Linux was originally host compiled on Minix. It's original filesystem was Minix compatible. Linus originally announced Linux on the Minix newsgroups. They're both *nixen. I think that cousin is a pretty good description. Though maybe Linux as a bastard child would be more accurate.
I think the classic Microsoft move is OS2. They did team with IBM. They did collaborate on features. Money changed hands.
Then they did (continued to do) Windows, broke compatability and essentially killed OS2.
I don't generally keep track of MS' victims in the industry - it seems like there are plenty of them. Anti-competitive means "it's not windows until [3rd party spreadsheet/WP/whatever] doesn't run. They control the marketplace that way.
Google's non-deal with free411 and their competing product probably means that free411 will die. Google is the 800# gorilla. And if I were free411 I would sure be leery of using google's adwords to advertise. But Google doesn't control web standards. They can't make free411 not work. And they don't control >90% of web ads (what % do they control, I wonder).
In that sense Google's actions are just like any other business, and not like MS.
1) I personally know 3 businesses that are out of business because of adwords shenanigans which Google to this day denies...
2) They are "forcing" adwords customers to have their ads listed on "link sites"...
I don't get it. Google killed businesses that advertised using google? If that were true, it'd just be dumb, not evil. You don't kill folks who are paying you to advertise through them - maybe unless they are advertising a competing product. And if you are paying someone to advertise a competing product, I'm thinking you get what you deserve.
If I'm missing something, please explain what - I'm really not up on this stuff.
3) by pulling the ultimate MS move with free411 they are most certainly participating in anticompetitive behavior.
This does sound like a rough (as in not friendly) business decision. But if they wanted to move into that space, and free411 didn't look like the company/technology/price they wanted, what are their choices?
IANAL (patent or otherwise), but the description in the patent looks VERY specific.
This isn't a trailer with a computer in it. It isn't a mobile command center.
What it looks like is (fairly specifically) a box with rackmounts that someone could get into. There are other constraints like size, cooling system details, etc.
What it looks like to me is that they will start using these, they think it is a clever design, and they might want to sell this specific solution. You would be a fool to come up with a specific solution that you wanted to sell and NOT patent it.
Re:Refresh my memory...
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Overrated is the counter to things that are not funny, not insightful, not interesting. It turns out that some of the folks handed mod points use them poorly (IMO). Since +5 is the cap, I sometimes mod down things that are +5 and mod up things that should be. I never mod things overrated that are at +2 (or lower), and I generally don't use it for anything below +5.
But when crap gets modded to the ceiling? Yeah, I'll kick that down a peg.
Heck, I'd be happy if one could only use overrated on things that were at the ceiling.
The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along.
There have been several hijackings since 9/11. None in the US.
You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.
Of course you can. Especially if you have the weapons to do so.
Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.
There has always (for decades) been security. Just not enough to keep a few guys with razors from taking a plane for a joy ride. I'm pretty sure there still isn't enough - but nobody thinks that a few guys are just going to go for a joy ride anymore.
Note, however: Air security in Israel has always been very tight. They have certainly considered that someone might use a flying bomb for just the kind of thing that happened on 9/11 for a long time. Nobody there has flown a plane into a building, either - though they do blow up busses fairly often - and have for quite a while. There are plenty of folks who have said that we had enough information to know something was going on and that the Feds should have stopped 9/11 before it happened - even without our new "improved security" measures. I don't know. There is no reasonable winning a war on terror. There is only not losing at various levels. We have been not losing in a big way in this country for the past 6 years. I don't give the Feds a whole lot of credit for that, though. Certainly we've been losing it in a big way in our 2 big, recent "mission accomplished" countries.
I suppose that my point is that where bombs are concerned where do you put your security checks. All points will require amassing large groups of people so that the bomb goes off in a different location but is still effective. Look at Iraq and Afganistan this weeend. I think they have pretty good measures in place.Planes not mattering is my guess with trespect to the various groups seeking to instill fear. An airport terminal is probably just fine. They are not trying too kill you dumb ass, they are trying to fuck up your life. And listening to you they have succeeded.
Weird. How do you come to that conclusion?
Dunno where you live, so here's a somewhat local perspective form the SW of the US: not long after 9/11 a truck loaded with Cyanide went missing. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52908,00.html THAT is the only time after 9/11 that I worried. The notion was that terrorists could drop it into one of the few big rivers in the southwest and wreck ecological damage on a massive scale. Yeah, that had me worried. But the truck was just stolen, and eventually it was found abandoned - too hot.
I did not say do away with the checks, but remember the original plot that you are thinking of (planes/towers) had no bombs, and the use of other pointy objects (plastic could well have been employed).
No, you said:
You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.
I think you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't know that we're doing a particularly good job, but I think we could be doing worse.
Prove to me that there were plains to be flown into buildings that failed. Were there plains flown into buildings in the USA in 2000? or 1999? or 1998? Who says there would have been in 2002, or 2003? Terrorism didn't start in 2001, its been going on a long time, against americans and others in the world. They used plains in 2001, they've used truck bombs before that. Watching parking garages for the last 10 years wouldn't have stopped more than 1 terrorist bombing, watching planes probably hasn't done much better.
Note that I didn't say our new measures are any more effective than our old (though I suspect they are). I have no evidence, records, or anything like that, but I think the number of plain old hijackings of planes has fallen off an aweful lot since 9/11. Yeah, more than one reason for that. Etc etc. But here's my simple premise:
No security => more planes into buildings.
If you're doubting that, then we disagree and that's it. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that there have been any more terrorist plane crashes since 9/11. So, effective or not. Useful or not. We've won the war on air terror for the last 6 years.
As for stopping truck bombs only stopping 1 event in the last decade.. There was the one in the towers a while back that didn't work so good, and there was the fed building, too. I don't know the timeframes, but that's at least 2 that I can think of.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? Oh, yeah, people are idiots.
You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.
First the straw man: of course you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't believe 90% of the crap that the feds spew, but dontcha think that if there were no security measures in place that we'd have had just a few more planes flying into biuldings? Seriously: no security at all. More planes. So it seems we have won the war on air-terror for the past 6ish years.
Next up: planes don't matter? OK, how's your math? 30ish terrorist fly a few planes into a few buildings and kill how many folks and do how much damage? Several thousand (what was it? 3300+) and billions in damage and fallout. On a really good day in Iraq, how many people get killed by car bombs or bomb suits? I'm thinking that I don't remember many 100 person kills from any one bomber. And of course if they'd been aiming for death in addition to/instead of dollars they would have hit 2 hours later and the number of deaths would be 5-10x higher. So it looks like planes DO matter, doesn't it?
The chance of getting blown up (even if you believe the shit ol w and the ol boys say about all the foiled plots) is still less than traveling by car.
There is nothing "bolted on" regarding encryption right now.
Encryption is not standard.
It is simple to add it.
Bolt it on. It isn't hard. Very few do.
You're contradicting yourself. If it is "everyone" then there is no one who is "left behind".
"everyone" is being used as a euphemism. If you don't upgrade, and neither do your 3 friends, and you only email each other, you are left behind but can still use your software.
And that is the problem with your plan. It depends upon everyone doing something when the reality is that such will not happen.
It's not my plan. MailCo is the one who is going to overhaul email and internet communication standards. My notion is that it is true that encryption should be included in their new standard (which I don't lay high odds on succeeding).
A. If your system has a graceful failure to allow email to be transmitted even if the other side has not upgraded, you'll end up with the exact situation we have today. Because 99.9% of the people will stick with their current systems. Net result - no change.
B. If your system does NOT have a graceful failure, then no one will adopt it because it will not work with any of the established email systems. And your inability to send/receive email with them will be DIRECTLY attributed to your deployment of this "better" technology that just does not work. Net result - no change.
As you know, the graceful failover for current email encryption is that email is sent in the clear. This is because there is no single standard and various people bolt on their own solution. The failover for a brand spanking new email system that includes encryption that is found faulty and is then upgraded is to allow fallback the previous faulty method. Some will say that is as good (or worse) than no encryption, but I disagree. For the same reason I think that sending regular mail in regular envelopes is OK.
It's not like the standards for web encryption have stood still. They have improved, and fallback has been available and is "OK" for small values of OK.
I'm not saying MailCo is going to succeed. I quite think they won't.
What I am saying is that if you're going to revamp email, you should include a standard method of encryption. If you disagree with that, I think that's fine.
You want it built in so that when a flaw is found, the subsystem is replaced and everyone upgrades. And those that don't are left behind. Just like 99.99% of current email users whose current bolted on choice is no encryption, but instead it would be a relatively small number.
It's not like encryption is new or difficult to implement (and thus likely to be found flawed). It just isn't used because it isn't part of the spec.
"With iTunes 7.0, a new 'Client-DAAP-Validation' header hash is needed when connecting to an iTunes 7.0 server. This does not affect 3rd party DAAP servers, but all current DAAP clients (including official iTunes before iTunes 7.0) will fail to connect to an iTunes 7.0 server, receiving a '403 Forbidden' HTTP error[citation needed]. The iTunes 7.0 authentication traffic analysis seem to indicate that a certificate exchange is performed to calculate the hash sent in the 'Client-DAAP-Validation' header."
And still nobody has figured out how to connect to an iTunes 7 server as a client. I imagine they're rolling the same technology into their players. I won't bet on it being broken soon.
Aw, crap. I'm making a car analogy. Only not really!
You're just playing with words there. I don't think so.
Microsoft claiming the foundation for Google is like Ford claiming the foundation for Honda. I don't think anyone delivered cars to the consumer the way Ford did, but there were cars before Ford, and if they had not done it, someone would have. Honda just came along and built an [arguably] better car.
There were all the things Microsoft brought to users before Microsoft packaged it. Microsoft just happened to deliver. If they had not done it, someone would have. Google just happens to have come along and built better software [again, arguably] than Microsoft has (in the web space).
Microsoft's involvement in Google's success is coincidental (at best).
True, however: "Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers"
What was the first email program? What was the first browser? What was the first TCP stack?
Did microsoft eventually do all these things and then deliver them to the masses? Yes. Did they invent them? No. Would they have been crushed if they had not eventually delivered? Yes, they would have been crushed by Apple or IBM or someone else. But they did see it coming and they did deliver.
What was the first search engine? The first online email service? The first web/blog service? The first map service?
Did Google invent any of these things? No. But they [arguably] made them better.
Craig Mundie's statement is fallacy at both ends. Microsoft didn't lay the foundation - they delivered it. And they did it because they had to. I'm not sure that Google has invented any of it's services - but they tie them together and deliver them in a compelling way; which is to say: microsoft could have done any of it (and have/are trying parts), they just fail to do it as well.
It's funny that Google's business feels so completely different than microsoft's. I feel like I could walk away from any of the google services I use and just slip another one in it's place - but there aren't any that I like better. With microsoft you feel locked into everything because if you try to use a 3rd party for something, the rest of the system doesn't work as well. I wonder how much of that is just my perception and how much of that is really true.
The truth is that I probably won't use any microsoft software today, and I'll use google plenty. It's possible that none of the systems between me and google use any microsoft software. So, no, google does not, did not need microsoft to do it's thing. I figure microsoft was just the vehicle the masses chose to get there.
Today's data centres could not exist without the ideas that Sun promoted vigorously in the 90s (the network is the computer).
Having spent time in the UC system in the late 80's with various vaxxen, BSD on sundry hardware, IBM equipment, etc, I'd have to disagree. There were some SUN workstations around, but that's what they were used for: workstations. I always thought "the network is the computer" to be short-sighted and misguided. The computer is the telephone (iPhone is a 600Mhz machine, I hear? as fast as the machines used in those days). It's pretty clear that the computer is the computer - and it is dirt cheap, tiny, and a monster. The network is the network.
Binary compatibility across all their SPARC based offerings (the same binaries can run in a personal workstation or laptop or in a supercomputer).
Just like Intel has been doing?
Centralized naming services (NIS, NIS+), descentralized file services (NFS) included implementations sharing device drivers across networks (RFS, now sadly deprecated).
Credit where due. These were impressive feats at the time, and I'd forgotten they were SUNs.
Modular, scalable, servers (predating Google's swappable computers by several years).
Eh.
Solaris 10 (for anybody hat knows what it does, thsi should mean enough said really).
What did SUN ever do that was amazing? They made some good, big hardware. What else?
I happen to like a lot about Java, and made a living coding in it for a bunch of years, but I won't ever code in it again if I can avoid it. For all that, I think Java was a lucky fluke, and they have mostly let it rot since 1.1.
And I hear that ZFS is real cool, though I have yet to experience it - and I've used a netapp fileserver and thought it was wonderful. OK, that's 2 things I'm giving them some credit for (other than big hardware). What else?
Not only did I submit this story with no type-o's, last night, but I also made reference to the previous solar powered flight that lasted 2 nights, which this submission implies never happened before.
Though the previous one also did gliding/non-powered flight part of the time. Still, up for 48 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. I've been using rsnapshot on OSX for a couple of years, now. So my response to TimeMachine was "Nice. rsnapshot with a fancy UI."
I have not fooled with TimeMachine much at all. Not sure if it will replace rsnapshot as my "back up to a remote system" solution.
Linux was originally host compiled on Minix. It's original filesystem was Minix compatible. Linus originally announced Linux on the Minix newsgroups. They're both *nixen. I think that cousin is a pretty good description. Though maybe Linux as a bastard child would be more accurate.
I think the classic Microsoft move is OS2. They did team with IBM. They did collaborate on features. Money changed hands.
Then they did (continued to do) Windows, broke compatability and essentially killed OS2.
I don't generally keep track of MS' victims in the industry - it seems like there are plenty of them. Anti-competitive means "it's not windows until [3rd party spreadsheet/WP/whatever] doesn't run. They control the marketplace that way.
Google's non-deal with free411 and their competing product probably means that free411 will die. Google is the 800# gorilla. And if I were free411 I would sure be leery of using google's adwords to advertise. But Google doesn't control web standards. They can't make free411 not work. And they don't control >90% of web ads (what % do they control, I wonder).
In that sense Google's actions are just like any other business, and not like MS.
1) I personally know 3 businesses that are out of business because of adwords shenanigans which Google to this day denies...
2) They are "forcing" adwords customers to have their ads listed on "link sites"...
I don't get it. Google killed businesses that advertised using google? If that were true, it'd just be dumb, not evil. You don't kill folks who are paying you to advertise through them - maybe unless they are advertising a competing product. And if you are paying someone to advertise a competing product, I'm thinking you get what you deserve.
If I'm missing something, please explain what - I'm really not up on this stuff.
3) by pulling the ultimate MS move with free411 they are most certainly participating in anticompetitive behavior.
This does sound like a rough (as in not friendly) business decision. But if they wanted to move into that space, and free411 didn't look like the company/technology/price they wanted, what are their choices?
I think you'd be amazed how fast companies will bother as soon as just a few European or Asian (Japan) countries decide they won't supply dirty fuel.
I have a hard time imagining a clean jet fuel, though. Maybe I will RTFA.
IANAL (patent or otherwise), but the description in the patent looks VERY specific.
This isn't a trailer with a computer in it.
It isn't a mobile command center.
What it looks like is (fairly specifically) a box with rackmounts that someone could get into. There are other constraints like size, cooling system details, etc.
What it looks like to me is that they will start using these, they think it is a clever design, and they might want to sell this specific solution. You would be a fool to come up with a specific solution that you wanted to sell and NOT patent it.
Overrated is the counter to things that are not funny, not insightful, not interesting. It turns out that some of the folks handed mod points use them poorly (IMO). Since +5 is the cap, I sometimes mod down things that are +5 and mod up things that should be. I never mod things overrated that are at +2 (or lower), and I generally don't use it for anything below +5.
But when crap gets modded to the ceiling? Yeah, I'll kick that down a peg.
Heck, I'd be happy if one could only use overrated on things that were at the ceiling.
The single biggest reason for there not being more plane hijackings is that the passengers won't let it happen any more. 9/11's success is the limiting factor; now that we know that we will not survive the hijacking, we have no incentive to go along.
There have been several hijackings since 9/11. None in the US.
You cannot control 150 people with 10 if the 150 refuse to be controlled.
Of course you can. Especially if you have the weapons to do so.
Using the "There hasn't been another attack, so it is working" argument really falls down when there hadn't been an attack like that before either. During the time there was NO security at all, there had never been a hijacked plane flown into a building so evidence suggests that no security is actually more effective.
There has always (for decades) been security. Just not enough to keep a few guys with razors from taking a plane for a joy ride. I'm pretty sure there still isn't enough - but nobody thinks that a few guys are just going to go for a joy ride anymore.
Note, however:
Air security in Israel has always been very tight. They have certainly considered that someone might use a flying bomb for just the kind of thing that happened on 9/11 for a long time. Nobody there has flown a plane into a building, either - though they do blow up busses fairly often - and have for quite a while.
There are plenty of folks who have said that we had enough information to know something was going on and that the Feds should have stopped 9/11 before it happened - even without our new "improved security" measures. I don't know.
There is no reasonable winning a war on terror. There is only not losing at various levels. We have been not losing in a big way in this country for the past 6 years. I don't give the Feds a whole lot of credit for that, though. Certainly we've been losing it in a big way in our 2 big, recent "mission accomplished" countries.
I suppose that my point is that where bombs are concerned where do you put your security checks. All points will require amassing large groups of people so that the bomb goes off in a different location but is still effective. Look at Iraq and Afganistan this weeend. I think they have pretty good measures in place.Planes not mattering is my guess with trespect to the various groups seeking to instill fear. An airport terminal is probably just fine. They are not trying too kill you dumb ass, they are trying to fuck up your life. And listening to you they have succeeded.
Weird. How do you come to that conclusion?
Dunno where you live, so here's a somewhat local perspective form the SW of the US: not long after 9/11 a truck loaded with Cyanide went missing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52908,00.html
THAT is the only time after 9/11 that I worried. The notion was that terrorists could drop it into one of the few big rivers in the southwest and wreck ecological damage on a massive scale. Yeah, that had me worried. But the truck was just stolen, and eventually it was found abandoned - too hot.
I did not say do away with the checks, but remember the original plot that you are thinking of (planes/towers) had no bombs, and the use of other pointy objects (plastic could well have been employed).
No, you said:
You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.
I think you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't know that we're doing a particularly good job, but I think we could be doing worse.
Prove to me that there were plains to be flown into buildings that failed. Were there plains flown into buildings in the USA in 2000? or 1999? or 1998? Who says there would have been in 2002, or 2003? Terrorism didn't start in 2001, its been going on a long time, against americans and others in the world. They used plains in 2001, they've used truck bombs before that. Watching parking garages for the last 10 years wouldn't have stopped more than 1 terrorist bombing, watching planes probably hasn't done much better.
Note that I didn't say our new measures are any more effective than our old (though I suspect they are). I have no evidence, records, or anything like that, but I think the number of plain old hijackings of planes has fallen off an aweful lot since 9/11. Yeah, more than one reason for that. Etc etc. But here's my simple premise:
No security => more planes into buildings.
If you're doubting that, then we disagree and that's it. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that there have been any more terrorist plane crashes since 9/11. So, effective or not. Useful or not. We've won the war on air terror for the last 6 years.
As for stopping truck bombs only stopping 1 event in the last decade.. There was the one in the towers a while back that didn't work so good, and there was the fed building, too. I don't know the timeframes, but that's at least 2 that I can think of.
How the hell did this get modded insightful? Oh, yeah, people are idiots.
You can not fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I would think that airplanes probably no longer matter. If you get through fine, if not blow yourself up in a crowded terminal. Probably get more folks that was as well.Especially when so many virgins and good shit is at stake.
First the straw man: of course you can fight someone who is going to blow themselves up. I don't believe 90% of the crap that the feds spew, but dontcha think that if there were no security measures in place that we'd have had just a few more planes flying into biuldings? Seriously: no security at all. More planes. So it seems we have won the war on air-terror for the past 6ish years.
Next up: planes don't matter? OK, how's your math? 30ish terrorist fly a few planes into a few buildings and kill how many folks and do how much damage? Several thousand (what was it? 3300+) and billions in damage and fallout. On a really good day in Iraq, how many people get killed by car bombs or bomb suits? I'm thinking that I don't remember many 100 person kills from any one bomber. And of course if they'd been aiming for death in addition to/instead of dollars they would have hit 2 hours later and the number of deaths would be 5-10x higher. So it looks like planes DO matter, doesn't it?
The chance of getting blown up (even if you believe the shit ol w and the ol boys say about all the foiled plots) is still less than traveling by car.
Yeah, that must be the insightful part.
There is nothing "bolted on" regarding encryption right now.
Encryption is not standard.
It is simple to add it.
Bolt it on. It isn't hard. Very few do.
You're contradicting yourself. If it is "everyone" then there is no one who is "left behind".
"everyone" is being used as a euphemism. If you don't upgrade, and neither do your 3 friends, and you only email each other, you are left behind but can still use your software.
And that is the problem with your plan. It depends upon everyone doing something when the reality is that such will not happen.
It's not my plan. MailCo is the one who is going to overhaul email and internet communication standards. My notion is that it is true that encryption should be included in their new standard (which I don't lay high odds on succeeding).
A. If your system has a graceful failure to allow email to be transmitted even if the other side has not upgraded, you'll end up with the exact situation we have today. Because 99.9% of the people will stick with their current systems. Net result - no change.
B. If your system does NOT have a graceful failure, then no one will adopt it because it will not work with any of the established email systems. And your inability to send/receive email with them will be DIRECTLY attributed to your deployment of this "better" technology that just does not work. Net result - no change.
As you know, the graceful failover for current email encryption is that email is sent in the clear. This is because there is no single standard and various people bolt on their own solution. The failover for a brand spanking new email system that includes encryption that is found faulty and is then upgraded is to allow fallback the previous faulty method. Some will say that is as good (or worse) than no encryption, but I disagree. For the same reason I think that sending regular mail in regular envelopes is OK.
It's not like the standards for web encryption have stood still. They have improved, and fallback has been available and is "OK" for small values of OK.
I'm not saying MailCo is going to succeed. I quite think they won't.
What I am saying is that if you're going to revamp email, you should include a standard method of encryption. If you disagree with that, I think that's fine.
Nope.
You want it built in so that when a flaw is found, the subsystem is replaced and everyone upgrades. And those that don't are left behind. Just like 99.99% of current email users whose current bolted on choice is no encryption, but instead it would be a relatively small number.
It's not like encryption is new or difficult to implement (and thus likely to be found flawed). It just isn't used because it isn't part of the spec.
And you can also add the the list: piglatin, rot13.
But none of that is BUILT IN from the ground up. It's all tacked on - sometimes.
And that makes all the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Access_Protocol
"With iTunes 7.0, a new 'Client-DAAP-Validation' header hash is needed when connecting to an iTunes 7.0 server. This does not affect 3rd party DAAP servers, but all current DAAP clients (including official iTunes before iTunes 7.0) will fail to connect to an iTunes 7.0 server, receiving a '403 Forbidden' HTTP error[citation needed]. The iTunes 7.0 authentication traffic analysis seem to indicate that a certificate exchange is performed to calculate the hash sent in the 'Client-DAAP-Validation' header."
And still nobody has figured out how to connect to an iTunes 7 server as a client. I imagine they're rolling the same technology into their players. I won't bet on it being broken soon.
Aw, crap. I'm making a car analogy. Only not really!
You're just playing with words there.
I don't think so.
Microsoft claiming the foundation for Google is like Ford claiming the foundation for Honda. I don't think anyone delivered cars to the consumer the way Ford did, but there were cars before Ford, and if they had not done it, someone would have. Honda just came along and built an [arguably] better car.
There were all the things Microsoft brought to users before Microsoft packaged it. Microsoft just happened to deliver. If they had not done it, someone would have. Google just happens to have come along and built better software [again, arguably] than Microsoft has (in the web space).
Microsoft's involvement in Google's success is coincidental (at best).
But we are getting pretty pedantic.
DAAP encryption still has not been broken.
Good thing Sun gave Netapp a business to be in by inventing RPC and NFS and making them open more than 20 years ago!
Without a relatively open (in terms of standards) company like Sun in the '90s there very well may not have been a GNU or a Linux.
You're the 3rd person (Mr. AC) to mention NFS. It's true, I'd forgotten that one. On the other hand, that was in the 80's.
I just can't think of anything SUN's done in the 90's or beyond, other than Java, that is even marginally exciting/interesting.
True, however: "Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers"
What was the first email program? What was the first browser? What was the first TCP stack?
Did microsoft eventually do all these things and then deliver them to the masses? Yes. Did they invent them? No. Would they have been crushed if they had not eventually delivered? Yes, they would have been crushed by Apple or IBM or someone else. But they did see it coming and they did deliver.
What was the first search engine? The first online email service? The first web/blog service? The first map service?
Did Google invent any of these things? No. But they [arguably] made them better.
Craig Mundie's statement is fallacy at both ends. Microsoft didn't lay the foundation - they delivered it. And they did it because they had to. I'm not sure that Google has invented any of it's services - but they tie them together and deliver them in a compelling way; which is to say: microsoft could have done any of it (and have/are trying parts), they just fail to do it as well.
It's funny that Google's business feels so completely different than microsoft's. I feel like I could walk away from any of the google services I use and just slip another one in it's place - but there aren't any that I like better. With microsoft you feel locked into everything because if you try to use a 3rd party for something, the rest of the system doesn't work as well. I wonder how much of that is just my perception and how much of that is really true.
The truth is that I probably won't use any microsoft software today, and I'll use google plenty. It's possible that none of the systems between me and google use any microsoft software. So, no, google does not, did not need microsoft to do it's thing. I figure microsoft was just the vehicle the masses chose to get there.
You are a coder. Typical.
Yup.
Today's data centres could not exist without the ideas that Sun promoted vigorously in the 90s (the network is the computer).
Having spent time in the UC system in the late 80's with various vaxxen, BSD on sundry hardware, IBM equipment, etc, I'd have to disagree. There were some SUN workstations around, but that's what they were used for: workstations. I always thought "the network is the computer" to be short-sighted and misguided. The computer is the telephone (iPhone is a 600Mhz machine, I hear? as fast as the machines used in those days). It's pretty clear that the computer is the computer - and it is dirt cheap, tiny, and a monster. The network is the network.
Binary compatibility across all their SPARC based offerings (the same binaries can run in a personal workstation or laptop or in a supercomputer).
Just like Intel has been doing?
Centralized naming services (NIS, NIS+), descentralized file services (NFS) included implementations sharing device drivers across networks (RFS, now sadly deprecated).
Credit where due. These were impressive feats at the time, and I'd forgotten they were SUNs.
Modular, scalable, servers (predating Google's swappable computers by several years).
Eh.
Solaris 10 (for anybody hat knows what it does, thsi should mean enough said really).
I guess that leaves me out.
Although nothing special by today's statndards: NFS, NIS, and Java, were innovative, and important technologies, at the time.
I agree with NFS and NIS, and I'd certainly forgotten those. Though I think they had their birth in the 80's, and some parent specified 90's.
Thanks.
Really, not trolling.
What did SUN ever do that was amazing? They made some good, big hardware. What else?
I happen to like a lot about Java, and made a living coding in it for a bunch of years, but I won't ever code in it again if I can avoid it. For all that, I think Java was a lucky fluke, and they have mostly let it rot since 1.1.
And I hear that ZFS is real cool, though I have yet to experience it - and I've used a netapp fileserver and thought it was wonderful. OK, that's 2 things I'm giving them some credit for (other than big hardware). What else?
Not only did I submit this story with no type-o's, last night, but I also made reference to the previous solar powered flight that lasted 2 nights, which this submission implies never happened before.
Though the previous one also did gliding/non-powered flight part of the time. Still, up for 48 hours.
No one has mentioned it but it is a great move by Jobs, $100.00 "Apple Store Credit" probably costs them $40.00
I am not an economist. But I think their profit margins are closer to 20% than 60%, which I think is the implication you're making.
It turns out that the latest version of iTunes deletes "unauthorized ringtones."
Way to be evil, Apple!