...they are in comtempt of court and get hauled back over the coals. The agreement is extended for another two year BUT they also have to face a new trial on contempt charges.
Or in the dim dark days of DOS (and before alliteration was illegal):
abort(0);
The fear part came in for me when I saw it, recognized it and suddenly understood how much of my life was wasted in front of hex dumps of obsolete programs for an obsolete system that was never good in the first place.
In an unprecedented move, Attorney General John Ashcroft locked up all the Appeals Court judges while waving his arms in the air screaming something about terrorists. In a later statement he made the comment "How could anyone imagine anyone but a terrorist thinking free speech was somehow more important than national security?". Reporters who asked provocotive questions were also taken away for correctional training.
The XBox doesn't run Win32 PE executable files so no autorun stuff is going to work. To improve performance (and give game devs more flexibility) everything on the XBox runs in kernel mode so you really are never going to see anything that runs on consumer Windows (9x, 2k, XP etc.) run on the XBox.
WinXP has name completion by default
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
Run cmd.exe and tab works for filename completion just fine. There's a registry setting to enable this in NT3.51 and above but it escapes me at the moment.
Of course you can do wildcards with 'cd' as well (cd \pro* will usually get "Program Files"). cmd.exe is actually a lot better than the original DOS command prompt - you just have to take the time to figure out the syntax required. Naturally it is nothing near bash though...
So try to find someone that has this much enthusiasm to write a report like this that favours Windows.
Go to www.microsoft.com and read as much propoganda as you want. It deserves the same criticism as this review and most of it shows as much obvious bias in the other direction.
In all I don't think the article has any real factual basis. His numbers are significantly out and the whole last half of the article seems to be justifying his predetermined conclusions.
I always thought the "smart" thing to do was look at the existing network and try to integrate the new solution with as little disruption as possible.
Where is the comparison of using Terminal Services? Why is he paying full retail prices for systems when he should know full well quantity licenses are significantly cheaper? Why the assertion that Suns are more stable when in my experience Windows is just as stable if you don't let the users screw with it. Where are the different server options for running PeopleSoft? Why Dell not Unisys?
In the end this is a piece of well researched FUD designed to come to the predetermined conclusion - Unix is better than Windows.
I beg to differ - most decision have to be made in the context of an existing architecture, business system and corporate momentum. It is always a case of choosing the best solution to fit the existing network for a minimum medium term cost.
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 2
Thank you for telling me what I want!
I wasn't. I said the chances are minute that people will actually need that.
Look, my real point is there isn't enough going for it to carry a $400 price tag. All these things are cute in an MP3 player and certainly very nice, but it really isn't worth the extra cash.
Making it Windows compatible will be interesting unless they've used a FAT32 or possibly UFS file system on the hard drive (doubtful).
Read my other replies. This isn't a monopoly issue because the FTC has no jurisdiction in bundling cases. Absent monopoly issues there is no call for Microsoft to do anything to help third parties integrate with WinXP. In the end, this is just a publicity stunt to discredit both Microsoft and the FTC - nothing more. It's much like complaining that the local fire department did nothing about the burglar in your house...
Microsoft hasn't been making improper statements about competitors (as you suggest) and don't bitch about the +5 mod to me - metamoderate. Obviously at least three other people out there thought it was a worthwhile post.
The FTC is set up to protect the consumer. Monopolistic business practices have to be a concern for FTC because unregulated monopolies have been shown to be bad for the economy and for the public. Therefore if previous data shows that a company routinely uses anti-competitive business practices then the FTC should investigate, if not take action, especially if the business has been declaired a monopoly.
No. The FTC is not a branch of the judiciary. Under separation of powers they have no right to enforce antitrust law without pressing charges - a process that has been proven to take a minimum of five years. In the end, the FTC cannot do anything about monopoly maintenance because it isn't in their jurisdiction.
No, I don't really understand their arguments at all. By presenting this to the FTC they aren't complaining on monopoly issues (antitrust is an issue for the DoJ and courts) so that blows away any bundling issues they may have.
Absent bundling issues, what exactly is their argument? That all this information is bad in Microsoft's hands? Give me a break! Compared to the way banks and credit reporting agencies behave with information, Microsoft is a saint!
Their arguments may be sound in an antitrust trial, but before the FTC and an examination of the suggested actions for the FTC to take really shows it up as a publicity stunt to have a bash at Microsoft.
As for the little rant about MS breaking other people's code - where exactly is that in the complaint? I may have missed something?
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 2
The iMac and iBook were at very nice price points for Apple products (just above a similarly spec'd PC). I think you'll find difficulty finding any quote of mine that says they'll never sell.
Now the G4 cube is far more in line with the iPod - at a price point without the demand to carry it at that point.
The iPod is not a computer and has nothing similarly spec'd to compare against. When it comes down to it, it is a hideously expensive walkman - something for the filthy rich dot-commers in CA... err... (sigh) oh well.
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 2
My mistake - you need OS 9.2.1 or OS 10.1.
On that note, is 9.2.1 actually available independantly of OS X?
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 2
Probably not, but that's not the point. If you are buying a Firewire HDD then you don't care if you get one about 25% bigger if you can get 20G for less than half the price.
If you are buying an MP3 player, the chance of you wanting all 5G of storage (on the actual player) is fairly minute, and even more remote is the possibility that you have $400 to kick around in spending on an MP3 player - especially one that will only interface to a recent Macintosh (one capable of running OS X) and not anything else.
It's a cute product but the price point is all wrong to make any market penetration.
Monopolies are not an issue for the FTC, they are an issue for the DoJ and courts. If this is about Microsoft being a monopoly then sending a letter to the FTC is going to get about as much action as sending it to the local fire department.
If Microsoft's servers get hacked THEN there will be damages. I'm saying there are no damages to be paid right now because no damage has been done!! If they are going to count "privacy" issues then I'd be going after doubleclick and other banner ad people and not Passport.
First, security details are a non-issue. None of the proposed remedies even address the security concerns.
Just reading through the proposed remedies I have to ask whether these complaints are just there for the sake of bashing Microsoft and propping up competitors:
"An investigation into the information collection practices of Microsoft through Passport and associated services"
...we don't trust them, investigate them!!
"Order Microsoft to revise the XP registration procedures so that purchasers of Microsoft XP are clearly informed that they need not register for Passport to obtain access to the Internet"
...it was clear enough to me when I installed XP that the Passport registration was separate from internet access, after all you have to be connected to the internet before you can register with Passport!!
"Order Microsoft to block the sharing of personal information among Microsoft areas provided by a user under the Passport registration procedures absent explicit consent"
...why just Microsoft? Shouldn't the companies registering this complaint also volunteer their own information sharing policies? Smacks of hypocrasy to me.
"Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques for anonymity and pseudo-anonymity that would allow users of Windows XP to gain access to Microsoft web sites without disclosing their actual identity"
...you mean like a fake hotmail account? No one's done that before!
"Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques that would enable users of Windows XP to easily integrate services provided by non-Microsoft companies for online payment, electronic commerce, and other Internet-based commercial activity"
...what's wrong with the other companies? Can't they write code anymore?
"Provide such other relief as the Commission finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Microsoft's practices as described herein"
...there's been damages? Sheesh!
not to mention the real kicker:
"Begin an investigation to determine whether Passport complies with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act."
Oh my GOD!!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this one as a legitamate complaint. None of these remedies sit anywhere close to fixing any known problem with Passport. Naturally the most obvious remedy is to open the protocol and allow third parties to implement their own Passport servers but that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?
or, in terms of the old DOS days, exit(0). The fear comes in when you see it, know what it means and realize just how full your brain is of stuff you are never likely to use again...
One of the reasons I left DoD a few years ago for the private sector was because nobody seemed interested in thinking outside the box and everyone was perfectly content letting the vendors and contractors ram Microsoft, Solaris, and other proprietary stuff down their throats...
Last I looked Solaris was part of *nix, as were many other "proprietary stuff". If you really mean Linux or BSD then you shouldn't use the term *nix.
To answer what I assume was the original question, perhaps they have considered Linux and xBSD but just haven't found a compelling reason to spend the money to migrate? Free software doesn't necessarily mean cheaper in the short or long term much as the average/. person would wish it to be so.
If the govt did not release the code under the GPL it would simply be a form of corporate welfare. Under the GPL the greatest beneficieries would be the public under the BSD the corporations would benefit the most.
Actually, under a BSD license anyone could use the code, modify the code and resell the code - be it Microsoft, Sun or Jimmy-Bob down the road. Tax money is collected from companies and individuals alike - why shouldn't the fruits of that money be returned to companies and individuals alike.
What it comes down to is publishing government work under a GPL license gives GPL software an unfair advantage over commercial software through it's ability to leverage taxpayer funded projects. Governments should not play favorites to a particular licensing model and make all publicly funded code available to all who provided those funds.
For the vast majority of the human beings in the US the GPL is absolutely harmless.
That's like saying "For the vast majority of the human beings in the US the draft is absolutely harmless". Not affecting the vast majority is a poor excuse for a rationalization.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I cut my teeth on a VIC-20 and C-64 so while I can recognize the 6502 opcodes, I didn't recognize the subroutine.
Now if you'd asked what the number 64738 meant...
...they are in comtempt of court and get hauled back over the coals. The agreement is extended for another two year BUT they also have to face a new trial on contempt charges.
Please get your facts a little straight, michael.
It's x86 machine code for
mov ax,4c00
int 21
Or in the dim dark days of DOS (and before alliteration was illegal):
abort(0);
The fear part came in for me when I saw it, recognized it and suddenly understood how much of my life was wasted in front of hex dumps of obsolete programs for an obsolete system that was never good in the first place.
Actually, int 2E is depreciated in XP. It uses SYSENTER now.
Ashcroft locks up Appeals Court.
In an unprecedented move, Attorney General John Ashcroft locked up all the Appeals Court judges while waving his arms in the air screaming something about terrorists. In a later statement he made the comment "How could anyone imagine anyone but a terrorist thinking free speech was somehow more important than national security?". Reporters who asked provocotive questions were also taken away for correctional training.
The XBox doesn't run Win32 PE executable files so no autorun stuff is going to work. To improve performance (and give game devs more flexibility) everything on the XBox runs in kernel mode so you really are never going to see anything that runs on consumer Windows (9x, 2k, XP etc.) run on the XBox.
Run cmd.exe and tab works for filename completion just fine. There's a registry setting to enable this in NT3.51 and above but it escapes me at the moment.
Of course you can do wildcards with 'cd' as well (cd \pro* will usually get "Program Files"). cmd.exe is actually a lot better than the original DOS command prompt - you just have to take the time to figure out the syntax required. Naturally it is nothing near bash though...
So try to find someone that has this much enthusiasm to write a report like this that favours Windows.
Go to www.microsoft.com and read as much propoganda as you want. It deserves the same criticism as this review and most of it shows as much obvious bias in the other direction.
That's a fair comment.
In all I don't think the article has any real factual basis. His numbers are significantly out and the whole last half of the article seems to be justifying his predetermined conclusions.
I always thought the "smart" thing to do was look at the existing network and try to integrate the new solution with as little disruption as possible.
Where is the comparison of using Terminal Services? Why is he paying full retail prices for systems when he should know full well quantity licenses are significantly cheaper? Why the assertion that Suns are more stable when in my experience Windows is just as stable if you don't let the users screw with it. Where are the different server options for running PeopleSoft? Why Dell not Unisys?
In the end this is a piece of well researched FUD designed to come to the predetermined conclusion - Unix is better than Windows.
I beg to differ - most decision have to be made in the context of an existing architecture, business system and corporate momentum. It is always a case of choosing the best solution to fit the existing network for a minimum medium term cost.
Thank you for telling me what I want!
I wasn't. I said the chances are minute that people will actually need that.
Look, my real point is there isn't enough going for it to carry a $400 price tag. All these things are cute in an MP3 player and certainly very nice, but it really isn't worth the extra cash.
Making it Windows compatible will be interesting unless they've used a FAT32 or possibly UFS file system on the hard drive (doubtful).
Read my other replies. This isn't a monopoly issue because the FTC has no jurisdiction in bundling cases. Absent monopoly issues there is no call for Microsoft to do anything to help third parties integrate with WinXP. In the end, this is just a publicity stunt to discredit both Microsoft and the FTC - nothing more. It's much like complaining that the local fire department did nothing about the burglar in your house...
Microsoft hasn't been making improper statements about competitors (as you suggest) and don't bitch about the +5 mod to me - metamoderate. Obviously at least three other people out there thought it was a worthwhile post.
The FTC is set up to protect the consumer. Monopolistic business practices have to be a concern for FTC because unregulated monopolies have been shown to be bad for the economy and for the public. Therefore if previous data shows that a company routinely uses anti-competitive business practices then the FTC should investigate, if not take action, especially if the business has been declaired a monopoly.
No. The FTC is not a branch of the judiciary. Under separation of powers they have no right to enforce antitrust law without pressing charges - a process that has been proven to take a minimum of five years. In the end, the FTC cannot do anything about monopoly maintenance because it isn't in their jurisdiction.
No, I don't really understand their arguments at all. By presenting this to the FTC they aren't complaining on monopoly issues (antitrust is an issue for the DoJ and courts) so that blows away any bundling issues they may have.
Absent bundling issues, what exactly is their argument? That all this information is bad in Microsoft's hands? Give me a break! Compared to the way banks and credit reporting agencies behave with information, Microsoft is a saint!
Their arguments may be sound in an antitrust trial, but before the FTC and an examination of the suggested actions for the FTC to take really shows it up as a publicity stunt to have a bash at Microsoft.
As for the little rant about MS breaking other people's code - where exactly is that in the complaint? I may have missed something?
The iMac and iBook were at very nice price points for Apple products (just above a similarly spec'd PC). I think you'll find difficulty finding any quote of mine that says they'll never sell.
Now the G4 cube is far more in line with the iPod - at a price point without the demand to carry it at that point.
The iPod is not a computer and has nothing similarly spec'd to compare against. When it comes down to it, it is a hideously expensive walkman - something for the filthy rich dot-commers in CA... err... (sigh) oh well.
My mistake - you need OS 9.2.1 or OS 10.1.
On that note, is 9.2.1 actually available independantly of OS X?
Probably not, but that's not the point. If you are buying a Firewire HDD then you don't care if you get one about 25% bigger if you can get 20G for less than half the price.
If you are buying an MP3 player, the chance of you wanting all 5G of storage (on the actual player) is fairly minute, and even more remote is the possibility that you have $400 to kick around in spending on an MP3 player - especially one that will only interface to a recent Macintosh (one capable of running OS X) and not anything else.
It's a cute product but the price point is all wrong to make any market penetration.
Yes, you can. Works just fine.
Monopolies are not an issue for the FTC, they are an issue for the DoJ and courts. If this is about Microsoft being a monopoly then sending a letter to the FTC is going to get about as much action as sending it to the local fire department.
If Microsoft's servers get hacked THEN there will be damages. I'm saying there are no damages to be paid right now because no damage has been done!! If they are going to count "privacy" issues then I'd be going after doubleclick and other banner ad people and not Passport.
First, security details are a non-issue. None of the proposed remedies even address the security concerns.
Just reading through the proposed remedies I have to ask whether these complaints are just there for the sake of bashing Microsoft and propping up competitors:
"An investigation into the information collection practices of Microsoft through Passport and associated services"
...we don't trust them, investigate them!!
"Order Microsoft to revise the XP registration procedures so that purchasers of Microsoft XP are clearly informed that they need not register for Passport to obtain access to the Internet"
...it was clear enough to me when I installed XP that the Passport registration was separate from internet access, after all you have to be connected to the internet before you can register with Passport!!
"Order Microsoft to block the sharing of personal information among Microsoft areas provided by a user under the Passport registration procedures absent explicit consent"
...why just Microsoft? Shouldn't the companies registering this complaint also volunteer their own information sharing policies? Smacks of hypocrasy to me.
"Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques for anonymity and pseudo-anonymity that would allow users of Windows XP to gain access to Microsoft web sites without disclosing their actual identity"
...you mean like a fake hotmail account? No one's done that before!
"Order Microsoft to incorporate techniques that would enable users of Windows XP to easily integrate services provided by non-Microsoft companies for online payment, electronic commerce, and other Internet-based commercial activity"
...what's wrong with the other companies? Can't they write code anymore?
"Provide such other relief as the Commission finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from Microsoft's practices as described herein"
...there's been damages? Sheesh!
not to mention the real kicker:
"Begin an investigation to determine whether Passport complies with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act."
Oh my GOD!!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this one as a legitamate complaint. None of these remedies sit anywhere close to fixing any known problem with Passport. Naturally the most obvious remedy is to open the protocol and allow third parties to implement their own Passport servers but that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?
Open it up.
Go to Tools/Options.
Select the Preferences tab
Uncheck "Run this program when Windows starts."
Close the program down (including in your systray).
It now will not startup automatically.
So does this mean the makers of Deus Ex (Eidos) will be first up against the wall for inciting terrorism?
It's x86 machine code for:
MOV AX,4C00 (note little endian)
INT 21
or, in terms of the old DOS days, exit(0). The fear comes in when you see it, know what it means and realize just how full your brain is of stuff you are never likely to use again...
One of the reasons I left DoD a few years ago for the private sector was because nobody seemed interested in thinking outside the box and everyone was perfectly content letting the vendors and contractors ram Microsoft, Solaris, and other proprietary stuff down their throats...
/. person would wish it to be so.
Last I looked Solaris was part of *nix, as were many other "proprietary stuff". If you really mean Linux or BSD then you shouldn't use the term *nix.
To answer what I assume was the original question, perhaps they have considered Linux and xBSD but just haven't found a compelling reason to spend the money to migrate? Free software doesn't necessarily mean cheaper in the short or long term much as the average
If the govt did not release the code under the GPL it would simply be a form of corporate welfare. Under the GPL the greatest beneficieries would be the public under the BSD the corporations would benefit the most.
Actually, under a BSD license anyone could use the code, modify the code and resell the code - be it Microsoft, Sun or Jimmy-Bob down the road. Tax money is collected from companies and individuals alike - why shouldn't the fruits of that money be returned to companies and individuals alike.
What it comes down to is publishing government work under a GPL license gives GPL software an unfair advantage over commercial software through it's ability to leverage taxpayer funded projects. Governments should not play favorites to a particular licensing model and make all publicly funded code available to all who provided those funds.
For the vast majority of the human beings in the US the GPL is absolutely harmless.
That's like saying "For the vast majority of the human beings in the US the draft is absolutely harmless". Not affecting the vast majority is a poor excuse for a rationalization.