Well, in my case I already did the troubleshooting and was calling for a replacement part. But the phone support guys want me to do their troubleshooting, making me repeat something which was already done (by me). So they can either accept my word for it, or wait on hold while I pretend to be doing what they ask.
Also, we get a different level of on-site support than Joe Homeuser gets. Im sure you didnt talk to people like me, because I actually know what Im doing. As far as troubleshooting and experience goes, Im way overqualified for a phone support job.
You're kind of cheating there by disregarding the restarts due to necessary patches. Sure, your average linux distribution needs to be patches once in a while as well, but rarely (kernel) to the point of having to reboot everything. Simply rebooting NT will actually solve a lot of problems because every dinky piece of software running on it will be started anew, and memory leaks, stalled/locked/deadlocked software and such disappear..
Im really tired of hearing this. You need to reboot the OS after you apply patches, so get over it. In a few years they will be making no-reboot patches, but for now, thats the way it is. Find another dead horse to beat.
Still, Microsoft understands very well that as long as it's scheduled downtime, nobody cares about it, as it's after hours.. And, most people don't realize this, but 99% uptime means 14.4 minutes of downtime every 24 hours. If you save that up over a month (an attainable uptime even with NT 4.0) you get over 7 hours to go down at your choosing.. And if High Availability actually matters to you, they'll gladly charge you for it.
My servers are down far less than 7 hours a month. If it is three I would be amazed.
BTW a lot of patches that tell you to reboot don't actually need the system to reboot.. Simply stopping and restarting some services will do nicely if that's even needed at all - just like most patches on linux or a BSD. It seems to me that Microsoft views the "forced reboot" as a maintenance chore, much like defragging your hard disk.. Software installs will often prompt you to reboot as well - even though it's totally unnecessary.
This is true as long as it isnt modifying dll files or other components which need to stay in memory. In that case, it needs to change the files during restart. A little knowledge of the system processes goes a long way. But anyhow, Im a follow the instructions kind of guy. If recipe says bake at 450 degrees for 30 minutes, I bake at 450 for 30. If they say to restart, I restart.
From the article: These ultra-inexpensive machines, from no-name importers such as... Apex... Apex? A no-name? Ok, this guy is an idiot, and obviously know nothing about electronics.
You dont put a linux machine on the internet, naked to the world, do you? No, you set up a firewall, and/or you have it running behind something running a firewall and NAT.
System management is about managing your systems. You use each piece to do what it does, and use other pieces to do what they do. Its not about sticking your head in the sand and thinking your ub3r-boxen is a do-everthing swiss army knife.
And no, I wasnt vulnerable to that remote RPC stuff (as you so eloquently put it), because my systems are up to date on their patches, and because they are protected behind a firewall. I talk more about my network here. But honestly, you are way trolling. Either that, or you just dont know what you are talking about. Or both, because they arent mutually exclusive.
What do I do on my network? I experiment with things which I do not want to try in a production, corporate environment. I have an active directory, exchange 2000, I play with profile settings, and also test my network security. I also have IIS and an outlook web page (OWA on exchange). Pretty soon I am going to test out different conversions with Win2003 and Exchange 2003, Im just waiting on getting licenses and media for them.
As far as home networks go, this is a very high tech one, and is often set up far better than places I work at.
BTW, I have Windows NT servers with over a year of uptime, excluding time spent afterhours applying updates (which you can bitch about all you want, but the fact remains that MS doesnt have no reboot patches), and I have Win2k servers with at least that long. A month uptime is long? No way, only a month of uptime is weak, and there is either a hardware issue, a third-party driver issue, or caused by a non-MS program you are running. So can a Windows box run for over a year without crashing? Hell ya. Easily.
But as for using Windows as a router or whatever, no, I wouldnt do that because it isnt what Windows was designed to do. I use routers for routers.
Each client runs Zone Alarm for a firewall, McAfee Virus scanner (which I like because it can be set to fetch its own updates), and Ad-Aware (I would like to get the version that runs and updates itself, but at the moment there are other things to spend money on). I used to use History Kill to block pop-ups, but now I use the Google Toolbar, because its both free, and because I used it before as well. Its always good to eliminate the amount of applications which are installed, and HK was also kind of buggy and caused the computer to lock up (I believe there was a memory leak).
This guy is MAJORLY padding his results. For those who dont want to RTFA, here are some choice quotes-
Repair #3 -- summary: Windows XP security updates -- time spent: 1 hour
Repair #4 -- summary: Another Windows XP security update -- time spent: 20 minutes
Repair #5 -- summary: Microsoft Outlook crashes about once a week, but cannot update it -- time spent (in December): 1 hour
Repair #9 -- summary: Random application crashes that we all experience -- time spent in a typical month recovering from them: 30 minutes
Repair #21 -- summary: Time Warner Internet blackout -- time spent: 30 minutes (blackout lasted 8 hours)So there are some other ones (like his PC-cilin problems, the CNET download manager, etc) which were really problems caused by neglecting his PC (rather than doing 'routine maintenence' and resolving issues before they become problems). But the case is, in the examples cited above, he 'spent' 3 hours and twenty minutes doing things which either are/ can be automated, or else werent really 'fixed' by him (like the blackout! was he out there helping Time Warner get things resolved? No? Then what exactly did he do during that half hour?)
Well, he made the page at Slashdot, so I guess his sensationalism worked. But if this guy were a consultant, I would accuse him of padding his bill, big time.
Here is a tip(because I've used this many times)- If you have on-site support, dont have them tell you to try this and that. That isnt YOUR job. Tell them firmly that you have on-site support, and they need to send somebody out.
Just for some background, I work in corporate IT, and generally end up doing things nobody else can do. So I spend a lot of time on the phone and internet with vendor support.
If you have a catch-all service like on-site, use it! Dont let them push the problem back at you.
I spend very little time with problems on my network. I cite having a very simple, yet intelligent, design as the key.
Thinking back to my support problems, the only recurring issue is on my roommate's PC, which has a flakey WLAN card. I also have to occasionally reboot my cable modem and the router, but I chalk that up to consumer grade hardware.
Thus, 90% of my problems are hardware related, but it doesnt really take very long.
The OS never locks up, the computers dont get viruses or bugs, etc. Oh ya, and I forgot to mention: the entire network runs on Windows 2000.
My point is, if you know what you are doing, and have a smart design, you eliminate almost all of your support issues.
IBM already gets away with just selling the hardware, because you also have to pay fees for the privilege of being allowed to run an operating system on the processors you bought. They also make large amounts of money by providing regular contract support to fix things, not consulting services. If you have a big system you'd be looney not to have support.
You are fogetting the need to spend money supporting their OS, AIX. That was what I was refering to, and ditching support for AIX is why they are embracing Linux.
Think it can't happen to the PC? Think again. "Trusted Computing" as the infrastructure for Digital Rights Management may be the shoehorn for inserting control over the BIOS and all operating systems and applications permitted to run on the PC. Want to run Linux? Sure! Just lease an enabling certificate...
Thats just more of the same paranoid blabering you hear on Slahsdot. As I already said, and which any rational person can see, a mobo vendor like Asus isnt going to license you your motherboard, or the right to run multiple processors on it. People will, as always, vote with their dollars, and thus they would just avoid those kinds of computers.
I dont think anybody wants to see the costs they pay for computers go up, so what (aside from Slashdot's paranoia) makes you think this is the business model of the future?
You can make all the commments you want, but I dont understand how people around here take things as gospel when there is absolutely nothing tangible to back up those opinions.
So your friend develops for IE and then his pages have troubles with browsers that are more standards compliant. It's difficult to work with these people, because they always blame the browser whithout knowing the standards at all.
No, since he works in the real world, he needs to make pages which will display properly on the browser the majority of people will be using. If I cant access my banking information over the internet, I dont give a damn if the page is standards compliant or not, I just want it to work. You may want to bear in mind the experiences of your target audience the next time you design something; it will probably help you be successful.
You are also claiming that he blames his problems on the browser. No, he blames it on things working or not working. If he cant get something to display correctly without essentially writing everything over again for each browser, how standards compliant is that? The fact of the matter is that IE just displays things with less problems. Because once again, MS is focused on the experiences of businesses and their clients, whereas other groups are just trying to do something cool and different. Its a different mindset, but things have to get done, so MS is the company to go with.
I use a different approach: first I read the standards, then I check which parts of it are supported by all the browsers that I have to support. So the core of the problem is that the two types of developers simply have different values and world views. Naturally, I think that mine is better.
Thats why your stuff doesnt work on IE, because you are too focused on what you read rather than on what actaully happens. Nice world view, I hope it works out really well for ya.
Anyway, I dont really care to debate semantics. You admit your stuff doesnt work right on IE, and my friends does. I view him as the better, because his clients will have happy customers (for the most part. I guess people who seek to define themselves through their choice of browsers may have problems, but they are a small minority).
I posted elsewhere in this thread, but anyway- I would like a one-handed controller myself. Not that Im disabled: it would let me play console games while running on a treadmill.
I also read somewhere that dentists are having people play games while they are sitting in 'the chair'; a one-handed controller might be good for that, too, because then your arms can stay on the arm rests (and thus, out of the way).
I would very much like to see a one-handed controller. I was thinking of setting up a console or something near my treadmill, but needing to use two hands is nigh impossible while running.
If anybody has actually used a treadmill, its boring as hell. Running outside is interesting, because of the changes in locals, things going on around you, etc. But putting a TV (ugh) near the treadmill is as good as it generally gets.
There IS a machine at a gym I used to go to (I live far from there now) which had a touch-screen browser. Actually, there were two machines, a bicycle and a skier. The skier was ok, but I would prefer a treadmill. However, your time spent on the machine whips right by: I would find myself continuing the time just to finish reading the page I was on.
So ya, I can definitely see a big demand for a good one-handed controller.
Well, since coffee works as a stimulant by constricting your blood vessels, one way would be to drink plenty of water and take an aspirin (real aspirin, not ibuprofin or other substitute).
Aspirin works as a blood thinner, so it is also good for things like heart attacks, addiction to ephedrine (a friend has this: I mentioned aspirin and it worked), etc, where increasing your bloodflow is helpful.
What it comes down to, and I said it from the start, is that Rockstar should have never appologized, even if they thought it was the right thing to do.
Their changes to the game, as well as the apology, did nothing but make the Haitian group even more loud and vocal. In fact, now that they can use the apology as an admission of 'wrongdoing', they can press for things (like this very issue) in court now.
All these people are trying to do is get publicity. They are real-world trolls, and Rockstar made the mistake of feeding them.
Screw you, moron. I wasnt trolling, the guy complained about how his pages were rendering slashdot all wrong, but it was better than using IE.
To wit I replied that a. IE works just fine for me, and b. how could continuing to use a browser that renders a page wrong be better than using one that renders it correctly?
Also, I dont accept the fact that your experience creating websites is negative for IE. My friend is a professional web designer for a major bank, and has been for at least five years. He has done pages for his bank, banks they own, and other companies who outsource work to his department. He has also NEVER had a problem with IE. He *does*, however, complain about problems with other browsers.
So maybe the problem isnt IE, maybe its just you arent very good.
I think this is eventaully a given. IBM is only in bed with Linux so they can ditch AIX. Once their customers are moved over to Linux, IBM can start doing whatever they want with the OS.
Heck, IBM is only in it for the high profit margin. They can *almost* get away with just selling the hardware; if somebody starts having a problem, they can either fix it themselves, or else pay IBM consulting services a boatload of money to fix it. Improving things? Not their problem- thats what the Linux developers are for.
Not that there is anything wrong with that- if somebody is going to make money off of linux, it may as well be a smart company like IBM. Heck, in a few years they may be the ONLY company making money from Linux.
The rate that the Earth travels through space has slowed ever so slightly for millenia. To compensate for this, since 1972, scientists have added a "leap second" at the end of each year. The problem: Since 1999, the Earth has been on time.
Well, everyone keeps saying the world moves faster these days. I guess they are right.
I hate spammers as much as the next person, but calling for the brutal anal rape of Ralsky is disgusting, uncivilized, pointless, and, frankly, disturbing.
Sounds more like the "core" team weren't actually doing the development anymore, and that they felt it was unfair to be the "core" team when they weren't doing the work.
Damn it, I wanted to have "XFree86 Core Team Memeber" on my resume, too!
It's not paranoid delusions -- MS wants to survive I'm sure, and right now I think wiping out Linux by any means necessary has to be the #1 priority at MS.
I think you are giving Linux too much credit as a competitor. For them to be a threat, they would need a significant percentage of the market, which they even come close to having. Apple is more of a threat than Linux, and I dont see Gates trying to shut them down. Quite the opposite: Steve Jobs would be blowing guys for beer money if it werent for Gates.
BTW, MS Office is Microsoft's cash cow, not Windows. So their survival isnt necessarily tied to Windows, as you implied. Also, their target market is (and always has been) corporate customers, not home users or hobbyists.
Well, either that or compete on merit, in which case they're toast anyways (and I'm sure they've figured this out too).
I beleive the existing market forces have judged you wrong on this, too: MS seems to be doing just fine. BTW, what are your credentials to judge MS products? Because I dont accept criticism from people who arent experts with Windows 2000 or 2003 as valid; my oft-repeated phrase is "I only accept expert opinions from experts."
At any rate, it seems that if anybody needs to compete on merit, it is Linux. Windows does a ton of things Linux cant, so concentrate on improving your OS rather than criticizing someone else's.
If this was an honest innovation, well, *that'd* be a first!
Unlike creating the Win32 architecture which MS uses, or making a desktop client OS which can attach to (and work on) any network, or even "Plug and Play". I guess you dont view any of that, or tons of other things they have done, as innovative.
world hackers got Linux to boot in the Xbox, despite MS' best efforts.
But, it cant connect to XBox Live if you modify the BIOS. Which is really why MS was preventing people from fuxoring the XBox- they want to keep the cheaters off the Live service. Im sure Nintendo isnt helping people run Linux on the GameCube, but somehow you dont view that as an anti-linux conspiracy. Again, you are making false correlations and giving Linux way too much credit as real competition.
If/when linux can boot from the same bios that MS and Intel have worked out*,
1. RTFA
2. Microsoft and Intel arent going to write anything for your OS. The Linux community will just have to improve Linux themselves, how sad. You guys always say the great thing about linux is that you can write your own improvements, but when hardware changes and something needs to be changed/improved, all of a sudden you start saying other people need to make it work with Linux. Do it yourself, d00d!
But it just doesn't make sense: if this is open to Linux, why would MS bother?
Because it will improve computing in general. And since MS *is* computing in general, it will mostly benefit them just by economics of scale. Also, does anybody else have the clout to get computer makers to improve their product? Nope.
MS only benefits when hardware is sold to run MS software
That makes no sense. MS doesnt make any money off motherboard sales, directly or indirectly. They only make money on purchases of Microsoft products.
This is mostly a waste of time anyway. Im sure nothing I can say will make you see how wrong you are, because you are so convinced their is a conspiracy afoot.
But why must it be that it is Microsoft and Intel that are working on the new progress?
They are the two major players in the computer world. When you have over 90% of the market, you either change or eventaully change will be thrust upon you.
Case in point: Intel vs. AMD. Intel may now have consumer level, affordable, and innovative 64-bit processors thrust upon them. For the first time, people are viewing AMD as more than just an Intel alternative.
So Microsoft can either fight against change, or try and lead it. But honestly, there is nobody else that cares to change things, or (most importantly) has the clout to make positive changes.
Furthermore, what happened to Microsoft's deal with Phoenix? MS seems to be working very hard on asserting at least some degree of influence on the low level operations of PCs.
As has been stated from the get-go, MS wants the features currently handled by the BIOS to be managed by the OS.
None of this is a plan to 'squeeze out' linux, especially when MS is just one member of the standards body moving this along.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, we get a different level of on-site support than Joe Homeuser gets. Im sure you didnt talk to people like me, because I actually know what Im doing. As far as troubleshooting and experience goes, Im way overqualified for a phone support job.
Im really tired of hearing this. You need to reboot the OS after you apply patches, so get over it. In a few years they will be making no-reboot patches, but for now, thats the way it is. Find another dead horse to beat.
Still, Microsoft understands very well that as long as it's scheduled downtime, nobody cares about it, as it's after hours.. And, most people don't realize this, but 99% uptime means 14.4 minutes of downtime every 24 hours. If you save that up over a month (an attainable uptime even with NT 4.0) you get over 7 hours to go down at your choosing.. And if High Availability actually matters to you, they'll gladly charge you for it.
My servers are down far less than 7 hours a month. If it is three I would be amazed.
BTW a lot of patches that tell you to reboot don't actually need the system to reboot.. Simply stopping and restarting some services will do nicely if that's even needed at all - just like most patches on linux or a BSD. It seems to me that Microsoft views the "forced reboot" as a maintenance chore, much like defragging your hard disk.. Software installs will often prompt you to reboot as well - even though it's totally unnecessary.
This is true as long as it isnt modifying dll files or other components which need to stay in memory. In that case, it needs to change the files during restart. A little knowledge of the system processes goes a long way. But anyhow, Im a follow the instructions kind of guy. If recipe says bake at 450 degrees for 30 minutes, I bake at 450 for 30. If they say to restart, I restart.
From the article: These ultra-inexpensive machines, from no-name importers such as... Apex... Apex? A no-name? Ok, this guy is an idiot, and obviously know nothing about electronics.
Would anybody else like a feature in Slashdot which filters out RIAA articles, MS-paranoia articles, SCO's latest bullshit articles, etc?
You dont put a linux machine on the internet, naked to the world, do you? No, you set up a firewall, and/or you have it running behind something running a firewall and NAT.
System management is about managing your systems. You use each piece to do what it does, and use other pieces to do what they do. Its not about sticking your head in the sand and thinking your ub3r-boxen is a do-everthing swiss army knife.
And no, I wasnt vulnerable to that remote RPC stuff (as you so eloquently put it), because my systems are up to date on their patches, and because they are protected behind a firewall. I talk more about my network here. But honestly, you are way trolling. Either that, or you just dont know what you are talking about. Or both, because they arent mutually exclusive.
As far as home networks go, this is a very high tech one, and is often set up far better than places I work at.
BTW, I have Windows NT servers with over a year of uptime, excluding time spent afterhours applying updates (which you can bitch about all you want, but the fact remains that MS doesnt have no reboot patches), and I have Win2k servers with at least that long. A month uptime is long? No way, only a month of uptime is weak, and there is either a hardware issue, a third-party driver issue, or caused by a non-MS program you are running. So can a Windows box run for over a year without crashing? Hell ya. Easily.
But as for using Windows as a router or whatever, no, I wouldnt do that because it isnt what Windows was designed to do. I use routers for routers.
Each client runs Zone Alarm for a firewall, McAfee Virus scanner (which I like because it can be set to fetch its own updates), and Ad-Aware (I would like to get the version that runs and updates itself, but at the moment there are other things to spend money on). I used to use History Kill to block pop-ups, but now I use the Google Toolbar, because its both free, and because I used it before as well. Its always good to eliminate the amount of applications which are installed, and HK was also kind of buggy and caused the computer to lock up (I believe there was a memory leak).
Repair #3 -- summary: Windows XP security updates -- time spent: 1 hour
Repair #4 -- summary: Another Windows XP security update -- time spent: 20 minutes
Repair #5 -- summary: Microsoft Outlook crashes about once a week, but cannot update it -- time spent (in December): 1 hour
Repair #9 -- summary: Random application crashes that we all experience -- time spent in a typical month recovering from them: 30 minutes
Repair #21 -- summary: Time Warner Internet blackout -- time spent: 30 minutes (blackout lasted 8 hours)So there are some other ones (like his PC-cilin problems, the CNET download manager, etc) which were really problems caused by neglecting his PC (rather than doing 'routine maintenence' and resolving issues before they become problems). But the case is, in the examples cited above, he 'spent' 3 hours and twenty minutes doing things which either are/ can be automated, or else werent really 'fixed' by him (like the blackout! was he out there helping Time Warner get things resolved? No? Then what exactly did he do during that half hour?)
Well, he made the page at Slashdot, so I guess his sensationalism worked. But if this guy were a consultant, I would accuse him of padding his bill, big time.
Just for some background, I work in corporate IT, and generally end up doing things nobody else can do. So I spend a lot of time on the phone and internet with vendor support.
If you have a catch-all service like on-site, use it! Dont let them push the problem back at you.
Thinking back to my support problems, the only recurring issue is on my roommate's PC, which has a flakey WLAN card. I also have to occasionally reboot my cable modem and the router, but I chalk that up to consumer grade hardware.
Thus, 90% of my problems are hardware related, but it doesnt really take very long.
The OS never locks up, the computers dont get viruses or bugs, etc. Oh ya, and I forgot to mention: the entire network runs on Windows 2000.
My point is, if you know what you are doing, and have a smart design, you eliminate almost all of your support issues.
You are fogetting the need to spend money supporting their OS, AIX. That was what I was refering to, and ditching support for AIX is why they are embracing Linux.
Think it can't happen to the PC? Think again. "Trusted Computing" as the infrastructure for Digital Rights Management may be the shoehorn for inserting control over the BIOS and all operating systems and applications permitted to run on the PC. Want to run Linux? Sure! Just lease an enabling certificate...
Thats just more of the same paranoid blabering you hear on Slahsdot. As I already said, and which any rational person can see, a mobo vendor like Asus isnt going to license you your motherboard, or the right to run multiple processors on it. People will, as always, vote with their dollars, and thus they would just avoid those kinds of computers.
I dont think anybody wants to see the costs they pay for computers go up, so what (aside from Slashdot's paranoia) makes you think this is the business model of the future?
You can make all the commments you want, but I dont understand how people around here take things as gospel when there is absolutely nothing tangible to back up those opinions.
No, since he works in the real world, he needs to make pages which will display properly on the browser the majority of people will be using. If I cant access my banking information over the internet, I dont give a damn if the page is standards compliant or not, I just want it to work. You may want to bear in mind the experiences of your target audience the next time you design something; it will probably help you be successful.
You are also claiming that he blames his problems on the browser. No, he blames it on things working or not working. If he cant get something to display correctly without essentially writing everything over again for each browser, how standards compliant is that? The fact of the matter is that IE just displays things with less problems. Because once again, MS is focused on the experiences of businesses and their clients, whereas other groups are just trying to do something cool and different. Its a different mindset, but things have to get done, so MS is the company to go with.
I use a different approach: first I read the standards, then I check which parts of it are supported by all the browsers that I have to support. So the core of the problem is that the two types of developers simply have different values and world views. Naturally, I think that mine is better.
Thats why your stuff doesnt work on IE, because you are too focused on what you read rather than on what actaully happens. Nice world view, I hope it works out really well for ya.
Anyway, I dont really care to debate semantics. You admit your stuff doesnt work right on IE, and my friends does. I view him as the better, because his clients will have happy customers (for the most part. I guess people who seek to define themselves through their choice of browsers may have problems, but they are a small minority).
I posted elsewhere in this thread, but anyway- I would like a one-handed controller myself. Not that Im disabled: it would let me play console games while running on a treadmill.
I also read somewhere that dentists are having people play games while they are sitting in 'the chair'; a one-handed controller might be good for that, too, because then your arms can stay on the arm rests (and thus, out of the way).
If anybody has actually used a treadmill, its boring as hell. Running outside is interesting, because of the changes in locals, things going on around you, etc. But putting a TV (ugh) near the treadmill is as good as it generally gets.
There IS a machine at a gym I used to go to (I live far from there now) which had a touch-screen browser. Actually, there were two machines, a bicycle and a skier. The skier was ok, but I would prefer a treadmill. However, your time spent on the machine whips right by: I would find myself continuing the time just to finish reading the page I was on.
So ya, I can definitely see a big demand for a good one-handed controller.
Aspirin works as a blood thinner, so it is also good for things like heart attacks, addiction to ephedrine (a friend has this: I mentioned aspirin and it worked), etc, where increasing your bloodflow is helpful.
Their changes to the game, as well as the apology, did nothing but make the Haitian group even more loud and vocal. In fact, now that they can use the apology as an admission of 'wrongdoing', they can press for things (like this very issue) in court now.
All these people are trying to do is get publicity. They are real-world trolls, and Rockstar made the mistake of feeding them.
To wit I replied that a. IE works just fine for me, and b. how could continuing to use a browser that renders a page wrong be better than using one that renders it correctly?
Also, I dont accept the fact that your experience creating websites is negative for IE. My friend is a professional web designer for a major bank, and has been for at least five years. He has done pages for his bank, banks they own, and other companies who outsource work to his department. He has also NEVER had a problem with IE. He *does*, however, complain about problems with other browsers.
So maybe the problem isnt IE, maybe its just you arent very good.
I think this is eventaully a given. IBM is only in bed with Linux so they can ditch AIX. Once their customers are moved over to Linux, IBM can start doing whatever they want with the OS.
Heck, IBM is only in it for the high profit margin. They can *almost* get away with just selling the hardware; if somebody starts having a problem, they can either fix it themselves, or else pay IBM consulting services a boatload of money to fix it. Improving things? Not their problem- thats what the Linux developers are for.
Not that there is anything wrong with that- if somebody is going to make money off of linux, it may as well be a smart company like IBM. Heck, in a few years they may be the ONLY company making money from Linux.
Maybe that explains why nobody around here read the articles- they arent using IE.
Bein' that fine should be a crime. Oh wait, it is!
Well, everyone keeps saying the world moves faster these days. I guess they are right.
Signed, Ralsky's Mom.
Have they tried casting "Read Magic" on it?
Damn it, I wanted to have "XFree86 Core Team Memeber" on my resume, too!
As usual, Im just a bit behind the curve.
I think you are giving Linux too much credit as a competitor. For them to be a threat, they would need a significant percentage of the market, which they even come close to having. Apple is more of a threat than Linux, and I dont see Gates trying to shut them down. Quite the opposite: Steve Jobs would be blowing guys for beer money if it werent for Gates.
BTW, MS Office is Microsoft's cash cow, not Windows. So their survival isnt necessarily tied to Windows, as you implied. Also, their target market is (and always has been) corporate customers, not home users or hobbyists.
Well, either that or compete on merit, in which case they're toast anyways (and I'm sure they've figured this out too).
I beleive the existing market forces have judged you wrong on this, too: MS seems to be doing just fine. BTW, what are your credentials to judge MS products? Because I dont accept criticism from people who arent experts with Windows 2000 or 2003 as valid; my oft-repeated phrase is "I only accept expert opinions from experts."
At any rate, it seems that if anybody needs to compete on merit, it is Linux. Windows does a ton of things Linux cant, so concentrate on improving your OS rather than criticizing someone else's.
If this was an honest innovation, well, *that'd* be a first!
Unlike creating the Win32 architecture which MS uses, or making a desktop client OS which can attach to (and work on) any network, or even "Plug and Play". I guess you dont view any of that, or tons of other things they have done, as innovative.
world hackers got Linux to boot in the Xbox, despite MS' best efforts.
But, it cant connect to XBox Live if you modify the BIOS. Which is really why MS was preventing people from fuxoring the XBox- they want to keep the cheaters off the Live service. Im sure Nintendo isnt helping people run Linux on the GameCube, but somehow you dont view that as an anti-linux conspiracy. Again, you are making false correlations and giving Linux way too much credit as real competition.
If/when linux can boot from the same bios that MS and Intel have worked out*,
1. RTFA
2. Microsoft and Intel arent going to write anything for your OS. The Linux community will just have to improve Linux themselves, how sad. You guys always say the great thing about linux is that you can write your own improvements, but when hardware changes and something needs to be changed/improved, all of a sudden you start saying other people need to make it work with Linux. Do it yourself, d00d!
But it just doesn't make sense: if this is open to Linux, why would MS bother?
Because it will improve computing in general. And since MS *is* computing in general, it will mostly benefit them just by economics of scale. Also, does anybody else have the clout to get computer makers to improve their product? Nope.
MS only benefits when hardware is sold to run MS software
That makes no sense. MS doesnt make any money off motherboard sales, directly or indirectly. They only make money on purchases of Microsoft products.
This is mostly a waste of time anyway. Im sure nothing I can say will make you see how wrong you are, because you are so convinced their is a conspiracy afoot.
They are the two major players in the computer world. When you have over 90% of the market, you either change or eventaully change will be thrust upon you.
Case in point: Intel vs. AMD. Intel may now have consumer level, affordable, and innovative 64-bit processors thrust upon them. For the first time, people are viewing AMD as more than just an Intel alternative.
So Microsoft can either fight against change, or try and lead it. But honestly, there is nobody else that cares to change things, or (most importantly) has the clout to make positive changes.
Furthermore, what happened to Microsoft's deal with Phoenix? MS seems to be working very hard on asserting at least some degree of influence on the low level operations of PCs.
As has been stated from the get-go, MS wants the features currently handled by the BIOS to be managed by the OS.
None of this is a plan to 'squeeze out' linux, especially when MS is just one member of the standards body moving this along.