From the article (emphasis mine): "While it's not enough to
make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox
features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of
ridicule either."
A finer compliment (no longer an object of ridicule) couldn't
be had. This from Thurrott, a Microsoft sychophant. So, it's
come to this, Microsoft feints and jabs, feints and jabs, and
after ten years (more?) of internet browsing that's how high the
bar is set for them. I can't wait for Vista.
One of the hardest things about security is
knowing you really have security. It's kind of
like knowing your software doesn't have a bug. It's easy to know
when you do have a bug, it's virtually
impossible to know you don't.
I think security suffers the same or similar perception,
rightly so. So, no matter how much you invest, how strict your
policies, you really never know you have security. Couple that
with how expensive it is to apply and enforce the more draconian
policies... who wants to spend a fortune and find out they've
been compromised anyway?
And, extreme security makes computing far less transparent,
often to the exclusion of any reasonable work flow for day to day
tasks. If security could be transparent (not sure it can), that
would help.... no business likes fielding support issues for an
entire corporation just because their network is PKI (ever
administrate Sun's version?).
(I once worked at a place that had a thirteen-rule requirement
for setting new passwords... it was so
intrusive, I kept a printout of the rules on my monitor to try
and avoid a twenty-minute guessing game session for setting new
passwords. What was really funny was at one point the "rules"
conflicted with one of our systems, so you couldn't define a
qualified password that the system could use. Hilarious.)
On top of all of that, no matter how diligent
you've been, one disgruntled (ex-)employee is all it takes with a
modicum of social engineering savvy and you find the investment
for naught. It's no wonder security is a tough nut to crack.
(As an aside opinion... I think the press gives too much
attention to things like the recently stolen laptop with all of
the info on it -- it was a stolen laptop, probably nothing more
-- they get stolen all of the time, and people
have no idea what they've gotten other than a "free" computer.)
As this student is now learning, if this really
was his idea of a joke, it was not the funniest joke ever played
(for more on that, see the description of Monty Python's
Funniest Joke in the World).
From the article:
The icon showed a gun
pointing to a head, a bullet leaving the gun, and blood
splattering from the head. It included the words "Kill Mr.
VanderMolen," the name of Aaron's English teacher at Weedsport
Middle School.
Freedom of speech is not absolute and is frequently determined
to be more "pure" when considering speech around protest,
opinion, etc. Showing an icon, with an explicit reference to
killing (as an active "directive") and the teacher's name falls
pretty far outside the boundaries for reasonable people, and
apparently for the court of law. The article says most students
laughed it off as a joke... it's difficult to see what's funny in
a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon.
One defining attribute of this student's environment is his
parents' reaction to all of this:
His parents
sued, claiming that the icon was protected by the First
Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, that the school
district failed to train staff in proper threat assessment and
that the school board violated state law in not following proper
procedures.
WTF? I'd personally rather this student's parents on the
bubble for their glib interpretation of their son's behavior.
Their "defense" of their child says much about a belief and value
system they must have instilled in Aaron as they raised him.
Bah!
Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to
say "kill XXX". Not funny... I hope this doesn't ruin the
student's future, I hope he learns from this, but ultimately I
wish more parents like this would wake up and show more respect
for their children by defining for them reasonable civil
boundaries -- i.e., it's okay, even necessary to protest, it's
not okay to intimidate and assault.
Google is an amazing search-engine success, spearheading some of
the greatest technology, especially internet, innovation and
competition in the last twenty years. That's as it should be. And
Google has pulled off so far what noone else has, a head start, salvo
across Microsoft's bow from which Microsoft still has not recovered.
Each additional degree of Microsoft's ship's list translates into
that much more level of a playing field. Google more than any other
single company has been the greatest contributor to that.
And, as it should be on a more level field, Google isn't going to
get a free pass on their other work. That's great! Google has had
some false starts with their other products. That's great! Google
may even fail completely with some of their work. That's great!
At least Google (and now others) are all on point together,
sweating out the competition, working on that next great internet
killer app, and they're all having to compete publicly for a change.
I'll take three-year Betas any day over "announced" but yet
un-priced future products from other large software companies. I'll
try less-than-great first efforts any day over products tied to my
architecture, leaving me no choices.
Google's going to fail with some of their efforts, but they've
changed the landscape of the internet, and internet applications,
software competition, and user choices. Hopefully, forever.
(A worrisome problem: the stockholders' pressure on these companies
keeps pushing on these companies to produce and show profit
now. I applaud Microsoft, in one example, in their
snubbing of shareholders by announcing huge investments in R&D, rather
than upping their dividends. In the long run, companies that stay
focused will be the winners, for themselves, for the consumers,
and for the shareholders (though, I still hold
Microsoft in high suspicion for their motivation for pouring huge
resources into R&D, aka... working on cutting off someone else's air
supply.))
Why haven't more vendors of mapping technology done this
sooner? This has long been a feature I've wanted... I don't know
how long I've waited, from the first Microsoft and DeLorme
mapping software and mapping software -- and having been fooled a
couple of times into thinking one could associate pictures with
map locations.
Until now, the closest I've found to doing something like this
was Google maps -- and even that felt a little clunky in the
interface (talking about Google Earth, the Windows application).
And of course, with Google Map API many things are possible.
Congratulations to Navman for integrating in a clever and
useful way pictures. (It'd be nice to be able to take your own
pictures, and associate via some menu -- I'm wondering if they've
provided that capability.) I'm in the market to replace a car
GPS -- Navman has placed themselves high on the short list.
Any readers have feedback on the navigational ergonomics of
Navman? (Very important, as I've become quite fond of TomTom's
excellent ergonomics.)
Okay, if laws are in place to fairly compensate the copyright
owners by taxing recordable media the offshoot of that should be
continued "enjoyment" of what we've come to know as fair use.
Ostensibly this tax should cover disbursements back to the artists for
any copying and/or sharing consumers do.
A question from The Fine Article: "Is this an example of what
is to come in the United States or other parts of Europe?",
isn't this already a tax in place on recordable media
in the United States? I seem to remember that a while back, or was it
Canada?
Regardless, the entertainment industry can't have it both ways,
they either tax in advance and anticipation of our "abuses", or they
implement draconian DRM. Unfortunately it's looking like they're
getting both.
I don't know what your budget is, but computers have become a
commodity, laptops included (though a tad more expensive). You can
get a good functional laptop with 80 - 100GB drive, 512 - 1G memory,
lots of processing power for under $1000. If your budget can't
sustain that, sell something! It's well worth your while.
Logging on to up to 20 different computers and conducting personal
business is like finding condoms and using them, trusting previous
users to have been upstanding (ha-ha) citizens. The risk is high,
especially in the Windows world, which if you're accessing the public
computers, you're doing Windows.
The misery potentially save by getting your own machine is
way more offset by the peace of mind and safety of
your data. There is no excuse for most today to not make the
investment. If you're a university student, look around for financial
assistance to get a machine.
In the meantime, I'd minimize any activity where personal data in
any way could be exposed and/or compromised. As to the bottom line
and answer to your question: "What can I and other public computer
users do to keep our personal information secret and safe?",
not much really.
NOTE: getting your own machine does not assure safety, but it's a
heck of a lot better than the alternative.
The publisher was the subject of a BSA
enquiry after an ex-employee tip-off, said the BSA, which is
funded by software companies.
, and:
"For many companies fonts are an integral part of their
branding, and none more so than publishers who rely on them to
produce many distinct publications."
The problem is complicated by the fact that some fonts can arrive
as part of other people's documents and can sometimes stay,
unlicensed, on a network.
So, if:
you own or are part of a company that has ex-employees
OR
you receive documents from other people/companies
I'm sure this is just a partial list but it illustrates nicely
the pitfalls of software narcs. I won't deem whether this
company is off the deep end on their violations -- it looks like
they were less than careful, but these "violations" can appear in
bizarre and unexpected ways. I'd not even thought of the
possibility one could be harboring illegitimate payload by dint
of receiving someone's documents.
I have however experienced it
in other ways. I one time found an installation of Excel on one of our
company computers with MY NAME, and MY LICENSE
KEY! To this day I have no idea who or how that was
"pirated".
The BSA (ironic acronym matching a possibly more wholesome
organization, n'est-ce pas?) is a snarky pest, generating ill
will from C to shining C++. I'd be interested to know their
bottom line, for all of the dollars spent running the BSA how
many dollars are returned in generated revenue.
Then, if it is even a positive number (I doubt it), I wonder
if anyone would spend the dime and time to discover what the loss
in sales from ill will spawns. Of course it's only speculation
on my part, but I'm pretty sure I read an article in the last
year where an organization switched proprietary purchasing gears
after being ratted out, and skewered for some pretty honest
mistakes.
Someday, they should consolidate... just call them: MRB
(MIAA/RIAA/BSA). Every new article I read about any of these
pushes me further from commercial offerings (not that that is any
great deal anymore).
(After visiting Camden Publishing's website (I won't give URL,
suspect they've got enough without slashdot) it appears to be a
small to modest size company, and while they're a publishing
company, I'd be surprised to see a company their size able to
sustain large budgets for auditing (though it seems BSA has
finally accommodated them). And even though the numbers are 95%,
and 75% for "pirated" Adobe and Microsoft products, what are the
real numbers? I'd be surprised if they were big, and I'd not be
surprised if it's a case of a small staff cloning (technically
illegally of course) software for convenience and under audited
guidelines probably would not have purchased more copies.)
How long has the promise of WinFS been on the table?
Microsoft has dragged this teaser on 10-lb test in front of
drooling long-time loyalists as the newest and amazingly
innovative piece of their "best OS ever". Aside from the fact it
really wasn't amazingly innovative (well, in
vernacular maybe it was), now they're close to
closing the door on this. I wonder how many sales they've pulled
off with these lies?
On top of the fundamentals, Longhorn features three major
innovations. It sports an XML-based visual presentation system,
code-named Avalon; a new file system, dubbed WinFS; and new
technology for communications between applications and devices,
code-named Indigo.
Microsoft may not have thought they were lying at the time but
they must have had an idea they not only weren't
on target but they weren't even close! It's
amazing a company can get away with this -- call it genius
marketing, I call it deception at all costs to keep their
customer base intact.
Sometimes these outcomes seem to say more about the Microsoft
loyalists than Microsoft.
Okay, this is really cool! Can anyone point me to some DIY
article that shows how to get a computer desktop or tower case other
than beige?
</sarcasm>
FTA: There isn't a meeting that goes by - or a tradeshow, or
media interview that someone doesn't salivate over my Red BlackBerry.
As they brush their fingers over the glossy coat, there's a moment of
hesitation before the inevitable question emerges: where did you ever
get that from? And so the conversation goes.... Apparently I
wasn't in any of the same meetings.
This isn't even not a story (apologies to Peter Woit).
The company is a bit puzzled by
customer privacy fears. After all, they say, how can using a unique
fingerprint for identification be riskier to theft than a plastic
card, key chain token or account number that's tapped into a computer
or spoken over the phone?
WTF? How can they say that? Don't they know how
many times each day people lose their fingers? Not to mention the
countless times people give each other the finger! (Done so a few
times myself.)
Also:
It's similar to the finger-scan technology
used at theme park gates. Those systems take measurements of patrons'
hands and fingers and link them to a multi-day pass to prevent several
people from using one person's pass.
I experienced this at Epcot... in Orlando. I don't know if it was
in its experimental phase, but it introduced lots of confusion as
people entered the park. And, it was not clear how or where it was
used the rest of the time we were in the park -- if it was exclusively
to prevent abuse, so be it, but it was an eerie experience at the
gates.
I do wonder about the statement: (FTA)
The company
pledges not to sell or rent personal information, or access to it. The
fingerprint image recorded is not the same as those collected by the
federal government or law enforcement.
How can that be? I know my prints are on file (Top
Secret clearance, cool!), but I wonder how these prints would differ.
Are they storing some kind of hash with no backup of the original scan
or image? Weird, but doubtful.
I think this is great technology as people get more comfortable
with it. I would (and do) worry about how soon people get good at
counterfeiting fingerprints. Thought I'd read a couple of articles on
that very hack and that hacking fingerprints turned out not to be too
very hard. Any resources on that?
Regardless, great point about it not being that much different (and
quite a bit less likely to wander off) from keychain fobs, credit
cards, etc.
The biggest challenge is how the industry and the
providers take search "beyond the box and provide you with a
'delight experience.' That is the future and where we are trying
to go," Sifry said.
I get goosebumps, but not of delight when I hear executives
talking about "delight experience". Maybe his heart is in the
right place but language like that is fingernails on my
chalkboard.
Interesting to me, I think internet search has matured nicely
and my overall experience is high on the satisfaction scale. I
rely heavily on Google and use Ask occasionally and virtually
always find links and information germaine to my keywords. I
think more important than refining searches is maturing content.
As often as not, I get to the links I expected to find from
search only to find poorly implemented sites that offer no value
to my quest. Mostly my experiences of internet-search
deficiencies occur at the endpoint (the found links), not the
transport (the search engines).
Only moments ago I had just one such episode. I recently
moved back to Illinois and am in the process of getting my legal
stuff in order, in this case vehicle registration, license
plates, and drivers license.
I easily found the Illinois web sites, but
that has done little to move me further in the task at hand. The
DOV Illinois sites are confusing, convoluted, obfuscated, and
have been little help in understanding exactly all I must do to
complete my responsibilities. Thankfully the most important
piece of information is included on their site,
the dreaded toll free phone number to call. Sigh.
(In the article Sifry did hit on something I'd like in
internet searching, though he tied it to mobile devices
The notion of "location" would be nice. I would point out that
Google does a pretty good job of wiring location into their
search simply by prefixing any search with a zip code (sorry
non-USAers)... and the resulting search will preamble the results
with some zip code specific results.)
(I still have no inclination to want or need mobile
presentation and ergonomics... while it will always be nice to
get some info on a mobile device I am always close enough and not
desparate enough to get to some land-based internet access.
Besides, when you desperately do need mobile
access to information, you're unlikely to get it! Don't even get
me started on my cross country Verizon debacle, and complete
radio-cell silence from Billings Montana to past Mitchell, SD!)
So for me, bottom line,
internet searching: already good and getting better, internet
content: not so good and seemingly slow to improve. The biggest
return on investment would seem to be better content everywhere
but that would also be a huge distributed (and nigh impossible)
effort.
The weakest link in user experience is one of the most
important features to have maximum information. This is an
ongoing frustration -- for me, the screen is the weakest link in
interacting with a computer (assuming disk, cpu, and memory are
reasonably up to snuff). If the screen isn't pretty, I ain't
happy.
In this review as often occurs there is little feedback
objective or otherwise on the screen quality. From the article:
The Screen
TH: I find that the MBP screen has very bad viewing angles, which
is extra annoying because it's a laptop (you have to adjust the
screen angle all the time). The screen on my 'cheap' Dell
Inspiron 6000 is much better in that respect.
AS: I disagree. Everyone seems to go ga-ga over "Brightview" or
whatever they're calling it these days. While it does make the
picture crisp, it also adds glare from virtually every other
angle. I have no issue with the screen position or angle.
TH: I'm not talking about the glossy thing; my Inspiron does not
have a glossy screen either. What bothers me on the MacBook Pro
is how the colours change even when you tilt your head slightly
away from the ideal viewing angle, causing me to adjust or my
head, or the screen, continuously; this especially reveals itself
via the shadows underneath the windows in the MacOS. The Dell
does not have this problem, or at least, not as bad as the
MacBook Pro.
AS: I haven't noticed this. I actually find the display to be
very bright. I'm in love with the widescreen.
TH: That's for sure, the brightness and wideness are very much
appreciated. I just expected a better viewing angle on a 'pro'
laptop.
I want to know screen resolution! I want to know measured
viewing angles! (For $2000, or $2500 you get 1440x900 -- so-so,
for $2800 you get 1680x1050 -- not bad, but way too expensive.)
I want to know contrast ratios.
Unfortunately lots if not all of this information is rarely
included in discussions and ads for laptops -- I think it's
intentional. And, it's the reason I would never buy a notebook
or laptop sight-unseen. The screen is something you can't change
on a laptop, you'd better be happy with it when you get it.
(This has been an excellent policy for me -- I've been very happy
with the last several laptops I've had -- if the screen's pretty,
I'm happy.)
I've been waiting a long time for the arrival of internet
storage -- I'd much rather let someone else manage the integrity and
provide peace of mind.
Concerns about services going out of business, security, their own
data integrity aside for the moment (but NOT to be ignored), these
listed and reviewed services still far exceed prices I'm (and I'm
guessing many others) willing to pay. I easily have 100+GB I would
like guaranteed safe and ongoing synced and always backed up.
For now, I continue to maintain multiple hard drives on multiple
machines with scripts that maintain backups, not easy, but effective
and way more cost effective. And I expect soon NAS will come down in
price enough to easily compete with any internet service -- of course
internet services should come down in price too.
Sigh... always just waiting for that tipping point, that threshold,
but at the same time seeing my requirements always slightly ahead of
that threshold... pictures get bigger, videos get easier, and my mp3
collections (ripped from my own CDs) is a given constant.
Also for large internet storage, the big-pipe problem remains. I
want an online storage from which I have reasonably unencumbered
upload and download access. It would also be nice to see full T1
speeds at least (something not accessible to normal DSL or even cable
subscribers). Don't know if and when that gets solved, and if solved
how much additional expense is incurred. Sigh again.
If one would want some empirical perspective on how much impact this has on the world in general... the U.S. government adopted a best-practices and recommendation for computer contracts in the late 80s requiring all systems be POSIX compliant. While you can make the technical argument NT/XP is POSIX (.1), it's hardly a nudge in the direction technology decidedly went (i.e., Windows became dominant anyway).
No, all seriousness aside, I see this eventually being a great
bill for me as I would soon be able to divest myself of all of my
technical artifacts and once again be a free human being. I can
eBay my tivo (maybe), my comcast box, get rid of all of my mp3
players.
I once again spend time bike riding; canoeing; horse-back
riding; picnicking; sightseeing; hiking; (starting to sound like a Tampax
commercial, isn't it?)... all things I used to do in bulk and
before I turned into a skinny pasty-skinned freak in front of my
computer all day long.
So exactly how are HD videos (blu-ray, or HD) going to capture
the hearts and imaginations of the buying public with this kind of
debut? Ostensibly (you would think) the best and brightest
would be selected for their ability to shine and put the best face on
an already murky new format battle.
It's an interesting task, convincing Mom and Dad, friends, etc.,
this is the latest and greatest thing... "no, no, just wait, you'll
SEE the difference in the next scene... just let me pause it on this
one frame, THERE!... see how clear the pattern is on Drew Barrymore's
shirt!"
I've seen HD from comcast. I've seen HD demo'ed in Circuit City
(when they FINALLY got some source). My experience and subjective
opinion is that what is being delivered is being delivered with
unacceptable compromise, whether it be to rush to market, or just
shoddy quality, it doesn't matter. I've seen compression artifacts,
I've seen jittery playback. I'm not "getting" it.
This kind of rollout will underwhelm the public, especially at the
rollout prices. The only thing keeping this from dying on the vine is
the digital mandate to convert to digital, and the tide of HDTVs only
requiring customers to buy in.
Any success at all for the Origami would have been a
surprise. It was (is) much too small to be a PC in any context
(especially with an anemic screensize, heck lots of tiny devices
approach the resolution and quality of the Origami) and way too
big to be a portable device like an mp3 or video player.
For those trying to make it PC-like, the device short-shrifted
users on usability like keyboard functionality. For those
wanting portable devices, the Origami was way overpowered and
cumbersome (who the f*** wants to fire up Windows to play an mp3
or a video?!?).
In between someone must have envisioned a niche market --
there likely is one, it's just not very big, and not noteworthy
beyond the demographic for which it might be useful (hospitals,
shops, warehouse grocery stores, etc.).
The Origami wasn't that much different (IMO) from the notepad
type portables, except it was lighter in features, but still
heavy in the wallet requirements. Sometimes these devices seem
to be brain farts -- "what if"s, and they get run up the flagpole
to see if anyone salutes. Hats off to Microsoft for a clever
attempt at "mystery" marketing the Origami. Sometimes the buying
public has a clue before the marketers.
I've never been a fanboy of outsourcing
especially at the expense of dismantling a work force's morale
and decimating career goals and plans strictly under the auspices
of driving profits. Personally I think these
beancounter CPA-driven approaches are short-sighted and
incur more damage than benefit.
And now, these large companies turn their noses up at India
and their work force. I can't think of anything more insulting
(and embarrassing) than, from the article: "Another source
familiar with the situation, though, says the decision was
cost-driven. "India isn't as inexpensive as it used to be," the
source says. "The turnover is high, and the competition for good
people is strong." Apple feels it "can do [such work] more
efficiently elsewhere."
WTF? So, even in Apple's case, it ISN'T about quality of
service, it's strictly (or so it seems) about bottom line. Can't
say I feel totally sorry for India, it's a direct outgrowth of
their own success, and I was one of the casualties of an
outsourcing/cost cutting rave (turned out pretty well, though).
But it's disconcerting to think everything becomes only about
money to the exclusion of seemingly any other
factors.
Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to
drive innovation and technology? Oh wait, yeah,
Microsoft, never mind.
Really, reading some of these proposed laws the clear message
from the RIAA/MPAA is, "To ensure our continued
hand-in-the-cookie-jar obscene money making machine, we
demand the government enact protective
legislation." Guess what? They're "gettin' 'er done"!
Innovative ideas and extensions and forks of cool, useful,
for-the-betterment-of-man technology fall by the wayside by fiat,
at the entertainment industry's prompt.
Again, ignoring the thesis for the moment that increased use
of all of these digital technologies actually
serve the entertainment industry spurring new
growth in unexpected demographics, the new and improved
technology traditionally has been the keystone of other new
technologies. Often, as mentioned in a recent slashdot article,
new directions are discovered accidentally. Squelch digital
devices and you squelch potential new and rich fields of devices.
It's kind of surprising, but the cost of storage per disc can be less by storing them in a carousel cd-changer than in any shelf designed to hold cds (or any other shelf for that matter). For a long time I had two, both capable of holding 400+ discs. Each player cost less than $250, and for shelves capable of holding that many cds I found those to be typically more expensive. Kind of weird, but true.
And, even though you may not be playing discs anymore (assuming you tote your music around as mp3 or some other non-cd format), these carousel players typically support display information about each disk (though mine required typing the info in via a keyboard), so you can easily get to specific discs.
I don't know if these changers are still made, but I'm betting you can find them on ebay for an even better price anyway.
From the article (regarding requiring training to receive severance): ""I know
hat's parsing things a bit,"
Norton acknowledged. "What we ask associates to do as part of
getting severance is that they stay on the job until the job is
transitioned."
Norton (and BofA) is parsing employees in a more metaphorical
sense, cutting them into tiny pieces. It's a violation of a
tacit ethic.
Next: ""It's a common practice when your job is being
transferred from one person to another that you train the new
person," she added. "We expect our people to stay until their
jobs are consolidated.""
Yes it is a common practice. What's not so common (though
it's seemingly becoming so) is a scenario where the person you're
training is transparently there to be trained because they're
going to do the job on the cheap. What's not so common is the
egregious in-your-face requirement to train someone to replace
you when you had not been planning to leave!
I've trained replacements before. And, I KNEW I was expected
to finish that work to consider my work satisfactory. But, it's
always been when I was moving on. I'd like to be in a place
where when faced with being required to train my cheap-suit
replacement that I could refuse on principle alone.
It's unfortunate and worse, unethical, to require training
your replacement to receive severance. As an aside did you ever
wonder why severance packages max out at ten
months, e.g., by some algorithm you get X months pay for each
year served, with a cap at ten months? Ten months
(actually, 300 days) is how long an employee has to file an
action on discriminatory practices! Often times
training cheaper replacements targets older and higher paid
employees.
And finally and most offensive: "But BofA stands out
because it acknowledged earlier this year that it understands how
much the practice offends its U.S. employees. Barbara Desoer,
BofA's chief technology exec, told BusinessWeek magazine in
January that she was aware how much grumbling it caused when
workers at the bank's Concord technology center were told they'd
have to bring their Indian replacements up to speed before being
shown the door."
First of all, the bitch Desoer doesn't deserve the title CTO,
she's a fucking hatchet man... she isn't managing technology,
she's betraying her work force, I'm guessing for some pretty
decent blood money... Fuck her.
So outsourcing and required replacement training is becoming
common enough companies begin to admit it. The tipping point is
here, they can all claim they do it with the rationale, "everyone
ELSE is doing it." Posh!
This is legal but it's unhealthy. The return to the
shareholders is short term and long term this practice stands to
damage employee morale, and based on the kind of "replacement"
results piss off the customers.
A global economy is coming. For some it's a speeding train
coming right at them, and they've been tied to the railroad
tracks by their employers.
probably on Microsoft's list of next important tar
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just a thought, but Microsoft is probably as primed as ever
to move aggressively on the Web Server market. Why not sooner?
For one thing they've been busy locking down or trying to lock
down everything else and manage the legal and foreign consortium
attacks.
And, the first few generations of IIS weren't hardened. While
Microsoft can (and has) dominated markets with non-superior
products (not trolling, not saying "inferior", just not the best
of breed), Apache got the classical head start on Microsoft, not
necessarily (if ever) assurance of ultimate victory.
I've read articles, heard people talk -- it's hard to sort
fact from fiction -- but I've heard stories of Microsoft coming
in with big dollars and technical help to convert high profile
and LARGE targets (Go Daddy, perhaps?) to their Web Server technology.
How do you resist that? If I had a large company and had ANY
issues with Apache (who doesn't have any issues with any
technology?, there's always something), I'd find it tempting to
accept overtures from Microsoft.... "We'll come in and convert
you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money.
All you have to do is brag on it in return."
I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the
slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is
approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..." I
remember using that as reason to be confident about the browser
market... there was a time when Microsoft IE's share was less
than 5%. We all know how that bad boy ended.
If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is)
this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend
their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.
Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current
administration (in general) has shown little interest or
appetite in reining Microsoft in.
Agree or disagree with the points of this article (I mostly
agree), there is an elephant in the middle of the room everyone
ignores.
From the article (emphasis mine):
Every year,
US-Cert produces huge fireworks in the security trade press with
their annual summary of misinformation about security flaws. The
idiots in the press repeat the lie verbatim and the lie becomes
real. What is the lie? That Unix/Linux is less secure than
Windows. Granted, only the stupidest dolts in the universe -- and
the trade press -- are going to buy that crap, but they put it
out there anyway.
"Only the stupidest dolts in the universe?" Aside from being
a little insulting, it's just not true. Many intelligent people
believe these reports simply because, as the article points out
elsewhere, because it is repeated the lie becomes truth.
People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise
in some subject matter. What other result would you expect?
There are too many topics, too many reports, and too many things
demanding attention, general consumers and lay people,
appropiately (though naively), rely on integrity of reporting
bodies to filter that part of their world not their
specialty(ies).
Reporting organizations (e.g., CERT) have an ethical
responsibility to normalize and make canonical data issued for
general consumption.
Unfortunately the technology world today is Microsoft's
sandbox, and seemingly if anyone wants to play,
be it media, competition, and lately even government, Microsoft
seems to be able to control the rules. Sigh, again.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article (emphasis mine): "While it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of ridicule either. "
A finer compliment (no longer an object of ridicule) couldn't be had. This from Thurrott, a Microsoft sychophant. So, it's come to this, Microsoft feints and jabs, feints and jabs, and after ten years (more?) of internet browsing that's how high the bar is set for them. I can't wait for Vista.
One of the hardest things about security is knowing you really have security. It's kind of like knowing your software doesn't have a bug. It's easy to know when you do have a bug, it's virtually impossible to know you don't.
I think security suffers the same or similar perception, rightly so. So, no matter how much you invest, how strict your policies, you really never know you have security. Couple that with how expensive it is to apply and enforce the more draconian policies... who wants to spend a fortune and find out they've been compromised anyway?
And, extreme security makes computing far less transparent, often to the exclusion of any reasonable work flow for day to day tasks. If security could be transparent (not sure it can), that would help.... no business likes fielding support issues for an entire corporation just because their network is PKI (ever administrate Sun's version?).
(I once worked at a place that had a thirteen-rule requirement for setting new passwords... it was so intrusive, I kept a printout of the rules on my monitor to try and avoid a twenty-minute guessing game session for setting new passwords. What was really funny was at one point the "rules" conflicted with one of our systems, so you couldn't define a qualified password that the system could use. Hilarious.)
On top of all of that, no matter how diligent you've been, one disgruntled (ex-)employee is all it takes with a modicum of social engineering savvy and you find the investment for naught. It's no wonder security is a tough nut to crack.
(As an aside opinion... I think the press gives too much attention to things like the recently stolen laptop with all of the info on it -- it was a stolen laptop, probably nothing more -- they get stolen all of the time, and people have no idea what they've gotten other than a "free" computer.)
As this student is now learning, if this really was his idea of a joke, it was not the funniest joke ever played (for more on that, see the description of Monty Python's Funniest Joke in the World).
From the article:
Freedom of speech is not absolute and is frequently determined to be more "pure" when considering speech around protest, opinion, etc. Showing an icon, with an explicit reference to killing (as an active "directive") and the teacher's name falls pretty far outside the boundaries for reasonable people, and apparently for the court of law. The article says most students laughed it off as a joke... it's difficult to see what's funny in a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon.
One defining attribute of this student's environment is his parents' reaction to all of this:
WTF? I'd personally rather this student's parents on the bubble for their glib interpretation of their son's behavior. Their "defense" of their child says much about a belief and value system they must have instilled in Aaron as they raised him. Bah!
Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX". Not funny... I hope this doesn't ruin the student's future, I hope he learns from this, but ultimately I wish more parents like this would wake up and show more respect for their children by defining for them reasonable civil boundaries -- i.e., it's okay, even necessary to protest, it's not okay to intimidate and assault.
Google is an amazing search-engine success, spearheading some of the greatest technology, especially internet, innovation and competition in the last twenty years. That's as it should be. And Google has pulled off so far what noone else has, a head start, salvo across Microsoft's bow from which Microsoft still has not recovered.
Each additional degree of Microsoft's ship's list translates into that much more level of a playing field. Google more than any other single company has been the greatest contributor to that.
And, as it should be on a more level field, Google isn't going to get a free pass on their other work. That's great! Google has had some false starts with their other products. That's great! Google may even fail completely with some of their work. That's great!
At least Google (and now others) are all on point together, sweating out the competition, working on that next great internet killer app, and they're all having to compete publicly for a change.
I'll take three-year Betas any day over "announced" but yet un-priced future products from other large software companies. I'll try less-than-great first efforts any day over products tied to my architecture, leaving me no choices.
Google's going to fail with some of their efforts, but they've changed the landscape of the internet, and internet applications, software competition, and user choices. Hopefully, forever.
(A worrisome problem: the stockholders' pressure on these companies keeps pushing on these companies to produce and show profit now. I applaud Microsoft, in one example, in their snubbing of shareholders by announcing huge investments in R&D, rather than upping their dividends. In the long run, companies that stay focused will be the winners, for themselves, for the consumers, and for the shareholders (though, I still hold Microsoft in high suspicion for their motivation for pouring huge resources into R&D, aka... working on cutting off someone else's air supply.))
Why haven't more vendors of mapping technology done this sooner? This has long been a feature I've wanted... I don't know how long I've waited, from the first Microsoft and DeLorme mapping software and mapping software -- and having been fooled a couple of times into thinking one could associate pictures with map locations.
Until now, the closest I've found to doing something like this was Google maps -- and even that felt a little clunky in the interface (talking about Google Earth, the Windows application). And of course, with Google Map API many things are possible.
Congratulations to Navman for integrating in a clever and useful way pictures. (It'd be nice to be able to take your own pictures, and associate via some menu -- I'm wondering if they've provided that capability.) I'm in the market to replace a car GPS -- Navman has placed themselves high on the short list.
Any readers have feedback on the navigational ergonomics of Navman? (Very important, as I've become quite fond of TomTom's excellent ergonomics.)
Okay, if laws are in place to fairly compensate the copyright owners by taxing recordable media the offshoot of that should be continued "enjoyment" of what we've come to know as fair use. Ostensibly this tax should cover disbursements back to the artists for any copying and/or sharing consumers do.
A question from The Fine Article: "Is this an example of what is to come in the United States or other parts of Europe?", isn't this already a tax in place on recordable media in the United States? I seem to remember that a while back, or was it Canada?
Regardless, the entertainment industry can't have it both ways, they either tax in advance and anticipation of our "abuses", or they implement draconian DRM. Unfortunately it's looking like they're getting both.
I don't know what your budget is, but computers have become a commodity, laptops included (though a tad more expensive). You can get a good functional laptop with 80 - 100GB drive, 512 - 1G memory, lots of processing power for under $1000. If your budget can't sustain that, sell something! It's well worth your while.
Logging on to up to 20 different computers and conducting personal business is like finding condoms and using them, trusting previous users to have been upstanding (ha-ha) citizens. The risk is high, especially in the Windows world, which if you're accessing the public computers, you're doing Windows.
The misery potentially save by getting your own machine is way more offset by the peace of mind and safety of your data. There is no excuse for most today to not make the investment. If you're a university student, look around for financial assistance to get a machine.
In the meantime, I'd minimize any activity where personal data in any way could be exposed and/or compromised. As to the bottom line and answer to your question: "What can I and other public computer users do to keep our personal information secret and safe?", not much really.
NOTE: getting your own machine does not assure safety, but it's a heck of a lot better than the alternative.
FTA:
, and:So, if:
I'm sure this is just a partial list but it illustrates nicely the pitfalls of software narcs. I won't deem whether this company is off the deep end on their violations -- it looks like they were less than careful, but these "violations" can appear in bizarre and unexpected ways. I'd not even thought of the possibility one could be harboring illegitimate payload by dint of receiving someone's documents.
I have however experienced it in other ways. I one time found an installation of Excel on one of our company computers with MY NAME, and MY LICENSE KEY! To this day I have no idea who or how that was "pirated".
The BSA (ironic acronym matching a possibly more wholesome organization, n'est-ce pas?) is a snarky pest, generating ill will from C to shining C++. I'd be interested to know their bottom line, for all of the dollars spent running the BSA how many dollars are returned in generated revenue.
Then, if it is even a positive number (I doubt it), I wonder if anyone would spend the dime and time to discover what the loss in sales from ill will spawns. Of course it's only speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure I read an article in the last year where an organization switched proprietary purchasing gears after being ratted out, and skewered for some pretty honest mistakes.
Someday, they should consolidate... just call them: MRB (MIAA/RIAA/BSA). Every new article I read about any of these pushes me further from commercial offerings (not that that is any great deal anymore).
(After visiting Camden Publishing's website (I won't give URL, suspect they've got enough without slashdot) it appears to be a small to modest size company, and while they're a publishing company, I'd be surprised to see a company their size able to sustain large budgets for auditing (though it seems BSA has finally accommodated them). And even though the numbers are 95%, and 75% for "pirated" Adobe and Microsoft products, what are the real numbers? I'd be surprised if they were big, and I'd not be surprised if it's a case of a small staff cloning (technically illegally of course) software for convenience and under audited guidelines probably would not have purchased more copies.)
How long has the promise of WinFS been on the table? Microsoft has dragged this teaser on 10-lb test in front of drooling long-time loyalists as the newest and amazingly innovative piece of their "best OS ever". Aside from the fact it really wasn't amazingly innovative (well, in vernacular maybe it was), now they're close to closing the door on this. I wonder how many sales they've pulled off with these lies?
HINT: Here's a snippet from an October 2003 PC World article:
Microsoft may not have thought they were lying at the time but they must have had an idea they not only weren't on target but they weren't even close! It's amazing a company can get away with this -- call it genius marketing, I call it deception at all costs to keep their customer base intact.
Sometimes these outcomes seem to say more about the Microsoft loyalists than Microsoft.
Okay, this is really cool! Can anyone point me to some DIY article that shows how to get a computer desktop or tower case other than beige?
</sarcasm>
FTA: There isn't a meeting that goes by - or a tradeshow, or media interview that someone doesn't salivate over my Red BlackBerry. As they brush their fingers over the glossy coat, there's a moment of hesitation before the inevitable question emerges: where did you ever get that from? And so the conversation goes.... Apparently I wasn't in any of the same meetings.
This isn't even not a story (apologies to Peter Woit).
From the article:
WTF? How can they say that? Don't they know how many times each day people lose their fingers? Not to mention the countless times people give each other the finger! (Done so a few times myself.)
Also:
I experienced this at Epcot... in Orlando. I don't know if it was in its experimental phase, but it introduced lots of confusion as people entered the park. And, it was not clear how or where it was used the rest of the time we were in the park -- if it was exclusively to prevent abuse, so be it, but it was an eerie experience at the gates.
I do wonder about the statement: (FTA)
How can that be? I know my prints are on file (Top Secret clearance, cool!), but I wonder how these prints would differ. Are they storing some kind of hash with no backup of the original scan or image? Weird, but doubtful.I think this is great technology as people get more comfortable with it. I would (and do) worry about how soon people get good at counterfeiting fingerprints. Thought I'd read a couple of articles on that very hack and that hacking fingerprints turned out not to be too very hard. Any resources on that?
Regardless, great point about it not being that much different (and quite a bit less likely to wander off) from keychain fobs, credit cards, etc.
Warning, jargon-speak: From the article:
I get goosebumps, but not of delight when I hear executives talking about "delight experience". Maybe his heart is in the right place but language like that is fingernails on my chalkboard.Interesting to me, I think internet search has matured nicely and my overall experience is high on the satisfaction scale. I rely heavily on Google and use Ask occasionally and virtually always find links and information germaine to my keywords. I think more important than refining searches is maturing content.
As often as not, I get to the links I expected to find from search only to find poorly implemented sites that offer no value to my quest. Mostly my experiences of internet-search deficiencies occur at the endpoint (the found links), not the transport (the search engines).
Only moments ago I had just one such episode. I recently moved back to Illinois and am in the process of getting my legal stuff in order, in this case vehicle registration, license plates, and drivers license.
I easily found the Illinois web sites, but that has done little to move me further in the task at hand. The DOV Illinois sites are confusing, convoluted, obfuscated, and have been little help in understanding exactly all I must do to complete my responsibilities. Thankfully the most important piece of information is included on their site, the dreaded toll free phone number to call. Sigh.
(In the article Sifry did hit on something I'd like in internet searching, though he tied it to mobile devices The notion of "location" would be nice. I would point out that Google does a pretty good job of wiring location into their search simply by prefixing any search with a zip code (sorry non-USAers)... and the resulting search will preamble the results with some zip code specific results.) (I still have no inclination to want or need mobile presentation and ergonomics... while it will always be nice to get some info on a mobile device I am always close enough and not desparate enough to get to some land-based internet access. Besides, when you desperately do need mobile access to information, you're unlikely to get it! Don't even get me started on my cross country Verizon debacle, and complete radio-cell silence from Billings Montana to past Mitchell, SD!)
So for me, bottom line, internet searching: already good and getting better, internet content: not so good and seemingly slow to improve. The biggest return on investment would seem to be better content everywhere but that would also be a huge distributed (and nigh impossible) effort.
The weakest link in user experience is one of the most important features to have maximum information. This is an ongoing frustration -- for me, the screen is the weakest link in interacting with a computer (assuming disk, cpu, and memory are reasonably up to snuff). If the screen isn't pretty, I ain't happy.
In this review as often occurs there is little feedback objective or otherwise on the screen quality. From the article:
I want to know screen resolution! I want to know measured viewing angles! (For $2000, or $2500 you get 1440x900 -- so-so, for $2800 you get 1680x1050 -- not bad, but way too expensive.) I want to know contrast ratios.
Unfortunately lots if not all of this information is rarely included in discussions and ads for laptops -- I think it's intentional. And, it's the reason I would never buy a notebook or laptop sight-unseen. The screen is something you can't change on a laptop, you'd better be happy with it when you get it. (This has been an excellent policy for me -- I've been very happy with the last several laptops I've had -- if the screen's pretty, I'm happy.)
I've been waiting a long time for the arrival of internet storage -- I'd much rather let someone else manage the integrity and provide peace of mind.
Concerns about services going out of business, security, their own data integrity aside for the moment (but NOT to be ignored), these listed and reviewed services still far exceed prices I'm (and I'm guessing many others) willing to pay. I easily have 100+GB I would like guaranteed safe and ongoing synced and always backed up.
For now, I continue to maintain multiple hard drives on multiple machines with scripts that maintain backups, not easy, but effective and way more cost effective. And I expect soon NAS will come down in price enough to easily compete with any internet service -- of course internet services should come down in price too.
Sigh... always just waiting for that tipping point, that threshold, but at the same time seeing my requirements always slightly ahead of that threshold... pictures get bigger, videos get easier, and my mp3 collections (ripped from my own CDs) is a given constant.
Also for large internet storage, the big-pipe problem remains. I want an online storage from which I have reasonably unencumbered upload and download access. It would also be nice to see full T1 speeds at least (something not accessible to normal DSL or even cable subscribers). Don't know if and when that gets solved, and if solved how much additional expense is incurred. Sigh again.
If one would want some empirical perspective on how much impact this has on the world in general... the U.S. government adopted a best-practices and recommendation for computer contracts in the late 80s requiring all systems be POSIX compliant. While you can make the technical argument NT/XP is POSIX (.1), it's hardly a nudge in the direction technology decidedly went (i.e., Windows became dominant anyway).
For those who would like to contact these people on-line:
Doesn't feel like it's going in the back door.
-Ben Dover
No, all seriousness aside, I see this eventually being a great bill for me as I would soon be able to divest myself of all of my technical artifacts and once again be a free human being. I can eBay my tivo (maybe), my comcast box, get rid of all of my mp3 players.
I once again spend time bike riding; canoeing; horse-back riding; picnicking; sightseeing; hiking; (starting to sound like a Tampax commercial, isn't it?)... all things I used to do in bulk and before I turned into a skinny pasty-skinned freak in front of my computer all day long.
God Bless you Senator Stevens!
So exactly how are HD videos (blu-ray, or HD) going to capture the hearts and imaginations of the buying public with this kind of debut? Ostensibly (you would think) the best and brightest would be selected for their ability to shine and put the best face on an already murky new format battle.
It's an interesting task, convincing Mom and Dad, friends, etc., this is the latest and greatest thing... "no, no, just wait, you'll SEE the difference in the next scene... just let me pause it on this one frame, THERE!... see how clear the pattern is on Drew Barrymore's shirt!"
I've seen HD from comcast. I've seen HD demo'ed in Circuit City (when they FINALLY got some source). My experience and subjective opinion is that what is being delivered is being delivered with unacceptable compromise, whether it be to rush to market, or just shoddy quality, it doesn't matter. I've seen compression artifacts, I've seen jittery playback. I'm not "getting" it.
This kind of rollout will underwhelm the public, especially at the rollout prices. The only thing keeping this from dying on the vine is the digital mandate to convert to digital, and the tide of HDTVs only requiring customers to buy in.
Any success at all for the Origami would have been a surprise. It was (is) much too small to be a PC in any context (especially with an anemic screensize, heck lots of tiny devices approach the resolution and quality of the Origami) and way too big to be a portable device like an mp3 or video player.
For those trying to make it PC-like, the device short-shrifted users on usability like keyboard functionality. For those wanting portable devices, the Origami was way overpowered and cumbersome (who the f*** wants to fire up Windows to play an mp3 or a video?!?).
In between someone must have envisioned a niche market -- there likely is one, it's just not very big, and not noteworthy beyond the demographic for which it might be useful (hospitals, shops, warehouse grocery stores, etc.).
The Origami wasn't that much different (IMO) from the notepad type portables, except it was lighter in features, but still heavy in the wallet requirements. Sometimes these devices seem to be brain farts -- "what if"s, and they get run up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. Hats off to Microsoft for a clever attempt at "mystery" marketing the Origami. Sometimes the buying public has a clue before the marketers.
I've never been a fanboy of outsourcing especially at the expense of dismantling a work force's morale and decimating career goals and plans strictly under the auspices of driving profits. Personally I think these beancounter CPA-driven approaches are short-sighted and incur more damage than benefit.
And now, these large companies turn their noses up at India and their work force. I can't think of anything more insulting (and embarrassing) than, from the article: " Another source familiar with the situation, though, says the decision was cost-driven. "India isn't as inexpensive as it used to be," the source says. "The turnover is high, and the competition for good people is strong." Apple feels it "can do [such work] more efficiently elsewhere."
WTF? So, even in Apple's case, it ISN'T about quality of service, it's strictly (or so it seems) about bottom line. Can't say I feel totally sorry for India, it's a direct outgrowth of their own success, and I was one of the casualties of an outsourcing/cost cutting rave (turned out pretty well, though). But it's disconcerting to think everything becomes only about money to the exclusion of seemingly any other factors.
Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology? Oh wait, yeah, Microsoft, never mind.
Really, reading some of these proposed laws the clear message from the RIAA/MPAA is, "To ensure our continued hand-in-the-cookie-jar obscene money making machine, we demand the government enact protective legislation." Guess what? They're "gettin' 'er done"! Innovative ideas and extensions and forks of cool, useful, for-the-betterment-of-man technology fall by the wayside by fiat, at the entertainment industry's prompt.
Again, ignoring the thesis for the moment that increased use of all of these digital technologies actually serve the entertainment industry spurring new growth in unexpected demographics, the new and improved technology traditionally has been the keystone of other new technologies. Often, as mentioned in a recent slashdot article, new directions are discovered accidentally. Squelch digital devices and you squelch potential new and rich fields of devices.
The RIAA and MPAA, what a bunch of fucktards.
It's kind of surprising, but the cost of storage per disc can be less by storing them in a carousel cd-changer than in any shelf designed to hold cds (or any other shelf for that matter). For a long time I had two, both capable of holding 400+ discs. Each player cost less than $250, and for shelves capable of holding that many cds I found those to be typically more expensive. Kind of weird, but true.
And, even though you may not be playing discs anymore (assuming you tote your music around as mp3 or some other non-cd format), these carousel players typically support display information about each disk (though mine required typing the info in via a keyboard), so you can easily get to specific discs.
I don't know if these changers are still made, but I'm betting you can find them on ebay for an even better price anyway.
From the article (regarding requiring training to receive severance): ""I know hat's parsing things a bit," Norton acknowledged. "What we ask associates to do as part of getting severance is that they stay on the job until the job is transitioned."
Norton (and BofA) is parsing employees in a more metaphorical sense, cutting them into tiny pieces. It's a violation of a tacit ethic.
Next: ""It's a common practice when your job is being transferred from one person to another that you train the new person," she added. "We expect our people to stay until their jobs are consolidated.""
Yes it is a common practice. What's not so common (though it's seemingly becoming so) is a scenario where the person you're training is transparently there to be trained because they're going to do the job on the cheap. What's not so common is the egregious in-your-face requirement to train someone to replace you when you had not been planning to leave!
I've trained replacements before. And, I KNEW I was expected to finish that work to consider my work satisfactory. But, it's always been when I was moving on. I'd like to be in a place where when faced with being required to train my cheap-suit replacement that I could refuse on principle alone.
It's unfortunate and worse, unethical, to require training your replacement to receive severance. As an aside did you ever wonder why severance packages max out at ten months, e.g., by some algorithm you get X months pay for each year served, with a cap at ten months? Ten months (actually, 300 days) is how long an employee has to file an action on discriminatory practices! Often times training cheaper replacements targets older and higher paid employees.
And finally and most offensive: "But BofA stands out because it acknowledged earlier this year that it understands how much the practice offends its U.S. employees.
Barbara Desoer, BofA's chief technology exec, told BusinessWeek magazine in January that she was aware how much grumbling it caused when workers at the bank's Concord technology center were told they'd have to bring their Indian replacements up to speed before being shown the door."
First of all, the bitch Desoer doesn't deserve the title CTO, she's a fucking hatchet man... she isn't managing technology, she's betraying her work force, I'm guessing for some pretty decent blood money... Fuck her.
So outsourcing and required replacement training is becoming common enough companies begin to admit it. The tipping point is here, they can all claim they do it with the rationale, "everyone ELSE is doing it." Posh!
This is legal but it's unhealthy. The return to the shareholders is short term and long term this practice stands to damage employee morale, and based on the kind of "replacement" results piss off the customers.
A global economy is coming. For some it's a speeding train coming right at them, and they've been tied to the railroad tracks by their employers.
Just a thought, but Microsoft is probably as primed as ever to move aggressively on the Web Server market. Why not sooner? For one thing they've been busy locking down or trying to lock down everything else and manage the legal and foreign consortium attacks.
And, the first few generations of IIS weren't hardened. While Microsoft can (and has) dominated markets with non-superior products (not trolling, not saying "inferior", just not the best of breed), Apache got the classical head start on Microsoft, not necessarily (if ever) assurance of ultimate victory.
I've read articles, heard people talk -- it's hard to sort fact from fiction -- but I've heard stories of Microsoft coming in with big dollars and technical help to convert high profile and LARGE targets (Go Daddy, perhaps?) to their Web Server technology.
How do you resist that? If I had a large company and had ANY issues with Apache (who doesn't have any issues with any technology?, there's always something), I'd find it tempting to accept overtures from Microsoft.... "We'll come in and convert you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money. All you have to do is brag on it in return."
I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..." I remember using that as reason to be confident about the browser market... there was a time when Microsoft IE's share was less than 5%. We all know how that bad boy ended.
If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is) this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.
Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current administration (in general) has shown little interest or appetite in reining Microsoft in.
Agree or disagree with the points of this article (I mostly agree), there is an elephant in the middle of the room everyone ignores.
From the article (emphasis mine):
"Only the stupidest dolts in the universe?" Aside from being a little insulting, it's just not true. Many intelligent people believe these reports simply because, as the article points out elsewhere, because it is repeated the lie becomes truth.
People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise in some subject matter. What other result would you expect? There are too many topics, too many reports, and too many things demanding attention, general consumers and lay people, appropiately (though naively), rely on integrity of reporting bodies to filter that part of their world not their specialty(ies).
Reporting organizations (e.g., CERT) have an ethical responsibility to normalize and make canonical data issued for general consumption.
Unfortunately the technology world today is Microsoft's sandbox, and seemingly if anyone wants to play, be it media, competition, and lately even government, Microsoft seems to be able to control the rules. Sigh, again.