Before you cross your fingers for a judge that is 'brave enough to stand up to MS', you may want to look into the issues discussed. Eola's patent is ridiculous, and generic functionality patents like these should be eliminated, not enforced -- even if the 'victim' is Microsoft.
I definitely envy my linux/mac IT friends, who come in at noon and leave at 2! I do remember that time back in 1994 when there was that one bug in the linux kernel which required a patch.
The lifetime subscription price is $299 versus $12.95 a month, that gives you 2 years to break even from the lifetime subscription. Having purchased the Tivo recently (and hacked it to 320 hours, whoot!), I realized that 2 years is an awful long time in a market that is only just emerging. In all probability, this tivo box will be obsolete by the time 2007 rolls around and I'll be changing my service anyway, or Tivo will be out of business altogether. So, I chose the monthly subscription.
What is the value of these patents? They seem to patent lots of stuff that has a long history of prior art. How could they possibly sue another company using their 'patents'?
This is true of any OS where the infection process is running as root/Administrator. If the user is not running their user account as an administrator, Window's ACLs would stop the root-kit from being installed, similarly to how Linux protects system directories from normal users.
Why on earth would a company announce a vulnerability in their product if it's not known and a fix is still being worked on? You can't seriously be implying that this is a Microsoft only tactic...
Not that I agree with the study or its methodologies, but the fact is a system is only as secure as the known vulnerabilities. Not known by Microsoft/Linux (but hidden), but known by the public. Windows Server might have 10,000 unkown vulnerabilities and Linux 5,000, but if the linux server is live with known vulnerabilities longer than the window's counterpart, then for all purposes the window's counterpart is more secure.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to imply that sql injection is a windows only problem? And about 'winsock' crashing... do you know of a vulnerability we don't? Or are you harking back to windows 95 vulnerabilities?
The fact is, the parent post is the one that is Insightful. Both Linux and Windows servers can be secured very easily. The XP desktop might still have issues, but Win2k3 server is solid and secure.
In all fairness to Disney (a Co I currently despise for ruining classics with unimaginative sequels), Amazon probably paid a pretty penny for the 'world exclusive' trailer. If the trailer was going to appear on Disney's site, then it would be pretty stupid for them to go after these leaks, since it's free publicity.
This is not a turnaround; the linked slashdot article simply cried wolf. MS hadn't ever released a statement committing to a pricing-model for MSAS. At most they had said they were investigating the options. Now they have finished their investigation, and the price is $0.
It's all about the games. And if Xbox2 opens up with Halo 3, it's going to have a massive market adoption by the time the PS3 and the next Nintendo come out. And you can be sure they'll have some other blockbuster in the wings and a console price drop right around the time these new consoles come out. They won't have the fastest hardware, but it's smart business.
... and in the process they got a 95% market share and all became gagillionaires. I'm all about idealism, but they succeeded at capitalism, which is what this is ultimately all about.
I agree with your point, but how does the EU's proposal solve the problem? Now when they click on a media file windows will prompt the user to download WMP, and we're back to the original problem... I would have rather have them keep WMP but bundle other media player apps with their installation.
How is this 'solution' serving the consumer, at all?
Instead of stripping functionality, why not force MS to inform the consumer that alternatives do exist? OSX comes with IE and Safari... why not force Windows be bundled with WMP, Quicktime, etc...? But not Real Player for the love of god!:}
Of course, then it becomes a question of which media players to bundle, and why give those company the upper hand over other competitors. But still, a solution on those lines seems more reasonable.
You can't really point at the defacto standard, that people know and love, and scream "proprietary, proprietary!" Proprietary it may be, but it's a convoluted and diluted message that that will just confuse consumers.
I'm going to keep this handy for the next big slashdot Microsoft flame-war. Shall we say, later on this afternoon?:)
I don't know... I can see some value in the service...
You allegedly can download and play however many songs your want, as long as you keep the subscription up. So, every month for the price of 1 CD you can instead download, say, new 30 albums, and play them to death. The albums that turn out to be worth keeping in the long term you can purchase, but you've saved yourself the money of having purchased the other 29 albums that were great at the beginning, but grew tiresome after a few months of play.
notion suddenly appeared in my mind: Microsoft is dying
What?! Even with all the horrible press in 2004 due to all the security issues, MS increased profit by 11 billion dollars... How is this "dying"?
Even so, do I really need to nitpick this uninformed fool's words? It's 95% opinion, and 5% conjecture. Why on earth did this article get green lighted?
Why should a limited user be able to attach to a system process and debug it?
You can develop with VS.NET2003 as a limited account just fine. The case you mention is special, and you either need to run the webserver's application pool as your identity to debug, or run VS.NET2003 as Administrator. Not a huge deal, just do 'runas...' and start VS.NET as Administrator.
No reason to abandon running as a Limited Account.
You have to be running as Administrator for it to affect your system. It works by writing files to the system directory, deleting the MSAS install directory, and writing keys to HKLM, among other things. All of these are blocked if you are not administrator.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you cross your fingers for a judge that is 'brave enough to stand up to MS', you may want to look into the issues discussed. Eola's patent is ridiculous, and generic functionality patents like these should be eliminated, not enforced -- even if the 'victim' is Microsoft.
M icrosoft.html
http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolas
I definitely envy my linux/mac IT friends, who come in at noon and leave at 2! I do remember that time back in 1994 when there was that one bug in the linux kernel which required a patch.
I put in two 160Gb drives.
The lifetime subscription price is $299 versus $12.95 a month, that gives you 2 years to break even from the lifetime subscription. Having purchased the Tivo recently (and hacked it to 320 hours, whoot!), I realized that 2 years is an awful long time in a market that is only just emerging. In all probability, this tivo box will be obsolete by the time 2007 rolls around and I'll be changing my service anyway, or Tivo will be out of business altogether. So, I chose the monthly subscription.
What is the value of these patents? They seem to patent lots of stuff that has a long history of prior art. How could they possibly sue another company using their 'patents'?
Did that end up being any good?
Name one escalation exploit in 2004. Yeah, thought so, dumbass.
This is true of any OS where the infection process is running as root/Administrator. If the user is not running their user account as an administrator, Window's ACLs would stop the root-kit from being installed, similarly to how Linux protects system directories from normal users.
Why on earth would a company announce a vulnerability in their product if it's not known and a fix is still being worked on? You can't seriously be implying that this is a Microsoft only tactic...
Not that I agree with the study or its methodologies, but the fact is a system is only as secure as the known vulnerabilities. Not known by Microsoft/Linux (but hidden), but known by the public. Windows Server might have 10,000 unkown vulnerabilities and Linux 5,000, but if the linux server is live with known vulnerabilities longer than the window's counterpart, then for all purposes the window's counterpart is more secure.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to imply that sql injection is a windows only problem? And about 'winsock' crashing... do you know of a vulnerability we don't? Or are you harking back to windows 95 vulnerabilities? The fact is, the parent post is the one that is Insightful. Both Linux and Windows servers can be secured very easily. The XP desktop might still have issues, but Win2k3 server is solid and secure.
In all fairness to Disney (a Co I currently despise for ruining classics with unimaginative sequels), Amazon probably paid a pretty penny for the 'world exclusive' trailer. If the trailer was going to appear on Disney's site, then it would be pretty stupid for them to go after these leaks, since it's free publicity.
That's a known bug! It's quite fun to watch. :) And technically, it's Giant goodness, not Microsoft. The team is working on a fix.
Quite a turnaround from charging extra to free.
This is not a turnaround; the linked slashdot article simply cried wolf. MS hadn't ever released a statement committing to a pricing-model for MSAS. At most they had said they were investigating the options. Now they have finished their investigation, and the price is $0.
hardware speed != sales
It's all about the games. And if Xbox2 opens up with Halo 3, it's going to have a massive market adoption by the time the PS3 and the next Nintendo come out. And you can be sure they'll have some other blockbuster in the wings and a console price drop right around the time these new consoles come out. They won't have the fastest hardware, but it's smart business.
... and in the process they got a 95% market share and all became gagillionaires. I'm all about idealism, but they succeeded at capitalism, which is what this is ultimately all about.
I agree with your point, but how does the EU's proposal solve the problem? Now when they click on a media file windows will prompt the user to download WMP, and we're back to the original problem... I would have rather have them keep WMP but bundle other media player apps with their installation.
How is this 'solution' serving the consumer, at all?
:}
Instead of stripping functionality, why not force MS to inform the consumer that alternatives do exist? OSX comes with IE and Safari... why not force Windows be bundled with WMP, Quicktime, etc...? But not Real Player for the love of god!
Of course, then it becomes a question of which media players to bundle, and why give those company the upper hand over other competitors. But still, a solution on those lines seems more reasonable.
You can't really point at the defacto standard, that people know and love, and scream "proprietary, proprietary!" Proprietary it may be, but it's a convoluted and diluted message that that will just confuse consumers.
:)
I'm going to keep this handy for the next big slashdot Microsoft flame-war. Shall we say, later on this afternoon?
I don't know... I can see some value in the service...
You allegedly can download and play however many songs your want, as long as you keep the subscription up. So, every month for the price of 1 CD you can instead download, say, new 30 albums, and play them to death. The albums that turn out to be worth keeping in the long term you can purchase, but you've saved yourself the money of having purchased the other 29 albums that were great at the beginning, but grew tiresome after a few months of play.
notion suddenly appeared in my mind: Microsoft is dying What?! Even with all the horrible press in 2004 due to all the security issues, MS increased profit by 11 billion dollars... How is this "dying"?
Even so, do I really need to nitpick this uninformed fool's words? It's 95% opinion, and 5% conjecture. Why on earth did this article get green lighted?
All kidding aside, it would have been good to see these test also running on XP and OSX.
What exactly do you mean? I can do development in Visual Studio .NEt 2003 as a limited account no problem. I can even debug the code I execute.
If you can't develop in Java... well that sounds like Sun or your IDE's fault... hardly MS'.
Why should a limited user be able to attach to a system process and debug it?
You can develop with VS.NET2003 as a limited account just fine. The case you mention is special, and you either need to run the webserver's application pool as your identity to debug, or run VS.NET2003 as Administrator. Not a huge deal, just do 'runas...' and start VS.NET as Administrator.
No reason to abandon running as a Limited Account.
You have to be running as Administrator for it to affect your system. It works by writing files to the system directory, deleting the MSAS install directory, and writing keys to HKLM, among other things. All of these are blocked if you are not administrator.