If you really want to create long term archives of documents to be seen by the eyes of explorers and historians hundreds and thousands of years from now, what you want is analog storage, that is, hardcopy that can simply be read without a computer having to interpret 1s and 0s. Microfiche is one of the best solutions today, as it's "hardcopy" but much smaller than using a printed page on paper. Rather than requiring electronics to read the data, you just need a simple projector-like device (a microfiche viewer would be preferrable, and could be built with ease 100s of years from now, but you could also use an old-style "overhead" projector, a slide-projector build for microfiche cards, an automated microscope, etc.)
Ok, so they can't get your Word docs, but they can screw up your browser, intercept passwords, etc etc... doesn't sound like that much of an improvement. Why not just fix the security holes in the first place?
Why not do both? Most of IE's security problems have been worked on (eliminating cross-site scripting, fixing the internet zones crap, eliminating drive-by installs, etc.) I don't know what you mean by "intercepting passwords", modern browsers use 128bit SSL. If you're referring to phishing, that's user stupidity at work.
I like how you guys take the stance that unless you're the first to do something then you may as well not do it, when so much of OSS is copied from commercial software. LOL
Oh, and Lotus' userbase is a small fraction of that for Office or BackOffice, so who cares about whether Lotus did something first or not? What difference does that make to an Office user?
You're referring to the "Broy" report, written by Prof Broy of the Technische Universität München.
Producing a rigorous, complete, stand-alone specification for Microsoft work group server functionalities - or any software system of such enormous complexity - that is free of errors and omissions is beyond the state of the art and far beyond industrial practice. The expectation that anyone could do so in only a few increments is simply unrealistic. Rather, normal industry practice is that specifications for such a system are developed and enhanced on an ongoing basis in an iterative process through interaction with engineers skilled in the relevant art and who actually use the specifications.
This is how documentation works. The problem is that the EC refuses to say why the provided 1200 pages of documentation (and 500 hours of free tech support and source code access) is insufficient, so the "iterative process through interaction with engineers" that is used to "develop and enhance" the "specifications" cannot be done, and indeed the EC doesn't *want* it to be done because they want the cash they'll get from a fine.
Actually, Microsoft *does* want this "evidence" to come out in public. According to Microsoft, the EU is claiming that Microsoft hasn't delivered proper documentation (despite providing 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation, 500 free hours of tech support, and even the source code in question), but has not told them why the documentation is insufficient. Ever read Kafka's "The Trial", where a guy is "tried" for undisclosed charges and therefore has no way to defend himself? How can Microsoft address the grievances without being told why the documentation is supposedly insufficient?
I think it's quite clear that no matter what Microsoft does, the EU commission will declare it insufficient because they want that cash.
If the government (US or EU) were to force Microsoft to open source Windows (and by that, I assume you mean that anyone could modify it and redistribute it (free or for sale)), the courts would consider that a "taking" and the government would have to fairly compensate Microsoft. For Winodws, you're talking about possibly 100+ billion dollars.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint.
Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Outlook isn't bundled with Office, it is part of Office (some would say that it's the main part) and has been since Office 97. Complaining 9 years later about "bundling" Outlook with Office is akin to complaining that MS is "bundling" Excel with Office. This is stupid.
" It's a crappy way to compare server dominance obfuscated to make MS look better."
Too bad for you that they've been using this system of comparisons since 1996, and all that time this system showed Unix server sales > Windows server sales up until now, so the notion that this system was devised "to make MS look better" is stupid.
The growth in Windows servers is unfortunate but expected, as more people want to start doing.NET and Terminal Server stuff; building systems that integrate tightly (one might say incestously) with the client's OS and applications.
The growth in Winodws servers is "unfortunate"? Why? Or do you just assume we're all fighting the anti-MS jihad? You give no reasons as to why it's "unfortunate", in fact you give reasons for the opposite.
No, my negative view of Al Jazeera is that they have zero qualms about serving as the propaganda arm of Al Queda. Whenever Al Queda whishes to release an audio or video tape, to whom do they turn? You guessed it, Al Jazeera. And what network practically salivates at the chance to air Al Queda propaganda? You guessed it, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is nothing more than the Fox News of Islamic extremism. Fox spouts pro-Bush garbage, Al Jazeera spouts pro-Bin Laden crap.
Oh, by the way -- it doesn't matter that iLife isn't bundled, becuase it and Mac OS combined will still probably cost less than Vista.
But if you want to remain current, you have to pay $120 for incremental upgrades every 18 months. Over the lifetime of a Windows OS, Mac OS X costs more by far.
1. Packet filtering capabilities, per-use administrator rights -- from Linux. Windows already has this, but they're going to eforce it now. BTW, it's not from Linux. Linux wasn't the first to have this.
2. Tabs in IE -- from Firefox Firefox wasn't the first to have tabs, you dolt.
3. Eye candy/transparency -- Mac OS X But Vista will be using the 3d card for the UI, the first OS to do so. Look for all OSes to follow in the years to come, as 3d functionality/efficiency improves while 2d functionality is largely static.
4. Non-awful search system -- everyone was ahead of MS here Linux is ahead? Anyway MS already has MSN Desktop Search, which is better than Google or Yahoo, and is built on XP's indexing (XP itself lacks a decent UI for its own indexing functionality).
5. Better update system -- still no systemwide yum or apt, but the most abysmal thing about maintaining a Windows box was keeping it up to day, and IE was a piss-poor tool to do so with. See Linux. Vista is following Mac's lead here, not Linux's. Mac fanboys may have reason to mock Vista, but Linux fanboys really don't. Linux isn't the least bit innovative, and the shells for its UI are largely copied straight from Windows.
6. Looks like MS is bundling the equivalent of rhythmbox/iTunes and gqview into Windows. What's your point here?
[snipped the rest, as you didn't have much to say about the other points]
After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP I'm really starting to abandon cynicism and derision in favor of good old practical thriftiness. I just can't afford Windows anymore.
You're a moron if you actually paid for each and every one of those upgrades. I'm betting that you aren't a moron, so I just assum your BSing.:-)
Still, Mac fanboys pay for incremental upgrades every 18 months and are more than happy and haughty to do so.
First, you don't know that Safari does all IE7 does and more. In fact, I know that Safari sucks at saving web pages, while IE 7 offers the MSHTML format (same as EML/MIME (or whatever), but for web pages rather than email).
Desktop search - sure Apple shipped it with the OS, but before that Windows already had Google, Yahoo, and MSN search. Apple just happens to have a more frequent OS update cycle, so they were the first to ship it with the OS, so what?
Eyd-candy: Microsoft is the first to use 3D graphics cards for the UI.
BTW, Microsoft was the first to ship a componentized internet browser that could be used by other apps, years before Apple, BTW. Apple ripped off the task bar from Microsoft.
And Windows had pre-emptive multitasking and separate address spaces for apps years before Mac did. So what? Who cares who had what feature first? Nobody's forcing you to stop using Mac, so why are you so defensive about a new Windows OS?
Part of the "Mercedez Benz feeling" is the feeling of "exclusivity" - Mercedes owners are part of an exclusive club that requires big bucks to get in. iPod is very common, so exclusivity isn't part of its cache.
Disregarding the old-school viruses that attached themselves to executables, isn't today's definition of "virus" = "malware that spreads"? If this is spreading through instant messaging, then it's a virus (or, at least as much as a Windows virus is (Windows doesn't have many old-school "attach to executable" viruses either).
If this is merely a trojan, then it's not the first. A couple of years ago there was malware disguised as a pirated version of MacWord 2004 on warez sites.
"One would hope that you're not going to be forced to reveal your password unless the Government establishes probable cause that you've committed a crime.
Um, you do realize who heads the US govt, don't you? You think he gives a damn about such trivialities as "probable cause"?;-)
Crackers lack ability to actually create anything
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
This is just the latest example of, "Those that can, do; those that can't, crack."
Lacking the ability to actually come up with any ideas or implementations on their own, crackers simply sabatoge other people's work. Truly pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to create long term archives of documents to be seen by the eyes of explorers and historians hundreds and thousands of years from now, what you want is analog storage, that is, hardcopy that can simply be read without a computer having to interpret 1s and 0s. Microfiche is one of the best solutions today, as it's "hardcopy" but much smaller than using a printed page on paper. Rather than requiring electronics to read the data, you just need a simple projector-like device (a microfiche viewer would be preferrable, and could be built with ease 100s of years from now, but you could also use an old-style "overhead" projector, a slide-projector build for microfiche cards, an automated microscope, etc.)
Oh, Linux, Linux! *fapfapfapsplort*
Yep, you hit the nail right on the head. LOL
Ok, so they can't get your Word docs, but they can screw up your browser, intercept passwords, etc etc... doesn't sound like that much of an improvement.
Why not just fix the security holes in the first place?
Why not do both? Most of IE's security problems have been worked on (eliminating cross-site scripting, fixing the internet zones crap, eliminating drive-by installs, etc.)
I don't know what you mean by "intercepting passwords", modern browsers use 128bit SSL. If you're referring to phishing, that's user stupidity at work.
Linux won't be able to play HD-DVD or Blu Ray discs that are protected (meaning, all commercial discs) at all, even if you have an HDCP monitor.
I like how you guys take the stance that unless you're the first to do something then you may as well not do it, when so much of OSS is copied from commercial software. LOL
Oh, and Lotus' userbase is a small fraction of that for Office or BackOffice, so who cares about whether Lotus did something first or not? What difference does that make to an Office user?
This is how documentation works. The problem is that the EC refuses to say why the provided 1200 pages of documentation (and 500 hours of free tech support and source code access) is insufficient, so the "iterative process through interaction with engineers" that is used to "develop and enhance" the "specifications" cannot be done, and indeed the EC doesn't *want* it to be done because they want the cash they'll get from a fine.
Actually, Microsoft *does* want this "evidence" to come out in public. According to Microsoft, the EU is claiming that Microsoft hasn't delivered proper documentation (despite providing 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation, 500 free hours of tech support, and even the source code in question), but has not told them why the documentation is insufficient. Ever read Kafka's "The Trial", where a guy is "tried" for undisclosed charges and therefore has no way to defend himself? How can Microsoft address the grievances without being told why the documentation is supposedly insufficient?
I think it's quite clear that no matter what Microsoft does, the EU commission will declare it insufficient because they want that cash.
If the government (US or EU) were to force Microsoft to open source Windows (and by that, I assume you mean that anyone could modify it and redistribute it (free or for sale)), the courts would consider that a "taking" and the government would have to fairly compensate Microsoft. For Winodws, you're talking about possibly 100+ billion dollars.
Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint.
Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Outlook isn't bundled with Office, it is part of Office (some would say that it's the main part) and has been since Office 97. Complaining 9 years later about "bundling" Outlook with Office is akin to complaining that MS is "bundling" Excel with Office. This is stupid.
" It's a crappy way to compare server dominance obfuscated to make MS look better."
Too bad for you that they've been using this system of comparisons since 1996, and all that time this system showed Unix server sales > Windows server sales up until now, so the notion that this system was devised "to make MS look better" is stupid.
The damage control in this thread is hilarious!
He's just a OSS zealot "OMG I threw away teh EVAL M$", he's probably 13 years old and doesn't even know what "rackmountable" means
Doesn't "rackmountable" have something to do with sex between a woman's breasts?
The growth in Windows servers is unfortunate but expected, as more people want to start doing .NET and Terminal Server stuff; building systems that integrate tightly (one might say incestously) with the client's OS and applications.
The growth in Winodws servers is "unfortunate"? Why? Or do you just assume we're all fighting the anti-MS jihad? You give no reasons as to why it's "unfortunate", in fact you give reasons for the opposite.
No, my negative view of Al Jazeera is that they have zero qualms about serving as the propaganda arm of Al Queda. Whenever Al Queda whishes to release an audio or video tape, to whom do they turn? You guessed it, Al Jazeera. And what network practically salivates at the chance to air Al Queda propaganda? You guessed it, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is nothing more than the Fox News of Islamic extremism. Fox spouts pro-Bush garbage, Al Jazeera spouts pro-Bin Laden crap.
So what happens when those that made their living on "sticking it to The Man" become "The Man"?
Oh, by the way -- it doesn't matter that iLife isn't bundled, becuase it and Mac OS combined will still probably cost less than Vista.
But if you want to remain current, you have to pay $120 for incremental upgrades every 18 months. Over the lifetime of a Windows OS, Mac OS X costs more by far.
The article isn't aimed at Mac users. It's aimes at XP users.
1. Packet filtering capabilities, per-use administrator rights -- from Linux.
Windows already has this, but they're going to eforce it now. BTW, it's not from Linux. Linux wasn't the first to have this.
2. Tabs in IE -- from Firefox
Firefox wasn't the first to have tabs, you dolt.
3. Eye candy/transparency -- Mac OS X
But Vista will be using the 3d card for the UI, the first OS to do so. Look for all OSes to follow in the years to come, as 3d functionality/efficiency improves while 2d functionality is largely static.
4. Non-awful search system -- everyone was ahead of MS here
Linux is ahead? Anyway MS already has MSN Desktop Search, which is better than Google or Yahoo, and is built on XP's indexing (XP itself lacks a decent UI for its own indexing functionality).
5. Better update system -- still no systemwide yum or apt, but the most abysmal thing about maintaining a Windows box was keeping it up to day, and IE was a piss-poor tool to do so with. See Linux.
Vista is following Mac's lead here, not Linux's. Mac fanboys may have reason to mock Vista, but Linux fanboys really don't. Linux isn't the least bit innovative, and the shells for its UI are largely copied straight from Windows.
6. Looks like MS is bundling the equivalent of rhythmbox/iTunes and gqview into Windows.
What's your point here?
[snipped the rest, as you didn't have much to say about the other points]
After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP I'm really starting to abandon cynicism and derision in favor of good old practical thriftiness. I just can't afford Windows anymore.
:-)
You're a moron if you actually paid for each and every one of those upgrades. I'm betting that you aren't a moron, so I just assum your BSing.
Still, Mac fanboys pay for incremental upgrades every 18 months and are more than happy and haughty to do so.
First, you don't know that Safari does all IE7 does and more. In fact, I know that Safari sucks at saving web pages, while IE 7 offers the MSHTML format (same as EML/MIME (or whatever), but for web pages rather than email).
Desktop search - sure Apple shipped it with the OS, but before that Windows already had Google, Yahoo, and MSN search. Apple just happens to have a more frequent OS update cycle, so they were the first to ship it with the OS, so what?
Eyd-candy: Microsoft is the first to use 3D graphics cards for the UI.
BTW, Microsoft was the first to ship a componentized internet browser that could be used by other apps, years before Apple, BTW.
Apple ripped off the task bar from Microsoft.
And Windows had pre-emptive multitasking and separate address spaces for apps years before Mac did. So what? Who cares who had what feature first? Nobody's forcing you to stop using Mac, so why are you so defensive about a new Windows OS?
Part of the "Mercedez Benz feeling" is the feeling of "exclusivity" - Mercedes owners are part of an exclusive club that requires big bucks to get in. iPod is very common, so exclusivity isn't part of its cache.
you have to give it away for free and still get less than 3% market share!
Disregarding the old-school viruses that attached themselves to executables, isn't today's definition of "virus" = "malware that spreads"? If this is spreading through instant messaging, then it's a virus (or, at least as much as a Windows virus is (Windows doesn't have many old-school "attach to executable" viruses either).
If this is merely a trojan, then it's not the first. A couple of years ago there was malware disguised as a pirated version of MacWord 2004 on warez sites.
"One would hope that you're not going to be forced to reveal your password unless the Government establishes probable cause that you've committed a crime.
;-)
Um, you do realize who heads the US govt, don't you? You think he gives a damn about such trivialities as "probable cause"?
This is just the latest example of, "Those that can, do; those that can't, crack."
Lacking the ability to actually come up with any ideas or implementations on their own, crackers simply sabatoge other people's work. Truly pathetic.