They (MS and Bill G.) are not evil. They are driven, smart and capable.
On the other hand L. Ellison (Oracle fame) is borderline insane from all accounts. Steve Jobs is not the boy most/any mother would want their daughter to bring home -- reality distortion field OR NOT.
The Mac's had serious virus issues ten years ago -- before Windows went through it's current spate of issues. It was so bad at our university Mac network that we'd watch it go down in minutes.
It was extremely malicious code and took a few years to resolve most of the issues. The Mac did move beyond that level of insecurity.
The point of script kiddies targetting windows is a good one -- after all they are like 95% of developers out there producing code for the platform that is used by 90+% of users.
Why bother with marginal platforms when you want wide impact?
If you truly believe that Mac users will never write viruses and you won't have any script kiddies then you are indeed naive. Then again if you consider the Mac platform to be a leading contender in the field (other than one or two specific vertical markets where it rules) you are naieve.
To conclude in any way that it was MS Software that enabled this sad state of affairs and not a total lack of management and administration is wrong.
No firewall? Fire the management. No safeguards at all? Fire the management and the administrators (obviously their too dumb to be in that position).
Frankly -- no matter what OS you run if you have not secured your systems you are vulnerable -- perhaps even more so in Unix which is better equiped for remote access.
Or more specifically Linux because it allows script kiddies to gain that much more power... it might seem "right" for the government to limit the OS so the user cannot have the power to hurt themselves or others. If that's the case you can kiss your freedom of OS goodbye.
Remember the action the government takes is one of control -- and the very spirit of open source is to deliver the control to the end user. Government get's involved and open source must go.
So who is liable if I use open source software? Linus for Linux? This road does not bode well for open source -- be careful what you ask for or only the companies that can afford the lawyers will sell software.
The issue isn't is it good enough software -- even the best has flaws -- the issue will come down to is it half decent and can you defend against the rest of the claims.
Isn't that the responsibility of free software? To provide software that is better, more competitive and available so that no one will use the inferior Outlook that is riddled with security issues?
Wait, I forgot -- NO VIABLE COMPETITION EXISTS IN THIS MARKET SPACE -- obviously because MS is a mean company that doesn't allow it.
Or perhaps we should fine you for not training your systems administration staff on how to set up servers correctly.
This argument holds about as much water as the "sue the automakers because cars shouldn't go that fast" or "sue McDonalds because coffee shouldn't be hot".
How abotu select all the message you want to move and drag them together to the other box? Or write a custom rule to do it for you automatically based on an event (received, etc.)?
Outlook is probably the best general distribution e-mail client in corporate America today. Of course with competition as usable as Lotus Notes (now theirs an interface for you that really lacks any user friendliness) it's no wonder.
and graphical now... just look up wscript/cscript and you'll get the latest version free for download/update from MS. It ships from MS by default. It allows full use of all DLL's, api's, etc.
and no court in the land has convicted him of a crime here.
Nor has he been charged with a crime.
Please be a little more accurate -- it may be "1337" to call him a criminal but he is far from it at this point in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of the population at large -- where he's a hero.
Linux is cutting some distributions of Unix off at the knees. If it improves scalability it will eat away a little more of the Unix base as well. It will not totally replace Unix -- but make it or the hardware platform it runs on that much more "unique" and expensive.
Linux is still having a marginal, argued here as lost opportunity, effect on Windows.
Is it significant that IBM is not really a foundry but is making their money off of other source code they can re-distribute and charge people to customize?
If someone else does 99% of the work, you get to take their source and charge a hefty chunk to implement and modify it -- the business model works for you.
If you are going to write the first 99% and earn little or nothing other than the thrill of development alone -- all those late nights to produce a product that will have your name on it in the source code which the users won't see or care about -- after all it's an IBM solution.
How can we let this stand -- in the college situation the Sun solution doesn't wash -- after all how are the students going to play half life/quake/etc.?
Perhaps a W2K Terminal Services (maybe with Citrix, maybe not) vs. the Sun solution... Removing the hardware costs difference pretty much up front -- as a matter of fact standing it on it's head for the factory.
This will also mean your support staff is down to 1 user as well in the college environment and severely down-sized in the factory environment.
The real question of software costs will rear it's ugly head then. Here we need to look at two things -- actual costs vs. retail (i.e.: bulk purchasing programs are publicly priced and the pricing should be represented with that cost) and lost opportunity cost. Actual cost vs. retail will probably still win for the Sun solution -- but a much smaller win than it was before. The lost opportunity cost may be much higher here. In my field (medical insurance) Unix/Linux is NOT an option -- we run two or three enterprise applications that are Windows based.
Would we risk our enterprise on marginally supported systems that attempt to emulate windows? Would we risk our business on a model that may be effectively challenged -- i.e.: emulating the API? Would we take that risk for our business when we are the ones who would be sued?
These are our bread and butter applications. They are not Unix based. We do have Unix based applications and Windows does nicely acting as a client for them. No licensing issues either. The client is still Windows.
Frankly I think a strong argument exists that the Unix solution ranges from marginally cheaper to much more expensive. As a board member you must consider all of your costs. Here MS understands you as well -- and your unique needs. Over a round of golf your MS rep would be happy to show you the Microsoft story. Not only is MS persistent they actually know how to market.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like they have a product just as sharp as Tivo if not sharper...
Or else it's a major company that DEFINES the software industry used by 99% of businesses today.
It's all in how you phrase it...
They (MS and Bill G.) are not evil. They are driven, smart and capable.
On the other hand L. Ellison (Oracle fame) is borderline insane from all accounts. Steve Jobs is not the boy most/any mother would want their daughter to bring home -- reality distortion field OR NOT.
The Mac's had serious virus issues ten years ago -- before Windows went through it's current spate of issues. It was so bad at our university Mac network that we'd watch it go down in minutes.
It was extremely malicious code and took a few years to resolve most of the issues. The Mac did move beyond that level of insecurity.
The point of script kiddies targetting windows is a good one -- after all they are like 95% of developers out there producing code for the platform that is used by 90+% of users.
Why bother with marginal platforms when you want wide impact?
If you truly believe that Mac users will never write viruses and you won't have any script kiddies then you are indeed naive. Then again if you consider the Mac platform to be a leading contender in the field (other than one or two specific vertical markets where it rules) you are naieve.
To conclude in any way that it was MS Software that enabled this sad state of affairs and not a total lack of management and administration is wrong.
No firewall? Fire the management. No safeguards at all? Fire the management and the administrators (obviously their too dumb to be in that position).
Frankly -- no matter what OS you run if you have not secured your systems you are vulnerable -- perhaps even more so in Unix which is better equiped for remote access.
Justice tends to be blind -- if we get legislation that says you must warranty your product then how will Linux exist?
Or perhaps it (IIS) just worked better?
Some weapons (say 50cal machine guns) can only be used against equipment and not soldiers.
Of course theirs always the technicality that they are wearing and riding equipment... just aim for the uniform.
.. in a production shop where NO PATCH WILL BE APPLIED TO A PRODUCTION SERVER UNTIL IT HAS BEEN TESTED AND CERTIFIED IN HOUSE.
And yes, I'm yelling here! This is a cardinal rule -- don't break it or your out the door.
The issue goes to liability -- which is above and beyond the purchase price if allowed at all.
Frankly -- my company doesn't write commercial software -- we buy it to use it to run our business.
If our business were software we would write software. Since it's not we can just buy what we need and life goes on.
Frankly this view is held by the majority of businesses out there. The issue is not community -- it is how can I do my business better/cheaper/faster.
Or more specifically Linux because it allows script kiddies to gain that much more power... it might seem "right" for the government to limit the OS so the user cannot have the power to hurt themselves or others. If that's the case you can kiss your freedom of OS goodbye.
Remember the action the government takes is one of control -- and the very spirit of open source is to deliver the control to the end user. Government get's involved and open source must go.
So who is liable if I use open source software? Linus for Linux? This road does not bode well for open source -- be careful what you ask for or only the companies that can afford the lawyers will sell software.
The issue isn't is it good enough software -- even the best has flaws -- the issue will come down to is it half decent and can you defend against the rest of the claims.
Isn't that the responsibility of free software? To provide software that is better, more competitive and available so that no one will use the inferior Outlook that is riddled with security issues?
Wait, I forgot -- NO VIABLE COMPETITION EXISTS IN THIS MARKET SPACE -- obviously because MS is a mean company that doesn't allow it.
Or perhaps we should fine you for not training your systems administration staff on how to set up servers correctly.
This argument holds about as much water as the "sue the automakers because cars shouldn't go that fast" or "sue McDonalds because coffee shouldn't be hot".
How abotu select all the message you want to move and drag them together to the other box? Or write a custom rule to do it for you automatically based on an event (received, etc.)?
Outlook is probably the best general distribution e-mail client in corporate America today. Of course with competition as usable as Lotus Notes (now theirs an interface for you that really lacks any user friendliness) it's no wonder.
Who in their right mind would leave valuable data on a FAT partition? Yeck.
and graphical now... just look up wscript/cscript and you'll get the latest version free for download/update from MS. It ships from MS by default. It allows full use of all DLL's, api's, etc.
Look before you speak.
ill informed, politicaly non-astute -- all around amateurish.
and no court in the land has convicted him of a crime here.
Nor has he been charged with a crime.
Please be a little more accurate -- it may be "1337" to call him a criminal but he is far from it at this point in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of the population at large -- where he's a hero.
Linux is cutting some distributions of Unix off at the knees. If it improves scalability it will eat away a little more of the Unix base as well. It will not totally replace Unix -- but make it or the hardware platform it runs on that much more "unique" and expensive.
Linux is still having a marginal, argued here as lost opportunity, effect on Windows.
Bill G. is laughing all the way to the bank.
Is it significant that IBM is not really a foundry but is making their money off of other source code they can re-distribute and charge people to customize?
If someone else does 99% of the work, you get to take their source and charge a hefty chunk to implement and modify it -- the business model works for you.
If you are going to write the first 99% and earn little or nothing other than the thrill of development alone -- all those late nights to produce a product that will have your name on it in the source code which the users won't see or care about -- after all it's an IBM solution.
How can we let this stand -- in the college situation the Sun solution doesn't wash -- after all how are the students going to play half life/quake/etc.?
Perhaps a W2K Terminal Services (maybe with Citrix, maybe not) vs. the Sun solution... Removing the hardware costs difference pretty much up front -- as a matter of fact standing it on it's head for the factory.
This will also mean your support staff is down to 1 user as well in the college environment and severely down-sized in the factory environment.
The real question of software costs will rear it's ugly head then. Here we need to look at two things -- actual costs vs. retail (i.e.: bulk purchasing programs are publicly priced and the pricing should be represented with that cost) and lost opportunity cost. Actual cost vs. retail will probably still win for the Sun solution -- but a much smaller win than it was before. The lost opportunity cost may be much higher here. In my field (medical insurance) Unix/Linux is NOT an option -- we run two or three enterprise applications that are Windows based.
Would we risk our enterprise on marginally supported systems that attempt to emulate windows? Would we risk our business on a model that may be effectively challenged -- i.e.: emulating the API? Would we take that risk for our business when we are the ones who would be sued?
These are our bread and butter applications. They are not Unix based. We do have Unix based applications and Windows does nicely acting as a client for them. No licensing issues either. The client is still Windows.
Frankly I think a strong argument exists that the Unix solution ranges from marginally cheaper to much more expensive. As a board member you must consider all of your costs. Here MS understands you as well -- and your unique needs. Over a round of golf your MS rep would be happy to show you the Microsoft story. Not only is MS persistent they actually know how to market.
90% chance -- hardware problem (memory/seating/etc.)
9.9% chance software (driver level) issue
.1% chance Windows 2000 issue