It's not even "open." It's a trap, at best. They have conned up a way to publish some of their source code so that it does no one but them any good. You can't use it, and if you do, they will punish you. "Shared source" serves two purposes for them:
1. Provide impression that they are "open," too (and therefore "good", or at least, "less threatening").
2. Attempt to taint FOSS projects with "Microsoft IP"
At the rate they're going, not even "open source." They'll be the biggest "partially-published-but-heavily-restricted-source please-copy-it-so-we-can-sue-your-ass" software company.
You really think the GPL is "Un-American?" That it's "evil?" That it's "communist?"
Wow.
You must think Microsoft's licenses are "totalitarian," or maybe not. Maybe you think they have a god-given right to profit?
People releasing the product of their own labor under the terms of their own choosing (the GPL) is evil? It's unamerican? Should they be forced to work for Microsoft, or only sell their labor and products of their labor under terms approved by you, or Microsoft, etc? Would that be more "american," less "evil" and less "communist?"
It sounds like they are being abused by their vendors. If a fat client that wasn't called "IE" had the number of bugs and remote exploits that IE does, do you think businesses would tolerate it?
Probably -- they tolerate Outlook, after all, but that's probably a bad example, because it's Microsoft software, which is held to a lower standard.
If an application requires a specific piece of windows-only client software, it is not a "web application." A web application works in a "web browser."
So, you're trapped into using a buggy and remotely-exploitable windows-only fat client for certain applications. But they tell you it's "web based," and that makes it ok?
It's funny, to me, that there's people who think Microsoft needs or deserves defending. Like this guy, who is trying to change the subject from "two remote exploits today in IE" to "Mozilla had bugs last year!"
If an application requires a specific piece of client-side software, it's not a "web application." If it were a "web application," it would work in a "web browser." Maybe it uses some HTML somewhere for presentation, but it's just a Windows Application in reality.
support.microsoft.com KB search doesn't work from firefox.
Yes, but it also doesn't work well, period. Searching with google, and using "site:whatever.microsoft.com" in your search terms is much more productive.
However, there are still websites that only render correctly within Internet Explorer. The Dell website is a great example.
I've not used IE in at lear a year, and I regularly buy things from Dell.com at work. Once, they did a boneheaded thing that was IE-specific and interfered with navigation of their site. I emailed their webmaster, and called Dell. I also told their sales staff that I was unable to complete my purchases online because their site was broken. And you know what? They fixed it!
If a vendor's website doesn't work for you, call them and make them sell to you over the phone. They'll get the picture.
My company provides Mozilla and actively discourages the use of I.E. Soon, it will actually remove iexplore.exe from all company computers. It's the smart thing to do.
If you meet an "IE-Only" 'web' application, complain to the provider. IE is simply bad software.
Microsoft has just as much right to profit as anyone else does.
Which is to say, none.
Microsoft should make a deal with all software vendors to require them to put in code that checks to make sure all the latest updates are applied to the Windows box before you're allowed to install the software.
That seems like a very unwieldy solution to me. Wouldn't it be simpler for Microsoft to fixtheir system, rather than have every other software vendor on the planet work around the problems with Microsoft software?
I'm sure Microsoft and Sun won't give me a new Netra or XBox if I call them up.
What Schwartz ("Use the schwartz!") and Gates really mean is, "your software fee will include the hardware fee, and you won't really have a choice about that. Plus, we will add restrictions to the hardware, such as DRM. Thank you, come again!"
I wanted to share with you some of the opinions of Iraqis about their daily lives that I read on the bbc. arabic.com There were more than many comments and about 70% of them were positive. Here are some examples:
What happens these days in Iraq is a natural process as a result from the transfer from dictatorship to democracy. Ali Ahmed-Baghdad.
I'm an Iraqi citizen and I want to thank president GWB from all my heart for the great service he's done to the Iraqi people by freeing us from one of the worst tyrants in history. This liberation didn't suit the enemies of humanity and freedom, thus we see them committing terrorist acts claiming to resist occupation by killing their own people, but that will not affect the Iraqis lust for freedom. Thanks again GWB. Kamal-Adhamya-Baghdad.
I won't forget the day when I saw one of Saddam's tanks crushing the heads of 40 She'at Iraqis who were among others arrested for no obvious reason in 1991. Their hands were tied and put on the street for the tank to pass over their heads. The words" No She'at after today" where written on that tank.
I was one of those people. My hands were tied to the back and a grenade was put between them and the safety pin removed. It was positioned in a way that it should explode if I was to make any move, and I was left a lone in a deserted area that was at least 5 Km. from any life. If it wasn't for the kindness of one of the soldiers who came back and rescued me, I would've certainly died soon. Ihsan Al-Shimmari-Sweeden.
We lived our worst years under Saddam regime, a regime that many Arabs still believe in!We don't know why don't they leave us in peace, especially the Arab media that turns liberation into occupation and criminals into resistant. We, Iraqis, know the truth very well. The situation is much better now for the vast majority of Iraqis. Most of the people are government employees who used to get paid 4 or 6 thousand Iraqi dinars. Now the lowest salary is 100 thousand Iraqi Dinar. We feel free and we don't fear prisons and torture. The Arab media, as expected, made a huge fuss about the prisoners abuse in Abu-Gharib. Shame on them. Where were they when Saddam put explosives around a bunch of young men and blasted their bodies and they all saw that on TV? Where were they? Saman-Iraq.
I had to leave Iraq because I didn't want to be one of Saddam's slaves. After so many years, I'm back to my country and I saw that people are not as nervous as they used to be. I saw hope in their eyes despite the security problems. All I have to say to our Arab brothers is,"We are practicing democracy. You keep enjoying dictatorship" Ilham Hussain-Baghdad.
I'm from an area not so far from Shat Al-Arab, still at Saddam's time we never had clean water supply. Now the situation is better and the British are very gentle and kind. I no longer fear for my life or my family's. The only problems we have are the thieves and some shortage in power supply. Kadim Jabbar-Al-Zubair-Basra.
The daily life in Basra is not that different from other parts of Iraq; It's very hot, the water and power supply are not Continueous, still I prefer to live a year in these conditions than one hour like those we lived under Saddam. Abbas Mahir Tahir-Basra.
I doubt it. AT&T was working on some hideous IPX-based "internetwork" service. Microsoft would probably have attempted to make NetBEUI routable, or something. Apple would have had their own Appletalk-based internetwork.
It certainly doesn't excuse anything. It does cast doubt on the "Pull out US, put in UN" strategy certain parties are championing. Especially since similar things have been happening in other places, like Kosovo.
Slashdot Mirror
The code is open, certainly, but not free.
It's not even "open." It's a trap, at best. They have conned up a way to publish some of their source code so that it does no one but them any good. You can't use it, and if you do, they will punish you. "Shared source" serves two purposes for them:
1. Provide impression that they are "open," too (and therefore "good", or at least, "less threatening").
2. Attempt to taint FOSS projects with "Microsoft IP"
A perverse bending of the free software model.
Exactly!
At the rate they're going, not even "open source." They'll be the biggest "partially-published-but-heavily-restricted-source please-copy-it-so-we-can-sue-your-ass" software company.
You really think the GPL is "Un-American?" That it's "evil?" That it's "communist?"
Wow.
You must think Microsoft's licenses are "totalitarian," or maybe not. Maybe you think they have a god-given right to profit?
People releasing the product of their own labor under the terms of their own choosing (the GPL) is evil? It's unamerican? Should they be forced to work for Microsoft, or only sell their labor and products of their labor under terms approved by you, or Microsoft, etc? Would that be more "american," less "evil" and less "communist?"
I want suck.com to come back.
Polly! How I miss thee!
Extra 10 bonus points on top of that if the virus also deletes the Product Activiation data!
"Hello? Microsoft? I need to re-activate Windows and my anti-virus software so I can clean out this virus..."
Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows ... "for now."
There, is that clearer?
Hardy har har. I hear Windows geeks play chutes and ladders, it being more understandable to them.
Imagine if it were done with C++ and STL... *shudder*
While you're gloating, get me some coffee.
It sounds like they are being abused by their vendors. If a fat client that wasn't called "IE" had the number of bugs and remote exploits that IE does, do you think businesses would tolerate it?
Probably -- they tolerate Outlook, after all, but that's probably a bad example, because it's Microsoft software, which is held to a lower standard.
If an application requires a specific piece of windows-only client software, it is not a "web application." A web application works in a "web browser."
So, you're trapped into using a buggy and remotely-exploitable windows-only fat client for certain applications. But they tell you it's "web based," and that makes it ok?
It's funny, to me, that there's people who think Microsoft needs or deserves defending. Like this guy, who is trying to change the subject from "two remote exploits today in IE" to "Mozilla had bugs last year!"
If an application requires a specific piece of client-side software, it's not a "web application." If it were a "web application," it would work in a "web browser." Maybe it uses some HTML somewhere for presentation, but it's just a Windows Application in reality.
support.microsoft.com KB search doesn't work from firefox.
Yes, but it also doesn't work well, period. Searching with google, and using "site:whatever.microsoft.com" in your search terms is much more productive.
However, there are still websites that only render correctly within Internet Explorer. The Dell website is a great example.
I've not used IE in at lear a year, and I regularly buy things from Dell.com at work. Once, they did a boneheaded thing that was IE-specific and interfered with navigation of their site. I emailed their webmaster, and called Dell. I also told their sales staff that I was unable to complete my purchases online because their site was broken. And you know what? They fixed it!
If a vendor's website doesn't work for you, call them and make them sell to you over the phone. They'll get the picture.
My company provides Mozilla and actively discourages the use of I.E. Soon, it will actually remove iexplore.exe from all company computers. It's the smart thing to do.
If you meet an "IE-Only" 'web' application, complain to the provider. IE is simply bad software.
Microsoft has just as much right to profit as anyone else does.
Which is to say, none.
Microsoft should make a deal with all software vendors to require them to put in code that checks to make sure all the latest updates are applied to the Windows box before you're allowed to install the software.
That seems like a very unwieldy solution to me. Wouldn't it be simpler for Microsoft to fixtheir system, rather than have every other software vendor on the planet work around the problems with Microsoft software?
"a distributed file serving system, like Microsoft DFS." ..Not!
"Microsoft DFS" is nothing but a redirector that creates the illusion of a single filesystem tree from a set of regular old SMB servers.
I'm sure Microsoft and Sun won't give me a new Netra or XBox if I call them up.
What Schwartz ("Use the schwartz!") and Gates really mean is, "your software fee will include the hardware fee, and you won't really have a choice about that. Plus, we will add restrictions to the hardware, such as DRM. Thank you, come again!"
Microsoft should release a hand-held "Clippy." It would be the world's first (or, at least, most) evil Tomagotchi.
And for the folks not running XP...? Many businesses still use Win2k.
Check out the Hydroplate Theory -- a great SciFi movie, just waiting to be made! Or, at least, one better than "The Core."
Here. Go read this.
I doubt it. AT&T was working on some hideous IPX-based "internetwork" service. Microsoft would probably have attempted to make NetBEUI routable, or something. Apple would have had their own Appletalk-based internetwork.
Dreck.
It certainly doesn't excuse anything. It does cast doubt on the "Pull out US, put in UN" strategy certain parties are championing. Especially since similar things have been happening in other places, like Kosovo.