Those examples are old, so they've learned from past mistakes. Second, those examples may indicate that Microsoft is better able to provide security systems since they've had to go thru the painful experience of dealing with problems. IIS 6 has a better security record than Apache 2 (just check secunia), which could be a result of the Code Red experience on earlier IIS versions. Outlook hasn't had a massive email virus in years, a result of the "I Love You" experience.
Except that malware (particularly trojans, which are much more common than viruses nowadays) can do damage regardless of whether the OS has any flaws or not. An OS vendor can easily claim that the mere existence of an anti-malware app from the vendor does not mean that the OS is intentionally defective with the intent to sell more copies of the anti-malware app because the anti-malware app can be beneficial regardless of whether the OS has flaws.
Your friend could add it to the list. But this means that your friend could also add to the list "PamAndersonNude.exe" that he received in email, and we're right back where we started.
Uh, and how would Symantec and Adobe make money by "getting behind Linux", whose users don't believe in paying for software and demand that devs open source their code?
This statement of yours is very telling:" In Linux, Symantec can contribute their expertise at the KERNEL level instead of in the weak application domain." That's what it always comes down to for Linux folk. Commercial dev houses should "contribute" but get nothing in return (i.e. payment).
How would it provide constant revenue stream for Google? Would they charge per hour of use? Or would they use ad-revenue? So if you're creating a grocery list, ad-sense links would appear in your document regarding mayonaise, apple juice, butter, et al? And you'd expect people to click on these links within their own document? Yeah, right... More likely, they'd become so annoyed that they foreswear ever using this Google Office crap again.
There are already RTF web-based editors, so what's the point? You better bring some more functionality to the table than that. Microsoft, Apple, Sun, or anyone else can release a "tiny tool" document editor overnight. Who cares? As for your "grocery list", why would I want to connect to Google to type one when Windows, Mac, and Linux already come with free text editors (both plain text editors and more fancy editors (RTF and the like))?
"Yet again MS copies someone else. OpenOffice has had this since 1.1.4. Which was out months ago. Go figure."
Yours is an ironic statement considering that 99% of OO is copied from MS Office. BTW, are you suggesting that if a developer doesn't implement a particular feature in his product before anyone else, then he should NEVER implement said feature? Are you that disingenuous?
"refuse to bundle anyone else's application under any circumstances. The fact that IE comes pre-installed, and Firefox doesn't, provides a big advantage for IE."
Why should Microsoft pay for the distribution costs of another's app for free? If someone wants Microsoft to bundle and distribute their app for them, let them pay Microsoft to do so (and such deals have been made in the past, for things such as defragmenters).
"make it impossible for you to remove their applications (at least in any supported way)."
Everything in the "Accessories" program group is optional and can be added or removed at will. As for browser, email, media player, IM, and JVM (let's face it, these are the apps that you're referring to), XP has the "Program Access and Defaults" manager that allows one to choose a non-MS app as the default and allows for disabling the MS apps.
"refuse to document the APIs that their own apps use, thereby allowing their own applications greater integration with the OS than other developers are capable of doing."
Pure FUD. Please provide examples.
"are suspected of purposefully sabotaging other applications by making changes to their undocumented APIs, file formats, and protocols."
Suspected by those with an anti-MS agenda, maybe. You have no proof. This is more FUD on your part.
BTW, Apple does each of the above (sans the "purposely sabataging" bit). What fool modded this as "Insightful"?
The problem with GPL (both GPL 2 and the currently proposed GPL3) is it gives an unfair advantage to companies that develop web apps over those that develop apps run locally.
Suppose one company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs locally on the user's computer. Suppose another company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs remotely through the user's web browser. The first company would have to distribute its code and thus hurt its ability to charge users for its product. The second company would NOT have to distribute its code, and can therefore charge for use of its word processor just like any closed-source company could, even though the word proceccor was made with GPL code.
Do you see the problem here? Just yesterday there was a slashdot thread talking about more and more software becoming apps stored on a server run through a browser. As this phenomenon grows, the GPL becomes less and less effective because such apps aren't affected by GPL.
For example, Microsoft (whom many here hate) could use GPL code to make web apps, charge users for the use of those apps, and NOT distribute the code.
"I doubt that there was anything that absolutely needed to be changed with regard to the library format. I'm of the opinion that this was a carefully crafted Microsoft strategy to force developers to stop using VC6 (which is the oldest Visual Studio release that still has a large number of active users)."
The real technical reason [that the PSDK no longer supports VC6] is because the later compilers and library add enhanced security. The libraries are compiled with/GS. This was not previously supported (not in VC6) but is part of our security initiatives and drive to eliminate buffer overruns. The two articles below describe the new functionality in detail. VC6 is not as secure and does not have these enhancements. XP SP2 itself was compiled with the switch which is why we see the issue start in XP SP2. Windows Server 2003 SP 1 is even more strict in it's adherence. The compilers included in the SP1 PSDK and most of the libraries comply as well and simply won't work with VC 6.
MS XML is completely documented, and not "patent encumbered". You just have to get the license from MS directly (rather than getting it as a "sublicense" from another party that got the license from MS directly), and have to provide some attribution in your software saying that you're using the MS format. The license is free, so I don't see what the problem is.
I like you you say Microsoft has NEVER been able to compete on merit, yet OSS is only able to compete on price (and a pretty poor competitor, even at a price of $0).
You're an idiot. Obviously they didn't rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but it's well known that they did start over using Windows Server 2003 as the base.
You forget the fiasco that was Copeland. A similar fiasco to Longhorn, except that Apple couldn't even turn the project around on its own, having to abandon it for NextStep.
I see many here saying that the FireFox security update system is inadequate because it's too easy to ignore, not in your face, too easy to go unnoticed (and many times doesn't even work; my FireFox is giving no indication that it needs updating). What you don't understand is that the FireFox team *wants* the update notifications to be easily unnoticed, not in your face, easy to ignore. If they became "in your face", then the user would eventually think, "Damn, I sure do have to update this thing a lot. Guess it's not really that secure after all."
First, yes the media does report security flaws in IE. Second, it's Mozilla and their allies (including the general Slashdot populace) that touted the security of FireFox, so it's only natural that the media would jump on any FF security issue. I've conducted numerous job interviews, and when I see a candidate claiming a particular experience on his resume, I ask him about it to see if he's telling the truth or exaggerating. FF claims "security" on its resume, so they've painted the target on their back for the media to report just how secure FF really is (and the answer is, "not very").
And why would that be "good"? Oh, you're part of the Microsoft-must-die jihad. *yawn*
BTW, Office12 makes OpenOffice look like a dinosaur. Users will choose apps that look and feel modern over outdated garbage (witness IE losing marketshare to more modern browsers).
Windows XP SP2 does check for digital sigs of downloaded software every time said software is run, and warns the user if there is no sig or if it's invalid (the user can override the warning and still run/install the software). It even allows the user to view the details of the digital sig certificate.
Rather than just a checksum, what you need is an honest-to-goodness digital signature issued by a trusted third party, but OSS folk don't believe in digital sigs as it goes against their ideology (digital sigs aren't "open enough" according to Mozilla and other OSS folk). Ideology over security, the OSS mantra.
It matters because Mozilla marketed FireFox not just as "not targeted by hackers as much", but as "inherently, fundamentally more secure, and nigh-invulnerable". They didn't say that directly but certainly have suggested as much, which amounts to the same thing. That turned out to be a lie, and many around here can't stand the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. The damage control applied to this topic is just delicious! LOL
Slashdot Mirror
Those examples are old, so they've learned from past mistakes. Second, those examples may indicate that Microsoft is better able to provide security systems since they've had to go thru the painful experience of dealing with problems. IIS 6 has a better security record than Apache 2 (just check secunia), which could be a result of the Code Red experience on earlier IIS versions. Outlook hasn't had a massive email virus in years, a result of the "I Love You" experience.
Except that malware (particularly trojans, which are much more common than viruses nowadays) can do damage regardless of whether the OS has any flaws or not. An OS vendor can easily claim that the mere existence of an anti-malware app from the vendor does not mean that the OS is intentionally defective with the intent to sell more copies of the anti-malware app because the anti-malware app can be beneficial regardless of whether the OS has flaws.
Your friend could add it to the list. But this means that your friend could also add to the list "PamAndersonNude.exe" that he received in email, and we're right back where we started.
Uh, and how would Symantec and Adobe make money by "getting behind Linux", whose users don't believe in paying for software and demand that devs open source their code?
This statement of yours is very telling:" In Linux, Symantec can contribute their expertise at the KERNEL level instead of in the weak application domain."
That's what it always comes down to for Linux folk. Commercial dev houses should "contribute" but get nothing in return (i.e. payment).
How would it provide constant revenue stream for Google? Would they charge per hour of use? Or would they use ad-revenue? So if you're creating a grocery list, ad-sense links would appear in your document regarding mayonaise, apple juice, butter, et al? And you'd expect people to click on these links within their own document? Yeah, right... More likely, they'd become so annoyed that they foreswear ever using this Google Office crap again.
There are already RTF web-based editors, so what's the point? You better bring some more functionality to the table than that. Microsoft, Apple, Sun, or anyone else can release a "tiny tool" document editor overnight. Who cares? As for your "grocery list", why would I want to connect to Google to type one when Windows, Mac, and Linux already come with free text editors (both plain text editors and more fancy editors (RTF and the like))?
"Yet again MS copies someone else. OpenOffice has had this since 1.1.4. Which was out months ago. Go figure."
Yours is an ironic statement considering that 99% of OO is copied from MS Office.
BTW, are you suggesting that if a developer doesn't implement a particular feature in his product before anyone else, then he should NEVER implement said feature? Are you that disingenuous?
Was not Microsoft the first to create a web-browser component that could be embedded into third party apps?
"refuse to bundle anyone else's application under any circumstances. The fact that IE comes pre-installed, and Firefox doesn't, provides a big advantage for IE."
Why should Microsoft pay for the distribution costs of another's app for free? If someone wants Microsoft to bundle and distribute their app for them, let them pay Microsoft to do so (and such deals have been made in the past, for things such as defragmenters).
"make it impossible for you to remove their applications (at least in any supported way)."
Everything in the "Accessories" program group is optional and can be added or removed at will. As for browser, email, media player, IM, and JVM (let's face it, these are the apps that you're referring to), XP has the "Program Access and Defaults" manager that allows one to choose a non-MS app as the default and allows for disabling the MS apps.
"refuse to document the APIs that their own apps use, thereby allowing their own applications greater integration with the OS than other developers are capable of doing."
Pure FUD. Please provide examples.
"are suspected of purposefully sabotaging other applications by making changes to their undocumented APIs, file formats, and protocols."
Suspected by those with an anti-MS agenda, maybe. You have no proof. This is more FUD on your part.
BTW, Apple does each of the above (sans the "purposely sabataging" bit).
What fool modded this as "Insightful"?
The problem with GPL (both GPL 2 and the currently proposed GPL3) is it gives an unfair advantage to companies that develop web apps over those that develop apps run locally.
Suppose one company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs locally on the user's computer. Suppose another company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs remotely through the user's web browser. The first company would have to distribute its code and thus hurt its ability to charge users for its product. The second company would NOT have to distribute its code, and can therefore charge for use of its word processor just like any closed-source company could, even though the word proceccor was made with GPL code.
Do you see the problem here? Just yesterday there was a slashdot thread talking about more and more software becoming apps stored on a server run through a browser. As this phenomenon grows, the GPL becomes less and less effective because such apps aren't affected by GPL.
For example, Microsoft (whom many here hate) could use GPL code to make web apps, charge users for the use of those apps, and NOT distribute the code.
Um, no.
http://blogs.msdn.com/loripe/archive/2005/05/02/4
LnxAddct = teh owned!! :p
MS XML is completely documented, and not "patent encumbered". You just have to get the license from MS directly (rather than getting it as a "sublicense" from another party that got the license from MS directly), and have to provide some attribution in your software saying that you're using the MS format. The license is free, so I don't see what the problem is.
I like you you say Microsoft has NEVER been able to compete on merit, yet OSS is only able to compete on price (and a pretty poor competitor, even at a price of $0).
You're an idiot.
Obviously they didn't rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but it's well known that they did start over using Windows Server 2003 as the base.
You forget the fiasco that was Copeland. A similar fiasco to Longhorn, except that Apple couldn't even turn the project around on its own, having to abandon it for NextStep.
I see many here saying that the FireFox security update system is inadequate because it's too easy to ignore, not in your face, too easy to go unnoticed (and many times doesn't even work; my FireFox is giving no indication that it needs updating). What you don't understand is that the FireFox team *wants* the update notifications to be easily unnoticed, not in your face, easy to ignore. If they became "in your face", then the user would eventually think, "Damn, I sure do have to update this thing a lot. Guess it's not really that secure after all."
First, yes the media does report security flaws in IE.
Second, it's Mozilla and their allies (including the general Slashdot populace) that touted the security of FireFox, so it's only natural that the media would jump on any FF security issue. I've conducted numerous job interviews, and when I see a candidate claiming a particular experience on his resume, I ask him about it to see if he's telling the truth or exaggerating. FF claims "security" on its resume, so they've painted the target on their back for the media to report just how secure FF really is (and the answer is, "not very").
And why would that be "good"? Oh, you're part of the Microsoft-must-die jihad. *yawn*
BTW, Office12 makes OpenOffice look like a dinosaur. Users will choose apps that look and feel modern over outdated garbage (witness IE losing marketshare to more modern browsers).
Windows XP SP2 does check for digital sigs of downloaded software every time said software is run, and warns the user if there is no sig or if it's invalid (the user can override the warning and still run/install the software). It even allows the user to view the details of the digital sig certificate.
Rather than just a checksum, what you need is an honest-to-goodness digital signature issued by a trusted third party, but OSS folk don't believe in digital sigs as it goes against their ideology (digital sigs aren't "open enough" according to Mozilla and other OSS folk). Ideology over security, the OSS mantra.
It matters because Mozilla marketed FireFox not just as "not targeted by hackers as much", but as "inherently, fundamentally more secure, and nigh-invulnerable". They didn't say that directly but certainly have suggested as much, which amounts to the same thing. That turned out to be a lie, and many around here can't stand the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. The damage control applied to this topic is just delicious! LOL
They're referring to Vista, in which it'll be much easier to use with a non-admin account. In fact, the default account is non-admin.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/driving/projectgot hamracing3/preview_6133409.html
Microsoft is the largest Mac development house besides Apple and has been for years. Many excellent Mac programmers work and thrive there.
mandated XP N, which nobody is buying.