I'm not arguing about the IE case, an issue which has already been decided by the court, and which took a very long time to conclude abuse (or harmfulness) or not. The statement the statement: using a monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas is illegal (paraphrase for clarify) is clearly not true, because it implies all cases.
For example: It is obvious that if you dominate the software Word-processing market and then decide to supply a built-in thesaurus, you are knowingly creating a monopoly in an adjacent market.
You said "Entering adjacent and related markets *is* watched closely" actually backs up what I said. It is not automatically illegal to create a monopoly by entering similar or adjacent markets.
It is not illegal to create a new monopoly from a prior monopoly as you sought to imply in you previous post.
You stated: Monopolies are not illegal. using a monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas is
If this were true then any product or company having a monopoly would automatically be prevented from adding capabilities or entering adjacent and related markets.
----
With or without a comma i'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand that 'NO' in this context is a substitute for "You are wrong" as:
1980s WordPerfect is the leading word processor software when most PCs ran character-based operating systems such as MS-DOS and DR DOS.
1985 Microsoft introduced early versions of Windows® with a graphical user interface (GUI).
WordPerfect for several reasons decided not to write a version of its product for Windows, and deliberately delaying writing software for Windows as way of trying to hurt Microsoft.
"We didn't write for Windows" because" we were rooting for anybody but Microsoft to win." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, March 2002 deposition
WordPerfect believed that "the impending GUI revolution would take some time to catch on." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, Almost Perfect, 1994
"Just when we were winning decisively in the DOS word processing market, the word processing world wanted Windows." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, Almost Perfect, 1994
November 1991 WordPerfect released its first Windows word processor, 18 months after Microsoft released Windows 3.0 and never fully recovered from this late start.
March 21, 1994 Novell announces that it's buying WordPerfect
March 22, 1994 Novell's stock declined by more than 15 percent.
In conjunction with the WordPerfect purchase, Novell also purchased the Quattro Pro spreadsheet application from Borland and planned to continue WordPerfect's and Borland's established practice of marketing the products together. (Consumers by this time were seeking product "suites.") This package, consisting of products from two companies, lacked key features offered by competing suites from Microsoft and Lotus and never gained a following with consumers.
1994-1996 Novell failed to successfully merge WordPerfect and Novell, failed to create a competitive application suite from the separate applications it acquired, and failed to recognize the importance of investing in sales and support teams in this market. Many former WordPerfect executives and employees left the company.
March 1996 Novell announces it's selling WordPerfect and Quattro Pro to Corel for approximately one-eighth of what Novell paid for it only 20 months earlier.
Previous press reports state that WordPerfect and Quattro Pro are for sale, and discusses management failures, including the inability to merge the two companies' cultures and failure to develop a WordPerfect sales force. One newspaper notes that sale includes "none" of WordPerfect's senior executives and only about 1/3 of its employees.
November 1996 Novell "did not understand the desktop applications business." International Data Corp., "PC Office Suite, Word Processor and Spreadsheet Markets Review and Forecast," 1995-2000
A number of the items you called applications are infact "libraries" which are used by applications and are quite fundamental to making your application work and making your computer useful.
What i mean is Xfree86 a GUI, CUPS - printing, libxml2, kdelibs, libtiff... none of these things are not required on linux which is fine. But it would be ridiculous if their equivalent were missing in say OSX.
Actually there was a buffer overflow reported recently in apache. It just wasn't reported that much. Similarly there was a second.png and xml exploit about two weeks ago affecting many applications, including those mentioned here.
My point is that somethings are reported more widely than others. You can speculate about why.
However - If your really interested in security, then its a good idea subcribe to security mailing lists like those hosted at security focus or zone-h. Or even a Full-Disclosure list.
Interestingly you appear to be running Apache 2.0.49 on your website at http://www.sheepdot.org/.
Now Apache 2.0.49 is currently associated with 9 security vulnerabilities some which allow attackers to run arbitrary code on your server; you are also running PHP 4.3.6 on your website, which is associated with 6 vulnerabilities some of which allow attackers to run arbitrary code on your server.
Let me explain why I mentioned this, you are criticizing MessageLabs for running ASP and IIS. I agree that MessageLabs are "media-whoring" but so are you, by pontificating about security when you are clearly not on the ball with your own.
It should be noted that Windows Scripting Host and "Certain ActiveX controls" have to be downloaded and installed manually and configured by the administrator, and are not installed and configured by default.
Thats why this is classified as extremely low risk. It is simply a demonstration (concept) of a method of spoofing a website by modifying the host files.
if you actually read the ariticle you will see that he didn't say what you Micheal thought he said.
Zdnet said: "One way to stem piracy is to offer consumers in emerging countries a low-cost PC"
which was magically derived from the ballmer quote: "There has to be...a $100 computer to go down-market in some of these countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter and cheaper"
There are a number of reasons why gates does not consider the Mac OS as importantly as Linux.
* Apple market share has fallen every year in the last 10 years. This is because while sales have remained steady, everyone else in the business has seen considerable growth.
* Apple has no presence in India and China.
* The iPod of which apple has sold approximatly 3 million devices todate is the only reason Apple posts a profit. Its PC business does not appear to be a great success.
That is pretty funny, isn't it. I mean, Linux has met or surpassed NT in all of these areas in spite of the fact that Microsoft was shipping a "production-quality" NT when Linux was barely functional.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is Microsoft will pay the patent bill. Without such a guarantee then user is also potentially liable to pay damages...
Indeed.
and Ballmers point was also a about liability not the numbers anyway...
yes. but the unspoken assuption just happens to unfortuantly be the 'concreate reality'.
I'm not arguing about the IE case, an issue which has already been decided by the court, and which took a very long time to conclude abuse (or harmfulness) or not. The statement the statement: using a monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas is illegal (paraphrase for clarify) is clearly not true, because it implies all cases.
For example: It is obvious that if you dominate the software Word-processing market and then decide to supply a built-in thesaurus, you are knowingly creating a monopoly in an adjacent market.
You said "Entering adjacent and related markets *is* watched closely" actually backs up what I said. It is not automatically illegal to create a monopoly by entering similar or adjacent markets.
It is not illegal to create a new monopoly from a prior monopoly as you sought to imply in you previous post.
You stated: Monopolies are not illegal. using a monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas is
If this were true then any product or company having a monopoly would automatically be prevented from adding capabilities or entering adjacent and related markets.
----
With or without a comma i'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand that 'NO' in this context is a substitute for "You are wrong" as:
You are wrong, microsoft was found guilty...
or
No, microsoft was found guilty...
Monopolies are not illegal. using a monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas is.
No microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly position because of the bundling Internet Explorer.
WordPerfect History::
November 2004
1980s WordPerfect is the leading word processor software when most PCs ran character-based operating systems such as MS-DOS and DR DOS.
1985 Microsoft introduced early versions of Windows® with a graphical user interface (GUI).
WordPerfect for several reasons decided not to write a version of its product for Windows, and deliberately delaying writing software for Windows as way of trying to hurt Microsoft.
"We didn't write for Windows" because" we were rooting for anybody but Microsoft to win." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, March 2002 deposition
WordPerfect believed that "the impending GUI revolution would take some time to catch on." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, Almost Perfect, 1994
"Just when we were winning decisively in the DOS word processing market, the word processing world wanted Windows." WordPerfect co-founder W.E. "Pete" Pederson, Almost Perfect, 1994
November 1991 WordPerfect released its first Windows word processor, 18 months after Microsoft released Windows 3.0 and never fully recovered from this late start.
March 21, 1994 Novell announces that it's buying WordPerfect
March 22, 1994 Novell's stock declined by more than 15 percent.
In conjunction with the WordPerfect purchase, Novell also purchased the Quattro Pro spreadsheet application from Borland and planned to continue WordPerfect's and Borland's established practice of marketing the products together. (Consumers by this time were seeking product "suites.") This package, consisting of products from two companies, lacked key features offered by competing suites from Microsoft and Lotus and never gained a following with consumers.
1994-1996 Novell failed to successfully merge WordPerfect and Novell, failed to create a competitive application suite from the separate applications it acquired, and failed to recognize the importance of investing in sales and support teams in this market. Many former WordPerfect executives and employees left the company.
March 1996 Novell announces it's selling WordPerfect and Quattro Pro to Corel for approximately one-eighth of what Novell paid for it only 20 months earlier.
Previous press reports state that WordPerfect and Quattro Pro are for sale, and discusses management failures, including the inability to merge the two companies' cultures and failure to develop a WordPerfect sales force. One newspaper notes that sale includes "none" of WordPerfect's senior executives and only about 1/3 of its employees.
November 1996 Novell "did not understand the desktop applications business." International Data Corp., "PC Office Suite, Word Processor and Spreadsheet Markets Review and Forecast," 1995-2000
libtiff looks pretty scary too, and Xfree86 errr and CUPS ... i think you missed the point, its about people living in glass houses ...
A number of the items you called applications are infact "libraries" which are used by applications and are quite fundamental to making your application work and making your computer useful.
What i mean is Xfree86 a GUI, CUPS - printing, libxml2, kdelibs, libtiff
Actually there was a buffer overflow reported recently in apache. It just wasn't reported that much. Similarly there was a second .png and xml exploit about two weeks ago affecting many applications, including those mentioned here.
My point is that somethings are reported more widely than others. You can speculate about why.
However - If your really interested in security, then its a good idea subcribe to security mailing lists like those hosted at security focus or zone-h. Or even a Full-Disclosure list.
Interestingly you appear to be running Apache 2.0.49 on your website at http://www.sheepdot.org/.
Now Apache 2.0.49 is currently associated with 9 security vulnerabilities some which allow attackers to run arbitrary code on your server; you are also running PHP 4.3.6 on your website, which is associated with 6 vulnerabilities some of which allow attackers to run arbitrary code on your server.
Let me explain why I mentioned this, you are criticizing MessageLabs for running ASP and IIS. I agree that MessageLabs are "media-whoring" but so are you, by pontificating about security when you are clearly not on the ball with your own.
It should be noted that Windows Scripting Host and "Certain ActiveX controls" have to be downloaded and installed manually and configured by the administrator, and are not installed and configured by default.
Thats why this is classified as extremely low risk. It is simply a demonstration (concept) of a method of spoofing a website by modifying the host files.
That didn't work in my 1.0PR (Win) but this did:
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" onclick="location.href='http://www.google.com/';
return false"> ...
http://www.microsoft.com
</a>
if you actually read the ariticle you will see that he didn't say what you Micheal thought he said.
Zdnet said: "One way to stem piracy is to offer consumers in emerging countries a low-cost PC"
which was magically derived from the ballmer quote: "There has to be...a $100 computer to go down-market in some of these countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter and cheaper"
I doesn't matter how you want to spin, you still end with someone else reading your mail.
The third party in this case is the other users of your computer. Two major reasons for having multiple logins are for 1. Personalization 2. Privacy.
Whenever a user logs on their searchable data is indexed and _copied_ into a single google cache/database which it then makes availiable to all users.
This makes it trivial for any user of that machine to read/spy on your email, documents, and web pages that you've visited.
Its quite simple really.
I think u missunderstood the problem. The Google Search make copies of all users seacrhable data in a single/global database ( cahche ).
This means whenever a user logs on their data is indexed and _copied_ into the google cache making it availiable to all users.
It has nothing to do with NTFS or the FileSystem.
There are a number of reasons why gates does not consider the Mac OS as importantly as Linux.
* Apple market share has fallen every year in the last 10 years. This is because while sales have remained steady, everyone else in the business has seen considerable growth.
* Apple has no presence in India and China.
* The iPod of which apple has sold approximatly 3 million devices todate is the only reason Apple posts a profit. Its PC business does not appear to be a great success.
As another poster pointed out, Microsoft didn't actually write the vulnerable jpg code.
They used the OpenSource implementation by IJG
1GB is still bigger than 250mb.
Bah!!! 250 GB is bigger than 1GB.
Go! Maxtor MaXLine Plus II 250GB SATA 8MB Cache - (HD-021-MD)
Please read! it was speculation on the part of CowboyNeal that the accounts were being updated in chronological order.
Some related exploits.
Windows JPEG: Windows JPEG Processing Buffer Overrun PoC Exploit (MS04-028)
Qt BMP: Qt 3.x bmp image parsing local buffer overflow Exploit
XV BMP XV v3.x bmp parsing local buffer overflow Exploit
GV Postscript: GV PostScript Viewer Remote Buffer overflow Exploit
LibPNG: LibPNG Graphics Library Remote Buffer Overflow Exploit
Technically it was fixed a month+ ago with SP2. But i understand your point...
Linux Implements O(1) Sheduler
Does NT have one?
* Yes NT debuted with an O(1) Scheduler: WIN499 - Windows vs Linux: A tale of two kernels
* Here is an interesting thread on the topic of Security Models: SELinux & Windows Security Comparison
That is pretty funny, isn't it. I mean, Linux has met or surpassed NT in all of these areas in spite of the fact that Microsoft was shipping a "production-quality" NT when Linux was barely functional.
Well, thats a nice proposition.