively copy protected more with newer distributions of CDs from OEMs - most new machines you get now only include the OS as part of a 'backup/recovery' CD. The OS doesn't exist independantly of the rest of the 'default' installed system. Yes, it'll help if you completely mess up your system, but you can't take that disk and use it with VMWare, for example. Even though you've paid for a copy of Windows, they are severely restricting how and where you can run it.
For example, I can't take my HP Paviliion copy of Windows 98 and install it on a different system, even though the license I agreed to says I can move the OS to another machine if I delete it from the first.
I wonder if they would accept simple receipts of the machines they purchased, if in fact those machines came preinstalled with the software they are currently using (Win98/NT/Office/etc).
:)
For example, I'm not sure where my Win98 license is, but it came preinstalled on my laptop, purchased from HP. Because you CAN'T buy this particular HP laptop WITHOUT Win98, shouldn't that be enough proof?
Obviously we don't know where this city bought their systems from - presumably if they got Dell systems with MS stuff preinstalled, that should prove enough licensing. I'm also pretty sure that presumption would be wrong.
MS just seems insidious to me regarding licensing in general. If they were REALLY concerned about piracy, wouldn't they invest in some form of copy protection? I can remember copy protection back in the days of the Apple II and C64 - (Mr Nibble, anyone?). Making unauthorized copies back then, you at least had to make *some* effort!
I agree with another poster - it's not phrased properly, and may give a wrong impression. It may have been intended to be an illustration that *linux* is free to programmers, but *MS* isn't. (tho with the ms developer program, it seems it may almost be free!)
1. Not sure if I'd say Java is 'open' and 'non-proprietary'. There are apparently a lot of things developers would like to see in Java, but Sun is not implementing. I don't know specifics offhand, but one of the guys here does a lot of Java stuff and fills me in on the details now and then. Yes, you can see code, and yes, it's cross-platform, but I wouldn't say 'non-proprietary'.
It's proprietary to Sun's specs. There just happens to be a large enough user base out there to make it seem common.
2. A lot of packages don't, either. Or if they do, it's more 'java bandwagon' hopping than true support. Our latest experience is with the Adobe Acrobat 'bean'. Adobe seems intent on making it as hard as possible to do PDF work on non-MS platforms (no acrobat 4 for unix, for start) and the 'bean' they released is pretty low quality.
They had a press release in summer 1999 saying how they were supporting Java through this PDF bean thing - the code we see in the Java itself is all marked 1998, and it's not been updated since.
Not saying all developers are like this, but do some research before jumping into Java - just because people say 'works with Java!' doesn't mean it actually does.
4. There are some inconsistencies we've come across between platforms that don't lend themselves to 'write once run anywhere' java mythology. Keyboard issues, for one. Also, Windows Java support is different than Linux, for example. I'm sure it can all be 'worked around', but it's not simple. (these are more 'graphic' issues, perhaps not important for server-side java work).
Awesome AC post, as usual.
1. Not all platforms support 'binary RPMs'. Many platforms I still gotta get the source and compile. Lord help me if one damn file is not where the package expects it to be, as I'll get cryptic error messages. If one more person tells me to read the 'man' page, I'll scream. The 'man' page was written by someone who ate/slept and breathed the project back in 1996 and isn't around any more (not 100% true, but I've seen it enough to bother me). 2. If you READ the article, it says 100% Linux apps, not 100 Linux apps. Someone got it wrong above. 3. I was talking about MS support. I've had decent support with open source stuff, but it's not universal. Open source (OS) is not a cure-all for all types of apps. Trying getting support from an OS project - if you get a response, *often* (not always) you get 50 'rtfm's from people who don't bother to read your inquiry, then you get people who bitch at you that your platform is wrong (get debian, not redhat, etc.) and that, just as you said, you're 'too stupid'. Excellent way to build a user base.
If by paying $79 I can occasionally get someone on the phone who can tell me how to get an app working with a beta of XR1146-whatever, excellent. I'll pay. My time is more valuable doing real work than poring over some crap docs written by someone whose attitude is they don't give a rat's ass if I use their product or not.
Back to RPMs for a moment - why, if I'm too stupid to use them, are graphic RPM front-ends being written at all? Is everyone else too stupid to use RPM as well?
Wow - I was marked as flamebait! Sheesh!
What was it? The fact that I mentioned I'd support a company that charged for apps? Or perhaps the notion that 'not everything needs to be open source'?
I'll modify my point some - not everyone WANTS things for free. Regardless of quality, many end users want to pay - they might think it buys them security, or peace of mind, or continued development, or whatever. And perhaps that's the only way some people CAN contribute. We can't all code new kernel hacks. But many of us could contribute to the development of Linux by financially supporting those who can and do develop new Linux apps.
By capitalizing on this premise, I think Chilliware will do good for themselves AND just possibly demonstrate to other companies that there is a viable opportunity in porting other Apps to Linux. I'd love to see Quicken or Quickbooks for Linux. I might end up using some other package later, but I'm drawn to the brand. Not everyone wants just a car - even if it functions the same - some people want a specific *brand* of car. Same thing with many end-users, imo.
We use Linux for development and hosting, but most of the people here still use Windows as their main desktop for day-to-day apps. I'd love to be able to have apps like what they're talking about - contact management, for one, and don't mind paying a reasonable price for them, as long as they're (1) usable and (2) supported should we need that.
Not EVERYTHING needs to be open source! This is precisely the kind of options I think the Linux community needs. We don't all feel like downloading RPMs or source code, make install, etc. If this company makes a distro that they'll make apps for that look good, install easily and have good functionality and decent prices, these guys will do well!
Yeah, and when I submitted this news to slashdot, they rejected it - twice. It was taken/assigned to a company in China, and the damage seemed to last about 24 hours or so. No ftp.adobe.com, no cgi.adobe.com, no store.adobe.com. Pretty much dead in the water except for marketing fluff on the website. Repeated calls to various levels at Adobe were just stonewalled. After 3 hours, I got a few calls back from various people with varying degrees of knowledge of the situation. No one would explain *exactly* what happened, but 2 confirmed that it did involve a Chinese company. I'd be wary of dealing with a company that had so many levels of apparently clueless people as the main line public contacts.
I'm glad I kept my copy of Windows 87 around - I always knew there was more life left in it.
Good detective skills, but... The URL to login to these places also has an .exe file extension in it - not unheard of, but seems more Windows-ish. The header info could simply be meant to throw casual hackers off the scent.
We will probably never know, unless someone at site-secure.com actually spills the beans.
Wired and Bugtraq both mentioned a czech site that can attempt several hacks against ASP pages, showing the source code. Many people have their user/pass in the code. This, coupled with the fact that SQL Server 7 (and 6.5, not sure about 2000) have no ability to filter requests based on IP address, means that anyone with Enterprise manager can hook right up to your SQL database. OK, companies with firewalls in place are immune, but not everyone uses firewalls - especially shared hosting environments. They HAVE to leave the thing open for their clients to connect from the outside. The ONLY thing keeping those people secure is the user/password combo. If that's viewed, they are compromised. There is one exploit example at http://www.aspsourcecode.com, with a link to the czech site there as well.
The stats page Moody pulled his numbers from ALSO shows *IE* (one package!) having more reported bugs than all of RedHat 5.2. If he actually believes these numbers are accurate, why support a company that makes ONE PRODUCT with more reported bugs than an entire OS?
I can't recall this aspect being discussed too much in these past few threads... Does anyone think that perhaps sometimes reviews are lame NOT because someone got a free CD in the mail, but because the reviewer doesn't actually know much about what to write about?
Someone reviewing a shiny new copy of RH6.2 might very well say 'gosh, neat package, loads nice, etc.', whilst ignoring the fact that 6.2 STILL doesn't include a bug fix for a particular problem pointed out in 5.2. (Not sure if this is true or not - just trying to illustrate the point)
Personally, I wouldn't feel qualified to write in-depth reviews of most packages. If I felt the need to publish something, I would state up front the limitations of my previous experience in that particular field ("I've not used a spreadsheet before, but Excel seems pretty cool!"). Letting the readers know about my background would help them understand how relevant my opinions/experiences will be to someone with their background.
No, I've no idea if it will be or not, but the recent reporting of outages at Hotmail play right into MS' hands. We've all read the statements 'if NT is so good, why is hotmail not running on NT?', etc. Well, they may be planning this. First, instill some panic that the system is starting to not handle things well. We will probably see some responses from MS at some point stating that "BSD is OK, but we knew it could never scale, etc", and that they've silently been planning a migration to W2k, and it'll be rolling out "soon". Could it happen? Of course it could. They've got the money to make it happen, even it if meant thousands of servers. They're doing that multi-terabyte geomap thing to prove how scaleable SQL server is, this makes perfect sense. I just don't see them keeping Hotmail on non Windows servers much past this year (hope I'm wrong) - it hurts their credibility too much when trying to convince large customers to use their software.
Will linkguard be monitoring these various searchengines/portals/whatever? Seems to me many of the 'broken links' I find are actually links from places like Yahoo, Lycos, Hotbot, etc. Perhaps if these companies did periodic link checking, many 404s would be eliminated from the web.