An actual quote from MS's PR machine:
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 2
"Trojan horse software doesn't target technology, it targets the user. If BackOrifice did in fact exploit security vulnerabilities in Windows or Windows NT, Microsoft would promptly fix the vulnerability, and BackOrifice would be stopped."
Does this mean (as we knew all along) that Microsoft is more interested in maintaining the integrity of their technology than the interests of their users?
Sounds like a really easy joke here, but I'm interested how else I could interpret this statement. Please reply if you know....
I like you went to see it a second time after I read some "WISDOM" thermometer scale about it. The scale actually enhanced the humor of it, because they missed the point (something inherent of most religius leaders, apparently, not just Christians).
What have Christians done over the years?
Dostoevsky asked this question, and wrote a 20-page short story about it (actually, it's found in The Brothers Karamozav, but has been published and sold as a stand-alone story, too), called "the Grand Inquisitor."
Basically (very basically), the Pope criticizes Jesus Christ for making salvation both unattainable and void of significance. I think Dostoevsky was criticizing the Roman Catholic Church for cheapening Christianity, but the lesson still stands: whenever you interpret ANY sacred texts, you cannot help but develop a schema for separating the lambs and the goats.
So South Park creators are responding to the Church? Go let 'em. Truth be told, there's not very much original in this film, but it is certainly cartharctic in responding to our culture. The message I do not get from the film is that someone else, or someTHING else, is to blame.
If you were to ask the creators of South Park -- BBU, they would probably admit that the Church's future response to this film was considered during the making of this film, and hence anything the writers could do to make the Church look stupid was certainly fair game.
If you understood that argument (and no, I'm aware it's not Rocket Science), then congratulate yourself: you can think one level above the Church (who cannot understand or consider this argument).
.... a few months ago, only because bookpool.com didn't have it -- and the book arrived a little over a month ago.
I've got a feeling someone could learn CORBA from this book, but please don't hold me to that.
It's certainly worth the money AND the size of the book (good thing slashdot's reviewer isn't a drummer -- he'd get tired of carrying around his drum kit all the time).
The DOJ has just nabbed the mystery between MS's marketing strategy...
And now for something terribly off-topic...
One BILLION dollars ??
IF Caldera wins this, they will be criticized if that money isn't invested with the Linux Community in mind.
And since slashdot readers have never collectively embraced OpenLinux (because it's so easy to install??), Caldera should expect all eyes watching at slashdot.
I'm not against this, but I'm not looking forward to the anticipated "battle in the kids' sandbox" among different dist's loyal users.
[sorry, folks.... but we DO have that public image]
Someone OUT OF NOWHERE releases a "real-world" benchmark comparing Apache and IIS... hopefully the first of many.
It helps that this is an accomplished firm (read: they know how to pursue a benchmark), and an accountable one at that (read: they publish the results, knowing full-well that ONE SIDE or the other will scrutinize their results).
In a strange way, I'm happy that the results weren't exactly a landslide.
We need more benachmarks like this (read: published by people who play fair, and who let the music do the talking).
I will be able to fend off the criticism for now. I have faith in out community and in our talent.
The "faith in our community" is indeed the unspoken trump card to our success. Like it or not, Microsoft has mastered this, and could sell it in bottles if they needed to.
.... that the press is interpreting benchmarks as what they really are: a process implemented to improve results. In other words: OK, the benchmark has been done, and now the Linux community knows what needs to be done. I applaud the press for this interpretation, instead of something along the lines of, "looks like the Linux Community is 'pulling a Microsoft' by burying the results in a dainty little PR statement, and not actually addressing the issues..."
Now if only the Linux Community can learn to implement this interpretation of benchmarks....
That is to say: folks, benchmarks are our friends, EVEN IF they're biased !! So what if the NT box uses an Apache server... I'd like to see WINE use IIS, just to say that we've tried it -- wouldn't THAT be a hoot !!
I'm not saying I like AOL [but compared to other models, they are NOT the evil incarnate], but it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSEABLE to use AOL as "the example that failed" as your excuse for ripping off your customers, by saying [sic] "we don't want to fall into the trap of what AOL did, and not provide enough bandwidth..." blah-blah-blah....
Don't you get sick of how ISP's an get away with saying "we never promised you "X" peak speeds" ??
They've forgotten that we chose THEIR service over their competition because it's the speed that matters !! We're not interested in your fair business models... we just want you speed, and by golly, that's what we agreed to -- why can't YOU agree to this, too ??
Microsoft's initial aggressive marketing, bundling and discounting of its Office Suite led to a clear dominant position. This path dependency lead to dominance. Microsoft did in fact earn its riches through old fashion solid marketing, and has benefited from the spoils.
In other words, Micorosft is smarter than the rest of us. If, by this statement, he means "Microsoft lied, cheated, and stole to get where they are now... that's fine, and I agree with that; but he didn't say that [if anyone else thinks he alluded more than I give him credit for, please accept my apology].
I'm sorry to debate a minor issue in an otherwise well-written essay, but this needs to be said, I believe. The issue is no longer minor in the big picture... why isn't it a bigger deal?
Well written, yes -- but in disagreement elsewhere, also:
Microsoft does not dominate the market because in every other segment, the medium of interoperability is different.
Why single out out Microsoft here, when nearly in the same breath he mentions Acrobat Reader? I mean, if AR were a superior product AND no one used it, he would have an incredibly valid point. As it stands, however, the guy doesn't like Microsoft, and he's using his finesse to hide his bias (rather well, at that, if I may say).
Micorosft got where they are in part because of their low-price software (not to be construed in any fasion with the quality of that software, and the open-liscensing agreements with third-party vendors. This is not the source of their evil.
Re:Don't give up on Harmony just yet.
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, this seems like a real hot seat in the arena of libraries.
Now personally, I don't know of modifications I would make, other than ADDITIONAL libraries; and quite frankly, either I WOULDN'T distribute those, or else my distribution circle would be known (i.e., downloads on my web site would be limited to those who KNOW that my web site exists -- not that I have anything to hide).
[And of course, I'm assuming another person actually has an INTEREST in my libraries]
Good point on paper, but immaterial for me (I think). I'll leave it to the lawyers.
[One last word: I may not be very concerned with this issue only because I'm not sophisticated enough of a developer to care one way or the other. I only mention this because I'm not alone, and we're in the majority]
Why don't you check out their website for their product catalog.
---I have, many times. No argument here. SAMS. QUE. New Riders.
Find that they mirror the LDP on their servers...
---Note this is not an earth-shattering accomplishment, but okay, so they have an interest (no doubt a monetary one).
Find that they recently are putting out a Quake product for Linux.
---"THEY" being Macmillan Digital ?? You mean THEY wrote it, or THEY knew this is indeed a hot software item, and THEY have the clout to plublish it...
Check out the fact that they have Linux-related e-books online for FREE at pbs.mcp.com...
---... but are HOW OLD?? Hey, I'm the FIRST to admit, RIGHT NOW is THE time to build your home libraries with UNIX/LINUX books (a few '95 books are VERY useful); but AGAIN, does this REALLY give Macmillan bragging rights?
I'm not gonna embaress[SP?] anyone here, but $0.25 says I know who posted this "Get the facts" message BY NAME....
"Get the FACTS" ?? Get the pertinent facts, elsewhere, apparently....
KDevelop is probably what you'd expect from an IDE on Linux (yes, it's free).
It's still in alpha, but it works fine on SW 4.0, RH 6 & 5.2, Debian 2.1, and Stampede 0.89.
Note on Stampede: I really expected more speed out of KDevelop, but apparently K in general is still rather klunky. And personally, installing all the packages was a REAL hassle.
I just about fell off my dinosour when I read Bennett saying that this [sic] "will maintain Macmillan's reputation as the leader in everything Linux."
Does Bennett ever go online, anymore?
At all ??
Kinda like how some religious fanatics base all their beliefs on those little comic-book-like tracts (strangely enough, these folks would ALSO benefit from going online!!).
Did I miss something, or did Jack forget to respond to the rebuttals?
Sure, we, the Slashdot front, can be rude at times in our postings. But THAT'S OUR RIGHT AS READERS, RIGHT ??
It's interesting to me that he chose to attack the user base of LinuxOS as opposed to attacking ONE individual (who, nevermind that he had legitimate criticisms).
mogenthal At first reading, I wasn't even going to dignify this article with a response; but then I "noticed" that Mogenthal is merely suckered into Microsoft's way of thinking about business:
"I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows..." ---... or perhaps we all just want to use a more stable product...
"... all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system..." --- The difference is, if I PERSONALLY know something about that piece of the kernel, I can also submit my opinion and knowledge of that piece.
The very next sentence:
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released... " ----... A far more superior method of developing and customizing than using, say, Visual C++.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition..." ----... oh yeah, and also because Bill Gates can afford to market his product with a Rolling Stones song, like "Start Me Up." Say what yopu will about Microsoft, but they CERTAINLY understand the magic of marketing themselves....
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available..." --- I'm not saying a friggin' word about this one...
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain." ---- I don't believe this is true. Give us another 8-9 months, and it WON'T be true at all by then.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." ---- True, but let's not confuse desktops with mainframes...
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems." ---- No argument here. Same goes for qualified Oracle DBA's, A+ candidates, MCSE's....
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray." ---- Worse case scenario, Linux will become a staple in undergraduate courses on OS theory (similiar to how QBasic has become rather common as a "first" programming language). The Linux kernrl of today will suffice for my future children to learn about what an OS should be. By the time my children are born, OS will be as free yet crucial as BIOS.
Sure, there have been differences among us since we learned we were all using different flavors of Linux.
And sure, we should expect -- and acknowledge, perhaps even welcome -- the dissenters of one distribution (in this case RedHat) when the words appear in an oft-reputable form (in this case, LinuxToday).
But our little wars are PRECISELY what Bill Gates has been waiting for. Given the opportunity to borrow a tactic from our current U.S. president (that is, focus on the diversion and make an example out of it), Gates will take and run with that opportunity.
Perhaps we can criticize RedHat for their decision to go public. Personally, I was not against RH for doing this, and I still am not.
I just wish journalists could be more responsible.
Lest we forget the recent tendency of IPO's gaining public appeal quickly via "small ideas" like e*Trade, et. al., allow me to paraphrase the words I read in a Newsweek article a couple of weeks ago:
"Investors don't care about the economic risks involved in giving away free software -- they just want to make a fast profit..."
Six weeks from now we won't be concerned about Red Hat's IPO status -- because penny-rate investors won't, either...
Believe it or not, this is not an anti-Linuc campaign, but rather a training issue.
I'm not saying it would take more than a few hours to train the installers to configure ADSL from the Linux shell (dhcpcd takes moments to set up); but why train them when it only affects a small percentage of users?
That be said, let the feedback to BS.net begin !!
How else will they get the picture that Linux is desktop-friendly, not just another hard-to-support OS ?
SourceXchange is undoubtedly a better idea than it first seems -- and not just for the money, or even the reputation of Linux/BSD.
Sure, SourceXchange will eventually become "the WD-40 for open-source development." Since, after all, what in a "new" program is really NEW? It's like asking a songwriter what in his/her song is original -- same language, new twists and turns, further propegation (sp?) of this new paradigm.
I'm not at all against hackers getting paid for their craft, but I REALLY like the aspect of peer review -- which is no longer an unspoken commandment of open-source. Sure, we all know it's there; but THEY do not... and THEY are the ones keeping us fat.
Everything I can think to say about this article will be apparent to anyone who takes the time to read it (it's not THAT long).
But here's one original thought: I appreciate how Network Computing has not made this study "conclusive," that the facts are still open for debate. Sure, it's all PR/Pro-speak, but I like it.
I also like how they have solicited feedback for "what it would take to make Linux present in your office."
Slashdot Mirror
"Trojan horse software doesn't target technology, it targets the user. If BackOrifice did in fact exploit security vulnerabilities in Windows or Windows NT, Microsoft would promptly fix the vulnerability, and BackOrifice would be stopped."
Does this mean (as we knew all along) that Microsoft is more interested in maintaining the integrity of their technology than the interests of their users?
Sounds like a really easy joke here, but I'm interested how else I could interpret this statement. Please reply if you know ....
What have Christians done over the years?
Dostoevsky asked this question, and wrote a 20-page short story about it (actually, it's found in The Brothers Karamozav, but has been published and sold as a stand-alone story, too), called "the Grand Inquisitor."
Basically (very basically), the Pope criticizes Jesus Christ for making salvation both unattainable and void of significance. I think Dostoevsky was criticizing the Roman Catholic Church for cheapening Christianity, but the lesson still stands: whenever you interpret ANY sacred texts, you cannot help but develop a schema for separating the lambs and the goats.
So South Park creators are responding to the Church? Go let 'em. Truth be told, there's not very much original in this film, but it is certainly cartharctic in responding to our culture. The message I do not get from the film is that someone else, or someTHING else, is to blame.
If you were to ask the creators of South Park -- BBU, they would probably admit that the Church's future response to this film was considered during the making of this film, and hence anything the writers could do to make the Church look stupid was certainly fair game.
If you understood that argument (and no, I'm aware it's not Rocket Science), then congratulate yourself: you can think one level above the Church (who cannot understand or consider this argument).
I've got a feeling someone could learn CORBA from this book, but please don't hold me to that.
It's certainly worth the money AND the size of the book (good thing slashdot's reviewer isn't a drummer -- he'd get tired of carrying around his drum kit all the time).
They both have those dark-red guarana berries in it.
Pepsi recently discontinued it, as I am told (this was how I was introduced to it about a year ago).
Similiar in taste to Cream Soda, but definitely caffinated [sp??] ...
Josta never gave me a buzz, though (and I've never really cared for coffee, so it's not like I have a high tolerence for caffine).
Thank you for responding, and please forgive me for my ignorance.
I'm grateful to hear c't is more reputable/mainstream than I thought.
I look forward to them doing more Linux/NT benchmarks: like this one, the more specific, the better.
The DOJ has just nabbed the mystery between MS's marketing strategy ...
And now for something terribly off-topic ...
One BILLION dollars ??
IF Caldera wins this, they will be criticized if that money isn't invested with the Linux Community in mind.
And since slashdot readers have never collectively embraced OpenLinux (because it's so easy to install??), Caldera should expect all eyes watching at slashdot.
I'm not against this, but I'm not looking forward to the anticipated "battle in the kids' sandbox" among different dist's loyal users.
[sorry, folks .... but we DO have that public image]
Someone OUT OF NOWHERE releases a "real-world" benchmark comparing Apache and IIS ... hopefully the first of many.
It helps that this is an accomplished firm (read: they know how to pursue a benchmark), and an accountable one at that (read: they publish the results, knowing full-well that ONE SIDE or the other will scrutinize their results).
In a strange way, I'm happy that the results weren't exactly a landslide.
We need more benachmarks like this (read: published by people who play fair, and who let the music do the talking).
I will be able to fend off the criticism for now. I have faith in out community and in our talent.
The "faith in our community" is indeed the unspoken trump card to our success. Like it or not, Microsoft has mastered this, and could sell it in bottles if they needed to.
Now if only the Linux Community can learn to implement this interpretation of benchmarks ....
That is to say: folks, benchmarks are our friends, EVEN IF they're biased !! So what if the NT box uses an Apache server ... I'd like to see WINE use IIS, just to say that we've tried it -- wouldn't THAT be a hoot !!
I'm not saying I like AOL [but compared to other models, they are NOT the evil incarnate], but it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSEABLE to use AOL as "the example that failed" as your excuse for ripping off your customers, by saying [sic] "we don't want to fall into the trap of what AOL did, and not provide enough bandwidth..." blah-blah-blah ....
Don't you get sick of how ISP's an get away with saying "we never promised you "X" peak speeds" ??
They've forgotten that we chose THEIR service over their competition because it's the speed that matters !! We're not interested in your fair business models ... we just want you speed, and by golly, that's what we agreed to -- why can't YOU agree to this, too ??
Microsoft's initial aggressive marketing, bundling and discounting of its Office Suite led to a clear dominant position. This path dependency lead to dominance. Microsoft did in fact earn its riches through old fashion solid marketing, and has benefited from the spoils.
In other words, Micorosft is smarter than the rest of us. If, by this statement, he means "Microsoft lied, cheated, and stole to get where they are now ... that's fine, and I agree with that; but he didn't say that [if anyone else thinks he alluded more than I give him credit for, please accept my apology].
I'm sorry to debate a minor issue in an otherwise well-written essay, but this needs to be said, I believe. The issue is no longer minor in the big picture ... why isn't it a bigger deal?
Well written, yes -- but in disagreement elsewhere, also:
Microsoft does not dominate the market because in every other segment, the medium of interoperability is different.
Why single out out Microsoft here, when nearly in the same breath he mentions Acrobat Reader? I mean, if AR were a superior product AND no one used it, he would have an incredibly valid point. As it stands, however, the guy doesn't like Microsoft, and he's using his finesse to hide his bias (rather well, at that, if I may say).
Micorosft got where they are in part because of their low-price software (not to be construed in any fasion with the quality of that software, and the open-liscensing agreements with third-party vendors. This is not the source of their evil.
Yeah, this seems like a real hot seat in the arena of libraries.
Now personally, I don't know of modifications I would make, other than ADDITIONAL libraries; and quite frankly, either I WOULDN'T distribute those, or else my distribution circle would be known (i.e., downloads on my web site would be limited to those who KNOW that my web site exists -- not that I have anything to hide).
[And of course, I'm assuming another person actually has an INTEREST in my libraries]
Good point on paper, but immaterial for me (I think). I'll leave it to the lawyers.
[One last word: I may not be very concerned with this issue only because I'm not sophisticated enough of a developer to care one way or the other. I only mention this because I'm not alone, and we're in the majority]
I'm actually waiting for this title to arrive at Amazon (this and the book on MySQL).
Qt is the coder's equilevelent [sp?] to the WINE Project -- open GUI code betwween platforms.
What a wonderful segue into Linux/UNIX for those diehard MFC programmers (and I'm STILL not convinced they actually exist) !!
This is TOO easy, but here goes:
Why don't you check out their website for their product catalog.
---I have, many times. No argument here. SAMS. QUE. New Riders.
Find that they mirror the LDP on their servers ...
---Note this is not an earth-shattering accomplishment, but okay, so they have an interest (no doubt a monetary one).
Find that they recently are putting out a Quake product for Linux.
---"THEY" being Macmillan Digital ?? You mean THEY wrote it, or THEY knew this is indeed a hot software item, and THEY have the clout to plublish it ...
Check out the fact that they have Linux-related e-books online for FREE at pbs.mcp.com...
---... but are HOW OLD?? Hey, I'm the FIRST to admit, RIGHT NOW is THE time to build your home libraries with UNIX/LINUX books (a few '95 books are VERY useful); but AGAIN, does this REALLY give Macmillan bragging rights?
I'm not gonna embaress[SP?] anyone here, but $0.25 says I know who posted this "Get the facts" message BY NAME ....
"Get the FACTS" ?? Get the pertinent facts, elsewhere, apparently ....
Uh-huh ....
KDevelop is probably what you'd expect from an IDE on Linux (yes, it's free).
It's still in alpha, but it works fine on SW 4.0, RH 6 & 5.2, Debian 2.1, and Stampede 0.89.
Note on Stampede: I really expected more speed out of KDevelop, but apparently K in general is still rather klunky. And personally, installing all the packages was a REAL hassle.
I just about fell off my dinosour when I read Bennett saying that this [sic] "will maintain Macmillan's reputation as the leader in everything Linux."
Does Bennett ever go online, anymore?
At all ??
Kinda like how some religious fanatics base all their beliefs on those little comic-book-like tracts (strangely enough, these folks would ALSO benefit from going online!!).
Did I miss something, or did Jack forget to respond to the rebuttals?
Sure, we, the Slashdot front, can be rude at times in our postings. But THAT'S OUR RIGHT AS READERS, RIGHT ??
It's interesting to me that he chose to attack the user base of LinuxOS as opposed to attacking ONE individual (who, nevermind that he had legitimate criticisms).
At first reading, I wasn't even going to dignify this article with a response; but then I "noticed" that Mogenthal is merely suckered into Microsoft's way of thinking about business:
"I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows..." ... or perhaps we all just want to use a more stable product ...
---
"... all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system ..."
--- The difference is, if I PERSONALLY know something about that piece of the kernel, I can also submit my opinion and knowledge of that piece.
The very next sentence:
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may ... A far more superior method of developing and customizing than using, say, Visual C++.
find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released... "
----
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition..." ... oh yeah, and also because Bill Gates can afford to market his product with a Rolling Stones song, like "Start Me Up." Say what yopu will about Microsoft, but they CERTAINLY understand the magic of marketing themselves....
----
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, ...
including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available..."
--- I'm not saying a friggin' word about this one
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using
multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
---- I don't believe this is true. Give us another 8-9 months, and it WON'T be true at all by then.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." ...
---- True, but let's not confuse desktops with mainframes
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate ....
more people capable of managing and configuring these systems."
---- No argument here. Same goes for qualified Oracle DBA's, A+ candidates, MCSE's
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
---- Worse case scenario, Linux will become a staple in undergraduate courses on OS theory (similiar to how QBasic has become rather common as a "first" programming language). The Linux kernrl of today will suffice for my future children to learn about what an OS should be. By the time my children are born, OS will be as free yet crucial as BIOS.
Sure, there have been differences among us since we learned we were all using different flavors of Linux.
And sure, we should expect -- and acknowledge, perhaps even welcome -- the dissenters of one distribution (in this case RedHat) when the words appear in an oft-reputable form (in this case, LinuxToday).
But our little wars are PRECISELY what Bill Gates has been waiting for. Given the opportunity to borrow a tactic from our current U.S. president (that is, focus on the diversion and make an example out of it), Gates will take and run with that opportunity.
Perhaps we can criticize RedHat for their decision to go public. Personally, I was not against RH for doing this, and I still am not.
I just wish journalists could be more responsible.
Lest we forget the recent tendency of IPO's gaining public appeal quickly via "small ideas" like e*Trade, et. al., allow me to paraphrase the words I read in a Newsweek article a couple of weeks ago:
"Investors don't care about the economic risks involved in giving away free software -- they just want to make a fast profit
Six weeks from now we won't be concerned about Red Hat's IPO status -- because penny-rate investors won't, either
Believe it or not, this is not an anti-Linuc campaign, but rather a training issue.
I'm not saying it would take more than a few hours to train the installers to configure ADSL from the Linux shell (dhcpcd takes moments to set up); but why train them when it only affects a small percentage of users?
That be said, let the feedback to BS.net begin !!
How else will they get the picture that Linux is desktop-friendly, not just another hard-to-support OS ?
SourceXchange is undoubtedly a better idea than it first seems -- and not just for the money, or even the reputation of Linux/BSD.
... and THEY are the ones keeping us fat.
Sure, SourceXchange will eventually become "the WD-40 for open-source development." Since, after all, what in a "new" program is really NEW? It's like asking a songwriter what in his/her song is original -- same language, new twists and turns, further propegation (sp?) of this new paradigm.
I'm not at all against hackers getting paid for their craft, but I REALLY like the aspect of peer review -- which is no longer an unspoken commandment of open-source. Sure, we all know it's there; but THEY do not
Everything I can think to say about this article will be apparent to anyone who takes the time to read it (it's not THAT long).
But here's one original thought: I appreciate how Network Computing has not made this study "conclusive," that the facts are still open for debate. Sure, it's all PR/Pro-speak, but I like it.
I also like how they have solicited feedback for "what it would take to make Linux present in your office."
Is there a chance this will evolve into NT becoming a competitive product (not just againt Linux, but against NT itself)??
...
...
e O05/PUKhI1v9QtfV V 1F1YY8DiA8dpTUym Y lmPOe0B38QCg/zak V CJBRHCUu0hGKRLPc q habZJJVVx20kQDx3 O Cz6jHD+WEEO2oaTb c gTHZz0nMfmtSQFxJ 9 UpxoAouImrdKTRXi J NrQiSm9obiBLLiBK C NxSLLwQLAwECAAoJ O 0WgoMuoOtFhlCZ8S 5 UxE5T7bxbrlLOCDa 1 WV/cdlJPPT2N286Z e jaClcjrUGvC/RgBY J I8BD8KVbGI2Ou1WM G xAMZyAcpesqVDNmW C AggAuzldDkVWyRU7 + 1gE1jimHokT7UHsi g l5oSz5bQQmORNnV9 b 4DLNT0wiqSAB71OD L OnAYhch+wKoQhYdg B xFBAQ+IvX6/Iwvha f hYXrPpos1N7x8cUJ
First step, Mr. gates, is to reduce the cist of NT (and do away with that per-licence/per-seat arrangemet).
This, my fellow Linux heads, is not completely unrealistic
Next step is to distribute the code. Now this will probably NEVER happen, but Gates MUST analyze WHY exactly NT is inferior to the competition
Is it absurd to think that Microsoft can market a product that will re-configure the NT kernel/microkernel, but not give away the code?
I think this IS possible (and no, Virginia, this is NOT called Visual C++).
joachimj@usa.net
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
mQGiBDcUiy8RBAD0ws/PhbY316D6T84S7SFLKC59KdYRJpb
g1P1nPc4WWOkSxM9JTXD+Yh550zJHSU/bRn3/HBYqUB3CHC
tAj3bxQXvjcQ/zJLhL9xHThwbPfIx6kSTrBuRJABSD6gUpG
usK5HqOBbwRzs73UnjoW2ucD/2VlrwcXlZyZSM4DQpNQLmu
8q2o8EPMhNsMIDJNAnNhcue7kuL9vYGf2Llx39SJiTmasFK
5phHB7DJEAbHVwvKIsSen5D1ozpzR/ib4XUqc3bxQNyz6tU
MVY+A/4iOtDheCMebB0fz2aL5I3igiNMRC1ljzCpu/ZbeNU
gF1o3IYenuqsilD3JeGMhCwb+E7x0QaRvPjcjJt+zbRnnR2
dj95b3D0gVTCT4n4AdmRgSrXIMt2aU6EITat0ii/5HIqKsD
b2FjaGltIDxqb2FjaGltakB1c2EubmV0PokASwQQEQIACwU
EHFEMxz+yzXUr4cAn0JEDi7HuAGpWXhR2FxhgKpcChnIAJw
X9zvWKCKSrkCDQQ3FIsvEAgA9kJXtwh/CBdyorrWqULzBej
AadWoxTpj0BV89AHxstDqZSt90xkhkn4DIO9ZekX1KHTUPj
4VeSWc39uK50T8X8dryDxUcwYc58yWb/Ffm7/ZFexwGq01u
K+X0iP1YTknbzSC0neSRBzZrM2w4DUUdD3yIsxx8Wy2O9vP
uF040zT9fBdXQ6MdGGzeMyEstSr/POGxKUAYEY18hKcKcta
n6vQClCbAkbTCD1mpF1Bn5x8vYlLIhkmuquiXsNV6TILOwA
8pNQddutAjDZtLBEuUuP3gMOEHgrx+wpfXVBQpbsuKQaq6j
NV/9MlxyEheLDUZpB8xobDngbfNbkeju+/p9YxCU7F6P5Pg
nIb3XSEfUDy1yI7WJ8lkJxO9iXG6iMMnzkByXUDuus5cBN3
4+SD6pwMv9hYx2yNbS37iIFfER5igTlL/EkYY9sp7Tso9HM
6zI/rAHenWm1t4VXfVhqwv3hGg6JBjwcsUZ1vIanLF4moH+
UHF4LqG+XokAPwMFGDcUiy9xRDMc/ss11BECFy4AnRCCF38
YeguAJ9Y/4F+YL0wA4+T/MQLDBhcEAi7JA==
=ReSV
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Isn't this interesting ??
The same principles that "govern" the distribution of GPL-generated software "govern" the limitations of DeadHeads distributing GH concert tapes !!
In the words of the recent Wired magazine, when will the music industry realize that "Good Karma is good for business" ??