First of all... AmigaOS free of virii? Huh? I encountered a lot of boot sector viruses back in those days. Oh, and my favorite was the arguments about the virus that supposedly embedded itself in A500 memory expansion clock.
Now as far as what Microsoft can do, let's look at your list and what they have done.
10. Done. New versions of Outlook by default disable scripting. 9. Windows XP automatically downloads security patches. This functionality should be extended to universally cover Office and other products as well. 8. Done. New versions of Outlook by default will warn a user if an external app is trying to use it to send email, and further warn if it's being used rapidly. 7. Pretty much done with WinXP. There are a few settings relating to domain authentication that can be strengthened by default. I think they are not because it would cause connectivity issues with older NT domains. 6. That would be virus protection and step on third parties like Norton and McAfee. 5. That's not Microsoft's responsibility. 4. Again virus protection. 3. Again virus protection. 2. Done. This is part of the Active Directory integration. 1. Process auditing has been part of NT since the very beginning. What you want is reporting on that, and I don't think you fully appreciate just how big of a task this would be. This functionality is really only useful in more secure DoD installations because of the scope.
Re:New to Macs, Do They Charge for Updates?
on
Apple Drops Mac OS 9
·
· Score: 2
"(Yes, I heard next year Microsoft is going to release XP SE -- second edition, amazing but true...) "
No, Microsoft has already dispelled that rumor. SP1 is going to be a fairly major release, however as it will include support for new hardware as well as provisions that comply with the DOJ settlement.
"(My god, I can't believe I'm a Mac fanatic now... I resisted for sooo long too...:-)"
I still have no desire to own a Mac. Until Apple makes something compelling and worth me dumping all of my existing hardware and software, I will stick with x86 hardware.
Hmm. I think you are reading way too much into the movie than was intended. From the tone of your post, I'd have to say Hollywood was right... there are some people hyper-sensitive to 9/11.
The discussion of New York, patriotism, whatever... was far more subtle than in other past comic superhero movies.(i.e. think Superman) Raimi did a nice balance and I saw nothing in there which shouted post 9/11.
Looking at a piece of code, taking notes as to what it does and then reimplementing the same concept independently is completely protected under copyright law.
Think of all the authors out there who write history books about Ancient Rome. Do you think none of them has ever read a colleague's book to learn more about the subject? Go look up the recent controversy surrounding Stephen Ambrose and learn more.
This is what I always find stupid about the "Oh no! If you read MS code they will come and sue you!" arguments, or same about GPL. It's not true. In fact I think a pretty strong argument code be made that all source code should be available so that people can learn from one another. I *should* be able to find out what algorithm you used, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Of course that probably would mean an increase in software patents.:(
That's not entirely accurate, since the programmer also put a mechanism in there to force unsuspecting users into writing on the cars.
The point is, as far as the law is concerned, there was damage done, but more importantly there was intent to commit the damage. There was no accident here, he wrote the virus knowing the entire time what the impact would be.
I don't think he wanted to say that at all. It sounds as though when asked the question he was not exactly sure what the Microsoft engineer meant by that. He simply responds that he's sure the MS guy knows more about the specifics of that, than I.
It is, after all, a very specific question. Sort of a trick question, unless you knew all of ins and outs of the code. If I hadn't thought of that View Source feature I may have first said "What the fuck? IE doesn't use Notepad!"
It's not clear to me why exactly that's a better solution.
While I do like configurability occasionally, I think it can go too far. For the purpose of viewing the source all you need is a fairly lightweight editor, and notepad fits that bill.
Now let's assume the state's get their way and notepad.exe can no longer be distributed with Windows. Then you run into a situation where you are installing IE to this clean machine... notepad doesn't exist, nor does any other editor or viewer. So what would IE use?
Nothing... the functionality would be broken, which does not lend to a pleasant user experience.
I honestly see no reason why this feature needs any sort of configuration option, as that only serves to complicate the user experience.
I mean, IBM still sells all of their other operating systems. They still sell Mainframes with OS/390, and AS/400's and RS/6000's running AIX. They also sell Intel servers running Windows 2000 and who knows what all else.
They don't say "This is good for everything you do", they instead ask you what you want to do and then provide a recommendation.
But I would have to agree that McNealy's mouth get's him in trouble and it's not just him. They basically have made the same mistakes that Ken Thompson made at DEC when he discounted Unix as being unimportant.
"At least Sun's products (Java, etc) are free. What does Microsoft make that's free? Hmm. Right. That'd be the null set. Heh."
Umm....NET is as free as Java. i.e. I can download the SDK off the web site and start compiling my code. The only piece which is charged for is the visual IDE and other advanced tools.
I suspect if you actually knew something about Microsoft you'd be amazed at the wealth of stuff they offer for free.
So you at least admit that the appeals court did rule that Jackson was biased, or at least gave the impression that he was extremely biased because of his judicial misconduct. They ruled against a number of the legal points, and overturned his entire remedy as a result of this.
Now, if you think about this real hard you can probably see where your initial assumption was incorrect. i.e. where you stated that Microsoft was only found guilty because of Jackson's bias. The author never stated that, you instead read it into his writing based on your own biases.
Reading the testimony, at no time does the witness call KDE an operating system. He is very specific calling it a User Interface.
When the lawyers ask if KDE can be removed, he says yes, and then points out that would also remove the functionality of the user interface that the users are relying upon... so it effectively breaks the system.
This is kind of a bizarre play on words. Any reasonable person would recognize that the UI is a necessary piece of a consumer OS, which is likely the position the Judge will take on this. I'd have to say the lawyer's for the states screwed up big by badgering on these points.
Clearly this witness was a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than the slashbot responses suggest.
With regards to some of the final questioning there on the cross dependencies between Notepad and IE, I think the most obvious thing is if you were to delete Notepad from the system... View-Source would no longer function within IE. So yes, Mr. Short from Microsoft was technically correct.
Is there a technical need for the cross dependency? Well assuming we are talking specifically about View->Source. Then yes, in so much as the browser needs to have some way to display the source. The method must be well known, and exist at the time IE is installed to the system, or installed in conjunction with IE. Notepad is an obvious choice. Otherwise, the IE team would have to recreate this functionality within the program.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it a technical desirable solution? No... application modularity is very desirable and makes development more efficient instead of constantly recreating the wheel.
You obviously haven't been following this case very closely. While I'm not a teacher and it isn't my job to help keep you up to date on current events, here is a link to one of the older articles discussing this:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-874153.html
There were similar accusations made in emails by AOL execs, Novell execs and so forth. Go find the news yourself.
I agree, although actually I would have to say that it's a case of the business press seems to have a better grasp of IT than the IT press. I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect it's because the IT press doesn't have very many trained journalists. Rather it's people who come from some amount of tech skill, and think they can write.
Furthermore there seems to be a trend of what I'd call trolling. A lot of the articles in the IT press are really just opinion columns, trying to pull in hits to their website.
But I've certainly seem more intelligent discussion of the issues in WSJ and Economist than in say Infoworld.
There have been a few exceptions to this. This opinion article came out yesterday that had some good points:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0%2C14179%2C2863457%2C00.html
This was another one that raised some interesting points, again I'd say it's more opinion than journalism, but... http://news.com.com/2100-1001-895349.html? tag=fd_t op
Ahh, but then the State's witnesses were pretty pathetic as well. All pretty much admitting that they had tried to bribe Microsoft with offers of "Look, if you give us this we won't testify against you."
That capability is going to be part of Windows XP SP1, as part of Microsoft's desire to conform to the DOJ settlement.
The States aren't asking for that... they want all of IE removed, the rendering engine used by Explorer, the help system, everything. Why? Well nobody is quite sure about that.
I was curious about the same thing. I've done a number of searches on google and can't find anything. Found references on Sun's website to them announcing and then pulling out of the process, but no report.
I can't find any good links which explain it in detail. But essentially the equipment makers have worked together with the media producers to create HDCP(High-Bandwidth Digital Copy Protection)... or essentially another encrypted signal sort of like how DVDs are encoded. They are now promoting that future devices such as HDTV enabled video tape recorders, new HD versions of DVD, and so forth will only output a HDCP signal. They are even talking now of replacing the HDTV OTA receivers with new models that will only output true HD content using HDCP, the current receivers will be somehow limited to like a 480p signal.(not sure how they accomplish this)
Currently most HDTV televisions and monitors sold over the past several years have Component Video inputs(three RCA jacked cables on the back of the set). They don't support HDCP. This new standard will be supported by yet a different cabling standard using DVI connectors.
So what's this mean?
Everybody who currently owns a HDTV, essentially all of the early adopters, will never be able to receive High-Definition content on them. The best you can hope for is the 480p signal like that which is output by Progressive scan DVD players. The hardware makers will not be allowed to output high-def signals to component video, nor will they be allowed to build conversion boxes to convert DVI to Component Video, despite the sets being capable of displaying that image.
Anyway, I think it's pretty bloody stupid. Especially since it will probably severely cripple the introduction of those newer technologies like the video tape and HD-DVD, etc. since the earlier adopters won't adopt it.
BTW, I own a HDTV set I purchased back in January. This news came out just a few weeks after I made my purchse.:(
"I'm sorry you feel that way. It makes sense to me. Perhaps you'd like to explain what's "lame" about it instead of being dismissive? "
Oh come on, are you bloody serious?
Look at what you wrote: "Your counter-argument would be valid if Microsoft had released a "Windows 95 without DOS" product. Because there was no such product you cannot claim that Windows 95 was "cheaper" than the sticker price by the price of DOS. "
How exactly does this make the argument invalid? If anything this would only make you argument valid.
But the fact is in order to run Windows 3.1 you needed to buy DOS, thus the price of Windows was Windows 3.1 + DOS. If Windows 3.1 was $100, and DOS $50... the price is $150.
Thus it is not fair to compare the price of Windows 95 to just that of Windows 3.1.
"Did you consider the more plausible possibility that other people (besides myself) think you are wrong?"
No, but I have considered the possibility that the anti-MS/OSS contingent is becoming more and more desperate as it becomes apparent they are losing the battle.
Your argument on the pricing of Windows is just one example, your cronies mass down-moderation is yet another.
Slashdot Mirror
Running anti-virus software on your computers is like cooking the chicken before serving it.
There are other best practices as well, such as denying certain types of attachments to come in and out of your mail server, and other such rules.
First of all... AmigaOS free of virii? Huh? I encountered a lot of boot sector viruses back in those days. Oh, and my favorite was the arguments about the virus that supposedly embedded itself in A500 memory expansion clock.
Now as far as what Microsoft can do, let's look at your list and what they have done.
10. Done. New versions of Outlook by default disable scripting.
9. Windows XP automatically downloads security patches. This functionality should be extended to universally cover Office and other products as well.
8. Done. New versions of Outlook by default will warn a user if an external app is trying to use it to send email, and further warn if it's being used rapidly.
7. Pretty much done with WinXP. There are a few settings relating to domain authentication that can be strengthened by default. I think they are not because it would cause connectivity issues with older NT domains.
6. That would be virus protection and step on third parties like Norton and McAfee.
5. That's not Microsoft's responsibility.
4. Again virus protection.
3. Again virus protection.
2. Done. This is part of the Active Directory integration.
1. Process auditing has been part of NT since the very beginning. What you want is reporting on that, and I don't think you fully appreciate just how big of a task this would be. This functionality is really only useful in more secure DoD installations because of the scope.
"(Yes, I heard next year Microsoft is going to release XP SE -- second edition, amazing but true...) "
No, Microsoft has already dispelled that rumor. SP1 is going to be a fairly major release, however as it will include support for new hardware as well as provisions that comply with the DOJ settlement.
"(My god, I can't believe I'm a Mac fanatic now... I resisted for sooo long too...:-)"
I still have no desire to own a Mac. Until Apple makes something compelling and worth me dumping all of my existing hardware and software, I will stick with x86 hardware.
Hmm. I think you are reading way too much into the movie than was intended. From the tone of your post, I'd have to say Hollywood was right... there are some people hyper-sensitive to 9/11.
The discussion of New York, patriotism, whatever... was far more subtle than in other past comic superhero movies.(i.e. think Superman) Raimi did a nice balance and I saw nothing in there which shouted post 9/11.
Really?
? UR L=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/001/90 1/msdncompositedoc.xml
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp
Looking at a piece of code, taking notes as to what it does and then reimplementing the same concept independently is completely protected under copyright law.
:(
Think of all the authors out there who write history books about Ancient Rome. Do you think none of them has ever read a colleague's book to learn more about the subject? Go look up the recent controversy surrounding Stephen Ambrose and learn more.
This is what I always find stupid about the "Oh no! If you read MS code they will come and sue you!" arguments, or same about GPL. It's not true. In fact I think a pretty strong argument code be made that all source code should be available so that people can learn from one another. I *should* be able to find out what algorithm you used, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Of course that probably would mean an increase in software patents.
That's not entirely accurate, since the programmer also put a mechanism in there to force unsuspecting users into writing on the cars.
The point is, as far as the law is concerned, there was damage done, but more importantly there was intent to commit the damage. There was no accident here, he wrote the virus knowing the entire time what the impact would be.
I don't think he wanted to say that at all. It sounds as though when asked the question he was not exactly sure what the Microsoft engineer meant by that. He simply responds that he's sure the MS guy knows more about the specifics of that, than I.
It is, after all, a very specific question. Sort of a trick question, unless you knew all of ins and outs of the code. If I hadn't thought of that View Source feature I may have first said "What the fuck? IE doesn't use Notepad!"
It's not clear to me why exactly that's a better solution.
While I do like configurability occasionally, I think it can go too far. For the purpose of viewing the source all you need is a fairly lightweight editor, and notepad fits that bill.
Now let's assume the state's get their way and notepad.exe can no longer be distributed with Windows. Then you run into a situation where you are installing IE to this clean machine... notepad doesn't exist, nor does any other editor or viewer. So what would IE use?
Nothing... the functionality would be broken, which does not lend to a pleasant user experience.
I honestly see no reason why this feature needs any sort of configuration option, as that only serves to complicate the user experience.
IE doesn't use the Default HTML Editor for the View Source functionality.
On my machine that would be UltraEdit... On other machines that might be Frontpage. But in all cases the source still appears using Notepad.
"It is also ludicrous to claim Notepad relies on IE!"
No, you just don't understand the point.
IBM has been able to pull it off.
I mean, IBM still sells all of their other operating systems. They still sell Mainframes with OS/390, and AS/400's and RS/6000's running AIX. They also sell Intel servers running Windows 2000 and who knows what all else.
They don't say "This is good for everything you do", they instead ask you what you want to do and then provide a recommendation.
But I would have to agree that McNealy's mouth get's him in trouble and it's not just him. They basically have made the same mistakes that Ken Thompson made at DEC when he discounted Unix as being unimportant.
It's the old Innovator's Dilemna.
"At least Sun's products (Java, etc) are free. What does Microsoft make that's free? Hmm. Right. That'd be the null set. Heh."
.NET is as free as Java. i.e. I can download the SDK off the web site and start compiling my code. The only piece which is charged for is the visual IDE and other advanced tools.
Umm...
I suspect if you actually knew something about Microsoft you'd be amazed at the wealth of stuff they offer for free.
Yes, that's the one.
So you at least admit that the appeals court did rule that Jackson was biased, or at least gave the impression that he was extremely biased because of his judicial misconduct. They ruled against a number of the legal points, and overturned his entire remedy as a result of this.
Now, if you think about this real hard you can probably see where your initial assumption was incorrect. i.e. where you stated that Microsoft was only found guilty because of Jackson's bias. The author never stated that, you instead read it into his writing based on your own biases.
Uhh... You must have missed the appeals court ruling where they ripped Jackson for being extremely biased.
Reading the testimony, at no time does the witness call KDE an operating system. He is very specific calling it a User Interface.
When the lawyers ask if KDE can be removed, he says yes, and then points out that would also remove the functionality of the user interface that the users are relying upon... so it effectively breaks the system.
This is kind of a bizarre play on words. Any reasonable person would recognize that the UI is a necessary piece of a consumer OS, which is likely the position the Judge will take on this. I'd have to say the lawyer's for the states screwed up big by badgering on these points.
Interesting reading...
Clearly this witness was a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than the slashbot responses suggest.
With regards to some of the final questioning there on the cross dependencies between Notepad and IE, I think the most obvious thing is if you were to delete Notepad from the system... View-Source would no longer function within IE. So yes, Mr. Short from Microsoft was technically correct.
Is there a technical need for the cross dependency? Well assuming we are talking specifically about View->Source. Then yes, in so much as the browser needs to have some way to display the source. The method must be well known, and exist at the time IE is installed to the system, or installed in conjunction with IE. Notepad is an obvious choice. Otherwise, the IE team would have to recreate this functionality within the program.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it a technical desirable solution? No... application modularity is very desirable and makes development more efficient instead of constantly recreating the wheel.
You obviously haven't been following this case very closely. While I'm not a teacher and it isn't my job to help keep you up to date on current events, here is a link to one of the older articles discussing this:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-874153.html
There were similar accusations made in emails by AOL execs, Novell execs and so forth. Go find the news yourself.
I agree, although actually I would have to say that it's a case of the business press seems to have a better grasp of IT than the IT press. I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect it's because the IT press doesn't have very many trained journalists. Rather it's people who come from some amount of tech skill, and think they can write.
m ai n/0%2C14179%2C2863457%2C00.html
? tag=fd_t op
Furthermore there seems to be a trend of what I'd call trolling. A lot of the articles in the IT press are really just opinion columns, trying to pull in hits to their website.
But I've certainly seem more intelligent discussion of the issues in WSJ and Economist than in say Infoworld.
There have been a few exceptions to this. This opinion article came out yesterday that had some good points:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/
This was another one that raised some interesting points, again I'd say it's more opinion than journalism, but...
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-895349.html
This is sort of like arguing Ford wasn't responsible for installing Firestone tires on the Explorer because tires aren't a car.
Yeah, didn't make sense to me either.
Ahh, but then the State's witnesses were pretty pathetic as well. All pretty much admitting that they had tried to bribe Microsoft with offers of "Look, if you give us this we won't testify against you."
That capability is going to be part of Windows XP SP1, as part of Microsoft's desire to conform to the DOJ settlement.
The States aren't asking for that... they want all of IE removed, the rendering engine used by Explorer, the help system, everything. Why? Well nobody is quite sure about that.
Let me see if I understand you. Basically you are saying that writing words is free speech.
Ok, granted.
But if I spray paint a "LOVE THE WORLD!" on the side of your car is that protected by the 1st amendment?
I was curious about the same thing. I've done a number of searches on google and can't find anything. Found references on Sun's website to them announcing and then pulling out of the process, but no report.
I can't find any good links which explain it in detail. But essentially the equipment makers have worked together with the media producers to create HDCP(High-Bandwidth Digital Copy Protection)... or essentially another encrypted signal sort of like how DVDs are encoded. They are now promoting that future devices such as HDTV enabled video tape recorders, new HD versions of DVD, and so forth will only output a HDCP signal. They are even talking now of replacing the HDTV OTA receivers with new models that will only output true HD content using HDCP, the current receivers will be somehow limited to like a 480p signal.(not sure how they accomplish this)
:(
Currently most HDTV televisions and monitors sold over the past several years have Component Video inputs(three RCA jacked cables on the back of the set). They don't support HDCP. This new standard will be supported by yet a different cabling standard using DVI connectors.
So what's this mean?
Everybody who currently owns a HDTV, essentially all of the early adopters, will never be able to receive High-Definition content on them. The best you can hope for is the 480p signal like that which is output by Progressive scan DVD players. The hardware makers will not be allowed to output high-def signals to component video, nor will they be allowed to build conversion boxes to convert DVI to Component Video, despite the sets being capable of displaying that image.
Anyway, I think it's pretty bloody stupid. Especially since it will probably severely cripple the introduction of those newer technologies like the video tape and HD-DVD, etc. since the earlier adopters won't adopt it.
BTW, I own a HDTV set I purchased back in January. This news came out just a few weeks after I made my purchse.
"I'm sorry you feel that way. It makes sense to me. Perhaps you'd like to explain what's "lame" about it instead of being dismissive? "
Oh come on, are you bloody serious?
Look at what you wrote:
"Your counter-argument would be valid if Microsoft had released a "Windows 95 without DOS" product. Because there was no such product you cannot claim that Windows 95 was "cheaper" than the sticker price by the price of DOS. "
How exactly does this make the argument invalid? If anything this would only make you argument valid.
But the fact is in order to run Windows 3.1 you needed to buy DOS, thus the price of Windows was Windows 3.1 + DOS. If Windows 3.1 was $100, and DOS $50... the price is $150.
Thus it is not fair to compare the price of Windows 95 to just that of Windows 3.1.
"Did you consider the more plausible possibility that other people (besides myself) think you are wrong?"
No, but I have considered the possibility that the anti-MS/OSS contingent is becoming more and more desperate as it becomes apparent they are losing the battle.
Your argument on the pricing of Windows is just one example, your cronies mass down-moderation is yet another.