Microsoft can make money on windows without charging for it; they can charge $15/copy for the minicomputer version. Microsoft has an endless number of strategies, which they will employ to keep market dominance for as long as they can.
MS could afford to give away the OS, if they chose. The real profit comes from Office -- so what are those minicomputer users going to use? As you rightly point out, MS is not just going to give up. MS has lots of cash which can be used to oompete (and I am sure that Google wants the Yahoo deal to go through because this removes all of MS's cash, which will hinder MS's future freedom of action).
In the past, MS has effectively given away software -- in the form of licenses that could be used on two computers: so that a license bought for a work machine could be taken home and used on the home machine.
Microsoft has two advantages over Linux: familiarity and applications. Recent Linux distributions are as easy, if not easier to use than Windows, but many applications (such as iTunes) are simply not available on Linux. Both of these advantages can be swept away if Linux gains a significant foothold in the desktop market.
I just wish that Apple would see that helping Linux would also help Apple. Breaking MS's dominance is the most important goal and Linux can help that to happen.
Does it work out of the box? Meaning, can you install it and it "just works" ?
It is a long time since I have used this.... well, to be precise, I used FreeS/WAN, not Openswan (Openswan forked from Freeswan around the time the funding for Freeswan dried up. At the time (2.2.x and later 2.4.x series kernels), it required a kernel patch. Getting it installed and configured was a non-trivial task (as I had to learn how to configure, build and install Linux kernels). However, I did get OE working and as far as I could tell, once configured, it did "just work".
Not to mention their mistreatment of the domain owner, telling him to rewrite his 550 SMTP reply to inform senders of the base's domain.
If you RTFA, you will see that it was RAF Mildenhall who gave this advice. As the intended recipients, not the senders, this was probably a good thing to do. One can only hope that they also notified the USAF of the problem.
There was another story I read about swatting where they wanted the culprit charged with assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment by violence, both by proxy, which are unprecedented,
Unprecedented, how? It seems that I see that every other week on Law and Order
What do you mean by: "it's only a drama, not real life"?
Isn't it? So where are the equivalents to SELinux or AppArmor in Vista?
Many Windows apps requires users to run as Administrator (for example Quickbooks and a camcorder tool I recently came across). On the Linux side, users can run as regular users and not know the root password (or have root access via sudo). Yes, I know that those are not part of Windows, but what does it matter, if the Windows ecosystem requires (or makes it very difficult to not) run as Adminstrator?
I recently installed another application that required the firewall and anti-virus to be turned off during installation and then started a process listening on all interfaces, when listening on the loopback interface should be sufficient. Yes, I know, it's not Windows, but it is part of the Windows ecosystem.
So, perhaps Vista is more secure: until you actually install applications to make the system useful.
I have found that Windows server 2008 runs very well on a ~ 3 year old Dell 610 notebook, even when the system is locked into maximum battery life (and minimum performance) mode. It has a ~ 2GHz processor and 2 GBytes of RAM.
You must have a strange idea of "very well". I have experience of running Windows SBS 2003 on a Sempron 2600 with 2GB of RAM: any administrative task is very frustrating because of its lack of responsiveness.
I think in criminal cases they can only throw out an improper guilty verdict, not an innocent one.
You may be wrong about that -- a friend who was studying law told me that judges can impose guilty verdicts even if a jury finds the other way. Whether this actually happens, I don't know.
Best Buy fucking lost this lady's personal machine, and they are not responsible that way for whatever personal data (and illegal porn) she might have had one it.
Had Best Buy notified her immediately about the loss, I could agree with you, but instead, they lied about it -- to the extent of an employee creating a fabricated entry in their systems. It's the delay and lying that makes them responsible IMHO.
I still assert that Comcast is unable to selectively filter content from an encrypted stream without destroying it, but in your case they were preventing one from ever being established.
Yes, I see the misunderstanding now. Clearly, Comcast cannot block different types of traffic within the tunnel, but your second comment suggests that you still don't get what I am trying to say:
The way that Comcast chose to block the VPN traffic resulted in both ends of the tunnel successfully negotiating a tunnel -- but when one tried to actually pass data down the tunnel, it did not arrive. The tunnel was "established", but non-functional.
You are trying to tell us they did not and could not block UDP port 500? And that noone could possibly do that?
Where did I say anything about port blocking?
What were you saying with your comment that Comcast "could not have created" the problem I described?
You assert that Comcast would be unable to block a VPN in such a way that the connection was established but the traffic was denied. As the other poster pointed out, this can easily be achieved with IPSEC VPNs (such as FreeS/WAN, OpenS/WAN) by blocking udp/500, while allowing the AH and ESP traffic (protocols -- not ports -- 50 and 51).
Please explain in detail why Comcast "could not have created" the problem.
VPN tunnels are encrypted, Comcast or anyone else cannot selectively filter content out of an encrypted stream.
I think you are blaming Comcast for a problem they did not (and could not) have created.
Perhaps I was not clear. The AH (protocol 51) and ESP (protocol 50) traffic made it through. In this way, the tunnel was established. The isakmp (udp/500) packets (which carry the actual data) did not make it through. In other words, the encrypted stream was blocked.
A few years back, I could see that Comcast was blocking VPN traffic. The block was such that the VPN session would be set up, but then the actual traffic would be blocked (different protocols). I could be certain that that the traffic was blocked because I could use tcpdump at both ends. I called them and they denied the block, but a few days later, my VPN started working again.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past, MS has effectively given away software -- in the form of licenses that could be used on two computers: so that a license bought for a work machine could be taken home and used on the home machine.
Microsoft has two advantages over Linux: familiarity and applications. Recent Linux distributions are as easy, if not easier to use than Windows, but many applications (such as iTunes) are simply not available on Linux. Both of these advantages can be swept away if Linux gains a significant foothold in the desktop market.
I just wish that Apple would see that helping Linux would also help Apple. Breaking MS's dominance is the most important goal and Linux can help that to happen.
If you want legal advice, get a lawyer.
What do you mean by: "it's only a drama, not real life"?
I can run a Linux server with proxy cache, mail server, VPN, DNS, etc in 64MB.
Many Windows apps requires users to run as Administrator (for example Quickbooks and a camcorder tool I recently came across). On the Linux side, users can run as regular users and not know the root password (or have root access via sudo). Yes, I know that those are not part of Windows, but what does it matter, if the Windows ecosystem requires (or makes it very difficult to not) run as Adminstrator?
I recently installed another application that required the firewall and anti-virus to be turned off during installation and then started a process listening on all interfaces, when listening on the loopback interface should be sufficient. Yes, I know, it's not Windows, but it is part of the Windows ecosystem.
So, perhaps Vista is more secure: until you actually install applications to make the system useful.
It was done in 1951.
What's that you say, it was only a story? Perhaps it was and perhaps it predicted the outcome (not good for the inventor).
Didn't we just read that chroot "jails" are not secure?
What I want to know, is: will the agreement between T-Mobile and AT&T allow the T-Mobile Hotspot@Home WiFi phone service to work?
The way that Comcast chose to block the VPN traffic resulted in both ends of the tunnel successfully negotiating a tunnel -- but when one tried to actually pass data down the tunnel, it did not arrive. The tunnel was "established", but non-functional.
You assert that Comcast would be unable to block a VPN in such a way that the connection was established but the traffic was denied. As the other poster pointed out, this can easily be achieved with IPSEC VPNs (such as FreeS/WAN, OpenS/WAN) by blocking udp/500, while allowing the AH and ESP traffic (protocols -- not ports -- 50 and 51).
Please explain in detail why Comcast "could not have created" the problem.
A few years back, I could see that Comcast was blocking VPN traffic. The block was such that the VPN session would be set up, but then the actual traffic would be blocked (different protocols). I could be certain that that the traffic was blocked because I could use tcpdump at both ends. I called them and they denied the block, but a few days later, my VPN started working again.