Managing a company is also supposed to take care of it in the long run. Making one small onetime financial income at the expense of the company isnt god for the shareholders that are in it for the longer run. You are talking about day-traders and not real investors. A marriage with Microsoft would most surely spell certain doom for Yahoo as a company.
Its also not sure a Microsoft would be allowed to use its monopoly money from the Windows division to create another monopoly in search further on. Google buying Yahoo on the other hand shouldnt be a problem since its only when you use your monopoly in a bad way that US laws come into action or if you use one monopoly to subside taking over an adjecent market.
Shareholder value is not equal to stock value, its about what the company does in the longer run. Stock value is often completely useless as a measurement for how well a company is doing. Look at how long SCO had roaring high stock value? Was their moves good for their shareholders, except for hedgefunds and daytraders and other scum?
Yahoo has acted to continue living and not being bought up and then dismantled quickly after being gutted of its users. A shareholder cant just sue because its board do not favour short onetime gains at the expence of the companys future. If that was the case we would see companys gutting themselves and selling the pieces and totally disregard any possible future incomes down the line from products not yet released to the market.
The problem is that its a big difference between being a copy of Unix and being a copy of a specific unix implementation. While linux in many places conforms to the standards making up Unix 93/95/98/2003 its not a verbatim copy of anybody elses implementation of those standards.
This looks very much like an ongoing effort do mislead people about what Unix really is. Somone should sue for slander since its a very rough accusation. That Novell seems to let this slide makes me very worried about their real intentions.
Say what? I have always had very good experience with HP printers. HP has had excellent support for Linux a very long time. You must be either very new to Linux or trolling. If you are new to the game see the links below.
"Might I remind you that a lot of the reason computers have been able to advance as quickly as they have is because we have a single majority platform."
Thats the worst load of crap ever uttered in this industry. Most things on the hardware side has been hold back because of Microsofts unwillingness to support new technologies.
If you take your time and compare what was on the market when Microsoft started dominating the x86 platform you will find that first Dos then Windows was long behind the competition. They have always been lagging behind the competition, since day one.
Their saviour was that IBM released their platform into the open because of their problems with the DOJ (ironic isnt it?). They got a hold of a platform that took off like a rocket because of it being open and managed to lock down the software side of it. Had IBM held onto x86 Microsoft as we know it would still be making stoplight-software.
I think our software snails along and its development is painfully slow if you look at what happens in labs around the world. Microsoft is just now implementing things in Windows that has been standard in Unix since late 60's. If you think thats fast meet my lawn, enjoy watching it grow!
It all works just wonderful except for one little detail. It all demands your organization works just as Microsofts products are designed. As soon as you try to change something you are in for a world of hurt and all the nice "plugging in" becomes a real nightmare.
if you add up what Exchange/Outlook/Sharepoint costs and multiply it with your users you can have a tailormade solution adapted to your companys needs instead of trying to turn your organization around on a dime and start working the MS way (tm). Its a one-size fits all solution that Microsoft sells.
Microsofts solution also demands a hefty number of it and support staff to keep it all running.
I dont know, there are a wealth of options for collaborating on Linux. Zimbra, Novell Teaming+Conferencing, Groupwise, Google Apps and all the various open source projects out there. The choices are pretty endless with both very mature products and cutting edge stuff in all priceranges. IBM adds something for the nervous enterprise CIO who wants someone to blame when things gets b0rked.
I cant think of any drawbacks in having much work in linux going into improving linux under heavy workloads. This benefits the desktop user just as much, especially with all the multicore cpus coming out.
Linux on dekstops is getting much attention in the kernel, its just not that visible to the user. The performance gain to be had from tailoring the kernel is very small compared to the gains to be had in userspace applications. Performance hogs like nautilus, openoffice, mono-apps and firefox will only improve some percent by work on the kernel while much greater performance gains can be had by targeting those applications directly in their own code.
This is actually what first came into my mind when i saw UAC. The only function it has is put all the security decisions onto the user. That way whatever stupid thing Vista does Microsoft can always blame the user.
This also makes their security stats better on paper since for most exploits the user has to click yes.
A monopoly cant use money gained from their monopoly to extend into other markets by force. If Microsoft uses money from their Office/Windows monopoly to kill google they can be charged. Its perfectly sufficiant to have a monopoly, it do not have to be in the market you are trying to overtake.
I would not be surprised to see the EU take a hard look at this. The US not so much until change of government, current administration tends to look at laws as something very bendable.
This isnt as bad as it looks. The bank puts the blame on the user for having an unsecured os. That person in turn should put the blame on his operating systems supplier.
The problem here is that software today is sold without any warrant at all, not even functionality. In the eye of the law you've just bought a book/movie. This should be changed so software is threated as any other goods. Only then will quality and security of software start to rise.
The ISO organization has just made themselves irrelevant for the future. Any serious company that wants their new idea standardized will take it elsewhere. ISO is just an empty marketing shell for those who wish to buy a "standard" on paper.
Microsoft have changed their driver model because of all the DRM that has gone into Vista. One part of that driver model kills any driver that can even remotely result in giving up secured content. Most of the stability problems are a direct result of this killswitch and other DRM idiocy. The reason the certified drivers work much worse than the drivers from the vendor is that the vendor drivers have many of theese things turned off or worked around. Anyone interested can read about this and other crap that DRM in Vista is a direct result of, like file copying. Just look it up at microsoft.com, its a pretty horrid reading.
DRM suck in any way possible and evidently also brings endless troubles for all the parties involved.
I guess you don't read that many books? Most books i have read in english have very long sentences. Magazines on the other hand seems to be written for people with reading problems.
I guess people with a lack in decoding skills have problems reading long sentences. This is probably because you need to keep the whole sentence in youre head before you can decode it.
The crime is most often hurt feelings and public shame. I do not see a virus, a trojan or such things as that bad of a deal. All they do is point with a very large sign towards some faulty software and says "fix this its insecure as hell".
The error lies in the exploitable system that should be more secure. Hightening the sentences only takes away the bulk but really malicious people will still use them to get access to trade, state and research secrets. The faulty systems will continue to be computerized swizz cheese.
"Application security, virtualization security and the fact that over half of computer attacks seen by Microsoft come from the.edu domain are just some of the things keeping him up at night."
As a user of said computers/servers i much prefer a scripthappy student whimsing around my systems alerting me about security issues. What do worries me are govt founded hackers stealing sensitive information, research and other secrets leaving no n00b traces for me to discover. Its not the actual breakin that worries me but what the perpetrator do thats an issue. If someone breaks in but does no harm i can live with that. My feelings may get hurt but the company is ok atleast.
An application/OS vendor ofcourse prefer the stealth hacker since the student hacker brings into attention all the various security issues with their products and makes people look for other options. Many vendors prefer a company being hacked to pieces before letting an exploit being known publicly. Microsofts own exploit policy is a very telling sign of this. As long as an exploit isnt used extensively its not going to get patched regardless of how many systems are exploitable. That worries me at night...
Unlike Apple or Google Microsoft did not startup as a snowwhite company ran by angels. From day one Microsofts history is littered with corps all over their road to monopoly. It was built around a knock off CP/M clone that would have been sued out of existence would it happen today. Their history is littered with broken laws, broken agreements and a total disregard for right or wrong.
To place companies like Apple or Google in a group with Microsoft is an enormous insult against them. If Apple had done business like Microsoft does they would no doubt have ruled the PC computing space now. Their biggest "mistake" was that they did not behaive like MS and took the high road. They did a faulty assesement about the laws in the US and did not break them while MS have broken many of them and not suffered more than a slap on the wrist.
This guy must have been living under a rock for the last 15 years.
I love linux because its so transparent. Im an avid Windows user and work mostly with Windows machines but i cant stop admiring the complete transparacy of Linux. While an error in Windows usually demands a reinstall and the logs tell me absolutely nothing in Linux i can actually find the culprit and mend the error in a very short time.
I dont know how other people works. Myself i dont even notice if i watch a movie in DVD, divx, HD or on a movie theather. Its the story thats important and thats where Hollywood has the poorest performance.
There's no magic in IT. You identify what you need and then implement it. If it doesnt give a significant gain in productivity its not worth dealing with.
Most CIO's and techies tends to look at a new system and then start figuring out where it fits the organization. Thats completely screwed up and is the biggest reason why so many projects fail. The way it should work is that the people needing a function identify it and then the techies find a way to solve it as good/cheap as possible.
IT is just a utility like everything else, there is no gain in overspending whatsoever. You dont buy 10 ferraris when you need one truck do you?
They dont let companies take whatever they need and then bastardize it. Some people think that all free software should be like Kerberos, bending over handing the lube to the rapist. That way companies can take what they need giving nothing back.
Demanding someone elses work for free is just retarded, especially when you are a company selling your products for a hefty price-tag.
While Microsoft can duck for a while by lowering OEM prices the same thing will happen to the campanies computers down the road. If something starts eating away at the prices of Windows and Office it will hurt Microsoft, badly. This is because even with countless of millions spent they cant seem to make money on anything but the desktop and the office suite. Whatever they touch becomes a sinkhole how ever they go by.
The answer to the eeePC is pretty funny to me, they want to deliver it with XP since Vista is such a resource hog. That does indicate big troubles down the road since a Linux box now does everything a vista box does but faster, including running Windows apps.
Getting paid $800 million i would gladly let Bill Gates rape my company anyday. Asking someone recently given that kind of money what they think is pretty useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Managing a company is also supposed to take care of it in the long run. Making one small onetime financial income at the expense of the company isnt god for the shareholders that are in it for the longer run. You are talking about day-traders and not real investors. A marriage with Microsoft would most surely spell certain doom for Yahoo as a company.
Its also not sure a Microsoft would be allowed to use its monopoly money from the Windows division to create another monopoly in search further on. Google buying Yahoo on the other hand shouldnt be a problem since its only when you use your monopoly in a bad way that US laws come into action or if you use one monopoly to subside taking over an adjecent market.
Shareholder value is not equal to stock value, its about what the company does in the longer run. Stock value is often completely useless as a measurement for how well a company is doing. Look at how long SCO had roaring high stock value? Was their moves good for their shareholders, except for hedgefunds and daytraders and other scum?
Yahoo has acted to continue living and not being bought up and then dismantled quickly after being gutted of its users. A shareholder cant just sue because its board do not favour short onetime gains at the expence of the companys future. If that was the case we would see companys gutting themselves and selling the pieces and totally disregard any possible future incomes down the line from products not yet released to the market.
The problem is that its a big difference between being a copy of Unix and being a copy of a specific unix implementation. While linux in many places conforms to the standards making up Unix 93/95/98/2003 its not a verbatim copy of anybody elses implementation of those standards.
This looks very much like an ongoing effort do mislead people about what Unix really is. Somone should sue for slander since its a very rough accusation. That Novell seems to let this slide makes me very worried about their real intentions.
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html
Say what? I have always had very good experience with HP printers. HP has had excellent support for Linux a very long time. You must be either very new to Linux or trolling. If you are new to the game see the links below.
http://hplip.sourceforge.net/
http://www.linuxprinting.org/printer_list.cgi?make=HP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traf-O-Data
Maybe we should thank heavens that Microsoft went towards the PC world?
"Might I remind you that a lot of the reason computers have been able to advance as quickly as they have is because we have a single majority platform."
Thats the worst load of crap ever uttered in this industry. Most things on the hardware side has been hold back because of Microsofts unwillingness to support new technologies.
If you take your time and compare what was on the market when Microsoft started dominating the x86 platform you will find that first Dos then Windows was long behind the competition. They have always been lagging behind the competition, since day one.
Their saviour was that IBM released their platform into the open because of their problems with the DOJ (ironic isnt it?). They got a hold of a platform that took off like a rocket because of it being open and managed to lock down the software side of it. Had IBM held onto x86 Microsoft as we know it would still be making stoplight-software.
I think our software snails along and its development is painfully slow if you look at what happens in labs around the world. Microsoft is just now implementing things in Windows that has been standard in Unix since late 60's. If you think thats fast meet my lawn, enjoy watching it grow!
It all works just wonderful except for one little detail. It all demands your organization works just as Microsofts products are designed. As soon as you try to change something you are in for a world of hurt and all the nice "plugging in" becomes a real nightmare.
if you add up what Exchange/Outlook/Sharepoint costs and multiply it with your users you can have a tailormade solution adapted to your companys needs instead of trying to turn your organization around on a dime and start working the MS way (tm). Its a one-size fits all solution that Microsoft sells.
Microsofts solution also demands a hefty number of it and support staff to keep it all running.
I dont know, there are a wealth of options for collaborating on Linux. Zimbra, Novell Teaming+Conferencing, Groupwise, Google Apps and all the various open source projects out there. The choices are pretty endless with both very mature products and cutting edge stuff in all priceranges. IBM adds something for the nervous enterprise CIO who wants someone to blame when things gets b0rked.
I cant think of any drawbacks in having much work in linux going into improving linux under heavy workloads. This benefits the desktop user just as much, especially with all the multicore cpus coming out.
Linux on dekstops is getting much attention in the kernel, its just not that visible to the user. The performance gain to be had from tailoring the kernel is very small compared to the gains to be had in userspace applications. Performance hogs like nautilus, openoffice, mono-apps and firefox will only improve some percent by work on the kernel while much greater performance gains can be had by targeting those applications directly in their own code.
This is actually what first came into my mind when i saw UAC. The only function it has is put all the security decisions onto the user. That way whatever stupid thing Vista does Microsoft can always blame the user.
This also makes their security stats better on paper since for most exploits the user has to click yes.
A monopoly cant use money gained from their monopoly to extend into other markets by force. If Microsoft uses money from their Office/Windows monopoly to kill google they can be charged. Its perfectly sufficiant to have a monopoly, it do not have to be in the market you are trying to overtake.
I would not be surprised to see the EU take a hard look at this. The US not so much until change of government, current administration tends to look at laws as something very bendable.
This isnt as bad as it looks. The bank puts the blame on the user for having an unsecured os. That person in turn should put the blame on his operating systems supplier.
The problem here is that software today is sold without any warrant at all, not even functionality. In the eye of the law you've just bought a book/movie. This should be changed so software is threated as any other goods. Only then will quality and security of software start to rise.
The ISO organization has just made themselves irrelevant for the future. Any serious company that wants their new idea standardized will take it elsewhere. ISO is just an empty marketing shell for those who wish to buy a "standard" on paper.
Microsoft have changed their driver model because of all the DRM that has gone into Vista. One part of that driver model kills any driver that can even remotely result in giving up secured content. Most of the stability problems are a direct result of this killswitch and other DRM idiocy. The reason the certified drivers work much worse than the drivers from the vendor is that the vendor drivers have many of theese things turned off or worked around. Anyone interested can read about this and other crap that DRM in Vista is a direct result of, like file copying. Just look it up at microsoft.com, its a pretty horrid reading.
DRM suck in any way possible and evidently also brings endless troubles for all the parties involved.
I guess you don't read that many books? Most books i have read in english have very long sentences. Magazines on the other hand seems to be written for people with reading problems.
I guess people with a lack in decoding skills have problems reading long sentences. This is probably because you need to keep the whole sentence in youre head before you can decode it.
I sometimes work in a school enviroment and you can bet they keep me occupied.
The crime is most often hurt feelings and public shame. I do not see a virus, a trojan or such things as that bad of a deal. All they do is point with a very large sign towards some faulty software and says "fix this its insecure as hell".
The error lies in the exploitable system that should be more secure. Hightening the sentences only takes away the bulk but really malicious people will still use them to get access to trade, state and research secrets. The faulty systems will continue to be computerized swizz cheese.
"Application security, virtualization security and the fact that over half of computer attacks seen by Microsoft come from the .edu domain are just some of the things keeping him up at night."
As a user of said computers/servers i much prefer a scripthappy student whimsing around my systems alerting me about security issues. What do worries me are govt founded hackers stealing sensitive information, research and other secrets leaving no n00b traces for me to discover. Its not the actual breakin that worries me but what the perpetrator do thats an issue. If someone breaks in but does no harm i can live with that. My feelings may get hurt but the company is ok atleast.
An application/OS vendor ofcourse prefer the stealth hacker since the student hacker brings into attention all the various security issues with their products and makes people look for other options. Many vendors prefer a company being hacked to pieces before letting an exploit being known publicly. Microsofts own exploit policy is a very telling sign of this. As long as an exploit isnt used extensively its not going to get patched regardless of how many systems are exploitable. That worries me at night...
Unlike Apple or Google Microsoft did not startup as a snowwhite company ran by angels. From day one Microsofts history is littered with corps all over their road to monopoly. It was built around a knock off CP/M clone that would have been sued out of existence would it happen today. Their history is littered with broken laws, broken agreements and a total disregard for right or wrong.
To place companies like Apple or Google in a group with Microsoft is an enormous insult against them. If Apple had done business like Microsoft does they would no doubt have ruled the PC computing space now. Their biggest "mistake" was that they did not behaive like MS and took the high road. They did a faulty assesement about the laws in the US and did not break them while MS have broken many of them and not suffered more than a slap on the wrist.
This guy must have been living under a rock for the last 15 years.
I love linux because its so transparent. Im an avid Windows user and work mostly with Windows machines but i cant stop admiring the complete transparacy of Linux. While an error in Windows usually demands a reinstall and the logs tell me absolutely nothing in Linux i can actually find the culprit and mend the error in a very short time.
I dont know how other people works. Myself i dont even notice if i watch a movie in DVD, divx, HD or on a movie theather. Its the story thats important and thats where Hollywood has the poorest performance.
There's no magic in IT. You identify what you need and then implement it. If it doesnt give a significant gain in productivity its not worth dealing with.
Most CIO's and techies tends to look at a new system and then start figuring out where it fits the organization. Thats completely screwed up and is the biggest reason why so many projects fail. The way it should work is that the people needing a function identify it and then the techies find a way to solve it as good/cheap as possible.
IT is just a utility like everything else, there is no gain in overspending whatsoever. You dont buy 10 ferraris when you need one truck do you?
They dont let companies take whatever they need and then bastardize it. Some people think that all free software should be like Kerberos, bending over handing the lube to the rapist. That way companies can take what they need giving nothing back.
Demanding someone elses work for free is just retarded, especially when you are a company selling your products for a hefty price-tag.
While Microsoft can duck for a while by lowering OEM prices the same thing will happen to the campanies computers down the road. If something starts eating away at the prices of Windows and Office it will hurt Microsoft, badly. This is because even with countless of millions spent they cant seem to make money on anything but the desktop and the office suite. Whatever they touch becomes a sinkhole how ever they go by.
The answer to the eeePC is pretty funny to me, they want to deliver it with XP since Vista is such a resource hog. That does indicate big troubles down the road since a Linux box now does everything a vista box does but faster, including running Windows apps.
Getting paid $800 million i would gladly let Bill Gates rape my company anyday. Asking someone recently given that kind of money what they think is pretty useless.
The real problem is that Microsoft has released the Windows version of a gaming console. No amount of service can make up for that.