Motorola better start early and hire 500 Chinese developers to reverse engineer the Outlook sync because that's 9 times out of 10 why Microsoft wins every market they come into: Microsoft's undocument file formats.
My totally non-Microsoft Sony Ericsson T610 syncs fine with Outlook, as long as you confirm the security dialog that's designed to prevent viruses from accessing the Outlook address database. You can even kill the confirmation prompts with a free program called Express ClickYes. XTND Connect serves as the bridge between my phone's SyncML and Outlook. I could also use my Widcomm Bluetooth SyncML to Outlook bridge, but that doesn't work well with repeating appointments (an issue with the T610's calendar and not Outlook).
If there is a wiretap, they are only getting your conversation, and not ever piece of data your computer spits out. It looks like they would need a different warrant for that too.
The PATRIOT act allows taps of people versus devices. The wiretap is only one component of tapping a person. In other words, the one warrant would cover your computer's data too.
Usually, smaller and lighter devices don't hit the ground as hard.
Basic physics tells us all objects, when air resistance is neglected, hit the ground at the same velocity when dropped from the same height, and for a one-meter fall, I don't think air resistance is the issue.
Racing for higher MHz is a mug's game - that's why Intel, IBM, Sony, AMD, etc are moving to multi-core chips.
It's not simply for performance reasons. The marketing value of higher GHz is just too great to switch away from it without a good reason. The reason is quantum effects and instability beyond around 3.2GHz or so. The P4 "Extreme Edition" is an example of Intel compensating for its inability to continue to clock the GHz up.
At it's core, this is simply a UI choice. Do you like how Safari renders, but don't like the interface? Now you've got another choice. Not too thrilled with Mozilla? Again, another choice.
This is exactly contrary to Apple's UI tradition of doing something one way and doing it right. Apple dislikes the form of choice you offer because it creates inconsistancy in the end user experience.
Either trust the source of information or don't, but don't trust the result of a test based on the result of the test -- circular dependency.
I think it's more human than that. If a company or group releases results completely against their interests, integrity is the only reason such a group would go forward. Why would anyone skew results to spite themselves?
I think the rest of your post is either biased (assuming IBM only intends this article for a technical audience that won't use it for business decisions) or inflammatory (the comments on Microsoft that mostly have root in the attitude on Slashdot more than Microsoft's actual statements).
...and take IBM to task for fudging the results
I need something more empirical than this assertion. I don't see kernel developers spending weeks duplicating IBM's results just to verify that Linux is as good as IBM says.
Also, Linux has weathered some unfavorable (and honost! [sic]) critiques before
This says nothing about IBM's motives. That's like saying the airlines have no ulterior motive in claiming safety because they've whethered problems in the past.
Yes, they are documented, but some of the evaluation criteria ("expected behavior") depend on the opinions of the team performing the evaluation.
because it's disclosed up-front that it's IBM Linux Team testing Linux
Yes, that's better than the Ziff-Davis test (which I'm familiar with and mention in another post on this thread). However, assuming no bias because of a disclosed possibility of bias is illogical. Such disclosure is a necessary but insufficient condition for deeming a test "fair."
They have much to gain: more corporate customers and more respect and funding by greater IBM. Just because IBM supports Linux doesn't mean its motives are pure (not financially driven). Another reason for bias is the division also stood to have huge setbacks if the tests were unfavorable. How could they justify expansion and better funding if their previous statements about Linux being enterprise-ready were unfounded?
Of course we would not trust IBM to evaluate
linux. That's why the used LTP for testing.
Microsoft commonly hires outside companies to perform their tests. Do you remember the evaluation of Exchange versus Notes/Domino scalability by Ziff-Davis but funded by Microsoft? People justifiably questioned those results, as the company hired (Ziff-Davis) has an interest in pleasing the hiring company (Microsoft) so they get future work.
The people performing it have a vested financial interest in having it turn out a specific way, notably positive. If the test resulted showed poor reliability, then I would understand trusting it because it would go against the motives of the people performing it. Since the test affirms their business model, no matter how documented it is, it should be suspect.
It doesn't appear to be a test rigged to make one platform look better than the other.
It looks a bit skewed to me. Many of the test results depend on the computer systems meeting expectations of the people testing it, particularly in overload cases. Since the people who tested work in the Linux Technology Center, their expectations stand a greater likelyhood of being consistant with the system.
Take C/C++ and Java. Someone who regularly works with C/C++ knows certain libraries (notably the character ones) return ints for status in the form 0 being false and not 0 being true. If someone expects that, the system meets expectations and passes. If someone comes from a different background, say Java, he or she may not expect that, and the system would consequently fail the test of meeting expectations. I would like an evaluation from somewhere in-between, not someone whose years of experience allow them to gloss over what might be problems for another person.
My ThinkPad T40p uses 11W when it's in a low power mode and not charging. At full processor speed, full display brightness, and when charging, it doesn't seem to top 30-40W.
So, there must be fees that the smaller competitor must pay to the larger company in order for this to work. Do you think the larger company will be cheap? Do you think that they will *really* let the smaller company charge $30 and still make a profit?
I can use my T-Mobile GPRS on any network with which they have a contract, even though T-Mobile's data plans ($20/mo for unlimited) are far less expensive than competitors' (often $60-$80/mo for comparable data quantities). That's one emperical example of interoperability among data networks from different providers who charge different rates. It roams, too. I ride from Austin to Dallas on I-35 without dropping the connection or changing my IP address. The downsides to GPRS are bandwidth (about 56Kbps actual throughput) and latency (about 800-1000ms on average).
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the same site as the AT&T Long Lines site posted to Slashdot awhile back?
This won't happen, simply because actions by citizens aren't bound by the Constitution. The Constitution only limits and guides government actions.
Here's a safe demo of the exploit.
My totally non-Microsoft Sony Ericsson T610 syncs fine with Outlook, as long as you confirm the security dialog that's designed to prevent viruses from accessing the Outlook address database. You can even kill the confirmation prompts with a free program called Express ClickYes. XTND Connect serves as the bridge between my phone's SyncML and Outlook. I could also use my Widcomm Bluetooth SyncML to Outlook bridge, but that doesn't work well with repeating appointments (an issue with the T610's calendar and not Outlook).
This is using a backdoor method that requires iTunes to be installed first. Apple hasn't helped them at all.
...this is probably standard practice for large Microsoft contracts.
The PATRIOT act allows taps of people versus devices. The wiretap is only one component of tapping a person. In other words, the one warrant would cover your computer's data too.
Maybe, but the PDF generator is ASP.NET (based on the aspx extension).
Basic physics tells us all objects, when air resistance is neglected, hit the ground at the same velocity when dropped from the same height, and for a one-meter fall, I don't think air resistance is the issue.
It still is. Have you read about iPod battery replacement costs?
I think it beats another new "helpful" feature like "CRL Finder."
It's not simply for performance reasons. The marketing value of higher GHz is just too great to switch away from it without a good reason. The reason is quantum effects and instability beyond around 3.2GHz or so. The P4 "Extreme Edition" is an example of Intel compensating for its inability to continue to clock the GHz up.
I'm pretty sure that happens quite regularly when the strings are identical.
Actually, it's a Windows 2000 kernel. The Dreamcast did run CE, however.
This is exactly contrary to Apple's UI tradition of doing something one way and doing it right. Apple dislikes the form of choice you offer because it creates inconsistancy in the end user experience.
You will have plenty of trouble using VPN if you're behind NAT on a router without passthrough anyway.
I think it's more human than that. If a company or group releases results completely against their interests, integrity is the only reason such a group would go forward. Why would anyone skew results to spite themselves?
I think the rest of your post is either biased (assuming IBM only intends this article for a technical audience that won't use it for business decisions) or inflammatory (the comments on Microsoft that mostly have root in the attitude on Slashdot more than Microsoft's actual statements).
I need something more empirical than this assertion. I don't see kernel developers spending weeks duplicating IBM's results just to verify that Linux is as good as IBM says.
Also, Linux has weathered some unfavorable (and honost! [sic]) critiques before
This says nothing about IBM's motives. That's like saying the airlines have no ulterior motive in claiming safety because they've whethered problems in the past.
Yes, they are documented, but some of the evaluation criteria ("expected behavior") depend on the opinions of the team performing the evaluation.
because it's disclosed up-front that it's IBM Linux Team testing Linux
Yes, that's better than the Ziff-Davis test (which I'm familiar with and mention in another post on this thread). However, assuming no bias because of a disclosed possibility of bias is illogical. Such disclosure is a necessary but insufficient condition for deeming a test "fair."
They have much to gain: more corporate customers and more respect and funding by greater IBM. Just because IBM supports Linux doesn't mean its motives are pure (not financially driven). Another reason for bias is the division also stood to have huge setbacks if the tests were unfavorable. How could they justify expansion and better funding if their previous statements about Linux being enterprise-ready were unfounded?
Microsoft commonly hires outside companies to perform their tests. Do you remember the evaluation of Exchange versus Notes/Domino scalability by Ziff-Davis but funded by Microsoft? People justifiably questioned those results, as the company hired (Ziff-Davis) has an interest in pleasing the hiring company (Microsoft) so they get future work.
The people performing it have a vested financial interest in having it turn out a specific way, notably positive. If the test resulted showed poor reliability, then I would understand trusting it because it would go against the motives of the people performing it. Since the test affirms their business model, no matter how documented it is, it should be suspect.
It doesn't appear to be a test rigged to make one platform look better than the other.
It looks a bit skewed to me. Many of the test results depend on the computer systems meeting expectations of the people testing it, particularly in overload cases. Since the people who tested work in the Linux Technology Center, their expectations stand a greater likelyhood of being consistant with the system.
Take C/C++ and Java. Someone who regularly works with C/C++ knows certain libraries (notably the character ones) return ints for status in the form 0 being false and not 0 being true. If someone expects that, the system meets expectations and passes. If someone comes from a different background, say Java, he or she may not expect that, and the system would consequently fail the test of meeting expectations. I would like an evaluation from somewhere in-between, not someone whose years of experience allow them to gloss over what might be problems for another person.
Why do you trust IBM's Linux Technology Center to evaluate Linux?
My ThinkPad T40p uses 11W when it's in a low power mode and not charging. At full processor speed, full display brightness, and when charging, it doesn't seem to top 30-40W.
I can use my T-Mobile GPRS on any network with which they have a contract, even though T-Mobile's data plans ($20/mo for unlimited) are far less expensive than competitors' (often $60-$80/mo for comparable data quantities). That's one emperical example of interoperability among data networks from different providers who charge different rates. It roams, too. I ride from Austin to Dallas on I-35 without dropping the connection or changing my IP address. The downsides to GPRS are bandwidth (about 56Kbps actual throughput) and latency (about 800-1000ms on average).