Actually, Slashcode handles unicode just fine. On Slashdot, it is just configured it to restrict the characters that can be used because of previous abuse problems.
UI seems easy to get for me? Click a name, got your message window, click 'call', calling them. Is that really stupider?
lots of ads (in the corporate, paid-for version)
I really only ever see it cycle through one or two ads and they're not even that noticeable... But if you really don't like them... Tools -> options -> Notifications -> Alerts & messages -> uncheck promotions
Why don't you connect your Facebook to Skype? You can communicate with your Facebook buddies like a regular Skype chat then and they can talk to you through the Facebook cruft.
I'm just wondering what those insisting on msn will do now or the chaos when this happens next year.
I imagine a windows update will replace Windows Live Messenger with Skype that will automatically log them in with the same credentials (since Skype now supports using the same login credentials).
Free information, or bankruptcy. I dont belive in a middle ground.
So what you're saying is, have a short time of existence and then go to barely affordable information again (since they won't exist to offer affordable information).
If they want to sell dead tree versions, i can go along with that ( a VAR type of concept ) but the underlying data should be freely distributed.
I don't believe they even have the copyright to allow unlimited redistribution outside of distributing it themselves.
At some point they are, if not through increased prices, through reduced services, quality, employment and pay..
Apple and most other large cap companies are highly profitable.
So clearly they're going to go down the route that makes them maintain their profits, not become the savior of society.
Taxes would eat away at those profits.
In my opinion, that would be an incorrect assessment, it's my belief (and some experience) that big businesses set their margins for profit, not based on how much they're taxed and will cut quality, services, people etc. rather than give up profit.
Right now, public institutions are laying off teachers and firefighters into massively high unemployment while profits are currently at record highs. Yeah, some taxes seems like a pretty good trade.
So, you want to increase taxes which in turn will make more companies lay off people to maintain their profit margins for investors, shareholders etc... Really? I don't see at all how that's a good trade.
Why? They tried one business model and it seems to be insufficient to sustain their business, so they're trying something else. I'm not understanding how what they're doing deserves screwing "the bastards into the ground"?
This is only an issue because Argentina didn't dictate the VAT-like tax be applied from the top, the suppliers - In the UK and the EU, VAT is applied from the supplier level, so you can't just 'forget' to pay the VAT in retail.
Make the corporations actually pay the 25% and get the rich back on the 50% which was closer to the 100 year average and a big chuck of the debt disappears.
Does it? Remember the costs are passed on to the consumer.
Software should be well-written before you start charging for it. Period.
How do you assess if it's well written?
From what I understand of Microsoft's development cycle, they do employ third parties to do security penetration testing on their systems before release as well as numerous other sorts of audits from manual to automated testing.
What would you suggest they do to reach your level of 'well written'?
OpenBSD has only had 2 remote security holes in several dozen releases
Out of the box with the default installation.
Of course, nobody uses OpenBSD in it's default configuration because it's useless. There are bigger security problems with OpenBSD, such as the default of creating just a root user, no configuration of sudo out of the box, ssh enabled to permit root logins by default (therefore making it an excellent bruteforce target) and so many other daemons that retain an unsafe configuration by default (although, I emphasize they aren't installed by default, so this magically makes it okay to the OpenBSD crowd). OpenBSD in this configuration doesn't help users learn 'safe' way of using the system and from experience, I have seen many who just continue using root for everything.
In reality, you will find that servers and desktops from SuSE or Ubuntu are more secure because of the enforcement of various policies. Ubuntu for example tries to ensure all the daemons run as regular users that don't have access to more than what they need to. SuSE on the other hand focuses on having daemons jailed, so even if they are running as root, they don't have access to the rest of the system. They both have sane root and sudo policies. Root by default not being accessible from remote systems and instead need to enter via a regular user and use sudo to obtain access to higher privileged commands.
OpenBSD really needs to update their security practices because security these days is more than just kernel vulnerabilities and what the default configuration installs with the system (which is essentially 'nothing' on OpenBSD). The practice of blaming the user for the fact they are using poor default configurations on daemons and poor user privilege management which is encouraged by how the system sets up the system initially does not help security.
Why is it acceptable that something you pay for has had thousands more every release?
If it's unacceptable, don't use it. So far, I find Microsoft's security practices somewhat more decent than OpenBSD's when it comes to default and usable configurations.
Phones have always been more like VCRs than desktops and that means they are more closed
And yet the Windows phones still let you change the default browser!
Windows on the other hand was one piece of an over all package sold by a company other than Microsoft so it's not right for them to dictate how that company can sell their product.
I'm not seeing this whole 'not right' concept you've come up with. These firms don't have to use the 'Microsoft' piece, they're free to use other vendors or make their own solution. You can't make the excuse they can't, because then vendors like Apple, System76 etc. wouldn't exist
It's good that they don't because Active-X is a windows only technology
Well, not quite, since Wine and ReactOS have implemented a version of it. The only reason it's not seen adoption is because alternative operating systems haven't made much effort into implementing it. Of course, if there was some underlying legal issue, we would have seen firms block rights to using APIs by now. If you don't believe me, a recent case, where not even the deep pockets of Oracle could win an argument over rights to APIs.
and does no belong on the web.
Considering how much of the web includes code for using active x to handle flash, media player, quicktime, java, shockwave etc. I find this argument pretty moot. If it was really didn't belong on the web, people wouldn't use it at all on the web and certainly not to this extent.
If I may, this whole "not right" or "no belong" thing you're coming up with doesn't really appear to be based much on the reality of the situation and from my personal observations, looks like it's formed from a view that doesn't seem objective, but tilted towards shining Microsoft in a negative light basing it off what appears to be personal prejudices against the firm.
It never forced OEMs to not install other browsers and you can remove safari from OSX and it's never been a problem to install another browser and it always acknowleges your browser choice.
Of course not, they don't have any OEMs other than themselves.
And yes, it has been a problem to install another browser (see iOS), and it's a problem for it to acknowledge your browser choice (iOS doesn't even let you set your default browser without rooting it)!
Microsoft still don't always acknowledge your browser choice and it builds functionality that only works in IE
You do realize that other browsers could implement support for stuff like active x if they wanted. Microsoft made the APIs available for any program to use. The fact Google, Mozilla, Opera intentionally decide not to use it, is not Microsoft's fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Slashcode handles unicode just fine. On Slashdot, it is just configured it to restrict the characters that can be used because of previous abuse problems.
Why so tense, Tyrione?
How?
UI seems easy to get for me? Click a name, got your message window, click 'call', calling them. Is that really stupider?
I really only ever see it cycle through one or two ads and they're not even that noticeable... But if you really don't like them... Tools -> options -> Notifications -> Alerts & messages -> uncheck promotions
What bloat?
Why don't you connect your Facebook to Skype? You can communicate with your Facebook buddies like a regular Skype chat then and they can talk to you through the Facebook cruft.
So has MSN.
I disagree. I've found Skype invaluable for text communications in places that have huge networking connectivity issues.
I imagine a windows update will replace Windows Live Messenger with Skype that will automatically log them in with the same credentials (since Skype now supports using the same login credentials).
I thought the basic premise of his post was you already lost your privacy?
So what you're saying is, have a short time of existence and then go to barely affordable information again (since they won't exist to offer affordable information).
I don't believe they even have the copyright to allow unlimited redistribution outside of distributing it themselves.
At some point they are, if not through increased prices, through reduced services, quality, employment and pay..
So clearly they're going to go down the route that makes them maintain their profits, not become the savior of society.
In my opinion, that would be an incorrect assessment, it's my belief (and some experience) that big businesses set their margins for profit, not based on how much they're taxed and will cut quality, services, people etc. rather than give up profit.
So, you want to increase taxes which in turn will make more companies lay off people to maintain their profit margins for investors, shareholders etc... Really? I don't see at all how that's a good trade.
But affordability might, which is what they said they would try in the article.
Why? They tried one business model and it seems to be insufficient to sustain their business, so they're trying something else. I'm not understanding how what they're doing deserves screwing "the bastards into the ground"?
I disagree, BOSE's TVs are better in my opinion.
This is only an issue because Argentina didn't dictate the VAT-like tax be applied from the top, the suppliers - In the UK and the EU, VAT is applied from the supplier level, so you can't just 'forget' to pay the VAT in retail.
Does it? Remember the costs are passed on to the consumer.
Would Apple be as successful with higher prices?
How do you assess if it's well written?
From what I understand of Microsoft's development cycle, they do employ third parties to do security penetration testing on their systems before release as well as numerous other sorts of audits from manual to automated testing.
What would you suggest they do to reach your level of 'well written'?
Out of the box with the default installation.
Of course, nobody uses OpenBSD in it's default configuration because it's useless. There are bigger security problems with OpenBSD, such as the default of creating just a root user, no configuration of sudo out of the box, ssh enabled to permit root logins by default (therefore making it an excellent bruteforce target) and so many other daemons that retain an unsafe configuration by default (although, I emphasize they aren't installed by default, so this magically makes it okay to the OpenBSD crowd). OpenBSD in this configuration doesn't help users learn 'safe' way of using the system and from experience, I have seen many who just continue using root for everything.
In reality, you will find that servers and desktops from SuSE or Ubuntu are more secure because of the enforcement of various policies. Ubuntu for example tries to ensure all the daemons run as regular users that don't have access to more than what they need to. SuSE on the other hand focuses on having daemons jailed, so even if they are running as root, they don't have access to the rest of the system. They both have sane root and sudo policies. Root by default not being accessible from remote systems and instead need to enter via a regular user and use sudo to obtain access to higher privileged commands.
OpenBSD really needs to update their security practices because security these days is more than just kernel vulnerabilities and what the default configuration installs with the system (which is essentially 'nothing' on OpenBSD). The practice of blaming the user for the fact they are using poor default configurations on daemons and poor user privilege management which is encouraged by how the system sets up the system initially does not help security.
If it's unacceptable, don't use it. So far, I find Microsoft's security practices somewhat more decent than OpenBSD's when it comes to default and usable configurations.
And yet the Windows phones still let you change the default browser!
I'm not seeing this whole 'not right' concept you've come up with. These firms don't have to use the 'Microsoft' piece, they're free to use other vendors or make their own solution. You can't make the excuse they can't, because then vendors like Apple, System76 etc. wouldn't exist
Well, not quite, since Wine and ReactOS have implemented a version of it. The only reason it's not seen adoption is because alternative operating systems haven't made much effort into implementing it. Of course, if there was some underlying legal issue, we would have seen firms block rights to using APIs by now. If you don't believe me, a recent case, where not even the deep pockets of Oracle could win an argument over rights to APIs.
Considering how much of the web includes code for using active x to handle flash, media player, quicktime, java, shockwave etc. I find this argument pretty moot. If it was really didn't belong on the web, people wouldn't use it at all on the web and certainly not to this extent.
If I may, this whole "not right" or "no belong" thing you're coming up with doesn't really appear to be based much on the reality of the situation and from my personal observations, looks like it's formed from a view that doesn't seem objective, but tilted towards shining Microsoft in a negative light basing it off what appears to be personal prejudices against the firm.
You must be new here.
Of course not, they don't have any OEMs other than themselves.
And yes, it has been a problem to install another browser (see iOS), and it's a problem for it to acknowledge your browser choice (iOS doesn't even let you set your default browser without rooting it)!
You do realize that other browsers could implement support for stuff like active x if they wanted. Microsoft made the APIs available for any program to use. The fact Google, Mozilla, Opera intentionally decide not to use it, is not Microsoft's fault.
I don't believe he stated they were solely responsible for the world, he said EU.
User base.
Alternatively, Google could just eat the costs and not show advertising on pages that have their links.
How do you know if they won't just eat the costs and just not display adverts on search results that have those links?
On the other hand, Google could just not display ads on those pages that contain their links.
They could just charge for access to "premium results".