WOW! Im going to write a scientific paper. Its going to be about how you can crash a Java VM or a Citrix terminal session by repeated blows, via sledgehammer, to the server creating said VM or session.
the bad guys will still just go out and buy guns off the black market.
As opposed to now?
And, well, what happens when it becomes illegal NOT to use guns like this?
You eventually get most of the illegal guns out of circulation thru attrition, and then there is accountability with the guns. Of course, someone can just haxor a stolen gun to not use the ID function...
Crooks will be crooks; thats why my solution doesn't lie in the gun, it lies in the criminal; work on figuring out why people use guns instead of fixing guns for crazy people.
So what should people do, just shrug and say 'thats the way it is', and try and do nothing to change anything? Or wait for God to come down and explain "Why"? Either way, I would rather see people try to innovate a solution. It doesnt get better overnight, and this is a crude first try. But its a nice start.
I know you probably will never see a soldier with this gun, and I wouldnt want to drop it in water. But eventaully it will improve (assuming it catches on).
How is closing up windows so it can run only office any different from closing up word so it can open only office documents?
Do you even use MS Word? I can open up just about any document with it, even like way back WP5.x or 6.x, or Lotus 1-2-3. They have TONS of converters included with Word, all you have to do is install them (many of the way obscure ones are skipped in default install).
Plus, I dont see how your point is even relavent. Word is not a development platform. Also, you CAN write plug-ins for Word.
I realized your example was zero-sum, but since the support costs werent mentioned, and you DID talk about real world solutions, I found it relevant to add.
However, what I was saying about MS losing out to Linux. Sure, people can make money supporting linux and MS. But let me use another analogy to show what I mean. Lets say you own a restaurant. You are in the middle of a small town, and end up becoming the most successful restaurant due to your really good location. Eventually, somebody opens a place on the edge of town. It doesnt have better food, and it isnt as nice, and the bathrooms really smell. But, they arent charging for the food. If you want to be all extravagant, you can have a waitress serve you, but most people just get the food themselves.
Now, do you just sit back and say 'well, I dont care if my business drops, as long as I stay in business. This can be a good thing, because I can lower my employee expenses.' Or do you possibly try to branch out into another business, like fast food, or groceries, or napkins? Personally, I have never seen any virute in the 'give up and die" arguement most people take (generally without realizing it). Businesses either expand or die. Look at KMart. They sat on their laurels and let other companies expand around them until they were forced out of business. Inaction has consequesnces, but generally not good ones. I doubt there will be an example of a company that just 'shared the market'. Thats where comparing MS to a contry fails, and was not the point I was making with Civ or AC. While France and Germany may respect the others right to exist, they are not competing for citizens.
To extend my example, Im sure waiters and bus boys can make money at either restaurant. But I would rather work at the nice restaurant. Also, just because the waiters are making money doesnt mean your business is doing well.
For every case study that says Linux ends up being too expensive to implement, there are other case studies that show how companies save thousands of dollars by switching to Linux.
Different type of article; the ones I read were more on economics/accounting. The 'return on investment' type of articles are generally written to support the authors agenda, so are alsays suspect. But some beancounter doesnt care if MS or Linux is used. He is just looking at the numbers, and the numbers pretty much come out even, for the reasons I cited.
Then, if your company has a lot of servers, that's a very large potential savings you will see immediately
Thats assuming that you 1. actually hire a good linux admin (rather than a poor one in disguise), 2. you dont have to pay the guy more than the two guys you just fired, 3. that if he quits and takes a higher paying job, you wont have a really hard/expensive time replacing him. Also, while there are a lot of paper MCSEs, there are also a lot of good ones. I can give someone advice on how to sort them out, but since nobody in our organization is a Linux expert, its hard(er) to sort out the bullshitters. But you can look at the MCSE the same way you look at a college degree- the paper just shows that you were commited enough to sacrifice to get that paper. Since Linux certifications arent really prevalant, its hard to at least use that filter.
first it was ubiquitous in low-level things like TCP/IP stacks (all the Unix TCP/IP code, and even Microsoft's, are derived from free software
TCP/IP and Unix were not free. They were funded by research grants from DARPA, and also various corporations like AT&T. They also had focused objectives in the terms of the grants (like dynamic rerouting, transmission control, etc). Its actually because of these requirements it won the 'protocol wars' (so to speak), as well as the fact that it was better than proprietary alternatives like IPX/SPX. Likewise, Linux isnt 'free'. Linus is a Transmeta employee, and even the people who work on it in their spare time are, in effect
Well, I suppose in a trickle-down, voodoo economics sort of way, what you say could be relevant (if you buy into that premise. I dont, myself).
However, if you are interested, I have read a bunch of articles on this subject lately. I dont have any onhand, but you can probably just google for them. The basic thrust of them was that free software does not tend to be free (as you somewhat claim). You have to pay more for support and implimentation, retraining, etc, so the costs and benefits come out to be somewhat equal (not counting in the fact that you are losing money while the whole company is getting retrained on how to use their computers, ie lost productivity).
Now, discounting your anti-MS bias, there are very tangible business benefits for using them. I dont think the majority of businesses in the world are suffering from mass hysteria, so maybe you just dont realize why they use it. First, interoperability is very important. MSO can read files from just about any other format. Saving it in another format isnt perfect, but why should it? Improving the converters for WP5 isnt going to make somebody more likely to buy your product, so is not a good use of a programmers time. Windows 95/NT/2000/XP can also be made to connect with just about any other kind of computer. This is actually the reason they became dominant on the desktop: if you had a Netware NOS or a UNIX NOS or Banyon Vines, or whatever, you could get a Win95 machine for your secretary and know it would work. Everyone else ignored interop by trying to tie people to their NOS, and paid for it. Now Apple, IBM, etc are crying because they lost out to Windows. It was just a good decision at a pivotal moment, and the rest is history.
One last reason is support. MS has very good support, and a lot of very talented people work with MS products. Sure there are a lot of Boot-camp paper MCSEs. But there are a lot more who arent. If you look at mindshare, MS has more as well. If there are, say, 10,000 people capable of being high-level experts, and 9,000 end up using MS products, which one is going to be better supported?
Your statements really come off more as OS penis-envy than as factual statements. Also, as I said- economics are all about the George Washingtons. I see free software to be a passing fad, like the shareware fad of the 80s. Eventually, these people are going to want to make real money for their work. At that point, they will go where the money is, and I dont see that being with open source. My crystal ball doesnt work any better than anyone elses, but thats how I see it.
I am unable to find anything on Google relating to the legality of this, but I believe that it is probably not legal. However, I was told to "do it and let the lawyers deal with it".
Well, he is not wrong in asking you to do this. There is a difference between doing something that is 'not legal'- ie something the business can get sued for, and something that is 'illegal', ie he cannot ask you to rob a liquor store.
First, you need to get some CYA. Tell him you will do it, but he has to make his boss aware you were asked to do this, and you need it in an email, etc. That way you cant get fired and used as a scapegoat.
Whether it is legal or not, I do not feel that it is ethical, and may leave the company if I am pushed to do this.
Well, since he is not requesting your legal/ethics advice, you should pretty much do what he says. Of course, quitting is the ultimate form of protest (barring suicide), but he will probably just hire somebody else and have them do it.
And of course, you couldnt pick a better time to leave your job! There are tons of jobs out there, hanging on trees like ripe fruit waiting to be picked.
And here we see the apparent source of that ignorance. If you think Civ reflects real life, trying beating it using only diplomacy. You can't, because Civ is a zero-sum game. The real world isn't.
You can win Civ by using only diplomacy. All you need to do to win is be the first to send your spaceship. Conquering the world, while fun, is entirely optional. So you sound quite ignorant on the subject, and about what "analogy" means.
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with it, but that just demonstrates your ignorance of the real world and why anti-trust laws exist.
First, you dont sound like an anti-trust lawyer, but you do sound like a religious fanatic (at least to me). Second, the only thing you are saying is MS is a monopoly, so anything they do is WRONG!!!!! The way I see it, there is nothing morally or legally or ethically that says MS has to make Office2003 work with another company's office suite. What MS does with their product, and the way it formats, and the tags it uses in its.doc files, is solely up to Microsoft. Just because they have the largest installed base of desktops really doesnt change that. Its like saying because I own all the tea in China that I cant buy a teapot.
As I said, as long as they dont make their OS break other office suites, they are doing nothing wrong.
In the case of MSO, that means it needs to have a viable export format that is readable by other office suites.
Thats not true, and its silly to suggest. Also, last time I looked, you could still save files as *.txt, so there is your common denominator. Also, they probably arent going to drop O97 or O2k formatting, so something like StarOffice should still work. But there isnt one thing saying MS has to make their new formats (or even their old) compatible with anyone else.
As for why you would buy MSO over FBO, why do people buy StarOffice 6 instead of just downloading OpenOffice? Support contracts come to mind...
Yes, and that is another reason why everyone uses MSO- because their support is damn good. And I speak from experience. I dont support it anymore, really, but occasionally someone from the help desk needs advice, and I always tell them to check technet (or I know it, and usually hand them a document from my drawer that is from technet). And once they learn to check technet instead of asking me, they usually dont need to ask me unless its really difficult.
just because there isnt a game that has you order 5 million units of c-rats and $300 million worth of ammo doesnt mean a game cant give you an appreciation for how difficult logistics is. But all that has nothing to do with what I was talking about anyway.
you would need to play AC or Civ to understand my analogy. they arent combat sims, they are socio-political sims, with combat coming as a result of those forces. Just like real life. Its not a cop out, unless you have played them you dont know what I mean. Its like trying to have somebody tell you what a mango tastes like.
But what my point WAS was about Microsoft, and why it is trying to retain its market share. If you have the #1 selling Office Suite, why do you want to 'defend the right to exist' of a competing product? They are trying to take money out of your pocket! A company will only buy one product, so obviously you want to retain your customers. This is true of any money-making business. Hippiness does not succeed in the marketplace.
Take MS vs. Linux. Since nobody is really making money from Linux, a victory for them in the desktop OS market would benefit nobody, and only hurt MS (the current leader).
Thats what my whole point was- when you look at it in those terms, everything makes sense. In the end, the reason for every problem is- Its all about the George Washingtons.
But that was my point in saying if the confine their non-compete to their program (in this case, MS Office). As long as they do not put code into Windows that prevent you from running, say, Word Perfect (WP does does that on their own...), then it is fair.
Might as well say that an understanding of Risk gives you the ability to command armies and understand the way countries interact.
Analogy
1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
Hence, the comparison between a game and real life. But understanding Risk my not give you the skills to lead armies or countries, but it can certainly give you an appreciation of how such things work, and an abstract view of the issues involved.
Also, you say if you have an advanced civ you can help them rather than keep them down. But what if a. they dont want your help, b. they are openly hostile to you, c. any help you give them is twisted, either being stolen or misused? Would you be inclined to keep helping them, or more inclined to make sure they never get on an equal footing as you so they become a bigger problem?
An issue like that is only resolved once two parties (countries, companies, people, etc) have a mutual, unspoken agreement that the other party has a right to exist. But even at that level it doesnt solve all your problems. Thats why we arent all hugging, drinking Coke, and singing 'We are the world'. Because in THIS world, people disagree, and most times for very stupid reasons.
Oh, I agree the issue of needing to have IE4 was total crap. But we ignored it, and MS came to their senses. I just think of it as the Marketting company temporarily having too much say-so. There is currently no support requirement for NT's web browser, just a requirement for service pack level (SP6a), and even that is not a hard limit. They will still work with you if its not there.
But I wasnt saying the browser had anything to do with the OS, I was just stating that as an example of how version control has improved in Windows. Quite frankly, it was good before and after the IE4 stuff- it was just that period was very long, high profile, and very problematic.
BTW, I'm not so sure MS got it right. I'm pretty sure that at some point they'll tell you that now they don't support IE 5 either, please upgrade to IE 6
Well, they do stop supporting the browser, but there is no longer a requirement to have a browser installed. But eventaully they will stop supporting NT4, and after that it becomes a moot point.
I think their somewhat loose rule is to support the current version and the previous version. Beyond that, they would rather phase out the old versions. Are they right? I guess. Overall I dont think it really matters; a server application that runs on NT4 will, 99% of the time, run on Win2000; installing services hasnt changed. Its the crappy apps that need to run in the user component which cause problems. But like anything technical, you can figure out ways to get around it.
Is there any tool to upgrade IE on 100 computers at once? Yes, in Win2000 and beyond you can use Software Update Services (SUS); it runs on a server, and will work with clients configured to pull their updates automatically (in lieu of going out to the internet). The nice thing about SUS is you expressly tell it what to make available for updating. You can also have it run as hands-off, just pulling from MS and mirroring it locally.
And ya, I know Unix has strengths in remote admin. I actaully know ABOUT unix, mostly as a NOS, but dont actaully use it. A lot of the knowledge comes from trying to get NT to do something, and reading "in unix you can do blah blah, so we made this win32 utility to do that."
It does amuse me how so many current problems (and not just in Windows) were been-there-done-that over 20 years ago by Unix.
How do you figure this is anti-trust? This is simply a company who has the dominant product protecting their lead. And quite honestly, I dont see anything wrong with that, as long as they confine their practices to their product (ie. they arent making Office the only suite that can run on windows)
Have you ever played a game like Civilization or Alpha Centari? You would be amazed at how much those games make you understand politics. Once you are in the lead, you do anything you can to protect that lead. And why would you expect the real world to be any different?
But this isnt a game, this is business. And since businesses are SUPPOSED to make money, they need to make sure people continue to buy MS Office. And making an office suite that shares documents with all the various third-tier office suites just doesnt do that. Why should my company buy MS Office if the documents it produces are exactly the same as those of FreeBeerOffice? Now, if FBO cannot do things MSO can do, then there is an incentive...
Nothing, I guess, since I dont use linux. I was just asking a question.Can you ask the Windows box questions like "which software package does this file come from"?
No, but you can search the registry and see what is tied to it. There may also be a better way in Win2k/XP, but as I said, I havent dealt with this stuff in a few years.
Can a Windows software package check that the DLLs required by the package are already installed on the computer?
Sure, all the deterministic tools are there. But if the person packaging the install does a bad job, it really doesnt matter.
Can you find which config files (registry keys) that belong to a particular software package?
sure, it should be in the branch (key). If your program uses HKLM\Software\Crapsoft\Modules whatever, you SHOULD be listing all your entries under whatever keys you are using. The problem, however, is that a lot of vendors throw registry entries all over the place, and do a poor job of cleaning up their mess. That is not a problem with MS, its a problem with the developer.
Can a software package check for old config files (registry keys), and do the appropriate thing (i.e., overwrite with new values or leave old)?
Sure. All the deterministic tools are there, but if they arent being used... for example, AOL is notoriously bad at both not cleaning up old installs, not uninstalling correctly, and overwriting important files during install. There was a problem about three years or so ago where they did something to mess up every network connection on the computer except the AOL connection. It was pretty much a case of them assuming you would not be connected to anything else, so any user putting this on their work computer would be in for a world of hurt.
how long did it take MS to ditch MS-DOS?
well, that depends. You could say that Win95 got rid of it, since Win95 didnt use MS-DOS as it was; it basically assimilated it. MS-DOS 7, which is what Win95 used, was not a true DOS, and a lot of commands and functionality got whacked.
However, if you are talking about tha ability to use a command prompt, I dont see they can ever take that out, or would even want to. If you need to go 'underneath' the GUI, so to speak, you would want to use the CLI.
I think the worse problem is how long it took them to dump LAN Manager. Ugh, all that NetBIOS over TCP/IP stuff really causes problems. Fortunately, if you use Active Directory you can finally get rid of it (depending on how much legacy stuff you can either adjust or get rid of).
Anyway, the source is there so feel free to fix if there is something you think is missing.;-)
haha! thanks, but Im sticking with Windows. I tried to look into linux a bit, but didnt/dont really have the time. At this point, if its not building on something I already know, there are other things I need to be doing. One thing I was disappointed with was not being able to use it on an old machine. I mean, when the base install is over 1gb, that kind of excludes using an old 486 w/ 250mb hd.
thats actaully what I wanted to know. so there is some sort of deterministic logic involved.
Your IE 4 problem is exactly why windows installers are crap.
That wasnt really a problem with the windows installer, it was a problem with the programmers bloating the registry with poorly considered entries, a whole lot of files, etc. I remember, at the time, MS saying they wouldnt support your server if it didnt have IE4. Of course, we didnt do it- that would have been stupid. Eventually, better minds prevailed and IE 5 came out. So MS gets it right, eventaully.
Now they have automatic update. We dont use it, but Im waiting for the corporate version where we can push updates to our networked client machines. With the servers, an admin should need to say, ok, go update such-and-such machines; I would be livid if autoupdate grabbed something that crashed the server. HULK SMAAAAAASH!!
wow, slap some kind of protocol analyser in them too, and you have instant security breach. Taking industrial espionage to a whole new level.
And you could also make one wireless... I think the only thing limiting you could be power consumption. But having a wall wart plugged into one of these under somebody's desk- that seems doable.
I believe it was shown that XP Pro could be sold for $35 a copy and MS would still make an above average profit on it. Consider that you can't get a copy for less than $200 (and that's OEM),
Pure FUD. WinXP Home upgrade, Best Buy, $99. http://www.bestbuy.com/software/Detail.asp?m=1023& e=11082033
You can also go to pricewatch.com and get XP Home Full, OEM, for $85, and XP Pro Full, OEM, for $135.
So you are either very mistaken or lying. Either way, its simply not true. Also, everyone should tend to question what they read on Slashdot regarding MS. This place tends to follow an agenda, and one that isnt completely honest.
MS isnt perfect, but they tend to do a pretty good job overall. In the enterprise, there is an old saying that Microsoft gets it right -- eventaully. The fact that they have a vested interest in my company being happy with their product makes me more inclined to use them, than having some linux geek snort at my suggestion for making something easier, by saying Im stupid and just dont understand it. Easier = less time = do more work. This is my equation, and it works for me. If I have to pay for the service/software, so be it.
Installation in Windows is a mess. It requires using a specialized program, that will increase your package in at least 300K in size, that will copy files to the appropiate place, register DLLs and update the registry. Manual install/uninstall is very messy.
First, Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP have gotten much better with version control, and will probably not have much trouble with things like this in the future. Also, in a world with 80GB hard drives, I dont think an increase of 300k is going to make any difference, to anyone.
I used to build application install packages for network distribution a few years ago (Novell Application Launcher, Systems Management Server, and Winstall), so I know quite a bit about it, even tho my specific knowlege is a bit dated. And honestly, if you knew what you were doing, Windows installs werent that bad.
The problem, actually, became really bad with IE4.x; thats why standardizing is so important in an enterprise environment. Once you get past that hurdle, making install packages is easy(er), because you just use the right tools.
What I am basically asking, is if there is any deterministic logic in linux install packages. There doesnt seem to be, where as there IS in InstallShield. If I have 15-100 servers to maintain, I dont want to manually copy all the files onto each one. That is what makes the deterministic logic so important.
The way I have always seen it, computers are made for doing routine tasks. So having ME do the routine tasks FOR the computer seems kind of dumb. You can get more work done by having the computer work for you, than the other way around. If you do things smart, you can do the work of 20+ people.
that is, per se, a problem with version control. And yes, it is a problem, but it has gotten much better in a windows environment in the past few years.
I used to write network installation packages for Win9x and NT a few years ago with NAL, SMS, and Winstall, so I do know about this stuff.
Also, it is well documented when a file gets overwritten (check technet with your errors), and an experienced tech should have a list in his head (and in a folder) about these things. For example, there are two files that need to be present in order to use both Access 97 and Access 2000 and some registry entries to change; the versions are from Access 97, but how to do it depends on the order you install in. If you dont do it correctly, neither will work. But its really a basic problem once you know.
My point is, MS now takes steps in Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP to make sure these things wont happen in the future. The thing I was wondering is why Linux seems to be so far behind the curve, as far as version control goes.
Just as an outsider, I would say open source sufferes from lack of direction and standards, comparatively speaking. Linus only steps in (I believe) on kernel related issues, and everything else is getting sorted out (sort of) by the various distros. But once a certain method achieves the 'thats the way its done' status, it seems to stagnate. Look at the holy war between KDE and GNOME- the only thing they seem to agree on is disagreeing.
If I shout across a crowded room, the other people talking could, in a manner of speaking, be called interferrence. However, its not a failure of the sound waves projecting from my mouth, its a failure of the ears on the person across the room. If you had one of those satelite dish looking microphones you could hear me better.
How the HELL does that get modded down as 'off-topic'? Making an analogy between broadcast communications and vocally broadcast communications is off topic?
There are some serious whacked-out mods in this place.
Well, thats your spin on it. However, Sony spent quite a bit of money on the PSX, and Nintendo spent quite a bit to develop the GameCube. Bill didnt get shipped the XBox plans for Christmas, it took money to develop.
Also, while the XBox is still not making as much as the PS2, Im sure MS is recouping their money. Remember, the games make the money, not the system.
Also, you will probably see a lot of lessons they learned from the XBox begin to show up down the road in PC gaming.
If I shout across a crowded room, the other people talking could, in a manner of speaking, be called interferrence. However, its not a failure of the sound waves projecting from my mouth, its a failure of the ears on the person across the room. If you had one of those satelite dish looking microphones you could hear me better.
Slashdot Mirror
WOW! Im going to write a scientific paper. Its going to be about how you can crash a Java VM or a Citrix terminal session by repeated blows, via sledgehammer, to the server creating said VM or session.
As opposed to now?
And, well, what happens when it becomes illegal NOT to use guns like this?
You eventually get most of the illegal guns out of circulation thru attrition, and then there is accountability with the guns. Of course, someone can just haxor a stolen gun to not use the ID function...
Crooks will be crooks; thats why my solution doesn't lie in the gun, it lies in the criminal; work on figuring out why people use guns instead of fixing guns for crazy people.
So what should people do, just shrug and say 'thats the way it is', and try and do nothing to change anything? Or wait for God to come down and explain "Why"? Either way, I would rather see people try to innovate a solution. It doesnt get better overnight, and this is a crude first try. But its a nice start.
I know you probably will never see a soldier with this gun, and I wouldnt want to drop it in water. But eventaully it will improve (assuming it catches on).
Do you even use MS Word? I can open up just about any document with it, even like way back WP5.x or 6.x, or Lotus 1-2-3. They have TONS of converters included with Word, all you have to do is install them (many of the way obscure ones are skipped in default install).
Plus, I dont see how your point is even relavent. Word is not a development platform. Also, you CAN write plug-ins for Word.
However, what I was saying about MS losing out to Linux. Sure, people can make money supporting linux and MS. But let me use another analogy to show what I mean. Lets say you own a restaurant. You are in the middle of a small town, and end up becoming the most successful restaurant due to your really good location. Eventually, somebody opens a place on the edge of town. It doesnt have better food, and it isnt as nice, and the bathrooms really smell. But, they arent charging for the food. If you want to be all extravagant, you can have a waitress serve you, but most people just get the food themselves.
Now, do you just sit back and say 'well, I dont care if my business drops, as long as I stay in business. This can be a good thing, because I can lower my employee expenses.' Or do you possibly try to branch out into another business, like fast food, or groceries, or napkins? Personally, I have never seen any virute in the 'give up and die" arguement most people take (generally without realizing it). Businesses either expand or die. Look at KMart. They sat on their laurels and let other companies expand around them until they were forced out of business. Inaction has consequesnces, but generally not good ones. I doubt there will be an example of a company that just 'shared the market'. Thats where comparing MS to a contry fails, and was not the point I was making with Civ or AC. While France and Germany may respect the others right to exist, they are not competing for citizens.
To extend my example, Im sure waiters and bus boys can make money at either restaurant. But I would rather work at the nice restaurant. Also, just because the waiters are making money doesnt mean your business is doing well.
For every case study that says Linux ends up being too expensive to implement, there are other case studies that show how companies save thousands of dollars by switching to Linux.
Different type of article; the ones I read were more on economics/accounting. The 'return on investment' type of articles are generally written to support the authors agenda, so are alsays suspect. But some beancounter doesnt care if MS or Linux is used. He is just looking at the numbers, and the numbers pretty much come out even, for the reasons I cited.
Then, if your company has a lot of servers, that's a very large potential savings you will see immediately
Thats assuming that you 1. actually hire a good linux admin (rather than a poor one in disguise), 2. you dont have to pay the guy more than the two guys you just fired, 3. that if he quits and takes a higher paying job, you wont have a really hard/expensive time replacing him. Also, while there are a lot of paper MCSEs, there are also a lot of good ones. I can give someone advice on how to sort them out, but since nobody in our organization is a Linux expert, its hard(er) to sort out the bullshitters. But you can look at the MCSE the same way you look at a college degree- the paper just shows that you were commited enough to sacrifice to get that paper. Since Linux certifications arent really prevalant, its hard to at least use that filter.
first it was ubiquitous in low-level things like TCP/IP stacks (all the Unix TCP/IP code, and even Microsoft's, are derived from free software
TCP/IP and Unix were not free. They were funded by research grants from DARPA, and also various corporations like AT&T. They also had focused objectives in the terms of the grants (like dynamic rerouting, transmission control, etc). Its actually because of these requirements it won the 'protocol wars' (so to speak), as well as the fact that it was better than proprietary alternatives like IPX/SPX. Likewise, Linux isnt 'free'. Linus is a Transmeta employee, and even the people who work on it in their spare time are, in effect
However, if you are interested, I have read a bunch of articles on this subject lately. I dont have any onhand, but you can probably just google for them. The basic thrust of them was that free software does not tend to be free (as you somewhat claim). You have to pay more for support and implimentation, retraining, etc, so the costs and benefits come out to be somewhat equal (not counting in the fact that you are losing money while the whole company is getting retrained on how to use their computers, ie lost productivity).
Now, discounting your anti-MS bias, there are very tangible business benefits for using them. I dont think the majority of businesses in the world are suffering from mass hysteria, so maybe you just dont realize why they use it. First, interoperability is very important. MSO can read files from just about any other format. Saving it in another format isnt perfect, but why should it? Improving the converters for WP5 isnt going to make somebody more likely to buy your product, so is not a good use of a programmers time. Windows 95/NT/2000/XP can also be made to connect with just about any other kind of computer. This is actually the reason they became dominant on the desktop: if you had a Netware NOS or a UNIX NOS or Banyon Vines, or whatever, you could get a Win95 machine for your secretary and know it would work. Everyone else ignored interop by trying to tie people to their NOS, and paid for it. Now Apple, IBM, etc are crying because they lost out to Windows. It was just a good decision at a pivotal moment, and the rest is history.
One last reason is support. MS has very good support, and a lot of very talented people work with MS products. Sure there are a lot of Boot-camp paper MCSEs. But there are a lot more who arent. If you look at mindshare, MS has more as well. If there are, say, 10,000 people capable of being high-level experts, and 9,000 end up using MS products, which one is going to be better supported?
Your statements really come off more as OS penis-envy than as factual statements. Also, as I said- economics are all about the George Washingtons. I see free software to be a passing fad, like the shareware fad of the 80s. Eventually, these people are going to want to make real money for their work. At that point, they will go where the money is, and I dont see that being with open source. My crystal ball doesnt work any better than anyone elses, but thats how I see it.
this is one of those cases I hope they both lose.
Well, he is not wrong in asking you to do this. There is a difference between doing something that is 'not legal'- ie something the business can get sued for, and something that is 'illegal', ie he cannot ask you to rob a liquor store.
First, you need to get some CYA. Tell him you will do it, but he has to make his boss aware you were asked to do this, and you need it in an email, etc. That way you cant get fired and used as a scapegoat.
Whether it is legal or not, I do not feel that it is ethical, and may leave the company if I am pushed to do this.
Well, since he is not requesting your legal/ethics advice, you should pretty much do what he says. Of course, quitting is the ultimate form of protest (barring suicide), but he will probably just hire somebody else and have them do it.
And of course, you couldnt pick a better time to leave your job! There are tons of jobs out there, hanging on trees like ripe fruit waiting to be picked.
You can win Civ by using only diplomacy. All you need to do to win is be the first to send your spaceship. Conquering the world, while fun, is entirely optional. So you sound quite ignorant on the subject, and about what "analogy" means.
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with it, but that just demonstrates your ignorance of the real world and why anti-trust laws exist.
First, you dont sound like an anti-trust lawyer, but you do sound like a religious fanatic (at least to me). Second, the only thing you are saying is MS is a monopoly, so anything they do is WRONG!!!!! The way I see it, there is nothing morally or legally or ethically that says MS has to make Office2003 work with another company's office suite. What MS does with their product, and the way it formats, and the tags it uses in its .doc files, is solely up to Microsoft. Just because they have the largest installed base of desktops really doesnt change that. Its like saying because I own all the tea in China that I cant buy a teapot.
As I said, as long as they dont make their OS break other office suites, they are doing nothing wrong.
In the case of MSO, that means it needs to have a viable export format that is readable by other office suites.
Thats not true, and its silly to suggest. Also, last time I looked, you could still save files as *.txt, so there is your common denominator. Also, they probably arent going to drop O97 or O2k formatting, so something like StarOffice should still work. But there isnt one thing saying MS has to make their new formats (or even their old) compatible with anyone else.
As for why you would buy MSO over FBO, why do people buy StarOffice 6 instead of just downloading OpenOffice? Support contracts come to mind...
Yes, and that is another reason why everyone uses MSO- because their support is damn good. And I speak from experience. I dont support it anymore, really, but occasionally someone from the help desk needs advice, and I always tell them to check technet (or I know it, and usually hand them a document from my drawer that is from technet). And once they learn to check technet instead of asking me, they usually dont need to ask me unless its really difficult.
you would need to play AC or Civ to understand my analogy. they arent combat sims, they are socio-political sims, with combat coming as a result of those forces. Just like real life. Its not a cop out, unless you have played them you dont know what I mean. Its like trying to have somebody tell you what a mango tastes like.
But what my point WAS was about Microsoft, and why it is trying to retain its market share. If you have the #1 selling Office Suite, why do you want to 'defend the right to exist' of a competing product? They are trying to take money out of your pocket! A company will only buy one product, so obviously you want to retain your customers. This is true of any money-making business. Hippiness does not succeed in the marketplace.
Take MS vs. Linux. Since nobody is really making money from Linux, a victory for them in the desktop OS market would benefit nobody, and only hurt MS (the current leader).
Thats what my whole point was- when you look at it in those terms, everything makes sense. In the end, the reason for every problem is- Its all about the George Washingtons.
He DOES have a mac homepage...
Might as well say that an understanding of Risk gives you the ability to command armies and understand the way countries interact.
Analogy
1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
Hence, the comparison between a game and real life. But understanding Risk my not give you the skills to lead armies or countries, but it can certainly give you an appreciation of how such things work, and an abstract view of the issues involved.
Also, you say if you have an advanced civ you can help them rather than keep them down. But what if a. they dont want your help, b. they are openly hostile to you, c. any help you give them is twisted, either being stolen or misused? Would you be inclined to keep helping them, or more inclined to make sure they never get on an equal footing as you so they become a bigger problem?
An issue like that is only resolved once two parties (countries, companies, people, etc) have a mutual, unspoken agreement that the other party has a right to exist. But even at that level it doesnt solve all your problems. Thats why we arent all hugging, drinking Coke, and singing 'We are the world'. Because in THIS world, people disagree, and most times for very stupid reasons.
My OS longs to be free!!!!
Does this guy live in a bubble?
But I wasnt saying the browser had anything to do with the OS, I was just stating that as an example of how version control has improved in Windows. Quite frankly, it was good before and after the IE4 stuff- it was just that period was very long, high profile, and very problematic.
BTW, I'm not so sure MS got it right. I'm pretty sure that at some point they'll tell you that now they don't support IE 5 either, please upgrade to IE 6
Well, they do stop supporting the browser, but there is no longer a requirement to have a browser installed. But eventaully they will stop supporting NT4, and after that it becomes a moot point.
I think their somewhat loose rule is to support the current version and the previous version. Beyond that, they would rather phase out the old versions. Are they right? I guess. Overall I dont think it really matters; a server application that runs on NT4 will, 99% of the time, run on Win2000; installing services hasnt changed. Its the crappy apps that need to run in the user component which cause problems. But like anything technical, you can figure out ways to get around it.
Is there any tool to upgrade IE on 100 computers at once? Yes, in Win2000 and beyond you can use Software Update Services (SUS); it runs on a server, and will work with clients configured to pull their updates automatically (in lieu of going out to the internet). The nice thing about SUS is you expressly tell it what to make available for updating. You can also have it run as hands-off, just pulling from MS and mirroring it locally.
And ya, I know Unix has strengths in remote admin. I actaully know ABOUT unix, mostly as a NOS, but dont actaully use it. A lot of the knowledge comes from trying to get NT to do something, and reading "in unix you can do blah blah, so we made this win32 utility to do that."
It does amuse me how so many current problems (and not just in Windows) were been-there-done-that over 20 years ago by Unix.
Have you ever played a game like Civilization or Alpha Centari? You would be amazed at how much those games make you understand politics. Once you are in the lead, you do anything you can to protect that lead. And why would you expect the real world to be any different?
But this isnt a game, this is business. And since businesses are SUPPOSED to make money, they need to make sure people continue to buy MS Office. And making an office suite that shares documents with all the various third-tier office suites just doesnt do that. Why should my company buy MS Office if the documents it produces are exactly the same as those of FreeBeerOffice? Now, if FBO cannot do things MSO can do, then there is an incentive...
Nothing, I guess, since I dont use linux. I was just asking a question. Can you ask the Windows box questions like "which software package does this file come from"?
No, but you can search the registry and see what is tied to it. There may also be a better way in Win2k/XP, but as I said, I havent dealt with this stuff in a few years.
Can a Windows software package check that the DLLs required by the package are already installed on the computer?
Sure, all the deterministic tools are there. But if the person packaging the install does a bad job, it really doesnt matter.
Can you find which config files (registry keys) that belong to a particular software package?
sure, it should be in the branch (key). If your program uses HKLM\Software\Crapsoft\Modules whatever, you SHOULD be listing all your entries under whatever keys you are using. The problem, however, is that a lot of vendors throw registry entries all over the place, and do a poor job of cleaning up their mess. That is not a problem with MS, its a problem with the developer.
Can a software package check for old config files (registry keys), and do the appropriate thing (i.e., overwrite with new values or leave old)?
Sure. All the deterministic tools are there, but if they arent being used... for example, AOL is notoriously bad at both not cleaning up old installs, not uninstalling correctly, and overwriting important files during install. There was a problem about three years or so ago where they did something to mess up every network connection on the computer except the AOL connection. It was pretty much a case of them assuming you would not be connected to anything else, so any user putting this on their work computer would be in for a world of hurt.
how long did it take MS to ditch MS-DOS?
well, that depends. You could say that Win95 got rid of it, since Win95 didnt use MS-DOS as it was; it basically assimilated it. MS-DOS 7, which is what Win95 used, was not a true DOS, and a lot of commands and functionality got whacked.
However, if you are talking about tha ability to use a command prompt, I dont see they can ever take that out, or would even want to. If you need to go 'underneath' the GUI, so to speak, you would want to use the CLI.
I think the worse problem is how long it took them to dump LAN Manager. Ugh, all that NetBIOS over TCP/IP stuff really causes problems. Fortunately, if you use Active Directory you can finally get rid of it (depending on how much legacy stuff you can either adjust or get rid of).
Anyway, the source is there so feel free to fix if there is something you think is missing. ;-)
haha! thanks, but Im sticking with Windows. I tried to look into linux a bit, but didnt/dont really have the time. At this point, if its not building on something I already know, there are other things I need to be doing. One thing I was disappointed with was not being able to use it on an old machine. I mean, when the base install is over 1gb, that kind of excludes using an old 486 w/ 250mb hd.
Your IE 4 problem is exactly why windows installers are crap.
That wasnt really a problem with the windows installer, it was a problem with the programmers bloating the registry with poorly considered entries, a whole lot of files, etc. I remember, at the time, MS saying they wouldnt support your server if it didnt have IE4. Of course, we didnt do it- that would have been stupid. Eventually, better minds prevailed and IE 5 came out. So MS gets it right, eventaully.
Now they have automatic update. We dont use it, but Im waiting for the corporate version where we can push updates to our networked client machines. With the servers, an admin should need to say, ok, go update such-and-such machines; I would be livid if autoupdate grabbed something that crashed the server. HULK SMAAAAAASH!!
And you could also make one wireless... I think the only thing limiting you could be power consumption. But having a wall wart plugged into one of these under somebody's desk- that seems doable.
pff. OoT is so four years ago :) Excuse me for being behind the console curve!
Pure FUD. WinXP Home upgrade, Best Buy, $99. http://www.bestbuy.com/software/Detail.asp?m=1023& e=11082033
You can also go to pricewatch.com and get XP Home Full, OEM, for $85, and XP Pro Full, OEM, for $135.
So you are either very mistaken or lying. Either way, its simply not true. Also, everyone should tend to question what they read on Slashdot regarding MS. This place tends to follow an agenda, and one that isnt completely honest.
MS isnt perfect, but they tend to do a pretty good job overall. In the enterprise, there is an old saying that Microsoft gets it right -- eventaully. The fact that they have a vested interest in my company being happy with their product makes me more inclined to use them, than having some linux geek snort at my suggestion for making something easier, by saying Im stupid and just dont understand it. Easier = less time = do more work. This is my equation, and it works for me. If I have to pay for the service/software, so be it.
First, Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP have gotten much better with version control, and will probably not have much trouble with things like this in the future. Also, in a world with 80GB hard drives, I dont think an increase of 300k is going to make any difference, to anyone.
I used to build application install packages for network distribution a few years ago (Novell Application Launcher, Systems Management Server, and Winstall), so I know quite a bit about it, even tho my specific knowlege is a bit dated. And honestly, if you knew what you were doing, Windows installs werent that bad.
The problem, actually, became really bad with IE4.x; thats why standardizing is so important in an enterprise environment. Once you get past that hurdle, making install packages is easy(er), because you just use the right tools.
What I am basically asking, is if there is any deterministic logic in linux install packages. There doesnt seem to be, where as there IS in InstallShield. If I have 15-100 servers to maintain, I dont want to manually copy all the files onto each one. That is what makes the deterministic logic so important.
The way I have always seen it, computers are made for doing routine tasks. So having ME do the routine tasks FOR the computer seems kind of dumb. You can get more work done by having the computer work for you, than the other way around. If you do things smart, you can do the work of 20+ people.
I used to write network installation packages for Win9x and NT a few years ago with NAL, SMS, and Winstall, so I do know about this stuff.
Also, it is well documented when a file gets overwritten (check technet with your errors), and an experienced tech should have a list in his head (and in a folder) about these things. For example, there are two files that need to be present in order to use both Access 97 and Access 2000 and some registry entries to change; the versions are from Access 97, but how to do it depends on the order you install in. If you dont do it correctly, neither will work. But its really a basic problem once you know.
My point is, MS now takes steps in Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP to make sure these things wont happen in the future. The thing I was wondering is why Linux seems to be so far behind the curve, as far as version control goes.
Just as an outsider, I would say open source sufferes from lack of direction and standards, comparatively speaking. Linus only steps in (I believe) on kernel related issues, and everything else is getting sorted out (sort of) by the various distros. But once a certain method achieves the 'thats the way its done' status, it seems to stagnate. Look at the holy war between KDE and GNOME- the only thing they seem to agree on is disagreeing.
How the HELL does that get modded down as 'off-topic'? Making an analogy between broadcast communications and vocally broadcast communications is off topic?
There are some serious whacked-out mods in this place.
Also, while the XBox is still not making as much as the PS2, Im sure MS is recouping their money. Remember, the games make the money, not the system.
Also, you will probably see a lot of lessons they learned from the XBox begin to show up down the road in PC gaming.
If I shout across a crowded room, the other people talking could, in a manner of speaking, be called interferrence. However, its not a failure of the sound waves projecting from my mouth, its a failure of the ears on the person across the room. If you had one of those satelite dish looking microphones you could hear me better.