I'm surprised you say 2000 and XP use different version of NTFS. It was my understanding that NT and 2000/XP use different versions, not 2000 and XP.
My understanding is that both use NTFS5 - actually 2000 uses NTFS 3.0 and XP uses NTFS 3.1. NT has Service Pack 4 which allows reading and writing to NTFS 3.0/3.1 volumes but does not support the advanced features of NTFS 3.0/3.1 such as disk quotas, encryption, etc. Otherwise one can't use NT 4.0 to access NTFS on 2000/XP/2003 Server.
In any event, my problems stemmed from poor support for LBA48 in Windows 2000. I installed it with Service Pack 3 embedded, then added Service Pack 4. Even after installing XP with Service Pack 1, the fact that the partition table had been initially created with Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 was enough to destroy it once the 137GB barrier was crossed. So neither Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, nor Windows XP, detected and corrected the problem.
Red Hat, however, which I was triple-booting with at the time, had LBA48 support as of 7.2. I was running 7.3, so no problems accessing the Windows disk.
Despite the vulnerability count in 98 vrs. XP, I suspect that if you analyze those vulnerabilities, you'll find that many of the 98 ones do not involve easy REMOTE compromising of the system whereas many of the XP ones probably do. That was my point - 98 is more secure if it has fewer REMOTE service vulnerabilities compared to XP. Obviously 98 has no local security because it has virtually no user authentication. But if the box is locally (physically) secure, then the local compromises aren't important. Remote compromise vulnerabilities are always important. So it stands to reason that if you have more services accessible remotely, then you have more remote compromise vulnerabilities. In this respect, XP HAS to have more vulnerabilities since it has so many more Net services.
It MIGHT be true that more effort was made on XP to secure these services than was done on 98, but given the number of script kiddies and worms since 98, I think that clearly argues against that. These script kiddies and worms didn't exist when 98 was around and wouldn't exist if there weren't holes to exploit in 2000/XP. Script kiddies and worms just don't grow by themselves due to more computers in use - they need a "fertile environment". Clearly Windows has given them this.
I'll have to dig out that resource kit kill utility and put a shortcut to it on my desktop. It's amusing though that in Windows you have to go to a command line utility to kill a process effectively.
I know all that. If their hardware only runs Solaris (and they don't really want Linux), then their hardware becomes irrelevant over time as Linux takes on the abilities of Solaris.
Not to mention that much of their hardware is more expensive than Intel commodity boxes and is being replaced rapidly by corporations.
In fact, the only reason they open sourced Solaris was because they can't compete against cheap Linux.
End result is the same - dump Solaris and back Linux, or go out of business.
And according to TODAY'S media (or was it yesterday?) the stories that Libby and Rove told the prosecutor "differ" from those told by the reporters in question.
The prosecutor is looking for the ORIGINAL leak - and he's not going to find it with the reporters who didn't have the leaked memo he's looking for.
"Even if the door is wide open, you do not walk into a military base."
That's why they convicted SEAL Richard Marcinko of theft - because his SEAL Team Six proved you could. He embarrassed a lot of base commanders nationwide by penetrating Navy nuclear-warhead Harpoon cruise missile lockers, the Groton submarine base, Air Force One's hangar, the President's cottage at Camp David, and various other critical "secure" areas. Mostly using simple tricks and nerve.
This is more about embarassment than actual damage. It always is with the military. That's why they've never said anything but a lie in every press release about every embarrassing incident that has ever happened to them. Anybody who believes anything the military says probably also believes anything Microsoft says.
Excuse me, moron, consumers have never heard of Linux. This does NOT mean they don't want Linux. In fact, they DO want Linux - they just don't know it yet. They DO know they want something other than a Microsoft POS that craps out with spyware every three months so they have to throw the machine out and buy a new one.
The only reason an HP laptop doesn't support Linux properly is lame marketing on the part of HP - who ultimately do not give a shit about their consumers. Which is why their machines are POS.
They refused to support Windows 2000, claiming that it "wasn't a consumer OS." They sat around with Windows 98 on their POS machines until XP came out.
NEVER buy an HP OR a Compaq - they are proprietary POS machines that are a nightmare to do support for. They are "consumer machines" meant to never be opened, tweaked or fixed. Buy and junk - that's it.
I've said for years that what Sun, HP, and IBM need to do is dump their proprietary OSs, donate all the enterprise stuff those OSs have to the Linux community (like SGI did with their file system), and back Linux all the way.
They get two benefits from this:
1) They get to spend their OS development money on system management add-ons that differentiate their company from the others and not on duplicating OS functions that everybody else has (with the net result that their OS is a wash when it comes to marketing.)
2) They get one coherent vastly better enterprise class OS to fight Microsoft with.
But NOOOOOOOOOO. All these morons have to have NIH genetically engineered into their every cell.
So, yes, this is why Linux will bury Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX before it buries Windows. All three OSs are doomed. Sooner or later Linux will have every single enterprise-class feature that they do - and it will STILL be free. What are they going to do then? Hint: Go out of business.
In five years, Sun will be the new SCO - suing Linus for having invented Linux and destroyed their company. And they'll end up where SCO is going to end up in the next year or so (well, maybe not that bad - SCO is likely to go to jail for violations of the Lanham Act.)
"I've never known any 'Big Iron' server to be a webserver."
Really? My understanding was that one of the big reasons for running Linux on IBM mainframes is you can run a thousand copies all running Apache and have nice response times to Web page requests. Very useful for huge corporate Web sites with a lot of consumer access.
Another post that agrees with my main point: until Linux has enterprise class applications that work together, its adoption by corporations will be slowed. It will happen, since the frameworks are there to build enterprise class apps. It just needs more open source developers to build the apps.
In other words, somebody needs to build an app that Bloomberg will use rather than use Windows.
Somebody needs to build plugins for OpenOffice's spreadsheet that does what Excel plugins do.
Once that is done, Linux will bury Windows.
This isn't a problem, it's a huge opportunity for open source developers to make money developing and supporting the enterprise via open source.
"Ever since the crash, users personal desires have taken a backseat to Cost. This even includes mandating Open Office as a substitute for MS Office whenever possible."
Exactly my point. CORPORATE users will use whatever the corporation tells them to. And this will be Linux when the below comment is true.
"However, the client machines will stay with windows. The problem is not GUI installers or friendly menus. It is rather that we are stuck using the software that the clearing firms dictate."
My other main point. Linux will dominate the corporation when most enterprise apps are available in open source and/or on Linux. Right now, that isn't true. But it will be. The frameworks are there, it just needs more open source developers working on enterprise class apps in all vertical industries.
Linux usability is quite good enough (that is, it's as crappy as Windows) for most users, once they HAVE to switch. So it's irrelevant to Linux adoption. The ONLY thing holding back Linux adoption is manpower and economics in the corporation vis a vis enterprise applications.
"I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas."
Exactly why I say open source needs to start producing more enterprise class applications. When Linux and open source can handle most enterprise applications, Linux will bury Windows in the enterprise.
The frameworks are there in open source, and a lot of companies are building enterprise class apps using these frameworks, but there's still a ways to go before open source enterprise class apps are readily available to any corporation without in-house development. When that happens, corporations will switch to open source and Linux much more quickly.
Then it isn't done on Windows either. And never will be.
But the fact of the matter is that "non-commodity" hardware is being replaced every day in corporations by commodity hardware and, as long as the SYSTEM design is right, companies see two to ten times better performance at one-half to one-tenth the cost.
By system design, I mean you ALLOW for the lessened reliability of commodity hardware by appropriate failover and backup design. Since the commodity hardware is still much less in cost than proprietary stuff, there's room for ensuring reliability and still saving money.
The ONLY thing preventing Linux from "consuming" the consumers market is education.
Most people simply have never heard of Linux or even the concept of a free operating system.
They use the OS that came with their computer; they learned the OS that came with their FIRST computer or their first corporate job.
That simple.
Once somebody either makes a Linux distro that is IDENTICAL to Windows (unlikely, although Xandros gets close) OR figures out how to make Linux a household word AND figures out how to make it EASY to learn Linux for the average user, Linux will bury Windows on the desktop for home users.
For corporate users, it will be much easier since a corporate worker will use what the corporation tells them to use. And as I've said before, the ONLY thing holding back Linux in corporations is the lack of enterprise class applications (other than the big ones like SAP and Oracle) and the perceived cost of "training" (in quotes because corporations NEVER do any real training.)
Unfortunately, I'd have to guess the client goes with Windows most of the time, because most people are idiots. At the very least, most of them have never heard of Linux. Of course, if you just tell the client you can do it for less without specifying the OS, this would work.
I'd certainly hope the client was smart enough to go with Linux (that's the sort of client I want), but I have no confidence.
But I've read plenty of stories like this, where a Windows VAR quotes X thousands and a Linux VAR quotes X thousands LESS. It's easy to do with Linux. One Linux guy quoted twenty grand against a Windows guy who quoted sixty grand. Not hard for a client to make that choice.
And what you're ignoring about Hixie's post is exactly what I said.
CSS2 and CSS2.1 are as much partial standards as any other, and CSS2 is being used in the industry, and therefore Microsoft should be supporting it (SHOULD have supported it years ago), rather than merely criticizing the parts it doesn't like. Excusing them for this is just letting their lack of interest in standards slide.
"What's also clear is that the realities of software development cycles, COMPANY POLICIES [my emphasis] and security priorities all will influence the timeline of how standards are implemented and bugs repaired within the Microsoft line of products. That we all have to be patient is simply a reality, and neither faction is looking at this as a short-term stopgap, but rather a long-term commitment to the greater good."
I'd say that's an understatement.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the individual developers like Chris Matthews "want" - it's what BILL wants. And BILL does NOT want Microsoft to adhere to standards other than those Microsoft introduces, unless he can do so without hurting his monopoly.
How anybody can rationally think Microsoft is going to compete on the Internet with a leveled playing field of adherence to standards is beyond me. They have NEVER done that in ANY area.
I certainly HOPE they do - because open source will KILL them in any area they do, because of faster development times in open source.
I liked the movie "Constantine" and Keanu didn't do that bad a job IMHO. He did better than he did in "The Matrix", that's for sure. Of course, with Rachel Weisz in it, it can't be all bad either. I wasn't that impressed with making the Devil look like a Mob boss, but it wasn't that horrible.
"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was a fun movie even if it didn't live up to the comic (which I assume is the case, I haven't read the comic.) My favorite line is where Dorian gets riddled with bullets, kills his attacker who gasps "What are you?", and replies, "I'm...complicated." His other great line when fighting Mina Harker and both of them are healing up instantly from their wounds: "We'll be at this all day!"
"From Hell" was a great movie, leaving out Heather Graham, especially due to Ian Holm's superb acting.
In most cases, even if I've read the book or comic before, I tend to cut movie directors some slack. The movie is NOT going to be the book or comic, that's a given. I only get really irritated when they mess around too much with a character's origin story or motivation - as they did with Doctor Doom in the "Fantastic Four" movie. Making Doom an analog of Lex Luthor just to take advantage of the Superman movies was too much.
Well, aside from the fact that it's set in London, what amuses me is they didn't have the nerve to change the setting to Washington and make it more explicit who the real problems are.
I've got a concept for a TV series called "Black Flagg" about a US government agent who turns against the government, becomes an anarchist and proceeds to create chaos. I came up with it BEFORE I read the "Reload" comic, which I loved since it was very similar (although they wussed out by making the bad guys the Mob, instead of politicians in and of themselves.)
For those who haven't read it, "Reload" starts out by assassinating the President and goes on from there. The Secret Service agent in charge of the assassination investigation gets suspicious when the "guilty party" - a mentally ill woman picked up from a sanitorium - is hauled in within a couple hours of the event and immediately the case is closed - especially when he SAW the assassin and it wasn't her. When he finds the assassin and WHY the assassin is trying to destroy the government, he joins her.
From the trailer, I think "V for Vendetta" is going to be a great movie.
He steals AT LEAST three concepts from Alfred Hitchcock (flocks of birds attacking people a la "The Birds"), Stephen King (protagonist has visions after an accident enabling him to save people a la "Dead Zone"), and Michael Crichton (protagonist is creating his own monsters via his mind a la "The SPhere".)
Nobody sued Koontz that I am aware of.
After I read "Coldfire", I couldn't read anything else of his, knowing how copycat his plots were.
Of course, that didn't stop me reading every cyberpunk novel that came out in the 1980's...:-)
Did Harlan sue the people who made "Soldier" with Kurt Russell?
Seems to me the concept was identical: uncontrollable programmed soldier gets tamed by innocents and rebels against his masters and defends the innocents from fellow soldiers.
Plus:
Cinescape Online reports that although it's not being promoted as a sequel to Blade Runner, screenwriter David Webb Peoples calls Soldier a "sidequel" that takes place in the same universe.
So did Ridley Scott sue for that one?
Not to mention the Van Damme movie which was another variant on the concept: dead resurrected super-soldier rebels against condition and defends innocents from renegade dead super-soldier.
Not to mention Captain America going back, oh, to the 1940's, for the whole "super-soldier" concept.
I personally think this is all just fun for lawyers. Which is why Shakespeare was right: First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Especially since "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.
I find it odd that Harlan won for "Demon With A Glass Hand". While that was probably my favorite episode of "Outer Limits", I don't find the simple concept of a robot coming back through time to save the world much of a rip-off - unless of course Harlan proved Cameron was watching the episode five minutes before exclaiming, "I have an idea for my next movie!"
Which is hardly a surprise knowing how Hollywood comes up with "ideas" for movies.
"What's playing this week down the street, Bob?" "Star Wars." "Oh, okay, let's do a space opera. We'll call it 'Fifth Element.' Get Bruce's agent on the phone."
"Demon" itself was brilliant. My favorite part is where the protagonist asks his computer hand how to save himself from the aliens, and the computer says, "Let them kill you." Marvelous writing.
Obviously, if 98 had been connected to the Net in an always-on situation, it would have been easily compromised. And still is in those situations where that is done without a firewall.
But the number of DIFFERENT ways it could have been compromised would still probably be LESS than 2000 or XP.
That was my point and it's fairly simple and obvious and has nothing to do with the external security problems of the Net such as more spammers.
I am in NO sense advocating making 98 the preferred OS for connecting to the Net, which apparently/. posters are having problems comprehending.
I personally don't use 98 except on my second machine which is an old Compaq Deskpro which won't run anything later. I run XP on my newer machine.
So your last comment is entirely off base.
You've missed just about every point I made anyway.
Again, I'm NOT arguing that 98 is in any way a better OS than 2000 or XP EXCEPT that it has LESS vulnerabilities because it is a smaller OS. It's irrelevant how many vulnerabilities 98 HAD because it had FEWER OF THEM.
It's really that simple and obvious.
As for the reliability of 2000 and XP, I had to reinstall 2000 TWICE within three months of installing it last year, and the third and last time this year it hosed my entire hard disk, so I stopped dual-booting it with XP and now run only XP (dual-booting with Mandrake 10.1 on a separate disk.)
I've had all sorts of weird behavior from XP over the last six months, though nothing that has caused me to reinstall it - yet. It still handles locked-up apps pathetically. Linux is FAR more capable in that regard - when I do a "kill -9 " on Linux, the process is dead and buried.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised you say 2000 and XP use different version of NTFS. It was my understanding that NT and 2000/XP use different versions, not 2000 and XP.
My understanding is that both use NTFS5 - actually 2000 uses NTFS 3.0 and XP uses NTFS 3.1. NT has Service Pack 4 which allows reading and writing to NTFS 3.0/3.1 volumes but does not support the advanced features of NTFS 3.0/3.1 such as disk quotas, encryption, etc. Otherwise one can't use NT 4.0 to access NTFS on 2000/XP/2003 Server.
In any event, my problems stemmed from poor support for LBA48 in Windows 2000. I installed it with Service Pack 3 embedded, then added Service Pack 4. Even after installing XP with Service Pack 1, the fact that the partition table had been initially created with Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 was enough to destroy it once the 137GB barrier was crossed. So neither Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, nor Windows XP, detected and corrected the problem.
Red Hat, however, which I was triple-booting with at the time, had LBA48 support as of 7.2. I was running 7.3, so no problems accessing the Windows disk.
Despite the vulnerability count in 98 vrs. XP, I suspect that if you analyze those vulnerabilities, you'll find that many of the 98 ones do not involve easy REMOTE compromising of the system whereas many of the XP ones probably do. That was my point - 98 is more secure if it has fewer REMOTE service vulnerabilities compared to XP. Obviously 98 has no local security because it has virtually no user authentication. But if the box is locally (physically) secure, then the local compromises aren't important. Remote compromise vulnerabilities are always important. So it stands to reason that if you have more services accessible remotely, then you have more remote compromise vulnerabilities. In this respect, XP HAS to have more vulnerabilities since it has so many more Net services.
It MIGHT be true that more effort was made on XP to secure these services than was done on 98, but given the number of script kiddies and worms since 98, I think that clearly argues against that. These script kiddies and worms didn't exist when 98 was around and wouldn't exist if there weren't holes to exploit in 2000/XP. Script kiddies and worms just don't grow by themselves due to more computers in use - they need a "fertile environment". Clearly Windows has given them this.
I'll have to dig out that resource kit kill utility and put a shortcut to it on my desktop. It's amusing though that in Windows you have to go to a command line utility to kill a process effectively.
I know all that. If their hardware only runs Solaris (and they don't really want Linux), then their hardware becomes irrelevant over time as Linux takes on the abilities of Solaris.
Not to mention that much of their hardware is more expensive than Intel commodity boxes and is being replaced rapidly by corporations.
In fact, the only reason they open sourced Solaris was because they can't compete against cheap Linux.
End result is the same - dump Solaris and back Linux, or go out of business.
And according to TODAY'S media (or was it yesterday?) the stories that Libby and Rove told the prosecutor "differ" from those told by the reporters in question.
The prosecutor is looking for the ORIGINAL leak - and he's not going to find it with the reporters who didn't have the leaked memo he's looking for.
Stay tuned.
"Even if the door is wide open, you do not walk into a military base."
That's why they convicted SEAL Richard Marcinko of theft - because his SEAL Team Six proved you could. He embarrassed a lot of base commanders nationwide by penetrating Navy nuclear-warhead Harpoon cruise missile lockers, the Groton submarine base, Air Force One's hangar, the President's cottage at Camp David, and various other critical "secure" areas. Mostly using simple tricks and nerve.
This is more about embarassment than actual damage. It always is with the military. That's why they've never said anything but a lie in every press release about every embarrassing incident that has ever happened to them. Anybody who believes anything the military says probably also believes anything Microsoft says.
Score: 3, Insightful?
For this asshat remark:
"Consumers don't want linux on their desktop"
Excuse me, moron, consumers have never heard of Linux. This does NOT mean they don't want Linux. In fact, they DO want Linux - they just don't know it yet. They DO know they want something other than a Microsoft POS that craps out with spyware every three months so they have to throw the machine out and buy a new one.
The only reason an HP laptop doesn't support Linux properly is lame marketing on the part of HP - who ultimately do not give a shit about their consumers. Which is why their machines are POS.
This is no surprise.
They refused to support Windows 2000, claiming that it "wasn't a consumer OS." They sat around with Windows 98 on their POS machines until XP came out.
NEVER buy an HP OR a Compaq - they are proprietary POS machines that are a nightmare to do support for. They are "consumer machines" meant to never be opened, tweaked or fixed. Buy and junk - that's it.
I agree.
I've said for years that what Sun, HP, and IBM need to do is dump their proprietary OSs, donate all the enterprise stuff those OSs have to the Linux community (like SGI did with their file system), and back Linux all the way.
They get two benefits from this:
1) They get to spend their OS development money on system management add-ons that differentiate their company from the others and not on duplicating OS functions that everybody else has (with the net result that their OS is a wash when it comes to marketing.)
2) They get one coherent vastly better enterprise class OS to fight Microsoft with.
But NOOOOOOOOOO. All these morons have to have NIH genetically engineered into their every cell.
So, yes, this is why Linux will bury Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX before it buries Windows. All three OSs are doomed. Sooner or later Linux will have every single enterprise-class feature that they do - and it will STILL be free. What are they going to do then? Hint: Go out of business.
In five years, Sun will be the new SCO - suing Linus for having invented Linux and destroyed their company. And they'll end up where SCO is going to end up in the next year or so (well, maybe not that bad - SCO is likely to go to jail for violations of the Lanham Act.)
"I've never known any 'Big Iron' server to be a webserver."
Really? My understanding was that one of the big reasons for running Linux on IBM mainframes is you can run a thousand copies all running Apache and have nice response times to Web page requests. Very useful for huge corporate Web sites with a lot of consumer access.
Another post that agrees with my main point: until Linux has enterprise class applications that work together, its adoption by corporations will be slowed. It will happen, since the frameworks are there to build enterprise class apps. It just needs more open source developers to build the apps.
In other words, somebody needs to build an app that Bloomberg will use rather than use Windows.
Somebody needs to build plugins for OpenOffice's spreadsheet that does what Excel plugins do.
Once that is done, Linux will bury Windows.
This isn't a problem, it's a huge opportunity for open source developers to make money developing and supporting the enterprise via open source.
"Ever since the crash, users personal desires have taken a backseat to Cost. This even includes mandating Open Office as a substitute for MS Office whenever possible."
Exactly my point. CORPORATE users will use whatever the corporation tells them to. And this will be Linux when the below comment is true.
"However, the client machines will stay with windows. The problem is not GUI installers or friendly menus. It is rather that we are stuck using the software that the clearing firms dictate."
My other main point. Linux will dominate the corporation when most enterprise apps are available in open source and/or on Linux. Right now, that isn't true. But it will be. The frameworks are there, it just needs more open source developers working on enterprise class apps in all vertical industries.
Linux usability is quite good enough (that is, it's as crappy as Windows) for most users, once they HAVE to switch. So it's irrelevant to Linux adoption. The ONLY thing holding back Linux adoption is manpower and economics in the corporation vis a vis enterprise applications.
"I don't think most of those MS systems would be chosen often on thier own, but integration with quality 3rd party apps usually gives them the win in these areas."
Exactly why I say open source needs to start producing more enterprise class applications. When Linux and open source can handle most enterprise applications, Linux will bury Windows in the enterprise.
The frameworks are there in open source, and a lot of companies are building enterprise class apps using these frameworks, but there's still a ways to go before open source enterprise class apps are readily available to any corporation without in-house development. When that happens, corporations will switch to open source and Linux much more quickly.
You mean this?
Then it isn't done on Windows either. And never will be.
But the fact of the matter is that "non-commodity" hardware is being replaced every day in corporations by commodity hardware and, as long as the SYSTEM design is right, companies see two to ten times better performance at one-half to one-tenth the cost.
By system design, I mean you ALLOW for the lessened reliability of commodity hardware by appropriate failover and backup design. Since the commodity hardware is still much less in cost than proprietary stuff, there's room for ensuring reliability and still saving money.
The ONLY thing preventing Linux from "consuming" the consumers market is education.
Most people simply have never heard of Linux or even the concept of a free operating system.
They use the OS that came with their computer; they learned the OS that came with their FIRST computer or their first corporate job.
That simple.
Once somebody either makes a Linux distro that is IDENTICAL to Windows (unlikely, although Xandros gets close) OR figures out how to make Linux a household word AND figures out how to make it EASY to learn Linux for the average user, Linux will bury Windows on the desktop for home users.
For corporate users, it will be much easier since a corporate worker will use what the corporation tells them to use. And as I've said before, the ONLY thing holding back Linux in corporations is the lack of enterprise class applications (other than the big ones like SAP and Oracle) and the perceived cost of "training" (in quotes because corporations NEVER do any real training.)
Unfortunately, I'd have to guess the client goes with Windows most of the time, because most people are idiots. At the very least, most of them have never heard of Linux. Of course, if you just tell the client you can do it for less without specifying the OS, this would work.
I'd certainly hope the client was smart enough to go with Linux (that's the sort of client I want), but I have no confidence.
But I've read plenty of stories like this, where a Windows VAR quotes X thousands and a Linux VAR quotes X thousands LESS. It's easy to do with Linux. One Linux guy quoted twenty grand against a Windows guy who quoted sixty grand. Not hard for a client to make that choice.
And what you're ignoring about Hixie's post is exactly what I said.
CSS2 and CSS2.1 are as much partial standards as any other, and CSS2 is being used in the industry, and therefore Microsoft should be supporting it (SHOULD have supported it years ago), rather than merely criticizing the parts it doesn't like. Excusing them for this is just letting their lack of interest in standards slide.
In link two, we also have this:
"What's also clear is that the realities of software development cycles, COMPANY POLICIES [my emphasis] and security priorities all will influence the timeline of how standards are implemented and bugs repaired within the Microsoft line of products. That we all have to be patient is simply a reality, and neither faction is looking at this as a short-term stopgap, but rather a long-term commitment to the greater good."
I'd say that's an understatement.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the individual developers like Chris Matthews "want" - it's what BILL wants. And BILL does NOT want Microsoft to adhere to standards other than those Microsoft introduces, unless he can do so without hurting his monopoly.
How anybody can rationally think Microsoft is going to compete on the Internet with a leveled playing field of adherence to standards is beyond me. They have NEVER done that in ANY area.
I certainly HOPE they do - because open source will KILL them in any area they do, because of faster development times in open source.
I liked the movie "Constantine" and Keanu didn't do that bad a job IMHO. He did better than he did in "The Matrix", that's for sure. Of course, with Rachel Weisz in it, it can't be all bad either. I wasn't that impressed with making the Devil look like a Mob boss, but it wasn't that horrible.
"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was a fun movie even if it didn't live up to the comic (which I assume is the case, I haven't read the comic.) My favorite line is where Dorian gets riddled with bullets, kills his attacker who gasps "What are you?", and replies, "I'm...complicated." His other great line when fighting Mina Harker and both of them are healing up instantly from their wounds: "We'll be at this all day!"
"From Hell" was a great movie, leaving out Heather Graham, especially due to Ian Holm's superb acting.
In most cases, even if I've read the book or comic before, I tend to cut movie directors some slack. The movie is NOT going to be the book or comic, that's a given. I only get really irritated when they mess around too much with a character's origin story or motivation - as they did with Doctor Doom in the "Fantastic Four" movie. Making Doom an analog of Lex Luthor just to take advantage of the Superman movies was too much.
Well, aside from the fact that it's set in London, what amuses me is they didn't have the nerve to change the setting to Washington and make it more explicit who the real problems are.
I've got a concept for a TV series called "Black Flagg" about a US government agent who turns against the government, becomes an anarchist and proceeds to create chaos. I came up with it BEFORE I read the "Reload" comic, which I loved since it was very similar (although they wussed out by making the bad guys the Mob, instead of politicians in and of themselves.)
For those who haven't read it, "Reload" starts out by assassinating the President and goes on from there. The Secret Service agent in charge of the assassination investigation gets suspicious when the "guilty party" - a mentally ill woman picked up from a sanitorium - is hauled in within a couple hours of the event and immediately the case is closed - especially when he SAW the assassin and it wasn't her. When he finds the assassin and WHY the assassin is trying to destroy the government, he joins her.
From the trailer, I think "V for Vendetta" is going to be a great movie.
Anybody ever read Dean Koontz's "Coldfire"?
He steals AT LEAST three concepts from Alfred Hitchcock (flocks of birds attacking people a la "The Birds"), Stephen King (protagonist has visions after an accident enabling him to save people a la "Dead Zone"), and Michael Crichton (protagonist is creating his own monsters via his mind a la "The SPhere".)
Nobody sued Koontz that I am aware of.
After I read "Coldfire", I couldn't read anything else of his, knowing how copycat his plots were.
Of course, that didn't stop me reading every cyberpunk novel that came out in the 1980's...:-)
Did Harlan sue the people who made "Soldier" with Kurt Russell?
Seems to me the concept was identical: uncontrollable programmed soldier gets tamed by innocents and rebels against his masters and defends the innocents from fellow soldiers.
Plus:
Cinescape Online reports that although it's not being promoted as a sequel to Blade Runner, screenwriter David Webb Peoples calls Soldier a "sidequel" that takes place in the same universe.
So did Ridley Scott sue for that one?
Not to mention the Van Damme movie which was another variant on the concept: dead resurrected super-soldier rebels against condition and defends innocents from renegade dead super-soldier.
Not to mention Captain America going back, oh, to the 1940's, for the whole "super-soldier" concept.
I personally think this is all just fun for lawyers. Which is why Shakespeare was right: First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Especially since "intellectual property" is an oxymoron.
I find it odd that Harlan won for "Demon With A Glass Hand". While that was probably my favorite episode of "Outer Limits", I don't find the simple concept of a robot coming back through time to save the world much of a rip-off - unless of course Harlan proved Cameron was watching the episode five minutes before exclaiming, "I have an idea for my next movie!"
Which is hardly a surprise knowing how Hollywood comes up with "ideas" for movies.
"What's playing this week down the street, Bob?" "Star Wars."
"Oh, okay, let's do a space opera. We'll call it 'Fifth Element.' Get Bruce's agent on the phone."
"Demon" itself was brilliant. My favorite part is where the protagonist asks his computer hand how to save himself from the aliens, and the computer says, "Let them kill you." Marvelous writing.
"suggested by one of our more immature community members as a joke on Slashdot"
Bill Gates is running Microsoft.
Has he ever read a biography of Gates?
"Immature" doesn't describe him adequately.
"Asshole" does pretty well, though.
Obviously, if 98 had been connected to the Net in an always-on situation, it would have been easily compromised. And still is in those situations where that is done without a firewall.
/. posters are having problems comprehending.
But the number of DIFFERENT ways it could have been compromised would still probably be LESS than 2000 or XP.
That was my point and it's fairly simple and obvious and has nothing to do with the external security problems of the Net such as more spammers.
I am in NO sense advocating making 98 the preferred OS for connecting to the Net, which apparently
I personally don't use 98 except on my second machine which is an old Compaq Deskpro which won't run anything later. I run XP on my newer machine.
So your last comment is entirely off base.
You've missed just about every point I made anyway.
Again, I'm NOT arguing that 98 is in any way a better OS than 2000 or XP EXCEPT that it has LESS vulnerabilities because it is a smaller OS. It's irrelevant how many vulnerabilities 98 HAD because it had FEWER OF THEM.
It's really that simple and obvious.
As for the reliability of 2000 and XP, I had to reinstall 2000 TWICE within three months of installing it last year, and the third and last time this year it hosed my entire hard disk, so I stopped dual-booting it with XP and now run only XP (dual-booting with Mandrake 10.1 on a separate disk.)
I've had all sorts of weird behavior from XP over the last six months, though nothing that has caused me to reinstall it - yet. It still handles locked-up apps pathetically. Linux is FAR more capable in that regard - when I do a "kill -9 " on Linux, the process is dead and buried.