>Microsoft is making an anouncement before they are putting a working product in peoples hands. This may create a lot of expectations, and they will get more critical treatment when bugs are found, if they miss the release date (not MS), etc.
This is standard operational procedure for Microsoft.
They do it to try to get people to hold off adopting a competitor. "Microsoft is going to have something exactly like this available soon! I'll wait, because I expect MS's offering to be superior in some way"
Then when their competitor has withered and died, they go back to ignoring whatever the product-line in question was.
They have to do it like that, because if Microsoft actually follwed-through on all it's promises, they would quickly go through all the cash they have piled-up.
Quality software-engineering costs money, you see.
So it's easier for them to either stay in vapour, or release something that is clearly inferior (most other cases) and hope enough people buy into it "because it's from Microsoft"
when the mind-share is clearly turning away from Microsoft, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't change the fact that people are switching to Linux.
>You're right. I bet lots of trojans run on port 80.
Code Red is one example.
I feel that it's reckless to think it can be contained and controlled.
If you have thousands of unpatched machines actively trying to get infected, that becomes a resource to be exploited.
Virus-writers are clever devils and if you set any egress constraints, they'll just code up a virus that works within those restrictions.
ONE machine, with people analyzing the packet flow and contents can be used to learn things, but you would need active analysis from the people running the honeypot. If you have thousands of machines then it makes it almost impossible to assure so much traffic, doesn't it?
And you have to wonder exactly how many people would be working on the project. Virtual machines may not cost very much, but people to actually analyze the data from them do.
It just seems like a recipe for disaster to do something like that on such a big scale.
Maybe you are right, and it could be controlled, but I feel it is playing with fire and has the potential to actually cause harm.
I suppose in time we'll see, and I hope it turns out that you are right.
Notice I didn't mention Linux once. THAT would have been zealotry;-)
In all fairness, Windows XP does have more features than Windows 2000, but I have found it to be less stable and slower.
In fact, Windows XP is what convinced me to stop using Windows:
About two years ago, The power supply on my home machine ( which was running Windows XP) started failing.
I brought it in to the repair shop.
It wasn't obvious that it was the power-supply, because it wasn't failing totally, it was simply having problems supplying peak power at high system load times.
So to narrow down the list of possible culprits, the technician and I started methodically removing PCI cards, disk drives, etc... Until we were able to isolate the problem, which turned out to be the power supply.
The problem is that to see if the fault was coming from one card or another, you had to try to boot the computer and see if it would make it to the logon screen.
The behaviour the machine had when the problem surfaced was that it would reboot spontaneously while I was computing or reboot while the operating system was booting.
Anyhow, once the problem was identified, the piece replaced, and all the adapter cards were put back in, the computer was still unusable, and this time it was because of Microsoft; having tried to boot the computer so many times with different card combos made Windows XP decide that "The hardware on this PC has changed too much, and Windows must be re-activted"
Fine, only in one of the various combinations we had tried, we had removed the network card. So Windows XP, in its infinite wisdom had removed the driver for the card, and now that the card was put back in again, it would not function because the driver was missing.
So it was impossible to re-activate Windows over the internet.
I DID have the option of phoning Microsoft to re-activate Windows XP, but by this point, I was fed-up and thinking something like
"So I can expect that when the chips are down (hardware failuer or some other failure), I can expect this piece-of-crap operating system to contribute to my problems instead of helping me get operational?"
It's bad enough when your computer fails for any reason, but should the operating system ADD to your problems when that happens?
What if you don't have access to a phone or to the internet and something like this happens? Are you really going to let some two-bit computer software hold you hostage on top of it?
"More stable, easier to use" my ass!
That's the day I ditched Windows for good and switched to Linux, and I've NEVER looked back or been tempted to go back.
I wouldn't call that zealotry, I'd call that being awake.
You know, I think you might be on to something there:
Microsoft has proven how inept they are at EVERYTHING any time the actively try to take over or dominate anything.
So instead of trying to compete head-on, maybe they should let themselves get bought by Google, and then it would probably be like if Google had swallowed poison!
I think THAT might be the only way the could bring down a competitor.
Hey wait, they HAVE been doing that, and usually, every acquisition ends badly!
Microsoft, with it's new slogan: Which remora would you like today?
Funny, we hear Microsoft predicting the demise of something new every few days now...
Each time it is for something Microsoft sucks at. Can you say projection?
It is even funnier when you consider that only Microsoft is predicting these things, while the rest of the planet is unanimous in only predicting ONE thing: the death of Microsoft.
Who to believe?
I mean why shouldn't I believe Microsoft? When Microsoft promised that the newer version of Windows they were developing would be more secure, more stable and faster, they were right, weren't they?
Wait... Windows 95 was crappier than Windows 3.1 on all those points... Windows 98 crappier still... Windows ME was even worse, if that is at all possible.
In closing I only have one question; Is there a way to block all slashdot stories that involve Microsoft bullshitting everyone so that I don't have to even see the headline?
Shouldn't the U.S. (which is the side Slashdot is slanted on, face it) revise its prtoectionist policies with it's closest neighbour and biggest trade partner, Canada, FIRST, and therefore lead by example BEFORE criticizing China?
Just kidding, Hector! Your post title reminded me of lots of comments from discussions on Fark. STFU & GBTW (Get Back To Work) are common replies on Fark.
You're right that I DON'T feel evaluating their product is worth my time.
No wait, that isn't quite true; there's ALWAYS time to evaluate it, but I've lost that urge to download the obligatory "this one is free, but the next one won't be" SDK that inevitably follows the first tangible release of one of Microsoft's new technologies (I use the terms 'new' and 'technology' loosely).
I've learned that the deeper you put your hand in that particular meat-grinder, the more of your arm you'll lose.
So yes, BY ALL MEANS, evaluate, but don't stop there: Lots of people say "Oh, Microsoft already does this (or rather 'will do this' vaporspeak)" and stop their evaluation at that point.
I maker it a point to see through the hype and actively look for alternatives, especially open-source ones.
And even in the cases where Microsoft's products claim to be superior, I'd rather choose a vendor that won't lock me in.
>I never take advice from an opinionated source which does not do credible research, and hope to urge others to also make informed decisions.
And well you should.
I've used Windows since Windows/286 and I've written lots of software for Windows. I've also rolled-out lots of Microsoft products for various projects and work environments.
I've made up my mind based on my own research and come to the conclusion that I have through logic.
For me, it doesn't matter what product Microsoft develops anymore.
I will always avoid all their products like the plague and use my influence to guide others to avoid them also.
I know it sounds like trolling, but I'm not posting anonymously, and I AM serious, this is my opinion, and this is reality.
I represent a segment of consumers who are completely fed up to the gills with Microsoft and are tired of constantly giving them another chance.
This will again be just like all their other products; it'll be inferior, there'll be interoperability problems with everyone's else's products, and Microsoft will continue to promise that the next version will be perfect, which by now, we've all realized is bunk.
Of course, if the product ever takes off at all, Microsoft will have realized their goal: to drive another competitor out of business. They'll then proceed to completely ignore the product and its users, just like they've done with Internet Explorer or Office. With no competition, there is no impetus to improve.
So again, NO THANKS, Microsoft.
There are alternatives, so support the other vendors, buy their products!
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentions that they will be doing a fly-by of the spot again, but in 2006.
And at that time, the spot will be on the planet's nightside, so the infrared data we'll get back will be even clearer.
I wonder?
>Microsoft is making an anouncement before they are putting a working product in peoples hands. This may create a lot of expectations, and they will get more critical treatment when bugs are found, if they miss the release date (not MS), etc.
This is standard operational procedure for Microsoft.
They do it to try to get people to hold off adopting a competitor. "Microsoft is going to have something exactly like this available soon! I'll wait, because I expect MS's offering to be superior in some way"
Then when their competitor has withered and died, they go back to ignoring whatever the product-line in question was.
They have to do it like that, because if Microsoft actually follwed-through on all it's promises, they would quickly go through all the cash they have piled-up.
Quality software-engineering costs money, you see.
So it's easier for them to either stay in vapour, or release something that is clearly inferior (most other cases) and hope enough people buy into it "because it's from Microsoft"
So if we put them under a dome, and breathe on them?
We can use the solar energy to cool/heat the dome, and the plants would receive sunlight through the dome and O2 from us.
Might that work?
Maybe even genetically-engineered plants that produce MORE oxygen?
I know they couldn't live out in the open on the moon, but maybe in some sort of dome?
Plants produce oxygen, but could they grow in moon-dust?
when the mind-share is clearly turning away from Microsoft, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't change the fact that people are switching to Linux.
>Smart people are becoming IP lawyers. That's were the big bucks [are].
;-)
And we all thought biotech was going to be The Next Big Thing(TM)
Maybe genetically engineering lawyers who are optimized for IP litigation will be a niche market, you never can tell.
>You're right. I bet lots of trojans run on port 80.
Code Red is one example.
I feel that it's reckless to think it can be contained and controlled.
If you have thousands of unpatched machines actively trying to get infected, that becomes a resource to be exploited.
Virus-writers are clever devils and if you set any egress constraints, they'll just code up a virus that works within those restrictions.
ONE machine, with people analyzing the packet flow and contents can be used to learn things, but you would need active analysis from the people running the honeypot. If you have thousands of machines then it makes it almost impossible to assure so much traffic, doesn't it?
And you have to wonder exactly how many people would be working on the project. Virtual machines may not cost very much, but people to actually analyze the data from them do.
It just seems like a recipe for disaster to do something like that on such a big scale.
Maybe you are right, and it could be controlled, but I feel it is playing with fire and has the potential to actually cause harm.
I suppose in time we'll see, and I hope it turns out that you are right.
Notice I didn't mention Linux once. THAT would have been zealotry ;-)
In all fairness, Windows XP does have more features than Windows 2000, but I have found it to be less stable and slower.
In fact, Windows XP is what convinced me to stop using Windows:
About two years ago, The power supply on my home machine ( which was running Windows XP) started failing.
I brought it in to the repair shop.
It wasn't obvious that it was the power-supply, because it wasn't failing totally, it was simply having problems supplying peak power at high system load times.
So to narrow down the list of possible culprits, the technician and I started methodically removing PCI cards, disk drives, etc... Until we were able to isolate the problem, which turned out to be the power supply.
The problem is that to see if the fault was coming from one card or another, you had to try to boot the computer and see if it would make it to the logon screen.
The behaviour the machine had when the problem surfaced was that it would reboot spontaneously while I was computing or reboot while the operating system was booting.
Anyhow, once the problem was identified, the piece replaced, and all the adapter cards were put back in, the computer was still unusable, and this time it was because of Microsoft; having tried to boot the computer so many times with different card combos made Windows XP decide that "The hardware on this PC has changed too much, and Windows must be re-activted"
Fine, only in one of the various combinations we had tried, we had removed the network card. So Windows XP, in its infinite wisdom had removed the driver for the card, and now that the card was put back in again, it would not function because the driver was missing.
So it was impossible to re-activate Windows over the internet.
I DID have the option of phoning Microsoft to re-activate Windows XP, but by this point, I was fed-up and thinking something like
"So I can expect that when the chips are down (hardware failuer or some other failure), I can expect this piece-of-crap operating system to contribute to my problems instead of helping me get operational?"
It's bad enough when your computer fails for any reason, but should the operating system ADD to your problems when that happens?
What if you don't have access to a phone or to the internet and something like this happens? Are you really going to let some two-bit computer software hold you hostage on top of it?
"More stable, easier to use" my ass!
That's the day I ditched Windows for good and switched to Linux, and I've NEVER looked back or been tempted to go back.
I wouldn't call that zealotry, I'd call that being awake.
You know, I think you might be on to something there:
Microsoft has proven how inept they are at EVERYTHING any time the actively try to take over or dominate anything.
So instead of trying to compete head-on, maybe they should let themselves get bought by Google, and then it would probably be like if Google had swallowed poison!
I think THAT might be the only way the could bring down a competitor.
Hey wait, they HAVE been doing that, and usually, every acquisition ends badly!
Microsoft, with it's new slogan:
Which remora would you like today?
Google is a verb meaning "to search for information". Useful. I like that.
And "Microsoft" is a synonym for what, exactly?
Funny, we hear Microsoft predicting the demise of something new every few days now...
Each time it is for something Microsoft sucks at. Can you say projection?
It is even funnier when you consider that only Microsoft is predicting these things, while the rest of the planet is unanimous in only predicting ONE thing: the death of Microsoft.
Who to believe?
I mean why shouldn't I believe Microsoft? When Microsoft promised that the newer version of Windows they were developing would be more secure, more stable and faster, they were right, weren't they?
Wait... Windows 95 was crappier than Windows 3.1 on all those points... Windows 98 crappier still... Windows ME was even worse, if that is at all possible.
In closing I only have one question; Is there a way to block all slashdot stories that involve Microsoft bullshitting everyone so that I don't have to even see the headline?
Thanks
They are having the machines crawl the web.
Sounds like egress to me.
Great idea, Microsoft. This one won't blow up in your face... Not!
Dedicate a few thousand machine to getting infected, and give them access to the net...
I wonder how long until people start noticing that the zombies trying to compromise their systems are located in Microsoft's network.
Microsoft just made the net even more unsafe.
Let the lawsuits commence.
>Queue the typical Slashdot groupthink about how Microsoft is somehow evil/stupid for doing this.
Not at all. Although I was under the impression that this was how they wrote most of their software...
Shouldn't the U.S. (which is the side Slashdot is slanted on, face it) revise its prtoectionist policies with it's closest neighbour and biggest trade partner, Canada, FIRST, and therefore lead by example BEFORE criticizing China?
STFU & GBTF!
(Shut The F--- Up & Get Back To Fark)
Just kidding, Hector! Your post title reminded me of lots of comments from discussions on Fark.
STFU & GBTW (Get Back To Work) are common replies on Fark.
Cheers.
"This new version of Windows will be much safer, stabler and faster than the current version of Windows"
Gee Bill, how can you keep doing this with a straight face?
Oh I forgot, you're laughing all the way to the bank.
Microsoft promises NEXT version of their product will be the answer to everyone's wishes!
Oh gee, I hadn't heard them claim that before.
Oh wait, I DID.
That's what they said about Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows (put whatever name you want here)
Long story short, Microsoft's software is NOT good, and they can't have the same level of quality that open-source has.
Avoid them at all costs unless you really want to give the more money.
Give your money to open-source projects, at least that way it will profit YOU.
I'M FRENCH, YOU IGNORANT CLOD!
I just thought my comment was as apropo as your title.
Not_A_Lawyer here;
Since the Wine project started way before DMCA, wouldn't it be excluded from prosecution?
Yes, I AM ignorant.
You're right that I DON'T feel evaluating their product is worth my time.
No wait, that isn't quite true; there's ALWAYS time to evaluate it, but I've lost that urge to download the obligatory "this one is free, but the next one won't be" SDK that inevitably follows the first tangible release of one of Microsoft's new technologies (I use the terms 'new' and 'technology' loosely).
I've learned that the deeper you put your hand in that particular meat-grinder, the more of your arm you'll lose.
So yes, BY ALL MEANS, evaluate, but don't stop there: Lots of people say "Oh, Microsoft already does this (or rather 'will do this' vaporspeak)" and stop their evaluation at that point.
I maker it a point to see through the hype and actively look for alternatives, especially open-source ones.
And even in the cases where Microsoft's products claim to be superior, I'd rather choose a vendor that won't lock me in.
>I never take advice from an opinionated source which does not do credible research, and hope to urge others to also make informed decisions.
And well you should.
I've used Windows since Windows/286 and I've written lots of software for Windows. I've also rolled-out lots of Microsoft products for various projects and work environments.
I've made up my mind based on my own research and come to the conclusion that I have through logic.
Sounds like you do the same. I can't argue that.
For me, it doesn't matter what product Microsoft develops anymore.
I will always avoid all their products like the plague and use my influence to guide others to avoid them also.
I know it sounds like trolling, but I'm not posting anonymously, and I AM serious, this is my opinion, and this is reality.
I represent a segment of consumers who are completely fed up to the gills with Microsoft and are tired of constantly giving them another chance.
This will again be just like all their other products; it'll be inferior, there'll be interoperability problems with everyone's else's products, and Microsoft will continue to promise that the next version will be perfect, which by now, we've all realized is bunk.
Of course, if the product ever takes off at all, Microsoft will have realized their goal: to drive another competitor out of business. They'll then proceed to completely ignore the product and its users, just like they've done with Internet Explorer or Office. With no competition, there is no impetus to improve.
So again, NO THANKS, Microsoft.
There are alternatives, so support the other vendors, buy their products!
Free speech AND free beer? YES, PLEASE!