I was a beta tester for this search engine... rewarded beta testers with a gift certificate at amazon.com. I wasn't all that impressed to be honest. It was fast but the result-set produced wasn't anything spectacular, and the new search features they added were of the "cute and fuzzy" variety. Nothing that would really yield much productivity. They added an associated topics section, and some visual cues to get to information, but given the choice between that and Google, I'd choose Google any day.
They're pretty dumb if they thought they were going to get away with that.
You're COMPLETELY missing the issue. Microsoft requested that large portions of the submitted testimony be dismissed because they have to do with the states presening NEW evidence. The current hearings are only supposed to address two issues... the browser war, and the Java war. The 9 states are introducing evidence and presenting witnesses to discuss things like hand-helds, set-top boxes, and any other market that Microsoft has entered since the initial trial was completed. Not only are these issues out of the scope of this trial, they're actually weakening the states' position. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has already warned the states to stay within the domain of what was presented at during the trial and appeal phases, but the states continue to present this evidence in the penalty phase. By not striking this evidence from the record, Kollar-Kotelly leaves it on record for future appelate courts to handle, but she'll likely dismiss a great deal of it when she ultimately renders her decision at the conclusion of this phase.
You see... these questions will give them a bunch of quotes they can use in future advertising campaigns. If they actually asked the real questions, they'd end up with lots of responses containing "because it sucks" and "crapple". Plus, this way they'll have a lot fewer responses to wade through.
"Their ultimate goal? To have one CD you could pop into an Xbox, a PS2, a Windows machine, or a Linux machine, and play the same game on them all."
Considering Microsoft makes the XBOX, and the long legal history that Sun and Microsoft share, I wouldn't count on this goal being satisfied now or ever.
So let me get this straight... my Playstation 3 is going to benefit from cycles of somebody else's Playstation 3 that aren't being used. How many people leave their PS2's on all the time? Is this expected to change for the PS3? What network will this flow across? Why would somebody want to sacrafice performance on their own machine in order to give my Tekken game more pixels? What happens when users are all maxing out performance on their systems? Essentially we'd just be swapping cycles with one another and introducing latency due to network transit time. Then Johnny trips over his power cable, and my game freezes or slows to a crawl.
Sony, stop worrying about distributed cycles, and focus on the games. Or maybe come out with a 32X to plug into the top of your console.
I've owned an XBOX since release... no lockups, no hanging, no blue/black/pink screens. It's a fun machine. So is the PS2. Add what you want to your dictionary, but I'd be willing to bet that the CEBIT rules weren't created by Microsoft. I'd also place my money on a story hitting Slashdot if Microsoft had violated the rules, and allowed people to play with the XBOX.
Sony breaks the rules... Microsoft is bad. Microsoft breaks the rules... Microsoft is bad. For a group of readers that seems so hard-pressed to demand that Microsoft folow the rules of fair competition, they should at least expect other companies to do the same.
"For the library, the only license requirement is that a copyright notice be included in the program source-code, if released. Microsoft, which rarely releases source code, didn't need to include the string in the company's programs, but zlib creator Gailly wishes the giant gave credit."
Since they didn't release the source code, they didn't violate the license. End of story.
Hate to tell you... but the vast, vast, VAST majority of people that use computers could have that issue brought to their attention, and they wouldn't have a clue what you said, how to fix it, or that that meant there was even a problem. These are the people that put the mouse on the floor and balance their coffee mug on the CD-ROM drive. Sure, they're not your average sysop, but then again, if somebody is running a system where sshd is a concern, and they aren't concerned... maybe they shouldn't be running the system.
I'm just saying that a configuration issue from one manufacturer on the OS of choice doesn't seem like front-page news. You could have picked any product... say those combo pen/stylus thingies... and write an article about how people are writing on the screens of their Palm V because they shipped in the open-position, but what it comes down to is the user not knowing what they're dealing with, and not fully knowing what it's capable of. In my experience, that is the vast majority of the PC using public... whether they be using Windows, Mac, UNIX, Be, or OS/2 Warp. Well, maybe Warm shouldn't be put too close to the word "vast".:)
Here is the text of Microsoft's stance on the issue found here.
An Open Letter Regarding Windows XP and Java Support
Sun Microsystems has invested a great deal of their marketing dollars and lobbying efforts in attacking our yet-to-be released Windows XP operating system, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, the Java language and PC industry customers at large by not including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
We feel it is important to outline for our customers the facts on this matter.
Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine. In fact, Sun resorted to litigation to stop Microsoft from shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took optimal advantage of Windows. The settlement agreement provides for a termination of Microsoft's existing license with Sun and phase-out of the Microsoft VM, so Sun's professed surprise is mere spin. It should be noted that, since the settlement, a Federal Appeals Court has upheld Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
When Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year, Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said, "It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license with Microsoft, and an agreement that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine.
Sun now professes surprise and unhappiness, and is complaining publicly. But as industry analysts such as Bob Sutherland of Technology Business Research point out: "Sun can't have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control, but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Perhaps most disturbing, Sun is being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has taken several steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows customers from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.
At Microsoft we are proud of the Java virtual machine we created, and the value our customers see in it. It has a long history of high quality and superior performance. It is also the only Java virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. And it offered customers a choice - just as Windows XP will enable customers to choose and run other third-party virtual machines.
Sun works hard to create an image of itself as a leader in openness and choice with Java. The notion that Java is "open" is simply incorrect - Sun's actions ensure this, as again clearly demonstrated when it submitted Java to an industry standards body and then reneged on the submission, not just once but twice. Contrast these actions with Microsoft, where we have submitted the underlying specifications for Microsoft.NET to ECMA and are following through on our commitment.
Sun's idea of choice is that you can have any language you want, as long as it is Sun's version of Java under Sun's control. By contrast, Microsoft.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties, and Java will also be supported as a full-fledged language for the.NET platform. We believe that is a better definition of choice.
I have... that's why I said it's a thin layer. But if all it took to get to the guts of a program was a disassembler and a debugger, then everybody here wouldn't be so hell bent on getting Microsoft to open-source Windows and all of their APIs.
Oh, and your "stat" about the average copy protected game being hacked in less than 2 days... I agree that it happens extremely quickly (usually before the game hits the shelves), but picking numbers out of the sky doesn't help an argument much.
While open-sourcing your project may help ensure that you're a bit more proactive in securing your applications, it also gives the keys to the castle to anybody that decides to find programming mistakes in your code. Closed-source projects, while simply hiding any potential security holes, really does add an additional layer of protection, albeit a very thin one. But the issue of open-source vs. closed source as it relates to security is an entirely different argument of open-source vs. closed source as it relates to a company's right to keep trade secrets as just that. It's my opinion that if a company writes some code that they don't want shared, then they've got every right to keep it that way.
I can see how this might (very small might) be an arguable ability if somebody is only using one network application, but the second you multitask, you've got lights blinking in no meaningful sequence. I fail to see how they can separate pr0n from that 1.4gig VCD being downloaded at the same time.
Another big problem with.NET is it's not free.
Umm....NET IS free. You can download the.NET Framework here. Visual Studio.NET is not free, but you can develop your apps in any IDE... Just like you can in Java.
I was buying a HECK of a lot more CDs when Napster existed. Napster exposed me to a much wider mix of songs than I'd ever have purchased on somebody's say-so.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah ... because it has no users.
I was a beta tester for this search engine ... rewarded beta testers with a gift certificate at amazon.com. I wasn't all that impressed to be honest. It was fast but the result-set produced wasn't anything spectacular, and the new search features they added were of the "cute and fuzzy" variety. Nothing that would really yield much productivity. They added an associated topics section, and some visual cues to get to information, but given the choice between that and Google, I'd choose Google any day.
reference
1) They cloned our language
.NET == J2EE
.NET == suck
2) Their language sucks
3) They should've added some business logic
Business Logic Example:
therefore
J2EE == suck
Maybe this guy aughta check his reasoning on his Mac
Don't forget the red stapler...
Or you could look at it the other way. With every secret it cracks, the value of each previously cracked secret depreciates.
You see ... these questions will give them a bunch of quotes they can use in future advertising campaigns.
If they actually asked the real questions, they'd end up with lots of responses containing "because it sucks" and "crapple". Plus, this way they'll have a lot fewer responses to wade through.
So let me get this straight ... my Playstation 3 is going to benefit from cycles of somebody else's Playstation 3 that aren't being used. How many people leave their PS2's on all the time? Is this expected to change for the PS3? What network will this flow across? Why would somebody want to sacrafice performance on their own machine in order to give my Tekken game more pixels? What happens when users are all maxing out performance on their systems? Essentially we'd just be swapping cycles with one another and introducing latency due to network transit time. Then Johnny trips over his power cable, and my game freezes or slows to a crawl.
Sony, stop worrying about distributed cycles, and focus on the games. Or maybe come out with a 32X to plug into the top of your console.
Now prove it wasn't my 5 year old nephew that accidentally switched over to Outlook while playing "Grover Learns to Read".
I've owned an XBOX since release ... no lockups, no hanging, no blue/black/pink screens. It's a fun machine. So is the PS2. Add what you want to your dictionary, but I'd be willing to bet that the CEBIT rules weren't created by Microsoft. I'd also place my money on a story hitting Slashdot if Microsoft had violated the rules, and allowed people to play with the XBOX.
... Microsoft is bad. Microsoft breaks the rules ... Microsoft is bad. For a group of readers that seems so hard-pressed to demand that Microsoft folow the rules of fair competition, they should at least expect other companies to do the same.
Sony breaks the rules
I suggest that it be somebody that can properly spell penalty.
Here's the quote from the article:
"For the library, the only license requirement is that a copyright notice be included in the program source-code, if released. Microsoft, which rarely releases source code, didn't need to include the string in the company's programs, but zlib creator Gailly wishes the giant gave credit."
Since they didn't release the source code, they didn't violate the license. End of story.
I knew somebody would pick up where Kevorkian left off...
well, what about sshd having buffer overflows
... but the vast, vast, VAST majority of people that use computers could have that issue brought to their attention, and they wouldn't have a clue what you said, how to fix it, or that that meant there was even a problem. These are the people that put the mouse on the floor and balance their coffee mug on the CD-ROM drive. Sure, they're not your average sysop, but then again, if somebody is running a system where sshd is a concern, and they aren't concerned ... maybe they shouldn't be running the system.
... say those combo pen/stylus thingies ... and write an article about how people are writing on the screens of their Palm V because they shipped in the open-position, but what it comes down to is the user not knowing what they're dealing with, and not fully knowing what it's capable of. In my experience, that is the vast majority of the PC using public ... whether they be using Windows, Mac, UNIX, Be, or OS/2 Warp. Well, maybe Warm shouldn't be put too close to the word "vast". :)
Hate to tell you
I'm just saying that a configuration issue from one manufacturer on the OS of choice doesn't seem like front-page news. You could have picked any product
Here is the text of Microsoft's stance on the issue found here.
.NET to ECMA and are following through on our commitment.
.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties, and Java will also be supported as a full-fledged language for the .NET platform. We believe that is a better definition of choice.
An Open Letter Regarding Windows XP and Java Support
Sun Microsystems has invested a great deal of their marketing dollars and lobbying efforts in attacking our yet-to-be released Windows XP operating system, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, the Java language and PC industry customers at large by not including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
We feel it is important to outline for our customers the facts on this matter.
Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine. In fact, Sun resorted to litigation to stop Microsoft from shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took optimal advantage of Windows. The settlement agreement provides for a termination of Microsoft's existing license with Sun and phase-out of the Microsoft VM, so Sun's professed surprise is mere spin. It should be noted that, since the settlement, a Federal Appeals Court has upheld Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
When Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year, Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said, "It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license with Microsoft, and an agreement that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine.
Sun now professes surprise and unhappiness, and is complaining publicly. But as industry analysts such as Bob Sutherland of Technology Business Research point out: "Sun can't have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control, but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Perhaps most disturbing, Sun is being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has taken several steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows customers from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.
At Microsoft we are proud of the Java virtual machine we created, and the value our customers see in it. It has a long history of high quality and superior performance. It is also the only Java virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. And it offered customers a choice - just as Windows XP will enable customers to choose and run other third-party virtual machines.
Sun works hard to create an image of itself as a leader in openness and choice with Java. The notion that Java is "open" is simply incorrect - Sun's actions ensure this, as again clearly demonstrated when it submitted Java to an industry standards body and then reneged on the submission, not just once but twice. Contrast these actions with Microsoft, where we have submitted the underlying specifications for Microsoft
Sun's idea of choice is that you can have any language you want, as long as it is Sun's version of Java under Sun's control. By contrast, Microsoft
I have ... that's why I said it's a thin layer. But if all it took to get to the guts of a program was a disassembler and a debugger, then everybody here wouldn't be so hell bent on getting Microsoft to open-source Windows and all of their APIs.
... I agree that it happens extremely quickly (usually before the game hits the shelves), but picking numbers out of the sky doesn't help an argument much.
Oh, and your "stat" about the average copy protected game being hacked in less than 2 days
While open-sourcing your project may help ensure that you're a bit more proactive in securing your applications, it also gives the keys to the castle to anybody that decides to find programming mistakes in your code. Closed-source projects, while simply hiding any potential security holes, really does add an additional layer of protection, albeit a very thin one. But the issue of open-source vs. closed source as it relates to security is an entirely different argument of open-source vs. closed source as it relates to a company's right to keep trade secrets as just that. It's my opinion that if a company writes some code that they don't want shared, then they've got every right to keep it that way.
Does the RIAA know about this? They might be able to get the courts to ban LEDs since apparently now their music is being distributed via light.
I can see how this might (very small might) be an arguable ability if somebody is only using one network application, but the second you multitask, you've got lights blinking in no meaningful sequence. I fail to see how they can separate pr0n from that 1.4gig VCD being downloaded at the same time.
You ever been on a ski-slope?
Everybody that has a radio is constantly asking "Where are you?".
This way, you'd know without cluttering the channel.
Another big problem with .NET is it's not free.
Umm... .NET IS free. You can download the .NET Framework here. Visual Studio .NET is not free, but you can develop your apps in any IDE ... Just like you can in Java.
I was buying a HECK of a lot more CDs when Napster existed. Napster exposed me to a much wider mix of songs than I'd ever have purchased on somebody's say-so.