Seems kind of puzzling considering the recent cases in past years involving Amazon.com being sued for selling a book(Mein Kampf).
Then there's that whole Germany/Scientology connection thing.
Looks to me like this ranking is particularly skewed... as long as you define freedom as publishing the official government sanctioned news, then Pravda should be #1.:-)
I notice you are unwilling to take credit for your words... that is wise.
"False. TCP/IP won on technical reasons not because of the BSD license."
Why do you think this is an either/or proposition? TCP/IP won over something like say NetBEUI or IPX/SPX for technical reasons, but it was widely adopted largely due to licensing arrangements. That made it a win-win scenario, which we all like to see.
"Again false. Commercialization != proprietary."
I never used the term proprietary. The fact is the GPL does prevent companies from making money from selling software. That goes above and beyond the notion of open and proprietary. As has been pointed out before TCP/IP is an open standard, and there are open source implementations of it, and it has been widely commercialized.
I cannot think of a single instance where a GPL'ed piece of software has had nearly the wide adoption of software licensed under BSD. Apache, sendmail, bind, etc. all use BSD style licenses.
"This amounts to a federal subsidy for commercial interests."
You haven't read the Bayh-Dole act, have you? It grants Federal research institutions the rights to license and patent the work they do. One of the other ongoing goals in this realm is to help make research institutions somewhat self-funding through licensing fees.
So it's not a federal subsidy for commercial interests at all.
"If my tax dollars are used in a project by a company that pays no taxes (yet wants rights like a normal citizen) then I demand my fair share of the work."
Which is why I recommend the BSD license at a minimum. Using said license you have just as much access to the software as does the corporations who might wish to utilize it. Using the GPL, the software is only good for end-users, not developers... thus this limits the availability of the technology in the marketplace.
"Sounds to me like you do not understand the GPL and probably are watching it rain outside your office window on One Microsoft Way."
Sounds to me like you've been sniffing to much glue.
You make it sound as though the GPL imposes requirements on corporations that it does not impose on natural persons. I find that bizarre, and don't understand where that reading is coming from.
The GPL imposes requirements on developers that it does not impose on end-users. When people talk about corporations, replace that word with developers, and it'll all start to make sense to you.
As far as your irrational fear of developers using work in their own product. You never lose the original.
1) They use the Internet, by virtue of TCP/IP, as "proof" of their thesis.
Very insightful. If the TCP/IP libraries and utilities from the BSD distribution had been GPL'ed, the technology would never have been integrated into so widely a diverse population of operating systems and utilities. That is, you would not today see Macintosh, Windows, Netware, Solaris and many other systems supporting it. These companies would have had to come up with something different, and more than likely not one of them would interoperate with the other. So we'd still be back in the world of AOL, Prodigy, MSN and Compuserve.
2) They state that you cannot improve OR adopt OR commercialize GPL software.
Do they really? My guess is they said you cannot improve or adopt it for commercialization. Which is true, and is one of the fundamental points of GNU.
3) They state that you cannot integrate GPL'd software with proprietery software.
This is true as well.
4) They say you should keep publicly funded code away from the public sector, so that proprietary interests can make money from the work.
This is pretty much in tune with the Technology Transition legislation passed back in 1980 promoting collaborative work between commercial and research entities. Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler acts.
Sounds to me like these representatives do understand the GPL and are willing to discuss it in an intelligent manner. I find it curious that the only way the GPL defenders can push their agenda is by distorting the purposes of the GPL. Sounds intellectually dishonest to me.
Maybe, just maybe... the EULA doesn't violate the banking laws.
WHAT!? Shocking, I know, that's not what you've been told by the anti-MS hoards on slashdot. But reading through the EULA it doesn't appear to give Microsoft any rights to transmit private information. All it talks about is the versioning of the OS and components.
That's what I don't understand about these articles. Not once do they quote a lawyer to support their suppositions. Doesn't that make this article FUD? I can see no other definition for it.
All these articles from journalists complaining about Windows EULA, and quoting people at hospitals, financial institutions and so forth and asking them if they are afraid. But not once do they ever actually quote a lawyer who can interpret the real legal language.
I work for a Fortune 30 company, we're moving to XP. We're also a financial institution. Our lawyers looked over the licensing and saw nothing to be concerned with.
I've spoken to other people in this industry who are in the same situation.
It almost seems like the media is trying to promote FUD concerning Windows. Of course we all know that/. would never do something that hypocritical, right? I mean promoting FUD about Windows to further some weird Linux agenda.
Re:LCDs work fine, with some small issues...
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 2
"Your video card may be generating the frames that fast but the LCD sure isn't displaying them that fast."
The point is, I'm not seeing this blurring you speak of.
It simply sounds like your FPS and response time argument is not very well thought out. That is, in theory it sounds good on paper, but not in practice.
CDNow didn't get hacked(unless I missed a news story?), it was CDUniverse...
I'm a customer of both, and I only ever received a letter from CDUniverse describing this, but by the time it happened that card had already expired and been replaced.
LCDs work fine, with some small issues...
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hmm. I have a pair of NEC 1530V monitors connected to a 1.2Ghz PIII with GeForce4 MX440 video card. Playing RTCW I get around 80-90 FPS on interior scenes and maybe 40 on exterior.
I don't notice any blurring, or have any problem playing the game. There may be some, but it's not substantial enough to be an issue.
Contrast is an issue in games. Whenever I start up the game, I have to go in and manually adjust the contrast settings. Once I do that, then I can see in all the dark corners, etc.
I'd have to say your comments are based on the LCD screens that we had available 4-5 years ago, or even on some of the cheaper laptops today. Either that or you are exagerrating the issues.
I just purchased an SX-835 case from their Performance II line and it came with the SL350 power supply. I only paid $109 for the case w/PS, plus $15 to ship it.
I'm pretty impressed with the build quality overall of both the Antec power supply and case and it offers plenty of cooling options. I wish they looked prettier, but they are highly functional.
"Except that it's open and free for use, encouraged on all platforms."
Which isn't particularly important to most people, and rendezvous is of no interest really to corporations other than the fact one of it's goals is to not break the corporate LAN.
"NetBIOS is pretty much limited to Windows, and it's kludgy on other OSes. Plus it's proprietary and somewhat unreliable."
Well NetBIOS was an IBM thing, so it did work from OS/2. It is a kludge, but it works, and it has worked for 10 years. Plus I no longer care as Win2k started moving away from it and towards the Active Directory infrastructure using DDNS.
Yes, rendezvous is a cleaned up implementation because they saw it already done before. NetBIOS has suffered from a constant series of kludges to fix issues. My point was only that this isn't anything new, it's been around for 10 years. I don't understand why the/. geeks get so excited about Apple stuff, considering they haven't innovated in nearly 20 years. Apple seems to do a better job marketing, but then I guess Microsoft probably is not interested in making a big deal about features they have had for over 10 years.
If you run NetBIOS over TCP/IP, you start introducing the computer browsing services which acts as a cache for locating machines. This helps to reduce the amount of broadcast packets flying around, and makes NetBIOS slightly more scalable. Then you have WINS and all that sort of stuff which solves most of the other issues, if you want to go to an NT domain model.
I hope when you're talking about clustering, you don't mean Beowulf?
I find most Linux advocates don't understand the first thing about clustering, and keep misusing the term. Generally speaking for a web server you need limited clustering, that is you just want to do load balancing. But you also want to monitor the servers such that if one fails you take it out of the loop.
I don't feel that's a valid reason for them to sign an NDA.
Besides, the fact that there is an NDA means they received something in compensation, which again points to the fact that they were paid handsomly to switch. Sorry, I'm not a Microsoft apologists, but the Apple commercials stink to high heaven.
I realize that their intended audience was Mac zealots, but that seems silly if they actually want to convince people to buy their product.
USNews & World Report reported this past summer that the Apple switch ads are questionable. They tried to interview the actual people in the ads, but apparently they are all under NDA.
They were allowed to interview two of them, but only with an Apple representative present. Sounds like they were trying to interview someone living in Iraq?
Furthermore, all of the Apple switchers were paid for their involvement. Who wouldn't switch if they were given a free Powerbook + expenses? Then it also turns out that many of the "switchers" have employment connections with Apple, or work for magazines which receive large amounts of Apple advertising, etc.
It's just kind of interesting. Microsoft's advertising tactics have never been as unethical as what Apple has been doing with the switch campaign, and yet who bears the brunt of the attacks here?
AmiPro was a Win3.1 product, and was quite competitive in the market.
However when Win95 came out, Lotus replaced AmiPro with WordPro. WordPro had a much better user interface, it was more consistent and so forth. I really liked to use it better than Word.
However, WordPro was not compatible with AmiPro, so companies looking to migrate had very little to gain by staying with Lotus. Also the first versions of WordPro to be shipped were filled with huge massive bugs. Memory leaks and so forth that were so bad you couldn't run the software for more than maybe 30 minutes without crashing.
I worked for a company that had standardized on Lotus, and when we migrated to NT4 we gave up on it and moved to Office 97. Oh, also at the time, Lotus was charging more for their suite than Microsoft, mainly because they thought they at least had us locked in with Lotus 123.
Is that the way Microsoft went about killing Netscape was by building a browser that could be easily customized and utilized to create client side applications.
Internet Explorer has been doing what this book talks about since about 1997. It is the reason why many products like Quicken, etc. require IE to install, and by requiring IE, Microsoft guarantees universal deployment of the browser. In so doing, they chipped away at Netscapes marketshare.
Sorry, I just chuckle whenever I hear people talk about this with regards to Mozilla as if it's a new concept. You mean you never knew you could do this with IE?
A number of us in the Windows community balked at the initial licensing. The lead developer of the GotDotNet workspaces actually joined into the conversation trying to defend the team's lawyers. It appears that the initial licensing was written with a heavy emphasis on CYA, without much thought to whether or not people would agree to it.
Microsoft listened to our arguments, and adjusted the licensing to be friendlier within a day or two. I still think it's rather ridiculous language but it is similar to that found at sourceforge.net and even such places as yahoo, etc. Why lawyers feel they need permission to redistribute stuff that you obviously uploaded with the intent of redistributing is beyond my ability to rationalize.
Anyway, I'm surprised it's taken this long for this to hit/., usually anti-MS news is posted quickly, and the good stuff, like the release of Visual Studio.NET, is ignored.
Actually chances are this person at the ad agency decided to throw this together as a trial to see how it would take.
Then someone in marketing found out about it and called the ad agency asking them to pull it because it's a completely worthless ad campaign. Apple's switch commercials have generated a lot of bad press for the company, mostly with parodies and spoofs, and have done nothing to convince non-current Mac owners to buy a new Mac. To copy this bad campaign from the Microsoft side would just look pathetic.
Apple unfortunately has a long history of this... their commercials target the Mac faithful. I guess you could call this the innovator's dilemna, because if Apple started targetting the Macintosh towards the Windows market they would alienate the "Think Different" people who only buy Mac's because they aren't mainstream.
In the end, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit anyway. Well except maybe slashdot, but they try to make headlines out of anything that can be twisted in an anti-Microsoft way.
I love this one: "Although few survey participants did so, RFG believes IT executives should consider commercial support options to increase the success rates for their Linux deployments."
GREAT!? Why don't you tell us how much it's going to fucking cost me? What do you mean under $10?
You know, I can admin Solaris and Windows also by doing nothing but reading usenet newsgroups. Actually so far, that's generally been my first place to look for answers.
Also, why did they decide to compare Solaris on x86? From my experience Solaris runs better on Sun hardware, notably SPARC systems. I've never seen a company deploy Solaris on anything but Sparc, which is largely why Sun talked about dropping support for the x86 version.
Good to see another common sense person from Minnesota!
"Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?"
Uhh, built into the OS. NT4 had a good deal of remote administration capabilities, but they were further expanded with the Win2k release..Net Server 2003 will be able to run headless for those who want to deploy blade server farms.
"I have never seen Microsoft brag about their remote CLI management."
Go lookup a few keywords on google.com like WSH, WMI, Resource Kit, etc.
"Also, I was calling the "Zombied Windows Server Admins" idiots not all Windows Server Admins. Reading is fundamental..."
Regardless, the insult was unnecessary and inappropriate. Quit demostrating that the Linux community is full of nothing but technical know-nothings.
"A low UID is not a license to be rude, and snide comments are especially out of place when they are misinformed. I suggest a calmative, followed by a period of quiet reflection."
I suggest a laxative.
Reread what I wrote, understand the issues and quit trying to play Mr./. security expert.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems kind of puzzling considering the recent cases in past years involving Amazon.com being sued for selling a book(Mein Kampf).
:-)
Then there's that whole Germany/Scientology connection thing.
Looks to me like this ranking is particularly skewed... as long as you define freedom as publishing the official government sanctioned news, then Pravda should be #1.
I notice you are unwilling to take credit for your words... that is wise.
"False. TCP/IP won on technical reasons not because of the BSD license."
Why do you think this is an either/or proposition? TCP/IP won over something like say NetBEUI or IPX/SPX for technical reasons, but it was widely adopted largely due to licensing arrangements. That made it a win-win scenario, which we all like to see.
"Again false. Commercialization != proprietary."
I never used the term proprietary. The fact is the GPL does prevent companies from making money from selling software. That goes above and beyond the notion of open and proprietary. As has been pointed out before TCP/IP is an open standard, and there are open source implementations of it, and it has been widely commercialized.
I cannot think of a single instance where a GPL'ed piece of software has had nearly the wide adoption of software licensed under BSD. Apache, sendmail, bind, etc. all use BSD style licenses.
"This amounts to a federal subsidy for commercial interests."
You haven't read the Bayh-Dole act, have you? It grants Federal research institutions the rights to license and patent the work they do. One of the other ongoing goals in this realm is to help make research institutions somewhat self-funding through licensing fees.
So it's not a federal subsidy for commercial interests at all.
"If my tax dollars are used in a project by a company that pays no taxes (yet wants rights like a normal citizen) then I demand my fair share of the work."
Which is why I recommend the BSD license at a minimum. Using said license you have just as much access to the software as does the corporations who might wish to utilize it. Using the GPL, the software is only good for end-users, not developers... thus this limits the availability of the technology in the marketplace.
"Sounds to me like you do not understand the GPL and probably are watching it rain outside your office window on One Microsoft Way."
Sounds to me like you've been sniffing to much glue.
You make it sound as though the GPL imposes requirements on corporations that it does not impose on natural persons. I find that bizarre, and don't understand where that reading is coming from.
The GPL imposes requirements on developers that it does not impose on end-users. When people talk about corporations, replace that word with developers, and it'll all start to make sense to you.
As far as your irrational fear of developers using work in their own product. You never lose the original.
Let's look at these points...
1) They use the Internet, by virtue of TCP/IP, as "proof" of their thesis.
Very insightful. If the TCP/IP libraries and utilities from the BSD distribution had been GPL'ed, the technology would never have been integrated into so widely a diverse population of operating systems and utilities. That is, you would not today see Macintosh, Windows, Netware, Solaris and many other systems supporting it. These companies would have had to come up with something different, and more than likely not one of them would interoperate with the other. So we'd still be back in the world of AOL, Prodigy, MSN and Compuserve.
2) They state that you cannot improve OR adopt OR commercialize GPL software.
Do they really? My guess is they said you cannot improve or adopt it for commercialization. Which is true, and is one of the fundamental points of GNU.
3) They state that you cannot integrate GPL'd software with proprietery software.
This is true as well.
4) They say you should keep publicly funded code away from the public sector, so that proprietary interests can make money from the work.
This is pretty much in tune with the Technology Transition legislation passed back in 1980 promoting collaborative work between commercial and research entities. Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler acts.
Sounds to me like these representatives do understand the GPL and are willing to discuss it in an intelligent manner. I find it curious that the only way the GPL defenders can push their agenda is by distorting the purposes of the GPL. Sounds intellectually dishonest to me.
Ok, now hear me out on this one.
Maybe, just maybe... the EULA doesn't violate the banking laws.
WHAT!? Shocking, I know, that's not what you've been told by the anti-MS hoards on slashdot. But reading through the EULA it doesn't appear to give Microsoft any rights to transmit private information. All it talks about is the versioning of the OS and components.
That's what I don't understand about these articles. Not once do they quote a lawyer to support their suppositions. Doesn't that make this article FUD? I can see no other definition for it.
Just seems rather odd, doesn't it?
/. would never do something that hypocritical, right? I mean promoting FUD about Windows to further some weird Linux agenda.
All these articles from journalists complaining about Windows EULA, and quoting people at hospitals, financial institutions and so forth and asking them if they are afraid. But not once do they ever actually quote a lawyer who can interpret the real legal language.
I work for a Fortune 30 company, we're moving to XP. We're also a financial institution. Our lawyers looked over the licensing and saw nothing to be concerned with.
I've spoken to other people in this industry who are in the same situation.
It almost seems like the media is trying to promote FUD concerning Windows. Of course we all know that
"Your video card may be generating the frames that fast but the LCD sure isn't displaying them that fast."
The point is, I'm not seeing this blurring you speak of.
It simply sounds like your FPS and response time argument is not very well thought out. That is, in theory it sounds good on paper, but not in practice.
From what I've read Palladium isn't about Digital Rights Management.
Why is your discussion of Palladium concerned with DRM?
CDNow didn't get hacked(unless I missed a news story?), it was CDUniverse...
I'm a customer of both, and I only ever received a letter from CDUniverse describing this, but by the time it happened that card had already expired and been replaced.
Hmm. I have a pair of NEC 1530V monitors connected to a 1.2Ghz PIII with GeForce4 MX440 video card. Playing RTCW I get around 80-90 FPS on interior scenes and maybe 40 on exterior.
I don't notice any blurring, or have any problem playing the game. There may be some, but it's not substantial enough to be an issue.
Contrast is an issue in games. Whenever I start up the game, I have to go in and manually adjust the contrast settings. Once I do that, then I can see in all the dark corners, etc.
I'd have to say your comments are based on the LCD screens that we had available 4-5 years ago, or even on some of the cheaper laptops today. Either that or you are exagerrating the issues.
I just purchased an SX-835 case from their Performance II line and it came with the SL350 power supply. I only paid $109 for the case w/PS, plus $15 to ship it.
I'm pretty impressed with the build quality overall of both the Antec power supply and case and it offers plenty of cooling options. I wish they looked prettier, but they are highly functional.
"Except that it's open and free for use, encouraged on all platforms."
/. geeks get so excited about Apple stuff, considering they haven't innovated in nearly 20 years. Apple seems to do a better job marketing, but then I guess Microsoft probably is not interested in making a big deal about features they have had for over 10 years.
Which isn't particularly important to most people, and rendezvous is of no interest really to corporations other than the fact one of it's goals is to not break the corporate LAN.
"NetBIOS is pretty much limited to Windows, and it's kludgy on other OSes. Plus it's proprietary and somewhat unreliable."
Well NetBIOS was an IBM thing, so it did work from OS/2. It is a kludge, but it works, and it has worked for 10 years. Plus I no longer care as Win2k started moving away from it and towards the Active Directory infrastructure using DDNS.
Yes, rendezvous is a cleaned up implementation because they saw it already done before. NetBIOS has suffered from a constant series of kludges to fix issues. My point was only that this isn't anything new, it's been around for 10 years. I don't understand why the
You are confusing NetBIOS with NetBEUI.
If you run NetBIOS over TCP/IP, you start introducing the computer browsing services which acts as a cache for locating machines. This helps to reduce the amount of broadcast packets flying around, and makes NetBIOS slightly more scalable. Then you have WINS and all that sort of stuff which solves most of the other issues, if you want to go to an NT domain model.
"I don't think Rendezvous is overrated at all. I think it's the way things should have been done 10 years ago, and it's almost sad that it wasn't."
Yeah, it was called NetBIOS.
On Windows PCs, Microsoft NETBIOS provides a similar ease-of-use
There's nothing particularly original about rendezvous.
I hope when you're talking about clustering, you don't mean Beowulf?
I find most Linux advocates don't understand the first thing about clustering, and keep misusing the term. Generally speaking for a web server you need limited clustering, that is you just want to do load balancing. But you also want to monitor the servers such that if one fails you take it out of the loop.
I don't feel that's a valid reason for them to sign an NDA.
Besides, the fact that there is an NDA means they received something in compensation, which again points to the fact that they were paid handsomly to switch. Sorry, I'm not a Microsoft apologists, but the Apple commercials stink to high heaven.
I realize that their intended audience was Mac zealots, but that seems silly if they actually want to convince people to buy their product.
Hmm, I don't think you read the USNews report.
The question in neither Microsoft or Apple's case was whether or not the people were real. The question was whether the stories were real.
Considering how stupid the people in the Apple commercials sound, one can only assume they are reading from a script.
USNews & World Report reported this past summer that the Apple switch ads are questionable. They tried to interview the actual people in the ads, but apparently they are all under NDA.
They were allowed to interview two of them, but only with an Apple representative present. Sounds like they were trying to interview someone living in Iraq?
Furthermore, all of the Apple switchers were paid for their involvement. Who wouldn't switch if they were given a free Powerbook + expenses? Then it also turns out that many of the "switchers" have employment connections with Apple, or work for magazines which receive large amounts of Apple advertising, etc.
It's just kind of interesting. Microsoft's advertising tactics have never been as unethical as what Apple has been doing with the switch campaign, and yet who bears the brunt of the attacks here?
AmiPro was a Win3.1 product, and was quite competitive in the market.
However when Win95 came out, Lotus replaced AmiPro with WordPro. WordPro had a much better user interface, it was more consistent and so forth. I really liked to use it better than Word.
However, WordPro was not compatible with AmiPro, so companies looking to migrate had very little to gain by staying with Lotus. Also the first versions of WordPro to be shipped were filled with huge massive bugs. Memory leaks and so forth that were so bad you couldn't run the software for more than maybe 30 minutes without crashing.
I worked for a company that had standardized on Lotus, and when we migrated to NT4 we gave up on it and moved to Office 97. Oh, also at the time, Lotus was charging more for their suite than Microsoft, mainly because they thought they at least had us locked in with Lotus 123.
They were wrong.
Is that the way Microsoft went about killing Netscape was by building a browser that could be easily customized and utilized to create client side applications.
Internet Explorer has been doing what this book talks about since about 1997. It is the reason why many products like Quicken, etc. require IE to install, and by requiring IE, Microsoft guarantees universal deployment of the browser. In so doing, they chipped away at Netscapes marketshare.
Sorry, I just chuckle whenever I hear people talk about this with regards to Mozilla as if it's a new concept. You mean you never knew you could do this with IE?
Wow is this old news day, or what?
/., usually anti-MS news is posted quickly, and the good stuff, like the release of Visual Studio .NET, is ignored.
This controversy erupted nearly a month ago.
A number of us in the Windows community balked at the initial licensing. The lead developer of the GotDotNet workspaces actually joined into the conversation trying to defend the team's lawyers. It appears that the initial licensing was written with a heavy emphasis on CYA, without much thought to whether or not people would agree to it.
Microsoft listened to our arguments, and adjusted the licensing to be friendlier within a day or two. I still think it's rather ridiculous language but it is similar to that found at sourceforge.net and even such places as yahoo, etc. Why lawyers feel they need permission to redistribute stuff that you obviously uploaded with the intent of redistributing is beyond my ability to rationalize.
Anyway, I'm surprised it's taken this long for this to hit
Actually chances are this person at the ad agency decided to throw this together as a trial to see how it would take.
Then someone in marketing found out about it and called the ad agency asking them to pull it because it's a completely worthless ad campaign. Apple's switch commercials have generated a lot of bad press for the company, mostly with parodies and spoofs, and have done nothing to convince non-current Mac owners to buy a new Mac. To copy this bad campaign from the Microsoft side would just look pathetic.
Apple unfortunately has a long history of this... their commercials target the Mac faithful. I guess you could call this the innovator's dilemna, because if Apple started targetting the Macintosh towards the Windows market they would alienate the "Think Different" people who only buy Mac's because they aren't mainstream.
In the end, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit anyway. Well except maybe slashdot, but they try to make headlines out of anything that can be twisted in an anti-Microsoft way.
Excellent post!
I love this one: "Although few survey participants did so, RFG believes IT executives should consider commercial support options to increase the success rates for their Linux deployments."
GREAT!? Why don't you tell us how much it's going to fucking cost me? What do you mean under $10?
You know, I can admin Solaris and Windows also by doing nothing but reading usenet newsgroups. Actually so far, that's generally been my first place to look for answers.
Also, why did they decide to compare Solaris on x86? From my experience Solaris runs better on Sun hardware, notably SPARC systems. I've never seen a company deploy Solaris on anything but Sparc, which is largely why Sun talked about dropping support for the x86 version.
Good to see another common sense person from Minnesota!
"Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?"
.Net Server 2003 will be able to run headless for those who want to deploy blade server farms.
Uhh, built into the OS. NT4 had a good deal of remote administration capabilities, but they were further expanded with the Win2k release.
"I have never seen Microsoft brag about their remote CLI management."
Go lookup a few keywords on google.com like WSH, WMI, Resource Kit, etc.
"Also, I was calling the "Zombied Windows Server Admins" idiots not all Windows Server Admins. Reading is fundamental..."
Regardless, the insult was unnecessary and inappropriate. Quit demostrating that the Linux community is full of nothing but technical know-nothings.
"A low UID is not a license to be rude, and snide comments are especially out of place when they are misinformed. I suggest a calmative, followed by a period of quiet reflection."
/. security expert.
I suggest a laxative.
Reread what I wrote, understand the issues and quit trying to play Mr.