'The last time you bought a six-pack of Bud Light at the Piggly Wiggly, Anheuser servers most likely recorded what you paid, when that beer was brewed, whether you purchased it warm or chilled, and whether you could have gotten a better deal down the street.'
No, they know that SOMEONE paid for beer, but they dont know that YOU paid for the beer.
There is a difference, and that is why there is no privacy issue. Move along, nothing to see here.
Recently he wrote a book called Moving to Linux: Kiss the Blue Screen of Death Goodbye!, which is intended for consumer desktop users who are curious about Linux and want to give it a test run.
Does he cover moving to Windows 2000, XP, or 2003? I have yet to see a BSoD on any of them.
I think they (correctly) scrapped further funding on attack helicopters. Most of the aircraft shot down in Desert Storm (parts 1 & 2), as well as Afghanistan, were combat helicopters. And lets not forget Black Hawk Down.
The fact is that slow, low flying aircraft are way too much of a target. Since they are then realistically only good for scouting and recon, why continue to waste the money? The military budget consumes the bulk of US tax dollars, so its nice to finally see some projects being cut.
From the top level post: "This will mean extra $$$ that the VoIP providers will have to put out, which ultimately means extra $$$ that the consumer will have to put out. This is the first step in regulating an industry that should have been left alone..."
ja, d00d, joo r right. d0wn wit da 35tabl1shm3nt!!!
I can totally see why they shouldnt force people to have something like 911 service. Heaven forbid you be able to get emergency service! Moron.
BTW, I use Vonage, and they already provide 911 service- you just need to give them the area the service is physically tied to so they will know where to route the call.
It does not, however, tie directly into the existing 'official' 911 service (from what I read on their "911 ToS"); I think its a call center which can pass it on or something.
Im well aware of what a secure computer, but thanks for the effort.
There is certainly a baseline amount of services you can allow for it to operate as a server on the network, while having services unneeded for that base funtionality either uninstalled or disabled by default.
Win2003 server has a pretty good setup, actually. Im not a big fan of wizards, but some are pretty decent; one in particular lets you manage server 'roles', where you can view, install, and uninstall different server functions. They also allow you to promote or demote servers as domain controllers. One big hastle of NT4 was those functions were only done during the OS install.
As I stated before, your 'average Joe' admin isnt an expert. You (and most other linux people) are trying to stick to your guns with the unrealistic idea that all linux users should be experts. That is probably exactly why so many linux computers get hacked- they were set up by people who are not security experts.
The article explicitly mentioned that automated attacks were not counted.
No, they said that indirect attacts, such as viruses and worms, were not counted. Very little in actually hacking is done by hand- you cant actaully hack anything without automating.
Cracking security isnt like in the movie Swordfish- its not some dude in a room typing really fast into a keyboard. Its some dude in a room with several computers running programs doing discoveries/monitoring, password cracking, and running programs or scripts which take advantage of bugs or exploits.
So the fact that MacOS had the least hack incidents out of that population doesn't necessarily mean it's more secure. It could just be because it's a smaller sliver of the population being looked at
Actually, I didnt think of that until I read thru the article again after my post. Apple was patting themselves on the back for 'security', but as far as they are concerned, people are going to ignore them and go for the larger 'market', which would be linux or windows. But Im sure being BSD-ish is some help as well, but since Im not an expert on BSD or OSX I cant say how secure they are comparitively.
Its like I said long ago, getting constantly attacked has made MS greatly improve their product. Once can only hope the Linux community can step up their efforts as well, but given their general attitude I dont see it happening, or it will be piecemeal at best.
Hopefully that wont be the case, but until an OS is secure by default (which your average Linux distro is not), problems are going to continue. Remember, your average computer worker is not an expert- most people work on things they really dont understand, so tailoring an OS to experts only is going to cause these problems.
When somebody starts nitpicking on minutia, they have lost the argument.
The fact remains that the officer was perfectly within the bounds of his authority for arresting this guy, and your shrill whining wont change that.
Im all for protection of citizen rights, but this isnt a case where some jackboot thug arrested and beat some innocent bystander. Try picking better battles in the future.
while Linux servers were the most vulnerable. Linux machines suffered 13,654 successful attacks, or 80 percent of the survey total. Windows based servers enjoyed a sharp decline in successful breaches, with only 2,005 attacks."
Ive been saying this for a long time here, and it only gets me modded down. Lets ignore the fact that I do computer security for a living, and there are tons and tons of documentation detailing that fact.
Sure, there are certain distros which are more secure than others, and programs (like Bastille) which you can run after install to get the OS more secure, but the fact remains that, by default, the average Linux install has more holes than swiss cheese.
So, while MS has been steadily improving their product, the Linux community has been modding down people on slashdot, and pretending nothing is wrong. THIS is why organizations with crucial data need to go with an OS backed by a major company (I did not say closed source per se, although most companies which fit that bill generally deal in closed source software).
From the article: "The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
They tested it correctly. They were testing for how vulnerable the OS was to hackers, not to viruses and worms. You dont do a scientific survey by testing for everything- you would never get finished. You isolate the thing you want to test, and measure the results.
Also, the whole virus/worm thing is kind of a security red herring anyway. Why? Because there are steps an organization can take to eliminate the majority of these attacks, making them very improbably. And, its not very difficult or expensive to do.
Just because the majority of viruses and worms are written targetting Windows does not mean Linux computers are invulnerable to viruses and worms. In fact, a very well-written virus could tear thru Linux computers like tissue paper, since they are absolutely no protections against them.
Attacking a particular system simply makes it popular for attack. In order to characterize Linux, or any other OS, as the least secure, there would need to be evidence that an equal amount of other OS's were unsuccessfully attacked or the success rate was lower
Its impossible to prove a negative. There is no way for me to prove that your anti-lock brakes prevented you from getting in 20 accidents, because we dont have access to some alternate reality in which anti-lock brakes dont exist. You can only prove what you can quantify, and you cant quantify something which didnt happen.
To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted
No, it means they ave been *successfully* targetted the most. And saying that Windows servers arent a target is laughable. Every script kiddie with an internet connection tries to break into Windows. Also, something like 80% of security breaches take place from INSIDE the organization, meaning that firewalls, etc, facing the internet isnt going to help in the majority of cases. People are putting too much time and effort into beefing up the security on their internet connection, and not enough on beefing up the servers.
Most 'jobs' on those boards just go to headhunters anyway. IMO, using the internet is kind of a waste of time. Ya, its easy, but its easy for everyone else, too. Lots of HR people have gone back to headhunters, who can pre-screen candidates and send over the ones who arent obviously bullshitting. They also dont have to filter thru 150 applicants for each position.
I think the best route is to find one or two headhunters you get along with and trust, and who produce results (because personality isnt everything), and just stick with them.
You can apply to postings on your own, just make sure you arent submitting to the same jobs your people are.
Then I hope to Hell that you never attain a position of power, because you're advocating an abuse of it. Arrest someone for suspicion of a specific crime on the grounds that they won't tell you who they are? If you have evidence or even suspicion, you don't need to know who they are to charge them.
I think you need to learn the law a little better. The police have the right to arrest somebody they suspect has been involved in a crime. This includes witnesses.
I think you are confusing being arrested with being sentenced to a prison term. Being arrested means just that, you are being held pending investigation. There is a time limit on how long they can hold you (I think its usually 48 hours), and after that period they either have to formally charge you with a crime, or release you.
This is the last ditch rationale of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own merits. Maybe he DOES have something to hide. Maybe he thinks the cop is being a dick,
This is called hindering an investigation.
Oh, and maybe try reading the 9th and 10th amendments if you think there's no right to anonymity
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The only thing which seems anonymous is your knowledge. Neither of those is even remotely applicable to any kind of privacy rights.
Since the officer was not a federal employee, I am assuming he either worked for the state of Nevada, or the local authorities. So what does the Bill of Rights have to do with the price of tea in China?
All the more reason to not carry a government-issued ID unless absolutely necessary. They cannot force you to produce what you do not have.
Thats bullshit. The guy's wife/daughter called the police, and the officer was investigating a domestic disturbance. *We* pay these people to do that, you know?
Read the transcript. The officer asks nicely way more times than I would have. If the guy didnt want to show ID, I would arrest him for suspicion of battery. Furthermore, what if this guy had been wanted in another state for rape/murder/whatever? Headline- Police Let Killer Go.
Producing your ID or telling the officer who you are isnt such a big deal, if you have nothing to hide. You have a right to life, liberty, etc etc, but not to anonymity.
Does he delve into how Neal Stephen's book "Snow Crash" inspired him to write "Virtaul Light"?
After reading VL, the entire thing gave me a super feeling of deja vu. I havent read another Gibson novel since then. Its a shame how somebody who had once been such a good writer could stoop so low.
Actaully, while that is a decent analogy, you can actaully use an example which ISNT analogy: theft. Because spammers are ACTUALLY stealing resources which dont belong to them and using that theft to make money.
What is being stolen? Your time, the bandwidth of your ISP/organization, their email admin's time and support, etc.
This is exactly why anti "junk fax" laws were created, and SHOULD have been applicable to this sitation (some states have done it, most have not): because junk faxes took up a limited resource (paper, ink, telephone time) which should have been used for purposes directly in line with what the person/organization paying for them intended it to be used for.
Instead, we are now forced to wade throu fourty hard-on pill or breast augmentation emails every day, as well as the links to pr0n sites, and all because of stupid legislators who cant identify theft when they see it. It is also forcing companies to waste money filtering out crap they dont want in the first place!
I wasnt omitting addressing your points. Mostly I try and just address certain things, and hopefully catch everything somewhere.
I dont think either of us is going to change the other's mind, so batting this ball back and forth is kind of pointless.
But I would just like to add that MS acquired their 'desktop monopoly' solely because EVERY other company was ignoring desktop computers in lieu of servers. Netware was charging like $5-10k per server license. AS400s and other mainframes are still at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. LANtastic was charging tons of money for their network OS, etc. MS came in with a peer to peer system which wasnt strictly client-server, a server license was a onetime expense for like (at the time) $1000 for NT3.51 (currently you can get a 2000 server for about $500 or so), which was significantly less, and you were able to just go entirely peer to peer for a small/medium network environment. EVERYONE ignored the desktop. MS was free to develop Windows, and started including client software which would connect to any network. In fact, their client implimentations were often superior, as was the case with their IPX/SPX stack, their substitute for the Netware client, etc.
So its not like Bill Gates had assassins kill the founder of every other desktop. Its just that one day, these companies looked up and saw that while they were ignoring MS, Bill was scammin all their squirrel; since they ruled all the desktops, they expanded on LanManager and moved solidly into the server space with NT. Ya, it was inferior to Netware and other NOS's, but shit, it was a LOT cheaper.
MS is the whole reason computing is so cheap now. Talk to anybody who was in MIS about 25-30 years ago, and ask them how much this stuff was. And it wasnt one-stop shopping like it is now; you had to buy your protocol from one company, your NOS from another, your desktop OS (or probably terminals) from another, spreadsheet from another, word processor from another, etc.
MS also was the first to come out with a total Office package. Before they were all made by seperate companies, and the formats were incompatible. Sure, Office95 wasnt the best individually, but taken as a whole it had many benefits (as well as being cheaper than buying 3-5 seperate programs).
So anyway, feel free to think what you want. But sometimes I get annoyed seeing people yelling about things which arent true, and really dont even stand up to rational thought.
If you need to exchange documents with anyone else in the world, almost without exception, you'll have to do it in Microsoft's format. Unlike the arena of pizza makers, there is no competition. Absolutely no one but MS can sell you that software. That's a tax. Plain and simple.
Thats complete and utter bullshit. You can use HTML, you can use.rtf, you can even use.txt; dont tell me there arent alternate standards to use, because thats just a load of horsecrap.
YOU are complaining that you cant buy a Humvee build by Subaru or Ford. Does that mean that Humvee is an evil empire, because they arent letting other people make 'Hummer compatibles'?
MS doesnt have a lock on ALL the software which features multiple fonts, spell checkers, etc. Just because everyone is using it doesnt mean there is a conspiracy afoot. If you dont like it, use whatever program you want. There are plenty of alternatives to using Office, or Windows, or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to drive a Humvee, or even an SUV.
My point, and it's been a point you refused to even debate, is that it's bad for the US and global economy at large.
THATS your point? I must have missed that. Quite honestly, it isnt a very intelligent point, and I thought I adressed it (at least in breif).
Well, I dont see how one company selling a successful product is bad for the US and global economy. Sounds like a company doing something right to me. If everyone uses it, they must be filling an important niche.
You know what the great thing about selling gasoline is? All the cars run on it! You know what the great thing about selling food or water is? Every person on the planet needs it!
Does that mean all gasoline, food, or liquids on the planet should be processed (or checked for safety/quality/purity), packaged, and distributed for free?
Because your argument is that if something is ubiquitous, it should be free. Which, in case you hadnt noticed, kind of goes against a capitalist (or even free market, because the extreme example of free market is the barter system) economy. Sorry, Vladimir, but Communism lost;-)
If I ponied up $20Billion dollars worth of money to have Microsoft release a free to the public converter that takes MS Office documents and converts them to an open format. It would demonstrate clear demand, and has serious economic value
There are already programs which convert to/from word format. Your argument is starting to flounder if you are going to take that approach.
Why dont you harp on the evils of the Acrobat format? I dont see Adobe making THAT opensource...
As I said, you can use ANY other office program. Go use WordPerfect, or Lotus Suite, or OpenOffice, or whatever. That is taking your car wherever you want. Then you can get a converter program to put your docs into word or rtf format (or send it as html, or whatever), and you are good to go.
Go read the licensing agreements that Microsoft has with major OEM's. They aren't selling a product, they literally walk into Dell explain to them, that they won't sell Dell a license unless Microsoft gets $35 a machine
...and ended up paying more for the computer then they should have, because they had to pay MS for a license they never wanted.
No, what Dell does is called volume licensing. Dell doesnt want to pay $175 per computer, or whatever the retail price is. So, they say "hey, we will give a Windows license with each machine, and you give us a really deep discount on, say, 100,000 (or whatever) computers". So they win, and MS wins. Everybody walks away happy, especially Dell, who doesnt have to charge back their customers retail price for the Windows license. In that case, Dell's price doesnt come in much better than me throwing some parts together and using a pirated copy of Windows. Your problem is you dont understand the real economics of
The CUSTOM is in the fact that MS DID NOT WRITE THE COM OBJECT FOR US you dope
Hence my use of the word "custom", retard.
See, I am a senior programmer for a fortune 500. You are one of those people that does not have the brain power to program and get all childish when someone has a superior skillset to you.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it will come true!
Damn, you sound more and more dumb the more you talk. Have you heard of licensing 6? Haven't you read any of the news of how tons of companies are mad at MS and thier new licensing plans. If you don't upgrade sooner, it WILL cost you more later. Ever hear of Microsoft's "software assurance"? It is to ensure that MS gets paid continuously.
Oh, you mean the one where they keep changing the rates and plans? That one? The one where they redid the whole structure because nobody was really buying?
Look, retard, what you dont know could fill volumes. As I said, they are salesmen just like anyone else. Their goal is to get people to buy. Your company's job is NOT to buy what is being sold, it is to get your agenda forwarded. This usually involves having people do work and make money for the company. NOWHERE in that is "buy software from Microsoft, because maybe, someday, it is going to cost more".
You got played as a mark by some salesman. Ha fuckin ha. Sucks to be you. Have fun with your early adopter program; when Im implimenting this shit in a year I'm sure Technet will be filled with lessons learned on your company's dime. Fuckin' losers.
Smart people learn from their mistakes. Geniuses learn from other people's mistakes.
Translation: I do not have the skillset to manage more then a point-n-click fisher price GUI. I guess IBM, Oracle, Google, Amazon.com, Merril Lynch and plenty of others are all just "hobbyist playing with two or more operating systems".
No, but they arent running Linux on the desktop, like some bullshitter... oh wait, that was YOU!!!... would have people believe.
Also, I can bet you millions that those companies hire people who are experts on THOSE operating systems, and not choads like you who want to pass themselves off as experts on two operating systems they dont know jack shit about.
Not only did the coversion go so well, they are now planning to put Linux terminals in all the police cars. Try searching on google if you can manage to point and click that much.
Ohhh impressive. They are using Linux to do terminal emulation. Good score! Maybe now I can have Linux run my 1200 baud modem, and call a bbs!
Um, tell me when Im supposed to be impressed, because it didnt happened...
Im sure I dont have to concern myself with taking up your valuable time. It seems you have more than enough time to post all day on slashdot. After all, making coffee doesnt take that long.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, so from what you are saying, Debian is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, of all operating systems.
No, they know that SOMEONE paid for beer, but they dont know that YOU paid for the beer.
There is a difference, and that is why there is no privacy issue. Move along, nothing to see here.
Right?
The UN? Corrupt? Say it aint so!
Now they just need to make me a shoe-phone, and I'll be all set.
Does he cover moving to Windows 2000, XP, or 2003? I have yet to see a BSoD on any of them.
The fact is that slow, low flying aircraft are way too much of a target. Since they are then realistically only good for scouting and recon, why continue to waste the money? The military budget consumes the bulk of US tax dollars, so its nice to finally see some projects being cut.
ja, d00d, joo r right. d0wn wit da 35tabl1shm3nt!!!
I can totally see why they shouldnt force people to have something like 911 service. Heaven forbid you be able to get emergency service! Moron.
BTW, I use Vonage, and they already provide 911 service- you just need to give them the area the service is physically tied to so they will know where to route the call.
It does not, however, tie directly into the existing 'official' 911 service (from what I read on their "911 ToS"); I think its a call center which can pass it on or something.
There is certainly a baseline amount of services you can allow for it to operate as a server on the network, while having services unneeded for that base funtionality either uninstalled or disabled by default.
Win2003 server has a pretty good setup, actually. Im not a big fan of wizards, but some are pretty decent; one in particular lets you manage server 'roles', where you can view, install, and uninstall different server functions. They also allow you to promote or demote servers as domain controllers. One big hastle of NT4 was those functions were only done during the OS install.
As I stated before, your 'average Joe' admin isnt an expert. You (and most other linux people) are trying to stick to your guns with the unrealistic idea that all linux users should be experts. That is probably exactly why so many linux computers get hacked- they were set up by people who are not security experts.
Nice troll attempt. But you are going to have to try harder next time, because your twisted logic is too stupid to effectively draw someone out.
No, they said that indirect attacts, such as viruses and worms, were not counted. Very little in actually hacking is done by hand- you cant actaully hack anything without automating.
Cracking security isnt like in the movie Swordfish- its not some dude in a room typing really fast into a keyboard. Its some dude in a room with several computers running programs doing discoveries/monitoring, password cracking, and running programs or scripts which take advantage of bugs or exploits.
So the fact that MacOS had the least hack incidents out of that population doesn't necessarily mean it's more secure. It could just be because it's a smaller sliver of the population being looked at
Actually, I didnt think of that until I read thru the article again after my post. Apple was patting themselves on the back for 'security', but as far as they are concerned, people are going to ignore them and go for the larger 'market', which would be linux or windows. But Im sure being BSD-ish is some help as well, but since Im not an expert on BSD or OSX I cant say how secure they are comparitively.
Its like I said long ago, getting constantly attacked has made MS greatly improve their product. Once can only hope the Linux community can step up their efforts as well, but given their general attitude I dont see it happening, or it will be piecemeal at best.
Hopefully that wont be the case, but until an OS is secure by default (which your average Linux distro is not), problems are going to continue. Remember, your average computer worker is not an expert- most people work on things they really dont understand, so tailoring an OS to experts only is going to cause these problems.
The fact remains that the officer was perfectly within the bounds of his authority for arresting this guy, and your shrill whining wont change that.
Im all for protection of citizen rights, but this isnt a case where some jackboot thug arrested and beat some innocent bystander. Try picking better battles in the future.
Well, radio hasnt been the same since Opie and Anthony went off the air, but its nice to see at least one of them working again.
Ive been saying this for a long time here, and it only gets me modded down. Lets ignore the fact that I do computer security for a living, and there are tons and tons of documentation detailing that fact.
Sure, there are certain distros which are more secure than others, and programs (like Bastille) which you can run after install to get the OS more secure, but the fact remains that, by default, the average Linux install has more holes than swiss cheese.
So, while MS has been steadily improving their product, the Linux community has been modding down people on slashdot, and pretending nothing is wrong. THIS is why organizations with crucial data need to go with an OS backed by a major company (I did not say closed source per se, although most companies which fit that bill generally deal in closed source software).
From the article: "The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
They tested it correctly. They were testing for how vulnerable the OS was to hackers, not to viruses and worms. You dont do a scientific survey by testing for everything- you would never get finished. You isolate the thing you want to test, and measure the results.
Also, the whole virus/worm thing is kind of a security red herring anyway. Why? Because there are steps an organization can take to eliminate the majority of these attacks, making them very improbably. And, its not very difficult or expensive to do.
Just because the majority of viruses and worms are written targetting Windows does not mean Linux computers are invulnerable to viruses and worms. In fact, a very well-written virus could tear thru Linux computers like tissue paper, since they are absolutely no protections against them.
Attacking a particular system simply makes it popular for attack. In order to characterize Linux, or any other OS, as the least secure, there would need to be evidence that an equal amount of other OS's were unsuccessfully attacked or the success rate was lower
Its impossible to prove a negative. There is no way for me to prove that your anti-lock brakes prevented you from getting in 20 accidents, because we dont have access to some alternate reality in which anti-lock brakes dont exist. You can only prove what you can quantify, and you cant quantify something which didnt happen.
To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted
No, it means they ave been *successfully* targetted the most. And saying that Windows servers arent a target is laughable. Every script kiddie with an internet connection tries to break into Windows. Also, something like 80% of security breaches take place from INSIDE the organization, meaning that firewalls, etc, facing the internet isnt going to help in the majority of cases. People are putting too much time and effort into beefing up the security on their internet connection, and not enough on beefing up the servers.
I think the best route is to find one or two headhunters you get along with and trust, and who produce results (because personality isnt everything), and just stick with them.
You can apply to postings on your own, just make sure you arent submitting to the same jobs your people are.
I think you need to learn the law a little better. The police have the right to arrest somebody they suspect has been involved in a crime. This includes witnesses.
I think you are confusing being arrested with being sentenced to a prison term. Being arrested means just that, you are being held pending investigation. There is a time limit on how long they can hold you (I think its usually 48 hours), and after that period they either have to formally charge you with a crime, or release you.
This is the last ditch rationale of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own merits. Maybe he DOES have something to hide. Maybe he thinks the cop is being a dick,
This is called hindering an investigation.
Oh, and maybe try reading the 9th and 10th amendments if you think there's no right to anonymity
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The only thing which seems anonymous is your knowledge. Neither of those is even remotely applicable to any kind of privacy rights.
Since the officer was not a federal employee, I am assuming he either worked for the state of Nevada, or the local authorities. So what does the Bill of Rights have to do with the price of tea in China?
All the more reason to not carry a government-issued ID unless absolutely necessary. They cannot force you to produce what you do not have.
Spoken like a true resident of a trailer park.
Read the transcript. The officer asks nicely way more times than I would have. If the guy didnt want to show ID, I would arrest him for suspicion of battery. Furthermore, what if this guy had been wanted in another state for rape/murder/whatever? Headline- Police Let Killer Go.
Producing your ID or telling the officer who you are isnt such a big deal, if you have nothing to hide. You have a right to life, liberty, etc etc, but not to anonymity.
After reading VL, the entire thing gave me a super feeling of deja vu. I havent read another Gibson novel since then. Its a shame how somebody who had once been such a good writer could stoop so low.
Apparently its hard to pay the bills with "free" these days.
What is being stolen? Your time, the bandwidth of your ISP/organization, their email admin's time and support, etc.
This is exactly why anti "junk fax" laws were created, and SHOULD have been applicable to this sitation (some states have done it, most have not): because junk faxes took up a limited resource (paper, ink, telephone time) which should have been used for purposes directly in line with what the person/organization paying for them intended it to be used for.
Instead, we are now forced to wade throu fourty hard-on pill or breast augmentation emails every day, as well as the links to pr0n sites, and all because of stupid legislators who cant identify theft when they see it. It is also forcing companies to waste money filtering out crap they dont want in the first place!
Yep, Im cancelling too. Fuck SBC, and especially fuck Cingular.
I dont think either of us is going to change the other's mind, so batting this ball back and forth is kind of pointless.
But I would just like to add that MS acquired their 'desktop monopoly' solely because EVERY other company was ignoring desktop computers in lieu of servers. Netware was charging like $5-10k per server license. AS400s and other mainframes are still at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. LANtastic was charging tons of money for their network OS, etc. MS came in with a peer to peer system which wasnt strictly client-server, a server license was a onetime expense for like (at the time) $1000 for NT3.51 (currently you can get a 2000 server for about $500 or so), which was significantly less, and you were able to just go entirely peer to peer for a small/medium network environment. EVERYONE ignored the desktop. MS was free to develop Windows, and started including client software which would connect to any network. In fact, their client implimentations were often superior, as was the case with their IPX/SPX stack, their substitute for the Netware client, etc.
So its not like Bill Gates had assassins kill the founder of every other desktop. Its just that one day, these companies looked up and saw that while they were ignoring MS, Bill was scammin all their squirrel; since they ruled all the desktops, they expanded on LanManager and moved solidly into the server space with NT. Ya, it was inferior to Netware and other NOS's, but shit, it was a LOT cheaper.
MS is the whole reason computing is so cheap now. Talk to anybody who was in MIS about 25-30 years ago, and ask them how much this stuff was. And it wasnt one-stop shopping like it is now; you had to buy your protocol from one company, your NOS from another, your desktop OS (or probably terminals) from another, spreadsheet from another, word processor from another, etc.
MS also was the first to come out with a total Office package. Before they were all made by seperate companies, and the formats were incompatible. Sure, Office95 wasnt the best individually, but taken as a whole it had many benefits (as well as being cheaper than buying 3-5 seperate programs).
So anyway, feel free to think what you want. But sometimes I get annoyed seeing people yelling about things which arent true, and really dont even stand up to rational thought.
Thats complete and utter bullshit. You can use HTML, you can use .rtf, you can even use .txt; dont tell me there arent alternate standards to use, because thats just a load of horsecrap.
YOU are complaining that you cant buy a Humvee build by Subaru or Ford. Does that mean that Humvee is an evil empire, because they arent letting other people make 'Hummer compatibles'?
MS doesnt have a lock on ALL the software which features multiple fonts, spell checkers, etc. Just because everyone is using it doesnt mean there is a conspiracy afoot. If you dont like it, use whatever program you want. There are plenty of alternatives to using Office, or Windows, or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to drive a Humvee, or even an SUV.
My point, and it's been a point you refused to even debate, is that it's bad for the US and global economy at large.
THATS your point? I must have missed that. Quite honestly, it isnt a very intelligent point, and I thought I adressed it (at least in breif).
Well, I dont see how one company selling a successful product is bad for the US and global economy. Sounds like a company doing something right to me. If everyone uses it, they must be filling an important niche.
You know what the great thing about selling gasoline is? All the cars run on it! You know what the great thing about selling food or water is? Every person on the planet needs it!
Does that mean all gasoline, food, or liquids on the planet should be processed (or checked for safety/quality/purity), packaged, and distributed for free?
Because your argument is that if something is ubiquitous, it should be free. Which, in case you hadnt noticed, kind of goes against a capitalist (or even free market, because the extreme example of free market is the barter system) economy. Sorry, Vladimir, but Communism lost ;-)
If I ponied up $20Billion dollars worth of money to have Microsoft release a free to the public converter that takes MS Office documents and converts them to an open format. It would demonstrate clear demand, and has serious economic value
There are already programs which convert to/from word format. Your argument is starting to flounder if you are going to take that approach.
Why dont you harp on the evils of the Acrobat format? I dont see Adobe making THAT opensource...
As I said, you can use ANY other office program. Go use WordPerfect, or Lotus Suite, or OpenOffice, or whatever. That is taking your car wherever you want. Then you can get a converter program to put your docs into word or rtf format (or send it as html, or whatever), and you are good to go.
Go read the licensing agreements that Microsoft has with major OEM's. They aren't selling a product, they literally walk into Dell explain to them, that they won't sell Dell a license unless Microsoft gets $35 a machine
No, what Dell does is called volume licensing. Dell doesnt want to pay $175 per computer, or whatever the retail price is. So, they say "hey, we will give a Windows license with each machine, and you give us a really deep discount on, say, 100,000 (or whatever) computers". So they win, and MS wins. Everybody walks away happy, especially Dell, who doesnt have to charge back their customers retail price for the Windows license. In that case, Dell's price doesnt come in much better than me throwing some parts together and using a pirated copy of Windows. Your problem is you dont understand the real economics of
Hence my use of the word "custom", retard.
See, I am a senior programmer for a fortune 500. You are one of those people that does not have the brain power to program and get all childish when someone has a superior skillset to you.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it will come true!
Damn, you sound more and more dumb the more you talk. Have you heard of licensing 6? Haven't you read any of the news of how tons of companies are mad at MS and thier new licensing plans. If you don't upgrade sooner, it WILL cost you more later. Ever hear of Microsoft's "software assurance"? It is to ensure that MS gets paid continuously.
Oh, you mean the one where they keep changing the rates and plans? That one? The one where they redid the whole structure because nobody was really buying?
Look, retard, what you dont know could fill volumes. As I said, they are salesmen just like anyone else. Their goal is to get people to buy. Your company's job is NOT to buy what is being sold, it is to get your agenda forwarded. This usually involves having people do work and make money for the company. NOWHERE in that is "buy software from Microsoft, because maybe, someday, it is going to cost more".
You got played as a mark by some salesman. Ha fuckin ha. Sucks to be you. Have fun with your early adopter program; when Im implimenting this shit in a year I'm sure Technet will be filled with lessons learned on your company's dime. Fuckin' losers.
Smart people learn from their mistakes. Geniuses learn from other people's mistakes.
Translation: I do not have the skillset to manage more then a point-n-click fisher price GUI. I guess IBM, Oracle, Google, Amazon.com, Merril Lynch and plenty of others are all just "hobbyist playing with two or more operating systems".
No, but they arent running Linux on the desktop, like some bullshitter... oh wait, that was YOU!!!... would have people believe.
Also, I can bet you millions that those companies hire people who are experts on THOSE operating systems, and not choads like you who want to pass themselves off as experts on two operating systems they dont know jack shit about.
Not only did the coversion go so well, they are now planning to put Linux terminals in all the police cars. Try searching on google if you can manage to point and click that much.
Ohhh impressive. They are using Linux to do terminal emulation. Good score! Maybe now I can have Linux run my 1200 baud modem, and call a bbs!
Um, tell me when Im supposed to be impressed, because it didnt happened...
Im sure I dont have to concern myself with taking up your valuable time. It seems you have more than enough time to post all day on slashdot. After all, making coffee doesnt take that long.
"Sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them"
- Edgar Allen Poe