From a consumer standpoint the problem is NOT that this "Shop for Music" feature included with Windows XP only opens IE.
The problem IS that this "Shop for Music" is even in the OS to begin with.
I don't need this crap, I don't want this crap, and it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be forced to have to deal with embedded advertising to use an OS, or an application we paid for.
So what kind of zealot am I? Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot?
You talk about being critical, non-partisan and staying away from flamebait, but yet you called people MS apologists, called SCO a terrorist organization and said we shouldn't read Enderle's article and make up our own minds.
I know how the game is played, I've been here too long. Sure you can be critical of things and get mod points as long as you maintain the Populist rhetoric...
I am an Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot, and I'm calling you out on it.
Let's take Slashdot as an example. If you post a well thought-out post about Windows' strengths and it is on-topic for the debate, you will see very few flames, if any. However, most of the pro-Windows posts here are exactly that: Pro-Windows to an extreme, and they attract attention.
Interesting, that's not been my experience since 1997.
especially considering the fact that open-source product Apache, which is more widely used than any other web server, has had far fewer security holes than Microsoft's IIS.
The fact that Apache vulnerabilities don't make it to the frontpage of slashdot might not be a contributing factor to your perception of the facts?
So you see, these attacks you speak of against criticism of open-source or Linux are often ignited by ignorant rants by Microsoft apologists who post flamebait, either unknowingly, or fully aware of what they are doing.
Microsoft apologists? I thought you were pretending to be non-partisan.
And regarding the SCO matter, SCO is behaving more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of.
I'm with the Pros on this one. I don't know what SCOs game was. Never really trusted the company myself, but to call them a terrorist?
Finally, why should this article be thrown in the trash? Have you read other articles by Rob Enderle?
Yes I have, they're generally thoughtful and raise good issues.
A short while ago, another article of his was posted on Slashdot, and I was amazed and left speechless in disgust at this man's incredible disregard for facts and common decency.
Which facts might those be? Are you even aware of facts, or are you just presenting anecdotal stories as facts?
So that is why he is attacked. Rob Enderle is an eternal FUD and garbage machine, spewing out nonsense and flamebait. Don't take his word for anything, but rather ignore him, or if you must read his drivel, check every single claim of his carefully.
Could it be because they're a "civil rights" organization that picks and chooses which of your civil rights you should get to keep?
Limited resources. They tend to come in and defend those who don't otherwise have anybody defending them.
For example, they're always available to help prevent the "establishment" of religion, but they're never around to preserve the "free-exercise" of it.
I don't know, they defended the Nazi's in Skokie back in '76. That was pretty brave.
I think the problem with this addendum argument is that many people unfortunately view "free-excercise" of religion as state sponsored religious indoctrination. The Bill of Rights is quite clear, the state should not be influencing religion. Now if religion wants to influence the state, go right ahead, that's their right, but you do it on your own time using your own resources... see?
Free speech is good, but free association is bad in the ACLU world.
The UN has sent inspectors to guatanamo and verified the prisoners are well treated, so don't even fucking try to compare it to Saddam's pits of torture.
It amazes me on how a class of people who credit themselves with being technically elite can be so politically ignorant in such a large percentage.
Fortunatelly I'm technically and politically elite.
They would love nothing more than to gloss over Saddam's rape chambers.
Who is They? The only person I ever knew who glossed over Saddam's human rights abuses was President Reagan.
Don't they understand that it is necessary to show force to deter greater violence?
Sometimes. On the other hand, killing people doesn't make you many friends.
They will never read 'The Art of War'
Oh dear, do you remember that part about knowing thyself as well as you know the enemy?
Don't they know that taxes are what keep people from becoming rich and only hurt the poor? Sure if you make no money, you pay no tax, but you also are trapped into making no money. No money.
Really? So no taxes! WOO HOO!
Wait. How are you planning on paying for this Iraq war then?
They think Fox News is distorted... They Are Distorted.
Well at least we've figured out who the politically ignorant one is here.
All you've succeeded in doing is build a series of strawman arguments so as to justify your own wild ideology. Too bad you can't just deal with reality instead, it'd be much more helpful.
France was against going after Saddam because their major oil company (ElfOil or some stupid name like that) had made a sweetheart deal for oil. The deal was so good that oil industry experts called in unbelievable. France was in it for the money. They were in it for the oil.
Yes, quite deplorable.
It's a good thing that we took the moral high road by insuring that those oil contracts went to US companies! Damn french, we do not need their pussy assed oil rigs, we can build our own much better and cheaper!
It's a good thing fucktard's like you aren't deciding important issues.
Absolutely! It's much better that we have fucktards who are easily deceived by forged documents deciding the important issues! That way we insure the right and tough decisions are made with the utmost care.
Now the people of Iraq are free and things are improving every day (despite what the news media says).
Well I certainly hope so, I'd hate to think we're over there and just getting shot at for no reason.
Iraqi's protesting in the streets, overturning cop cars and blowing up army supply trucks are what Freedom is all about! It's their own version of the Watt's riots.
Yeah, defend that, asshole. Defend torture. Defend a political prison for children. Defend 40 years of misery caused my a total madman.
You mean like President Reagan did back in 1988 when Senators Gore and Helms sponsored the "Stop Genocide" act in Congress after hearing of all the atrocities being commited over there by chemical and biological weapons?
You're right... Just think, if Reagan had just gotten on board the anti-Saddam train back then we could have combined Gulf War I and II into one bloody conflict and we'd probably be out of there by now. We wouldn't have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, and that bin Forgotten fella wouldn't have gotten so pissed off, and 9/11 might not have happened.
Damn that Reagan!
I bet you get all your news from indymedia. Figures.
Where are we supposed to get news from? Apparently the major media sources are lying to us because they just report all these protests and shootings over in Iraq, which aren't really happening.
Maybe I should just stop watching the news and quit trying to be informed. I can get all my news filtered to me by Whitehouse staff like GW Bush does.
Yes, yes, I think that's the ticket. Life will be so much simpler if I just didn't care.
If anybody needs a clear demonstration of how one can manipulate people by using facts and footnotes, this article is it. Forget about reading Al Franken's book about the right-wing media, this lesson has been adopted all journalists.
Basically the argument boils down to this...
If you look at Office 2003 and see all the wonderful features touted, you may have to pay 10-40% more than previous Office products to take full advantage of all the features touted.
Pay careful attention to that phrase "features touted", as that's the key of this argument. The fact is you don't have to pay for integration if you don't want to use the features. You can continue to use Office with all the existing features it's ever had in a non-integrated fashion and paying about the same.
In fact this guy isn't even arguing that the competition offers the same features for less. They don't. They just assume you don't want them.
So somehow Microsoft is being dishonest in touting features of Office because they might involve integrating with extra server products.
Uhh, whatever.
I'm intelligent, I can look at products from multiple vendors, find out the system requirements to make the product perform the features they claim, and then add up the total cost.
This article is more manipulative and deceptive than Microsoft's marketing group.
Windows media == closed format supported completely over windows and partially on the Mac and *nix. AAC == open format (Mp4) supported completely over all major platforms.
If Windows Media is closed and only available on windows, and AAC is open and available everywhere, then...
How come my Panasonic DVD player knows how to play a disc filled with WMA files but not AAC files?
Sure I can license AAC from Dolby Labs, but I can also license WMA from Microsoft.
I guess I am wondering what your definition of Open and Closed really is.
You can easily convert CD's burnt from Mp4 (AAC) tracks over to mp3 by merely ripping the burnt CD.
Meanwhile with WMA there are tools out there to do the conversion directly at the digital source file. No need to waste a burnt CD for it.
All that I feel coming out of Redmond right now is Hot Air
Are you sure it's not a troll blowing in your ear?
As far as KDE is concerned, Konqueror was patched in 90 minutes.
No Konqueror was patched in the CVS tree in 90 minutes. It took one month before they released a distribution with the patch in it that users could upgrade to.
How long it took for binaries to be released, is no concern of KDE, since KDE deals with the source, not the binaries.
I work for a Fortune 500 company as well, and one of our major web apps is written in a combination of ASP, VB and C++.
It's not clear to me that object oriented programming is a criteria for enterprise applications. Many of our big enterprise apps still use COBOL.
This all depends on how you define scalability, and what the app does. On our app, the web, business logic and data tier is all in VB, the calculation engine is in C++. We use Oracle as a back end. It handles the volume, for now.
Does it scale? Well, that all depends on your definition. Right now we have like 36 two-proc servers handling the load. It scales horizontally, just like PHP in this example.
For the past year they've been rewriting the whole app using C#, and it's almost done. During testing they've been able to handle the same load on four 8-proc servers, which is a bit easier to manage than 36.
"Trusting a VB-only developer to write an Enterprise class application is like having the "tire change boy" be your machanic. It is a stupid choice to make."
It depends. The C++ part of our app costs 4 times more to maintain than the VB part. It may be worth it, it's hard to say. I'm just glad we now have options like Java and C# out there, so I don't have to beat my head against the C++ wall.
The amazing thing is that this point doesn't even matter. The binary and source distribution were released on the same day to the public by the KDE team.
I at least hope you know the difference between a patch in a source tree and a source distribution. Or are you going to try to spin that argument as well?
BTW, the point here is that the Linux community resorts to spin to try to view themselves favorably, and you're just falling right in line with that drum beat.
"And most likely, it's being mis-measured by someone."
It's certainly being mismeasured by the Linux community. While I haven't done a thorough study, I make note of a Konqueror patch that came out last year.
- Linux community touted it as proof patches were fast, because it was into the source tree in 90 minutes - It took one month before KDE released a new binary compiled with the patch - It took an additional month before Redhat incorporated this into a patch for their Linux distribution.
The issue also impacted IE, and it took Microsoft two weeks to release a binary patch on Windows Update.
The Linux community claimed 90 minutes, when it was really two months.
Microsoft counted it accurately as two weeks.
Just reporting good news to yourself doesn't make you better.
Actually 1999 was one of the worst years on record for Microsoft in terms of security, they issued 100 bulletins.
Let's see, since then...
- Introduction of Windows Update - Reorg of development practices to focus on security - Reorg of bulletin and patch release process etc. etc. etc. - Much much more publicity and attention paid to this issue.
While many in the security community continue to berate Microsoft and demand they do better, I am not aware of a single person who would claim Microsoft has not improved dramatically since 1999 in the speed and quality of their patch releases.
Don't you think Linux has also improved over that time period? I've certainly seen it.
The computing world is a moving target. 4 years is at least two generations. Get some updated facts.
Steve Sheldon, Piled Higher and Deeper Chief Super Hero, SodaBlue.ORG
That doesn't make much sense. A Blade isn't a cost justifiable solution for a small business, as you don't just buy one of them... you've got to buy the whole rack and supporting hardware to plug them in. A small Proliant ML would be far far cheaper.
And why would you bother benchmarking a file server for 15-20 seats? We used to server 500 users off a 486DX33 running Novell back in the day. 15-20 seats doesn't constitute a need for benchmarking, you could use anything.
I guess my point is, this hardware seems odd, like it was chosen because Linux would look better on it for some reason. I want to see further details and try to reproduce this benchmark myself.
Something doesn't make sense about that choice. Why not an Proliant ML530 or ML570? Something with RAID, an I/O bus and internal expansion? The BL10 only comes with a single ATA 40 Gig drive, no RAID... and you can't even hook it up to an external fibre array storage box like EMC.
That just seems like a really bizarre choice, almost makes me wonder if they had an ulterior motive.
MDAC in 1997? That would have been version 1.0. Version 1.5 didn't come out until the NT Option Pack was released in early 1998.
So you're claiming that Microsoft has a record of not writing good software based upon a bug you found in a 1.0 version of a product?
Fascinating. BTW, while we're at it... How many bugs have you found in your Java environment? How many times did you have to upgrade to fix them? Where was Java in 1997 and where is it today?
"In my opinion, fabricated terms that begin with "anti-" tend to be used to describe an irrational hatred of something, and that's what I'm seeing here."
...but Apple has proven that it is perfectly possible to have an easy to use environment without having security flaws up the wazoo.
Apple computers aren't prominent in business where most of these features were requested and implemented. So no, that doesn't really address the question, unless you can explain to me how you are able to launch an executable out of an email on a Mac computer without it causing problems.
I don't think you can. Microsoft's response to this issue has been to now prevent users from launching executables. Frankly I think that's a good thing, but it has been viewed as draconian by many users.
Of course its true. On OS X and Linux you can hose up your own files, but not those belonging to the system or other users. 30% hosed is better than 100% hosed.
No, you've created a strawman. The point I was making is that both Linux and Windows allow you to hose up your own files. But you're making the assumption that with Windows you can hose up system files, and that is simply not true unless you do specific acts to allow that... same thing with Linux or OS-X.
Except that OE does it in a half assed way - unless you want to fine tune settings, its either way to restrictive or way too lenient.
Regardless, Outlook 2003 does it correctly and offers exception spam detection as well. I believe it's important to focus on arguing points of current state, not things from 5 years ago, as this doesn't help in educating a consumer who is making a choice today. Just like we should talk about Mac OS-X and not System 7....except for the viruses that set up a service to propogate on a privleged port. Again, not possible on Mac or Linux w/o root.
Not possible on Windows w/o root, either so this argument fails.
And he'll laugh at you when you are as vigilant as can be but get infected because Microsofts half-assed coding, which you have absolutely no control over.
Odd, I've never had any problems with any of my Windows systems at home, ever... I had a system at work get infected with Nimda, but then I'm not responsible for those machines and it pissed me off.
Even if you dislike his points, the main one is still valid: even if OS X had 100% marketshare, it still wouldn't have a fraction of the exploits, worms and viruses that windows has had.
Unfortunately no, I pretty much knocked that point out of the water.
Again, I think it's sad when blind zealotry gets in the way of actually trying to help computer users. I've seen far too many people burned by ill thought out recommendations to switch to Mac or Linux.
Mr. Granneman provides two reasons to support his argument as to why the most popular OS, Windows, has more viruses.
He calles these Social Engineering, and Poorly Designed Software.
With regards to the Social Engineering claim, the logic that Granneman uses is basically that tasks are so difficult to do in Linux that no user would be able to put themselves at risk.
This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user. Instead of just reading an email (... just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable.
Unfortunately this argument fails to address why Windows is the dominant OS... that being that Microsoft listened to consumers and provided them tools that worked easily. So it is this very functionality which makes Windows popular and weak at the same time.
Mr. Granneman then goes off on a tangent claiming that the real problem is running as local admin.
Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system.
But this is obviously not true. In most corporate environments end users do not run as root, yet viruses still do great damage. Even as a normal user, a virus still has access to all the files in the users home directory, shared file server shares, etc. Furthermore a virus can run in memory during the users session.
The main impact that running as root as on the spreading of viruses is the cost of having to clean up the local machine, either by running some script or by reinstalling the base OS and applications. This can be a signifigant cost, but it's not related to the spread of viruses.
It's also interesting to note that Mr. Granneman does not make any distinction between worms and viruses... although in todays networked world there is no distinction. Apparently Mr. Granneman thought by not mentioning the term he wouldn't have to discuss the high impact worms have had on Linux installations.
Mr. Granneman also brings up the worn out argument of biodiversity with regards to computer operating systems. Anybody who has had time to study biology certainly understands the issue and the risks associated with having only one strain of bannanas for instance.
In the same way that genetic diversity in a population of living creatures is desirable because it reduces the likelihood that an illness - like a virus - will utterly wipe out every animal or plant, diversity in computing environments helps to protect the users of those devices.
But Mr. Granneman ignores the major difference between genetic organisms and computer software... i.e. software is easier to change. Thus making the analogy trite and irrelevant, and if anything he is simply arguing for Security via Obscurity. This may be important in genetics when you have no other choice, but is it the wisest course for computer systems? Few would agree on that one.
Mr. Granneman then talks about software design, but sadly his knowledge is severely outdated. He makes this statement:
Further, the email programs themselves are designed to act in a more secure manner. The default behavior of the email program I prefer - KMail - is to not load external references in messages, such as pictures and Web bugs, and to not display HTML.
But obviously has failed to look at Outlook 2003 to find that it behaves in nearly the exactly same way with regards to external HTML images, and that Outlook 2002 and 2000(with patches) had settings which prevented all scripts, activeX, whatever from executing anyway.
So Mr. Granneman would rather spread FUD, tell us the sky is falling, then
Slashdot Mirror
From a consumer standpoint the problem is NOT that this "Shop for Music" feature included with Windows XP only opens IE.
The problem IS that this "Shop for Music" is even in the OS to begin with.
I don't need this crap, I don't want this crap, and it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be forced to have to deal with embedded advertising to use an OS, or an application we paid for.
And I guess you didn't see foxnews.com's coverage on Arnold about his past comments and womenizing.
What's this gotta do with the fact that RIAA is led by a Republican lobbyist?
Fantastic example of a Linux Priest... spouting dogma without fact checking, distorting the argument in ways that confirm your preconceived notions.
I congratulate you!
No they don't.
/. as displayed on July 18th.
I just linked to an article about an Apache security release(1.3.28) posted on July 18th, followed by the frontpage of
Please dispute that one, there are others.
So what kind of zealot am I? Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot?
You talk about being critical, non-partisan and staying away from flamebait, but yet you called people MS apologists, called SCO a terrorist organization and said we shouldn't read Enderle's article and make up our own minds.
I know how the game is played, I've been here too long. Sure you can be critical of things and get mod points as long as you maintain the Populist rhetoric...
I am an Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot, and I'm calling you out on it.
And none of this excuse-making and selective interpretation could ever remotely be described as "weasely"?
What excuse? I was pointing out what the ACLU does and why they do what they do.
Let's take Slashdot as an example. If you post a well thought-out post about Windows' strengths and it is on-topic for the debate, you will see very few flames, if any. However, most of the pro-Windows posts here are exactly that: Pro-Windows to an extreme, and they attract attention.
Interesting, that's not been my experience since 1997.
especially considering the fact that open-source product Apache, which is more widely used than any other web server, has had far fewer security holes than Microsoft's IIS.
The fact that Apache vulnerabilities don't make it to the frontpage of slashdot might not be a contributing factor to your perception of the facts?
So you see, these attacks you speak of against criticism of open-source or Linux are often ignited by ignorant rants by Microsoft apologists who post flamebait, either unknowingly, or fully aware of what they are doing.
Microsoft apologists? I thought you were pretending to be non-partisan.
And regarding the SCO matter, SCO is behaving more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of.
I'm with the Pros on this one. I don't know what SCOs game was. Never really trusted the company myself, but to call them a terrorist?
Finally, why should this article be thrown in the trash? Have you read other articles by Rob Enderle?
Yes I have, they're generally thoughtful and raise good issues.
A short while ago, another article of his was posted on Slashdot, and I was amazed and left speechless in disgust at this man's incredible disregard for facts and common decency.
Which facts might those be? Are you even aware of facts, or are you just presenting anecdotal stories as facts?
So that is why he is attacked. Rob Enderle is an eternal FUD and garbage machine, spewing out nonsense and flamebait. Don't take his word for anything, but rather ignore him, or if you must read his drivel, check every single claim of his carefully.
Well I think this makes it clear.
You, sir, are a Zealot.
The RIAA is led by a Republican lobbyist.
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59803
Could it be because they're a "civil rights" organization that picks and chooses which of your civil rights you should get to keep?
Limited resources. They tend to come in and defend those who don't otherwise have anybody defending them.
For example, they're always available to help prevent the "establishment" of religion, but they're never around to preserve the "free-exercise" of it.
I don't know, they defended the Nazi's in Skokie back in '76. That was pretty brave.
I think the problem with this addendum argument is that many people unfortunately view "free-excercise" of religion as state sponsored religious indoctrination. The Bill of Rights is quite clear, the state should not be influencing religion. Now if religion wants to influence the state, go right ahead, that's their right, but you do it on your own time using your own resources... see?
Free speech is good, but free association is bad in the ACLU world.
I don't think you know who the ACLU is.
The UN has sent inspectors to guatanamo and verified the prisoners are well treated, so don't even fucking try to compare it to Saddam's pits of torture.
It was the Red Cross.
It amazes me on how a class of people who credit themselves with being technically elite can be so politically ignorant in such a large percentage.
Fortunatelly I'm technically and politically elite.
They would love nothing more than to gloss over Saddam's rape chambers.
Who is They? The only person I ever knew who glossed over Saddam's human rights abuses was President Reagan.
Don't they understand that it is necessary to show force to deter greater violence?
Sometimes. On the other hand, killing people doesn't make you many friends.
They will never read 'The Art of War'
Oh dear, do you remember that part about knowing thyself as well as you know the enemy?
Don't they know that taxes are what keep people from becoming rich and only hurt the poor? Sure if you make no money, you pay no tax, but you also are trapped into making no money. No money.
Really? So no taxes! WOO HOO!
Wait. How are you planning on paying for this Iraq war then?
They think Fox News is distorted... They Are Distorted.
Well at least we've figured out who the politically ignorant one is here.
All you've succeeded in doing is build a series of strawman arguments so as to justify your own wild ideology. Too bad you can't just deal with reality instead, it'd be much more helpful.
France was against going after Saddam because their major oil company (ElfOil or some stupid name like that) had made a sweetheart deal for oil. The deal was so good that oil industry experts called in unbelievable. France was in it for the money. They were in it for the oil.
Yes, quite deplorable.
It's a good thing that we took the moral high road by insuring that those oil contracts went to US companies! Damn french, we do not need their pussy assed oil rigs, we can build our own much better and cheaper!
It's a good thing fucktard's like you aren't deciding important issues.
Absolutely! It's much better that we have fucktards who are easily deceived by forged documents deciding the important issues! That way we insure the right and tough decisions are made with the utmost care.
Now the people of Iraq are free and things are improving every day (despite what the news media says).
Well I certainly hope so, I'd hate to think we're over there and just getting shot at for no reason.
Iraqi's protesting in the streets, overturning cop cars and blowing up army supply trucks are what Freedom is all about! It's their own version of the Watt's riots.
Yeah, defend that, asshole. Defend torture. Defend a political prison for children. Defend 40 years of misery caused my a total madman.
You mean like President Reagan did back in 1988 when Senators Gore and Helms sponsored the "Stop Genocide" act in Congress after hearing of all the atrocities being commited over there by chemical and biological weapons?
You're right... Just think, if Reagan had just gotten on board the anti-Saddam train back then we could have combined Gulf War I and II into one bloody conflict and we'd probably be out of there by now. We wouldn't have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, and that bin Forgotten fella wouldn't have gotten so pissed off, and 9/11 might not have happened.
Damn that Reagan!
I bet you get all your news from indymedia. Figures.
Where are we supposed to get news from? Apparently the major media sources are lying to us because they just report all these protests and shootings over in Iraq, which aren't really happening.
Maybe I should just stop watching the news and quit trying to be informed. I can get all my news filtered to me by Whitehouse staff like GW Bush does.
Yes, yes, I think that's the ticket. Life will be so much simpler if I just didn't care.
If anybody needs a clear demonstration of how one can manipulate people by using facts and footnotes, this article is it. Forget about reading Al Franken's book about the right-wing media, this lesson has been adopted all journalists.
Basically the argument boils down to this...
If you look at Office 2003 and see all the wonderful features touted, you may have to pay 10-40% more than previous Office products to take full advantage of all the features touted.
Pay careful attention to that phrase "features touted", as that's the key of this argument. The fact is you don't have to pay for integration if you don't want to use the features. You can continue to use Office with all the existing features it's ever had in a non-integrated fashion and paying about the same.
In fact this guy isn't even arguing that the competition offers the same features for less. They don't. They just assume you don't want them.
So somehow Microsoft is being dishonest in touting features of Office because they might involve integrating with extra server products.
Uhh, whatever.
I'm intelligent, I can look at products from multiple vendors, find out the system requirements to make the product perform the features they claim, and then add up the total cost.
This article is more manipulative and deceptive than Microsoft's marketing group.
Windows media == closed format supported completely over windows and partially on the Mac and *nix. AAC == open format (Mp4) supported completely over all major platforms.
If Windows Media is closed and only available on windows, and AAC is open and available everywhere, then...
How come my Panasonic DVD player knows how to play a disc filled with WMA files but not AAC files?
Sure I can license AAC from Dolby Labs, but I can also license WMA from Microsoft.
I guess I am wondering what your definition of Open and Closed really is.
You can easily convert CD's burnt from Mp4 (AAC) tracks over to mp3 by merely ripping the burnt CD.
Meanwhile with WMA there are tools out there to do the conversion directly at the digital source file. No need to waste a burnt CD for it.
All that I feel coming out of Redmond right now is Hot Air
Are you sure it's not a troll blowing in your ear?
As far as KDE is concerned, Konqueror was patched in 90 minutes.
No Konqueror was patched in the CVS tree in 90 minutes. It took one month before they released a distribution with the patch in it that users could upgrade to.
How long it took for binaries to be released, is no concern of KDE, since KDE deals with the source, not the binaries.
This point is still irrelevant.
I don't see how this spin benefits your argument.
I work for a Fortune 500 company as well, and one of our major web apps is written in a combination of ASP, VB and C++.
It's not clear to me that object oriented programming is a criteria for enterprise applications. Many of our big enterprise apps still use COBOL.
This all depends on how you define scalability, and what the app does. On our app, the web, business logic and data tier is all in VB, the calculation engine is in C++. We use Oracle as a back end. It handles the volume, for now.
Does it scale? Well, that all depends on your definition. Right now we have like 36 two-proc servers handling the load. It scales horizontally, just like PHP in this example.
For the past year they've been rewriting the whole app using C#, and it's almost done. During testing they've been able to handle the same load on four 8-proc servers, which is a bit easier to manage than 36.
"Trusting a VB-only developer to write an Enterprise class application is like having the "tire change boy" be your machanic. It is a stupid choice to make."
It depends. The C++ part of our app costs 4 times more to maintain than the VB part. It may be worth it, it's hard to say. I'm just glad we now have options like Java and C# out there, so I don't have to beat my head against the C++ wall.
Wow, talk about spin.
The amazing thing is that this point doesn't even matter. The binary and source distribution were released on the same day to the public by the KDE team.
I at least hope you know the difference between a patch in a source tree and a source distribution. Or are you going to try to spin that argument as well?
BTW, the point here is that the Linux community resorts to spin to try to view themselves favorably, and you're just falling right in line with that drum beat.
Doesn't it ever get just a tiny bit boring trolling for Microsoft?
Can one ever get tired of reporting the truth? I don't see how.
KDE do *NOT* release binaries.
Have you looked at the KDE.org website lately to see what they release?
KDE can be obtained in source and numerous binary formats from http://download.kde.org and can also be obtained on CD-ROM or with any of the major GNU/Linux - UNIX systems shipping today.
Lets put it this way - a patch was released that allowed any user to fix their system, in 90 minutes, by KDE.
Or more specifically, computer professionals with experience compiling applications. A relatively small minority of those who use computers.
How the *fuck* can you try to spin that Microsofts way?
No spin involved at all.
I can recompile an entire Linux system, but why the fuck should I have to? And how the fuck do you expect my mother to do this?
"And most likely, it's being mis-measured by someone."
It's certainly being mismeasured by the Linux community. While I haven't done a thorough study, I make note of a Konqueror patch that came out last year.
- Linux community touted it as proof patches were fast, because it was into the source tree in 90 minutes
- It took one month before KDE released a new binary compiled with the patch
- It took an additional month before Redhat incorporated this into a patch for their Linux distribution.
The issue also impacted IE, and it took Microsoft two weeks to release a binary patch on Windows Update.
The Linux community claimed 90 minutes, when it was really two months.
Microsoft counted it accurately as two weeks.
Just reporting good news to yourself doesn't make you better.
Actually 1999 was one of the worst years on record for Microsoft in terms of security, they issued 100 bulletins.
Let's see, since then...
- Introduction of Windows Update
- Reorg of development practices to focus on security
- Reorg of bulletin and patch release process
etc. etc. etc.
- Much much more publicity and attention paid to this issue.
While many in the security community continue to berate Microsoft and demand they do better, I am not aware of a single person who would claim Microsoft has not improved dramatically since 1999 in the speed and quality of their patch releases.
Don't you think Linux has also improved over that time period? I've certainly seen it.
The computing world is a moving target. 4 years is at least two generations. Get some updated facts.
Steve Sheldon, Piled Higher and Deeper
Chief Super Hero, SodaBlue.ORG
That doesn't make much sense. A Blade isn't a cost justifiable solution for a small business, as you don't just buy one of them... you've got to buy the whole rack and supporting hardware to plug them in. A small Proliant ML would be far far cheaper.
And why would you bother benchmarking a file server for 15-20 seats? We used to server 500 users off a 486DX33 running Novell back in the day. 15-20 seats doesn't constitute a need for benchmarking, you could use anything.
I guess my point is, this hardware seems odd, like it was chosen because Linux would look better on it for some reason. I want to see further details and try to reproduce this benchmark myself.
Wait a minute. The BL10 is a Blade server.
Who would use a Blade for a file server?
Something doesn't make sense about that choice. Why not an Proliant ML530 or ML570? Something with RAID, an I/O bus and internal expansion? The BL10 only comes with a single ATA 40 Gig drive, no RAID... and you can't even hook it up to an external fibre array storage box like EMC.
That just seems like a really bizarre choice, almost makes me wonder if they had an ulterior motive.
MDAC in 1997? That would have been version 1.0. Version 1.5 didn't come out until the NT Option Pack was released in early 1998.
So you're claiming that Microsoft has a record of not writing good software based upon a bug you found in a 1.0 version of a product?
Fascinating. BTW, while we're at it... How many bugs have you found in your Java environment? How many times did you have to upgrade to fix them? Where was Java in 1997 and where is it today?
"In my opinion, fabricated terms that begin with "anti-" tend to be used to describe an irrational hatred of something, and that's what I'm seeing here."
Don't you have an irrational hatred of something?
...but Apple has proven that it is perfectly possible to have an easy to use environment without having security flaws up the wazoo.
...except for the viruses that set up a service to propogate on a privleged port. Again, not possible on Mac or Linux w/o root.
Apple computers aren't prominent in business where most of these features were requested and implemented. So no, that doesn't really address the question, unless you can explain to me how you are able to launch an executable out of an email on a Mac computer without it causing problems.
I don't think you can. Microsoft's response to this issue has been to now prevent users from launching executables. Frankly I think that's a good thing, but it has been viewed as draconian by many users.
Of course its true. On OS X and Linux you can hose up your own files, but not those belonging to the system or other users. 30% hosed is better than 100% hosed.
No, you've created a strawman. The point I was making is that both Linux and Windows allow you to hose up your own files. But you're making the assumption that with Windows you can hose up system files, and that is simply not true unless you do specific acts to allow that... same thing with Linux or OS-X.
Except that OE does it in a half assed way - unless you want to fine tune settings, its either way to restrictive or way too lenient.
Regardless, Outlook 2003 does it correctly and offers exception spam detection as well. I believe it's important to focus on arguing points of current state, not things from 5 years ago, as this doesn't help in educating a consumer who is making a choice today. Just like we should talk about Mac OS-X and not System 7.
Not possible on Windows w/o root, either so this argument fails.
And he'll laugh at you when you are as vigilant as can be but get infected because Microsofts half-assed coding, which you have absolutely no control over.
Odd, I've never had any problems with any of my Windows systems at home, ever... I had a system at work get infected with Nimda, but then I'm not responsible for those machines and it pissed me off.
Even if you dislike his points, the main one is still valid: even if OS X had 100% marketshare, it still wouldn't have a fraction of the exploits, worms and viruses that windows has had.
Unfortunately no, I pretty much knocked that point out of the water.
Again, I think it's sad when blind zealotry gets in the way of actually trying to help computer users. I've seen far too many people burned by ill thought out recommendations to switch to Mac or Linux.
He calles these Social Engineering, and Poorly Designed Software.
With regards to the Social Engineering claim, the logic that Granneman uses is basically that tasks are so difficult to do in Linux that no user would be able to put themselves at risk.
Unfortunately this argument fails to address why Windows is the dominant OS... that being that Microsoft listened to consumers and provided them tools that worked easily. So it is this very functionality which makes Windows popular and weak at the same time.
Mr. Granneman then goes off on a tangent claiming that the real problem is running as local admin.
But this is obviously not true. In most corporate environments end users do not run as root, yet viruses still do great damage. Even as a normal user, a virus still has access to all the files in the users home directory, shared file server shares, etc. Furthermore a virus can run in memory during the users session.
The main impact that running as root as on the spreading of viruses is the cost of having to clean up the local machine, either by running some script or by reinstalling the base OS and applications. This can be a signifigant cost, but it's not related to the spread of viruses.
It's also interesting to note that Mr. Granneman does not make any distinction between worms and viruses... although in todays networked world there is no distinction. Apparently Mr. Granneman thought by not mentioning the term he wouldn't have to discuss the high impact worms have had on Linux installations.
Mr. Granneman also brings up the worn out argument of biodiversity with regards to computer operating systems. Anybody who has had time to study biology certainly understands the issue and the risks associated with having only one strain of bannanas for instance.
But Mr. Granneman ignores the major difference between genetic organisms and computer software... i.e. software is easier to change. Thus making the analogy trite and irrelevant, and if anything he is simply arguing for Security via Obscurity. This may be important in genetics when you have no other choice, but is it the wisest course for computer systems? Few would agree on that one.
Mr. Granneman then talks about software design, but sadly his knowledge is severely outdated. He makes this statement:
But obviously has failed to look at Outlook 2003 to find that it behaves in nearly the exactly same way with regards to external HTML images, and that Outlook 2002 and 2000(with patches) had settings which prevented all scripts, activeX, whatever from executing anyway.
So Mr. Granneman would rather spread FUD, tell us the sky is falling, then