That's incorrect. At the time ComSci departments switched over to teaching C/C++ and even Java... those languages had already taken over the world, or rather had signifigant real world usage.
There was a big argument at my school at the time this decision was made. On one hand you had the pragmatists who were pushing for teaching C++ and Java because that's what students would be using in the real world.
On the other hand you had the theorists who wanted to teach high level concepts. They were pushing for using languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, Eiffel, etc. They wanted to teach concepts with languages which best envisioned those concepts at the strictest level, and could care little about practical usage.
A horrible battle ensued. The dean of the ComSci department resigned, and the pragmatists won.
Only somebody very clueless or with an agenda would try to believe Universities have any signifigance in the sea of change.
"Not only that, but you have had zero effect on the actual problem."
That's not true at all. Companies routinely collect information on customer responses into their call center. Given Microsoft's history with customer relations, I suspect they are collecting such stats to decide whether or not to continue this WPA feature into future products.
Besides, the guy at the call center represents the company. That's not my problem.
The question really is "Why should I have had to call him?" No geek chip at all on my shoulder. I'm a Microsoft shill according to everybody here at slashdot. But I refuse to defend this WPA stuff. Microsoft needs feedback on this feature, and one very good way of providing that feedback is to complain when you are forced to call in.
Trust me, companies pay attention to this.
Also I think it pretty much disproves the theory that you have to beg them to get a new number. I also wasn't that rude, I simply said "Your stupid software said I have to call this stupid number to get a stupid registration code."
How is it that someone calling themselves a security professional can't be bothered to take the time to actually research a topic before injecting their opinion?
Just curious. I take it the GISSP is like the MCSE, it only requires memorization skills?
"Besides the system policy file installed by default is pretty lax."
Microsoft has made the default system policy for.Net fairly strick. There was actually quite a lot of bitching about it on many.Net mailing lists because it made life more difficult for developers. But I suspect MS felt they could live with complaints of this nature, rather than make it too loose by default.
For instance if you try to run any content off a network drive, it has no access to drives. I just tried it, and I can't even get a local directory listing. You just get a popup box warning that it can't do this.
Outlook2000 has a patch entitled "Fix stupid user", which prevents users from opening attachments. Outlook XP ships this way by default.
Granted, the patch also does some useful things like changing the profile under which email is viewed to Restricted Sites Zone, thus disabling active scripting, etc.
And if some user still insists on running that.EXE, the patch pops up when things connect to the Outlook COM objects and says "Hey, this thing is trying to send email.. is that ok dummy?"
They had the original Domesday book on display at the White Tower for the millenial celebration.
I stood in line for 30 minutes so I could see it, and I can assure you it is not perfectly useable. First of all you have to know Latin and how to read really bad handwriting.
You're also not allowed to take pictures of it, and if you try to do that or even touch the book these guys with guns point them at you and say "Don't you dare."
I'd have better chance at decrypting DVDs, or reading the Windows source code than using the original Domesday book.
I don't know that they are clearly better. Being faster at execution time, or using less memory are traits, but whether or not that is a better trait depends on your needs.
The generation of CS after me learned Scheme and C++ for their beginning glasses instead of Pascal. Then around '98 or so they started teaching Java.
It talks about a variety of the lawsuits, and the most interesting sentence is this one "And AOL's case is not as lead-pipe as its media spin suggests."
What's remarkable about it, is that the article has far more substance than any article on the same issue in any of the tech trade journals, cnet.com, etc. How is it that the WSJ understand the technical world moreso than Infoworld?
Don't you mean Sun Microsystems? If anybody has had their moment of glory in the sun, it is literally Sun.
Java is still promising to deliver after 7 years, and now that Microsoft has leapfrogged ahead of them they're throwing promising around like they were running for the Presidency. When are they going to start delivering on these promises?
I called up Microsoft, was incredibly rude to the person on the phone. Told him I upgraded my computer and it was none of his freaking business because I paid for the software.
And he gave to me a new key to enter and it worked fine.
That was at 3am in the morning. Not exactly what I call begging to have them help.
Huh? I'm well aware of the many alternatives out there to Microsoft products.
In fact it's my knowledge of the existence of these alternatives which forms the basis of *WHY* I see this court case as nothing but a bunch of sore losers picking on Microsoft.
Please engage your brain for a few seconds. If you are aware of these alternatives existing, why don't you use them? Your statements contradict one another.
The uphill struggle that Linux, or any alternative has, is meeting the needs of the consumer. If the product doesn't meet my needs I am simply not going to use it. You want to change things, then improve Linux. Don't sit there and whine about Microsoft making a better product and how that is so unfair.
God it's pathetic whiners like yourself that convinced me to write my Attorney General a letter about this case. You prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this court case is a sham propogated by a bunch of sore losers.
Umm, they're form letters. There were several websites that had auto mailers for form letters. I signed my name to one of them, as did many of my coworkers.
You'll find them all throughout the comments, if you look. Although the example you used isn't the particular letter I sent a copy of.
What I find interesting is how the Linux zealots are in complete denial that there are actually people who are happy with Microsoft products and think this court case is a sham. Considering we are the majority of US citizens, I do find this very odd indeed that you think we all work for Microsoft.
I used to work in this industry. We sold software and services that did the GIS/mapping work from the data collected from Agleader yield monitors, etc. Actually our company was about 1/2 mile down the road from Agleader.
We only worked with Independent Ag consultants, and what you say is correct. There was a lot of manual labor involved collecting GPS positioned data... soil samples, insect and weed locations, etc. Then over the winter all of this data would be collected together and plotted into plans for the next season. It was a feedback loop of sorts.
But I agree, that cost/benefit analysis is a big part of it. At the time I was in this, there was a suspicion that the EPA was going to get involved and start changing the rules on pesticide application, etc... which would mean you pretty much had to go to variable rate application in order to comply.
"And there is only so much fertalizer you can put on a given spot. "
Umm, that's sort of the point. If the soil won't benefit from the fertilizer, there is no point in applying it because it will just run off into the water system.
Using this technology they can also vary the rate at which seeds are put in the ground. Since some soil will support more plants than others, this saves the cost of seed in the bad areas.
The debate when I was working with this back in 1994 was the cost/benefit analysis. At that time the equipment was incredibly expensive. A good GPS receiver was at least $5k, and a computer powerful enough to process the maps another $5-10k. Not to mention the equipment from Agchem and others to do variable rate application.
The costs of much of the technology has come down dramatically since then. That $10k computer back then is less powerful than what you can buy for $500 today, same with the GPS receivers and so on.
While I agree that would be in the best interest of consumers. Actually I'd rather see a law requiring all file formats be documented.
But the point the DOJ has made with regards to this Settlement is that they are only addressing the issues which were raised during the court trial. Office file formats didn't come up in the trial, whereas exclusive contracts did.
This case was flawed from the beginning because it focused on an irrelevant incompetent company named Netscape. They should have focused on the real issues.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because this is a new direction of Be. First they were going to be the alternative OS for the Mac.
Well that didn't work.
Second they were going to be the alternative OS for the PC.
That didn't work either.
Then they were going to be the alternative OS for the internet appliance market.
Turns out there never was an internet appliance market, so that didn't work either.
So now Be has gotten smart. They realize they can't sell software worth a damn...
So they've switched to selling lawsuits. Thus the adoption of fantasy based marketing. They can't very well sue Microsoft if they weren't crushed!
Do they even use it in academia?
Delphi lost nearly all signifigance after the release of Visual BASIC 5.0. Same with Powerbuilder.
That's incorrect. At the time ComSci departments switched over to teaching C/C++ and even Java... those languages had already taken over the world, or rather had signifigant real world usage.
There was a big argument at my school at the time this decision was made. On one hand you had the pragmatists who were pushing for teaching C++ and Java because that's what students would be using in the real world.
On the other hand you had the theorists who wanted to teach high level concepts. They were pushing for using languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, Eiffel, etc. They wanted to teach concepts with languages which best envisioned those concepts at the strictest level, and could care little about practical usage.
A horrible battle ensued. The dean of the ComSci department resigned, and the pragmatists won.
Only somebody very clueless or with an agenda would try to believe Universities have any signifigance in the sea of change.
"And to think, you people get all bitchy whenever someone says a Linux zealot represents the Linux userbase."
The Linux zealots are the Linux marketing department.
"Not only that, but you have had zero effect on the actual problem."
That's not true at all. Companies routinely collect information on customer responses into their call center. Given Microsoft's history with customer relations, I suspect they are collecting such stats to decide whether or not to continue this WPA feature into future products.
Besides, the guy at the call center represents the company. That's not my problem.
Heh.
The question really is "Why should I have had to call him?" No geek chip at all on my shoulder. I'm a Microsoft shill according to everybody here at slashdot. But I refuse to defend this WPA stuff. Microsoft needs feedback on this feature, and one very good way of providing that feedback is to complain when you are forced to call in.
Trust me, companies pay attention to this.
Also I think it pretty much disproves the theory that you have to beg them to get a new number. I also wasn't that rude, I simply said "Your stupid software said I have to call this stupid number to get a stupid registration code."
Oops, sorry. I meant CISSP. My memorization skills aren't that good.
How is it that someone calling themselves a security professional can't be bothered to take the time to actually research a topic before injecting their opinion?
Just curious. I take it the GISSP is like the MCSE, it only requires memorization skills?
You might want to look into GIAC.
"Besides the system policy file installed by default is pretty lax."
.Net fairly strick. There was actually quite a lot of bitching about it on many .Net mailing lists because it made life more difficult for developers. But I suspect MS felt they could live with complaints of this nature, rather than make it too loose by default.
Microsoft has made the default system policy for
For instance if you try to run any content off a network drive, it has no access to drives. I just tried it, and I can't even get a local directory listing. You just get a popup box warning that it can't do this.
There is a difference between using something, and messing with something.
.Net framework files are digitally signed. If this virus were to try to infect the .Net framework it would not like that at all.
:-)
/. Linux/anti-MS crowd needs to become a little bit more technically inclined. They're so damn gullible to articles like this.
The
Unless of course Verisign handed out the keys again.
Anyway, the
Outlook2000 has a patch entitled "Fix stupid user", which prevents users from opening attachments. Outlook XP ships this way by default.
.EXE, the patch pops up when things connect to the Outlook COM objects and says "Hey, this thing is trying to send email.. is that ok dummy?"
Granted, the patch also does some useful things like changing the profile under which email is viewed to Restricted Sites Zone, thus disabling active scripting, etc.
And if some user still insists on running that
They had the original Domesday book on display at the White Tower for the millenial celebration.
I stood in line for 30 minutes so I could see it, and I can assure you it is not perfectly useable. First of all you have to know Latin and how to read really bad handwriting.
You're also not allowed to take pictures of it, and if you try to do that or even touch the book these guys with guns point them at you and say "Don't you dare."
I'd have better chance at decrypting DVDs, or reading the Windows source code than using the original Domesday book.
I don't know that they are clearly better. Being faster at execution time, or using less memory are traits, but whether or not that is a better trait depends on your needs.
The generation of CS after me learned Scheme and C++ for their beginning glasses instead of Pascal. Then around '98 or so they started teaching Java.
There was a recently article in the Wall Street Journal about Microsoft. You can find it here:
0 00 0024869001.html
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/0000000000000
It talks about a variety of the lawsuits, and the most interesting sentence is this one "And AOL's case is not as lead-pipe as its media spin suggests."
What's remarkable about it, is that the article has far more substance than any article on the same issue in any of the tech trade journals, cnet.com, etc. How is it that the WSJ understand the technical world moreso than Infoworld?
Don't you mean Sun Microsystems? If anybody has had their moment of glory in the sun, it is literally Sun.
Java is still promising to deliver after 7 years, and now that Microsoft has leapfrogged ahead of them they're throwing promising around like they were running for the Presidency. When are they going to start delivering on these promises?
I called up Microsoft, was incredibly rude to the person on the phone. Told him I upgraded my computer and it was none of his freaking business because I paid for the software.
And he gave to me a new key to enter and it worked fine.
That was at 3am in the morning. Not exactly what I call begging to have them help.
Yeah, just like when I was in the CS program an entire generation of students learned Pascal.
This equated to a *HUGE* Pascal market out in the real world...
oh wait, that never materialized.
Well we also learned Smalltalk!
Oh wait, we don't use that either...
Oh, and Scheme. Must not forget that my generation learned how to program LISP, and that equated...
oh wait... never mind.
Just because I learned Pascal in CS, didn't mean I wasn't able to pick up C, or VB, or Java, or whatever else is in actual use.
Huh? I'm well aware of the many alternatives out there to Microsoft products.
In fact it's my knowledge of the existence of these alternatives which forms the basis of *WHY* I see this court case as nothing but a bunch of sore losers picking on Microsoft.
Please engage your brain for a few seconds. If you are aware of these alternatives existing, why don't you use them? Your statements contradict one another.
The uphill struggle that Linux, or any alternative has, is meeting the needs of the consumer. If the product doesn't meet my needs I am simply not going to use it. You want to change things, then improve Linux. Don't sit there and whine about Microsoft making a better product and how that is so unfair.
God it's pathetic whiners like yourself that convinced me to write my Attorney General a letter about this case. You prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this court case is a sham propogated by a bunch of sore losers.
Umm, they're form letters. There were several websites that had auto mailers for form letters. I signed my name to one of them, as did many of my coworkers.
You'll find them all throughout the comments, if you look. Although the example you used isn't the particular letter I sent a copy of.
What I find interesting is how the Linux zealots are in complete denial that there are actually people who are happy with Microsoft products and think this court case is a sham. Considering we are the majority of US citizens, I do find this very odd indeed that you think we all work for Microsoft.
What are you talking about? They listened to my comment which suggested this settlement is fair and it should proceed.
BeOS superceding Windows? If you were standing in this room I would apply the Grand Boot of Reality to your fat ass.
I used to work in this industry. We sold software and services that did the GIS/mapping work from the data collected from Agleader yield monitors, etc. Actually our company was about 1/2 mile down the road from Agleader.
We only worked with Independent Ag consultants, and what you say is correct. There was a lot of manual labor involved collecting GPS positioned data... soil samples, insect and weed locations, etc. Then over the winter all of this data would be collected together and plotted into plans for the next season. It was a feedback loop of sorts.
But I agree, that cost/benefit analysis is a big part of it. At the time I was in this, there was a suspicion that the EPA was going to get involved and start changing the rules on pesticide application, etc... which would mean you pretty much had to go to variable rate application in order to comply.
"And there is only so much fertalizer you can put on a given spot. "
Umm, that's sort of the point. If the soil won't benefit from the fertilizer, there is no point in applying it because it will just run off into the water system.
Using this technology they can also vary the rate at which seeds are put in the ground. Since some soil will support more plants than others, this saves the cost of seed in the bad areas.
The debate when I was working with this back in 1994 was the cost/benefit analysis. At that time the equipment was incredibly expensive. A good GPS receiver was at least $5k, and a computer powerful enough to process the maps another $5-10k. Not to mention the equipment from Agchem and others to do variable rate application.
The costs of much of the technology has come down dramatically since then. That $10k computer back then is less powerful than what you can buy for $500 today, same with the GPS receivers and so on.
While I agree that would be in the best interest of consumers. Actually I'd rather see a law requiring all file formats be documented.
But the point the DOJ has made with regards to this Settlement is that they are only addressing the issues which were raised during the court trial. Office file formats didn't come up in the trial, whereas exclusive contracts did.
This case was flawed from the beginning because it focused on an irrelevant incompetent company named Netscape. They should have focused on the real issues.
I'm just curious...
Are you equally as disgusted by the political lobbying of Netscape, AOL, Oracle, Sun, etc.?
If linking makes you liable, then RedHat is responsible for Linux.
So how about this. The software is free... The activation code is not...
I just bring up some examples. There's no way you can write a law which protects open source and only hurts Microsoft.