He's not talking about the home user. He's talking about corporate desktops and servers. You can't have apt-get running automatically on thousands of machines and expect it to never break any custom apps. It's all about the custom software in big companies. Patches have to be tested against all of these custom apps and then distributed in a controlled manner. Sure, we all know it's easy to set up an internal system to distribute these patches. But big companies with custom apps written on Windows need easy patch distribution from Microsoft. And that's what he's claiming to provide.
In big companies upper and usually middle management care more about ease of distribution than security. They only care that their short term costs are low when it comes to patching. Other than that they rely completely on the vendor to be rigorous in testing and patching. Big financial firms, for example (and from my own experience), do not test Microsoft application and OS security much. They assume MS will simply take care of it. When patches come out they simply make sure their custom software isn't broken when installing it and proceed. Functionality bugs are found by developers and internal tech support and often reported to Microsoft. But no one is seriously testing security of anything but custom apps.
Actual break-ins almost always go unreported and therefore cost these big companies almost nothing. But they want to claim they're doing all they can for security. Therefore they only care about the cost to patch, not the cost to secure.
I'm merely pointing out that the Chinese aren't any better than Iraq was. The arguments used by supporters of the invasion of Iraq aren't being applied universally. In no way do I support the invasion of Iraq, China, or any other country (since WWII). And in no way do I claim the US innocent of attrocities. I'm quite ashamed of my own government.
Since the major media doesn't regularly report on Chinese attrocities like they do Iraq's that means their not performing them? You don't know about the thousands of tortured prisoners? And the people who've killed their first born child to hide the fact it was a girl to prevent government penalties? And the children who work in practically slave labor, endangering their health?
And how about the nuclear weapons pointed at us? And the economic threat as they undercut us in production costs? But that's ok because the top echelon of wealthiest Americans are becoming richer because of it. Therefore China isn't a threat to the rest of us Americans, right?
So, if it were up to you we'd invade China. They've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, invaded other countries, and have nuclear weapons. Yet our 1.2 million soldiers spread thin across the planet wouldn't fare too well against their 2.5 million, would they? But of course the radical right claims they'll remove all tyrants and terrorists, then can't follow through. Instead they open trade to China, destroying small US businesses and making the Chinese rich.
The incompetance and hypocracy of the radical right in this country is truely amazing.
Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects...
Unless their researching social networking and open content systems that's really sad. I can't believe the content on Wikipedia should serve as a very significant source to any research other than to it's social influences. That would be like saying Britannica was a major source for a research project... that couldn't possibly be taken seriously.
It's certainly a blow to free speech. But if this hurts any unrelated research projects those projects should find much better sources anyway.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
How, exactly, is a change in delivery method going to improve content? You've said it yourselve, that the top torrent downloads may be TV episodes... today's TV episodes. The content is the same, just the delivery is different. Did cable transform television into drastically better entertainment? Not really. Has satellite improved radio content? No.
All we'll have is more targetted advertising and an easier way to choose what we watch. But it'll still be the same style of content.
It's very simple, actually. They already index closed captioning. The adsense can be based on that content. It may not feature location-based ads, but content-based is really quite easy with what they have today.
Plus consider closed captioning already exists for local commercials. If they were to use that for keywords some ads could certainly be location-based.
Television announcer: Your cable television is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless.
OS X does not concentrate on bling only. But I won't argue the point with someone who obviously hasn't used it much.
ANY OS will look the same on every machine. I can put gnome on 1000 desktops and make it look identical across every one. But many people adjust visual settings to their tastes. And that's a good thing for individual users. It makes them more productive. Windows changes UIs with every major release, and all I see is users struggling to adjust. I've gotten many people to switch from Windows to OS X and none of them are disappointed.
Because whether they say things that are pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft people will listen. As long as the topic is one of the best known companies in the world people will listen, good news or bad.
Although everyone has a point of view, independent or not, I would say they're a respectable source of opinion.
They still have 85%+ market share. And it's still installed by default in every Windows install. They may loose a few percent here or there, but as long as they make their browser the fastest in the next release of Windows they won't have to do anything else to fight for market share. You give users too much credit.
I didn't forget. But Microsoft hasn't informed. I worked in Microsoft-only development teams for 10 years, my last 2 with.NET. Never was anyone in my team aware that they could develop.NET apps without Visual Studio. None of their friends at other companies were aware. When I mentioned it, they laughed and spent tens of thousands of dollars are licensing VS.NET.
The general assumption, promoted by Microsoft's marketing, is that VS.NET is required to do Windows development. Click on any.NET ad on the internet or read Microsoft's site about Windows development. It's irrelevant that it's not required if Microsoft's marketing has convinced people of the opposite.
Patents affectively render any alternatives irrelevant. Not every.NET library can be rewritten without patent licensing from Microsoft. And so far it appears not every library can even be called without patent licensing. A Visual Studio license is required to have access to every.NET library written by Microsoft. So good luck using anything else as a complete alternative. You may get the language but you can't get all of the libraries.
Check ECMA's requirements on patents. The license only needs to be available, not free. Also note there are patented communications protocols and document formats, so you can never have complete access to the platform without permission from Microsoft.
.NET is the only proof required to show that Microsoft is still acting as a monopoly. They tell all Windows developers that they must now use.NET for all development (whether or not that's true, that's what they tell developers). And they tell people that the way to go about doing.NET development is to buy Visual Studio, usually at the cost of a few hundred dollars. Selling a platform and then selling the only means to develop on that platform is monopolistic. If it weren't thinking it's a monopoly Microsoft would know they couldn't get away with such a thing.
Any commercial platform that wishes to gain more developers gives away the basic tools with the platform (e.g. OS X, Solaris). Only a platform which believes it has a stranglehold on developers would charge for the basic tools.
There's also a Python bridge for Obj-C. So for those that prefer a very different language, with its interpreter already distributed with the OS, Python's a great option. You get the native objects exposed by OS X available to Python.
And let's not forget OS X is built on top of BSD. So effectively anything which can be written for BSD can be written for OS X. There are, of course, limited GUI tools, but options are available. Qt libraries, for example, will display native GUI elements when possible.
By having someone look at your screen it's your responsibility to prevent private info from appearing. The system knows you're logged in, but it certainly doesn't know someone other than you is looking at the information. Just like if you brought up your address book... you should know not to bring up confidential contact information. The system certainly can't take care of that for you.
Edna: Seymour, you have to think of the children's future. Seymour: Oh, Edna. We all know that these children HAVE no future. [Everyone stops and stares at Seymour.] Seymour: Prove me wrong children. Prove me wrong.
Homer: From now on, there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Windows Vista way. Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way? Homer: Yeah, but faster!
Actually it's all about documentation. I was following this closely last year. When the EU says they haven't "opened up" communications protocols they're talking about giving competitors the info they need so their apps can communicate with Windows. The EU commission doesn't care how Microsoft implements their software or how the protocols are designed. They only care that APIs and protocols are properly and fully documented so anyone can use them. As of now the documentation is incomplete in some places and missing in others.
They don't have a supply problem. They knew quite well that they'd sell out. They want the news coverage stating their consoles sell out on the first day. Vendors have been complaining about this for weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Awsome comment. I've submitted it to SeenOnSlash.
That's one of the funniest comments I've ever seen on /.! I've submitted to SeenOnSlash.
He's not talking about the home user. He's talking about corporate desktops and servers. You can't have apt-get running automatically on thousands of machines and expect it to never break any custom apps. It's all about the custom software in big companies. Patches have to be tested against all of these custom apps and then distributed in a controlled manner. Sure, we all know it's easy to set up an internal system to distribute these patches. But big companies with custom apps written on Windows need easy patch distribution from Microsoft. And that's what he's claiming to provide.
In big companies upper and usually middle management care more about ease of distribution than security. They only care that their short term costs are low when it comes to patching. Other than that they rely completely on the vendor to be rigorous in testing and patching. Big financial firms, for example (and from my own experience), do not test Microsoft application and OS security much. They assume MS will simply take care of it. When patches come out they simply make sure their custom software isn't broken when installing it and proceed. Functionality bugs are found by developers and internal tech support and often reported to Microsoft. But no one is seriously testing security of anything but custom apps.
Actual break-ins almost always go unreported and therefore cost these big companies almost nothing. But they want to claim they're doing all they can for security. Therefore they only care about the cost to patch, not the cost to secure.
I'm merely pointing out that the Chinese aren't any better than Iraq was. The arguments used by supporters of the invasion of Iraq aren't being applied universally. In no way do I support the invasion of Iraq, China, or any other country (since WWII). And in no way do I claim the US innocent of attrocities. I'm quite ashamed of my own government.
Since the major media doesn't regularly report on Chinese attrocities like they do Iraq's that means their not performing them? You don't know about the thousands of tortured prisoners? And the people who've killed their first born child to hide the fact it was a girl to prevent government penalties? And the children who work in practically slave labor, endangering their health?
And how about the nuclear weapons pointed at us? And the economic threat as they undercut us in production costs? But that's ok because the top echelon of wealthiest Americans are becoming richer because of it. Therefore China isn't a threat to the rest of us Americans, right?
Stop watching Fox News and start reading.
So, if it were up to you we'd invade China. They've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, invaded other countries, and have nuclear weapons. Yet our 1.2 million soldiers spread thin across the planet wouldn't fare too well against their 2.5 million, would they? But of course the radical right claims they'll remove all tyrants and terrorists, then can't follow through. Instead they open trade to China, destroying small US businesses and making the Chinese rich.
The incompetance and hypocracy of the radical right in this country is truely amazing.
Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects...
Unless their researching social networking and open content systems that's really sad. I can't believe the content on Wikipedia should serve as a very significant source to any research other than to it's social influences. That would be like saying Britannica was a major source for a research project... that couldn't possibly be taken seriously.
It's certainly a blow to free speech. But if this hurts any unrelated research projects those projects should find much better sources anyway.
"a set of bundled libraries designed to be API compatible"
"designed to mimmick the behaviour of another piece of hardware or software in order to achieve the same functionality"
What's the difference?
Aren't the libraries bundled with WINE written to mimmick the responses of the equivalent Windows APIs? Sounds like emulation to me.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
How, exactly, is a change in delivery method going to improve content? You've said it yourselve, that the top torrent downloads may be TV episodes... today's TV episodes. The content is the same, just the delivery is different. Did cable transform television into drastically better entertainment? Not really. Has satellite improved radio content? No.
All we'll have is more targetted advertising and an easier way to choose what we watch. But it'll still be the same style of content.
It's very simple, actually. They already index closed captioning. The adsense can be based on that content. It may not feature location-based ads, but content-based is really quite easy with what they have today.
Plus consider closed captioning already exists for local commercials. If they were to use that for keywords some ads could certainly be location-based.
Television announcer: Your cable television is experiencing difficulties. Please do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless.
OS X does not concentrate on bling only. But I won't argue the point with someone who obviously hasn't used it much.
ANY OS will look the same on every machine. I can put gnome on 1000 desktops and make it look identical across every one. But many people adjust visual settings to their tastes. And that's a good thing for individual users. It makes them more productive. Windows changes UIs with every major release, and all I see is users struggling to adjust. I've gotten many people to switch from Windows to OS X and none of them are disappointed.
Because whether they say things that are pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft people will listen. As long as the topic is one of the best known companies in the world people will listen, good news or bad.
Although everyone has a point of view, independent or not, I would say they're a respectable source of opinion.
They still have 85%+ market share. And it's still installed by default in every Windows install. They may loose a few percent here or there, but as long as they make their browser the fastest in the next release of Windows they won't have to do anything else to fight for market share. You give users too much credit.
I didn't forget. But Microsoft hasn't informed. I worked in Microsoft-only development teams for 10 years, my last 2 with .NET. Never was anyone in my team aware that they could develop .NET apps without Visual Studio. None of their friends at other companies were aware. When I mentioned it, they laughed and spent tens of thousands of dollars are licensing VS.NET.
.NET ad on the internet or read Microsoft's site about Windows development. It's irrelevant that it's not required if Microsoft's marketing has convinced people of the opposite.
The general assumption, promoted by Microsoft's marketing, is that VS.NET is required to do Windows development. Click on any
Patents affectively render any alternatives irrelevant. Not every .NET library can be rewritten without patent licensing from Microsoft. And so far it appears not every library can even be called without patent licensing. A Visual Studio license is required to have access to every .NET library written by Microsoft. So good luck using anything else as a complete alternative. You may get the language but you can't get all of the libraries.
Check ECMA's requirements on patents. The license only needs to be available, not free. Also note there are patented communications protocols and document formats, so you can never have complete access to the platform without permission from Microsoft.
.NET is the only proof required to show that Microsoft is still acting as a monopoly. They tell all Windows developers that they must now use .NET for all development (whether or not that's true, that's what they tell developers). And they tell people that the way to go about doing .NET development is to buy Visual Studio, usually at the cost of a few hundred dollars. Selling a platform and then selling the only means to develop on that platform is monopolistic. If it weren't thinking it's a monopoly Microsoft would know they couldn't get away with such a thing.
Any commercial platform that wishes to gain more developers gives away the basic tools with the platform (e.g. OS X, Solaris). Only a platform which believes it has a stranglehold on developers would charge for the basic tools.
There's also a Python bridge for Obj-C. So for those that prefer a very different language, with its interpreter already distributed with the OS, Python's a great option. You get the native objects exposed by OS X available to Python.
And let's not forget OS X is built on top of BSD. So effectively anything which can be written for BSD can be written for OS X. There are, of course, limited GUI tools, but options are available. Qt libraries, for example, will display native GUI elements when possible.
Duffman: New feelings brewing inside Duffman... What... WOULD JESUS DO?!
By having someone look at your screen it's your responsibility to prevent private info from appearing. The system knows you're logged in, but it certainly doesn't know someone other than you is looking at the information. Just like if you brought up your address book... you should know not to bring up confidential contact information. The system certainly can't take care of that for you.
Edna: Seymour, you have to think of the children's future.
Seymour: Oh, Edna. We all know that these children HAVE no future.
[Everyone stops and stares at Seymour.]
Seymour: Prove me wrong children. Prove me wrong.
Homer: From now on, there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Windows Vista way.
Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!
Actually it's all about documentation. I was following this closely last year. When the EU says they haven't "opened up" communications protocols they're talking about giving competitors the info they need so their apps can communicate with Windows. The EU commission doesn't care how Microsoft implements their software or how the protocols are designed. They only care that APIs and protocols are properly and fully documented so anyone can use them. As of now the documentation is incomplete in some places and missing in others.
At least this will solve M$'s supply problem
They don't have a supply problem. They knew quite well that they'd sell out. They want the news coverage stating their consoles sell out on the first day. Vendors have been complaining about this for weeks.