I agree, death to Salon is more than common sense, it's justice. The killer for me was that this piece of shit online magazine did an IPO! Incidentally, their stock is at 3.5 cents/share, putting their market cap at $495K, and you gotta know their stock will not have a good week.
I'm a freelance writer; I never wrote for Salon, but even before times went down the crapper they had a reputation of paying dirt to writers unless you were a serious celebrity. So wherever all that money went you can be sure it's not going to the writers.
I don't remember them being betas, but I don't remember them getting a lot of press either. It's like 13 years ago so I'm not sure. I'll try to look it up
AFAIK, Microsoft never officially shipped Word for OS/2 (the company I worked at had beta copies) and I don't ever remember seeing Excel. 123/G was nothing and even 123 was well on the way out by then.
I used both Word and Excel for OS/2, if only briefly. The printing system in OS/2 was totally busted until about 1.3 so I couldn't really give them a fair shot.
No, they weren't right, they left developers no other choice. Before the rift, you were choosing between legacy (16bit) and the future (32bit), all of a sudden the future got split into two, and the choice became Microsoft vs IBM. This came at a time where with OS/2, you HAD to port to 32bit, which developers didn't want to do right away, so they had the easier approach, stick with 16bit and existing market share.
I was there at the PDC in San Francisco 7/4/92 when MS released the first Win32 SDK. In fact, I wrote the first hands-on review of it (PC Week; I think that review is quoted in the "Show-Stopper!" book mentioned elsewhere in this thread). OS/2 2.0 was shipping already and there had been 32-bit OS/2 developer kits probably for years.What do you mean they had no choice? They had no choice if they wanted to write for a Microsoft 32-bit OS, but IBM was still pushing OS/2.
This is the late 80's/early 90's: At the time there were still plenty of people who thought OS/2 would be successful, and if people had bought it it would have been. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said "you may only write for Windows."
BTW, there was a 16-bit OS/2 you know, and developers could have written to it if they wanted. There were 16-bit versions of Word and Excel, 1-2-3/G, Describe (of course).
I think real world circumstances belie this stance. The reason MS decided to push the Windows API on NT instead of making it the new OS/2 was because the software industry was writing Windows apps, not OS/2 apps. They believed - correctly - that migration to the 32-bit platform would be more successful from a successful 16-bit API.
I remember prior to the divorce over this dispute that Gates was often in the illogical position of asserting that OS/2 was a natural migration path for Windows developers, when that was only true in the broadest terms, such as making your C program event-driven. But migration from Win16 to Win32 was more natural.
Anyway, Microsoft was right. Developers did migrate their Win16 programs to Win32 and the market success of both drew more developers and more users to Windows. OS/2 could have been considered a success if they had lesser expectations of it, but the market in general did not move to it, and even companies that did write OS/2 apps (Word Perfect, Lotus) didn't work very hard on them. I tried them all and they basically all sucked.
It's called economies of scale. The hardware manufacturers can produce more cheaply because they have a common configuration. Like a poster above pointed out, making a no-OS system is a disruption to them and costs them money relative to making yet another WIndows system.
Nobody's even mentioned the support cost. Selling you hardware brings with it a support obligation, and these companies are geared up to support Windows on their hardware. Supporting Linux is a complicated thing to do.
The answer, if you want Linux notebooks to be cheaper, is for more people to want them. In fact, that it costs more proves that there is no significant demand. IBM used to push Linux Thinkpads on their site but dumped the effort due to lack of demand. It's the same with all the big companies. I don't doubt that they would offer Linux notebooks if they thought they could make money on them.
Since you can't access the network or other media like ZIP or CD-RW in the Recovery Console, this supposed vulnerability is further mitigated.
Of course you could copy files within the hard disk itself, so you could, for example, overwrite NTLDR and kill the installation. BFD - if you have no physical security to a system you have no security at all. If I wanted to kill the installation all I needed to do was format the disk and I can do that on any OS once I can boot another one on the same box.
>>This method even allows someone to copy files to removable media, something which normally the Administrator can't even do in the Recovery Console
By default this is disabed unless the user has enabled the "Local Policies-Security Options-Recovery console:Allow floppy copy and access to all drives and folders" in the Local Security Policy applet (Administrative Tools). This policy is disabled by default.
I suspected this point was wrong and I've tested it myself. Obviously Brian Livingston didn't.
Sony? WTF did he get Sony from?
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 1
I gotta agree, I was largely agreeing until this Sony crap came along. I'm not sure what they could do to stave off their long-term demise.
Re:The cost of Solaris
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 1
Click here for Solaris prices. It's free if you're a student, but the point of the Cringely comment was businesses. Example: 4-CPU Workgroup Server license $999.00
>>Spam is a technical problem, so why can't we come up with a technical solution?
Because fraud is fraud, and forging headers is fraud. I'm not so sanguine about the other suggestion, but forging headers has no legitimate application and widespread illegitimate application. It should be illegal.
>>2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited
I can see some problems with this. If I send a message to my mother out of the blue is that unsolicited?
I haven't read the article (I don't like the NYT and avoid it when I can) but I'm sure the idea is that this applies to commercial email, but that's a dangerous distinction to make if you ask me.
>>I think the primary interest here is "server side Java", doing heavy lifting business applications. Currently Java/J2EE is in a competition with.Net... in a race that has strong parallels with and implications for Unix/Linux vs Windows on the server side.
Exactly, and yet the preliminary injunction specifically excludes server versions of Windows. It only mandates that MS include the Sun JRE on desktop versions. Sun doesn't seem to care.
There was a whole spec for it, picoJava I think, and I believe they even got to preliminary discussions of products. But language-specific processors have always been losers and this was always a stupid idea.
Duh. I was wrong about FAT32, I was confusing it with the fact that Windows95 always had a 32-bit protected mode file system, but the format was FAT16, and also that it always supported long file names on FAT16 volumes.
But I was right about Windows For Workgroups 3.11 and its 32-bit prot-mode VFAT. See this Jon Udell piece in Byte for confirmation:
"...Why not take DOS out of the loop as well? That's what WFW 3.11's 32-bit file access feature does, using a pair of new VxDs. VFAT.386 delivers protected-mode INT 21h services..."
Slashdot Mirror
"Interesting"? Somebody modded this Interesting? Follow the damn link. It's a bloody joke.
You can buy non-subscription from Microsoft too. It just costs more. I'm sure the same is true of Sun.
I agree, death to Salon is more than common sense, it's justice. The killer for me was that this piece of shit online magazine did an IPO! Incidentally, their stock is at 3.5 cents/share, putting their market cap at $495K, and you gotta know their stock will not have a good week.
I'm a freelance writer; I never wrote for Salon, but even before times went down the crapper they had a reputation of paying dirt to writers unless you were a serious celebrity. So wherever all that money went you can be sure it's not going to the writers.
actually, better advice for me would be "smoking all that pot will make you very stupid"
People need to know that some stuff is wrong and I like the idea of setting some examples. You don't screw with other people's property or their data.
More likely it has to do with the fact that MS hasn't sold MS-DOS in any form to anyone for years.
This also makes reference.
Sorry, I don't know what happened to that link. Here's the one I meant to post.
I found copies of Excel for OS/2 for sale (although listed as out of stock)
I don't remember them being betas, but I don't remember them getting a lot of press either. It's like 13 years ago so I'm not sure. I'll try to look it up
AFAIK, Microsoft never officially shipped Word for OS/2 (the company I worked at had beta copies) and I don't ever remember seeing Excel. 123/G was nothing and even 123 was well on the way out by then.
I used both Word and Excel for OS/2, if only briefly. The printing system in OS/2 was totally busted until about 1.3 so I couldn't really give them a fair shot.
It's so that customers can run NT4-specific apps under future products like Windows Server 2003. See this eWeek article.
No, they weren't right, they left developers no other choice. Before the rift, you were choosing between legacy (16bit) and the future (32bit), all of a sudden the future got split into two, and the choice became Microsoft vs IBM. This came at a time where with OS/2, you HAD to port to 32bit, which developers didn't want to do right away, so they had the easier approach, stick with 16bit and existing market share.
I was there at the PDC in San Francisco 7/4/92 when MS released the first Win32 SDK. In fact, I wrote the first hands-on review of it (PC Week; I think that review is quoted in the "Show-Stopper!" book mentioned elsewhere in this thread). OS/2 2.0 was shipping already and there had been 32-bit OS/2 developer kits probably for years.What do you mean they had no choice? They had no choice if they wanted to write for a Microsoft 32-bit OS, but IBM was still pushing OS/2.
This is the late 80's/early 90's: At the time there were still plenty of people who thought OS/2 would be successful, and if people had bought it it would have been. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said "you may only write for Windows."
BTW, there was a 16-bit OS/2 you know, and developers could have written to it if they wanted. There were 16-bit versions of Word and Excel, 1-2-3/G, Describe (of course).
I think real world circumstances belie this stance. The reason MS decided to push the Windows API on NT instead of making it the new OS/2 was because the software industry was writing Windows apps, not OS/2 apps. They believed - correctly - that migration to the 32-bit platform would be more successful from a successful 16-bit API.
I remember prior to the divorce over this dispute that Gates was often in the illogical position of asserting that OS/2 was a natural migration path for Windows developers, when that was only true in the broadest terms, such as making your C program event-driven. But migration from Win16 to Win32 was more natural.
Anyway, Microsoft was right. Developers did migrate their Win16 programs to Win32 and the market success of both drew more developers and more users to Windows. OS/2 could have been considered a success if they had lesser expectations of it, but the market in general did not move to it, and even companies that did write OS/2 apps (Word Perfect, Lotus) didn't work very hard on them. I tried them all and they basically all sucked.
It's called economies of scale. The hardware manufacturers can produce more cheaply because they have a common configuration. Like a poster above pointed out, making a no-OS system is a disruption to them and costs them money relative to making yet another WIndows system.
Nobody's even mentioned the support cost. Selling you hardware brings with it a support obligation, and these companies are geared up to support Windows on their hardware. Supporting Linux is a complicated thing to do.
The answer, if you want Linux notebooks to be cheaper, is for more people to want them. In fact, that it costs more proves that there is no significant demand. IBM used to push Linux Thinkpads on their site but dumped the effort due to lack of demand. It's the same with all the big companies. I don't doubt that they would offer Linux notebooks if they thought they could make money on them.
Since you can't access the network or other media like ZIP or CD-RW in the Recovery Console, this supposed vulnerability is further mitigated.
Of course you could copy files within the hard disk itself, so you could, for example, overwrite NTLDR and kill the installation. BFD - if you have no physical security to a system you have no security at all. If I wanted to kill the installation all I needed to do was format the disk and I can do that on any OS once I can boot another one on the same box.
>>This method even allows someone to copy files to removable media, something which normally the Administrator can't even do in the Recovery Console
By default this is disabed unless the user has enabled the "Local Policies-Security Options-Recovery console:Allow floppy copy and access to all drives and folders" in the Local Security Policy applet (Administrative Tools). This policy is disabled by default.
I suspected this point was wrong and I've tested it myself. Obviously Brian Livingston didn't.
I gotta agree, I was largely agreeing until this Sony crap came along. I'm not sure what they could do to stave off their long-term demise.
Click here for Solaris prices. It's free if you're a student, but the point of the Cringely comment was businesses. Example: 4-CPU Workgroup Server license $999.00
>>Spam is a technical problem, so why can't we come up with a technical solution?
Because fraud is fraud, and forging headers is fraud. I'm not so sanguine about the other suggestion, but forging headers has no legitimate application and widespread illegitimate application. It should be illegal.
>>2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited
I can see some problems with this. If I send a message to my mother out of the blue is that unsolicited?
I haven't read the article (I don't like the NYT and avoid it when I can) but I'm sure the idea is that this applies to commercial email, but that's a dangerous distinction to make if you ask me.
>>I think the primary interest here is "server side Java", doing heavy lifting business applications. Currently Java/J2EE is in a competition with .Net ... in a race that has strong parallels with and implications for Unix/Linux vs Windows on the server side.
Exactly, and yet the preliminary injunction specifically excludes server versions of Windows. It only mandates that MS include the Sun JRE on desktop versions. Sun doesn't seem to care.
The picoJava home page
Sun's annoucement almost 6 years ago that they and Rockwell Collins would be making picoJava chips
There was a whole spec for it, picoJava I think, and I believe they even got to preliminary discussions of products. But language-specific processors have always been losers and this was always a stupid idea.
Duh. I was wrong about FAT32, I was confusing it with the fact that Windows95 always had a 32-bit protected mode file system, but the format was FAT16, and also that it always supported long file names on FAT16 volumes.
But I was right about Windows For Workgroups 3.11 and its 32-bit prot-mode VFAT. See this Jon Udell piece in Byte for confirmation:
"...Why not take DOS out of the loop as well? That's what WFW 3.11's 32-bit file access feature does, using a pair of new VxDs. VFAT.386 delivers protected-mode INT 21h services..."