Before Vista is even out of the gates, a Microsoft exec was talking Wednesday about Windows' replacement at a VC conference. Gates looked at Vista, and left, holding his nose! Before we let this beast loose on gullible folks, we want to pacify them, saying we're working on a better alternative...
Speaking at The Venture Forum conference, Microsoft's Bryan Barnett, a program manager for external research programs in the Microsoft Research group, said multicore architectures are of particular interest when weighing what to put in future operating systems at the company. "Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today," Our policy has always been "Whatever Intel giveth (in speed), Microsoft taketh away!".. this dual core thing has got us stumped... we're figuring out how to slow things down with dual core.
Barnett said. Well, with Vista in the pipeline as long as it has been, you must admit it is not surprising Microsoft is taking the long-term view. Well... we've taken a long while to build some junk, we've thrown out all useful stuff we promised.. don't worry, we'll keep working harder and longer in similar fashion.
And it won't be built overnight: There is no timetable for a Windows successor right now. WE WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ANNOUNCING TIME TABLES AGAIN... NEVER, EVER!!! The successor to Windows could come in the next centruy... we won't be there, we won't care, but there's nothing wrong living in hope... We'll announce this non-event, non-timetabled non-initiative in Slashdot though!
But early work on this effort has not yet been organized We are proud to declare that we have NOT YET started this NON-INITIATIVE
With five or six small projects afoot in various places throughout the company, Barnett said. Some five or six groups of disgruntled employees have given up on Vista.... and now, they're talking about joining Google to Build The Successor To Windows...
Actually, we should've posted this in Ask Slashdot... but we aren't part of the OSDL, and we have our pride.. so we announce it as News for Nerds... Thanks for your suggestions!
To them an OS is a UI, and a web browser and so on. Linux isn't the Linux kernel, it's that + the shell tools + X + Gnome + Firefox and so on.
Even assuming the definition above is correct, in the case of (The Linux Kernel + Shell Tools + X + Gnome + Firefox) if I subtract something, say, Firefox... the whole OS doesn't break. Windows is indeed Defective By Design. It's Microsoft's approach that has resulted in the All Our Bundle Or Nothing Else Stable situation to the customers. And that's precisely what the EU would like MS to open up - the interfaces.
A. Practical Solutions: 1. As every agent who possesses sensitive information leaves office, shoot him. 2. Destroy his/her/it's laptop.
B. Impractical solutions: 1. Build a new proprietary operating system for secret agents. 2. Build proprietary hardware for them. 3. Build scretive, propriateary network cards, that operate on proprietary, unpublished protocols.
If neither Plan A or B seems workable, post Ask Slashdot for ideas! -
Hackers, worms, and viruses are good for network security ("Security Software firms such as Symantec) and that the law and public policy should encourage 'beneficial' hacking (Legislation must ensure we keep such firms running). From the article: 'Exploitation of security holes prompts users and vendors to close those holes (Makes people believe that such defects are inevitable, and can only be solved by continuous updates) , vendors to emphasize security in system development, and users to adopt improved security practices. This constant strengthening of security (reliance on vendors for updates) reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic attack -- one that would threaten national or even global security (any negative impact on suspect business practices OR bottom-lines)
Slashdot isn't really representative of Stallman's community. They transitioned from an Open Source site to a "Geek Culture" site some time ago.
While this may be true, Slashdot was, and remains one of the biggest sites frequented by members from "Stallman's Community", "Open Source Community" and the "Geek Community" besides so many others such as the "MS shill community" "Apple Fanboi community" etc. It will be a long time before flexbeta.net or technocrat.net can reach even 10% of the Slashdot community, such as it is.
In my speeches I often make it clear that I consider myself to be standing on Richard's shoulders.
And I remember you mentioning that you don't believe the disctinctions between Free Software and Open Source Software are really important now. It's clear that Stallman disagrees with you.
Microsoft merging with Yahoo! is like me merging with pizza. It ends up with a slightly larger me.
While you may feel larger and bigger temporarily, after merging with pizza... after a few hours, the pizza exits with a foul smell, and you're left longing for another merger. True growth can NEVER be achieved by mergers. You need to Grow Up to understand that.
NT embedded support ends next month! If it's all over the place, and suddenly the manufacturers discover they need to license and upgrade to Windows Embedded instead.... hell will break loose all over the place!
NT/embedded doesn't even require that you use the GUI.
How long will Microsoft support NT/embedded? What if you developed something on that, and YOUR product becomes vulnerable, and you can't ask for support? The problem with integrating a 'closed' operating system in hardware is this: Hardware has a much longer lifespan than most corporates (including Microsoft) would like to support.
It doesn't make long-term business sense for an appliance-devleoper to use Microsoft products... or indeed any closed source products.
If the Chairman himself is gone, can Chair-Man Ballmer be far behind? I think Ballmer will join SCO, and engage in a great legal battle with Gates and Novell over Unix rights! That should be an amusing battle!!
Why couldn't a modified Windows CE be used on APs?
I believe Windows CE comes with anti-virus from Trend Micro! How yet another firm can write 'security' software on top of this combination beats me. The only solution is to ask Trend Micro to do all the development instead. That's like asking Microsoft to build, market and support hardware - which they'd never do.. thank God for that!
I've been using a Hotmail account for about 9 years now... things were okay until Microsoft took over control. My experiences have varied after MS came in: 1. For the first year, 90% junk mails, only 10% proper mails. 2. For the second to fourth years, 50 - 50. 3. Three years back, proper mails got landed in the Junk mail folder, and junk mail in the Inbox... that's when David Coursey's (Chief Microsoft aplogist, then at ZDNet Anchordesk) mail got delivered in the Junk folder.... on second thoughts it seems sorta right now! 4. I lost interest a year ago, just 2MB box-size.. didn't check my account - and boom! all mails lost. 5. NOW: There's more than 25 MB, but it's been months since I checked my hotmail. Not much spam, but I've lost interest after getting a gmail account.
Short answer to your question: You're better off writing a utility that swaps Junk mail and the Inbox for hotmail users. Microsoft doesn't like PHP. Open up PHP and email in google, you'll find 100s of pages of Vulnerabilities, BEFORE coming to the functionality.
Executive Summary : Microsoft employees searching via Google.
Affected platforms: All Windows versions, ALL Microsoft employees, Credibility, Quality, Public Image, Self-Respect.
Workarounds A new Service Pack will be sent to you. This will forward all external queries via Anonymiser. Microsoft Domain stats will be protected.
Mitigating factors 1. Mainstream media hasn't picked it up yet. 2. Slashdot readers don't care much... infact, a majority of the Slashdot crowd use Windows. 3. We don't care.
Full solution: A new search engine is being built. This will get it's results from Google and display it as an MSN offering, with our ads. Beta for this expected in a week's time!
1. Speculating WHY / WHETHER REALLY Microsoft is suddenly cosying up to Open Source and GPL. 2. Speculating WHY Vista is getting delayed. 3. Speculating WHY DNF is getting delayed. 4. Speculating WHETHER Gates really stepped DOWN... FROM Chairman TO Chairman. 5. Speculating WHETHER Ballmer might get promoted to Chair-Man. 6. Profit! (Note... this list is always Profitable for Microsoft - not you. One last time... Misrosoft is not a philanthropic organisation - Gates might be one individually. MS is answerable to it's shareholders, and it's only motive is MONEY, not shipping Vista, developing a better Office, kicking Gates, or rewarding Ballmer. 7. If we want to spend your time PROFITably, I guess we can simply skip such articles, and start using REAL open source apps, or writing more code under the GPL.
This concerns a patent for a method of shifting data from Excel to Access
There's no reference, but I'd wager NO PATENT would've been granted on these lines... more like, "a method to move data from a spreadsheet to a database".
This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them. No evidence to the above. Maybe more generic work.
I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
Agreed. And so, until software patents are declared illegal, any aggrieved party should be able to make the infringer pay.
Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.
How about vice-versa? With WGA, Microsoft checks every small guy every day. Every day, every one is guilty unless a piece of software decides you are innocent. Two wrongs won't make a right.... and yet, the rights of little men MUST be upheld, until the SYSTEM becomes more equitable.
"Your first question seems offtopic - a 3rd party can get access to portions of Office by buying it. Unless you mean the source code, which doesn't necessarily have to be involved for Microsoft to be infringing a patent. "
I meant source code. How else can infringement be proven?
Lastly, where are you getting this forced upgrade information from?
From the linked article: "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Service Pack 2, released by Microsoft in September. Office XP will need to be put into use with a special patch applied.
Microsoft is also recommending that customers update their existing software with the new code. "
That's where it states that EXISTING users are recommended to upgrade!
The law says that users can be held liable for patent infringement as well.
How can the user, who has no way of examining the source code of a proprietary piece of code, be liable for infringements? Looks like the big businesses have written these stupid laws...
If we had a sane law that forbids EULAs the affected companies might be able to claim damages from MS for this (deliberate?) oversight.
A sane law would be one that made the infringer pay. Not the poor chap who licensed code.
I see a class action suit from windows-users against MS, forcing MS to buy the license.
The users bought the office suite which included a functionality which is now being removed.
I don't think so... MS may have implemented the same functionality in a different, non-infringing manner.
Also, the EULA stated MS has copyright of the delivered software (which turned out to be a lie).
Ah, that may be a possibility... although, a straightforward proposal could be: Why punish users to change the code they have already licensed from MS? Why not force MS to license the infringing code from the patent holder?
From an article referenced in the link: "It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent," Microsoft said in an e-mail to customers. "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
Questions that come up: 1. How could any 3rd party obtain access to portions of Office Pro 2003, etc.? 2. And since MS conceded that they may have indeed infringed on patents, WHY SHOULD THE CUSTOMERS BE FORCED TO DEPLY A DIFFERENT VERSION??? Why can't MS be forced simply to license the patents for the volumes ALREADY SHIPPED to customers, and NEW customers provided with modified non-infringing code?
The response of MS to a similar spat with ActiveX and Eolas, also tends to fall in the same pattern - forcing 'users' to change their code / behaviour for a crime committed by the software maker! Why punish the people who PAID for the product????????
From TFA... "Since the jury verdict last year, Microsoft has altered Office, alerting businesses back in January that they will need to upgrade to the modified version."
Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version? Why can't Microsoft license the patent in question, instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Or anti-virus update, or patch-update systems? Client-Server is also Peer-to-Peer, just differently labelled.
Before Vista is even out of the gates, a Microsoft exec was talking Wednesday about Windows' replacement at a VC conference.
.. this dual core thing has got us stumped... we're figuring out how to slow things down with dual core.
Gates looked at Vista, and left, holding his nose! Before we let this beast loose on gullible folks, we want to pacify them, saying we're working on a better alternative...
Speaking at The Venture Forum conference, Microsoft's Bryan Barnett, a program manager for external research programs in the Microsoft Research group, said multicore architectures are of particular interest when weighing what to put in future operating systems at the company. "Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today,"
Our policy has always been "Whatever Intel giveth (in speed), Microsoft taketh away!"
Barnett said. Well, with Vista in the pipeline as long as it has been, you must admit it is not surprising Microsoft is taking the long-term view.
Well... we've taken a long while to build some junk, we've thrown out all useful stuff we promised.. don't worry, we'll keep working harder and longer in similar fashion.
And it won't be built overnight: There is no timetable for a Windows successor right now.
WE WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ANNOUNCING TIME TABLES AGAIN... NEVER, EVER!!! The successor to Windows could come in the next centruy... we won't be there, we won't care, but there's nothing wrong living in hope... We'll announce this non-event, non-timetabled non-initiative in Slashdot though!
But early work on this effort has not yet been organized
We are proud to declare that we have NOT YET started this NON-INITIATIVE
With five or six small projects afoot in various places throughout the company, Barnett said.
Some five or six groups of disgruntled employees have given up on Vista.... and now, they're talking about joining Google to Build The Successor To Windows...
Actually, we should've posted this in Ask Slashdot... but we aren't part of the OSDL, and we have our pride.. so we announce it as News for Nerds... Thanks for your suggestions!
1. Blinds.
2. Gates.
3. Sunscreens.
4. Smokescreens.
5. Chairs.... or rather, Chairs! Chairs! Chairs!!!
To them an OS is a UI, and a web browser and so on. Linux isn't the Linux kernel, it's that + the shell tools + X + Gnome + Firefox and so on.
Even assuming the definition above is correct, in the case of (The Linux Kernel + Shell Tools + X + Gnome + Firefox) if I subtract something, say, Firefox... the whole OS doesn't break. Windows is indeed Defective By Design. It's Microsoft's approach that has resulted in the All Our Bundle Or Nothing Else Stable situation to the customers. And that's precisely what the EU would like MS to open up - the interfaces.
A. Practical Solutions:
1. As every agent who possesses sensitive information leaves office, shoot him.
2. Destroy his/her/it's laptop.
B. Impractical solutions:
1. Build a new proprietary operating system for secret agents.
2. Build proprietary hardware for them.
3. Build scretive, propriateary network cards, that operate on proprietary, unpublished protocols.
If neither Plan A or B seems workable, post Ask Slashdot for ideas!
-
Hackers, worms, and viruses are good for network security ("Security Software firms such as Symantec) and that the law and public policy should encourage 'beneficial' hacking (Legislation must ensure we keep such firms running). From the article: 'Exploitation of security holes prompts users and vendors to close those holes (Makes people believe that such defects are inevitable, and can only be solved by continuous updates) , vendors to emphasize security in system development, and users to adopt improved security practices. This constant strengthening of security (reliance on vendors for updates) reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic attack -- one that would threaten national or even global security (any negative impact on suspect business practices OR bottom-lines)
Makes sense now, don't you think?
Slashdot isn't really representative of Stallman's community. They transitioned from an Open Source site to a "Geek Culture" site some time ago.
While this may be true, Slashdot was, and remains one of the biggest sites frequented by members from "Stallman's Community", "Open Source Community" and the "Geek Community" besides so many others such as the "MS shill community" "Apple Fanboi community" etc. It will be a long time before flexbeta.net or technocrat.net can reach even 10% of the Slashdot community, such as it is.
In my speeches I often make it clear that I consider myself to be standing on Richard's shoulders.
And I remember you mentioning that you don't believe the disctinctions between Free Software and Open Source Software are really important now. It's clear that Stallman disagrees with you.
Microsoft merging with Yahoo! is like me merging with pizza. It ends up with a slightly larger me.
While you may feel larger and bigger temporarily, after merging with pizza... after a few hours, the pizza exits with a foul smell, and you're left longing for another merger. True growth can NEVER be achieved by mergers. You need to Grow Up to understand that.
Theoretically, the combined user-base would surpass Google. But many users like me, never visit MSN / Yahoo after acquiring a Google identity (gmail).
The combined HPaq is still below Dell, although prior to the merger, the combn. was much bigger.
"The power of Linux brought to you by Microsoft."
Actually, it's:
The FUD of Microsot's TCO studies - dispelled by Common-Sense found in Microsoft's finance managers.
NT/embedded is used all over the damned place.
NT embedded support ends next month! If it's all over the place, and suddenly the manufacturers discover they need to license and upgrade to Windows Embedded instead.... hell will break loose all over the place!
NT/embedded doesn't even require that you use the GUI.
How long will Microsoft support NT/embedded? What if you developed something on that, and YOUR product becomes vulnerable, and you can't ask for support? The problem with integrating a 'closed' operating system in hardware is this: Hardware has a much longer lifespan than most corporates (including Microsoft) would like to support.
It doesn't make long-term business sense for an appliance-devleoper to use Microsoft products... or indeed any closed source products.
Gates has left Microsoft
If the Chairman himself is gone, can Chair-Man Ballmer be far behind? I think Ballmer will join SCO, and engage in a great legal battle with Gates and Novell over Unix rights! That should be an amusing battle!!
Why couldn't a modified Windows CE be used on APs?
I believe Windows CE comes with anti-virus from Trend Micro! How yet another firm can write 'security' software on top of this combination beats me. The only solution is to ask Trend Micro to do all the development instead. That's like asking Microsoft to build, market and support hardware - which they'd never do.. thank God for that!
I've been using a Hotmail account for about 9 years now... things were okay until Microsoft took over control. My experiences have varied after MS came in:
1. For the first year, 90% junk mails, only 10% proper mails.
2. For the second to fourth years, 50 - 50.
3. Three years back, proper mails got landed in the Junk mail folder, and junk mail in the Inbox... that's when David Coursey's (Chief Microsoft aplogist, then at ZDNet Anchordesk) mail got delivered in the Junk folder.... on second thoughts it seems sorta right now!
4. I lost interest a year ago, just 2MB box-size.. didn't check my account - and boom! all mails lost.
5. NOW: There's more than 25 MB, but it's been months since I checked my hotmail. Not much spam, but I've lost interest after getting a gmail account.
Short answer to your question: You're better off writing a utility that swaps Junk mail and the Inbox for hotmail users. Microsoft doesn't like PHP. Open up PHP and email in google, you'll find 100s of pages of Vulnerabilities, BEFORE coming to the functionality.
to make the problem go away!
Executive Summary : Microsoft employees searching via Google.
Affected platforms: All Windows versions, ALL Microsoft employees, Credibility, Quality, Public Image, Self-Respect.
Workarounds A new Service Pack will be sent to you. This will forward all external queries via Anonymiser. Microsoft Domain stats will be protected.
Mitigating factors 1. Mainstream media hasn't picked it up yet.
2. Slashdot readers don't care much... infact, a majority of the Slashdot crowd use Windows.
3. We don't care.
Full solution: A new search engine is being built. This will get it's results from Google and display it as an MSN offering, with our ads. Beta for this expected in a week's time!
I also wonder, why isn't Apple or Microsoft in?
Hey, not even the great Stallman is part of the OSDL. So, that would mean he's in the same bracket?
It is a shame that a proprietary s/w firm holds so much clout and 'mindshare monopoly' in something as mainstream as a database market. From TFA:
Not to sound arrogant, but we know how to deal with the Linux community.
That's not only arrogant, but smug as well. Does the OSDL need members with attitudes such as this?
Several techniques to waste your time
... FROM Chairman TO Chairman.
1. Speculating WHY / WHETHER REALLY Microsoft is suddenly cosying up to Open Source and GPL.
2. Speculating WHY Vista is getting delayed.
3. Speculating WHY DNF is getting delayed.
4. Speculating WHETHER Gates really stepped DOWN
5. Speculating WHETHER Ballmer might get promoted to Chair-Man.
6. Profit! (Note... this list is always Profitable for Microsoft - not you. One last time... Misrosoft is not a philanthropic organisation - Gates might be one individually. MS is answerable to it's shareholders, and it's only motive is MONEY, not shipping Vista, developing a better Office, kicking Gates, or rewarding Ballmer.
7. If we want to spend your time PROFITably, I guess we can simply skip such articles, and start using REAL open source apps, or writing more code under the GPL.
Such articles are a real waste of time, IMHO.
This concerns a patent for a method of shifting data from Excel to Access
There's no reference, but I'd wager NO PATENT would've been granted on these lines... more like, "a method to move data from a spreadsheet to a database".
This guy managed to take two packages made by Microsoft and work a way of shifting data between them.
No evidence to the above. Maybe more generic work.
I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
Agreed. And so, until software patents are declared illegal, any aggrieved party should be able to make the infringer pay.
Just because its the little guy and Microsoft doesn't make it right.
How about vice-versa? With WGA, Microsoft checks every small guy every day. Every day, every one is guilty unless a piece of software decides you are innocent. Two wrongs won't make a right.... and yet, the rights of little men MUST be upheld, until the SYSTEM becomes more equitable.
"Your first question seems offtopic - a 3rd party can get access to portions of Office by buying it. Unless you mean the source code, which doesn't necessarily have to be involved for Microsoft to be infringing a patent. "
I meant source code. How else can infringement be proven?
Lastly, where are you getting this forced upgrade information from?
From the linked article: "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Service Pack 2, released by Microsoft in September. Office XP will need to be put into use with a special patch applied.
Microsoft is also recommending that customers update their existing software with the new code. "
That's where it states that EXISTING users are recommended to upgrade!
The law says that users can be held liable for patent infringement as well.
How can the user, who has no way of examining the source code of a proprietary piece of code, be liable for infringements? Looks like the big businesses have written these stupid laws...
If we had a sane law that forbids EULAs the affected companies might be able to claim damages from MS for this (deliberate?) oversight.
A sane law would be one that made the infringer pay. Not the poor chap who licensed code.
I see a class action suit from windows-users against MS, forcing MS to buy the license.
The users bought the office suite which included a functionality which is now being removed.
I don't think so... MS may have implemented the same functionality in a different, non-infringing manner.
Also, the EULA stated MS has copyright of the delivered software (which turned out to be a lie).
Ah, that may be a possibility... although, a straightforward proposal could be: Why punish users to change the code they have already licensed from MS? Why not force MS to license the infringing code from the patent holder?
From an article referenced in the link:
"It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent," Microsoft said in an e-mail to customers. "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
Questions that come up:
1. How could any 3rd party obtain access to portions of Office Pro 2003, etc.?
2. And since MS conceded that they may have indeed infringed on patents, WHY SHOULD THE CUSTOMERS BE FORCED TO DEPLY A DIFFERENT VERSION???
Why can't MS be forced simply to license the patents for the volumes ALREADY SHIPPED to customers, and NEW customers provided with modified non-infringing code?
The response of MS to a similar spat with ActiveX and Eolas, also tends to fall in the same pattern - forcing 'users' to change their code / behaviour for a crime committed by the software maker! Why punish the people who PAID for the product????????
From TFA... "Since the jury verdict last year, Microsoft has altered Office, alerting businesses back in January that they will need to upgrade to the modified version."
Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version? Why can't Microsoft license the patent in question, instead?