If you think there is any chance in hell that the PS3 could launch around 3/22/2006, you're insane. Considering where the PS3 is in development right now, even saying that it will launch by 7/22/2006 is a stretch.
And the US also isn't telling the rest of the world what they can do with their cables and their DNS servers. They are perfectly free to split off onto their own network, and run their own root DNS servers. There isn't a damn thing the US can do to stop them, either. They just don't want to, because the network and root DNS servers that we run are the best around.
If for some reason there is a hole that nobody knows about and therefore there is no exploit available, where is the problem? It doesn't become an important issue until somebody (be it Microsoft, a white hat, or a black hat) is aware of the hole.
How are you being locked on Windows by using Sparkle? Sure the development environment (Sparkle) is Windows-only, but can you find me a Linux version of Flash MX 2004? The stuff you create with Sparkle requires the Windows Presentation Foundation (codenamed Avalon) in order to run. Microsoft is coming out with WPF/E (Windows Presentation Foundation/Everywhere) which will allow the stuff you create in Sparkle to run everywhere. They actually demoed stuff running on Mac OS.
the IIS evangelist at the TechEd 2002 IIS 6.0 pep rally said that there will not be any vulnerabilities in IIS6.0. Oh aye, I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert!
He wasn't too far off... The two vulnerabilities that IIS6 has had in it's 2.5 years so far weren't even remotely serious. Do you really think that's going to change, and suddenly 100s of bugs will pop up overnight? Come on.
You can't run two different versions of IIS because there is no real reason to do so. You can sit here and come up with fantasy answers all day, but show me one single real-world example of someone having the need to run two different versions of IIS on the same server.
Your reasoning is BS. People seem to have no problem pointing to the number of security advisories between IE and Firefox to show that Firefox is more secure, so why can't we do the same thing for web servers?
Also, I can't find a launch date for Apache 2, but Windows Server 2003 (with IIS6) was launched on April 24, 2003. Apache 2 hasn't been around 13.5 times longer than that, so your reasoning of "it's older" falls apart as well. Face the facts, Microsoft got it right with IIS6.
Absolutely. Who else's fault could it possibly be? Are you implying we should blame the people who wrote the incompatible software? Microsoft should have built Windows to support Apache!
Slashdot Mirror
If you think there is any chance in hell that the PS3 could launch around 3/22/2006, you're insane. Considering where the PS3 is in development right now, even saying that it will launch by 7/22/2006 is a stretch.
And the US also isn't telling the rest of the world what they can do with their cables and their DNS servers. They are perfectly free to split off onto their own network, and run their own root DNS servers. There isn't a damn thing the US can do to stop them, either. They just don't want to, because the network and root DNS servers that we run are the best around.
The address bar was never below the tabs on any build that Microsoft released. You're imagining things.
Or you could just use the system that's currently in place, where http://www.ibm.com/ and http://www.ibm.de/ are different...
Don't let that BBS get too popular, otherwise the UN will be demanding not just a login, but root access.
Or ICANN's ridiculous sitefinder mayhem?
That wasn't ICANN, that was VeriSign. Two completely separate organizations.
My Gmail account doesn't use a cruddy, intrusive authentication system like Passport.
Gmail uses Google Account. What makes Google Account any less cruddy or intrusive than Passport?
$990/minute, assuming a charge of 10 cents per message.
But the différence is that once you setup a stable linux box. You dont have to touch it ever. Except to patch, and admin.
Alright, I'll bite. Aside from "patching and admining" a Windows server, why else would you need to "touch" it?
AMD shouldn't be backing anybody. Intel is in the home entertainment business, AMD is not. They should keep their noses out of this.
Of course, knowing AMD, they'll probably "back" Blu-ray, and then sue Intel for choosing HD-DVD and trying to keep AMD out of the market.
If you think "forever" isn't long, then I guess you'd be right. You're insane if you think Microsoft is going to put ads in IE.
It's not like they're keeping it secret: Microsoft Windows Vista Security
ActiveX may contain vulnerabilities, but it is not a vulnerability itself.
How many years has IE6 been around with little or no modifications?
Just one.
I wouldn't count on that. You obviously don't know about the numerous security measures going into Vista and IE7.
ActiveX is not a vulnerability. Stop trolling.
If for some reason there is a hole that nobody knows about and therefore there is no exploit available, where is the problem? It doesn't become an important issue until somebody (be it Microsoft, a white hat, or a black hat) is aware of the hole.
How are you being locked on Windows by using Sparkle? Sure the development environment (Sparkle) is Windows-only, but can you find me a Linux version of Flash MX 2004? The stuff you create with Sparkle requires the Windows Presentation Foundation (codenamed Avalon) in order to run. Microsoft is coming out with WPF/E (Windows Presentation Foundation/Everywhere) which will allow the stuff you create in Sparkle to run everywhere. They actually demoed stuff running on Mac OS.
the IIS evangelist at the TechEd 2002 IIS 6.0 pep rally said that there will not be any vulnerabilities in IIS6.0. Oh aye, I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert!
He wasn't too far off... The two vulnerabilities that IIS6 has had in it's 2.5 years so far weren't even remotely serious. Do you really think that's going to change, and suddenly 100s of bugs will pop up overnight? Come on.
You can't run two different versions of IIS because there is no real reason to do so. You can sit here and come up with fantasy answers all day, but show me one single real-world example of someone having the need to run two different versions of IIS on the same server.
Your reasoning is BS. People seem to have no problem pointing to the number of security advisories between IE and Firefox to show that Firefox is more secure, so why can't we do the same thing for web servers?
Also, I can't find a launch date for Apache 2, but Windows Server 2003 (with IIS6) was launched on April 24, 2003. Apache 2 hasn't been around 13.5 times longer than that, so your reasoning of "it's older" falls apart as well. Face the facts, Microsoft got it right with IIS6.
The thing is, he did specify better than that. Stop spreading lies.
Apple isn't going to let Motorola control their phone designs.
You have that reversed. Apple doesn't design phones, Motorola does. Motorola isn't going to let Apple control their phone designs.
You know, before I even posted that comment, I knew someone would bring that up. Good job.
Absolutely. Who else's fault could it possibly be? Are you implying we should blame the people who wrote the incompatible software? Microsoft should have built Windows to support Apache!