Microsoft itself wasn't ruled to be a monopoly, Windows was, and in a narrowly defined market. Windows was ruled to enjoy monopoly status for desktop OSes running on Intel compatible CPUs. Once the Intel Macs come out, that status will be over with.
The Windows worlds most widely deployed AV solution uses MSHtml to render it's GUI, that doesn't exactly inspire faith in symantec products.
Why not? Do you think Symantec is going to generate malware HTML to exploit a hole in IE? Get real. Symantec is in total control of the HTML that they generate for display by MSHtml.
I'd say that the pets that our family has had over the years have all had "self awareness" to one degree or another, yet only one of them ever recognized its mirror image as an animal at all, let alone as its own self-image. And yet I'm sure these pets had more self-awareness than this robot (though I can't prove it).:-)
Yes, God forbid that white-collar criminals receive any jail time./sarcasm
I say, put them into prison and let them take their chances at getting anally abused by a 400 pound thug. Next time they'll think twice about stealing, cheating, lying, or whatever of these "sins" you believe their crime falls into (I know many here don't believe copyright infringement constitutes stealing, but I've yet to see many say that it doesn't constitute cheating). Criminal, not civil, penalties are appropriate as these guys are guilting of crimes rather than just civil regulations.
What would you guess the percentage of modded Xboxes used to play pirated games is? 90%? 95%?
Let's even make it easier - what would you guess the percentage of modded PS2s used to play pirated games is? 99.99%? 99.9999%? (Modded PS2s aren't used for "homebrew" at all.)
Face it - nearly all modded consoles are used to play pirated games.
(Oh, and in Xbox's case, even the 10% (that's being generous) used for the Xbox Media Center, are being used illegally as well as the XBMC was created in violation of Microsoft copyrights, as it used a leaked copy of the Xbox SDK without agreement to the Xbox SDK license.)
They have admin rights to their local computers and can turn those rights off if they want to. Microsoft isn't like some typical corp where a self-important IT admin with delusions of grandeur dictates policy for every user.
I'm sure Apple employees had admin rights to their machines too, given that admin is the default account level in OS X.
Under XP a limited account does not have write access to any of the system directories (i.e. c:\windows) nor the "programs" directory (i.e. c:\Program Files (or whatever it's called (I'm typing this from a Mac and don't feel like booting my windows machine to find out;-))), nor does it have read or write access to any other user's directories.
Limited accounts also don't allow access to many system settings (too many, IMO, such as the Power Management), and don't allow access to registry settings beyond those of the current user (those under HKEY_CURRENT_USER).
Because a limited account cannot write to the programs directory, such an account cannot install programs on a "system-wide" basis (i.e., install them into the Programs directory for all users to use). A limited user can install programs into his own user directory, if the program's installer allows such or if the program doesn't require an installation program (so the user could just place the program in his user directory hierarchy).
"Protected Admin" sounds like the Mac OS X example where the default account is admin, but you need to enter your password to do admin stuff like change particular system settings (but you can still access the entire file system and wreak havoc without any such password prompt).
So much for the self-righteous proclamations of being above "evil". Show me somebody that continually claims to not be a racist, and I'll show you a racist. Show me somebody that continually claims to be "not evil",...
There are already multiple 'standards' available for document representation. I don't know if they've been recognized by standards bodies, but there are defacto 'standards' like RTF, that everyone supports (despite it being a format created by, *gasp*, Microsoft). It's funny to see OSS fanboys scared to compete after all their huff and puff about competing on merits. Rather, you want *government* to declare ODF to be the one true standard. Wait, I went too far; I forgot that you guys support *governent* giving its blessing to PDF, a 'standard' controlled by a single entity Adobe (only an outdated subset of PDF has been recognized by ECMA). LOL The irony and hypocrisy is delicious. Let ODF compete and succeed or fail based on its merits rather than winning by government fiat.
Let's cut to the chase. OO.o couldn't compete with MS Office based on merit, so it changed the rules of the game by declaring its format as a 'standard' and saying, "You should use us because although we lack MS Office's functionality, ease of use, speed, and relatively small memory footprint (OO.o is a slow pig), our format is a standard!!" And they even got Mass to go along with using 2nd rate software for the sake of a standard format, which delighted you guys to no end. But hold on, Microsoft does something that you never dreamed that they would do (and secretly feared that they would do); MS makes its own format a standard, and we go back to OO.o having to compete on merit again. This is why you guys are pissed off.
I have seen lots of posts saying it is some scheme for dividing and conquering, or creating more work for open source people, etc, but the real story is that the Office codebase is so convoluted and fragile that they need a document format that favorable to how Office works... friendly to its data structures and whatnot.
Have you seen the Office code base? No? Then stop talking out of your ass. There's no reason to believe that Microsoft's code base is any more "convoluted" than OO.o's (which is derived from the years-old closed code of the old StarOffice).
Secondly, ODF is based on OO.o's previous format which is "friendly" to StarOffice's code structure. There's nothing *special* about OO.o other than the fact that a committee of self-appointed members declared it as a standard approved by OAISIS, a group nobody gives a damn about. ECMA and ISO haven't recognized ODF as a "standard" of any kind (I read somewhere that ODF was submitted to ECMA in October 2005, but has a long way to go before being ratified).
ODF is "friendly" to OO.o's code, and MS formats are friendly to MS code. There's nothing to say that one is superiour to the other. Anyone making a word processor not based on either of these code bases (WordPerfect, for example) would have to alter their code to adpot either format more than OO.o would alter its code for ODF (basically, minimal alteration since ODF is essentially OO.o's previous format) and mroe than MS would alter its code for MS formats.
BTW, MS formats provide for more functionality than ODF. Also, ODF is geared towards the features in OO.o that OO.o cares about. For example, MS formats allolw embedded OLE objects themselves to be represented as the XML format of their respective apps, while ODF represents OLE objects as binary blobs. Why? Because OO.o's OLE support sucks badly, so they didn't care too much about proper OLE support. There are many features in MS OFfice that OO.o doesn't support or does a half-ass job; these features are those not supported in ODF (or not supported well, at least).
Re:I guess it depends on where you came from
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
especially GUI APIs (never failed to amaze me how someone could call Swing "stupid" and then go back to coding Win32 or Motif... Apple guys I can forgive:)...
You clearly never used the pre-Carbon MacOS API, if you can for give Apple guys for touting that API over Swing. Pre-MacOSX, the Mac GUI api was garbage. The MenuMgr, ControlMgr (extremely primitive; the ListMgr is the worst api man has ever created), WindowMgr, DialogMgr, EventMgr (no system-provided automatic dispatching of events), QuickDraw (having to set global grafports before drawing), etc were very painful to use and the exact opposite of "elegance". Hell, in some cases they even relied on apps directly manipulating system global variables. Win32 was vastly superior; even Win16 was superior. Win16/Win32 was simply more advanced, more evolved than the old Mac API. Like comparing man to the amoeba.;-)
Time for Google to live up to its slogan
on
Webhost Sues Google
·
· Score: 1
"But I can see why Google is reluctant, providing this data incurs more costs, and I can imagine that there will be a lot of advertisers who are going to argue with them about their bills."
Hey, sometimes "Do no evil" costs money. Now, we'll see if Google puts its money where it's mouth is.
Um, what exactly is your point? It's not like his only contributing 10% (likely far more than anyone else contributed), prevented the building from getting done. What, he should have contributed more for no reason?
I know that Stanford has an undergraduate education fund that alums contribute to, known as The Stanford Fund. Contributers that donate at least $10K in a single year are recognized by being placed on the "Presidential Fund" contributers list. I wouldn't be surprised if many on that list donate exactly $10K and no more, just to be put on the list. That is, they ask themselves, "What is the minimum that I can contribute to be put on the Presidential Fund contributers list?" (similar to the action for which you condemn Gates). Is something wrong with that?
Things like the "Presidential Fund" list and getting a building named after you are contribution incentives, and they're designed to intice one to contribute a certain amount, not but not necessarily any more than that. And such incentives work quite well.
All of the snide remarks in this thread indicate that most of you hate any improvement in IE for fear of losing some of your anti-M$ ammo. Deep down in your hearts, you WANT IE to be insecure, you WANT Windows to be insecure, you WANT Vista to bomb, just like you LOVED Win9x crashes. The fact is, Microsoft is addressing their security problems, just as they did their stability problems, and that scares you guys to death.
You lost your stability argument, and slowly but surely, you're losing your security argument (the last major security outbreak happened back in 2003, and things will only get worse for you in Vista, where the default accounts are non-admin). Face the facts that you're going to have to find another argument ("free, as in beer", I suspect).
Actually, in Vista, the default user account is non-admin, and IE7 runs in a mode even more limited than that.
Slowly but surely MS is learning a few good tricks from the Linux crowd.
Please get over yourself. The "Linux crowd" didn't invent the security system that's in Linux. If MS is learning from anyone, it's from the Unix crowd, which Microsoft itself is a part of, having created Xenix in the late 80's. But essentially, MS is learning from its own problems, which were created by migrating its userbase from a single-user no-security system (DOS, Win3.x, Win 9x) to a multi-user system with security (NT and its decendents). During this migration, the default accounts have been admin because that's what they were (essentially) in Win9x. In order to keep Win9x programs working, the default accounts in NT have been admin. This is changing with Vista, and has nothing to do with "learning" from Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft itself wasn't ruled to be a monopoly, Windows was, and in a narrowly defined market. Windows was ruled to enjoy monopoly status for desktop OSes running on Intel compatible CPUs. Once the Intel Macs come out, that status will be over with.
C# and Java suck. Learn F# instead! ;-)
The Windows worlds most widely deployed AV solution uses MSHtml to render it's GUI, that doesn't exactly inspire faith in symantec products.
Why not? Do you think Symantec is going to generate malware HTML to exploit a hole in IE? Get real. Symantec is in total control of the HTML that they generate for display by MSHtml.
"PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME"?
Wow, yet another moron that doesn't know the difference between criminal law and civil law.
I'd say that the pets that our family has had over the years have all had "self awareness" to one degree or another, yet only one of them ever recognized its mirror image as an animal at all, let alone as its own self-image. And yet I'm sure these pets had more self-awareness than this robot (though I can't prove it). :-)
Yes, God forbid that white-collar criminals receive any jail time. /sarcasm
I say, put them into prison and let them take their chances at getting anally abused by a 400 pound thug. Next time they'll think twice about stealing, cheating, lying, or whatever of these "sins" you believe their crime falls into (I know many here don't believe copyright infringement constitutes stealing, but I've yet to see many say that it doesn't constitute cheating). Criminal, not civil, penalties are appropriate as these guys are guilting of crimes rather than just civil regulations.
What would you guess the percentage of modded Xboxes used to play pirated games is? 90%? 95%?
Let's even make it easier - what would you guess the percentage of modded PS2s used to play pirated games is? 99.99%? 99.9999%? (Modded PS2s aren't used for "homebrew" at all.)
Face it - nearly all modded consoles are used to play pirated games.
(Oh, and in Xbox's case, even the 10% (that's being generous) used for the Xbox Media Center, are being used illegally as well as the XBMC was created in violation of Microsoft copyrights, as it used a leaked copy of the Xbox SDK without agreement to the Xbox SDK license.)
Soooooo what?
They have admin rights to their local computers and can turn those rights off if they want to. Microsoft isn't like some typical corp where a self-important IT admin with delusions of grandeur dictates policy for every user.
I'm sure Apple employees had admin rights to their machines too, given that admin is the default account level in OS X.
Under XP a limited account does not have write access to any of the system directories (i.e. c:\windows) nor the "programs" directory (i.e. c:\Program Files (or whatever it's called (I'm typing this from a Mac and don't feel like booting my windows machine to find out ;-))), nor does it have read or write access to any other user's directories.
Limited accounts also don't allow access to many system settings (too many, IMO, such as the Power Management), and don't allow access to registry settings beyond those of the current user (those under HKEY_CURRENT_USER).
Because a limited account cannot write to the programs directory, such an account cannot install programs on a "system-wide" basis (i.e., install them into the Programs directory for all users to use). A limited user can install programs into his own user directory, if the program's installer allows such or if the program doesn't require an installation program (so the user could just place the program in his user directory hierarchy).
"Protected Admin" sounds like the Mac OS X example where the default account is admin, but you need to enter your password to do admin stuff like change particular system settings (but you can still access the entire file system and wreak havoc without any such password prompt).
Nope, it means that Google (baited by Microsoft) got taken to the cleaners.
Are you saying that Microsoft played Google for fools? ;-)
Reread what you posted, only replace the string "Google" with "Microsoft", and see how you feel about it then.
So much for the self-righteous proclamations of being above "evil". ...
Show me somebody that continually claims to not be a racist, and I'll show you a racist.
Show me somebody that continually claims to be "not evil",
There are already multiple 'standards' available for document representation. I don't know if they've been recognized by standards bodies, but there are defacto 'standards' like RTF, that everyone supports (despite it being a format created by, *gasp*, Microsoft). It's funny to see OSS fanboys scared to compete after all their huff and puff about competing on merits. Rather, you want *government* to declare ODF to be the one true standard. Wait, I went too far; I forgot that you guys support *governent* giving its blessing to PDF, a 'standard' controlled by a single entity Adobe (only an outdated subset of PDF has been recognized by ECMA). LOL The irony and hypocrisy is delicious. Let ODF compete and succeed or fail based on its merits rather than winning by government fiat.
Let's cut to the chase. OO.o couldn't compete with MS Office based on merit, so it changed the rules of the game by declaring its format as a 'standard' and saying, "You should use us because although we lack MS Office's functionality, ease of use, speed, and relatively small memory footprint (OO.o is a slow pig), our format is a standard!!" And they even got Mass to go along with using 2nd rate software for the sake of a standard format, which delighted you guys to no end. But hold on, Microsoft does something that you never dreamed that they would do (and secretly feared that they would do); MS makes its own format a standard, and we go back to OO.o having to compete on merit again. This is why you guys are pissed off.
I have seen lots of posts saying it is some scheme for dividing and conquering, or creating more work for open source people, etc, but the real story is that the Office codebase is so convoluted and fragile that they need a document format that favorable to how Office works... friendly to its data structures and whatnot.
Have you seen the Office code base? No? Then stop talking out of your ass. There's no reason to believe that Microsoft's code base is any more "convoluted" than OO.o's (which is derived from the years-old closed code of the old StarOffice).
Secondly, ODF is based on OO.o's previous format which is "friendly" to StarOffice's code structure. There's nothing *special* about OO.o other than the fact that a committee of self-appointed members declared it as a standard approved by OAISIS, a group nobody gives a damn about. ECMA and ISO haven't recognized ODF as a "standard" of any kind (I read somewhere that ODF was submitted to ECMA in October 2005, but has a long way to go before being ratified).
ODF is "friendly" to OO.o's code, and MS formats are friendly to MS code. There's nothing to say that one is superiour to the other. Anyone making a word processor not based on either of these code bases (WordPerfect, for example) would have to alter their code to adpot either format more than OO.o would alter its code for ODF (basically, minimal alteration since ODF is essentially OO.o's previous format) and mroe than MS would alter its code for MS formats.
BTW, MS formats provide for more functionality than ODF.
Also, ODF is geared towards the features in OO.o that OO.o cares about.
For example, MS formats allolw embedded OLE objects themselves to be represented as the XML format of their respective apps, while ODF represents OLE objects as binary blobs. Why? Because OO.o's OLE support sucks badly, so they didn't care too much about proper OLE support. There are many features in MS OFfice that OO.o doesn't support or does a half-ass job; these features are those not supported in ODF (or not supported well, at least).
especially GUI APIs (never failed to amaze me how someone could call Swing "stupid" and then go back to coding Win32 or Motif... Apple guys I can forgive :)...
;-)
You clearly never used the pre-Carbon MacOS API, if you can for give Apple guys for touting that API over Swing. Pre-MacOSX, the Mac GUI api was garbage. The MenuMgr, ControlMgr (extremely primitive; the ListMgr is the worst api man has ever created), WindowMgr, DialogMgr, EventMgr (no system-provided automatic dispatching of events), QuickDraw (having to set global grafports before drawing), etc were very painful to use and the exact opposite of "elegance". Hell, in some cases they even relied on apps directly manipulating system global variables. Win32 was vastly superior; even Win16 was superior. Win16/Win32 was simply more advanced, more evolved than the old Mac API. Like comparing man to the amoeba.
If Blu-Ray beats HD-DVD, then Java will have successfully expanded in to another market.
True, but how many of us are going to make a living programming DVD interactive menus? How many of us would WANT to?
Google is the latest "Great White Hope" in destroying the evil that is M$; that's why slashdotters worship Google so much.
I agree, although OEMs can make deals with other portal providers (or any other kind of webpage, for that matter) to make them the default home page.
BTW, there's a similar situation for Macs, where Mac users leave Apple's own http://livepage.apple.com/ (which redirects to http://www.apple.com/startpage/) as their home page.
"But I can see why Google is reluctant, providing this data incurs more costs, and I can imagine that there will be a lot of advertisers who are going to argue with them about their bills."
Hey, sometimes "Do no evil" costs money. Now, we'll see if Google puts its money where it's mouth is.
Um, what exactly is your point? It's not like his only contributing 10% (likely far more than anyone else contributed), prevented the building from getting done. What, he should have contributed more for no reason?
I know that Stanford has an undergraduate education fund that alums contribute to, known as The Stanford Fund. Contributers that donate at least $10K in a single year are recognized by being placed on the "Presidential Fund" contributers list. I wouldn't be surprised if many on that list donate exactly $10K and no more, just to be put on the list. That is, they ask themselves, "What is the minimum that I can contribute to be put on the Presidential Fund contributers list?" (similar to the action for which you condemn Gates). Is something wrong with that?
Things like the "Presidential Fund" list and getting a building named after you are contribution incentives, and they're designed to intice one to contribute a certain amount, not but not necessarily any more than that. And such incentives work quite well.
All of the snide remarks in this thread indicate that most of you hate any improvement in IE for fear of losing some of your anti-M$ ammo. Deep down in your hearts, you WANT IE to be insecure, you WANT Windows to be insecure, you WANT Vista to bomb, just like you LOVED Win9x crashes. The fact is, Microsoft is addressing their security problems, just as they did their stability problems, and that scares you guys to death.
You lost your stability argument, and slowly but surely, you're losing your security argument (the last major security outbreak happened back in 2003, and things will only get worse for you in Vista, where the default accounts are non-admin). Face the facts that you're going to have to find another argument ("free, as in beer", I suspect).
Actually, in Vista, the default user account is non-admin, and IE7 runs in a mode even more limited than that.
Slowly but surely MS is learning a few good tricks from the Linux crowd.
Please get over yourself. The "Linux crowd" didn't invent the security system that's in Linux. If MS is learning from anyone, it's from the Unix crowd, which Microsoft itself is a part of, having created Xenix in the late 80's. But essentially, MS is learning from its own problems, which were created by migrating its userbase from a single-user no-security system (DOS, Win3.x, Win 9x) to a multi-user system with security (NT and its decendents). During this migration, the default accounts have been admin because that's what they were (essentially) in Win9x. In order to keep Win9x programs working, the default accounts in NT have been admin. This is changing with Vista, and has nothing to do with "learning" from Linux.
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
Yep. Just look at Linux.