Although I think an Apache for NT already exists (stable is another story), I pretty much agree with you on this. I'll take the article's forecast one step further and predict that MS intends to:
1) bundle/integrate a full, free and proprietary IIS into W2K, 2) use various methods, including unstable/slow publicly-available system code, to reduce or eliminate competitor's effectiveness (esp. Apache).
They'll combine this bundling with a marketing effort (already beginning?) backed by "benchmarks", to make IIS look faster and easier to use.
What to do? Maybe make Apache more ubiquitous (make it available on every ftp server in the world), publicize how easy it is to download, install and configure, etc.
Additionally, blanket them with benchmarks. Fix whatever needs fixing, and benchmark, benchmark, benchmark. Let's saturate the news with comparisons representing "real-world conditions". Make MS's efforts to sow the seeds of doubt regarding choice of the best server futile. Make it clear that users can either use the easy "built-in" web server, or freely download something much better.
This is the fundamental problem of information protection outside the U.S. Government -- no one besides some ex-NSA'ers know exactly what the agency can and can't do. They employ more mathematicians than any other single employer, which is an impressive resource. And they do have tremendous computing power/research and development capabilities, with their own semiconductor fab facillities, etc.
On the other hand, some of the worlds best and brightest rigorously pursue very public encryption research, and provide some indication of how difficult cracking an encryption scheme can be.
Today's systems rely upon difficult mathematical functions and permutations for which, in over 2000 years of research (in some cases), shortcuts have yet to be found. Whether the NSA, in the space of 50 years or so, could break these riddles is, indeed, an open question. But I have my doubts. I think they tend to rely heavily upon people NOT using encryption.
This is the most rational and balanced assessment I've yet seen on this movie.
I've seen the movie once, with my wife. We're both fans of the original series, and both came away with largely the same feelings about TPM -- It contained Lucas' by-now-evident tendency to make some things too obvious (like humor attempts), had some new flaws (neither of us liked the "midichlorians" touch -- as though we needed an explanation as to why we earthlings can't levitate our droids like Luke can) and set new standards in the fx arena (has anyone actually found an fx flaw? The cg stuff, even Jar-Jar, is the best, least hokey material I've yet seen). Loved the jedi fight scenes, Darth Mahl rocked and we were disappointed he was killed off, the pod races were great, battle scenes kicked ass, saw too little of the Huts, etc.
Was it the experience without which life will have been meaningless? Of course not -- it's a movie. Would I have changed a few things if Lucas had asked me? You bet. But despite (or rather, because of) this movie's characteristic flaws, it's a worthy addition to the series. One I plan to see quite a few more times.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". This vast oversimplification, invented by a gun industry afraid of dealing with the rational results of the policies they advocate, ignores the psychological effect and ease of lethal action that a gun imparts.
Of course, people pull the trigger. But anyone who has ever held a gun knows the quickening of the pulse, the flush of power it imparts, and the effect the mere presence of a gun has on those around the wielder. If guns aren't a part of the "killing" equation, then why this effect? Why fight for or against the right to carry them? This is an absurdity.
No, I am not an anti-2nd-Amendment advocate. In fact, just the opposite. I'm tired of pro-gun zealots taking the 2nd Amendment out of context. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to arm every citizen with howitzers, nor was it intended as a check by the citizenry of the U.S. on the Government. The vote and free speech serve that purpose. The Amendment (as its own language indicates) was intended for a largely bygone era when an armed citizenry was necessary for the defense of the country from foreign threats.
It's time we acknowledged the fact that the right to keep and bear arms must have limits, and that guns are a part of the killing equation when they are used. This does not absolve the killer of responsibility. But one does not have to so absolve killers to realize that, without guns, many killers would not have become killers.
Maybe I'm just plain off, but I see a real danger in this possibility: MS ports to Linux, along with a proprietary GUI that allows MS to control the desktop. Brand-new monopoly, and they didn't even have to write the operating system.
If this is the case, Linux is at another critical juncture. Many people who use it do so because they don't like Microsoft products. It's possible, therefore, that enough current Linux users would shun an Office port to make things difficult for this particular strategy. There are existing alternatives, after all, both proprietary and free. And they don't require that you hand over the desktop.
Of course (assuming the rumor is true in the first place), they might just try to make Linux look bad with a slow, buggy port. Or it could be that they're just hedging their bets. But history doesn't point that way, IMHO.
Kythe (Remove "x"'s from
MS-Linux to be distributed with MS-Office?
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
I wish them luck in co-opting Linux. A special GUI to run Office, I could see. Trying to co-opt the kernel would pretty much fail, since they'd have to release the source.
They might just cause enough trouble, though, to slow Linux development down as their "special" kernel extensions are puzzled out by the 'Community.
If this story is true, I'm betting they're just trying to hedge their bets -- productivity software is their other monopoly, of course, and thus far it's free and clear of antitrust investigations. Additionally, maintaining control of standards is their stated goal, and if Linux is successful, a port of Office would be their only option (besides patents, which are unreliable).
However, MS has rarely done anything in the name of simple competition, and I'd bet they would try something sneaky, like making Office run inordinately slow (the Mac version always seemed fishy that way) or requiring some sort of proprietary GUI. Hell, they might even find ways to deliberately crash the kernel, making Linux seem more buggy.
All in all, a Linux port of Office would be one of the smartest things I've seen them do in quite awhile, all things considered. Which is why I'm actually a little worried.
Would some of the anti-Redhat types please explain your concerns? As I see it, a product that by legal license cannot be owned by Redhat is in no danger of being co-opted by them. It can't be embraced and extended, patented, claimed to be theirs, etc. All they can do is package a version, support it and make the source of that version freely available. Is this about dislike of corporate power in general (certainly understandable, given history), or is there some more direct reason for worry?
Is there a problem I should be aware of regarding Antionline? I've generally found their information to be pretty accurate -- even if you don't like everyone who seems to hang around there.
The CNN article is a little vague, to say the least. Antionline has a few more details that imply whatever's going on seems at least somewhat above and beyond normal.
Oh, and BTW (as I submitted Friday, evidently to no avail) they're also reporting that the normally-public-domain NASA tracking data for that UK Defense satellite (Skynet 4D) that was supposedly hacked a couple of weeks back was pulled for the time period in question. Check it out.
(I'd link directly, but the links don't seem to be working right. Oh well -- they're available from the front page.)
Rob, are you logging where the submissions are coming from tonight? Seems we have quite a crop of anonymous pro-Redmond types checking in. Perhaps Muth was only part of the latest PR plan?
Right, right. We should give corporations free reign. They'll do what's best for all of us (although the U.S. was founded on the notion that power corrupts -- but I guess this only applies to government power) if we just leave them alone.
Cold dose of reality -- success isn't the issue. Breaking laws that exist for good reason is the issue. You can't just do whatever you want -- in business, or personal life. That's called anarchy, and most philosophers I know of seem to think its a bad thing. I tend to agree.
Is this the best Microsoft can do to head off competition? If their best involves reiterating outdated, long-since-disproven criticisms, they're in serious, and I mean serious trouble.
Linux is, frankly, past the stage where simple FUD tactics will stop its momentum. This seems to be common knowledge for everyone outside Redmond.
Still, I hope Muth believes his own rhetoric, and that his opinion represents the mainstream thinking at Microsoft. Such head-in-the-sand mindsets will make Linux's success that much easier.
It appears temporarily that Microsoft is losing the battle because it cannot fight.
What difference does it make whether your hands are tied, when your swords are too big, slow and flawed to be of any use against your opponent's rapier?
In my view, Microsoft is in no way hamstrung from competing. They're just behaving like a driver with the police behind them, and (for once) obeying the law. If they can't win "the battle" within the law, they have no right to the market.
Nick Corcodilos rocks. He used to be a headhunter, and has been writing this column ("Ask the Headhunter") for at least a couple of years now, both on EE Times and The Motley Fool. His advice for job hunting is outstanding. I just hope everyone doesn't take it. It tends to give one quite an advantage.
Shameless Plug: his book, "Ask The Headhunter: Reinventing the Interview to Win the Job" is superb.
First, I'll agree with you that some folks here rebel for the sake of rebellion. Perhaps this is immaturity, and perhaps not.
Unfortunately, it does not logically follow (as you implied) that rebellion against the idea of CPU ID's is wrong-headed.
You're making two separate points, and your allegory linking the two contains a logical fallacy.
As a representative of an age group outside the two you've damned (as well as someone who considers himself rational and mature enough to have an opinion on the matter), I find Intel's action deeply disturbing. Processor serial numbers are too easily abused, and one of the truly valuable aspects of the 'net is anonymity. Interestingly, I see you making free use of its virtues in your own post.
Additionally, as another person here (or was it you?) pointed out, corporations are not motivated by what's good for consumers. Rather, they are motivated by the bottom line. This fact makes occasional consumer rebellion a good thing, IMHO.
My own concerns regarding PSN's run along the lines of out-of-control commercial (and possibly governmental data-gathering), the silencing of opinions for fear of retribution, and the enabling of unfair and one-sided licensing arrangements for software. Further, this particular system is wholly flawed, leaving doors open for fraud and abuse.
I don't believe it takes a genius to recognize the potential problems with the "feature" we're discussing here. The possible impact on consumer privacy (especially given the current sorry state of privacy in general) is quite serious. I fail to see, therefore, how not expressing concern over them is "doing the right thing".
It doesn't work this way. Fibers have different transmission characteristics for different frequencies, and increasing modulation rates (barring clever encoding schemes) increases the maximum frequencies of the sidebands. Eventually, the frequencies become high enough that they begin to be attenuated, and data is lost. For fiber, 'though, the limit is "pretty damn high" (as someone else said here). I've heard estimites of the theoretical maximums on typical fiber ranging from 25 Tbps on up. MIT recently developed a "perfectly reflecting mirror" that could be spun into tubes, i.e. a replacement for fiber that wouldn't need repeaters, etc. I'd like to know what the bandwidth would be on such systems.
Since I used to work for a small-print-run publisher, I am fairly aware of the economics involved. The fact is, a publisher needs to sell at least 200-250 copies bare minimum in order to break even. This is when the publisher doesn't go through all the extras like extensive editing.
That's why academic textbooks cost so much -- the short print run usually demands high prices in order for it to be worth the publisher's time (yes, this takes used books and retailer markup into account).
I truly doubt Katz will make much money on a book that sells fewer than several 10's or 100's of thousands of copies.
I'm not sure why you feel a killfile is really any different than the setting of one's profile to view only posts having a rating greater than a certain number. Perhaps because the person who runs the site determines the ratings?
Still, you're free to set your profile to view any level you want. And, of course, you don't have to look at posts you don't like.
CT doesn't delete posts. He provides a crude level of moderation, which we are all free to use or not use.
Slashdot Mirror
1) bundle/integrate a full, free and proprietary IIS into W2K,
2) use various methods, including unstable/slow publicly-available system code, to reduce or eliminate competitor's effectiveness (esp. Apache).
They'll combine this bundling with a marketing effort (already beginning?) backed by "benchmarks", to make IIS look faster and easier to use.
What to do? Maybe make Apache more ubiquitous (make it available on every ftp server in the world), publicize how easy it is to download, install and configure, etc.
Additionally, blanket them with benchmarks. Fix whatever needs fixing, and benchmark, benchmark, benchmark. Let's saturate the news with comparisons representing "real-world conditions". Make MS's efforts to sow the seeds of doubt regarding choice of the best server futile. Make it clear that users can either use the easy "built-in" web server, or freely download something much better.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Nice to see good writing style isn't completely dead.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
On the other hand, some of the worlds best and brightest rigorously pursue very public encryption research, and provide some indication of how difficult cracking an encryption scheme can be.
Today's systems rely upon difficult mathematical functions and permutations for which, in over 2000 years of research (in some cases), shortcuts have yet to be found. Whether the NSA, in the space of 50 years or so, could break these riddles is, indeed, an open question. But I have my doubts. I think they tend to rely heavily upon people NOT using encryption.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I've seen the movie once, with my wife. We're both fans of the original series, and both came away with largely the same feelings about TPM -- It contained Lucas' by-now-evident tendency to make some things too obvious (like humor attempts), had some new flaws (neither of us liked the "midichlorians" touch -- as though we needed an explanation as to why we earthlings can't levitate our droids like Luke can) and set new standards in the fx arena (has anyone actually found an fx flaw? The cg stuff, even Jar-Jar, is the best, least hokey material I've yet seen). Loved the jedi fight scenes, Darth Mahl rocked and we were disappointed he was killed off, the pod races were great, battle scenes kicked ass, saw too little of the Huts, etc.
Was it the experience without which life will have been meaningless? Of course not -- it's a movie. Would I have changed a few things if Lucas had asked me? You bet. But despite (or rather, because of) this movie's characteristic flaws, it's a worthy addition to the series. One I plan to see quite a few more times.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Of course, people pull the trigger. But anyone who has ever held a gun knows the quickening of the pulse, the flush of power it imparts, and the effect the mere presence of a gun has on those around the wielder. If guns aren't a part of the "killing" equation, then why this effect? Why fight for or against the right to carry them? This is an absurdity.
No, I am not an anti-2nd-Amendment advocate. In fact, just the opposite. I'm tired of pro-gun zealots taking the 2nd Amendment out of context. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to arm every citizen with howitzers, nor was it intended as a check by the citizenry of the U.S. on the Government. The vote and free speech serve that purpose. The Amendment (as its own language indicates) was intended for a largely bygone era when an armed citizenry was necessary for the defense of the country from foreign threats.
It's time we acknowledged the fact that the right to keep and bear arms must have limits, and that guns are a part of the killing equation when they are used. This does not absolve the killer of responsibility. But one does not have to so absolve killers to realize that, without guns, many killers would not have become killers.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
If this is the case, Linux is at another critical juncture. Many people who use it do so because they don't like Microsoft products. It's possible, therefore, that enough current Linux users would shun an Office port to make things difficult for this particular strategy. There are existing alternatives, after all, both proprietary and free. And they don't require that you hand over the desktop.
Of course (assuming the rumor is true in the first place), they might just try to make Linux look bad with a slow, buggy port. Or it could be that they're just hedging their bets. But history doesn't point that way, IMHO.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
They might just cause enough trouble, though, to slow Linux development down as their "special" kernel extensions are puzzled out by the 'Community.
If this story is true, I'm betting they're just trying to hedge their bets -- productivity software is their other monopoly, of course, and thus far it's free and clear of antitrust investigations. Additionally, maintaining control of standards is their stated goal, and if Linux is successful, a port of Office would be their only option (besides patents, which are unreliable).
However, MS has rarely done anything in the name of simple competition, and I'd bet they would try something sneaky, like making Office run inordinately slow (the Mac version always seemed fishy that way) or requiring some sort of proprietary GUI. Hell, they might even find ways to deliberately crash the kernel, making Linux seem more buggy.
All in all, a Linux port of Office would be one of the smartest things I've seen them do in quite awhile, all things considered. Which is why I'm actually a little worried.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Try this directory.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Would some of the anti-Redhat types please explain your concerns? As I see it, a product that by legal license cannot be owned by Redhat is in no danger of being co-opted by them. It can't be embraced and extended, patented, claimed to be theirs, etc. All they can do is package a version, support it and make the source of that version freely available. Is this about dislike of corporate power in general (certainly understandable, given history), or is there some more direct reason for worry?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Is there a problem I should be aware of regarding Antionline? I've generally found their information to be pretty accurate -- even if you don't like everyone who seems to hang around there.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
So far, over 2,600 folks have signed. Sorry, the site doesn't allow non-American folk to sign. Not my fault.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Oh, and BTW (as I submitted Friday, evidently to no avail) they're also reporting that the normally-public-domain NASA tracking data for that UK Defense satellite (Skynet 4D) that was supposedly hacked a couple of weeks back was pulled for the time period in question. Check it out.
(I'd link directly, but the links don't seem to be working right. Oh well -- they're available from the front page.)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I agree with you. A few months back, this would have been a routine "keep them in line" action. Now, it seem pathetic and desperate.
The next year seems exciting, indeed.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Rob, are you logging where the submissions are coming from tonight? Seems we have quite a crop of anonymous pro-Redmond types checking in. Perhaps Muth was only part of the latest PR plan?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Cold dose of reality -- success isn't the issue. Breaking laws that exist for good reason is the issue. You can't just do whatever you want -- in business, or personal life. That's called anarchy, and most philosophers I know of seem to think its a bad thing. I tend to agree.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Linux is, frankly, past the stage where simple FUD tactics will stop its momentum. This seems to be common knowledge for everyone outside Redmond.
Still, I hope Muth believes his own rhetoric, and that his opinion represents the mainstream thinking at Microsoft. Such head-in-the-sand mindsets will make Linux's success that much easier.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
What difference does it make whether your hands are tied, when your swords are too big, slow and flawed to be of any use against your opponent's rapier?
In my view, Microsoft is in no way hamstrung from competing. They're just behaving like a driver with the police behind them, and (for once) obeying the law. If they can't win "the battle" within the law, they have no right to the market.
But I suspect you knew this, anyway. ;^)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Nick Corcodilos rocks. He used to be a headhunter, and has been writing this column ("Ask the Headhunter") for at least a couple of years now, both on EE Times and The Motley Fool. His advice for job hunting is outstanding. I just hope everyone doesn't take it. It tends to give one quite an advantage.
Shameless Plug: his book, "Ask The Headhunter: Reinventing the Interview to Win the Job" is superb.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Unfortunately, it does not logically follow (as you implied) that rebellion against the idea of CPU ID's is wrong-headed.
You're making two separate points, and your allegory linking the two contains a logical fallacy.
As a representative of an age group outside the two you've damned (as well as someone who considers himself rational and mature enough to have an opinion on the matter), I find Intel's action deeply disturbing. Processor serial numbers are too easily abused, and one of the truly valuable aspects of the 'net is anonymity. Interestingly, I see you making free use of its virtues in your own post.
Additionally, as another person here (or was it you?) pointed out, corporations are not motivated by what's good for consumers. Rather, they are motivated by the bottom line. This fact makes occasional consumer rebellion a good thing, IMHO.
My own concerns regarding PSN's run along the lines of out-of-control commercial (and possibly governmental data-gathering), the silencing of opinions for fear of retribution, and the enabling of unfair and one-sided licensing arrangements for software. Further, this particular system is wholly flawed, leaving doors open for fraud and abuse.
I don't believe it takes a genius to recognize the potential problems with the "feature" we're discussing here. The possible impact on consumer privacy (especially given the current sorry state of privacy in general) is quite serious. I fail to see, therefore, how not expressing concern over them is "doing the right thing".
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is really cool. Now if we can just improve memory access times, life will be wonderful.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
It doesn't work this way. Fibers have different transmission characteristics for different frequencies, and increasing modulation rates (barring clever encoding schemes) increases the maximum frequencies of the sidebands. Eventually, the frequencies become high enough that they begin to be attenuated, and data is lost. For fiber, 'though, the limit is "pretty damn high" (as someone else said here). I've heard estimites of the theoretical maximums on typical fiber ranging from 25 Tbps on up. MIT recently developed a "perfectly reflecting mirror" that could be spun into tubes, i.e. a replacement for fiber that wouldn't need repeaters, etc. I'd like to know what the bandwidth would be on such systems.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Unless, of course, you replace the fiber with a tube made of MIT's new "perfect reflector" material. Which is, unfortunately, even more involved.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
That's why academic textbooks cost so much -- the short print run usually demands high prices in order for it to be worth the publisher's time (yes, this takes used books and retailer markup into account).
I truly doubt Katz will make much money on a book that sells fewer than several 10's or 100's of thousands of copies.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I take it you don't like Linus's final say on Linux, either?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'm not sure why you feel a killfile is really any different than the setting of one's profile to view only posts having a rating greater than a certain number. Perhaps because the person who runs the site determines the ratings?
Still, you're free to set your profile to view any level you want. And, of course, you don't have to look at posts you don't like.
CT doesn't delete posts. He provides a crude level of moderation, which we are all free to use or not use.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from