"says a lot about how Microsoft treat their suppliers."
And OTOH, they reward their loyal clients with Palladium, LookOut, spam, Subscription (dis)Advantage, BSA audits etc. Being an MS loyalist is tricky business!!
Huh.. why not some "Association for Open Source in New Zealand", like Linux Tag in Germany? After all, the Duplicator does mention the SCO case as a ground for refusal to honor a contract.
"Lets face it, even though this is in NZ, it sets a very nasty precedent internationally."
True, but when LinuxTag successfully asked SCO to shut up, and even got a penalty of 1000s of Marks if SCO spoke rotten things, did that not set an international precedent? In the US, the so called protests ended as a farce. Poland and Australia, I believe, have got restraint orders against SCO as well.
Let New Zealanders show which side they are on: The SCO-MS FUD GNUterrorists, or against. This is a good opportunity for them.
The problem isn't one of piracy - you can't pirate GNU / Linux - it's free. The fact is MS-SCO is spreading their FUD globally (where I live, Gartner is actively carrying the SCO FUD). Joe ServicePack's attention span and analytical-skills must not be over-estimated.
By moving the CD copying to Malaysia, it's sort of implied that there's some pirating going on here! Newbies to Linux don't need this FUD - it could deter a few of them from joining the fest.
Yesterday's interview, McBride stated that the case is entering a 'discovery' phase - this clearly indicates that SCO is only interested in FUD, and not a quick court action. It would help if more countries follow the example of Germany, Poland and others in exposing SCO's conduct, and seek penalties for future instances of FUD.
"I think little by little, SCO's efforts to create FUD may inconvenience substantial numbers of people."
Ditto. Other strategies (MS is involved with these, apparently) include Gartner going round the world promoting the SCO FUD. People need to remember that GNU and Linux took a lot of daring, creativity, powerful people etc. If they can't look browbeaters in the eye, they probably don't need the free stuff.
Rather than keeping track of SCO and MS victims, a better approach, IMO would be to give wide coverage to the views of stalwarts like Linus, RMS, ESR etc. Groups like LinuxTag in Germany and others in Poland and Australia have done great pro-active work and have asked SCO to shut up.
Since GNU and Linux derive from international efforts, and benefit all nations as well, (unlike SCO-MS which benefit only the US, primarily), the true facts about SCO must be beamed across mainstream media throughout the world.
In fact, Slashdot could avoid devious SCO interviews, and focus on anti-FUD efforts. HP withdrew it's Linux PC notebook offerings in Thailand, and MS is offering XP and Office for $36!!
SCO's case is about contract dispute, but many in the media talk about IP violations, as if they knew what that meant. Let's all adopt a healthy Dirtier-than-SCO attitude - let's have a/. article on this topic.
As with emerging technologies, patents, copyirghts, proprietary protocols etc. have caused much misery in home networking. Why should home networking be any different from wirelesws corporate networks?
Just 'cos powerful folks have pumped in dollars into the WiFi thing, doesn't mean we got to rush into this latest trendy thing.
A simple UTP based LAN is more than sufficient for home needs.
"Anti-trust cases and litigation never affected Windows users, only Microsoft itself."
So how is it that SCO's case against IBM is affecting GNU and Linux, but not just IBM?? Can't you see that you're being daft or just ignorant?
"Your other comments are technical, not legal; technical problems are by nature easier to handle."
Legal problems are actually easy to handle - it's the FUD and clear thinking that's difficult to handle.
"The potential lawsuit for company X to use Linux is that SCO sues company X. That's a risk few companies will take."
The potential risk that a co. which does not look beyond Windoze is that it might go bamkrupt, paying exorbitant annual licensing fees and geting nothing in return. When direct cash benefit is weighed against potential low legal risk, companies take the tangible benefits route.
"On the other hand, when SCO announces their Linux Licensing program, if it is cheap enough, it may encourage people to use Linux."
If SCO thinks they can announce an extortion license fee, and hope to collect it, they're plain stupid. Judging by the sly tone of your post, looks liek you're promoting the paranoia as well.
"Or they may be wary about the whole thing."
Which whole thing? If SCO files thousands of cases, they're the ones gonna wary faster. They'd have to defend thousands of lawsuits as well. All GNU contributors will revolt against SCO if they tried to penny pinch Linux users.
"Executives have some sense of how to evaluate Gartner reports--when to take them seriously, when to take them with a grain of salt."
You seem to forget that it's not executives, but the PHBs that take decisions - and they tend to take decisions bsaed on the depth of the PowerPoint presentation and the color of the marketing chap's tie, etc.. And when Gartner reports are offered with expensive food and drink (as is being done where I live - just last week), a grain of salt is easily dissolved.
"If Linux seems appealing, perhaps because it seems cheaper, it is easy to try it out and test how it works."
It's easier said than done. What SCO has done is to queer the pitch for Linux-triers. After the initial reluctance to be an odd-man-out and try Linux, this FUD from SCO is scarier. I'm not saying SCO is succeeding, but the amount of news and nuisance they've made over the last few months has really steered sensible folks toward Linux!
" Executives do not know how to evaluate SCO's legal claims. A potential lawsuit will cause them to steer clear of Linux until they know there is no threat."
How is it that a 'potential' lawsuit will steer them clear of Linux, while long time anti-trust cases, and damning litigation from TimeLine etc., viruses, wormss, Service PAcks etc. haven't steered executives away from Windows? Linux users have more chutzpah and a healthy Dirtier-Than-SCO attitude - so this isn't gonna work for SCO.
"OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case... Chris Sontag said that Microsoft could be a future target"
The first rule while decoding statements from SCO should be to match it up with their actions. I agree that SCO indeed claimed that MS could be a future target. But their actions --while sending 1,500 letters to big Corporates about the dangers of using Linux, but omitting Windows, seem to indicate that the MS-target statement was mere eyewash.
"the agreement between MS and SCO is only for a few libraries. "
Then why didn't SCO mention Windows in their infamoust Letters to Corporates?? After all, there are more stupid Windozers than brainy Linuxers out there.
"Yes, MS's move to license Services for Unix probably was a token to SCO. But SCO seems eager to bite the hand that feeds it."
SCO never owns any of the stuff related to Services for Unix - nfs, X-Window environment etc on Windows. Most of these are owned by Sun. There is no clear indicateion from SCO, MS, Slashdot or the press - as to what exactly did MS license or negotiate or deal with SCO. All this is conjecture.
SCO doesn't appear eager to bite the hand that feeds it - it is trying to deceive people into thinking it's a dirty crook that can outwit bigger crooks (such as 800lb gorillas).Reading your post, I get the impression SCO has claimed atleast one victim.
Unfortunately for SCO, most Linux users have enough chutzpah, and a healthy Dirtier-Than-SCO attitude - so all SCO's bluff will lead them nowhere.
"In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise."
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case. Whom would they sue? HPaq is already at their mercy - besides after Compaq's Digital takeover, the alpha series was consigned to oblivion. SGI was enslaved by MS for a while (they made some MIPS workstations running NT with Cobalt chipsets - remember), and only recently moved towards Linux.
Dell doesn't have a Unix/Linux strategy worth talking about. Sun (even if SCO had a case against them) doesn't compete in the PC game. Their 'Java PC' talk was just that - talk. That leaves only IBM - since IBM has a Unix AND a Linux strategy with their Lotus Notes and Websphere; IBM could be the juicy target to go after.
Now, I doubt SCO really intends to follow-thru on their hollow claims. Their main objective seems to build some sort of credibility and nuisance-value with their suit against IBM, and help MS attack the Corporates with threatening letters, Gartner reports, FUD etc.
It would thus appear SCO isn't keen on making any money from the IBM case directly, their only interest is to bad-mouth all and sundry in the Open Source game - Linus, RMS, RedHat, LUGs, users, Corporates etc. This alone can explain their strange crazy idiotic conduct over the past few months.
Not long ago, SCO said that buyout by IBM was an option. They'd said that trade secrets were violated when IBM sent code to Linux. A mysterious contract amendment with Novel was discovered, with just the right wording to bolster SCO's case.
All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.
In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.
Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.
" I can't see how anybody can say that the security in NT4 was enough, especially compared to newer OS's"
Let's see.. 1. NT4 allows Joe to protect his personal files from being accessed by colleagues sharing his PC. 2. NT4 gives Joe many addl. useless advanced rights - like Act as Part of Operating System, Run dll as crap... etc. 3. With regards Security problems due to 'internet' connectivity, NT4 is as bad or as good as XP - seeing as the latest worm affects WinXP systems as well.
As far as Joe is concerned, security is 'prepare for system crash'. With 'ghost' and a data backup, he can get back in about 20 mins. Can't do that with more advanced and secure systems (sarcasm) such as Win2K or WinXP.
Why? Why should Joe ServicePack learn about all the zillions of settings, screensavers, preferences every time MS feels like releasing an OS?
" an installation as mindless as XP or 2000 "
I'm inclined to call Win2K and XP as mindless, not the installtion. A thoughtful OS is one which provides an upgrade path for users of earlier versions.
"Any more bullshit you would like to spew?"
No.. you seem to have spewed enuff for the two of us. Thanks.
" Once a product ceases to be supported, does "migration" to a newer product from it become unsupported? "
Excuse me, what is a 'supported upgrade"? Could you inserted a Windows XP prof CD into an NT4 system and Click 'upgrade'? And would that 'upgrade' your mail, contacts, viruses (?), screensavers, settings, apps etc.?
Microsoft's interpretation of support implies merely a LipService, and a tiny discount on upgrade pricing.
"What support is it that they're not going to be providing anymore?"
LipService!(TM). Beginning today, MS **will stop** saying that NT4 is affected by a worm or virus. They **will stop** using it in comparisons and benchmarks. They **will stop** Subscription (dis)Advantage programs for NT4 - you will have to pay $200 to get into WinXP Prof and then get the support.
All in all, MS **will stop** making quality software like good ol' NT4.
Warning: LipService will be avbl for versions above Win2K only!
Where I work, we upgraded all NT4 servers to Linux. Except NT4 Terminal Servers, since the Citrix idiots refused to support NT4 on Metaframe XP, and Win2K EULA and support for Terminal Services is screwed up.
Client migration to Linux is happening slowly, but we've stopped with Win2K and Office97. No Subscription (dis)Advantage for us, sorry.
I really meant Last. Win2K had more drivers etc, but was slower and broke other code. WinXP was worse than Win2K on both these counts, and introduced more useless baloons as well.
Joe ServicePack has no use for Active Directory, Management Consoles, Bastardized Kerberos, etc.. NT4 security was enough for him.
Poor Joe has never ever received any support from Microsoft for any of his licensed, legal Windows or Office software. How does this affect him?
Factually speaking, NT4 was the last stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.
Anyways, what this means is we have to support Windows ourselves - any difference? I'm more conerned that Citrix stopped support for NT in Metaframe XP - those idiots! For no obvious technical reasons...
Q: Is this alert severe? A: Yes, it is. Systems that connect to the internet using any Microsoft OS are vulnerable.
Q: When can I get a Service Pack for this? A: When we include this bug..er, fix in the next Service Pack. We released SP4 yesterday. Six months more, atleast.
Q: Are there any mitigating factors? A: Yes.. if you run Linux or GNU/Linux or NetBSD, you need not worry.
This bug will disappear by July 14th, and the replacement bug will be announced in Dec 22.
Contrary to Gartner reports, we know that millions of people use Linux on the desktop without much trouble. If you want a permanent solution, install Linux.
Q: How can I protect myself from further attacks? A: Learn to use a Linux system. Contrary to what Aberdeen says, there are fewer bugs in Linux.
Q: What if I never connect my system to the Internet? A: Then tell us your address, so we can send you the ServicePack and an invoice for $50.
Q: Are pirated copies of Windows more vulnerable? A: We like you to think so, yes.
WinCE? PocketPC OS? What about developers who got 'access' to WinCE code? And most importantly when's the 1st Service Pack coming up?
Googlewashing, PageRank and Online reputation...
on
NYT On Online Reputations
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Considering that a NYT article on second-superpower got outranked into oblivion by Googlewashing in just 42 days, online reputation is tough to achieve, even over a short period. Secondly, most online opinions are always critical, and outnumber 'shills' hands down.
Try getting your hands on an article on Microsoft and Schnazzle using Google and you can see Online Reputation at work!
And on the lighter side: Karma - Excellent; Reputation - Whore!
Wow! 24-bit colour, 500 years ago...
on
Incas Used Binary?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
And I had to wait till 1993 for the SGI Indigo2 24-bit graphics card, and pay $3,000 for that one!
Great! So, SCO itself is in violation??
on
Incas Used Binary?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
After all, SCOde is derived from the binary code which they invented, right? Seeing that a Peruvian Doctor (I keep forgetting his name) wrote that unforgettable letter to MS, we could ask him to speak up for the Incas.
There's no hurry to present any evidence - we can always dig up proof later, and that could take ages.
I guess my pointing out the SCO reference has helped your firm in that you've re-worded the page (sensibly, I might add). A casual reader is still left with the impression that your product uses (proprietary?, copyright? patented? trade secret?) System V code, currently being brandished as a weapon by SCO.
May I suggest you remove all Unix references from your technology page? BTW, seeing you don't license anything from SCO, do you have unbridled access to SysV code? A certain Eric Raymond might like to hear from you.
Thank you.
PS (to moderators): I see my parent post is modded down to -1 (Insightful). If it's modded back to +5, readers are bound to benefit when they read these clarifications - thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
"says a lot about how Microsoft treat their suppliers."
And OTOH, they reward their loyal clients with Palladium, LookOut, spam, Subscription (dis)Advantage, BSA audits etc. Being an MS loyalist is tricky business!!
"The trouble is Who will do the suing?"
Huh.. why not some "Association for Open Source in New Zealand", like Linux Tag in Germany? After all, the Duplicator does mention the SCO case as a ground for refusal to honor a contract.
"Lets face it, even though this is in NZ, it sets a very nasty precedent internationally."
True, but when LinuxTag successfully asked SCO to shut up, and even got a penalty of 1000s of Marks if SCO spoke rotten things, did that not set an international precedent? In the US, the so called protests ended as a farce. Poland and Australia, I believe, have got restraint orders against SCO as well.
Let New Zealanders show which side they are on: The SCO-MS FUD GNUterrorists, or against. This is a good opportunity for them.
The problem isn't one of piracy - you can't pirate GNU / Linux - it's free. The fact is MS-SCO is spreading their FUD globally (where I live, Gartner is actively carrying the SCO FUD). Joe ServicePack's attention span and analytical-skills must not be over-estimated.
By moving the CD copying to Malaysia, it's sort of implied that there's some pirating going on here! Newbies to Linux don't need this FUD - it could deter a few of them from joining the fest.
Yesterday's interview, McBride stated that the case is entering a 'discovery' phase - this clearly indicates that SCO is only interested in FUD, and not a quick court action. It would help if more countries follow the example of Germany, Poland and others in exposing SCO's conduct, and seek penalties for future instances of FUD.
"I think little by little, SCO's efforts to create FUD may inconvenience substantial numbers of people."
/. article on this topic.
Ditto. Other strategies (MS is involved with these, apparently) include Gartner going round the world promoting the SCO FUD. People need to remember that GNU and Linux took a lot of daring, creativity, powerful people etc. If they can't look browbeaters in the eye, they probably don't need the free stuff.
Rather than keeping track of SCO and MS victims, a better approach, IMO would be to give wide coverage to the views of stalwarts like Linus, RMS, ESR etc. Groups like LinuxTag in Germany and others in Poland and Australia have done great pro-active work and have asked SCO to shut up.
Since GNU and Linux derive from international efforts, and benefit all nations as well, (unlike SCO-MS which benefit only the US, primarily), the true facts about SCO must be beamed across mainstream media throughout the world.
In fact, Slashdot could avoid devious SCO interviews, and focus on anti-FUD efforts. HP withdrew it's Linux PC notebook offerings in Thailand, and MS is offering XP and Office for $36!!
SCO's case is about contract dispute, but many in the media talk about IP violations, as if they knew what that meant. Let's all adopt a healthy Dirtier-than-SCO attitude - let's have a
As with emerging technologies, patents, copyirghts, proprietary protocols etc. have caused much misery in home networking. Why should home networking be any different from wirelesws corporate networks?
Just 'cos powerful folks have pumped in dollars into the WiFi thing, doesn't mean we got to rush into this latest trendy thing.
A simple UTP based LAN is more than sufficient for home needs.
Please build a nice Time machine, and tell us where you see SCO in 2004, 2005 and 2006. We know they'd be gone before 2007, so don't bother!
BTW, please also alert us if you see Palladium anywhere....I mean, the metal, not a code-name for a project.
"Anti-trust cases and litigation never affected Windows users, only Microsoft itself."
So how is it that SCO's case against IBM is affecting GNU and Linux, but not just IBM?? Can't you see that you're being daft or just ignorant?
"Your other comments are technical, not legal; technical problems are by nature easier to handle."
Legal problems are actually easy to handle - it's the FUD and clear thinking that's difficult to handle.
"The potential lawsuit for company X to use Linux is that SCO sues company X. That's a risk few companies will take."
The potential risk that a co. which does not look beyond Windoze is that it might go bamkrupt, paying exorbitant annual licensing fees and geting nothing in return. When direct cash benefit is weighed against potential low legal risk, companies take the tangible benefits route.
"On the other hand, when SCO announces their Linux Licensing program, if it is cheap enough, it may encourage people to use Linux."
If SCO thinks they can announce an extortion license fee, and hope to collect it, they're plain stupid. Judging by the sly tone of your post, looks liek you're promoting the paranoia as well.
"Or they may be wary about the whole thing."
Which whole thing? If SCO files thousands of cases, they're the ones gonna wary faster. They'd have to defend thousands of lawsuits as well. All GNU contributors will revolt against SCO if they tried to penny pinch Linux users.
"Executives have some sense of how to evaluate Gartner reports--when to take them seriously, when to take them with a grain of salt."
You seem to forget that it's not executives, but the PHBs that take decisions - and they tend to take decisions bsaed on the depth of the PowerPoint presentation and the color of the marketing chap's tie, etc.. And when Gartner reports are offered with expensive food and drink (as is being done where I live - just last week), a grain of salt is easily dissolved.
"If Linux seems appealing, perhaps because it seems cheaper, it is easy to try it out and test how it works."
It's easier said than done. What SCO has done is to queer the pitch for Linux-triers. After the initial reluctance to be an odd-man-out and try Linux, this FUD from SCO is scarier. I'm not saying SCO is succeeding, but the amount of news and nuisance they've made over the last few months has really steered sensible folks toward Linux!
" Executives do not know how to evaluate SCO's legal claims. A potential lawsuit will cause them to steer clear of Linux until they know there is no threat."
How is it that a 'potential' lawsuit will steer them clear of Linux, while long time anti-trust cases, and damning litigation from TimeLine etc., viruses, wormss, Service PAcks etc. haven't steered executives away from Windows? Linux users have more chutzpah and a healthy Dirtier-Than-SCO attitude - so this isn't gonna work for SCO.
In short, you seem to be living in Utopia!
"OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case... Chris Sontag said that Microsoft could be a future target"
The first rule while decoding statements from SCO should be to match it up with their actions. I agree that SCO indeed claimed that MS could be a future target. But their actions --while sending 1,500 letters to big Corporates about the dangers of using Linux, but omitting Windows, seem to indicate that the MS-target statement was mere eyewash.
"the agreement between MS and SCO is only for a few libraries. "
Then why didn't SCO mention Windows in their infamoust Letters to Corporates?? After all, there are more stupid Windozers than brainy Linuxers out there.
"Yes, MS's move to license Services for Unix probably was a token to SCO. But SCO seems eager to bite the hand that feeds it."
SCO never owns any of the stuff related to Services for Unix - nfs, X-Window environment etc on Windows. Most of these are owned by Sun. There is no clear indicateion from SCO, MS, Slashdot or the press - as to what exactly did MS license or negotiate or deal with SCO. All this is conjecture.
SCO doesn't appear eager to bite the hand that feeds it - it is trying to deceive people into thinking it's a dirty crook that can outwit bigger crooks (such as 800lb gorillas).Reading your post, I get the impression SCO has claimed atleast one victim.
Unfortunately for SCO, most Linux users have enough chutzpah, and a healthy Dirtier-Than-SCO attitude - so all SCO's bluff will lead them nowhere.
"In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise."
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case. Whom would they sue? HPaq is already at their mercy - besides after Compaq's Digital takeover, the alpha series was consigned to oblivion. SGI was enslaved by MS for a while (they made some MIPS workstations running NT with Cobalt chipsets - remember), and only recently moved towards Linux.
Dell doesn't have a Unix/Linux strategy worth talking about. Sun (even if SCO had a case against them) doesn't compete in the PC game. Their 'Java PC' talk was just that - talk. That leaves only IBM - since IBM has a Unix AND a Linux strategy with their Lotus Notes and Websphere; IBM could be the juicy target to go after.
Now, I doubt SCO really intends to follow-thru on their hollow claims. Their main objective seems to build some sort of credibility and nuisance-value with their suit against IBM, and help MS attack the Corporates with threatening letters, Gartner reports, FUD etc.
It would thus appear SCO isn't keen on making any money from the IBM case directly, their only interest is to bad-mouth all and sundry in the Open Source game - Linus, RMS, RedHat, LUGs, users, Corporates etc. This alone can explain their strange crazy idiotic conduct over the past few months.
Not long ago, SCO said that buyout by IBM was an option. They'd said that trade secrets were violated when IBM sent code to Linux. A mysterious contract amendment with Novel was discovered, with just the right wording to bolster SCO's case.
All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.
In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.
Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.
" I can't see how anybody can say that the security in NT4 was enough, especially compared to newer OS's"
Let's see..
1. NT4 allows Joe to protect his personal files from being accessed by colleagues sharing his PC.
2. NT4 gives Joe many addl. useless advanced rights - like Act as Part of Operating System, Run dll as crap... etc.
3. With regards Security problems due to 'internet' connectivity, NT4 is as bad or as good as XP - seeing as the latest worm affects WinXP systems as well.
As far as Joe is concerned, security is 'prepare for system crash'. With 'ghost' and a data backup, he can get back in about 20 mins. Can't do that with more advanced and secure systems (sarcasm) such as Win2K or WinXP.
"Second, an upgrade is always a bad idea"
Why? Why should Joe ServicePack learn about all the zillions of settings, screensavers, preferences every time MS feels like releasing an OS?
" an installation as mindless as XP or 2000 "
I'm inclined to call Win2K and XP as mindless, not the installtion. A thoughtful OS is one which provides an upgrade path for users of earlier versions.
"Any more bullshit you would like to spew?"
No.. you seem to have spewed enuff for the two of us. Thanks.
" Once a product ceases to be supported, does "migration" to a newer product from it become unsupported? "
Excuse me, what is a 'supported upgrade"? Could you inserted a Windows XP prof CD into an NT4 system and Click 'upgrade'? And would that 'upgrade' your mail, contacts, viruses (?), screensavers, settings, apps etc.?
Microsoft's interpretation of support implies merely a LipService, and a tiny discount on upgrade pricing.
"What support is it that they're not going to be providing anymore?"
LipService!(TM). Beginning today, MS **will stop** saying that NT4 is affected by a worm or virus. They **will stop** using it in comparisons and benchmarks. They **will stop** Subscription (dis)Advantage programs for NT4 - you will have to pay $200 to get into WinXP Prof and then get the support.
All in all, MS **will stop** making quality software like good ol' NT4.
Warning: LipService will be avbl for versions above Win2K only!
Where I work, we upgraded all NT4 servers to Linux. Except NT4 Terminal Servers, since the Citrix idiots refused to support NT4 on Metaframe XP, and Win2K EULA and support for Terminal Services is screwed up.
Client migration to Linux is happening slowly, but we've stopped with Win2K and Office97. No Subscription (dis)Advantage for us, sorry.
I really meant Last. Win2K had more drivers etc, but was slower and broke other code. WinXP was worse than Win2K on both these counts, and introduced more useless baloons as well.
Joe ServicePack has no use for Active Directory, Management Consoles, Bastardized Kerberos, etc.. NT4 security was enough for him.
Poor Joe has never ever received any support from Microsoft for any of his licensed, legal Windows or Office software. How does this affect him?
Factually speaking, NT4 was the last stable, fast and useful (as in drivers, functionality etc.) OS from MS, that offered a semblance of security.
Anyways, what this means is we have to support Windows ourselves - any difference? I'm more conerned that Citrix stopped support for NT in Metaframe XP - those idiots! For no obvious technical reasons...
Q: Is this alert severe?
A: Yes, it is. Systems that connect to the internet using any Microsoft OS are vulnerable.
Q: When can I get a Service Pack for this?
A: When we include this bug..er, fix in the next Service Pack. We released SP4 yesterday. Six months more, atleast.
Q: Are there any mitigating factors?
A: Yes.. if you run Linux or GNU/Linux or NetBSD, you need not worry.
This bug will disappear by July 14th, and the replacement bug will be announced in Dec 22.
Contrary to Gartner reports, we know that millions of people use Linux on the desktop without much trouble. If you want a permanent solution, install Linux.
Q: How can I protect myself from further attacks?
A: Learn to use a Linux system. Contrary to what Aberdeen says, there are fewer bugs in Linux.
Q: What if I never connect my system to the Internet?
A: Then tell us your address, so we can send you the ServicePack and an invoice for $50.
Q: Are pirated copies of Windows more vulnerable?
A: We like you to think so, yes.
Something to do with Malda and homos - please check before modding up..
WinCE? PocketPC OS? What about developers who got 'access' to WinCE code? And most importantly when's the 1st Service Pack coming up?
Considering that a NYT article on second-superpower got outranked into oblivion by Googlewashing in just 42 days, online reputation is tough to achieve, even over a short period. Secondly, most online opinions are always critical, and outnumber 'shills' hands down.
Try getting your hands on an article on Microsoft and Schnazzle using Google and you can see Online Reputation at work!
And on the lighter side: Karma - Excellent; Reputation - Whore!
And I had to wait till 1993 for the SGI Indigo2 24-bit graphics card, and pay $3,000 for that one!
After all, SCOde is derived from the binary code which they invented, right? Seeing that a Peruvian Doctor (I keep forgetting his name) wrote that unforgettable letter to MS, we could ask him to speak up for the Incas.
There's no hurry to present any evidence - we can always dig up proof later, and that could take ages.
I guess my pointing out the SCO reference has helped your firm in that you've re-worded the page (sensibly, I might add). A casual reader is still left with the impression that your product uses (proprietary?, copyright? patented? trade secret?) System V code, currently being brandished as a weapon by SCO.
May I suggest you remove all Unix references from your technology page? BTW, seeing you don't license anything from SCO, do you have unbridled access to SysV code? A certain Eric Raymond might like to hear from you.
Thank you.
PS (to moderators): I see my parent post is modded down to -1 (Insightful). If it's modded back to +5, readers are bound to benefit when they read these clarifications - thanks.