"One of the beauties of Unix is that everything is a file, hence once the user knows how to handle files, they know how to handle everything."
Once the user knows how to handle files, they know how to handle files. Certainly to do something useful, even under Unix, requires more knowlege than that.
This should be "MS is a monopoly.. the district court so found and the appeals court upheld it". It's a major mistake to equate a court decision with truth. I imagine you have arguments of your own to prove that MS is a monopoly. If the Supreme Court eventually overturns the MS case, would you then conclude your arguments are invalid? The point is that court decisons have the force of law, but not necessarily of truth.
"I've asked RMS to rule whether re-use of GPL components in other GPL projects is within the rules of the licence."
That's a reasonable thing to do since RMS is obviously knowlegable about the GPL, but remember that legally the GPL license will stand on its own. If a conflict should go to court, it won't matter what RMS thinks.
You missed my point. If your professors don't want to be the victim of virus they should not be happy about hackers creating them. On the other hand, if they are just using viruses as an excuse to attack MS, then they're being deceptive. Neither illogic nor intellectual dishonesty is an attractive quality in a professor.
By the way, I've observed an interesting aspect of moderation on Slashdot. About 90% of those who disagree with me get at least a 2 regardless of the quality of the post. Those that agree with me don't do as well. So if you need extra mod points everyone, go ahead and disagree with me. You won't be disappointed.
Perhaps I was too harsh and should have explained my opinion in more detail rather than being so flip about it. Let me say that I have nothing against Europe. I believe that the US could learn a lot from Europe, particularly in the areas of the environment and human rights.
My problem with the EU's investigation into MS is that it doesn't appear objective (I have the same problem with the US investigation, BTW). If you are concerned about a potential monopoly in the server marketplace, the first company you look at is the market leader. MS isn't it. Sun is exporting their very successful lobbying campaign against MS to the EU. IMHO, the EU should stop listening to MS critics in the US and have their own independent investigation into the entire market. That investigation will not be comprehensive unless Sun is examined along with MS and all the others. One could certainly make the case that Sun is attempting to achieve a monopoly in the server market by lobbying governments to eliminate or restrict a competitor.
Let me get this straight. These guys are happy that hackers are creating viruses that exploit holes in MS products, but they are concerned that their research might be exposed by those same viruses. With logic like that, I hope I never fly on an aircraft they designed.
"Most folks posting seem to have forgotten that Microsoft has been judged to be a Monopoly by the US courts, and as a monopoly is subject to different rules."
Yes, people post this fact all the time. What exactly are these different rules? I suspect they're not as restrictive as slashdoters wish.
"ALL the "innovation" in Microsoft products came from others outside Microsoft. They have NEVER come up with something new and innovative."
One example of a new and innovative product was MTS (Microsoft Transaction Sever). It was the first middle-tier component runtime environment. Sun liked it so much they based much of EJB on it.
The reason that some slashdot posters don't want to blame the virus writer is because they're quite happy with Code Red because it makes MS look bad. The enemy of their enemy is their friend.. At least until their ports get blocked by their ISP.
Re:It's not like they haven't announced the patch
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
As been noted elsewhere, Win2K does NOT install a web server by default.
I don't think an understanding of the algorithms always requires an assembly language presentation. These days most of the algorithms will be implemented in higher-level languages anyway. It's just his style to present them that way. Surely the old MIX would have been good enough, he's just having fun inventing something new.
Re:People are becoming consumers, not content crea
on
Broadband Crackdown
·
· Score: 1
"I am also annoyed that, while Apache and other UNIX web servers are able make a web server without countless remote root exploits, all UNIX users on these cable modems suffer because Microsoft did not make a secure web server."
It's funny how on slashdot people blame MS for Code Red but don't condemn the individual that created it.
For those (not necessarily Kiwi) who were secretly cheering Code Red because it hurts MS, having their port 80 blocked is poetic justice.
I don't know if Scalia is a real libertarian, but as I understand it, libertarians are not in favor of government intervention of any kind. The only role for government in their view is to provide for the common defense. At least that's what my card-carrying libertarian friend claims.
"no one at ms cares about java?! is that why theyve spent years first arguing that it was irrelevant, then jumping on the bandwagon, then trying embrace and extend, then fighting cases in court, and now coming up with c#?"
When did they argue that Java was irrelevant? They were an early adopter. Actually their strategy was wrong; had they ignored Java, it would have been less successful.
On the other hand, Sun would have used the argument that MS was ignoring Java in order to maintain their monopoly (just as people are now arguing), so they couldn't win either way.
The only thing that really counts is who is greasing the most palms in Washington. Sun and Oracle got good value for their money.
"You could always send a telegraph or write a letter rather than use AT&T. No one is forcing you to make that call, the same way no one is forcing you to have windows. "
Your analogy is flawed. You couldn't make a phone call without AT&T, but you can do a lot of computing without MS. By your standard MS doesn't have a monopoly because people can do calculations with a calculator, draw using paper, and order products by catalog instead of using the internet.
"Do I have any choice about using MS's products? No, my job effectively requires it."
As an employee, I'm sure there's lots of things you have to do that you don't want to do. But the buyer of the software (your company), was not forced to buy it.
You still haven't refuted the original point, MS can't make you buy their product. Compare this with a real mononoply, AT&T in their glory days. You had to rent the phone and you couldn't make a call without using them.
"Of course the lower court could initially enjoin Microsoft from shipping XP, which they'd have to appeal, thus the waiting game works against M$."
Well, the lower court could block XP in response to a new cause of action, but they can't do it as part of the original case until the Court of Appeals sends it back to them. The DOJ etc wanted this to happen faster, but the Appeals Court turned them down.
Usually the criteria for an injunction would be that the court has a fair expectation that they might eventually rule the same way. In other words, the replacement district court judge is unlikely to block XP unless he thinks there's a reasonable chance that he would come to the same conclusion after hearing the full evidence. Since a judge hasn't even been selected yet, I wouldn't count on an injunction any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
"One of the beauties of Unix is that everything is a file, hence once the user knows how to handle files, they know how to handle everything."
Once the user knows how to handle files, they know how to handle files. Certainly to do something useful, even under Unix, requires more knowlege than that.
In other words you have no logical arguments to make today. That's OK, Anonymous Coward was designed for that.
"MS is a monopoly.. proven"
This should be "MS is a monopoly.. the district court so found and the appeals court upheld it". It's a major mistake to equate a court decision with truth. I imagine you have arguments of your own to prove that MS is a monopoly. If the Supreme Court eventually overturns the MS case, would you then conclude your arguments are invalid? The point is that court decisons have the force of law, but not necessarily of truth.
"I've asked RMS to rule whether re-use of GPL components in other GPL projects is within the rules of the licence."
That's a reasonable thing to do since RMS is obviously knowlegable about the GPL, but remember that legally the GPL license will stand on its own. If a conflict should go to court, it won't matter what RMS thinks.
You missed my point. If your professors don't want to be the victim of virus they should not be happy about hackers creating them. On the other hand, if they are just using viruses as an excuse to attack MS, then they're being deceptive. Neither illogic nor intellectual dishonesty is an attractive quality in a professor.
By the way, I've observed an interesting aspect of moderation on Slashdot. About 90% of those who disagree with me get at least a 2 regardless of the quality of the post. Those that agree with me don't do as well. So if you need extra mod points everyone, go ahead and disagree with me. You won't be disappointed.
You're assuming a lot about what I believe.
Perhaps I was too harsh and should have explained my opinion in more detail rather than being so flip about it. Let me say that I have nothing against Europe. I believe that the US could learn a lot from Europe, particularly in the areas of the environment and human rights.
My problem with the EU's investigation into MS is that it doesn't appear objective (I have the same problem with the US investigation, BTW). If you are concerned about a potential monopoly in the server marketplace, the first company you look at is the market leader. MS isn't it. Sun is exporting their very successful lobbying campaign against MS to the EU. IMHO, the EU should stop listening to MS critics in the US and have their own independent investigation into the entire market. That investigation will not be comprehensive unless Sun is examined along with MS and all the others. One could certainly make the case that Sun is attempting to achieve a monopoly in the server market by lobbying governments to eliminate or restrict a competitor.
Let me get this straight. These guys are happy that hackers are creating viruses that exploit holes in MS products, but they are concerned that their research might be exposed by those same viruses. With logic like that, I hope I never fly on an aircraft they designed.
"Most folks posting seem to have forgotten that Microsoft has been judged to be a Monopoly by the US courts, and as a monopoly is subject to different rules."
Yes, people post this fact all the time. What exactly are these different rules? I suspect they're not as restrictive as slashdoters wish.
When Sun, Oracle and AOL have monopolies in Europe, the EU trustbusters will only have themselves to blame.
"You can really screw microsoft by buying an xbox, then not buying any games so they miss out on the licensing fees."
You can really screw yourself by buying an xbox, then not buying any games so you've spent a lot of money for nothing.
"ALL the "innovation" in Microsoft products came from others outside Microsoft. They have NEVER come up with something new and innovative."
One example of a new and innovative product was MTS (Microsoft Transaction Sever). It was the first middle-tier component runtime environment. Sun liked it so much they based much of EJB on it.
">Once there are numerous copyright holders, relicensing becomes problematic, if not, as a practical matter, impossible.
That's a valid point. Any one with suggestions about avoiding that problem?"
Yeah, don't use the GPL.
There's no margin of error quoted so this is obviously not a scientifically valid survey.
Your absolutely right.
.. At least until their ports get blocked by their ISP.
The reason that some slashdot posters don't want to blame the virus writer is because they're quite happy with Code Red because it makes MS look bad. The enemy of their enemy is their friend
As been noted elsewhere, Win2K does NOT install a web server by default.
I don't think an understanding of the algorithms always requires an assembly language presentation. These days most of the algorithms will be implemented in higher-level languages anyway. It's just his style to present them that way. Surely the old MIX would have been good enough, he's just having fun inventing something new.
"I am also annoyed that, while Apache and other UNIX web servers are able make a web server without countless remote root exploits, all UNIX users on these cable modems suffer because Microsoft did not make a secure web server."
It's funny how on slashdot people blame MS for Code Red but don't condemn the individual that created it.
For those (not necessarily Kiwi) who were secretly cheering Code Red because it hurts MS, having their port 80 blocked is poetic justice.
I don't know if Scalia is a real libertarian, but as I understand it, libertarians are not in favor of government intervention of any kind. The only role for government in their view is to provide for the common defense. At least that's what my card-carrying libertarian friend claims.
"Every time I read the same tired arguments as above .."
The arguments aren't just tired, they're lonely. All alone out there without a logical argument against them.
"no one at ms cares about java?! is that why theyve spent years first arguing that it was irrelevant, then jumping on the bandwagon, then trying embrace and extend, then fighting cases in court, and now coming up with c#?"
When did they argue that Java was irrelevant? They were an early adopter. Actually their strategy was wrong; had they ignored Java, it would have been less successful.
On the other hand, Sun would have used the argument that MS was ignoring Java in order to maintain their monopoly (just as people are now arguing), so they couldn't win either way.
The only thing that really counts is who is greasing the most palms in Washington. Sun and Oracle got good value for their money.
"You could always send a telegraph or write a letter rather than use AT&T. No one is forcing you to make that call, the same way no one is forcing you to have windows. "
Your analogy is flawed. You couldn't make a phone call without AT&T, but you can do a lot of computing without MS. By your standard MS doesn't have a monopoly because people can do calculations with a calculator, draw using paper, and order products by catalog instead of using the internet.
"possibly because there's no ethical argument that says closed-source game development is bad"
What's the ethical argument that any closed-source development is bad?
"Do I have any choice about using MS's products? No, my job effectively requires it."
As an employee, I'm sure there's lots of things you have to do that you don't want to do. But the buyer of the software (your company), was not forced to buy it.
You still haven't refuted the original point, MS can't make you buy their product. Compare this with a real mononoply, AT&T in their glory days. You had to rent the phone and you couldn't make a call without using them.
"Of course the lower court could initially enjoin Microsoft from shipping XP, which they'd have to appeal, thus the waiting game works against M$."
Well, the lower court could block XP in response to a new cause of action, but they can't do it as part of the original case until the Court of Appeals sends it back to them. The DOJ etc wanted this to happen faster, but the Appeals Court turned them down.
Usually the criteria for an injunction would be that the court has a fair expectation that they might eventually rule the same way. In other words, the replacement district court judge is unlikely to block XP unless he thinks there's a reasonable chance that he would come to the same conclusion after hearing the full evidence. Since a judge hasn't even been selected yet, I wouldn't count on an injunction any time soon.