This "news" story is either flamebait or off topic.
Anyone who cares about this stuff should be subscribed to Microsoft's Security Notification Service or NTBugTraq. Unless Slashdot intends to start posting every single security advisory that gets published (utter nonsense), this sort of news story doesn't belong on Slashdot.
His post only got a score of "2", and now the slashdot community is going nuts about a post saying just about the same thing... Give that guy some credit..
I think that's very smart... they might be right in saying the future of mobile computing is keyboard-less, but that's a hard sell to make to those of us that are so used to using them.
The early PDA people thought the same way.. they said that a stylus was all you needed... or maybe an onscreen keyboard, but those fold-up portable keyboards are VERY popular for folks that actually need to do substantial amounts of work on their PDA.
But yes, you do need to carry the keyboard around too, unless it somehow attaches to the system.
probably also has a heavy external PSU...
According to the spec sheet, it's got a "Lithium Ion battery for 2 Hours+ usage between charges". Granted two hours is pretty dang short compared to most laptops, but what do you expect for dual 15" screens (even if the shape makes them smaller than regular 15" screens)?
It isn't due out until the 4th quarter 2002. Why would their marketing department allow this out now? Their concept is new(ish). Why give potential compeditors a break by announcing it now. If I was them I'd announce with a month or two tops before I even acknowledged I had a product like this.
It's VERY expensive to take a concept (even a good one) through to market, including publicity and everything. They probably need more money to make it a reality. The only way they can get more money is by publicizing what they CAN do if you invest in them...
My guess is that if they hadn't publicized now, they wouldn't be able to EVER release it due to finacial constraints.. so allowing the competition time to develop one is better than having no product at all.
If you took Word Pad and added a handful of features, perhaps tables, automatic pagination, page numbering, and maybe a half dozen other simple features, you would end up with a program that, to most people, would probably be more useful than Word. What would really help people out is to create a set of simple tools that are easy to learn, efficient to use right from the start, and which don't have too many options; the thing should Just Work.
While I agree that simple is generally good, I think you can have a whole lot of features that don't make usage complex (not to say that MS has done that, exactly). I disagree with your suggestion that fewer functions are better.. it might be true for most users, but the options have to be there for the power users and for occasional use for other users. Mail merge is a good example:
At least 90% of my users don't use mail merge... but when a secretary who's never used it before decides she needs to send a mailing to 5,000 local businesses and asks how she can do it, mail merge is the way. If she had been using a stripped down no-frills application, she'd be out of luck. Fortunately most robust office suites have mail merge, and with a few instructions, off she goes.
Ideally you could segment users into power user/basic user roles and deploy a stripped down version for basic users, but in reality most basic users cross over the line and periodically need advanced options for a specific purpose. So instead it seems better to include all the features a user could legitamately use and hide the rarely used ones (or install on first use).
I work for a non-profit, so low cost or free is essential. However it's not everything.
Replacing MS Office is, in my opinion, the Holy Grail of open source target product replacements. What a product needs to do to compete with Office is:
Be very polished so that below-average users can get their work done without hitting snags.
Integrate with other applications as well as Office does. Such as Exchange Server with Outlook.
Be stable and easily patchable, but not require frequent reinstallations. This is probably where Office is weakest, even though they've improved the stability and crash recovery features with XP, and implemented the semi-reliable Windows Update.
New Features. Microsoft takes some rough shots from the open source community, but the open source folks are more or less playing catch-up with the feature-set in office. Not only do they need to catch up and match the features, they need to offer some significant improvements to make MS chase them for a change. That way, the software would not just be "Nearly as good as office and free", but "In competition with Office and free".
If the above were true, I believe the product might succeed in becoming more widely used and supported.
In the mean time, a free version of an Office replacement might make it in the door and onto my desktop if it was good, but it would take the above criteria for me to roll it out to all my end users.
I do, however, commend this effort. The open source community needs some help putting it's best foot forward to be seen. There are some pretty darn good open source projects, but there is also a lot of noise that makes open source stuff look like free junk.
I don't have many feelings (positive or negative) for Gateway's products, but I must say I've been rather impressed with Gateway's rebellion against some big players. They've gone against the DMCA before, and they testified against Microsoft...
I'm not trying to say that Gateway is some sort of Utopian selfless corporation or anything, but I just have to cheer when I see big-name companies taking on the big bullies.
Re:Existing system works - why change?
on
VoIP at $15 a Pop
·
· Score: 1
I've got Cisco VoIP system in my office; Granted I'm not a voice specialist, but both PBX systems I've worked on previously were a NIGHTMARE to configure and support... sure, they worked more or less all the time, but they were a hassle to support.
Want to move a line?? With my Cisco Call Manager system I unplug my phone, walk to where I want to put it, and plug it in.. and it's done. With the PBX systems, I had to go to the console and configure it.. which a whole 2 people in the company knew how to do.. anyone can move an IP phone.
So it's EASY to justify cost if you work in a dynamic work environment and are constantly reorganizing your employees.
Also, the IP phones are feature-rich. Perhaps PBX's can do it too, but I've never seen a PBX that did on-screen directory assistance, missed/recieved/placed call history, or stock quotes from the internet straight onto the phone.
We built our network from the ground up when we moved into a new building.. we would have had to run the wires for a phone system and a network anyway. And purchased and installed a phone system anyway. So why NOT just use the same lines for voice and data??
There are plenty of other selling points. But VoIP isn't for everyone (yet).. if those selling points don't apply to your company, then YOU don't have the business justification to pay for it, but *of course* to claim that there is "absolutely no business justification" is so completely bogus.
It needs to connect to a computer anyway because the computer still initiates a connection to the ISP for internet access.
They wanted it to be laptop-friendly, and if it just had an ethernet port, you'd need a powered ethernet hub (expensive) and/or external power adapter. With USB, the device can draw the power straight out of the computer... and potentially run fully wireless if your laptop has WLAN access!
500 x $800 = $400,000 plus say $100,000 for a small clustered server farm.
You still come out $250,000 in the black based just on hardware. But the real savings come because after 3 years you've got to upgrade/replace your workstations.. but your terminals will last much longer.
Factor in support costs for servicing 20 locations... even more savings. Of course you've got to make sure all your software runs on TS/Citrix; if your lab requires hardcore CS compiling, or bizarre custom applications as universities are natorious for, you might run into some trouble.
Re:Pay-Per-Click Search Listings on Yahoo, et al.
on
Search Engine Payola
·
· Score: 1
Finally, note that on many search engines, there are multiple paid-placement opportunities. For example, on Yahoo, there are pay-per-click results from Overture, then there are paid "sponsored links," and then there are the "most popular links" which generally are the paid sponsors since the sponsor links are shown first and thus get clicked most often. On Google, there are left-margin "AdWords" as well as top-of-list placements. And everybody sells banner ads and often buttons also.
If you're wondering how Google DOES make money, according to CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt:
Half of Google's revenue comes from selling text-based ads that are placed near search results and are related to the topic of the search. Another half of its revenues come from licensing its search technology to companies like Yahoo!.
That's from a very cool recent interview with him from CNN.
Seems Judge Motz isn't the only judge coming down on Microsoft lately. Recently Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided that the start of the case would not be delayed beyond its March date. (It's getting retried because Judge Jackson's ruling got thrown out and he was removed from the case and MS got a new trial.) It sounds like she was fair too; but sure as heck didn't help MS out any.
Getting a price tag for software development is like knowing how much you're going to pay to build for a new house. Software is incredibly expensive to build. Any professional needs to be able to say: it will take so and so long and that means such and such a price tag.
That works OK for a house.. or moderate sized programming tasks.. but when the scale grows to say a major version upgrade on a complex operating system, the numbers get a little more difficult to calculate. I live in Massachusetts: Good old Boston's got the "Big Dig" screwing up all the building cost estimates and eating up cash faster than you can imagine.
It's great to develop calculating tools - especially because it will help you figure out when people are wasting time or embezzeling money or something... but just because you have a good estimating formula, doesn't necessarily mean the project will finish within bounds.
Are you refering to post by Steen Larsen to NTBugTraq on 12/18/2001 in which he identified a worm making its way around that supposedly exploited the MS01-058 vulnerability? It turned out it exploits a DIFFERENT vulnerability (MS00-075); the guy misidentified it and retracted his statement the next day. See F-Secure's description.
If that's not what you were refering to, ignore me.
Righto. The FBI probably will use it cautiously and not very widespread for awhile, but eventually it will probably get discovered on some diplomat's computer and everyone over there will freak out.
And if its inner workings are kept secret, then how are we to differentiate between the software? Any remote keystroke logger that get's by AV or ID products might be mistaken for the FBI's version, and there would be no way to determine who it really was: "Uhh.. no, Mr. Putin, that wasn't the FBI's version of the keystroke logger on your top aide's computer.. but we can't tell you how we know without disclosing how OUR system works... just take our word for it." Sure.....
This debate is strangely like the encryption clipper chip debate that went on a few years back... ironically this trojan sounds like their way to side-step that issue (how can you make absolutely and positively sure that the US government can only get in, and only when it is legal), but they end up with similar issues:
it only works if ALL manufacturers follow along, otherwise all the security freaks and terrorists will use another product that DOES detect it
it has to be secure. What would qualify something as a "variant"? How could the antivirus companies really guarentee that only the government use it?
what about foreign powers that don't want the FBI snooping on their citizen's computers? It seems to me that US AV products will lose their international appeal and make it harder to compete internationally.
Little of this argument is new; just tweaked a bit on the details. About the only thing that is changed, is the FBI has more support from the citizenry to protect against terrorists. Symantec would get labelled as "anti-american" in this fervor if they did anything else.
And while Symantec might not make many products for Unix or Linux, don't think that the FBI doesn't care what you do with your computer... undoubtably they've got a version for you, too.
I love cutting-edge technology AND I love reading; I see a bit of potential in e-books, but have never purchased one. As I see it, the problems significantly outway the benefits:
Benefits:
Portable; can fit many on a device
Can download new books without going to the mall or waiting for Amazon to deliver it
Can potentially do text searches
Problems:
Expensive: have to buy the device AND have to buy the books; higher risk of being stolen
Breakable; can't just toss it in my backpack
Harder on the eyes
Not standardized.
No low-cost "paperback" edition
Limited selection and very few current releases
Require power source
Can't give to a friend when I'm done with it, or sell it at a yard sale
Lacks that distinct feel and smell
Mind you, I don't think electronic books are dead, though, but I doubt they have widespread success for MANY years... Unless they can figure out some way to make it "feel" like a paper book in the transition to a fully electronic tablet.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who cares about this stuff should be subscribed to Microsoft's Security Notification Service or NTBugTraq. Unless Slashdot intends to start posting every single security advisory that gets published (utter nonsense), this sort of news story doesn't belong on Slashdot.
Ha! After slashdotting their web server, we probably REALLY owe them some donations.. their ISP bill is going to be sky-high this month...
His post only got a score of "2", and now the slashdot community is going nuts about a post saying just about the same thing... Give that guy some credit..
Note that it DOES have a USB Keyboard port:
http://www.dualscreen.com/specs.cfm
I think that's very smart... they might be right in saying the future of mobile computing is keyboard-less, but that's a hard sell to make to those of us that are so used to using them.
The early PDA people thought the same way.. they said that a stylus was all you needed... or maybe an onscreen keyboard, but those fold-up portable keyboards are VERY popular for folks that actually need to do substantial amounts of work on their PDA.
But yes, you do need to carry the keyboard around too, unless it somehow attaches to the system.
probably also has a heavy external PSU...
According to the spec sheet, it's got a "Lithium Ion battery for 2 Hours+ usage between charges". Granted two hours is pretty dang short compared to most laptops, but what do you expect for dual 15" screens (even if the shape makes them smaller than regular 15" screens)?
It's VERY expensive to take a concept (even a good one) through to market, including publicity and everything. They probably need more money to make it a reality. The only way they can get more money is by publicizing what they CAN do if you invest in them...
My guess is that if they hadn't publicized now, they wouldn't be able to EVER release it due to finacial constraints.. so allowing the competition time to develop one is better than having no product at all.
While I agree that simple is generally good, I think you can have a whole lot of features that don't make usage complex (not to say that MS has done that, exactly). I disagree with your suggestion that fewer functions are better.. it might be true for most users, but the options have to be there for the power users and for occasional use for other users. Mail merge is a good example:
At least 90% of my users don't use mail merge... but when a secretary who's never used it before decides she needs to send a mailing to 5,000 local businesses and asks how she can do it, mail merge is the way. If she had been using a stripped down no-frills application, she'd be out of luck. Fortunately most robust office suites have mail merge, and with a few instructions, off she goes.
Ideally you could segment users into power user/basic user roles and deploy a stripped down version for basic users, but in reality most basic users cross over the line and periodically need advanced options for a specific purpose. So instead it seems better to include all the features a user could legitamately use and hide the rarely used ones (or install on first use).
Replacing MS Office is, in my opinion, the Holy Grail of open source target product replacements. What a product needs to do to compete with Office is:
If the above were true, I believe the product might succeed in becoming more widely used and supported.
In the mean time, a free version of an Office replacement might make it in the door and onto my desktop if it was good, but it would take the above criteria for me to roll it out to all my end users.
I do, however, commend this effort. The open source community needs some help putting it's best foot forward to be seen. There are some pretty darn good open source projects, but there is also a lot of noise that makes open source stuff look like free junk.
I'm not trying to say that Gateway is some sort of Utopian selfless corporation or anything, but I just have to cheer when I see big-name companies taking on the big bullies.
Want to move a line?? With my Cisco Call Manager system I unplug my phone, walk to where I want to put it, and plug it in.. and it's done. With the PBX systems, I had to go to the console and configure it.. which a whole 2 people in the company knew how to do.. anyone can move an IP phone.
So it's EASY to justify cost if you work in a dynamic work environment and are constantly reorganizing your employees.
Also, the IP phones are feature-rich. Perhaps PBX's can do it too, but I've never seen a PBX that did on-screen directory assistance, missed/recieved/placed call history, or stock quotes from the internet straight onto the phone.
We built our network from the ground up when we moved into a new building.. we would have had to run the wires for a phone system and a network anyway. And purchased and installed a phone system anyway. So why NOT just use the same lines for voice and data??
There are plenty of other selling points. But VoIP isn't for everyone (yet).. if those selling points don't apply to your company, then YOU don't have the business justification to pay for it, but *of course* to claim that there is "absolutely no business justification" is so completely bogus.
Doing some quick numbers:
500 x $1500 = $750,000
500 x $800 = $400,000
plus say $100,000 for a small clustered server farm.
You still come out $250,000 in the black based just on hardware. But the real savings come because after 3 years you've got to upgrade/replace your workstations.. but your terminals will last much longer.
Factor in support costs for servicing 20 locations... even more savings. Of course you've got to make sure all your software runs on TS/Citrix; if your lab requires hardcore CS compiling, or bizarre custom applications as universities are natorious for, you might run into some trouble.
For the sake of reference, see Google's AdWords Advertising Program FAQ for details on their AdWords advertisement policy.
The money they save from using a Red Hat linux cluster instead of Windows must be what keeps them afloat.
That's from a very cool recent interview with him from CNN.
Seems Judge Motz isn't the only judge coming down on Microsoft lately. Recently Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided that the start of the case would not be delayed beyond its March date. (It's getting retried because Judge Jackson's ruling got thrown out and he was removed from the case and MS got a new trial.) It sounds like she was fair too; but sure as heck didn't help MS out any.
That works OK for a house.. or moderate sized programming tasks.. but when the scale grows to say a major version upgrade on a complex operating system, the numbers get a little more difficult to calculate. I live in Massachusetts: Good old Boston's got the "Big Dig" screwing up all the building cost estimates and eating up cash faster than you can imagine.
It's great to develop calculating tools - especially because it will help you figure out when people are wasting time or embezzeling money or something... but just because you have a good estimating formula, doesn't necessarily mean the project will finish within bounds.
where you take a programmer's estimate and double it
then incriment the label by one unit
so if you think it will take 2 hours,
it will really take 4 days.
or if you think it will take 4 days,
it will really take 8 weeks.
If you think it will take 1 month,
it will really take 2 years.
Programmers almost always seem to be overly optimistic, poor time managers, procrastinators, or over confident in their own abilities.
Of course it gets more complicated when you have more than one person programming. For every person on the project beyond 1, add 10% total time.
(If you really use these figures you're a moron.)
If that's not what you were refering to, ignore me.
Righto. The FBI probably will use it cautiously and not very widespread for awhile, but eventually it will probably get discovered on some diplomat's computer and everyone over there will freak out.
And if its inner workings are kept secret, then how are we to differentiate between the software? Any remote keystroke logger that get's by AV or ID products might be mistaken for the FBI's version, and there would be no way to determine who it really was: "Uhh.. no, Mr. Putin, that wasn't the FBI's version of the keystroke logger on your top aide's computer.. but we can't tell you how we know without disclosing how OUR system works... just take our word for it." Sure.....
Little of this argument is new; just tweaked a bit on the details. About the only thing that is changed, is the FBI has more support from the citizenry to protect against terrorists. Symantec would get labelled as "anti-american" in this fervor if they did anything else.
And while Symantec might not make many products for Unix or Linux, don't think that the FBI doesn't care what you do with your computer... undoubtably they've got a version for you, too.
Bahh!
Benefits:
- Portable; can fit many on a device
- Can download new books without going to the mall or waiting for Amazon to deliver it
- Can potentially do text searches
Problems:- Expensive: have to buy the device AND have to buy the books; higher risk of being stolen
- Breakable; can't just toss it in my backpack
- Harder on the eyes
- Not standardized.
- No low-cost "paperback" edition
- Limited selection and very few current releases
- Require power source
- Can't give to a friend when I'm done with it, or sell it at a yard sale
- Lacks that distinct feel and smell
Mind you, I don't think electronic books are dead, though, but I doubt they have widespread success for MANY years... Unless they can figure out some way to make it "feel" like a paper book in the transition to a fully electronic tablet.