In one of the buildings I occasionally worked in at JSC (medical facility - forget the building number), there is an underground room. Pretty far underground. I've been told it was origionally used to examine astronauts before and after flights free from stray radiation, etc from the atmosphere (a combination of an insulated room and earth). Of course, we liked to claim that was where The Alien was housed.
Of course, that fell in line nicely with rumors that JSC was actually a Hanger 18 site. And that's why JSC property includes lots of undeveloped land (all those underground facilities). Now days there's a major road and a magnet school along one of the borders that used to be closed off NASA territory.
Of course - its all bunk anyway. But it fit nicely with the Alien Room at the bottom of the (sometimes) locked elevator.
The problem is, in most cases under Windows, you don't need a HOWTO to get your zip drive working, or your cd burner working.
That's a fair enough point. And its true that even the most user friendly distro is plenty rough around the edges, depending on your choice of hardware. But I HAVE been impressed with how often I can do a fresh install or plug in a new piece of hardware and the default kernel just loads the appropriate module. And it Just Works.
Of course - when I want to compile my own kernel or need bleeding edge code to support a particularly nasty piece of hardware that I'm glad for the wealth of HOWTOs, community forums, and usenet posts.
Not that those resources will do the non-technical user much good. Unless they hire technical help.
If you've bet your career on Linux, and the market is continuing to move away from Unix towards Windows... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Of course, that's a personal choice. If you've bet your career on Windows, and there are more and more competitors in the market... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Of course - the answer is no. At least not for everyone - only those unable to shift with changes in technology.
I began my IT career firmly within a Windows world. I thought Unix was a hold-out from a bygone era. I knew about Linux, but didn't see what it was good for. Then a twist of fate had me landing a job as a Unix admin. I began learning as much Unix as I could. I built a Linux box to help. And I found an amazingly powerful and stable environment. One that I now prefer to Windows.
I still support Windows as a solution where it makes sense. However, I prefer to work with Unix or a variant - specifically OpenBSD or Linux. Unix loosing market share makes my job more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make my career irrelevant. And I would imagine there are a slew of others like me.
Even ignoring that issue, you have the one of support of someone's favorite niche OS. Most anti-MS people on/. appear to believe that they can destroy Microsoft, and the result will be that their favorite niche will become the new leader.
This doesn't have much relevance to the thread - but I'd like to make an observation. Linux "world domination" is a joke - a reaction to the dominance and business tactics of Microsoft. But its a subtle joke. One that the stereotypical unthinking Linux Zealot takes to heart as a battle cry for the absolute destruction of Microsoft. That's not going to happen unless Microsoft exhibits some extreme incompetence - and Microsoft is not incompetent when it comes to business.
Having said that, I would like to see destruction visited on Microsoft. Destruction of the Microsoft monopoly. I would like to see Microsoft go the way of IBM - a major player in the IT industry, but not a gatekeeper. Would Linux fill a void? Somewhat. But then... so would FreeBSD. OSX. Maybe the next BeOS. In the end, consumers would make the choice. And it would be a true free market choice free from marketing shennanigans and abuse of monopoly power.
Face it, anti-MS people are just as motivated by financial gain as pro-MS people.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about a lot of pro-MS types is their inability to see information technology as anything other than a financial vehicle.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft's licencing or Windows XP or anything like that.
The claim made in the article reads:
Providing customers with both the CDs and the disk-based recovery program is not an option though, as that would violate HP's agreements with Microsoft and other software partners.
Granted - I find myself questioning how accurate this claim is. Is it HP officials going in to CYA mode? But at the same time, we've seen some odd things surface from the secret world of OEM licensing deals before.
Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?
I have to agree. I prefer my science fiction to be portrayed as such - not masquarade as fact (War of the Worlds aside).
I suppose John Edwards is simply the latest testimate to mankinds desperation to believe in something (be it the desire to witness the supernatural, or the need to deal with grief). Its the same desire that blinds the masses to the constant abuse of organized religion (be it cults or more established faiths).
Of course - one might be able to argue that this same desire is the subject of the movie Trekkers.;)
Hopefully if enough OSS neofascists complain loudly enough, Apple will be forced to squander more of their money on developing software that no-one is going to pay for.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is raking in all those licensing fees for Windows Media Player.
The reason Linux doesn't have the full suite of useful applications is that the companies producing those apps KNOW that Linux users are pirates, demanding "free" software instead of paying for it.
Yep. All those "warez" guys are actually Linux users. Not a single one of those "appz" are Windows or MacOS.
secondly, cisco is not a monopoly. it is just a big company, that's all. they don't have monopoly power in any area, and they dont make any products that can be obtained through a competitor for a competitive price.
Cisco dominates the market in the areas of their core products. They also have a very strong brand and strong business ties. They could certainly abuse their position. They don't. Instead, they recognize smaller competitors' entry in to the market. In fact, the corporate culture states this competition is good for the market and good for Cisco. However, Cisco maintains the same healthy paranoia as many other Silicon Valley giants. And some of their products are technically inferior to their competitors'. And they still don't resort to abuse of their position to compete.
finally, cisco is not big because of superior products. they are big because they buy a _lot_ of companies. they acquire about a company a week, and have landfills of cash
The Cisco of today does no R&D. They allow others to finance new technology development. Then they buy those technologies that they believe will compliment their business. The trick is, they don't buy with cash. Its all stock. Cash flow is used to maintain the business and wrap newly aquired technology in to their current strategy.
One thing that's different is that Cisco tends to buy technology and then market it. They do not (or at least rarely - feel free to point to cases that differ) buy technology and burry it.
Another point is that the.com meltdown has been a strong part of Cisco's end to insanely rapid growth. First, their stock no longer has the same value so they can no longer use it as currency. Secondly, Cisco began to realize that they could not maintain the same level of growth and had began to slow as the economy began to tank. Of course, I think the change in economy and policy had a lot more to do with each other than the official line might otherwise express.
So in summery...
Is Cisco a huge, powerfull corporation? Certainly. Do they have power they could abuse? Yes. Do they? No. Mostly because of their corporate culture - and perhapse a bit because it would be bad for their business.
It might be worth noting that you can save SOME data without external storage. I wrote a few odd text files just for giggles and they seem to be stored on the internal flash memory. And configuration changes manage to survive between boots. But, of course, I doubt there is a whole lot of available space.
Of course, I've had no problem using CF cards. Next week, I'll be customizing a Midori build and booting off the external flash card.
Pocket Word doesn't strike me as being all that amazing an application. I'll have to poke around with it more. But my initial impression was a slightly more featureful text editor... something along the lines of WordPad. I'll have to look at it again and pay closer attention.
The WinCE Aquapad also includes a third-party Excel and Powerpoint viewer. What it doesn't include is the more advanced handwriting recognition application(s).
The included PenPower application (also on the Midori Linux version) seemed very rudimentary to me. Although... again... I really need to play with it more to be fair.
Like you, I wonder if this affects the licensing cost.
If any of you happen to have seen Microsoft's announcement and demo of Windows XP (Tablet PC Edition), you would easily be able to figure out why this..the Aquapad won't be succesful, when compared to Windows XP tablet PC...
Of course... you're assuming the Aquapad can't run Windows XP, Tablet PC Edition. If it runs on an x86 platform, it can run on the Aquapad. Stating that the Aquapad will be a failure because of Windows is simular to claiming all FIC's motherboards will fail because you saw one being used to run Linux.
FIC is producing a white box tablet PC. They have no intention of selling them to the public. Instead, they want to produce a platform on which OEMs can brand their own product. Those products may include WinCE, WinXP, Linux... or something completely new.
One other point - Crusoe's performance hit isn't likely to be as bit an issue as you portray. So far, its managed to keep up with all the tasks I would expect out of a web pad. I don't expect to do a lot of compiling or 3D gaming / modeling with one. And its managing to run a lot cooler than my modern laptop.
One hopes that future versions might include 1) a hard drive, for example an IBM microdrive, which would make fiddling with the OS's guts a lot simpler and safer. Note that the article says the Windows CE version already uses a microdrive -- so maybe you could get a windows version, wipe it, and install Linux?
The WinCE aquapad that I have doesn't include a microdrive. I think that's a reference to Win9x/XP versions. Having said that... both the WinCE and Midori Linux devices happily use compact flash. Buy your own microdrive.
3) *Integrated* 802.11b, so you could use that PCMCIA slot for something else.
I completely agree there. Sure, the aquapad is fine using a microdrive or CF card. But they really shine one they're hanging off a wireless network.
I was interested in the device as it offers the right interface for data entry to our medical practice data automation project. But then... that's more of the niche application that you were refering to.
But that's not to say having a couple of Aquapads to kick around hasn't been fun. It is really a great form factor for browsing web pages from the couch. I tossed the device to my wife with a set of headphones and she curled up on the couch listening to streams from mp3.com. I'll have to try watching some movies next (off of my own server). And perhapse some simple email management.
Sure. The input is a bit limited. It took me a few clicks to get used to pulling up the keyboard or writing app (and the PenPower app included with both WinCE and Linux seems almost useless - but to be fair, I haven't tried it too much). But then, that's the form factor. And maybe that's the key. A webpad is a niche product even in general use.
Webpads are about portable access to data - and more about consuming data than generating it. Desktops provide the best bang for the buck in general computing. Laptops provide good portable general computing. PDAs provide even more portability of data (though not very suitable devices for general computing). Webpads weigh in somewhere between the laptop and the PDA.
But.NET is actually a pretty well thought out and designed plan. If you take off the blinders and look at it,.NET really makes sense.
The Evil that Microsoft does is not technical. While it may involve technical trickery... at its heart is marketing. Microsoft is a technical company who excels at marketing.
To understand the "evil" we're looking at, one has to realized what (subset of?) moral code is being used. Its not neccisarily the morality that condems murder. It is not the ultra-aggressive business morality that accepts any action that turns a profit. It is a techie morality - one of making things work. Functionality. And ultimately, interoperability. If something interferes with functionality and/or interoperability, its evil. If this interference is artificially induced, it is exceptionally evil.
Microsoft has often interfered with interoperability as a marketing tactic. It is such a strong part of their business, that they have not only worked it in to their products but they have used it as a reason for aquiring other technologies and changing open systems (embrace and extend).
This should be old news if you're reading this. Even if you don't subscribe to that moral code.
So how does all this apply to.Net? The question of using.Net is not entirely a technical one. It is very possible that Microsoft has created a good technology (they do that from time to time). But because of Microsoft's previous "evil", one can not leave it entirely up to technical concerns. Microsoft's actions MUST be concidered before touching anything that has origionated within the Microsoft camp.
That certainly doesn't mean one should automatically discount Microsoft's offerings. To be sure... the moral code I mentioned all but demands looking at any new technology. And hacking it. But one would be foolish to limit this issue to technology alone. Anybody involved with.Net (for good or bad) MUST enter in to it with open eyes... and a few cautious looks in Microsoft's direction.
Linux biggots are always the first to spout RTFM when someone asks them a question... But for some reason they don't take their own advice
There's a bit of truth in that. But the statement would have a lot more relevance if the origional question was HOW to implement.Net.
The actual question involves some analysis of the technology. We all know this will have to traverse business / politics to get down to actual technical issues - good and bad. One can hardly expect MSDN to be a good source of this kind of analysis (to be fair, I would expect it of... say... SUN or RedHat either).
As an aside... RTFM isn't just a knee-jerk reaction for technical elitists. It gains valitidy when the task is simple and a reference (ie: a URL) is provided.
While we all know that the author is referring to OpenGL, I thought it was an appropriate editing choice to keep the number of technical terms down to a minimum. The focus of the story is not the technology, but the man himself.
I can agree that a business publication would want to avoid technical discussion, I think you're missing the tone that the article presented. Read it again:
Eight years later, Mr. Carmack is still steering clear of Microsoft's standard as he cranks out the next version of Id Software's Doom.
...
"It's almost like a religious thing for him," grumbles Otto Berkes, a Microsoft program manager who until recently oversaw the company's DirectX graphics technology division. Unlike Mr. Carmack, many other game developers have adopted the technology.
...
Mr. Carmack, cofounder and lead programmer at Id Software, is sticking to his own graphics technology.
The message is plain. Carmack avoids an industry standard developed by Microsoft called DirectX. Everybody else uses it. Instead, Carmack is some kind of technological religious zealot who uses his own system.
Granted... the article does go on to point out that his decission allows his software to run on many platforms. Something Microsoft's technology does not allow. But its possible that someone unfamiliar with the industry might miss this message and attribute Carmack's refusal of microsoft as another aspect of his ecentric personality.
It would be different if the writer had reported Carmack has adopted an open graphics standard over a more restrictive standard provided by Microsoft... despite Microsoft's professed incredulity over the choice.
Secondly, unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities but instead is the optimal way to provide utility to users of software.
I agree at first. Open Source is about functionality and empowering the user. When you think about it, pitting platforms and user communities against each other is really a byproduct of marketing. And that's the source of "evil" that leads to a lack of interoperability and removal of user choice... but I digress.
If the BSD license is somehow superior to the GPL because it has fewer restrictions which allows more people to use BSD code... then why bother with a license? Obviously, releasing code to the public domain would be superior to both the BSD and GPL. Why bother with the BSD license at all?
Simple. Credit where credit is due. Fame. Recognition. The one universal currency within the Open Source landscape.
All licenses involve a price. And while that price affects end users, it is really about developers and the IT industry. Licenses exist to limit or serve that industry.
Sure - Open Source takes the user in account. They may even be about enabling the user. But as soon as a developer is considering which license best suits his/her requirements... it is no longer about the end user.
Actually... there is a way in Pine to jump between two messages. Can't remember it off the top of my head. But I do remember going "wow, didn't know you could do that" while we were sifting through my mail one day. I felt smug. Although tempered by the fact that I hadn't known you could do it for years myself.
Having said that... if someone wants/needs a GUI laden environment like Outlook, mutt or pine is NOT the right direction. There are numerous GUI mail clients for Linux that should surfice (although Outlook is more than email). So yea - I can agree on that point (although there ARE times when a good consol mail reader is nice).
Sure AOL bought Winamp, ICQ, and Netscape and left them mostly unchanged...
Did they leave them unchanged? There were a few reports that pointed to the rift in cultures between Netscape and AOL. And in the end, AOL management managed to drive out much of Netscape's talent. Their attrition rate skyrocketed (50% was described as "conservative" with the observation that HR were swamped with termination notices as they, themselves, were being hit). Business processes were interupted and otherwise halted. Netscape was effectively scuttled - dead in the water.
Something to consider here is that this didn't just involve the browser. In fact, development of the browser continued under the Mozilla project - one could argue Open Source saved the browser. Netscape's entire business infrastructure was disrupted from partners to their plugins program to their Netcenter portal which was considered Netscape's greatest asset.
AOL certainly had a grave effect on Netscape. And we know of it because Netscape was a large, highly visiable company. One has to wonder what little intrigues went on at Nullsoft and Mirabilis.
Of course... there are other factors that come in play.
Netscape was already slipping. A couple years before, Netscape would liken themselves to a rabbit running down a road and seeing the headlights of a semi truck approuching from behind. By the time AOL, Mozilla, and the rewrite hit, Netscape could smell the deisel fumes.
Netscape's code base was in shambles. At least, that is the reason cited for the rewrite and why Netscape5 never hit the public.
AOL management walked in to the Netscape culture and smashed it with ham fists. They alienated their talent. The talent thanked AOL for ensuring their stock was worth something, cashed it in, and left. Netscape had to pick up the pieces with whoever they had left.
The truely amazing thing is that there is still a Netscape. Even better, there is a Mozilla which has spawned various smaller projects (such as Galeon). One could argue that the time taken away from the insanely paced feature race has enabled all this to happen.
Microsoft's targets usually sink below the surface and become footnotes to history. Netscape continues to haunt Microsoft today.
Is this in the same vein as the day Bill Gates ordered everyone at MS to stop what they were working on and concentrate on how the Internet would affect their products?
Sure. But this isn't the same target.
Microsoft went after the Internet in the same manner they targeted other markets. It was a simple matter of identifying the target and applying the same business tactics they had been honing on other products / markets.
And it is some of these tactics that has caused the security issues they have today.
Microsoft will not be able to rehash their usal bag of tricks to win this new target. It will take some fundimental shifts in Microsoft's philosophy and culture. This will greatly affect their development. It will blind-side their marketing.
Microsoft began attacking the internet market by leveraging their name/reputation, new features, and quiet agreements (to name three). This fails in the current security environment.
First, Microsoft have found themselves with a failing reputation. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be taking these actions. But now, Microsoft security issues are making headlines in tech journalism. Microsoft can no longer dust these issues under the carpet just because they're Microsoft.
Microsoft's security woes have little to do with new features. If anything, it is their drive to add features without proper consideration towards security (and bug hunting) that has caused their trouble.
Microsoft has already began trying to control their security problems with quiet agreements. But keeping major security companies quiet will not end their problems. The infosec industry is full of small groups and individuals who have numerous reasons to discover and publish vulnerabilities in Microsoft products. Sometimes these entities are doing what they consider a public service. Other times it involves making a name for oneself or business. But in any case, vulnerabilities will be found and the media will pick them up and report them as it makes a good story.
If Microsoft is to be successful, it will require a major shift. A shift they have never done before, Internet or no Internet.
Honestly, and not trying to troll. What will everyone here do if microsoft ceases being the evil empire?
Microsoft has a LONG way to go before they manage this. However, the company has turned on a dime before. If there is anyone who can do it, its them. But the changes will have to include technical and cultural shifts that go against years of activity that has defined the current Microsoft.
But what would Slashdot do if Microsoft changes? They'll go on. Slashdot is not the anti-Microsoft site. There would be plenty of other news if Microsoft dropped out of sight tommorow.
Microsoft just manages to do things often enough to become a prime subject of this community.
Microsoft constantly stands out from their peers. The IT industry is full of large, powerfull corporations. They all put out products that could have their merrits debated. They all make marketing claims, promise things to their customers, and set company policy that impacts end users (including Slashdot readers). Yet somehow Microsoft manages to raise to the top.
Sure, there is over-the-top bashing of Microsoft (ignoring Microsoft's own PR, reputation for FUD, and zelous proponents). But there are also lots of legitimate grieviences ranging from product quality to Microsoft's marketing tactics.
Microsoft gets attention because they deserve it.
When Microsoft changes its ways, they will fade in to the background with other industry leaders like IBM. And the news will march on with or without them.
Yes, Microsoft products have security faults, whose doesn't? Microsoft's get more notice because of the insane amount of marketshare they have, also Microsoft's software is less mature than the UNIX offerings people often compare it to in terms of tight security.
...
I remember back in the late 80s and early 90s how much of a joke UNIX security in general was.
...
Unix security is better now, but that's in large part due to maturity...Microsoft software will improve as well..Look at how much they've improved stability already when compared to Win95...It will happen...slowly, perhaps.
In a previous comment on another article, I noted that Unix has spent its time "in the trenches". Infosec history is full of Unix and its exploits... and its eventual improvement. But it is too easy to look at this history and learn the wrong lesson.
Unix's history of security flaws is less about Unix and more about infosec awareness. Unix changed as the understanding of infosec and security principles changed. While time has allowed more of these flaws to be discovered and removed from the Unix code base, the process over the years has been more about knowing what to look for (or even to bother looking). And as this understanding of infosec principles, concepts, and procedures has increased entirely new chunks of unix code has materialized - sometimes to fill a void, but often to replace another project's functionality with a new design that has taken security issues in consideration during its inception.
In short, Unix does benefit from its maturity. But the greater lesson is the infosec mind set. The tao of security, if you will. And these are concepts that can be applied to any project / OS.
The claims that Microsoft will "get there" with maturity are misleading. Microsoft may indeed improve. But its not maturity of their code base that's at issue. The issue is whether Microsoft will begin to understand Security and design systems based on that understanding.
Microsoft has shown signs of improvement with a sudden handful of security tool offerings. But unfortunately, these are really superficial afterthoughts to an already flawed environment.
Microsoft's problem is not technical; its cultural. Microsoft is a technology company that excels at marketing. Articles by Microsoft coders talk about the push from Marketing to add additional features at the cost of bug-hunting and resolution.
This kind of environment clashes with two infosec concepts. The first is that vulnerabilities are bugs - something malfunctions in an unexpected way, leaving the system vulnerable to intentional manipulation of this bug. The second is that there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. Increasing the number of features, and the ease of using these features, often threatens a system's security.
Marketing at Microsoft will first have to care about infosec issues (this may be happening as Microsoft gets more and more negative press). Then Microsoft will have to strive to design secure systems even at the cost of features (and possibly even abandoning or severely restructuring current systems).
Every time "rights management" technology is discussed, it seems to include a rather large number of functionality issues. This particular article touches (briefly) on performance hits for the various schemes presented. As if theft of consumer fair use rights isn't enough.
It seems that the only way consumers in the future will have freedom to use the content they have paid for (think of it as media functionality) is to turn to pirated works. And once they have put forward the effort and expense to track down a suitable pirated work, one has to wonder how often the consumer will feel like bothering to purchase the legitimate product for that added bit of moral highground.
Content owners seem deturmined to shoot themselves in the foot. And its the various technology companies, and their sales/marketing team, that are assuring the industry of an oportunity ("them's feet are good eatin'") and selling the shotguns.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, that fell in line nicely with rumors that JSC was actually a Hanger 18 site. And that's why JSC property includes lots of undeveloped land (all those underground facilities). Now days there's a major road and a magnet school along one of the borders that used to be closed off NASA territory.
Of course - its all bunk anyway. But it fit nicely with the Alien Room at the bottom of the (sometimes) locked elevator.
That's a fair enough point. And its true that even the most user friendly distro is plenty rough around the edges, depending on your choice of hardware. But I HAVE been impressed with how often I can do a fresh install or plug in a new piece of hardware and the default kernel just loads the appropriate module. And it Just Works.
Of course - when I want to compile my own kernel or need bleeding edge code to support a particularly nasty piece of hardware that I'm glad for the wealth of HOWTOs, community forums, and usenet posts.
Not that those resources will do the non-technical user much good. Unless they hire technical help.
Of course, that's a personal choice. If you've bet your career on Windows, and there are more and more competitors in the market... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Of course - the answer is no. At least not for everyone - only those unable to shift with changes in technology.
I began my IT career firmly within a Windows world. I thought Unix was a hold-out from a bygone era. I knew about Linux, but didn't see what it was good for. Then a twist of fate had me landing a job as a Unix admin. I began learning as much Unix as I could. I built a Linux box to help. And I found an amazingly powerful and stable environment. One that I now prefer to Windows.
I still support Windows as a solution where it makes sense. However, I prefer to work with Unix or a variant - specifically OpenBSD or Linux. Unix loosing market share makes my job more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make my career irrelevant. And I would imagine there are a slew of others like me.
This doesn't have much relevance to the thread - but I'd like to make an observation. Linux "world domination" is a joke - a reaction to the dominance and business tactics of Microsoft. But its a subtle joke. One that the stereotypical unthinking Linux Zealot takes to heart as a battle cry for the absolute destruction of Microsoft. That's not going to happen unless Microsoft exhibits some extreme incompetence - and Microsoft is not incompetent when it comes to business.
Having said that, I would like to see destruction visited on Microsoft. Destruction of the Microsoft monopoly. I would like to see Microsoft go the way of IBM - a major player in the IT industry, but not a gatekeeper. Would Linux fill a void? Somewhat. But then... so would FreeBSD. OSX. Maybe the next BeOS. In the end, consumers would make the choice. And it would be a true free market choice free from marketing shennanigans and abuse of monopoly power.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about a lot of pro-MS types is their inability to see information technology as anything other than a financial vehicle.
The claim made in the article reads:
Granted - I find myself questioning how accurate this claim is. Is it HP officials going in to CYA mode? But at the same time, we've seen some odd things surface from the secret world of OEM licensing deals before.
I have to agree. I prefer my science fiction to be portrayed as such - not masquarade as fact (War of the Worlds aside).
I suppose John Edwards is simply the latest testimate to mankinds desperation to believe in something (be it the desire to witness the supernatural, or the need to deal with grief). Its the same desire that blinds the masses to the constant abuse of organized religion (be it cults or more established faiths).
Of course - one might be able to argue that this same desire is the subject of the movie Trekkers.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is raking in all those licensing fees for Windows Media Player.
Yep. All those "warez" guys are actually Linux users. Not a single one of those "appz" are Windows or MacOS.
Cisco dominates the market in the areas of their core products. They also have a very strong brand and strong business ties. They could certainly abuse their position. They don't. Instead, they recognize smaller competitors' entry in to the market. In fact, the corporate culture states this competition is good for the market and good for Cisco. However, Cisco maintains the same healthy paranoia as many other Silicon Valley giants. And some of their products are technically inferior to their competitors'. And they still don't resort to abuse of their position to compete.
The Cisco of today does no R&D. They allow others to finance new technology development. Then they buy those technologies that they believe will compliment their business. The trick is, they don't buy with cash. Its all stock. Cash flow is used to maintain the business and wrap newly aquired technology in to their current strategy.
One thing that's different is that Cisco tends to buy technology and then market it. They do not (or at least rarely - feel free to point to cases that differ) buy technology and burry it.
Another point is that the
So in summery...
Is Cisco a huge, powerfull corporation? Certainly. Do they have power they could abuse? Yes. Do they? No. Mostly because of their corporate culture - and perhapse a bit because it would be bad for their business.
Of course, I've had no problem using CF cards. Next week, I'll be customizing a Midori build and booting off the external flash card.
The WinCE Aquapad also includes a third-party Excel and Powerpoint viewer. What it doesn't include is the more advanced handwriting recognition application(s).
The included PenPower application (also on the Midori Linux version) seemed very rudimentary to me. Although... again... I really need to play with it more to be fair.
Like you, I wonder if this affects the licensing cost.
Of course... you're assuming the Aquapad can't run Windows XP, Tablet PC Edition. If it runs on an x86 platform, it can run on the Aquapad. Stating that the Aquapad will be a failure because of Windows is simular to claiming all FIC's motherboards will fail because you saw one being used to run Linux.
FIC is producing a white box tablet PC. They have no intention of selling them to the public. Instead, they want to produce a platform on which OEMs can brand their own product. Those products may include WinCE, WinXP, Linux... or something completely new.
One other point - Crusoe's performance hit isn't likely to be as bit an issue as you portray. So far, its managed to keep up with all the tasks I would expect out of a web pad. I don't expect to do a lot of compiling or 3D gaming / modeling with one. And its managing to run a lot cooler than my modern laptop.
The WinCE aquapad that I have doesn't include a microdrive. I think that's a reference to Win9x/XP versions. Having said that... both the WinCE and Midori Linux devices happily use compact flash. Buy your own microdrive.
I completely agree there. Sure, the aquapad is fine using a microdrive or CF card. But they really shine one they're hanging off a wireless network.
But that's not to say having a couple of Aquapads to kick around hasn't been fun. It is really a great form factor for browsing web pages from the couch. I tossed the device to my wife with a set of headphones and she curled up on the couch listening to streams from mp3.com. I'll have to try watching some movies next (off of my own server). And perhapse some simple email management.
Sure. The input is a bit limited. It took me a few clicks to get used to pulling up the keyboard or writing app (and the PenPower app included with both WinCE and Linux seems almost useless - but to be fair, I haven't tried it too much). But then, that's the form factor. And maybe that's the key. A webpad is a niche product even in general use.
Webpads are about portable access to data - and more about consuming data than generating it. Desktops provide the best bang for the buck in general computing. Laptops provide good portable general computing. PDAs provide even more portability of data (though not very suitable devices for general computing). Webpads weigh in somewhere between the laptop and the PDA.
But
The Evil that Microsoft does is not technical. While it may involve technical trickery... at its heart is marketing. Microsoft is a technical company who excels at marketing.
To understand the "evil" we're looking at, one has to realized what (subset of?) moral code is being used. Its not neccisarily the morality that condems murder. It is not the ultra-aggressive business morality that accepts any action that turns a profit. It is a techie morality - one of making things work. Functionality. And ultimately, interoperability. If something interferes with functionality and/or interoperability, its evil. If this interference is artificially induced, it is exceptionally evil.
Microsoft has often interfered with interoperability as a marketing tactic. It is such a strong part of their business, that they have not only worked it in to their products but they have used it as a reason for aquiring other technologies and changing open systems (embrace and extend).
This should be old news if you're reading this. Even if you don't subscribe to that moral code.
So how does all this apply to
That certainly doesn't mean one should automatically discount Microsoft's offerings. To be sure... the moral code I mentioned all but demands looking at any new technology. And hacking it. But one would be foolish to limit this issue to technology alone. Anybody involved with
There's a bit of truth in that. But the statement would have a lot more relevance if the origional question was HOW to implement
The actual question involves some analysis of the technology. We all know this will have to traverse business / politics to get down to actual technical issues - good and bad. One can hardly expect MSDN to be a good source of this kind of analysis (to be fair, I would expect it of... say... SUN or RedHat either).
As an aside... RTFM isn't just a knee-jerk reaction for technical elitists. It gains valitidy when the task is simple and a reference (ie: a URL) is provided.
I can agree that a business publication would want to avoid technical discussion, I think you're missing the tone that the article presented. Read it again:
The message is plain. Carmack avoids an industry standard developed by Microsoft called DirectX. Everybody else uses it. Instead, Carmack is some kind of technological religious zealot who uses his own system.
Granted... the article does go on to point out that his decission allows his software to run on many platforms. Something Microsoft's technology does not allow. But its possible that someone unfamiliar with the industry might miss this message and attribute Carmack's refusal of microsoft as another aspect of his ecentric personality.
It would be different if the writer had reported Carmack has adopted an open graphics standard over a more restrictive standard provided by Microsoft... despite Microsoft's professed incredulity over the choice.
I agree at first. Open Source is about functionality and empowering the user. When you think about it, pitting platforms and user communities against each other is really a byproduct of marketing. And that's the source of "evil" that leads to a lack of interoperability and removal of user choice... but I digress.
If the BSD license is somehow superior to the GPL because it has fewer restrictions which allows more people to use BSD code... then why bother with a license? Obviously, releasing code to the public domain would be superior to both the BSD and GPL. Why bother with the BSD license at all?
Simple. Credit where credit is due. Fame. Recognition. The one universal currency within the Open Source landscape.
All licenses involve a price. And while that price affects end users, it is really about developers and the IT industry. Licenses exist to limit or serve that industry.
Sure - Open Source takes the user in account. They may even be about enabling the user. But as soon as a developer is considering which license best suits his/her requirements... it is no longer about the end user.
Actually... there is a way in Pine to jump between two messages. Can't remember it off the top of my head. But I do remember going "wow, didn't know you could do that" while we were sifting through my mail one day. I felt smug. Although tempered by the fact that I hadn't known you could do it for years myself.
Having said that... if someone wants/needs a GUI laden environment like Outlook, mutt or pine is NOT the right direction. There are numerous GUI mail clients for Linux that should surfice (although Outlook is more than email). So yea - I can agree on that point (although there ARE times when a good consol mail reader is nice).
Indiana Jones and the Prior Art
Did they leave them unchanged? There were a few reports that pointed to the rift in cultures between Netscape and AOL. And in the end, AOL management managed to drive out much of Netscape's talent. Their attrition rate skyrocketed (50% was described as "conservative" with the observation that HR were swamped with termination notices as they, themselves, were being hit). Business processes were interupted and otherwise halted. Netscape was effectively scuttled - dead in the water.
Something to consider here is that this didn't just involve the browser. In fact, development of the browser continued under the Mozilla project - one could argue Open Source saved the browser. Netscape's entire business infrastructure was disrupted from partners to their plugins program to their Netcenter portal which was considered Netscape's greatest asset.
AOL certainly had a grave effect on Netscape. And we know of it because Netscape was a large, highly visiable company. One has to wonder what little intrigues went on at Nullsoft and Mirabilis.
The truely amazing thing is that there is still a Netscape. Even better, there is a Mozilla which has spawned various smaller projects (such as Galeon). One could argue that the time taken away from the insanely paced feature race has enabled all this to happen.
Microsoft's targets usually sink below the surface and become footnotes to history. Netscape continues to haunt Microsoft today.
Sure. But this isn't the same target.
Microsoft went after the Internet in the same manner they targeted other markets. It was a simple matter of identifying the target and applying the same business tactics they had been honing on other products / markets.
And it is some of these tactics that has caused the security issues they have today.
Microsoft will not be able to rehash their usal bag of tricks to win this new target. It will take some fundimental shifts in Microsoft's philosophy and culture. This will greatly affect their development. It will blind-side their marketing.
Microsoft began attacking the internet market by leveraging their name/reputation, new features, and quiet agreements (to name three). This fails in the current security environment.
First, Microsoft have found themselves with a failing reputation. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be taking these actions. But now, Microsoft security issues are making headlines in tech journalism. Microsoft can no longer dust these issues under the carpet just because they're Microsoft.
Microsoft's security woes have little to do with new features. If anything, it is their drive to add features without proper consideration towards security (and bug hunting) that has caused their trouble.
Microsoft has already began trying to control their security problems with quiet agreements. But keeping major security companies quiet will not end their problems. The infosec industry is full of small groups and individuals who have numerous reasons to discover and publish vulnerabilities in Microsoft products. Sometimes these entities are doing what they consider a public service. Other times it involves making a name for oneself or business. But in any case, vulnerabilities will be found and the media will pick them up and report them as it makes a good story.
If Microsoft is to be successful, it will require a major shift. A shift they have never done before, Internet or no Internet.
But what would Slashdot do if Microsoft changes? They'll go on. Slashdot is not the anti-Microsoft site. There would be plenty of other news if Microsoft dropped out of sight tommorow. Microsoft just manages to do things often enough to become a prime subject of this community.
Microsoft constantly stands out from their peers. The IT industry is full of large, powerfull corporations. They all put out products that could have their merrits debated. They all make marketing claims, promise things to their customers, and set company policy that impacts end users (including Slashdot readers). Yet somehow Microsoft manages to raise to the top.
Sure, there is over-the-top bashing of Microsoft (ignoring Microsoft's own PR, reputation for FUD, and zelous proponents). But there are also lots of legitimate grieviences ranging from product quality to Microsoft's marketing tactics.
Microsoft gets attention because they deserve it.
When Microsoft changes its ways, they will fade in to the background with other industry leaders like IBM. And the news will march on with or without them.
Of course, you didn't have large analyst firms advising their customers to dump IIS because of stability issues either.
In a previous comment on another article, I noted that Unix has spent its time "in the trenches". Infosec history is full of Unix and its exploits... and its eventual improvement. But it is too easy to look at this history and learn the wrong lesson.
Unix's history of security flaws is less about Unix and more about infosec awareness. Unix changed as the understanding of infosec and security principles changed. While time has allowed more of these flaws to be discovered and removed from the Unix code base, the process over the years has been more about knowing what to look for (or even to bother looking). And as this understanding of infosec principles, concepts, and procedures has increased entirely new chunks of unix code has materialized - sometimes to fill a void, but often to replace another project's functionality with a new design that has taken security issues in consideration during its inception.
In short, Unix does benefit from its maturity. But the greater lesson is the infosec mind set. The tao of security, if you will. And these are concepts that can be applied to any project / OS.
The claims that Microsoft will "get there" with maturity are misleading. Microsoft may indeed improve. But its not maturity of their code base that's at issue. The issue is whether Microsoft will begin to understand Security and design systems based on that understanding.
Microsoft has shown signs of improvement with a sudden handful of security tool offerings. But unfortunately, these are really superficial afterthoughts to an already flawed environment.
Microsoft's problem is not technical; its cultural. Microsoft is a technology company that excels at marketing. Articles by Microsoft coders talk about the push from Marketing to add additional features at the cost of bug-hunting and resolution.
This kind of environment clashes with two infosec concepts. The first is that vulnerabilities are bugs - something malfunctions in an unexpected way, leaving the system vulnerable to intentional manipulation of this bug. The second is that there is an inverse relationship between functionality and security. Increasing the number of features, and the ease of using these features, often threatens a system's security.
Marketing at Microsoft will first have to care about infosec issues (this may be happening as Microsoft gets more and more negative press). Then Microsoft will have to strive to design secure systems even at the cost of features (and possibly even abandoning or severely restructuring current systems).
It will take a maturity of a different kind.
It seems that the only way consumers in the future will have freedom to use the content they have paid for (think of it as media functionality) is to turn to pirated works. And once they have put forward the effort and expense to track down a suitable pirated work, one has to wonder how often the consumer will feel like bothering to purchase the legitimate product for that added bit of moral highground.
Content owners seem deturmined to shoot themselves in the foot. And its the various technology companies, and their sales/marketing team, that are assuring the industry of an oportunity ("them's feet are good eatin'") and selling the shotguns.