Here comes the part where people's excuse is that it's a joint effort, unable to be pinpointed as a "Linux hole." What does that mean? Nobody gets blame because a lot of people contribute? A lot of people contribute to Microsoft as well. They're just behind the moniker of a company label.
People bitch about the bloat of Windows and Office, yet tolerate the ridiculous slowness of Mozilla/Firebird and memory footprints of 23MB for an open source e-mail client. I don't get it.
Because, after all, not buying CDs means we'll sure show them!
Of course, they'll see that certain bands aren't selling and will drop them in favor of yet more studio-created band designed by focus groups, thereby killing off that which you're trying to save.
On the other hand, you could do the opposite and buy more of a certain band and style and show them that it sells.
This story, published on SlashDot less than 24 hours ago, notes that interoperating with the next version of the Word format may soon be a DMCA violation due to design decisions being made by MS (i.e. using DRM "features" in the format itself).
Take off your tinfoil hat. The DRM feature is not a part of the file format itself. It's a feature in Office that you can turn on when you save a document, so that you can secure it for other people in your company only to read it! It's not even on by default.
What good is OpenOffice if it's illegal? It'd get railroaded right off of the "legitimate" Internet just like DeCSS, and if someone finds out that you used it, you could very well go to jail. Not my cuppa.
Well, your wild-eyed conspiracy isn't going to happen, so relax.
I wish that we in the SlashDot community would have a longer memory, and that we would organize some sort of community against the DMCA (for it is the law which permits this sort of egregious BS). We should be rallying in the streets, but we're not. Pretty soon we may all be FORCED to buy a PeeCee with Windows and MS Office, or we will be completely unable to interoperate with the DRM-"protected".DOC format everyone else will be using. (And if you think everyone won't upgrade eventually, you're wrong. When Win95 came out, people said that adoption would be slow... and then when Win98 came out... and so on. How many people are running Win95 today?)
Word and Excel files are a medium of information interchange. People upgrade to the latest version of Office not for Microsoft's dancing-paperclip technology, but so they can read files written by the latest version of Office.
In my experience, this has never, ever been true. Most are unaware of the file format issue anyway. I know many places that just use whatever they happen to have. Office 2000, Office XP, whatever. As long as they have it, they don't care.
What in god's name does CSS encryption on commercial DVDs have to do with some feature in the next version of Office that will allow you to lock your documents? You don't want people to be able to secure their documents?
Slashdot reports this as though the next version of Office will have DRM as part of the document format itself. Nope. It's just something you can turn on if you want to secure your document for others in the company to read.
You are such a troll! Most of those vulnerabilities are for applications! Many of them are just freaking bug reports! If Microsoft was held responsible for all the non-Microsoft applications then you'd be comparing apples with apples.
People call Office holes Windows holes here all the time.
GNU/Linux distros include all those applications. But you don't have to install them!
I can already tell how uptight you are because you call it "GNU/Linux."
How is it anticompetitive behavior to allow people to lock their documents? I'm sure my company will love to lock in their documents to just people in this network.
So, as it turns out, the only reason they switched to Linux is because they are greedy. They wanted something cheap. Nothing to do with magical OSS ideals. Disappointing, but not surprising.
First off, a line break after every one or two sentences just for dramatic effect is annoying!
Linux is now widely recognized as "the future".
Then your finger is far from the pulse of corporate America. Right now, the "future" is seen as.NET,.NET,.NET.
As a Linux user, I routinely have conversations where Linux is "the future" and it's not questioned anymore.
Notice the phrase, "as a Linux user." Of course your Linux buddies will be saying that. You visit Slashdot regularly. Here, people have been saying Linux will be ready for the desktop within six months. Of course, they've been saying that since 1999, but that's besides the point.
Linux is on its way. In 10 years, it'll be the default, like Windows is today still.
People have been saying it's "on its way" since 1999. See this USENET thread for why it won't be. Saying Linux will magically become the default in 10 years, just because, is silly. People want apps and usability, and they're willing to pay for that.
Is this going to be like that other place where there was all that hooplah about their switching to Linux, and it turns out they planned to run Windows in VMWare anyway?
How is it a poorly designed product because the user runs the attachment? Honestly. You have yet to explain this to me. Outlook already pressures you into how unsafe attachments are.
You're probably the kind of guy who bitches about the "hand-holding" XP does, but now you're bitching that Outlook doesn't hold people's hands enough when it comes to attachments.
If you think Windows Longhorn is going to be faster than 2000 or XP because of this you're kidding your goddamned self kid. 2000 and XP are already hardware accelerated in 2D. You fucking putz.
No, it's not.
I think he did in a reply. You don't mind clicking "yes please show me the goddamn system32 directory" every single time you need in the goddamn thing?
It only shows it the first time. If it keeps showing it for you, uncheck the little easy box in Folder Options. Another non-issue.
You don't mind a simple fucking shit-code driver rendering the whole goddamn system unusable without resorting to cheap fucking hacks like the System Restore in XP??
Um, badly coded drivers take down any OS.
Let me tell you kid that keeping a whole company's (read 1500+/-) Windows network and machines from fucking eating itself is a fucking torture I wouldn't wish on anybody, even you poster boy.
I know you're just a badly worded troll, but I've been running Windows and UNIX and now Linux networks for a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
...which definitely outnumbers five.
Here comes the part where people's excuse is that it's a joint effort, unable to be pinpointed as a "Linux hole." What does that mean? Nobody gets blame because a lot of people contribute? A lot of people contribute to Microsoft as well. They're just behind the moniker of a company label.
Microsoft is still continuing development of Outlook Express. It was reported in a Slashback.
People bitch about the bloat of Windows and Office, yet tolerate the ridiculous slowness of Mozilla/Firebird and memory footprints of 23MB for an open source e-mail client. I don't get it.
CDs are also marketed more than cassettes. And have more cover art. Still, $20 is ridiculous.
In other words, you're screwing over artists because you have a beef with big business.
Seriously, how else can you look at it? It's the cold, rotten truth.
No.
Because, after all, not buying CDs means we'll sure show them!
Of course, they'll see that certain bands aren't selling and will drop them in favor of yet more studio-created band designed by focus groups, thereby killing off that which you're trying to save.
On the other hand, you could do the opposite and buy more of a certain band and style and show them that it sells.
That's the silliest thing I've ever read.
Buying CDs + going to concerts = profits for artists.
Not buying CDs because you downloaded them + going to concerts = less profits for artists.
Not buying CDs + not going to concerts because you downloaded a live concert bootleg = no profits for artists.
What? People responsible for their own actions, no more oppressed whiny victim role to play? Where do you think you are, boy?
This story, published on SlashDot less than 24 hours ago, notes that interoperating with the next version of the Word format may soon be a DMCA violation due to design decisions being made by MS (i.e. using DRM "features" in the format itself).
.DOC format everyone else will be using. (And if you think everyone won't upgrade eventually, you're wrong. When Win95 came out, people said that adoption would be slow... and then when Win98 came out... and so on. How many people are running Win95 today?)
Take off your tinfoil hat. The DRM feature is not a part of the file format itself. It's a feature in Office that you can turn on when you save a document, so that you can secure it for other people in your company only to read it! It's not even on by default.
What good is OpenOffice if it's illegal? It'd get railroaded right off of the "legitimate" Internet just like DeCSS, and if someone finds out that you used it, you could very well go to jail. Not my cuppa.
Well, your wild-eyed conspiracy isn't going to happen, so relax.
I wish that we in the SlashDot community would have a longer memory, and that we would organize some sort of community against the DMCA (for it is the law which permits this sort of egregious BS). We should be rallying in the streets, but we're not. Pretty soon we may all be FORCED to buy a PeeCee with Windows and MS Office, or we will be completely unable to interoperate with the DRM-"protected"
Next time, actually RTFA that you're linking to.
It's their right to do that. Word documents are their format, after all. If you don't like it, write a better word processor.
Word and Excel files are a medium of information interchange. People upgrade to the latest version of Office not for Microsoft's dancing-paperclip technology, but so they can read files written by the latest version of Office.
In my experience, this has never, ever been true. Most are unaware of the file format issue anyway. I know many places that just use whatever they happen to have. Office 2000, Office XP, whatever. As long as they have it, they don't care.
People might switch to OpenOffice, KOffice, etc., if it didn't take them 10 seconds to start up, and the font rendering wasn't so completely godawful.
It's not always some "poor me, they have more marketing money" reason. If your stuff is better, they'd use it. Office is better, I'm afraid.
What in god's name does CSS encryption on commercial DVDs have to do with some feature in the next version of Office that will allow you to lock your documents? You don't want people to be able to secure their documents?
Slashdot reports this as though the next version of Office will have DRM as part of the document format itself. Nope. It's just something you can turn on if you want to secure your document for others in the company to read.
Non-issue.
Your sig:
My sig is facetious.
You are such a troll! Most of those vulnerabilities are for applications! Many of them are just freaking bug reports! If Microsoft was held responsible for all the non-Microsoft applications then you'd be comparing apples with apples.
People call Office holes Windows holes here all the time.
GNU/Linux distros include all those applications. But you don't have to install them!
I can already tell how uptight you are because you call it "GNU/Linux."
Relax a bit. It's just a sig.
How is it anticompetitive behavior to allow people to lock their documents? I'm sure my company will love to lock in their documents to just people in this network.
This feature is off by default. Certain companies will want to lock-in their documents. This is a 100% complete non-issue.
Of course it's not a problem. And it's not even on by default, like you said.
But look at the Slashdot headline! "Microsoft Prepares Office Lock-In." Unbiased? Ha. Talk about spinning facts.
This isn't a major desktop win. Read some of the other posts about this company.
So, as it turns out, the only reason they switched to Linux is because they are greedy. They wanted something cheap. Nothing to do with magical OSS ideals. Disappointing, but not surprising.
First off, a line break after every one or two sentences just for dramatic effect is annoying!
.NET, .NET, .NET.
Linux is now widely recognized as "the future".
Then your finger is far from the pulse of corporate America. Right now, the "future" is seen as
As a Linux user, I routinely have conversations where Linux is "the future" and it's not questioned anymore.
Notice the phrase, "as a Linux user." Of course your Linux buddies will be saying that. You visit Slashdot regularly. Here, people have been saying Linux will be ready for the desktop within six months. Of course, they've been saying that since 1999, but that's besides the point.
Linux is on its way. In 10 years, it'll be the default, like Windows is today still.
People have been saying it's "on its way" since 1999. See this USENET thread for why it won't be. Saying Linux will magically become the default in 10 years, just because, is silly. People want apps and usability, and they're willing to pay for that.
Is this going to be like that other place where there was all that hooplah about their switching to Linux, and it turns out they planned to run Windows in VMWare anyway?
I left the memo on your desk.
How is it a poorly designed product because the user runs the attachment? Honestly. You have yet to explain this to me. Outlook already pressures you into how unsafe attachments are.
You're probably the kind of guy who bitches about the "hand-holding" XP does, but now you're bitching that Outlook doesn't hold people's hands enough when it comes to attachments.
If you think Windows Longhorn is going to be faster than 2000 or XP because of this you're kidding your goddamned self kid. 2000 and XP are already hardware accelerated in 2D. You fucking putz.
No, it's not.
I think he did in a reply. You don't mind clicking "yes please show me the goddamn system32 directory" every single time you need in the goddamn thing?
It only shows it the first time. If it keeps showing it for you, uncheck the little easy box in Folder Options. Another non-issue.
You don't mind a simple fucking shit-code driver rendering the whole goddamn system unusable without resorting to cheap fucking hacks like the System Restore in XP??
Um, badly coded drivers take down any OS.
Let me tell you kid that keeping a whole company's (read 1500+/-) Windows network and machines from fucking eating itself is a fucking torture I wouldn't wish on anybody, even you poster boy.
I know you're just a badly worded troll, but I've been running Windows and UNIX and now Linux networks for a decade.