Actually, the entire front end of Hotmail is now running Windows 2000. The back end is still UNIX, but there are plans to move it to Exchange 2000 (so I hear).
I use one of these for Age of Empires II and it's awesome. At the very start of the game, one click starts building villagers, makes my Scout control group one and then finds an idle villager and builds a mill.
With 6 buttons, three shift buttons and three profiles you have shit loads of options.
"Microsoft has unveiled their latest web strategy called.NET".
.NET is NOT just a "web strategy". The web components are simply one part of the whole concept and I think it's about time people stopped and actually read about the whole thing.
.NET will be the future of development on the Windows platform, not just Microsoft-based web solutions..NET is the name for the new programming model for Windows, and every server product is bound to be made from.NET architecture sooner or later.
I don't understand how it can be seen as handcuffs when you have over 20 languages that you can use to write.NET applications, and even inherit and extend objects from different languages.
There will be no more type libraries, no more registry dependency, and you can deploy entire applications just by copying them.
I think.NET is going to be great, and Sun know it.
Static web content. This is almost a non-issue for dynamic eCommerce sites that generate most pages from database content and/or personalised content. In the coming age of Internet transactions there will be little requirement for purely static serving at large volume. Servers need to be tested for performance talking to Oracle/DB2/SQL Server databases, and also server to server XML. These are soon to be the more prominent roles of the web server in the business world rather than just serving up static pages.
And routing performance against NT? Why bother? How many people do you know that buy NT boxes for routers? If you're going to spend the money you might as well buy a hardware solution. If you don't want to spend the money, then everyone knows Linux already makes a decent router regardless of the 2.4 kernel.
When it comes to a purchasing decision, it will end up coming down to more than just this sort of testing.
IIS runs in a user mode process 'inetinfo.exe' and does not take down the OS when it dies. ASP pages can also be executed 'out of process' inside a Microsoft Transaction Server package that runs as another process 'mtx.exe'. This way, the application will restart itself and not even bother the core process.
I don't know where you heard that it's in kernel mode, but it's very much not so. I've heard rumours that this might happen at some stage though I've seen nothing concrete.
Did you even actually -look- at how big the link files are? My biggest IE Favorite link is 298 bytes. I have just over 100 favorites, and they total 18 kb.
People need to stop spouting hollow theories and do some good old research before opening their gob.
It may be a huge improvement over the last release, but here's a quick list of fundamental features that screwed me up in the first five minutes of installing on Windows 2000:
1. Can't say "use this proxy for all protocols". The is so annoying to have to type the proxy name into three or four fields, especially if you have multiple proxies.
2. Tab key doesn't move through fields when editing (proxy dialog). On the third press of the TAB key, the focus on the current field disappears and no other is focused. What's going on?
3. Left or right arrow won't move the cursor when editing text in a field (proxy dialog).
4. Enter key does not activate default button on HTML forms e.g. logging in to Slashdot. This is just crap.
These errors are so simple, it shocks me. If they can't even get these things right, then what hope is there?
If you want details of high performance testing, then you need to visit www.tpc.org. Until I see Postgres up there then this testing is useless to the business world.
If I remember rightly, this is what prevented OS/2 from becoming bigger than it ever did. IBM was charging money for it's SDKs, while Microsoft was running around handing them out by the truckload for no cost.
Given the current swell towards open source and free software I can already see that many people who might like to have a peek at the Amiga SDK will not do so because they have to pay for it, making it less interesting straight away.
For one, how did a hard-core nerd like Taco get a girlfriend, esp. when he never leaves the house:). Secondly, how did she become more important than perl scripting... so much more important that you would watch this shite at her command!
There is an Office for Mac. If they are willing to port Office over to an OS that has a diminishing number of (very loyal) users, why wouldn't they make a port over to an OS that is growing everyday once they get rid of the ties to Windows?
There is an Office for Mac, but it's behind. Also, Macintosh is far easier to deploy a product on because you don't have to worry about whether or not the user has installed the latest bullshit glibc package or something else.
On top of this, what about all the OS functions that the Office suite rides on? What about all the drag and drop, the Internet components etc. These all come from the OS.
What makes you think that Microsoft would handle calls for people that want to run Office on WINE? It would be unsupported for sure.
Microsoft did NOT get where it is today by wasting money, if there was no money in Internet Explorer they wouldn't own it.
Really? You don't beleive in purely strategic products that involve pouring money down a hole to boost other aspects of other products? This is exactly was IE is. It's a great browser but it brings no direct revenue for MSFT.
Microsoft OS Co. would survive the break-up but would not be quite as strong as it was before. It would suddenly get fresh competition from old foes. Solaris et al. would be taking off with it's new found support of the Microsoft Apps,
Competition from old foes? What apps would they port to Sun? And if you had a Sun box, why would you want to run IIS on it? You mean you would pay out the ass to own a Sun machine, then pay more for a 3rd party web server?
I'm not so sure that the Judge is set to immediately buy all of the DOJ's proposal, take a look at this extract from an article:
"At least one (brief suggesting remedies) made the point that the (government's) bi-section will, in effect, create two separate monopolies," Jackson said, interrupting O'Connor. "Both of which will be dominate. Tell me why they would effectively inspire competition?"
The question caught O'Connor short-a legal deer caught in the headlights of the court-and he stumbled for an answer.
This is where the proposal lacks.
If Microsoft IS broken up, do you really think that Office will all of a sudden appear for other platforms? And do you think that the product will be any different? No. Of course not. Windows has 95% of the market and it does not make commercial sense to pour development hours into making ports to other platforms.
Hell, with the WINE project out there Microsoft are probably just waiting for people to run Office on Linu under that instead, saves them the costs of developing.
As for a separate company for Internet Explorer..what a joke. This is a -free- and a -strategic product only-! There is NO money to be made from this product and saying that there is is simply wishful thinking and anti-Microsoft wanking.
I think it's time that people understood that breaking up the company will NOT increase competetion at all. Think about it. Really.
In relation to your reasoning about why they did this to Kerberos...
In simple terms, if I have a Linux server and Windows 2000 desktops, I cannot authenticate myself by logging into the Linux server using kerberos. To be authenticated to access resources on the Windows 2000 desktops, I must go through a Windows 2000 server. Microsoft embraced and extended the kerberos protocol specifically to force people to buy a Windows 2000 server.
Authentication is such a small, small part of the Windows 2000 Professional/Server relationship. Without Windows 2000 Server and Active Directory, you lose a HUGE amount of corporate managability such as Group Policies and the likes. Simply being able to authenticate to a Linux box is a fairly small bonus.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos should allow your scenario to work but I don't think it was done this way explictly to prevent 3rd party authentication mechanisms.
I understand that a lot of people in the US believe that we here in Australia are somewhat crazy for preventing the average citizen from owning a handgun. For some reason we are thought of as being under a facist Government that won't allow us to defend ourselves should there be a Government overthrow (not likely) or an invading force.
I'd like to make a few points.
I live in Sydney, probably the most crime ridden of all cities in Australia, however I feel safer walking around the City knowing that on average less people will be 'packing heat'. I feel more comfortable with that. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what anyone has, and I'd feel less comfortable.
I don't 'need' a gun. No one here 'needs' a gun. If there is something about governments to talk about, it's whether or not they are doing a sufficient job in suppressing crime. I feel our government does a fair bit towards the suppression of crime, considering that most drug hauls for instance are in customs from -incoming- shipments. Lower crime means greater safety for the people.
Supress the crime and you will not need a gun.
Sure, there's the argument that the criminals will always get the guns when they want. But you have to ask, when are you going to be involved with a criminal with a gun?
Being in the middle of a bank holdup is unfortunate, but very unlikely. I think that the most chance of being confronted by a crim with a gun is if you are involved with criminals yourself. Most shootings here are gang members shooting eachother up. To me, that can only be a good thing since they are removing themselves from society.
You can not exclude all chances of crime, but you can minimise the crime amongst 'average' citizens. Let the goons shoot eachother.
I think that the removal of guns from society has decreased the average level of tension amongst people in the streets here since you can be fairly sure that no one is carrying a gun.
In fact, the amount of guns in the US is one of the things keeping me from going there, at least to the major cities. I just don't like my chances of survival.
Personally I've been influenced by the good old Bastard Operator From Hell when it comes to handling support. If you haven't seen these wise scrolls of Administration joy, you can find them here.
By looking at the tech/user ratio from an attitude perspective, if you solve each case as quickly and as easily as possible you save yourself a lot of time!:)
I think a lot of you people out there are missing the big picture about the breakup.
Some of you are saying that by breaking MS into an OS and APPS group that competition in the marketplace will be encouraged. This is true but no where near the scale that you think.
Do you know how many "new" companies or products there will be? I'll tell you. One.
The one new company will be the 'spun off' APPS group. What makes you think that because they are now separate from the Windows team that the applications themselves will change?
Do you really think that because Linux would then be another target for Office that the application would actually change code path?
Of course not.
And what makes you believe that the 'level' will drop that is required to make and market an easier to use OS than Windows? It won't.
If the company is split up then you as a consumer will still have very little increase in choice, and it won't magically get any easier to make applications or OSes that are better than Windows.
I think it's about time most people realised that this 'breakup' of Microsofoft is merely a hollow solution to a problem that is a lot harder to solve than simply breaking up the company.
A lot of the prior talk was about how hard it is to come up with the capital needed to beat Microsoft in the R&D and marketing departments. Why do you think that two smaller (and still very wealthy) companies will be harder to beat?
It won't. So stop fantasising about how to take the easy road and just break them up, and get your asses out there and code some better software.
Personally I've stopped paying any attention to anything that has the three letters ESR attached to it. This guy goes way out of his way to make stupid unfounded statements, but I guess it has helped him get rich by supporting the OSS side of things.
"Webmasters all over the world are going to be pulling all-nighters and tearing their hair out over this one"
No, no.... I don't think they will. Maybe it takes ESR all night to locate a DLL, but not any avid Windows user. If you are soooooo afraid that this supposed 'backdoor' is even what the press (including Slashdot) will have you believe it is then delete the file. Two seconds, done.
All ESR tries to do is breath fear into the corporate world about Microsoft products. It's strange that he is so quick to make public (false) comment against MS, but hardly ever against any of the other evils in his own community. Time to wake up ESR!! Get your hand off your stock price and actually find out the facts before showing the world what an ignoramous you are.
FrontPage does not change ACLs on content files to manage design-time security; it only changes ACLs on the directories that contain the gatekeeper files admin.dll, author.dll, and dvwssr.dll. FrontPage manipulates content file ACLs to manage run-time security, which is the topic of the next section.
This file can only be reached and executed if you have -AUTHOR- rights to the web. If you are a smart admin, you would be hosting your sites on NTFS partitions and therefore this is not the big risk that they say it is.
The 'password' is probably visible in a sniff, or even encoded in the HTTP POST request to the extensions however you CANNOT execute the dll call it without the permissions.
Hey, I can't even download this thing. At least Microsoft go to the trouble of writing redundancy into the installer, using HTTP for download AND lining up huge bandwidth with Connexion in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the entire front end of Hotmail is now running Windows 2000. The back end is still UNIX, but there are plans to move it to Exchange 2000 (so I hear).
Microsoft hasn't used the "Java Compatible" logo on their products since 1998, so how is this a loss?
I've found this page to be pretty cool, it has a realtime tracker of the space station location overlayed on a map of the world.
I use one of these for Age of Empires II and it's awesome. At the very start of the game, one click starts building villagers, makes my Scout control group one and then finds an idle villager and builds a mill.
With 6 buttons, three shift buttons and three profiles you have shit loads of options.
I read the first line and stopped.
.NET".
.NET is the name for the new programming model for Windows, and every server product is bound to be made from .NET architecture sooner or later.
.NET applications, and even inherit and extend objects from different languages.
.NET is going to be great, and Sun know it.
"Microsoft has unveiled their latest web strategy called
.NET is NOT just a "web strategy". The web components are simply one part of the whole concept and I think it's about time people stopped and actually read about the whole thing.
.NET will be the future of development on the Windows platform, not just Microsoft-based web solutions.
I don't understand how it can be seen as handcuffs when you have over 20 languages that you can use to write
There will be no more type libraries, no more registry dependency, and you can deploy entire applications just by copying them.
I think
This is obviously fake.
1. Bill's Display Name for email is "Bill Gates" not "William Gates"
2. I didn't get this mail, and it's addressed to "all@microsoft.com". Work that out for yourself.
Further postings about any comments in this fake are pointless.
Enjoy.
I see a few problems with the suggested tests.
Static web content. This is almost a non-issue for dynamic eCommerce sites that generate most pages from database content and/or personalised content. In the coming age of Internet transactions there will be little requirement for purely static serving at large volume. Servers need to be tested for performance talking to Oracle/DB2/SQL Server databases, and also server to server XML. These are soon to be the more prominent roles of the web server in the business world rather than just serving up static pages.
And routing performance against NT? Why bother? How many people do you know that buy NT boxes for routers? If you're going to spend the money you might as well buy a hardware solution. If you don't want to spend the money, then everyone knows Linux already makes a decent router regardless of the 2.4 kernel.
When it comes to a purchasing decision, it will end up coming down to more than just this sort of testing.
This is not true.
IIS runs in a user mode process 'inetinfo.exe' and does not take down the OS when it dies. ASP pages can also be executed 'out of process' inside a Microsoft Transaction Server package that runs as another process 'mtx.exe'. This way, the application will restart itself and not even bother the core process.
I don't know where you heard that it's in kernel mode, but it's very much not so. I've heard rumours that this might happen at some stage though I've seen nothing concrete.
Speculation will get you nowhere.
Did you even actually -look- at how big the link files are? My biggest IE Favorite link is 298 bytes. I have just over 100 favorites, and they total 18 kb.
People need to stop spouting hollow theories and do some good old research before opening their gob.
It may be a huge improvement over the last release, but here's a quick list of fundamental features that screwed me up in the first five minutes of installing on Windows 2000:
1. Can't say "use this proxy for all protocols". The is so annoying to have to type the proxy name into three or four fields, especially if you have multiple proxies.
2. Tab key doesn't move through fields when editing (proxy dialog). On the third press of the TAB key, the focus on the current field disappears and no other is focused. What's going on?
3. Left or right arrow won't move the cursor when editing text in a field (proxy dialog).
4. Enter key does not activate default button on HTML forms e.g. logging in to Slashdot. This is just crap.
These errors are so simple, it shocks me. If they can't even get these things right, then what hope is there?
If you want details of high performance testing, then you need to visit www.tpc.org. Until I see Postgres up there then this testing is useless to the business world.
else the whales are going to be sniffing the packets and they just might be more clever than we think.....
IANAL, but I -know- that it's 1 year -after- the appeals process is finished.
If I remember rightly, this is what prevented OS/2 from becoming bigger than it ever did. IBM was charging money for it's SDKs, while Microsoft was running around handing them out by the truckload for no cost.
Given the current swell towards open source and free software I can already see that many people who might like to have a peek at the Amiga SDK will not do so because they have to pay for it, making it less interesting straight away.
When will these companies learn?
For one, how did a hard-core nerd like Taco get a girlfriend, esp. when he never leaves the house :). Secondly, how did she become more important than perl scripting... so much more important that you would watch this shite at her command!
I mean coooome ooooonnnnnnn!
There is an Office for Mac, but it's behind. Also, Macintosh is far easier to deploy a product on because you don't have to worry about whether or not the user has installed the latest bullshit glibc package or something else.
On top of this, what about all the OS functions that the Office suite rides on? What about all the drag and drop, the Internet components etc. These all come from the OS.
What makes you think that Microsoft would handle calls for people that want to run Office on WINE? It would be unsupported for sure.
Microsoft did NOT get where it is today by wasting money, if there was no money in Internet Explorer they wouldn't own it.
Really? You don't beleive in purely strategic products that involve pouring money down a hole to boost other aspects of other products? This is exactly was IE is. It's a great browser but it brings no direct revenue for MSFT.
Microsoft OS Co. would survive the break-up but would not be quite as strong as it was before. It would suddenly get fresh competition from old foes. Solaris et al. would be taking off with it's new found support of the Microsoft Apps,
Competition from old foes? What apps would they port to Sun? And if you had a Sun box, why would you want to run IIS on it? You mean you would pay out the ass to own a Sun machine, then pay more for a 3rd party web server?
IBM might even bring back OS/2 for the occasion.
Would you run it? *G*
I'm not so sure that the Judge is set to immediately buy all of the DOJ's proposal, take a look at this extract from an article:
"At least one (brief suggesting remedies) made the point that the (government's) bi-section will, in effect, create two separate monopolies," Jackson said, interrupting O'Connor. "Both of which will be dominate. Tell me why they would effectively inspire competition?"
The question caught O'Connor short-a legal deer caught in the headlights of the court-and he stumbled for an answer.
This is where the proposal lacks.
If Microsoft IS broken up, do you really think that Office will all of a sudden appear for other platforms? And do you think that the product will be any different? No. Of course not. Windows has 95% of the market and it does not make commercial sense to pour development hours into making ports to other platforms.
Hell, with the WINE project out there Microsoft are probably just waiting for people to run Office on Linu under that instead, saves them the costs of developing.
As for a separate company for Internet Explorer..what a joke. This is a -free- and a -strategic product only-! There is NO money to be made from this product and saying that there is is simply wishful thinking and anti-Microsoft wanking.
I think it's time that people understood that breaking up the company will NOT increase competetion at all. Think about it. Really.
In simple terms, if I have a Linux server and Windows 2000 desktops, I cannot authenticate myself by logging into the Linux server using kerberos. To be authenticated to access resources on the Windows 2000 desktops, I must go through a Windows 2000 server. Microsoft embraced and extended the kerberos protocol specifically to force people to buy a Windows 2000 server.
Authentication is such a small, small part of the Windows 2000 Professional/Server relationship. Without Windows 2000 Server and Active Directory, you lose a HUGE amount of corporate managability such as Group Policies and the likes. Simply being able to authenticate to a Linux box is a fairly small bonus.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos should allow your scenario to work but I don't think it was done this way explictly to prevent 3rd party authentication mechanisms.
I knew this would come up.
I understand that a lot of people in the US believe that we here in Australia are somewhat crazy for preventing the average citizen from owning a handgun. For some reason we are thought of as being under a facist Government that won't allow us to defend ourselves should there be a Government overthrow (not likely) or an invading force.
I'd like to make a few points.
I live in Sydney, probably the most crime ridden of all cities in Australia, however I feel safer walking around the City knowing that on average less people will be 'packing heat'. I feel more comfortable with that. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what anyone has, and I'd feel less comfortable.
I don't 'need' a gun. No one here 'needs' a gun. If there is something about governments to talk about, it's whether or not they are doing a sufficient job in suppressing crime. I feel our government does a fair bit towards the suppression of crime, considering that most drug hauls for instance are in customs from -incoming- shipments. Lower crime means greater safety for the people.
Supress the crime and you will not need a gun.
Sure, there's the argument that the criminals will always get the guns when they want. But you have to ask, when are you going to be involved with a criminal with a gun?
Being in the middle of a bank holdup is unfortunate, but very unlikely. I think that the most chance of being confronted by a crim with a gun is if you are involved with criminals yourself. Most shootings here are gang members shooting eachother up. To me, that can only be a good thing since they are removing themselves from society.
You can not exclude all chances of crime, but you can minimise the crime amongst 'average' citizens. Let the goons shoot eachother.
I think that the removal of guns from society has decreased the average level of tension amongst people in the streets here since you can be fairly sure that no one is carrying a gun.
In fact, the amount of guns in the US is one of the things keeping me from going there, at least to the major cities. I just don't like my chances of survival.
By looking at the tech/user ratio from an attitude perspective, if you solve each case as quickly and as easily as possible you save yourself a lot of time! :)
(note: this is not my true opinion)
All I need is a car!! *G*
I think a lot of you people out there are missing the big picture about the breakup.
Some of you are saying that by breaking MS into an OS and APPS group that competition in the marketplace will be encouraged. This is true but no where near the scale that you think.
Do you know how many "new" companies or products there will be? I'll tell you. One.
The one new company will be the 'spun off' APPS group. What makes you think that because they are now separate from the Windows team that the applications themselves will change?
Do you really think that because Linux would then be another target for Office that the application would actually change code path?
Of course not.
And what makes you believe that the 'level' will drop that is required to make and market an easier to use OS than Windows? It won't.
If the company is split up then you as a consumer will still have very little increase in choice, and it won't magically get any easier to make applications or OSes that are better than Windows.
I think it's about time most people realised that this 'breakup' of Microsofoft is merely a hollow solution to a problem that is a lot harder to solve than simply breaking up the company.
A lot of the prior talk was about how hard it is to come up with the capital needed to beat Microsoft in the R&D and marketing departments. Why do you think that two smaller (and still very wealthy) companies will be harder to beat?
It won't. So stop fantasising about how to take the easy road and just break them up, and get your asses out there and code some better software.
"Webmasters all over the world are going to be pulling all-nighters and tearing their hair out over this one"
No, no.... I don't think they will. Maybe it takes ESR all night to locate a DLL, but not any avid Windows user. If you are soooooo afraid that this supposed 'backdoor' is even what the press (including Slashdot) will have you believe it is then delete the file. Two seconds, done.
All ESR tries to do is breath fear into the corporate world about Microsoft products. It's strange that he is so quick to make public (false) comment against MS, but hardly ever against any of the other evils in his own community. Time to wake up ESR!! Get your hand off your stock price and actually find out the facts before showing the world what an ignoramous you are.
FrontPage does not change ACLs on content files to manage design-time security; it only changes ACLs on the directories that contain the gatekeeper files admin.dll, author.dll, and dvwssr.dll. FrontPage manipulates content file ACLs to manage run-time security, which is the topic of the next section.
This file can only be reached and executed if you have -AUTHOR- rights to the web. If you are a smart admin, you would be hosting your sites on NTFS partitions and therefore this is not the big risk that they say it is.
The 'password' is probably visible in a sniff, or even encoded in the HTTP POST request to the extensions however you CANNOT execute the dll call it without the permissions.
Hey, I can't even download this thing. At least Microsoft go to the trouble of writing redundancy into the installer, using HTTP for download AND lining up huge bandwidth with Connexion in the US.
Good one Netscape, show em how it's NOT done!