Did you bother actually reading the article, or just skimming to make it look like you did?
The article clearly states that was the old way, under the new licenses/contracts Microsoft covers all your legal costs regardless of what you paid them in the first place.
As one of the flock of Linux desktop users I have always taken it for granted that Linux is inherently more secure than Microsoft Windows.
While this may have been true 5 or so years ago, it's not anymore (in some technical respects the reverse is arguable - see ACLs, access control to kernel objects, trusted path/trusted computing base, etc...), these days security in Linux and Windows is all about process and mindset, as is true of any complex system.
This really is the kind of attitude that is going to really hurt the Linux community in the future. If/when we start to see a sizable number of people using Linux on the desktop, this assumption that Linux is 'inherantly' secure (totally false) could lead to almost the same kind of security nightmare that we saw in Windows-land until recently (arguably, we're still seeing it:).
In one NATO training op a few years ago, one of the American aircraft carriers was 'sunk' (simulated, of course) by one of the older Canadian submarines.
That's the problem with nuclear submarines - they're too loud to hear purely electrical ones. I believe it put some impetous into the Seawolf project.
Re:Why are workflow notifications always ignored
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft Project
*ducks*
There's also Lotus Workflow for Domino.doc, but it's not as good at Project.
As for the Windows-bashing, I grew up on Macintoshes, and never touched a PC, with the result that Windows has always seemed like a model of how not to design an OS....
So, it's all a matter of circumstances - I bash Windows because it is the bane of my existence and because I can't avoid it no matter how hard I try.
Another win for informed opinions, eh? Just what Linux advocacy needs!
Irony would be if the Onion ran some tongue-in-cheek article about Gates and then the next week, Gates actually did something close to what they described...
You mean like the articles they ran after Bush got elected about invasions of Iraq, etc... which Bush then did? =P
A number of the articles on The Onion during Gulf War II were reposted from a year 2001.
And in the history of anti-trust legislation, regulation has solved the problem by turning a single powerful company into a number of powerful companies.
The forward march of technology is the only thing that ever solves the problem of a company getting too powerful.
You can turn off the fancy graphics and go back to the Win2K desktop in XP. Of course, this turns XP into a speed-demon in comparison (XP is faster than 2K, you just don't usually notice it under the added bloat). =)
Yes, but there's a difference between generating a fake ctrl-alt-del and receiving a ctrl-alt-del. You have to live very deep within NT to receive ctrl-alt-dels (at around the same level the fast-user switching and terminal services stuff lives).
The login sequence (ctrl-alt-del) is there for a very particular purpose - it's an important security feature.
Since no user-program can grab ctrl-alt-del keystrokes (yay x86), forcing the user to hit c-a-d before they login proves that the login dialog is actually the system login dialog, and not some trojan somebody wrote to collect usernames and passwords.
Actually, in a twisted way (that fits well with Reaganomics), it does make sense for the govt to buy expensive, closed-source software. They are stimulating the economy by government spending.
Dude, you're describing classic Keynsian stimulus, it's the complete antithesis to Reaganomics. Reagonomics would be to give the money right to Microsoft's board of directors, ostensibly in the belief that it'll "trickle down" to eveybody else...
Um, no. To enter into a contract, both parties have to sign, and it has to be witnessed. If delivering a product were entering into a contract, then EULAs of all types would be well and truly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
The article clearly states that was the old way, under the new licenses/contracts Microsoft covers all your legal costs regardless of what you paid them in the first place.
I think Amazon and eBay might dispute that claim...
While this may have been true 5 or so years ago, it's not anymore (in some technical respects the reverse is arguable - see ACLs, access control to kernel objects, trusted path/trusted computing base, etc...), these days security in Linux and Windows is all about process and mindset, as is true of any complex system.
This really is the kind of attitude that is going to really hurt the Linux community in the future. If/when we start to see a sizable number of people using Linux on the desktop, this assumption that Linux is 'inherantly' secure (totally false) could lead to almost the same kind of security nightmare that we saw in Windows-land until recently (arguably, we're still seeing it:).
Make sure it can check your e-mail. No software is complete until it can check your e-mail.
Not really.
Now take a jet-powered waffle iron. That is cool.
I hate to do that. :)
That's the problem with nuclear submarines - they're too loud to hear purely electrical ones. I believe it put some impetous into the Seawolf project.
*ducks*
There's also Lotus Workflow for Domino.doc, but it's not as good at Project.
NVidia lost their top designer (to ATI). Ever since then, NVidia's cards have been loosing out to ATI... wonder why...
Another win for informed opinions, eh? Just what Linux advocacy needs!
You mean like the articles they ran after Bush got elected about invasions of Iraq, etc... which Bush then did? =P
A number of the articles on The Onion during Gulf War II were reposted from a year 2001.
The forward march of technology is the only thing that ever solves the problem of a company getting too powerful.
You can turn off the fancy graphics and go back to the Win2K desktop in XP. Of course, this turns XP into a speed-demon in comparison (XP is faster than 2K, you just don't usually notice it under the added bloat). =)
Yes, but there's a difference between generating a fake ctrl-alt-del and receiving a ctrl-alt-del. You have to live very deep within NT to receive ctrl-alt-dels (at around the same level the fast-user switching and terminal services stuff lives).
Since no user-program can grab ctrl-alt-del keystrokes (yay x86), forcing the user to hit c-a-d before they login proves that the login dialog is actually the system login dialog, and not some trojan somebody wrote to collect usernames and passwords.
For those who don't know, Itanium (IA64) is a completely different architecture from x86.
Dude, you're describing classic Keynsian stimulus, it's the complete antithesis to Reaganomics. Reagonomics would be to give the money right to Microsoft's board of directors, ostensibly in the belief that it'll "trickle down" to eveybody else...
Because SGML is a horrible committee standard that they're smart enough not to use.
It wouldn't go very far. A space shuttle replacement or a manned mission to mars would cost a lot more than half a billion.
Um, Microsoft paid almost three times the value of this contract in taxes last quarter. Read their income statement.
Um, no. To enter into a contract, both parties have to sign, and it has to be witnessed. If delivering a product were entering into a contract, then EULAs of all types would be well and truly legal.
Because with your system, if you quit or get run over by a bus, they're screwed.
And, it's not a puppet body like some other bodies you might be able to think of.
Dude, pass me that crack. ECMA and ISO have way more credibility than JCP. ISO is the standards organization.
Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated.
RMS isn't a Hurd developer.