As we all know, today is the Information Age. For this reason, I believe that information should not be restricted anymore.
A. You state the above almost as a QED'ed proof, but you provide nothing to support the conclusion that the second sentence follows from the first.
B. You fail to define "information". Is a game like Halo "information"? Is a program like Photoshop "information"? Not in any colloquial sense.
B2. Expanding on B, consider the board game Monopoly and a computerized version of Monopoly. Is the latter "information" while the former is not simply because one consists of bits while the other consists of atoms? What "information" is the computer version of Monopoly conveying? The bits that make up the computer game constitue the machine code necessary to run the program, but is that "information"? In human terms, the computerized Monopoly isn't conveying any information or even any idea that the board game version doesn't convey. I'd say the bits that make up the Monopoly program aren't info, rather they are the program itself. I don't think that every given bitstream constitutes "information" in the usual sense of the word; there's a difference between "intellectual property" and "information".
(A side note: Your arguments remind me of those that proclaim that "ideas" should not be restricted, but fail to see that the idea of a spreadsheet program (for example) is not the same as the implementation of such. That one is free to share the ideas of a spreadsheet program does not imply that one has the right to share the *implementations* of such programs. The latter does not follow from the former. Same goes for songs, movies, video games, etc.)
C. Since you feel that no information should be restricted, please post your Social Security Number, Credit Card numbers, ATM card numbers with their respective PINs, driver's license number, etc.
Why? What difference does it make. MS are not 'Evil'... in the way that Halliburton, Exxon, [insert Uranium/copper/diamond strip mine corp here) are evil.,/i>
I get the point, but how is Exxon "evil"? I hope you're not referring to that tanker accident that happened because the captain was drunk? LOL Maybe you meant Enron, which would fit the bill.
You could also add companies like WorldCom, Nike (Asian sweat-shop labor at near slave-wages), wanton polluters, and of course, the most evil of all evil corps, I.G. Farben.
My bad, I guess the appeals process is finished (someone below referenced an article saying the Supreme Court refused to hear the case). So I guess the world is stuck with a bogus patent.:(
Even if IE still used netscape's plugin architecture, it wouldn't matter. Any plug-in architecture that handles EMBED, OBJECT, or APPLET tags by loading the appropriate plugin when necessary is subject to the patent.
There are many things that may be the "prior art", but the idiotic judge refuse to allow any prior art evidence in the original case. So now Microsoft is left with fighting the patent during the appeals process. At one point during the appeals process a judge or the USPO invalidated the patent, but then later in the process it was reinstated for some reason. But the appeals process is still ongoing.
So this is a payday for you. Your clients will pay you to recode the sites; and the recoding is pretty trivial, so it's almost like getting money for free.:-)
I think Outlook already has most of these features (I know that you can manage multile hotmail accounts with it). This new offering looks to be a lower-cost option to achieve these for hotmail users. I don's see the need for your anger about it, though.
Microsoft will just recode WindowsUpdate to use Javascript to load the control from an external script file. This gets around the patent (and shows that the patent is useless and therefore idiotic).
It's pretty obvious that your interpretation of the invterview is correct. Well, it *should* be obvious, anyway. Sad the most slashdotters leave their common sense at the door when reading anything about Microsoft. This entire thread is a waste of time.
"Each of Apple's releases has been at least as significant as the jump from Windows 95 to 98, and possibly as significant as the jump from XP to Vista (since Vista has lost major features like WinFS). Also, each version of OS X runs faster *on the same hardware*."
I'd say the accumulative jump from 10.0 to 10.3 is similar to Win95 to Win98 (or Win3.0 to Win3.1). Each of the jumps from 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2 was more akin to the jump from Win98 to Win98SE or even the lesser jump of Win95 to Win95OSR (or whatever it was called).
As for each OSX incremental update running faster on the same hardware, it's not true on 2002 PowerBook G4's regarding Tiger (from what I've seen). It was true for 10.0-10.3 but that's because 10.0-10.2 were slow (10.0 and 10.1 being *God-awful* slow).
Don't you ODF advocates constantly proclaim that Microsoft was asked to join the original OASIS ODF committee, so any problems Microsoft might have in storing MS Office files with ODF could've been addressed? And therefore MS has no basis on which to claim that ODF's lack of support for MS Office features is reason to not support ODF in Office?
But now that Microsoft joins a more widely recognized standards committee for that format (as opposed to the rubber-stamp, anti-MS OASIS committee), you guys get pissed? LOL
With MS on this committee, maybe they'll be more likely to support the format. They'll be more confident that the format is app-neutral. As of now, it's based on OO.o's former format and lends itself towards OO.o's previously existing code (adding ODF support to OO.o to support ODF was childs play compared to what other programs would have to do, since ODF is based around OO.o's codebase).
Why would you need to reverse engineer software when you have the complete source code?
I'm not a hacker, but it may be that it's easier to use tried-and-true hacking methods to find holes in a product rather than slogging through mountains of lines of source code.
Many times, anonymous posters post links to bad sites on message boards, blogs, discussion threads (e.g. slashdot) in the guise of links to something relevant to the topic being discussed.
MiniMSFT has been publicly trashing his own company for years now, yet doesn't have the guts to do one of the following: A. QUIT B. Reveal who he is, what his job is, etc. We know that he doesn't work for Windows or Office, since when he trashes those groups' efforts he does it in a way to exclude himself from the criticism. So just who the hell is he? Are his insights worth a damn? C. Try to change the company from the inside rather than anonymously trashing it from the outside. Doing the former would require that he attach his name to his complaints (not publicly, but internally), but he clearly lacks the guts to do it.
The guy is an ass, pure and simple. Oh, and it's well known that many of the posts to his blog aren't MS employees but are anti-MS haters posing as such.
Another 5-10 years or so and we'll be able to compare & contrast with OSS- ie. letting developers and user community determine where a product goes...
Why wait another 5-10 years to do your comparison? Linux started in the early 90s or so (I forget the exact date), so it's been over 10 years for OSS to prove itself. Compare the progress of Windows vs Linux during Linux's lifetime. Which has been more impressive? Compare the progress of Mac OS vs Linux during Linux's lifetime. Which has been more impressive? I'd say the close-source OSes have had much more advancement during Linux's lifetime than Linux has.
What do you think is the percentage of people that know how to move the task bar but don't know what the "start" button is, even without the "Start" label? Get real.
and should not be allowed on Slashdot if the website wants to remain "impartial"
Do you really expect a site that uses derogatory icons for Microsoft and Windows topics (the only topics with derogatory icons on this site) to have aspirations of impartiality? You must be new here.
"Next version of word will be better than current version of OpenOffice"
Please cite even ONE example of Microsoft saying that the next version of Word will be better than the current version of OpenOffice in such a way as to suggest that they think that the current version of Word is inferior to the current version of OpenOffice. Last I heard, Microsoft was saying that OpenOffice is more than 10 years behind MS Office, saying that Open Office is about where Office 95 was. Your other points are shakey as well, but the Word vs OpenOffice point is ridiculous.
LOL You're wasting your time telling them to watch the video. They're afraid to watch the video for fear that it might actually be good and they would have less to bitch about regarding IE7/Vista.:-)
LOL First of all, the IE7 on Vista model is more secure than anything Unix ever came up with. Second of all, why do so many around here think that Unix design is the be-all and end-all of OS design? It's not, and that you think so merely illustrates a severe lacking in your knowldege of CS.
(Not that Windows is the be-all and end-all either; there is no be-all and end-all OS design.)
Many of the security bugs in Mozilla aren't disclosed in the public bug list, so you have no idea how long the bugs have been known to the devs before they are fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
As we all know, today is the Information Age. For this reason, I believe that information should not be restricted anymore.
A. You state the above almost as a QED'ed proof, but you provide nothing to support the conclusion that the second sentence follows from the first.
B. You fail to define "information". Is a game like Halo "information"? Is a program like Photoshop "information"? Not in any colloquial sense.
B2. Expanding on B, consider the board game Monopoly and a computerized version of Monopoly. Is the latter "information" while the former is not simply because one consists of bits while the other consists of atoms? What "information" is the computer version of Monopoly conveying? The bits that make up the computer game constitue the machine code necessary to run the program, but is that "information"? In human terms, the computerized Monopoly isn't conveying any information or even any idea that the board game version doesn't convey. I'd say the bits that make up the Monopoly program aren't info, rather they are the program itself. I don't think that every given bitstream constitutes "information" in the usual sense of the word; there's a difference between "intellectual property" and "information".
(A side note: Your arguments remind me of those that proclaim that "ideas" should not be restricted, but fail to see that the idea of a spreadsheet program (for example) is not the same as the implementation of such. That one is free to share the ideas of a spreadsheet program does not imply that one has the right to share the *implementations* of such programs. The latter does not follow from the former. Same goes for songs, movies, video games, etc.)
C. Since you feel that no information should be restricted, please post your Social Security Number, Credit Card numbers, ATM card numbers with their respective PINs, driver's license number, etc.
Why? What difference does it make. MS are not 'Evil'... in the way that Halliburton, Exxon, [insert Uranium/copper/diamond strip mine corp here) are evil.,/i>
I get the point, but how is Exxon "evil"? I hope you're not referring to that tanker accident that happened because the captain was drunk? LOL Maybe you meant Enron, which would fit the bill.
You could also add companies like WorldCom, Nike (Asian sweat-shop labor at near slave-wages), wanton polluters, and of course, the most evil of all evil corps, I.G. Farben.
My bad, I guess the appeals process is finished (someone below referenced an article saying the Supreme Court refused to hear the case). So I guess the world is stuck with a bogus patent. :(
Even if IE still used netscape's plugin architecture, it wouldn't matter. Any plug-in architecture that handles EMBED, OBJECT, or APPLET tags by loading the appropriate plugin when necessary is subject to the patent.
There are many things that may be the "prior art", but the idiotic judge refuse to allow any prior art evidence in the original case. So now Microsoft is left with fighting the patent during the appeals process. At one point during the appeals process a judge or the USPO invalidated the patent, but then later in the process it was reinstated for some reason. But the appeals process is still ongoing.
You realize you can recode your sites to use JavaScript load the Flash objects from an external file, right, and thus avoid the "having to click a button" issue?a uthor/dhtml/overview/activating_activex.asp
:-)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/workshop/
So this is a payday for you. Your clients will pay you to recode the sites; and the recoding is pretty trivial, so it's almost like getting money for free.
I think Outlook already has most of these features (I know that you can manage multile hotmail accounts with it). This new offering looks to be a lower-cost option to achieve these for hotmail users.
I don's see the need for your anger about it, though.
Microsoft will just recode WindowsUpdate to use Javascript to load the control from an external script file. This gets around the patent (and shows that the patent is useless and therefore idiotic).
a uthor/dhtml/overview/activating_activex.asp
See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/workshop/
It's pretty obvious that your interpretation of the invterview is correct. Well, it *should* be obvious, anyway. Sad the most slashdotters leave their common sense at the door when reading anything about Microsoft. This entire thread is a waste of time.
"Brainwashed" would infer that his view is entirely political and not necessarily factual.
;-)
Er, I think you meant "imply" rather than "infer".
"Each of Apple's releases has been at least as significant as the jump from Windows 95 to 98, and possibly as significant as the jump from XP to Vista (since Vista has lost major features like WinFS). Also, each version of OS X runs faster *on the same hardware*."
I'd say the accumulative jump from 10.0 to 10.3 is similar to Win95 to Win98 (or Win3.0 to Win3.1). Each of the jumps from 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2 was more akin to the jump from Win98 to Win98SE or even the lesser jump of Win95 to Win95OSR (or whatever it was called).
As for each OSX incremental update running faster on the same hardware, it's not true on 2002 PowerBook G4's regarding Tiger (from what I've seen). It was true for 10.0-10.3 but that's because 10.0-10.2 were slow (10.0 and 10.1 being *God-awful* slow).
Don't you ODF advocates constantly proclaim that Microsoft was asked to join the original OASIS ODF committee, so any problems Microsoft might have in storing MS Office files with ODF could've been addressed? And therefore MS has no basis on which to claim that ODF's lack of support for MS Office features is reason to not support ODF in Office?
But now that Microsoft joins a more widely recognized standards committee for that format (as opposed to the rubber-stamp, anti-MS OASIS committee), you guys get pissed? LOL
With MS on this committee, maybe they'll be more likely to support the format. They'll be more confident that the format is app-neutral. As of now, it's based on OO.o's former format and lends itself towards OO.o's previously existing code (adding ODF support to OO.o to support ODF was childs play compared to what other programs would have to do, since ODF is based around OO.o's codebase).
Why would you need to reverse engineer software when you have the complete source code?
I'm not a hacker, but it may be that it's easier to use tried-and-true hacking methods to find holes in a product rather than slogging through mountains of lines of source code.
I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with Microsoft's monopoly..
But Microsoft *doesn't* have a monopoly in browsers. Use something besides IE, there are plenty of choices available.
Many times, anonymous posters post links to bad sites on message boards, blogs, discussion threads (e.g. slashdot) in the guise of links to something relevant to the topic being discussed.
MiniMSFT has been publicly trashing his own company for years now, yet doesn't have the guts to do one of the following:
A. QUIT
B. Reveal who he is, what his job is, etc. We know that he doesn't work for Windows or Office, since when he trashes those groups' efforts he does it in a way to exclude himself from the criticism. So just who the hell is he? Are his insights worth a damn?
C. Try to change the company from the inside rather than anonymously trashing it from the outside. Doing the former would require that he attach his name to his complaints (not publicly, but internally), but he clearly lacks the guts to do it.
The guy is an ass, pure and simple.
Oh, and it's well known that many of the posts to his blog aren't MS employees but are anti-MS haters posing as such.
Another 5-10 years or so and we'll be able to compare & contrast with OSS- ie. letting developers and user community determine where a product goes...
Why wait another 5-10 years to do your comparison? Linux started in the early 90s or so (I forget the exact date), so it's been over 10 years for OSS to prove itself.
Compare the progress of Windows vs Linux during Linux's lifetime. Which has been more impressive?
Compare the progress of Mac OS vs Linux during Linux's lifetime. Which has been more impressive?
I'd say the close-source OSes have had much more advancement during Linux's lifetime than Linux has.
What do you think is the percentage of people that know how to move the task bar but don't know what the "start" button is, even without the "Start" label? Get real.
WinFS is still being developed. Beta code was released in Aug 2005 and Dec 2005.7 624.aspx9 042.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2005/08/29/45
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2005/12/01/49
The final version will be added in a service pack in the future.
and should not be allowed on Slashdot if the website wants to remain "impartial"
Do you really expect a site that uses derogatory icons for Microsoft and Windows topics (the only topics with derogatory icons on this site) to have aspirations of impartiality? You must be new here.
"Next version of word will be better than current version of OpenOffice"
Please cite even ONE example of Microsoft saying that the next version of Word will be better than the current version of OpenOffice in such a way as to suggest that they think that the current version of Word is inferior to the current version of OpenOffice. Last I heard, Microsoft was saying that OpenOffice is more than 10 years behind MS Office, saying that Open Office is about where Office 95 was. Your other points are shakey as well, but the Word vs OpenOffice point is ridiculous.
LOL :-)
You're wasting your time telling them to watch the video. They're afraid to watch the video for fear that it might actually be good and they would have less to bitch about regarding IE7/Vista.
I didn't watch TFV, but sending a popup to the user for every little thing must be too annoying for 90% of users. blah blah blah ...
You didn't watch TFV, but that didn't stop you from making igorant comments regarding it. LOL
LOL
First of all, the IE7 on Vista model is more secure than anything Unix ever came up with.
Second of all, why do so many around here think that Unix design is the be-all and end-all of OS design? It's not, and that you think so merely illustrates a severe lacking in your knowldege of CS.
(Not that Windows is the be-all and end-all either; there is no be-all and end-all OS design.)
Many of the security bugs in Mozilla aren't disclosed in the public bug list, so you have no idea how long the bugs have been known to the devs before they are fixed.