The article paints the picture incorrectly. MS is not turning off inernet activation for all reinstalls, as the article suggests. It is not even turning off all reinstalls for OEM versions. It is flagging ranges of installation from large OEMS that were sold in the past from reinstalling with out a phone call. Things you buy in the future are not effected. Only reinstallations of Xp products, sold in the past, by large OEMS, with large license groups.
The point isn't that MS will write the drivers, it's that MS could provide the layer to manage the drivers with it's driver layer. Not create the drivers themselves. Right now, new driver installation on a linux platform is messy, text driven and knowledge driven. Any dummy can run MS's plug and play, even if it doesn't always work as expected. People don't seem willing to 'do it themselves' as Linux requires now.
Granted, half of the problems I take care of on people's Windows machines are driver issues. But that is only saying that these people already cannot use the existing windows GUI to point to the right driver. What makes you think these people are going to install one from a command line? They aren't. For a knowledgable user of Li nux, it's not an issue. But the other 95% of the people out there couldn't do it if they had to.
Who said anything about emulation? It's a matter of marraiging Linux with the driver layer in windows. Not emulating Linux. The package would be attractive to those people who want Linux, but also want some ease of installation of new hardware. There is no way to argue that Linux has a better method of new hardware installation, it doesn't existing. That's what Dovark is saying MS could bring to the table.
The article did not state that the drivers are free. The point of the article is to show how the plug and play portion of Windows, the driver layer, can be seperated and attached to a linux build, supplying the linux package with a part that is sorely missing right now. It's the layer that attaches drivers to the OS, not the drivers themselves.
I thought there was an article several months ago that stated that Microsoft had been awarded a patent for transmitting data signals through the body? Am I wrong?
All that really says is that the foundation is secure. It doesn't say that Windows will be free from succesful attacks or that Linux will not.
Try this analogy on, If you buy both Porsche and a dodge neon. Park them both on a city street and leave them overnight, unattended. Which one is most likely to get stolen? Anyone with common sense says the Porsche. But the Porsche has a much better security system than the neon has. But gosh, nobody want the neon either, so it doesn't need the over zealous security. Now that's a bit of a stretch for a Windows vs Linux comparison, but it does denote the reason why a Windows server is going to quickly 'become' insecure, while the less secure Linux platform is probably going to fine and left alone.
"hey Fred, if we get rid of the big box surrounding these old rear projection tv's, Jack the price way up and call em something fancy, I'll bet we can finally sell these things off"
"Great Idea Barney! Let's call 'em 'Hollow Graphic'. No! No! Wait! I got it Holographic! No one will know the difference!"
"Yea Fred there's a sucker born every minute."
"You got that right Barney. Now lets see what we can think up for all these foam tiles these old tv's came packed in."
"Wait a minute Fred! I already sold those to NASA as shuttle repair kits. You won't believe what they paid me for them!", Fred gives Barney a big High Five.
Someone help me here. I don't understnad why those words from Gates are a bad thing? Isn't that the stance that we all want to see? Is it bad only because it comes from Bill Gates? Why such a derisive article when that IS what we want?
Halo is actually a Bungee game, MS is just the publisher and hasn't the same level of rights. Mechwarrior was not in the Microsoft fold until late in the game and is still a 'Day 1 Studio Title' not MS. I am speaking of Microsoft developed games. Anyone can publish anything and not have any rights to the material. The developer, in most cases reserves those rights. That was the whoopla over Steam/Seirra and Half-Life2. It was news because they gave normally reserved rights to Seirra and it became a big problem in the end for the developer (and the distro).
This site will tell you the difference between an MS published game (not an MS game) and an MS Developed game(definately an MS game). http://palgn.com.au/company.php?id=13
Microsoft seems to have had quite a bit of luck here too. You cannot find walkthroughs or help for a number of their games. Only links to purchase strategy guides come up no matter how you search. ex. Age of Mythology Titans = nothing useful at all.
Slashdot could never post an article saying the product was good. I will concede that there is not a product out there that does the job completely, yet. I have found though, that the MS tool is so far the most comprehensive one of all of them. I haven't had any trouble since it's install. That seems to fly in the face of the author's article to me. Before that I had continual problems. I am not heralding it as a great product, but so far it is the best one I have tried out of the big six. I think the willingness to bash any MS product, regardless of wheter it is true or now is pretty clear here at Slashdot.
I here that as part of Bush's war on terror, he is going to name John Ashcroft in a surpise move to take the filth out of tv. Ashcroft is rumored to have said that as his first target he wants to replace force the broadcasters for Desperate Housewives with a show his church proposes brethern have called Catholic Housewives. Even the Simpsosn will have the reportedly clean up their act by chasing Moe out of town an converting the bar into an evangelical church.
You mean.. everything they say isn't true? Really?! You mean.. they are never going to find WMD in Iraq? You mean they really didn't have a Nuclear program? That's a gastly thing to say! You HAVE to believe everything they tell you! It's not American to believe otherwise!
We have been lied to so much by our own government, I don't see how anyone can put an ounce of credibility in anything that comes out of their mouth anymore, even from this professor so-in-so.
Yes it can! It could save the series and drive me to insanity watching the trek series driven into the ground with this horrible rendition! Death to Enterprise! Make room for something good!
Agreed! Enterprise was a waste of dollars. I would have to argue that DS9 was a really close second. It's only salvation was when they brought the new space ship online, what was it, Defender or defiance or something like that. That was cool and they should have taken another show off that thing. The 'ear-ring people' they could have lost at anytime as they were plain stupid. They added no value to the show and actually detracted from it in my eyes.
The xindi premice was good, the plots were far too drawn out and lack vision and 'cool' appeal. Gene Roddenberry would have turned in his grave. Voyager was a great series coming in second only to TNG, the best of the bunch by far.
Agreed. I am a die hard Star Trek fan. This series sucked. I liked that bad space station version (Deep Space nine, (should have been Deep Six Mine)) better than this one. Heck I kept expecting twiggy (Quantum Leap reference) to show up and Baccula would jump to another reality it was so bad. I think Baccula fit the part well and did a good job, but the premice was bad and the scripting was worse.
That's a statement made in ignorance. It's a better statement to make that no one has done it yet, not that it can't be done. Trust me it can. Secondly, If I trust my brother and I want to share with him freely, I should be allowed to do so in some way. I should be able to unlock my front door and let him in. Not make him crawl through the half opened window.
Amen! Sanity at last! I am glad to see some people place some common sense to issues.
Active X still has it's place. It is an extremely strong toolset that in the wrong hands can wreck havoc on someone else's machine. It can also solve some overwhelming problems within a corporate infrastructure in the right hands. The real problem here is that the browser is so insecure by default. I mean that literally. Install a fresh copy of Internet Explorer on a machine, the first thing you better do is tighten up the security settings, or you are bound for trouble. It should not ever ship with the low security settings. It should start high and allow the user to change them at will.
This is so idiotic. It's like saying, "I can buy these burglar tools that if you leave your front door to your house unlocked, I can steal everything!". Well Duh! God forbit we should be allowed to have tools that can read and write files on the local machine. Perhaps we should outlaw them and allow only those bless by some all seeing government offical to have access to them.
The problem isn't with how powerful the tools are or can be, it's how weak and insecure the person's machine is at the other end. The real vulnerability here lies in the browser's (Internet Explorer) default settings. It should have never been placed on the market with it's default settings set to allow full access to someone else's machine. That was a complete fumble and screwup on MS's part. I don't want to see the tools blamed for a problem with the browser and the local machine's default security settings. Some of us need hose powerful tools to do our job on a corporate level on the corporate infrastructure. In the right hands, they are indispensible.
Slashdot Mirror
The article paints the picture incorrectly. MS is not turning off inernet activation for all reinstalls, as the article suggests. It is not even turning off all reinstalls for OEM versions. It is flagging ranges of installation from large OEMS that were sold in the past from reinstalling with out a phone call. Things you buy in the future are not effected. Only reinstallations of Xp products, sold in the past, by large OEMS, with large license groups.
The point isn't that MS will write the drivers, it's that MS could provide the layer to manage the drivers with it's driver layer. Not create the drivers themselves. Right now, new driver installation on a linux platform is messy, text driven and knowledge driven. Any dummy can run MS's plug and play, even if it doesn't always work as expected. People don't seem willing to 'do it themselves' as Linux requires now.
Granted, half of the problems I take care of on people's Windows machines are driver issues. But that is only saying that these people already cannot use the existing windows GUI to point to the right driver. What makes you think these people are going to install one from a command line? They aren't. For a knowledgable user of Li nux, it's not an issue. But the other 95% of the people out there couldn't do it if they had to.
Who said anything about emulation? It's a matter of marraiging Linux with the driver layer in windows. Not emulating Linux. The package would be attractive to those people who want Linux, but also want some ease of installation of new hardware. There is no way to argue that Linux has a better method of new hardware installation, it doesn't existing. That's what Dovark is saying MS could bring to the table.
The article did not state that the drivers are free. The point of the article is to show how the plug and play portion of Windows, the driver layer, can be seperated and attached to a linux build, supplying the linux package with a part that is sorely missing right now. It's the layer that attaches drivers to the OS, not the drivers themselves.
Do get me wrong here. Interix is a good product, but it doesn't fit the bill as Dovark is talking about. It's about a half step there.
Secondly, Apple IS dropping firewire, They (Apple) stated that they are going to USB 2. That's not unbundling, thats dropping.
I thought there was an article several months ago that stated that Microsoft had been awarded a patent for transmitting data signals through the body? Am I wrong?
It would be a lot more fun to control a monkey with my robot arm.
All that really says is that the foundation is secure. It doesn't say that Windows will be free from succesful attacks or that Linux will not.
Try this analogy on, If you buy both Porsche and a dodge neon. Park them both on a city street and leave them overnight, unattended. Which one is most likely to get stolen? Anyone with common sense says the Porsche. But the Porsche has a much better security system than the neon has. But gosh, nobody want the neon either, so it doesn't need the over zealous security. Now that's a bit of a stretch for a Windows vs Linux comparison, but it does denote the reason why a Windows server is going to quickly 'become' insecure, while the less secure Linux platform is probably going to fine and left alone.
"hey Fred, if we get rid of the big box surrounding these old rear projection tv's, Jack the price way up and call em something fancy, I'll bet we can finally sell these things off"
"Great Idea Barney! Let's call 'em 'Hollow Graphic'. No! No! Wait! I got it Holographic! No one will know the difference!"
"Yea Fred there's a sucker born every minute."
"You got that right Barney. Now lets see what we can think up for all these foam tiles these old tv's came packed in."
"Wait a minute Fred! I already sold those to NASA as shuttle repair kits. You won't believe what they paid me for them!", Fred gives Barney a big High Five.
Someone help me here. I don't understnad why those words from Gates are a bad thing? Isn't that the stance that we all want to see? Is it bad only because it comes from Bill Gates? Why such a derisive article when that IS what we want?
Halo is actually a Bungee game, MS is just the publisher and hasn't the same level of rights. Mechwarrior was not in the Microsoft fold until late in the game and is still a 'Day 1 Studio Title' not MS. I am speaking of Microsoft developed games. Anyone can publish anything and not have any rights to the material. The developer, in most cases reserves those rights. That was the whoopla over Steam/Seirra and Half-Life2. It was news because they gave normally reserved rights to Seirra and it became a big problem in the end for the developer (and the distro).
This site will tell you the difference between an MS published game (not an MS game) and an MS Developed game(definately an MS game). http://palgn.com.au/company.php?id=13
Microsoft seems to have had quite a bit of luck here too. You cannot find walkthroughs or help for a number of their games. Only links to purchase strategy guides come up no matter how you search. ex. Age of Mythology Titans = nothing useful at all.
Slashdot could never post an article saying the product was good. I will concede that there is not a product out there that does the job completely, yet. I have found though, that the MS tool is so far the most comprehensive one of all of them. I haven't had any trouble since it's install. That seems to fly in the face of the author's article to me. Before that I had continual problems. I am not heralding it as a great product, but so far it is the best one I have tried out of the big six. I think the willingness to bash any MS product, regardless of wheter it is true or now is pretty clear here at Slashdot.
I here that as part of Bush's war on terror, he is going to name John Ashcroft in a surpise move to take the filth out of tv. Ashcroft is rumored to have said that as his first target he wants to replace force the broadcasters for Desperate Housewives with a show his church proposes brethern have called Catholic Housewives. Even the Simpsosn will have the reportedly clean up their act by chasing Moe out of town an converting the bar into an evangelical church.
You mean.. everything they say isn't true? Really?! You mean.. they are never going to find WMD in Iraq? You mean they really didn't have a Nuclear program? That's a gastly thing to say! You HAVE to believe everything they tell you! It's not American to believe otherwise!
We have been lied to so much by our own government, I don't see how anyone can put an ounce of credibility in anything that comes out of their mouth anymore, even from this professor so-in-so.
That explains why ebay just doubled all of it's fees. The had to pay for their rockets! Perhaps if they bought them off ebay instead...
Yes it can! It could save the series and drive me to insanity watching the trek series driven into the ground with this horrible rendition! Death to Enterprise! Make room for something good!
Agreed! Enterprise was a waste of dollars. I would have to argue that DS9 was a really close second. It's only salvation was when they brought the new space ship online, what was it, Defender or defiance or something like that. That was cool and they should have taken another show off that thing. The 'ear-ring people' they could have lost at anytime as they were plain stupid. They added no value to the show and actually detracted from it in my eyes.
The xindi premice was good, the plots were far too drawn out and lack vision and 'cool' appeal. Gene Roddenberry would have turned in his grave. Voyager was a great series coming in second only to TNG, the best of the bunch by far.
I loved Connections! That was a real cool show. To bad people don't like their history I guess. I had to have higher ratings than Enterprise.
Agreed. I am a die hard Star Trek fan. This series sucked. I liked that bad space station version (Deep Space nine, (should have been Deep Six Mine)) better than this one. Heck I kept expecting twiggy (Quantum Leap reference) to show up and Baccula would jump to another reality it was so bad. I think Baccula fit the part well and did a good job, but the premice was bad and the scripting was worse.
The link takes me to a site that says, no nude pictures of Bill Gates here. Pretty lame post if you ask me.
That's a statement made in ignorance. It's a better statement to make that no one has done it yet, not that it can't be done. Trust me it can. Secondly, If I trust my brother and I want to share with him freely, I should be allowed to do so in some way. I should be able to unlock my front door and let him in. Not make him crawl through the half opened window.
Amen! Sanity at last! I am glad to see some people place some common sense to issues.
Active X still has it's place. It is an extremely strong toolset that in the wrong hands can wreck havoc on someone else's machine. It can also solve some overwhelming problems within a corporate infrastructure in the right hands. The real problem here is that the browser is so insecure by default. I mean that literally. Install a fresh copy of Internet Explorer on a machine, the first thing you better do is tighten up the security settings, or you are bound for trouble. It should not ever ship with the low security settings. It should start high and allow the user to change them at will.
This is so idiotic. It's like saying, "I can buy these burglar tools that if you leave your front door to your house unlocked, I can steal everything!". Well Duh! God forbit we should be allowed to have tools that can read and write files on the local machine. Perhaps we should outlaw them and allow only those bless by some all seeing government offical to have access to them.
The problem isn't with how powerful the tools are or can be, it's how weak and insecure the person's machine is at the other end. The real vulnerability here lies in the browser's (Internet Explorer) default settings. It should have never been placed on the market with it's default settings set to allow full access to someone else's machine. That was a complete fumble and screwup on MS's part. I don't want to see the tools blamed for a problem with the browser and the local machine's default security settings. Some of us need hose powerful tools to do our job on a corporate level on the corporate infrastructure. In the right hands, they are indispensible.
Help my robot is infested with fleas!