It seems as though MS is trying everything they can to enter new markets to make up for their lack of growth options with the OS and Office markets. From the sounds of it, they are going to try and proprietarize this venture and I dont see what the advantage would be for most customers. I can see small companies with 100% outsourced IT possible trying this, but not too much else.
Anyway, to sum up, this looks like another example of MS entering a market too late to make much impact. Just my 2cents.
Dude, you are starting to sound like a shill. My hard earned money comes from supporting products by Microsoft and Oracle So your self-admitted area of expertise is on the commercial end of the spectrum but you will support Linux and OO if there is no other option.
I'm far happier with my customers that run MS products and don't have to call with problems than I am with the few customers who have implemented Open Source programs and consistently need support. That's just my experience (and no, I didn't implement those Open Source programs). Here is the dead give away. I am far happier with my customers that use X product (that I set up personally and have a strong familiarity with) than I am with my customers that use Y produce to which I have limited knowledge and never set up in the first place. Well, I'll be damned. Who would have thought that would work out that way.
This results in them not being able to use the DMCA against anyone over this specific technology.
Ideally that would be the case however violations of the DMCA are criminal and as such are not regulated by the copyright holder. You may recall the case a couple of years ago where Adobe, with the cooperation of the FBI, had a Russian programmer speaking at one of the hacker-cons arrested under the DMCA for his speech (and software he had written for his company) regarding how to bypass the trivially weak protections on Adobe's ebooks. After the backlash by the general public, Adobe tried to drop the charges however the FBI was not only unwilling to do so, they refused to do so. I don't have links right now, but I am sure a fellow/.er could provide some more details.
I think amd should add a windows-less variant of the same box, with a reduced priced ofcourse (if the box would cost 199$ it would be a bit more fair).
It seems as though a Linux variant would not be that far of a stretch. Other than the base operating system and a browser, there appears to only be a couple of value-added office products included. The company (SoftMaker) making these products even already has a Linux version of them. My point being that such a setup should be trivial to assemble and would not carry the $50+ overhead of an MS OS while still providing all of the funtionality (probably more functionality knowing Linux hackers out there) of the original.
"Ms Kroes has declared herself "determined" that open source developers should have access to the information, and Microsoft appealed to the Court of First Instance recently to get a legal decision on whether it should be required to share communications source code with open source software vendors."
Since when does anyone give a crap about MS source code... I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published in a free (beer and speech) manner?
So YaST is there and such, but it seems like they are discounting any need for more technical users. Isn't it the technical users that give something like this the boost it needs to get to be more usable? I thought the whole purpose of opening something up was for the technical users.
As I understood it, SuSE employed several KDE developers. I assume this talent went with the sale to Novell. The same Novell that has also recently purchased Ximian. I would say that if anyone in the Linux market had the wherewithal to polish the Desktop, it would be Novell/SuSE. Just my 2cents.
It also costs the hardware manufacturer several hundred thousand dollars for M$ to certify a driver. Hardly an incentive for many hardware manufacturers, especially any who want to keep their drivers up to date.
I'm not entirely convinced that this view is entirely without merit, since I could see how it might numb some barriers against behavior.
It is my thought that the persons that are affected the way you are implying are the same people who have problems and tendencies that would otherwise be brought to light by other mediums such as violent movies, certain music, etc... In other words, the problem, while certainly influenced by the generic medium is a problem that existed prior to exposure to.
Everything I had on fedora core is now on centos 4.1 while all my old boxes running RH9 and earlier are Centos 3.5. Maybe I am doing something wrong with regards to upgrades, but I have a) not seen the upgrade option between different versions of FC and b) have not seen the upgrade option to RH Enterprise from any of the FCs. I have done many RH installs (many Linux installs in general) so if someone can tell me what I am doing wrong, that would definitely help me and I am sure anyone else that may have run into this. =)
This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community.
I couldn't agree more. I was a longtime RedHat customer/user. I liked that, at my option, I could download and use RH Linux for free or, if I needed support or felt like supporting RH I could buy the boxed version. As a matter of fact I had a RH Network subscription (bought by me personally as a show of support) that, when RH changed all their versioning around, I got stiffed on about 6 months worth of. As a result, and after bad experiences with Fedora core on my servers (least of which is no upgrade path) I have had no qualms about using CentOS in production. With SuSE basically going back to the licensing model that RH had in the past, and being a former SuSE user, I am inclined to look at SuSE again.
I ran into the same exact thing with a Cisco 2620 on a T1. It was fine doing standard routing (ie. the IT Manager I replaced had all the desktops in the office on public IPs). As soon as I set it up to do NAT, I would have to flush the NAT Table several times a day otherwise the router would slow to a halt. As a side note (to lead this a little more off topic, haha) I ended up replacing that router with a really old server we took out of production (dual 450 w/512Mb RAM) and a Sangoma serial interface card (T1) which has very good Linux support. That was over a year ago -- havent had a problem with the router since, not to mention all the other stuff I can do with it now that I could not do with the cisco.
It probably just uses the referre log. For those unaware, most websites can see where their traffic comes from in their logs in a field known as "referrer".
Slashdot Mirror
It seems as though MS is trying everything they can to enter new markets to make up for their lack of growth options with the OS and Office markets. From the sounds of it, they are going to try and proprietarize this venture and I dont see what the advantage would be for most customers. I can see small companies with 100% outsourced IT possible trying this, but not too much else.
Anyway, to sum up, this looks like another example of MS entering a market too late to make much impact. Just my 2cents.
...and people prefer the reliability, power savings and lower temperatures of the Intel chips.
/. and all, but next time you might want to try and RTFA.
I know this is
Dude, you are starting to sound like a shill. My hard earned money comes from supporting products by Microsoft and Oracle So your self-admitted area of expertise is on the commercial end of the spectrum but you will support Linux and OO if there is no other option.
I'm far happier with my customers that run MS products and don't have to call with problems than I am with the few customers who have implemented Open Source programs and consistently need support. That's just my experience (and no, I didn't implement those Open Source programs). Here is the dead give away. I am far happier with my customers that use X product (that I set up personally and have a strong familiarity with) than I am with my customers that use Y produce to which I have limited knowledge and never set up in the first place. Well, I'll be damned. Who would have thought that would work out that way.
I am a little late, but thanks for the heads up!
Forgot the IANAL disclaimer, and here are some links to the case against Dymtry Skylarov:
7 47248&mode=flat&tid=103 c net
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1454489.stm
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/02/1
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270082.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270440.html?legacy=
This results in them not being able to use the DMCA against anyone over this specific technology.
/.er could provide some more details.
Ideally that would be the case however violations of the DMCA are criminal and as such are not regulated by the copyright holder. You may recall the case a couple of years ago where Adobe, with the cooperation of the FBI, had a Russian programmer speaking at one of the hacker-cons arrested under the DMCA for his speech (and software he had written for his company) regarding how to bypass the trivially weak protections on Adobe's ebooks. After the backlash by the general public, Adobe tried to drop the charges however the FBI was not only unwilling to do so, they refused to do so. I don't have links right now, but I am sure a fellow
I think amd should add a windows-less variant of the same box, with a reduced priced ofcourse (if the box would cost 199$ it would be a bit more fair).
It seems as though a Linux variant would not be that far of a stretch. Other than the base operating system and a browser, there appears to only be a couple of value-added office products included. The company (SoftMaker) making these products even already has a Linux version of them. My point being that such a setup should be trivial to assemble and would not carry the $50+ overhead of an MS OS while still providing all of the funtionality (probably more functionality knowing Linux hackers out there) of the original.
Exactly... Do MS lawyers change arguments like this intentionally so as to muddy the waters? (rhetorical question)
I found this particular paragraph interesting:
"Ms Kroes has declared herself "determined" that open source developers should have access to the information, and Microsoft appealed to the Court of First Instance recently to get a legal decision on whether it should be required to share communications source code with open source software vendors."
Since when does anyone give a crap about MS source code... I thought they just wanted the specifications for these protocols published in a free (beer and speech) manner?
So what exactly was the crime?
I have no idea what laws are in place in Japan, however the use of a bot in the US would almost certainly be construed as a violation of the DMCA.
That, and OpenSolaris is only what, about 8 years late?
np at all -- I guess I could have worded that better :)
So YaST is there and such, but it seems like they are discounting any need for more technical users. Isn't it the technical users that give something like this the boost it needs to get to be more usable? I thought the whole purpose of opening something up was for the technical users.
As I understood it, SuSE employed several KDE developers. I assume this talent went with the sale to Novell. The same Novell that has also recently purchased Ximian. I would say that if anyone in the Linux market had the wherewithal to polish the Desktop, it would be Novell/SuSE. Just my 2cents.
It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished". However, between this and the problems they will be having with Novell, I sense impending doom for SCO.
Bill? Is that you?
Seriously though, isnt that how msn search gets the skewed usage statistics that it does (ok, I digress, IE is *technically* not spyware..... yet).
It also costs the hardware manufacturer several hundred thousand dollars for M$ to certify a driver. Hardly an incentive for many hardware manufacturers, especially any who want to keep their drivers up to date.
correction:
...is a problem that existed prior to exposure to generic medium
I'm not entirely convinced that this view is entirely without merit, since I could see how it might numb some barriers against behavior.
.
It is my thought that the persons that are affected the way you are implying are the same people who have problems and tendencies that would otherwise be brought to light by other mediums such as violent movies, certain music, etc... In other words, the problem, while certainly influenced by the generic medium is a problem that existed prior to exposure to
Just my 2 cents.
Define "premium".
Everything I had on fedora core is now on centos 4.1 while all my old boxes running RH9 and earlier are Centos 3.5. Maybe I am doing something wrong with regards to upgrades, but I have a) not seen the upgrade option between different versions of FC and b) have not seen the upgrade option to RH Enterprise from any of the FCs. I have done many RH installs (many Linux installs in general) so if someone can tell me what I am doing wrong, that would definitely help me and I am sure anyone else that may have run into this. =)
This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community.
I couldn't agree more. I was a longtime RedHat customer/user. I liked that, at my option, I could download and use RH Linux for free or, if I needed support or felt like supporting RH I could buy the boxed version. As a matter of fact I had a RH Network subscription (bought by me personally as a show of support) that, when RH changed all their versioning around, I got stiffed on about 6 months worth of. As a result, and after bad experiences with Fedora core on my servers (least of which is no upgrade path) I have had no qualms about using CentOS in production. With SuSE basically going back to the licensing model that RH had in the past, and being a former SuSE user, I am inclined to look at SuSE again.
I ran into the same exact thing with a Cisco 2620 on a T1. It was fine doing standard routing (ie. the IT Manager I replaced had all the desktops in the office on public IPs). As soon as I set it up to do NAT, I would have to flush the NAT Table several times a day otherwise the router would slow to a halt. As a side note (to lead this a little more off topic, haha) I ended up replacing that router with a really old server we took out of production (dual 450 w/512Mb RAM) and a Sangoma serial interface card (T1) which has very good Linux support. That was over a year ago -- havent had a problem with the router since, not to mention all the other stuff I can do with it now that I could not do with the cisco.
It probably just uses the referre log. For those unaware, most websites can see where their traffic comes from in their logs in a field known as "referrer".
For anyone really interested in the math at work here, check out this page.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Dude.