#1. Microsoft has no interest in buying RedHat and likely never will.
RedHat is simply not much of a threat, and MS's interests would be better served watching RedHat go bankrupt.
#2. Internet appliances are dead. You can't force consumer to buy something they don't want, and what most don't want is single function devices.
While I suspect you are right that is why AOL wants them... I can't see how this will work for them.
I actually suspect it's because they are going to take AOLs massive CD manufacturing and mailing house and send RedHat Linux CDs to everyone in the world!
Then they can get IDC to report that they have 3 billion copies of Linux in consumers hands and they therefore have 98% of worldwide marketshare in desktop operating systems!:)
"Do we really need all this stuff for a web server, or a file server, or even an app server in most cases."
No, not individually, but you do if you are making a generic OS which could be used for any one of those tasks.
"I'll admit that the policys are probly fine and work well once you spend the time with them. "
No understandable. We have the same problems at work, there's no time to bleed just get it done.
"But as with OpenBSD - a 4 year default install with NO hacks to it. Sounds like a pretty secure box to me."
Yeah, but it doesn't do anything. What's the point? It's sort of like running the C2 tool on Windows, yeah it makes it secure but it sure doesn't help you get work done.
"M$ is going to write hotfixes for NT 4 till Jan 1, 2005."
Well ok, if you are willing to pay for them, hotfixes will no longer be release for free after Jan 1, 2003. And non-security related ones wouldn't even be offered after Jan 1, 2004.
It's basically end of the line.
Honestly with as many problems as we solved moving our Web and App servers from NT4 to Win2k I cannot possibly imagine why people still use NT4.
But we have business people who claim NT4 is good enough for their desktops and they don't want to buy XP. Ok, great, but stop complaining about problems.
Then you probably are not adequately securing your NT4 IIS box.
Using policies on Win2k you can go quite far. If there are services you don't want running, then can be defaulted to disabled through a policy. Registry entries, file permissions, and a variety of account and system settings can be automated through policies.
Locking down the IIS configuration is more difficult, but you could either use the IIS Lockdown tool. Or if your web servers tend to be identical this could be accomplished through WSH scripts.
Some of these automation and policy objects are available with NT4, but not all, which is why I say it's easier to lock down Win2k.
Securing a Win2k IIS server through group policy objects is the topic of the GCNT practical I'm currently working on, so I think I'm pretty familiar with this.
MS will stop releasing hotfixes for NT4. That's what being "unsupported" means. Besides, we call Microsoft for support quite frequently, and they've been very helpful.
Maybe instead of pining away for BSD/Apache, you should spend your efforts learning the platform you currently support. Attending the SANS Conference track on Securing Windows 2000 is quite enlightening.
CALs for Exchange and Win2k get cheaper by volume. A 5 pack is $199, 20 pack is $799... Think 4,000 desktops and wonder how cheap it is per desktop?
If you were to buy MSDN for a developer, you wouldn't need to buy that other software you mentioned as it's included, certainly not Office XP which a developer wouldn't use anyway.
Project 2000 is only $500, not $600. It's questionable why you buy Project web licenses for every user.
SQL Server is now sold with a per-processor cost.
Look, if you want to talk about pricing at least use accurate prices.
Besides, for products like Project the value added more than makes up for the cost. That's a part of the equation you don't have. You can run a company without using MS Project, which I imagnie is your recommendation if you used Linux.
Perhaps if people who questioned the value of XP or Win2k did so with intelligent well-thought out comments who could reference facts to back up their opinions.... I would not make such posts.
"The problem is that WinXP adds nothing to Win2k from a corporate point of view. "
That's not true.
"The new GUI? No use, since the older one is known by the users since 95, and the new one can be disorienting, despite Microsoft's claim of the contrary. Re-training is expensive. "
Oh no! Having frequently used icons in the start menu is disorienting. Oh my god!
".net? Pure vaporware so far as far as real-world applications go. "
No more so than using Linux.
"Server-side, WinXP is just not there(TM), and it offers a total amount of nothing over win2k. "
Furthering showing the author is clueless. There is no WinXP server product. The new server product is called.Net Server and will be released later this year, probably Q3 from what I've heard.
"Also, software compatibility is still to be tested."
" I believe that software that controls systems where human lives are at risk should be regulated by the government to some degree, just as food and drugs are now regulated."
It already is. In order to use a computer device in medicine it has to obtain government approval, meet rigorous standards, years of testing data, etc... Actually I think it is the FDA that handles that.
Also, try to sell a 911 system that disclaims all liability and see how far you get.
But someone using a home computer to surf the internet is not a risk to human life.
Well first of all the exemption would never get into the law because those who have the money have the lobbying power. Despite their hatred, not one of Microsoft's competitors would step up in support of this law. Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc. would all be lobbying against it as hard as Microsoft.
Second of all, it wouldn't matter anyway. If I walk into a business suggesting they buy a warrantied product from a reputable manufacturer, and my competition walks in suggesting they use a free product with no warranty.
I'm familiar with the true embedded market as my father is an MSEE and has been building embedded devices for aerospace and industrial markets for years.
I'm also wondering if you understand the difference between writing a program tha compiles into 16K of RAM, and one that compiles into 200 Megabytes of various executables that all are supposed to work together.
One requires a lot more effort, and if you are expected to sell this at the same price point...
We would see an explosion in computer literacy and blossoming of programming talent that is hard to even imagine.
I agree. There has been so many times when I just wonder how to do something. Usually it's something quite simple, like say automating the configuration of some feature.
This is already the law with respect to all copyrighted works, including computer programs.
Agreed, although I believe that interpretation has been lost. It certainly has amongst the GPL crowd who now feel that they should have an inherent right to copy and redistribute without limits.
If you own a book, you have the right to read it, regardless of whether you bought the book from the publisher, borrowed it from the library, or bought it on eBay.
Agreed, although to clarify if you have a book only one person can read it at a time. I was primarily thinking of selling to corporations who have multiple people utilizing it at once. Actually even in homes, if you have multiple computers and the two children both want to play the same game... you need two copies. It'd be the same with any other game, book, music, video whatever. Unless they are willing to share and play the one copy together.
Most software is packaged on distribution CDs, so the physical-copy copyright model remains valid and functional.
Except these concepts don't apply as well to software which is downloaded off the Internet, which is becoming more and more common. Honestly I don't like it, as I'd rather have a physical CD, but you don't have much choice these days.
Agreed. I'd go so far as to say that useful change to copyright can best be accomplished by returning to the purposes that it was designed to serve.
Absolutely. It's unfortunate, however, that such enlightened opinions generally get lost in the noise that is slashdot.org.:-)
Really? Are you sure that picture was taken by an on-duty USGS employee?
A year or two ago I could have sworn I had that same photo forwarded to me by at least a dozen different friends... Each one of them claimed that it had been taken by a friend of theirs.
"As GPL opponents so often point out, though, the GPL also restricts your actions, in that you can't hide your improvements (unless you keep them completely to yourself)."
I don't believe that is the most damaging clause of the GPL, but rather the one that states that you may freely redistribute the software. That's the anti-business clause of the GPL.
I really like where you went with your argument. I agree and think the example of the mapmaker is a good analogy to software development.
It's this time of discussion that can really lead to some good progress in this area. I would like to see the source code to software available as well, such that I can fix it myself if needed and so forth.
You do bring up the GPL but while it does fulfill one of these purposes, it does not fulfill the larger goal of copyright. That is, it does not protect the producer of the software, not without combining it with dual licensing which kind of defeats the purpose of such a discussion.
What I'd like to see is software distributed in a fashion that if I buy a copy I can obtain the source code. I find that very appealing and very useful.
However, to protect the creator of the software there must still be limitations. But I envision those limitations as being similar to other copyrighted works today, like books, maps, pictures, etc. You cannot redistribute the software to others who have not bought it. You may transfer the license that you bought, but you cannot retain a copy when you do so. You must buy a copy for each person who will be using the software. etc.
I also believe the length of time a copyright lasts needs to be altered. It is too long today, well beyond what one would call a limited time.
Useful change to copyright can be accomplished without completely abandoning it and the purposes it should serve.
It's been a long time since I saw either the Amiga or the Atari ST. But I do not recall the ST having a more professional-looking desktop, rather I thought it was even more kludgey than the Amiga.
The Amiga did have some ugly default colors which made it look kind of silly... mostly that orange. This was changed with v2.04 which went to a blue/grey scale and looked pretty nice.
I agree that they could have bumped out Apple. Commodore had the lead in the desktop video editing market, and Atari had a lead in the desktop audio editing market. Neither company really capitalized on that lead, but I also don't think the technology was well enough advanced at the time to really entrench in the market.
I thought they merged with Burroughs to become Unisys.
Unisys happens to be one of Microsoft's primary partners in the data center world. The ES7000 servers and such which are leading the benchmark charts. Interesting that you mention them.
Later on you write:
"I just don't see a company beating a world full of IBM, Oracle, SAP, EDS, and others at their game without doing something different. Something different isn't cutting corners and costs, it has to be radically different like Linux."
Linux isn't radically different. It's just a reimplementation of the same old Unix. Doesn't have the maturity of the existing solutions. The architecture and design is not radically different in terms of security or performance.
About the only thing you can say is that it cuts corners and costs.
But didn't you say that wasn't the solution?
Sorry, I just happen to like picking on people who clearly don't understand what they are talking about.:)
Slashdot Mirror
#1. Microsoft has no interest in buying RedHat and likely never will.
:)
RedHat is simply not much of a threat, and MS's interests would be better served watching RedHat go bankrupt.
#2. Internet appliances are dead. You can't force consumer to buy something they don't want, and what most don't want is single function devices.
While I suspect you are right that is why AOL wants them... I can't see how this will work for them.
I actually suspect it's because they are going to take AOLs massive CD manufacturing and mailing house and send RedHat Linux CDs to everyone in the world!
Then they can get IDC to report that they have 3 billion copies of Linux in consumers hands and they therefore have 98% of worldwide marketshare in desktop operating systems!
"Do we really need all this stuff for a web server, or a file server, or even an app server in most cases."
No, not individually, but you do if you are making a generic OS which could be used for any one of those tasks.
"I'll admit that the policys are probly fine and work well once you spend the time with them. "
No understandable. We have the same problems at work, there's no time to bleed just get it done.
"But as with OpenBSD - a 4 year default install with NO hacks to it. Sounds like a pretty secure box to me."
Yeah, but it doesn't do anything. What's the point? It's sort of like running the C2 tool on Windows, yeah it makes it secure but it sure doesn't help you get work done.
"M$ is going to write hotfixes for NT 4 till Jan 1, 2005."
Well ok, if you are willing to pay for them, hotfixes will no longer be release for free after Jan 1, 2003. And non-security related ones wouldn't even be offered after Jan 1, 2004.
It's basically end of the line.
Honestly with as many problems as we solved moving our Web and App servers from NT4 to Win2k I cannot possibly imagine why people still use NT4.
But we have business people who claim NT4 is good enough for their desktops and they don't want to buy XP. Ok, great, but stop complaining about problems.
"albiet not in one integrated package."
.net?"
.Net isn't vaporous. The production release was made available off the web site this week.
.Net server offers IIS 6.0, COM+ v1.5, MSMQ 3.0 as it's most compelling features I can think of off the top of my head.
.Net Server for Web which will offer compelling pricing.
That's sort of the point of Microsoft's product lineup you appear to have missed.
"So, how exactly is Linux as vaporous as
I don't know, since
"Name just one compelling feature for us, please."
Windows
Furthermore there is the new version of
There I named like 4 and I have not even begun using the beta.
"Funny, I remember hearing that about W2k, too."
And you'll hear it about Windows YP. But do you want to talk about backwards compatibility between Linux versions?
I didn't think so.
"I thought the parent was quite intelligent and well thought-out, certainly far above the drivel you've posted."
But then you've clearly shown you can't tell the difference between intelligence and drivel with your post.
He said the Developer version of Office XP. That is what I was referring to.
Visual Studio & Office XP Developer are for two different target audiences.
Did I not request intelligent comments?
"I have 14 steps to secure an NT4 IIS box. "
Then you probably are not adequately securing your NT4 IIS box.
Using policies on Win2k you can go quite far. If there are services you don't want running, then can be defaulted to disabled through a policy. Registry entries, file permissions, and a variety of account and system settings can be automated through policies.
Locking down the IIS configuration is more difficult, but you could either use the IIS Lockdown tool. Or if your web servers tend to be identical this could be accomplished through WSH scripts.
Some of these automation and policy objects are available with NT4, but not all, which is why I say it's easier to lock down Win2k.
Securing a Win2k IIS server through group policy objects is the topic of the GCNT practical I'm currently working on, so I think I'm pretty familiar with this.
MS will stop releasing hotfixes for NT4. That's what being "unsupported" means. Besides, we call Microsoft for support quite frequently, and they've been very helpful.
Maybe instead of pining away for BSD/Apache, you should spend your efforts learning the platform you currently support. Attending the SANS Conference track on Securing Windows 2000 is quite enlightening.
CALs for Exchange and Win2k get cheaper by volume. A 5 pack is $199, 20 pack is $799... Think 4,000 desktops and wonder how cheap it is per desktop?
If you were to buy MSDN for a developer, you wouldn't need to buy that other software you mentioned as it's included, certainly not Office XP which a developer wouldn't use anyway.
Project 2000 is only $500, not $600. It's questionable why you buy Project web licenses for every user.
SQL Server is now sold with a per-processor cost.
Look, if you want to talk about pricing at least use accurate prices.
Besides, for products like Project the value added more than makes up for the cost. That's a part of the equation you don't have. You can run a company without using MS Project, which I imagnie is your recommendation if you used Linux.
Perhaps if people who questioned the value of XP or Win2k did so with intelligent well-thought out comments who could reference facts to back up their opinions.... I would not make such posts.
I smell moron.
"I'm posting this as an AC to protect my job. "
/. again. :(
I think that was a good move. If you worked for me I'd fire you for being incompetent.
Fortunately you appear to be just a help desk flunky and not a server admin.
It's babbling nonsense day on
"The problem is that WinXP adds nothing to Win2k from a corporate point of view. "
.Net Server and will be released later this year, probably Q3 from what I've heard.
/.
That's not true.
"The new GUI? No use, since the older one is known by the users since 95, and the new one can be disorienting, despite Microsoft's claim of the contrary. Re-training is expensive. "
Oh no! Having frequently used icons in the start menu is disorienting. Oh my god!
".net? Pure vaporware so far as far as real-world applications go. "
No more so than using Linux.
"Server-side, WinXP is just not there(TM), and it offers a total amount of nothing over win2k. "
Furthering showing the author is clueless. There is no WinXP server product. The new server product is called
"Also, software compatibility is still to be tested."
It's actually pretty good.
It appears to be babbling nonsense day on
"...are doing wonders for furthering Linux adoption in businesses and personal use. "
Not really.
"Not to be off topic - but this is illegal. "
You can downgrade licenses purchased under a volume license agreement, but yep not OEM licenses.
"I seen a lot of posts that state NT4 is running fine for that web site (its much easier to secure - that's why people are still using it) "
Well that's certainly not true. Windows 2000 is much better as a web server and far easier to secure.
Furthermore, NT 4.0 goes on the unsupported list this year.
What is this? Babbling nonsense day on slashdot?
"Ah yes, and embedded engineering knowledge is inherited through RNA! "
Did I say that? No, my father has done it for 20 years and I'm familiar with his work.
"...then it becomes much harder to ensure that 99.95% uptime"
Welcome to reality Sherlock!
"But it's not impossible, it just involves a lot of development and testing, at a time when the telecomms market has tanked."
It's nice that you are finally catching up to my point.
" I believe that software that controls systems where human lives are at risk should be regulated by the government to some degree, just as food and drugs are now regulated."
It already is. In order to use a computer device in medicine it has to obtain government approval, meet rigorous standards, years of testing data, etc... Actually I think it is the FDA that handles that.
Also, try to sell a 911 system that disclaims all liability and see how far you get.
But someone using a home computer to surf the internet is not a risk to human life.
Well first of all the exemption would never get into the law because those who have the money have the lobbying power. Despite their hatred, not one of Microsoft's competitors would step up in support of this law. Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc. would all be lobbying against it as hard as Microsoft.
Second of all, it wouldn't matter anyway. If I walk into a business suggesting they buy a warrantied product from a reputable manufacturer, and my competition walks in suggesting they use a free product with no warranty.
I will win the contract, I guarantee it.
That's what Government Regulations are frequently about... Raising the bar of entry into the market.
Watching the debate on the '96 telecom act was very enlightening. If you thought it was about competition, think again.
I'm familiar with the true embedded market as my father is an MSEE and has been building embedded devices for aerospace and industrial markets for years.
I'm also wondering if you understand the difference between writing a program tha compiles into 16K of RAM, and one that compiles into 200 Megabytes of various executables that all are supposed to work together.
One requires a lot more effort, and if you are expected to sell this at the same price point...
The point is, I think you are being an ass.
I agree. There has been so many times when I just wonder how to do something. Usually it's something quite simple, like say automating the configuration of some feature.
This is already the law with respect to all copyrighted works, including computer programs.
Agreed, although I believe that interpretation has been lost. It certainly has amongst the GPL crowd who now feel that they should have an inherent right to copy and redistribute without limits.
If you own a book, you have the right to read it, regardless of whether you bought the book from the publisher, borrowed it from the library, or bought it on eBay.
Agreed, although to clarify if you have a book only one person can read it at a time. I was primarily thinking of selling to corporations who have multiple people utilizing it at once. Actually even in homes, if you have multiple computers and the two children both want to play the same game... you need two copies. It'd be the same with any other game, book, music, video whatever. Unless they are willing to share and play the one copy together.
Most software is packaged on distribution CDs, so the physical-copy copyright model remains valid and functional.
Except these concepts don't apply as well to software which is downloaded off the Internet, which is becoming more and more common. Honestly I don't like it, as I'd rather have a physical CD, but you don't have much choice these days.
Agreed. I'd go so far as to say that useful change to copyright can best be accomplished by returning to the purposes that it was designed to serve.
Absolutely. It's unfortunate, however, that such enlightened opinions generally get lost in the noise that is slashdot.org. :-)
Really? Are you sure that picture was taken by an on-duty USGS employee?
:)
A year or two ago I could have sworn I had that same photo forwarded to me by at least a dozen different friends... Each one of them claimed that it had been taken by a friend of theirs.
Now whom am I to believe who took the picture?
"As GPL opponents so often point out, though, the GPL also restricts your actions, in that you can't hide your improvements (unless you keep them completely to yourself)."
I don't believe that is the most damaging clause of the GPL, but rather the one that states that you may freely redistribute the software. That's the anti-business clause of the GPL.
I really like where you went with your argument. I agree and think the example of the mapmaker is a good analogy to software development.
It's this time of discussion that can really lead to some good progress in this area. I would like to see the source code to software available as well, such that I can fix it myself if needed and so forth.
You do bring up the GPL but while it does fulfill one of these purposes, it does not fulfill the larger goal of copyright. That is, it does not protect the producer of the software, not without combining it with dual licensing which kind of defeats the purpose of such a discussion.
What I'd like to see is software distributed in a fashion that if I buy a copy I can obtain the source code. I find that very appealing and very useful.
However, to protect the creator of the software there must still be limitations. But I envision those limitations as being similar to other copyrighted works today, like books, maps, pictures, etc. You cannot redistribute the software to others who have not bought it. You may transfer the license that you bought, but you cannot retain a copy when you do so. You must buy a copy for each person who will be using the software. etc.
I also believe the length of time a copyright lasts needs to be altered. It is too long today, well beyond what one would call a limited time.
Useful change to copyright can be accomplished without completely abandoning it and the purposes it should serve.
Huh?
I was just joking with the previous comment. :)
It's been a long time since I saw either the Amiga or the Atari ST. But I do not recall the ST having a more professional-looking desktop, rather I thought it was even more kludgey than the Amiga.
The Amiga did have some ugly default colors which made it look kind of silly... mostly that orange. This was changed with v2.04 which went to a blue/grey scale and looked pretty nice.
I agree that they could have bumped out Apple. Commodore had the lead in the desktop video editing market, and Atari had a lead in the desktop audio editing market. Neither company really capitalized on that lead, but I also don't think the technology was well enough advanced at the time to really entrench in the market.
Sperry? Sperry is still in business?
:)
I thought they merged with Burroughs to become Unisys.
Unisys happens to be one of Microsoft's primary partners in the data center world. The ES7000 servers and such which are leading the benchmark charts. Interesting that you mention them.
Later on you write:
"I just don't see a company beating a world full of IBM, Oracle, SAP, EDS, and others at their game without doing something different. Something different isn't cutting corners and costs, it has to be radically different like Linux."
Linux isn't radically different. It's just a reimplementation of the same old Unix. Doesn't have the maturity of the existing solutions. The architecture and design is not radically different in terms of security or performance.
About the only thing you can say is that it cuts corners and costs.
But didn't you say that wasn't the solution?
Sorry, I just happen to like picking on people who clearly don't understand what they are talking about.