"MS won't stand for an XML file format -- it's human-readable. the last thing MS wants is for their file format to be easily convertible and transformable. it's a pity, because switching Office files to XML would quickly make them insanely useful."
You people are so biased. Now Office has suddenly "dropped the ball." Of course, that meme will permeate through all Slashbots' thinking, whether or not they've even tried Office 2003.
Here is a sample XML file. The original message said "This is a <b>test</b> of <b><i><font face="verdana" size="24">XML</font></i></b>."
NOTE:  ; Slashcode adds random semicolons and other garbage for some reason.
Umm, Control-F makes bold text in the swedish version of MS Office, and starts a search in just about every other application. They can't even get it right within their own set of applications.
Um, hello? That's the Swedish version.
So, you can complain all you like about how crappy the Linux desktop is, but I have actual proof that at least one fairly computer ilitterate person prefers GNOME before Windows.
Keyboard shortcuts vary with the application and are subject to the whim of the application developer; CTRL-N is a new email in Outlook, but a new database in Lotus Notes.
90% of applications follow standard shortcut procedure, but there are always the exceptions, which aren't the fault of Windows consistency.
MS's devkits include standard icon sets Icons are also subject to the whims of the developer. In the 90s, I could always tell when a new version of Visual Basic had been released, because Windows shareware would have new and inexplicable icons.
Um...huh? What does the changing of some default dev icon have to do with the interface consistency? Most apps use their own custom icons.
Microsoft's user interface is not consistent over time. It is not consistent between applications, except those from the same vendor (and even then it's questionable). What seems like consistency and logic in the UI is really a huge installed base and a decade of acclimatization.
Completely false. Windows is considered a bastion of homogenized consistency (good or bad), especially compared to the hell that is the Linux desktop attempt.
Fuck off. When I enter a valid registration number and MS tells me I cannot update XP because I have an invalid registration nmumber, then yes, it is "a foreign concept."
Office 2003. In other words, this is another non-issue that all the Linux trolls are pulling their hair out over. This just has to do with being able to view rights-protected Office 2003 documents without Office 2003.
But, of course, Slashdot says "Microsoft Offers S DRM Patch." Let's ignore facts for page hits and controversy! I'm surprised all you people who decry corporations and their biased bullshit allow the OSDN-owned Slashdot to continue the Microsoft troll articles daily.
Figures this uninformed garbage would be marked "+5 Insightful." I'm sick of this misconception about information rights management. Slashdot even posted a breathless headline decrying that Microsoft was locking people out!
People, this is just a button you can click to set up permissions on the document you create, so, for instance, you can designate other people with those rights to be able to open your document.
It's off by default, it's a completely a user intervention to turn it on, and it has nothing to do with spreading any monopolies.
This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read.doc files that your clients will invariably send.
This is a togglable option you set for documents in your company. You have to have an information rights server, and you set things up so that only people you designate permission to can read the file.
Again, I iterate, because Slashbots completely ignore this point--this has nothing to do with a proprietary format. It is all about allowing the creator of the document to set protected rights permissions if they want to.
In other words, Microsoft is using DRM to enforce their monopoly "by name."
You do visit Slashdot, don't you? It is claimed all the time. The prevailing attitude and anecdotal evidence about how secure Linux is and how insecure and unstable Windows is runs through every discussion thread even remotely involving anything Microsoft. A large part of this site is just reactive hysteria to "Microsoft worms." Heck, whenever there's an X-Box article, you get the requisite hundreds of "jokes" about green screens of death.
You claim to get virus-mails, which usually require user intervention to spread. Then you mention IIS intrusions, despite the fact that Slashdot recently posted an article called "Linux Most Attacked Server?" which showed Linux was the most breached operating system on the net.
The true conclusion:
Windows is like a 50 year old car without safety belts, Unix is like a modern Volvo with safety belts and airbags.
No. The true conclusion is that your personal disdain for Microsoft products in an OS war doesn't matter in the end. All operating systems are insecure and vulnerable. They are equal.
The true heart of security lies in your system administrator. Period.
I was merely pointing out that nothing is 100% secure. He gave me links to a couple of software guarantees, so I gave a link showing Linux is the most-breached OS anyway.
Regardless of the reasons why that is, I was showing that it doesn't really matter if that software is guaranteed. There are other ways in.
There have been a few, but the Slashbots here just claim them as biased and dismiss them. None have ever been posted as a headline. Only linked to by intelligent, unbiased posters.
Geez. At least I've used Linux and so feel qualified in offering my opinion.
I'm sorry to tell you, Linux will never kill Microsoft. Microsoft offers the better desktop experience and apps.
By the way, you did see that article on Slashdot about a week ago that reported Linux as the most breached server OS, didn't you? Interesting to be on the other side, isn't it?
You know what? People beaming with pride that their OS isn't affected is like praising your computerized toaster for also not being infected. You're not the major target of this worm, so of course you're just seeing side effects and not infection.
Give Linux the Windows marketshare and enjoy worms that exploit things like last week's ssh vulnerability.
How ridiculous. Not everyone is a sysadmin, or has the time to be one, or wants to be one. Some people are data entry.
Not teaching kids how to use Word and Excel is insane, since it is used almost exclusively in the business world, much to the dismay of people who insist you use slower, bloated solutions like OpenOffice (which still takes 20 seconds to load up for me).
Yeah, it's just a dumb cartoon, but it shows how far Microsoft crap has infested pop culture.
This has got to be the most bizarre anti-Microsoft post I've ever read. Ash crashing his computer is somehow a statement on the infection of Microsoft propaganda. Or, it could have just been a silly plot point of a silly cartoon you shouldn't have been watching.
I've crashed Linux plenty of times, particularly the desktop environments.
Slashdot Mirror
The schemas are fully available and documented online at Microsoft's website. I don't know how much more you want them to hold your hand over this.
I doubt very highly that ANYTHING will convince you that it's not that bad at all. You need Microsoft to have done wrong here.
No. It does *unless you turn that option off*. Very large difference. The vast majority of desktops use the default.
What on earth are you talking about? There is no single Windows installation that has it on by default. Not a one.
Not Windows 95, not 98, not ME, not XP.
"MS won't stand for an XML file format -- it's human-readable. the last thing MS wants is for their file format to be easily convertible and transformable. it's a pity, because switching Office files to XML would quickly make them insanely useful."
You people are so biased. Now Office has suddenly "dropped the ball." Of course, that meme will permeate through all Slashbots' thinking, whether or not they've even tried Office 2003.
Here is a sample XML file. The original message said "This is a <b>test</b> of <b><i><font face="verdana" size="24">XML</font></i></b>."
NOTE:  ; Slashcode adds random semicolons and other garbage for some reason.
<?mso-application progid="Word.Document"?>
<w:wordDocument w:macrosPresent="no" w:embeddedObjPresent="no" w:ocxPresent="no" xml:space="preserve">
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Title>This is a test of XML</o:Title>
<o:Author>Preston Sumner</o:Author>
<o:LastAuthor>Preston Sumner</o:LastAuthor>
<o:Revision>1</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>1</o:TotalTime>
<o:Created>2003-09-18T15:29:00Z</o:Created>
  ; <o:LastSaved>2003-09-18T15:30:00Z</o:LastSaved>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>3</o:Words>
<o:Characters>20</o:Characters>
  ; <o:Company>White Goat Studios</o:Company>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>22</o:CharactersWithSpaces >
<o:Version>11.5604</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<w:fonts>
<w:defaultFonts w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:fareast="Times New Roman" w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/>
<w:font w:name="Verdana">
<w:panose-1 w:val="020B0604030504040204"/>
<w:charset w:val="00"/>
<w:family w:val="Swiss"/>
<w:pitch w:val="variable"/>
<w:sig w:usb-0="20000287" w:usb-1="00000000" w:usb-2="00000000" w:usb-3="00000000" w:csb-0="0000019F" w:csb-1="00000000"/>
</w:font>
</w:fonts>
<w:styles>
<w:versionOfBuiltInStylenames w:val="4"/>
<w:latentStyles w:defLockedState="off" w:latentStyleCount="156"/>
<w:style w:type="paragraph" w:default="on" w:styleId="Normal">
<w:name w:val="Normal"/>
<w:rPr>
<wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/>
<w:sz w:val="24"/>
<w:sz-cs w:val="24"/>
<w:lang w:val="EN-US" w:fareast="EN-US" w:bidi="AR-SA"/>
</w:rPr>
</w:style>
<w:style w:type="character" w:default="on" w:styleId="DefaultParagraphFont">
<w:name w:val="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:semiHidden/>
</w:style>
</w:styles>
<w:docPr>
<w:view w:val="normal"/>
<w:zoom w:percent="100"/>
<w:doNotEmbedSystemFonts/>
<w:proofState w:spelling="clean" w:grammar="clean"/>
<w:attachedTemplate w:val=""/>
<w:defaultTabStop w:val="720"/>
<w:characterSpacingControl w:val="DontCompress"/>
<w:optimizeForBrowser/>
<w:validateAgainstSchema/>
<w:saveInvalidXML w:val="on"/>
<w:ignoreMixedContent w:val="off"/>
<w:alwaysShowPlaceholderText w:val="off"/>
<w:compat>
<w:breakWrappedTables/>
<w:snapToGridInCell/>
<w:wrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:useAsianBreakRules/>
<w:useWord2002TableStyleRules/>
</w:compat>
</w:docPr>
<w:body>
<wx:sect>
<w:p>
<w:r>
<w:t>This is a </w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r>
<w:rPr>
<w:b/>
</w:rPr>
Umm, Control-F makes bold text in the swedish version of MS Office, and starts a search in just about every other application. They can't even get it right within their own set of applications.
Um, hello? That's the Swedish version.
So, you can complain all you like about how crappy the Linux desktop is, but I have actual proof that at least one fairly computer ilitterate person prefers GNOME before Windows.
Wow. I'm convinced now.
Really? When I right-click on something, nothing happens (Pre-1995 Windows).
Jesus, that was over eight years ago.
Single-clicking opens something (Post-IE4 Windows).
No, it doesn't. Only if you turn that option on.
Keyboard shortcuts vary with the application and are subject to the whim of the application developer; CTRL-N is a new email in Outlook, but a new database in Lotus Notes.
90% of applications follow standard shortcut procedure, but there are always the exceptions, which aren't the fault of Windows consistency.
MS's devkits include standard icon sets
Icons are also subject to the whims of the developer. In the 90s, I could always tell when a new version of Visual Basic had been released, because Windows shareware would have new and inexplicable icons.
Um...huh? What does the changing of some default dev icon have to do with the interface consistency? Most apps use their own custom icons.
Microsoft's user interface is not consistent over time. It is not consistent between applications, except those from the same vendor (and even then it's questionable). What seems like consistency and logic in the UI is really a huge installed base and a decade of acclimatization.
Completely false. Windows is considered a bastion of homogenized consistency (good or bad), especially compared to the hell that is the Linux desktop attempt.
You do realize this entire article and discussion is about a little patch that lets people read Office 2003 documents with IRM turned on, don't you?
Talk about freaking out over nothing...
Fuck off. When I enter a valid registration number and MS tells me I cannot update XP because I have an invalid registration nmumber, then yes, it is "a foreign concept."
I'm sure that never happened.
Office 2003. In other words, this is another non-issue that all the Linux trolls are pulling their hair out over. This just has to do with being able to view rights-protected Office 2003 documents without Office 2003.
But, of course, Slashdot says "Microsoft Offers S DRM Patch." Let's ignore facts for page hits and controversy! I'm surprised all you people who decry corporations and their biased bullshit allow the OSDN-owned Slashdot to continue the Microsoft troll articles daily.
Figures this uninformed garbage would be marked "+5 Insightful." I'm sick of this misconception about information rights management. Slashdot even posted a breathless headline decrying that Microsoft was locking people out!
.doc files that your clients will invariably send.
People, this is just a button you can click to set up permissions on the document you create, so, for instance, you can designate other people with those rights to be able to open your document.
It's off by default, it's a completely a user intervention to turn it on, and it has nothing to do with spreading any monopolies.
This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read
This is a togglable option you set for documents in your company. You have to have an information rights server, and you set things up so that only people you designate permission to can read the file.
Again, I iterate, because Slashbots completely ignore this point--this has nothing to do with a proprietary format. It is all about allowing the creator of the document to set protected rights permissions if they want to.
In other words, Microsoft is using DRM to enforce their monopoly "by name."
Completely wrong.
$168 million dollars is nothing to write home about?
When did Linux advocacy become so spiteful and selfish?
Logic, reason, and calm rationality in a Slashdot discussion? Burn him at the stake, boys!
I find 90% of the "+5 Funny" posts to be completely retarded and devoid of humor.
Forgive me for wanting my jokes to be a little clever. Not just puns, "In other news..." posts, or "You must be new here."
Of course, that doesn't stop Slashbots from calling, for instance, Office flaws "Windows holes." Anti-MS zealots started the trend.
Nobody ever claimed it would be.
You do visit Slashdot, don't you? It is claimed all the time. The prevailing attitude and anecdotal evidence about how secure Linux is and how insecure and unstable Windows is runs through every discussion thread even remotely involving anything Microsoft. A large part of this site is just reactive hysteria to "Microsoft worms." Heck, whenever there's an X-Box article, you get the requisite hundreds of "jokes" about green screens of death.
You claim to get virus-mails, which usually require user intervention to spread. Then you mention IIS intrusions, despite the fact that Slashdot recently posted an article called "Linux Most Attacked Server?" which showed Linux was the most breached operating system on the net.
The true conclusion:
Windows is like a 50 year old car without safety belts, Unix is like a modern Volvo with safety belts and airbags.
No. The true conclusion is that your personal disdain for Microsoft products in an OS war doesn't matter in the end. All operating systems are insecure and vulnerable. They are equal.
The true heart of security lies in your system administrator. Period.
I was merely pointing out that nothing is 100% secure. He gave me links to a couple of software guarantees, so I gave a link showing Linux is the most-breached OS anyway.
Regardless of the reasons why that is, I was showing that it doesn't really matter if that software is guaranteed. There are other ways in.
Wait a minute, who was the moron who modded that as troll?
How is posting a link to a previous Slashdot article trolling?
Sometimes Slashdot still amazes me...sheesh.
Yes, really.
Nothing is 100% secure, nothing is flawless, all operating systems are imperfect pieces of junk we're lucky to have running in the first place.
There have been a few, but the Slashbots here just claim them as biased and dismiss them. None have ever been posted as a headline. Only linked to by intelligent, unbiased posters.
Geez. At least I've used Linux and so feel qualified in offering my opinion.
I'm sorry to tell you, Linux will never kill Microsoft. Microsoft offers the better desktop experience and apps.
By the way, you did see that article on Slashdot about a week ago that reported Linux as the most breached server OS, didn't you? Interesting to be on the other side, isn't it?
You know what? People beaming with pride that their OS isn't affected is like praising your computerized toaster for also not being infected. You're not the major target of this worm, so of course you're just seeing side effects and not infection.
Give Linux the Windows marketshare and enjoy worms that exploit things like last week's ssh vulnerability.
How ridiculous. Not everyone is a sysadmin, or has the time to be one, or wants to be one. Some people are data entry.
Not teaching kids how to use Word and Excel is insane, since it is used almost exclusively in the business world, much to the dismay of people who insist you use slower, bloated solutions like OpenOffice (which still takes 20 seconds to load up for me).
Yeah, it's just a dumb cartoon, but it shows how far Microsoft crap has infested pop culture.
This has got to be the most bizarre anti-Microsoft post I've ever read. Ash crashing his computer is somehow a statement on the infection of Microsoft propaganda. Or, it could have just been a silly plot point of a silly cartoon you shouldn't have been watching.
I've crashed Linux plenty of times, particularly the desktop environments.
Incidentally, NT's kernel is based on VMS.
What are you talking about? It's called "Administrator." Administrator can set that up easily.
More FUD.
Incidentally, NT's kernel is based on VMS. I found your comment amusing in light of that.
What is it "exploiting?" Dumb users?
Linux and Microsoft both have their fair share of those...