I totally agree with you, to be perfectly honest. However, I see as a byproduct that people end up blashing Microsoft for the bundling in and of itself without even thinking about stopping the problem.
If there is a resolution, I pray to God that it's not "remove Media Player and IE from Windows" That's just asinine. What are you gonna do? Bundle Netscape?
Heh.. The only reason Netscape cares is because THEY want to use Microsoft's monopoly power to tout their own product. *L*
The key problem with that argument is that Mac's AREN'T "PC's". They are Mac's. The term "PC" basically means "IBM/Compatible". The people who buy Mac's are not the same people who buy PC's.
Apple is trying their darndest to change this, but it is true. OS X is beyond just another OS, it's a whole other platform. Generally--and besides the large companies--developers develop for one system or the other; with specific targeting based on platform. Anything they do with the OS has a direct effect on Mac developers, regardless of how much a market share Windows has.
Apple has an OS monopoly on every Mac user in the world. They have a monoploy on every Mac hardware in the world. If you are a Mac developer, and you develop for the traditional "Mac audience" (graphic designers, movie producers, etc) you have no choice but to go through OS X.
BTW, are you really that scared to put your name on your opinion? The amount of AC's that reply to my posts is downright sickening.
"Hypocritical? Hardly. You forget that Apple makes both the software AND the hardware. Apple's DVD Player, to use your example, is designed to work with Mac shipped with built in DVD ROMs. iTunes built-in CD burning capability is hardly a threat to Roxio's Toast. (OS 10.1 will have Finder level CD burning capabilities, but I stand by my earlier assertion.)"
So, Microsoft would be justified if they made the DVD ROMs?? Your argument is that the software isn't "a threat"...well, neither are any of the things Windows ships. You can't have it both ways.:-)
"And then there's that little matter of market share. Microsoft owns 90% or more of the current desktop space. Doesn't that pose a bigger threat to 3rd party companies, be they browser, CD burning, media players, etc., than Apple's paltry 20%?"
90%/20%... Odd math but whatever.
Apple has 100% control over every single Mac computer. Microsoft has 90% of every IBM/Compatible computer. What's your point? Mac developers have to develop for OS X. Apple has a monopoly on the OS that runs on PowerPC/G-whatever processors...any developer who writes Mac-based software has to compete with what Apple throws on the OS.
Heck, I would wager than most open-source zealots would never use a Mac system for Linux...they all run IBM/Compatible boxes.
Apple has exactly the same approach to the contents of an OS as Microsoft. But, I guess the pretty colors and clear cases can somehow make everyone forgot all the bundling they do with the OS. And, honestly... If Apple had been the one to win "the war" (which was more luck and marketing than anything, at the time) they would be just as bad as Microsoft--actually, they would be WORSE since they like to control not only the OS and the apps, but the hardware too. The ultimate monopoly.
"On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? Windows users have to settle for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, on the average..."
Because, ya know.. When Apple does it it's just great! Wow! You can do stuff right out of the box, without having to buy a bunch of software!
When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power! Get rid of the preinstalled browser! Ditch the preinstalled media player! We like 3rd party, yes we do!
Microsoft gives people what they want, then people bitch an moan about how unfair it is... Then, when it's gone, people like Mac uses will go around touting how your OS has so many more "features" than Windows.
You know, I'm all for controls. I don't love Microsoft, but I use their software. And I don't think it should only be Mac users who get the privalege of their OS being able to have OS-included programs. It's just the stupid double-standard that makes me annoyed. If Windows had a full-featured DVD player, they'd be antitrust monopolist bastards...Apple puts it in OS X and it's a selling point--heck people even bitched that it wasn't in the first release.
What's even worse is that all the monopoly-bashers still love OS X, because it has something to do with UNIX. Heck, if it has something to do with UNIX, it must be better than Microsoft.
I'm sure I'll get modded down to the pits of "Troll" just for pointing this out... But I'm hoping people will actually read my post and realize the hypocritical stance that is being taken here.
I'm sure I will be be trounced by negitive moddings just for suggesting that a Microsoft product works...however...
"This is based on the fact that TCO for IIS is rising due to the almost-weekly patches sent out by MS"
Bull. Yeah, because it's so amazingly hard to open IE, Pull down "Tools", hit "Windows Update", select "Critical Updates Package", a hit "Download".
Ohhhhhhh yeah. I can see how that's raising the TCO incredibly. Heaven forbit you have to hire sysadmins that know how to use Windows Update. *whew*
Come on... That's such a load of crap. Keeping IIS patched is so amazingly simple. Heck, just install the "Critical Update Notification". When the little globe appears in the task-bar, click it (and it pops up little tooltip notifications until you pay attention--for those more dense sysadmins) and it will automatically take you to the WIndows Update page with Critical Updates selected. Double-click globe, hit "Download" button. Man... Hope I just didn't raise the TCO of IIS by explaining this super-complex process that will require everyone to get new certification and spend days perfecting their technique. *rolls eyes*
I work for a small Web Development firm... My side of company is to do all of the ASP programming. I develop web-page backends, write web applications, do a bit of design work here and there. All and all, it's a fun, challanging job in and of itself.
The atmosphere is very "fun" as well. We have a large, open, artsy office...we hang out in the mornings before work...and a lot of times, we use the office after hours on on the weekend just to hang out.
If you'd like to see a picture of the office, the lead design has a personal homepage prototype setup that uses the office as a backdrop picture:
Click Here... Don't/. it too much.:-P
Why didn't we go out of business? Because "fun" doesn't mean bad business practices. We kept our work solid, we never strayed from normal customer relations, and kept our prices low even during the hayday. Sure, I got paid probably only 1/4th as much as other ASP programmers last summer--but I'm the one with the job right now.:-)
Determination and solid business practice is the way for medium-sized tech jobs to survive right now... And, to be honest, our business is doing quite well. Just because the day of businesses which charged $20,000 to set up a domain, and spent the rest of the day riding a razol-scooter around the office is gone, doesn't mean that one can't have a "fun" work enviroment.:-)
-Jayde
Re:Promoting for the XBox...
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 1
Not to rag on your... But there is a reason for this...
Mostly that Nintendo a) doesn't want to and b) has ticked retailers off.:-)
I went into my local Software Etc./Babbages... Talked to one of the clerks about what's going on... Apparently, Nintendo doesn't have the time to hook Software Etc. up with display units to put demo units in--what are they gonna do then? Gamecube demos are going in Dreamcast demo setups.:-P Also, Nintendo demanding that they take down Xbox signs/not do Xbox preorders a few months back didn't really help either.
Believe it or not...Nintendo's as big a bunch of corporate bastards as Microsoft is.:-)
How many of these have had IIS installed without their knowledge? MS software likes to do what it thinks is best for you, even if it's not what you asked for. Are you really saying that this is the users' own fault?
I have never, ever seen a circumstance where IIS was installed "on accident" by Win2K Pro. I have managed Win2K machines ever since the OS came out, and have never seen an instance where this is true. I'm not sure where you, and others, come up with this notion...
IIS may be installed by default on Windows 2000 Server. But, if you can't manage something like setting IIS up, or removing it (yes, ooohh, it takes what? 3 clicks from the control panel to remove IIS? Tough stuff.) you have NO BUSINESS admining a Windows Server in the first place. We're not talking workstation here--no Professional or ME/9x. IIS is only installed by default on Windows 2000 SERVER. (And, to be honest, I believe it is a setup option on install.)
You're missing the fact that you're trying to blame users for something which is entirely due to MS's reckless negligence. I would turn around your penultimate sentence - "anyone who ships software that has not had adequate QA is a moron". A negligent moron at that.
Yes, because SO many people use Windows 2000 Server without using IIS.:-P
Do you work for MS?
No.
-Jayde
Who is getting tired of responding to wuss AC's
It's amazing that you seem to know this even though you say: "I don't use MS products"
Could you please let me know when/where IIS gets installed on Windows ME/98/95? I would really like to know that. Because Windows ME/98/95 users are the only ones a "public awareness campaign" would really be targeted at. Who is this vast "public" that has IIS running?
When I was a beginning developer, I tried many timeson many system to get the 9x equivalent of IIS (PWS) to work... And, I can assure you that the reality is not in this statement: "It's a fight to NOT install IIS", but more along the lines of "It's a fight TO install IIS" Once, I did managed to get PWS to work...but it took considerable time and effort on my part.
IIS is NOT installed by default on Windows 2000 Professional. I have used Win2K Pro without IIS on my notebook and home desktop with no prompting to install it from any source. I fail to understand what it is you refer to by saying, "Many many components in a Window system (server or desktop, makes no difference) do install IIS" You do NOT get IIS on your system on accident. I have never seen anyone who had IIS on thier system without knowing about it--unless someone else (not someTHING, but someONE) installed it without them knowing. (I.E. Overzealous IT personel)
There is a reason IIS works on Win2K... Win2K is an OS for either power users themselves, or use in enviroments where there is an IT dept. to maintain things. There is NO excuse for patches to not be applied in those enviroments. Win2K is not for Grandma Ethel. I know of no "normal users" who have Win2K--and most don't even know what the heck it is. Computer manufacturers won't sell Win2K to "home" customers, either. And, even if someone does get Win2K, you DO have to install it. I don't care what you think you know about Windows--but being that you "don't use MS product", I don't think you're in a position to tell someone who works on/with/and maintains Win2K systems every day how they operate.
"Have MS done anything to alert Joe User about the need to patch?" Umm, yes. Since you don't use MS products, I suppose you don't know anything about "Windows Update" or the "Critical Update Notification" or that an end-user, who knows nothing about how their computer works, can patch their computer in less than 10 minutes. It's so easy to keep a Windows system patched, it's hilarious that you make such a huge deal about it.
Obviously you are living in your Linux-only world, and know little about how Windows works. So, it's probably for the better if you would do some research before babbling on about things. Oh, yeah..it would also help if you weren't so scared of losing karma that you'd post under something other than Anonymous Coward.
Yes, Ford was liable for those incident which occured out of nowhere.
However, what if Ford had realized "Oops. There was an accident in the plant, and these tires may not work.", issues a recall, makes is super-easy to get the tires repaired...
6 months pass, and tires start to blow out. Even though Ford has made it incredibly easy for anyone to prevent it from happening to them.
Let's take it up a notch. Let's say that the bad tires were only on commerical vehicles. (As IIS is only only Windows Servers, and Win2K *as an installable optiont* (not by default)) It is more the fault of the people whos job it is to keep up on car part recalls and prevent accidents from happening... Perhaps in the first month or two, it would be in question. But, if the mechanics wait *6 months* to fix a high-profile recall, the blame starts to fall more on their shoulders than anything else.
And, as dramatic as you make it sound..nobody's died because of code red--last time I checked, at least.:-P
Please explain how this helps the chap earlier in this thread who has to pay for his bandwidth (hes located in Australia from what I recall).
He's paying because these idiots are loose on the net with an operating system that _doesn't_ shield them from it.
And you know what, these people dont even know its a problem.
Thats what our gripe is with Microsoft, dummy, not that people dont patch. Of course you patch, if your a techie.
If you are like 'n' of my late twenty something graduate friends, you think ADSL is 'great' cos its always on. So I can leave the machine on.
Perhaps I'm missing something here...
1) IIS is not installed by default on Windows 2000 Professional, just Server.
2) Why do you excuse people who installed IIS on their server, but can't patch it?
3) Who else am I missing??? IIS is only installed by default on SERVERS. Which gets back to my original point.
You make it sound like Microsoft shipped IIS with Windows ME or something. I can't think of a single situation where people could have IIS running with a GOOD excuse not to know about it. Anyone who DOES run server, or installed IIS manually is a MORON for not keeping up with security patches.
I fail to see how Microsoft should incur any liability for situations like this.
Sorry, but I use IIS a lot. I'm an ASP developer, and we have tons of IIS boxes.
Were we hit by Code Red? Nope. Code Red II? Nope. This? Nope. ANY worm? Not a chance.
All these worms exploit SERIOUSLY OLD holes in IIS, of which patches have been release over 3-5 MONTHS ago. All of these pacthes are available via Windows Update, and show up with a "Critical Updates Notification" on the taskbar.
Anyone who runs ANY server but is 5 months behind on security updates is an absolute MORON, and deserves to be hit with a worm. It's easy to blame MS for all their "security holes", but folks...these have been patched for a while now...
-Jayde
Good job to /., but forgive CNN and MSNBC
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First off kudos to Slashteam. You kept a valuable news source up and running while most people were too stunned to do anything other than watch, horrified, at the TV. Good work. You provided a valuable service to many people in this crisis.
Also, to those who are getting down on CNN and MSNBC... From what I've heard, those sites are already tuned--and regularly do--serve around 45 pages per second...even with loads of media.
Crashing them was likely no small feat, either. Likely every person with internet typed in the very familiar cnn.com or msnbc.com just on instinct. It probably didn't help MSNBC or CNN that the MSN and AOL/Netscape portals, respectivly, link to them directly.
I was actually pretty impressed with how they handled the load...it was a little slower than/.'s recovery, but it was rather impressive given the HUGE load they were experiencing. First, they stripped down the page content to low-bandwidth versions, then phased in their site. I'm not sure about CNN, but MSNBC added static mirrors to their pool, and got Akamai servers to serve all their media. By around noon, both sites were running their normal full-content versions, even though they were probably still getting hammered to high-heaven.
Personally, I give many thanks to all the techs for all the news sites who worked like mad to ensure that people were able to understand what was happening. It must not have been easy to work in conditions like that: especially considering the stress that was put on them.
...That has nothing to do with what I was saying whatsoever.
Out of people who voted, it was nearly 50/50. That's a good deal of people. While you can speculate 'till the cows come home about what the people who didn't say anything really were trying to say, you can't prove crap. The fact that it was so close to 50/50 should show that the difference in size between liberals/conservatives is not very large at all--if any.
Jusy because both canidates sucked, and people doesn't vote, doesn't prove anything either way. It doesn't show a single thing. So your talking about it doesn't matter at all.
I'm not trying to say Bush is cool, and Gore sucks--or the other way around. I'm showing that, in what boils down to a REALLY BIG poll (say what you may, but that's a pretty dang big sample group), the Liberal/Conservative ratio is almost identical.
Yes, Gore won by "popular vote", but do you happen to recal by how much? Around 1%. That somehow makes it a huge majority?? You're still dealing with 49% of the US who voted for Bush over Gore. Look at the numbers yourself. Democrats have 1 more person in the Senate--wow. That's a HUGE majority. I guess all the non-liberal folk best step aside while this wind of changes sweeps through the nation. *rolls eyes*
I'm all for you having your own opinion, but your statements are absurd.
Nintendo miss a lauch date?? That could *never* happen.;-)
*L* Really nothing to worry about, as this is normal for Nintendo.. I guess we can just thank our lucky stars that it was only a few weeks instead of a few years, eh?
(And for those who don't know, the Nintendo64 was in development for a little over 4 years...)
...but do the standards boards seem to be kinda out of hand nowdays? I mean, sure. I can see the reason for standards. And, yeah. XML is just the neatest, niftiest, coolest thing to hit the planet since Apple ][e BASIC... But, really, is stuff like this really needed?
I'm sure if someone actually had a use for this, they wouldn't want to wade through some standard to implement it. Standards take forever to hash out. VR programmers are likely to want to extend things beyond what the standards are... And you know where that got Microsoft.;-)
Really, what's next? An XML-based markup language that defines life? (And, no, that's not an XML version of/. <smirk/>) Just think, you could categorize your life into tags! Yay!
<life>
<years value='2001'>
<months value='8'>
<days value='23'>
<hours value='0'>
<minutes value='48'>
<seconds value='22'>
I thought LML (Life Markup Language)!
</seconds>
<seconds value='25'>
Maybe this is a waste of time...
</seconds>
</minutes>
</hours>
</days>
</months>
</years>
</life>
Sorry to sound cynical or anything... But converting the world into XML is only going to waste everyone's time in the long-run. It's great for what needs it... But, as the saying goes, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Is /. Really that Naive about the Gaming Scene?
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
Sorry if this sounds like a troll, but it's not.
This is commonplace in the gaming industry. It's been this way for a long time./.'s long-standing hatred of M$ and M$ entering the gaming scene doesn't mean this is gonna change, and it also doesn't mean that we should even care.
Nintendo, probably the most repected gaming company even, just did this en-masse with the Game Boy Advance. I was forced to buy mine with two games--period. Luckily, I had two games I wanted, so no biggie...
Either way, this talk about M$'s continued "Bundling" and carrying on about anti-trust-this and anti-trust-that is a total crock. This is accepted industry practice to offset the fact that hardware companies lose money on consoles.
You think that "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Super Mario World" than came with your Genesis/SNES was free?? Heck no. They raised the price of the console accordingly.
In fact, systems have only been shipping WITHOUT a game lately, and in rare circumstances. Sega and Nintendo offered "Core Systems" and the like LATE in the game (mostly to replace ageing units for people who already had games) Really, the Playstation was the only system that NEVER had a bundle.
This mindless, baseless M$-bashing has really gotten out of hand lately... I have no problem with people complaining--just make sure you have something decent to complain about.
...it's funny that in his article he makes it out to be some convoluted evil plot that MS is doing this to stick it to Sun. But, surprise, surprise, IT WAS IN THEIR LEGAL SETTLEMENT.
As much as one may believe that MS can and does ignore the law at all turns, eventually a company--no matter how motivated they are to avoid it--will have to abide by a ruling of a judge eventually. Sun pitched a hissy-fit, and they're getting exactly what they asked for.
It's just unfortunate that Sun didn't think about what it was they were really asking for in the first place--they just went on a usual knee-jerk reaction to attempt at sticking it to the Evil Empire.
You can't have it both ways. If you force someone (or attempt to force them) into doing something, don't be surprised and call "Unfair!!" when they decide to play along.
And, I'm sure this will make me *really* unpopular... But, honestly, that guy is *way* too paranoid for his own good. Really, if MS wanted to roll out TCP/MS they would do it whenever they felt like it--not make an excuse. *L* (Innovation need no reason.;-)
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
I doubt Microsoft really gives Solitare and Hearts away to further their monopolistic evil plot to conquer the universe.
Geeze... I really hope they don't start putting a Solitare icon on the desktop!
I picked up the book a few weeks ago, to go along with the SDK 2.0 we installed on our dev server this week. I haven't just been "reading" the book, but starting to convert some of our applications over to.NET from plain ol' ASP 3.0.
So far, I have noticed nothing in the conversion process that has raised any dysfunctional red-flags whatsoever. I have had no problem taking huge blocks of ASP code and shrinking it down to 10 ASP.NET lines, making my own.DLL's with the C# compiler, or using any of the features that caught my eye while reading.
Sure, I'm positive that it will have flaws. But, heck, what doesn't? Don't try to tell me that PHP and Perl don't have flaws, because you're just asking for a beating there.;-)
Quite honestly, I don't mind writing, say, someting like CoCreateInstance instead of CoCreateInstanceEx every once and a while if the platform as a whole allows me much more development flexibility than any of the others.
I'm not sure if you're very aware of the web-development scene right now...But having a platform that has state-management, 1st-run compilation of code, on-the-fly.DLL updating, in-process caching features, and automatic garbage collection for a web app is a huge leap from traditional web dev. ASP.NET actually makes the web a "real" platform for developing "real" applications, instead of a collection of scripts that need to have every bit of functionality built into them from the ground-up just to work right.
MS bashing aside,.NET is a really great idea from a developer's standpoint, and its implementation is great.
I'm a web developer, so it's my job to stay up on the newest technologies. I recently picked up "Professional ASP.NET" by Wrox, and, about 650 pages in, I have come to the conclusion that ASP.NET is one of the most fuctional, flexible web platform I have ever seen.
Sure, PHP is just dandy... But ASP.NET adds on so much functionality, it's scary. Sure, that may be one of the reasons to shun it from a certain viewpoint--letting a MS platform have so much control--but as a developer, ASP.NET is a dream come true.
I know this goes against the general/. vibe, but come on... This is New for Nerds, not News for Platform-Exclusive People. PHP, Perl, Java, they all have their uses--why can't people accept that, maybe, MS actually makes good products once and a while?:-)
Seriously. You think Microsoft is bad?? The clout involved in AOL-Time Warner-AT&T makes Microsoft look like peanuts. Let's take all the major players in phone, cable, broadcasting, and internet...and make them ONE COMPANY. Yay. I'm looking forward to that day.
Controlling, say, my stupid Operating System is lousy when compared to the amount of control that such a conglomeration could bring to bear. Leveraging my phone, long distance, cable, tv programming, and internet access is a bit more drastic than, say, putting an IE icon on my desktop.
This is not to say that the MS situation is good... It's just to point out that considering how big a deal the./ crowd makes of the MS monopoly--that this is even WORSE. Now that's scary.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree with you, to be perfectly honest. However, I see as a byproduct that people end up blashing Microsoft for the bundling in and of itself without even thinking about stopping the problem.
If there is a resolution, I pray to God that it's not "remove Media Player and IE from Windows" That's just asinine. What are you gonna do? Bundle Netscape?
Heh.. The only reason Netscape cares is because THEY want to use Microsoft's monopoly power to tout their own product. *L*
-Jayde
The key problem with that argument is that Mac's AREN'T "PC's". They are Mac's. The term "PC" basically means "IBM/Compatible". The people who buy Mac's are not the same people who buy PC's.
Apple is trying their darndest to change this, but it is true. OS X is beyond just another OS, it's a whole other platform. Generally--and besides the large companies--developers develop for one system or the other; with specific targeting based on platform. Anything they do with the OS has a direct effect on Mac developers, regardless of how much a market share Windows has.
Apple has an OS monopoly on every Mac user in the world. They have a monoploy on every Mac hardware in the world. If you are a Mac developer, and you develop for the traditional "Mac audience" (graphic designers, movie producers, etc) you have no choice but to go through OS X.
BTW, are you really that scared to put your name on your opinion? The amount of AC's that reply to my posts is downright sickening.
-Jayde
"Hypocritical? Hardly. You forget that Apple makes both the software AND the hardware. Apple's DVD Player, to use your example, is designed to work with Mac shipped with built in DVD ROMs. iTunes built-in CD burning capability is hardly a threat to Roxio's Toast. (OS 10.1 will have Finder level CD burning capabilities, but I stand by my earlier assertion.)"
:-)
So, Microsoft would be justified if they made the DVD ROMs?? Your argument is that the software isn't "a threat"...well, neither are any of the things Windows ships. You can't have it both ways.
"And then there's that little matter of market share. Microsoft owns 90% or more of the current desktop space. Doesn't that pose a bigger threat to 3rd party companies, be they browser, CD burning, media players, etc., than Apple's paltry 20%?"
90%/20%... Odd math but whatever.
Apple has 100% control over every single Mac computer. Microsoft has 90% of every IBM/Compatible computer. What's your point? Mac developers have to develop for OS X. Apple has a monopoly on the OS that runs on PowerPC/G-whatever processors...any developer who writes Mac-based software has to compete with what Apple throws on the OS.
Heck, I would wager than most open-source zealots would never use a Mac system for Linux...they all run IBM/Compatible boxes.
Apple has exactly the same approach to the contents of an OS as Microsoft. But, I guess the pretty colors and clear cases can somehow make everyone forgot all the bundling they do with the OS. And, honestly... If Apple had been the one to win "the war" (which was more luck and marketing than anything, at the time) they would be just as bad as Microsoft--actually, they would be WORSE since they like to control not only the OS and the apps, but the hardware too. The ultimate monopoly.
-Jayde
"On the other hand Mac users are spoiled... what Windows OS comes with CD burning and DVD playback out of the box? Or even CD ripping and mp3 encoding, movie making, DVD burning software, and web server software out of the box? Windows users have to settle for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, on the average..."
Because, ya know.. When Apple does it it's just great! Wow! You can do stuff right out of the box, without having to buy a bunch of software!
When Microsoft does it, it's: Microsoft is a monopoly power! Get rid of the preinstalled browser! Ditch the preinstalled media player! We like 3rd party, yes we do!
Microsoft gives people what they want, then people bitch an moan about how unfair it is... Then, when it's gone, people like Mac uses will go around touting how your OS has so many more "features" than Windows.
You know, I'm all for controls. I don't love Microsoft, but I use their software. And I don't think it should only be Mac users who get the privalege of their OS being able to have OS-included programs. It's just the stupid double-standard that makes me annoyed. If Windows had a full-featured DVD player, they'd be antitrust monopolist bastards...Apple puts it in OS X and it's a selling point--heck people even bitched that it wasn't in the first release.
What's even worse is that all the monopoly-bashers still love OS X, because it has something to do with UNIX. Heck, if it has something to do with UNIX, it must be better than Microsoft.
I'm sure I'll get modded down to the pits of "Troll" just for pointing this out... But I'm hoping people will actually read my post and realize the hypocritical stance that is being taken here.
-Jayde
Actually, this is more of a past tense thing. Microsoft has decided to incorperate Server and IIS patches into Windows Update.
It may not have been the case in the past, but AFAIK, it is the case now.
-Jayde
I'm sure I will be be trounced by negitive moddings just for suggesting that a Microsoft product works...however...
"This is based on the fact that TCO for IIS is rising due to the almost-weekly patches sent out by MS"
Bull. Yeah, because it's so amazingly hard to open IE, Pull down "Tools", hit "Windows Update", select "Critical Updates Package", a hit "Download".
Ohhhhhhh yeah. I can see how that's raising the TCO incredibly. Heaven forbit you have to hire sysadmins that know how to use Windows Update. *whew*
Come on... That's such a load of crap. Keeping IIS patched is so amazingly simple. Heck, just install the "Critical Update Notification". When the little globe appears in the task-bar, click it (and it pops up little tooltip notifications until you pay attention--for those more dense sysadmins) and it will automatically take you to the WIndows Update page with Critical Updates selected. Double-click globe, hit "Download" button. Man... Hope I just didn't raise the TCO of IIS by explaining this super-complex process that will require everyone to get new certification and spend days perfecting their technique. *rolls eyes*
-Jayde
I work for a small Web Development firm... My side of company is to do all of the ASP programming. I develop web-page backends, write web applications, do a bit of design work here and there. All and all, it's a fun, challanging job in and of itself.
/. it too much. :-P
:-)
:-)
The atmosphere is very "fun" as well. We have a large, open, artsy office...we hang out in the mornings before work...and a lot of times, we use the office after hours on on the weekend just to hang out.
If you'd like to see a picture of the office, the lead design has a personal homepage prototype setup that uses the office as a backdrop picture:
Click Here... Don't
Why didn't we go out of business? Because "fun" doesn't mean bad business practices. We kept our work solid, we never strayed from normal customer relations, and kept our prices low even during the hayday. Sure, I got paid probably only 1/4th as much as other ASP programmers last summer--but I'm the one with the job right now.
Determination and solid business practice is the way for medium-sized tech jobs to survive right now... And, to be honest, our business is doing quite well. Just because the day of businesses which charged $20,000 to set up a domain, and spent the rest of the day riding a razol-scooter around the office is gone, doesn't mean that one can't have a "fun" work enviroment.
-Jayde
Not to rag on your... But there is a reason for this...
:-)
:-P Also, Nintendo demanding that they take down Xbox signs/not do Xbox preorders a few months back didn't really help either.
:-)
Mostly that Nintendo a) doesn't want to and b) has ticked retailers off.
I went into my local Software Etc./Babbages... Talked to one of the clerks about what's going on... Apparently, Nintendo doesn't have the time to hook Software Etc. up with display units to put demo units in--what are they gonna do then? Gamecube demos are going in Dreamcast demo setups.
Believe it or not...Nintendo's as big a bunch of corporate bastards as Microsoft is.
-Jayde
I have never, ever seen a circumstance where IIS was installed "on accident" by Win2K Pro. I have managed Win2K machines ever since the OS came out, and have never seen an instance where this is true. I'm not sure where you, and others, come up with this notion...
IIS may be installed by default on Windows 2000 Server. But, if you can't manage something like setting IIS up, or removing it (yes, ooohh, it takes what? 3 clicks from the control panel to remove IIS? Tough stuff.) you have NO BUSINESS admining a Windows Server in the first place. We're not talking workstation here--no Professional or ME/9x. IIS is only installed by default on Windows 2000 SERVER. (And, to be honest, I believe it is a setup option on install.)
Yes, because SO many people use Windows 2000 Server without using IIS.
No.
-Jayde
Who is getting tired of responding to wuss AC's
It's amazing that you seem to know this even though you say: "I don't use MS products"
Could you please let me know when/where IIS gets installed on Windows ME/98/95? I would really like to know that. Because Windows ME/98/95 users are the only ones a "public awareness campaign" would really be targeted at. Who is this vast "public" that has IIS running?
When I was a beginning developer, I tried many timeson many system to get the 9x equivalent of IIS (PWS) to work... And, I can assure you that the reality is not in this statement: "It's a fight to NOT install IIS", but more along the lines of "It's a fight TO install IIS" Once, I did managed to get PWS to work...but it took considerable time and effort on my part.
IIS is NOT installed by default on Windows 2000 Professional. I have used Win2K Pro without IIS on my notebook and home desktop with no prompting to install it from any source. I fail to understand what it is you refer to by saying, "Many many components in a Window system (server or desktop, makes no difference) do install IIS" You do NOT get IIS on your system on accident. I have never seen anyone who had IIS on thier system without knowing about it--unless someone else (not someTHING, but someONE) installed it without them knowing. (I.E. Overzealous IT personel)
There is a reason IIS works on Win2K... Win2K is an OS for either power users themselves, or use in enviroments where there is an IT dept. to maintain things. There is NO excuse for patches to not be applied in those enviroments. Win2K is not for Grandma Ethel. I know of no "normal users" who have Win2K--and most don't even know what the heck it is. Computer manufacturers won't sell Win2K to "home" customers, either. And, even if someone does get Win2K, you DO have to install it. I don't care what you think you know about Windows--but being that you "don't use MS product", I don't think you're in a position to tell someone who works on/with/and maintains Win2K systems every day how they operate.
"Have MS done anything to alert Joe User about the need to patch?" Umm, yes. Since you don't use MS products, I suppose you don't know anything about "Windows Update" or the "Critical Update Notification" or that an end-user, who knows nothing about how their computer works, can patch their computer in less than 10 minutes. It's so easy to keep a Windows system patched, it's hilarious that you make such a huge deal about it.
Obviously you are living in your Linux-only world, and know little about how Windows works. So, it's probably for the better if you would do some research before babbling on about things. Oh, yeah..it would also help if you weren't so scared of losing karma that you'd post under something other than Anonymous Coward.
-Jayde
I think you fail to miss something.
:-P
Yes, Ford was liable for those incident which occured out of nowhere.
However, what if Ford had realized "Oops. There was an accident in the plant, and these tires may not work.", issues a recall, makes is super-easy to get the tires repaired...
6 months pass, and tires start to blow out. Even though Ford has made it incredibly easy for anyone to prevent it from happening to them.
Let's take it up a notch. Let's say that the bad tires were only on commerical vehicles. (As IIS is only only Windows Servers, and Win2K *as an installable optiont* (not by default)) It is more the fault of the people whos job it is to keep up on car part recalls and prevent accidents from happening... Perhaps in the first month or two, it would be in question. But, if the mechanics wait *6 months* to fix a high-profile recall, the blame starts to fall more on their shoulders than anything else.
And, as dramatic as you make it sound..nobody's died because of code red--last time I checked, at least.
-Jayde
Perhaps I'm missing something here...
1) IIS is not installed by default on Windows 2000 Professional, just Server.
2) Why do you excuse people who installed IIS on their server, but can't patch it?
3) Who else am I missing??? IIS is only installed by default on SERVERS. Which gets back to my original point.
You make it sound like Microsoft shipped IIS with Windows ME or something. I can't think of a single situation where people could have IIS running with a GOOD excuse not to know about it. Anyone who DOES run server, or installed IIS manually is a MORON for not keeping up with security patches.
I fail to see how Microsoft should incur any liability for situations like this.
-Jayde
Sorry, but I use IIS a lot. I'm an ASP developer, and we have tons of IIS boxes.
Were we hit by Code Red? Nope. Code Red II? Nope. This? Nope. ANY worm? Not a chance.
All these worms exploit SERIOUSLY OLD holes in IIS, of which patches have been release over 3-5 MONTHS ago. All of these pacthes are available via Windows Update, and show up with a "Critical Updates Notification" on the taskbar.
Anyone who runs ANY server but is 5 months behind on security updates is an absolute MORON, and deserves to be hit with a worm. It's easy to blame MS for all their "security holes", but folks...these have been patched for a while now...
-Jayde
First off kudos to Slashteam. You kept a valuable news source up and running while most people were too stunned to do anything other than watch, horrified, at the TV. Good work. You provided a valuable service to many people in this crisis.
/.'s recovery, but it was rather impressive given the HUGE load they were experiencing. First, they stripped down the page content to low-bandwidth versions, then phased in their site. I'm not sure about CNN, but MSNBC added static mirrors to their pool, and got Akamai servers to serve all their media. By around noon, both sites were running their normal full-content versions, even though they were probably still getting hammered to high-heaven.
Also, to those who are getting down on CNN and MSNBC... From what I've heard, those sites are already tuned--and regularly do--serve around 45 pages per second...even with loads of media.
Crashing them was likely no small feat, either. Likely every person with internet typed in the very familiar cnn.com or msnbc.com just on instinct. It probably didn't help MSNBC or CNN that the MSN and AOL/Netscape portals, respectivly, link to them directly.
I was actually pretty impressed with how they handled the load...it was a little slower than
Personally, I give many thanks to all the techs for all the news sites who worked like mad to ensure that people were able to understand what was happening. It must not have been easy to work in conditions like that: especially considering the stress that was put on them.
-Jayde
...That has nothing to do with what I was saying whatsoever.
Out of people who voted, it was nearly 50/50. That's a good deal of people. While you can speculate 'till the cows come home about what the people who didn't say anything really were trying to say, you can't prove crap. The fact that it was so close to 50/50 should show that the difference in size between liberals/conservatives is not very large at all--if any.
Jusy because both canidates sucked, and people doesn't vote, doesn't prove anything either way. It doesn't show a single thing. So your talking about it doesn't matter at all.
I'm not trying to say Bush is cool, and Gore sucks--or the other way around. I'm showing that, in what boils down to a REALLY BIG poll (say what you may, but that's a pretty dang big sample group), the Liberal/Conservative ratio is almost identical.
Yes, Gore won by "popular vote", but do you happen to recal by how much? Around 1%. That somehow makes it a huge majority?? You're still dealing with 49% of the US who voted for Bush over Gore. Look at the numbers yourself. Democrats have 1 more person in the Senate--wow. That's a HUGE majority. I guess all the non-liberal folk best step aside while this wind of changes sweeps through the nation. *rolls eyes*
I'm all for you having your own opinion, but your statements are absurd.
The Power of /. can squash a web server hosting vanalla HTML...
:-P
:-)
So posting a link to a steaming movie will surly not degrade the ability for them to operate this service.
Maybe I'll try this link next week after everyone who's trying to watch it now gets done with the movie.
Nintendo miss a lauch date?? That could *never* happen. ;-)
*L* Really nothing to worry about, as this is normal for Nintendo.. I guess we can just thank our lucky stars that it was only a few weeks instead of a few years, eh?
(And for those who don't know, the Nintendo64 was in development for a little over 4 years...)
...but do the standards boards seem to be kinda out of hand nowdays? I mean, sure. I can see the reason for standards. And, yeah. XML is just the neatest, niftiest, coolest thing to hit the planet since Apple ][e BASIC... But, really, is stuff like this really needed?
;-)
/. <smirk />) Just think, you could categorize your life into tags! Yay!
I'm sure if someone actually had a use for this, they wouldn't want to wade through some standard to implement it. Standards take forever to hash out. VR programmers are likely to want to extend things beyond what the standards are... And you know where that got Microsoft.
Really, what's next? An XML-based markup language that defines life? (And, no, that's not an XML version of
<life>
<years value='2001'>
<months value='8'>
<days value='23'>
<hours value='0'>
<minutes value='48'>
<seconds value='22'>
I thought LML (Life Markup Language)!
</seconds>
<seconds value='25'>
Maybe this is a waste of time...
</seconds>
</minutes>
</hours>
</days>
</months>
</years>
</life>
Sorry to sound cynical or anything... But converting the world into XML is only going to waste everyone's time in the long-run. It's great for what needs it... But, as the saying goes, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Sorry if this sounds like a troll, but it's not.
/.'s long-standing hatred of M$ and M$ entering the gaming scene doesn't mean this is gonna change, and it also doesn't mean that we should even care.
This is commonplace in the gaming industry. It's been this way for a long time.
Nintendo, probably the most repected gaming company even, just did this en-masse with the Game Boy Advance. I was forced to buy mine with two games--period. Luckily, I had two games I wanted, so no biggie...
Either way, this talk about M$'s continued "Bundling" and carrying on about anti-trust-this and anti-trust-that is a total crock. This is accepted industry practice to offset the fact that hardware companies lose money on consoles.
You think that "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Super Mario World" than came with your Genesis/SNES was free?? Heck no. They raised the price of the console accordingly.
In fact, systems have only been shipping WITHOUT a game lately, and in rare circumstances. Sega and Nintendo offered "Core Systems" and the like LATE in the game (mostly to replace ageing units for people who already had games) Really, the Playstation was the only system that NEVER had a bundle.
This mindless, baseless M$-bashing has really gotten out of hand lately... I have no problem with people complaining--just make sure you have something decent to complain about.
...it's funny that in his article he makes it out to be some convoluted evil plot that MS is doing this to stick it to Sun. But, surprise, surprise, IT WAS IN THEIR LEGAL SETTLEMENT. As much as one may believe that MS can and does ignore the law at all turns, eventually a company--no matter how motivated they are to avoid it--will have to abide by a ruling of a judge eventually. Sun pitched a hissy-fit, and they're getting exactly what they asked for. It's just unfortunate that Sun didn't think about what it was they were really asking for in the first place--they just went on a usual knee-jerk reaction to attempt at sticking it to the Evil Empire. You can't have it both ways. If you force someone (or attempt to force them) into doing something, don't be surprised and call "Unfair!!" when they decide to play along. And, I'm sure this will make me *really* unpopular... But, honestly, that guy is *way* too paranoid for his own good. Really, if MS wanted to roll out TCP/MS they would do it whenever they felt like it--not make an excuse. *L* (Innovation need no reason. ;-)
Monopolies never give away something for free, unless it is to maintain market share. There is always one thing reflected in the actions of any monopoly: they will do anything legal, or illegal, even at a loss, to maintain that all important market share. Nothing is more important than market share. Even if you loose your shirt in the short term. Even if you are found guilty and have to pay fines. Once you have everyone bent over a barrel, you can make it up to them.
I doubt Microsoft really gives Solitare and Hearts away to further their monopolistic evil plot to conquer the universe.
Geeze... I really hope they don't start putting a Solitare icon on the desktop!
Well, perhaps I should have been more clear...
.NET from plain ol' ASP 3.0.
.DLL's with the C# compiler, or using any of the features that caught my eye while reading.
;-)
.DLL updating, in-process caching features, and automatic garbage collection for a web app is a huge leap from traditional web dev. ASP.NET actually makes the web a "real" platform for developing "real" applications, instead of a collection of scripts that need to have every bit of functionality built into them from the ground-up just to work right.
I picked up the book a few weeks ago, to go along with the SDK 2.0 we installed on our dev server this week. I haven't just been "reading" the book, but starting to convert some of our applications over to
So far, I have noticed nothing in the conversion process that has raised any dysfunctional red-flags whatsoever. I have had no problem taking huge blocks of ASP code and shrinking it down to 10 ASP.NET lines, making my own
Sure, I'm positive that it will have flaws. But, heck, what doesn't? Don't try to tell me that PHP and Perl don't have flaws, because you're just asking for a beating there.
Quite honestly, I don't mind writing, say, someting like CoCreateInstance instead of CoCreateInstanceEx every once and a while if the platform as a whole allows me much more development flexibility than any of the others.
I'm not sure if you're very aware of the web-development scene right now...But having a platform that has state-management, 1st-run compilation of code, on-the-fly
MS bashing aside, .NET is a really great idea from a developer's standpoint, and its implementation is great.
/. vibe, but come on... This is New for Nerds, not News for Platform-Exclusive People. PHP, Perl, Java, they all have their uses--why can't people accept that, maybe, MS actually makes good products once and a while? :-)
I'm a web developer, so it's my job to stay up on the newest technologies. I recently picked up "Professional ASP.NET" by Wrox, and, about 650 pages in, I have come to the conclusion that ASP.NET is one of the most fuctional, flexible web platform I have ever seen.
Sure, PHP is just dandy... But ASP.NET adds on so much functionality, it's scary. Sure, that may be one of the reasons to shun it from a certain viewpoint--letting a MS platform have so much control--but as a developer, ASP.NET is a dream come true.
I know this goes against the general
Seriously. You think Microsoft is bad?? The clout involved in AOL-Time Warner-AT&T makes Microsoft look like peanuts. Let's take all the major players in phone, cable, broadcasting, and internet...and make them ONE COMPANY. Yay. I'm looking forward to that day.
./ crowd makes of the MS monopoly--that this is even WORSE. Now that's scary.
Controlling, say, my stupid Operating System is lousy when compared to the amount of control that such a conglomeration could bring to bear. Leveraging my phone, long distance, cable, tv programming, and internet access is a bit more drastic than, say, putting an IE icon on my desktop.
This is not to say that the MS situation is good... It's just to point out that considering how big a deal the