As long as they are not selling a "security" subscription to do it
What is wrong is that they are getting even more money to "secure" windows, basically to fix problems that they have created
While doing this they stop other companies for providing the same service (securing windows)
So, if they make Vista secure in itself without patch tuesday, antivirus update, firewall update (all of this for money) then it is fine. If they do not do it and suck money, then they should let other companyes make money too
Gosh, I wonder how long it will take for joe user to relize that he/she has been screwed and ripped...
Countless website wants IE to work, or the latest Firefox, nothing else will work.
This is not user experience, this is user pain, and the saddest thing is that often javascript mess is used do do menu navigation (jumping to other webpages) things that can be done and have the same visual result as stndard HTML
The other sad thing is that Flash is reinventing Java (without the security model) and AJAX is reinventing Java (without the reliability). I don't know why, but it seems a worldwide sport to bash java and praise anything else that does just bits of what java does. I wonder why...
Some time ago (something like a year) I did buy three copies of Sygate Personal Firewall, I did install just two at the time since I didn't have the third computer
A few days ago (we are on sept 2006 now) I did try to install the third copy and I discovered that Symantec bought Sygate and they "merged" Sygate firewall somewhere in their bloatware.
The end result is that I cannot manage to "activate" my copy of the program and Email to Sygate have no effect
So, I paid good money and I have a non working program ?
The whole "activation" process is a screw for the customer, it works now (maybe) but in a whim you have lost your property !
Let's say you have to reinstall a machine, let's say that ome component does not activate, what happens of all the software you have BOUGHT ?
Substitute cars with documents and "robotic parking lot" with DRM and you have the same result.
Do we really want to be held up for ransom by some company that has locked our data into their container ?
See also this article where vital information is held up if you do not pay... the point is that it is my data, not somebody else data !!!! as if since I put some money in the bank then the bank can refuse to give my money back or to stop moving to another bank. (I hope I am not giving new ideas to banks here...)
I did a search on ICAN for.xxx and what I found seems different that what the crowd says (that evil forces are trying to have xxx approuved or actually the opposite:-)
The proposal for.xxx is here apparently it is quite old since we are talking of 1994
Then there is a descritpion of the registry that should actually handling it, something called ICM
Apparently there is a further stage of the "test", you can find the announcement here it is June 05
And finally one of the many comments, of various type, basically it seems to me that there is not a clear cut idea if this is good or bad...
What I cannot find is a reference to what the article under scrutiny says, maybe it is just rumors ?
If you have your own set of DNS and eventually your own set of IP it is like being inside a company, you have much better control of the "gates" to the outside.
How you use that control it is then a matter of policy, party policy.
Given the track record of China I believe more the above reason than the fact that US ICANN is evil...
I agree with you, if I can add an analogy to better explain the issue.
To me static checking (that is consistency checks that are done at compile time) are like an Engineer designing a plane, he does it with tools that declare the wings and the parts of the plane sound, even before the tests that have to be done to confirm the project.
We must also remembar that some stuff is not testable (big bridges, buildings) you HAVE to design it properly using tools that make it good from the design, before you deploy it !
I am really against the "quick changes" or overriding default behaviour, it is fine for tiny projects, it is a recipy for disaster on someting that is a few pages long.
There is a space for Ruby, togeter with perl, php, pyton, 'c', c++, smalltalk, cobol, basic, fortran, c#, etc. Somebody said that it is best to let big player to develop something and see how it goes.
Myself, I would not make a book writer, that makes a few hyped statemets, rich by buying his book, better to spend the money on something better:-)
I had an Email from them saying that they are making one gateway for linux too. But of course it will be limited to one call, closed source, and with the level of support Skype is providing.
Personally I am switching to normal SIP phones/services.
If you are not bothered by having an italian operator you could use www.skypho.net (no, I am not from skypho, I am just a user)
Given the number of posts in java.net and slashdot on how Ruby is the greatest thing of all (and no mention at all of any negative side) I start wondering why is Ruby desperate to move Java programmers from Java to Ruby
Personally I do not trust a language that has no negatives sides (or at least the Ruby people seems to think so), until it becomes clear what is the other side of Ruby I am not going to use it.
To be able to do "persistent client state" you need to be able to identify a well defined client while the browser is active, to do this you use cookies that are in memory, they do not need to be saved on the computer.
If you also want to save other information about your user, then just log them in in the server so it is clear that they are accessing something that is storing their information.
So, if it is important to store information then you can do it even without persistent cookies, if it is not important then stop profiling me.
On a side note, I am a bit annoyed that slashdot keeps all my posts associated with me forever, there should be a time limit over which all posts become really anonymous. The message should be valued for the message in itself not because somebody said it.
I have a firewall (it is a bit complicated, there is a machine that does NAT and then there is my machine) that blocks everything that goes OUT of my machine beside selected applications. I also user Opera with disabled ActiveX (no flash then) and I have "Clear chookies on exit enabled".
Only when I go to cnn.com there is a popup from the firewall telling me that some of core windows component wants to talk to DNS, I wonder what they are doing, why just CNN and not all the other web sites, there must be something oing on but windows does not tell me what is happening.
Really, if someone wants "persistence" then have them login and store all useful information on the server, cookies should be deleted every time the browser is closed and NO profile of user should be done in any way.
Simple, encryption is not allowed and if you use it you get fined.
You think cybercafe ?, still encryption is not allowed anyway.
You think stenograpgy, possible, but for very short messages, sending lots of pictures back and forth will look suspicious.... and you will be flagged immediately.
Immagine, you go to a cybercafe to "talk", you start talking and the "system" flags you as possible "suspect", this is sent to the secretary that then takes a picture of you.
Now you are on file, and you are being watched....
You have to agree on a licence, do I have to agree on a licence to talk English ?
You have to agree that there are "patents" involved. Does it make sense to have "patents" on a communication standard ?
Microsoft is trying to keep the dog (the users) to the chain, it is just making the chain longer so the dog (the users) think that they can be free and go to a cheaper solution if they want.
It is a pity that not too many see the chain for what it is, I am wondering why.
If, as you say, you are in favour of open format, then I fail to understand how your "question" is pursuing your goal.
Open formats are just "open", meaning that anyone can use them withouth giving any right away or having to sign anything.
Document and communication formats are just standards, they should not be patentable or secret or declared sole property of a corporation. It would be like saying that "English" as a communication standard is of property of "UK/US" and they have the "right" to licence its use. Of course if you do not licence "English" then you cannot talk with the rest of the world...
The above seems to me a good similarity to advocate for "open" communication standards.
The similarity is wrong. They are not building on your lot, they are not taking anything away from you in any common sense, since if they really took it away then you will be without it.
Having said that it is also true that if you have spent some time and effort to "discover" something you should be able to recover the costs and make a profit out of it.
The problem with patents in IT is that patents holders quite often do not seek to make money out of it by making products, they just sit idling waiting for someone to develop a product and then ask money from them and this is against the spirit of the patent system.
Possibly, the way out would be to give the patent to public domain if the patent holder does not "produce" something out of it in a one year time.
I know I am resonding to a possibly trolling article, but I try to be rational.
Yes, the original article is a bit blunt, but we should ask, is this bad ? It seems to me that he pointed out why the Microsof work is "useless" and therefore the point should stand, even if not "politely" put.
Responding to the post, my opinion is that big corporations do not have a monoply on intelligence and therefore it is possible that something of "not high quality" is produced. Would it be strange if it happened in this particular case ?
On the inadequacies of Bit Torrent, why is Microsoft keen to find inadequacies in other people products ? My idea is that this is a way to prepare for future Microsoft products that are "better" since they do not have those issues. (They will have many others "problems", but that is another story, not to be told)
It is a matter of agreeing on the meaning of words. Something that is "simple" is both "obvious" and not "novel".
Of course you may disagree, but then the issue is what "is" an "obvious" invention ? At the moment professionals around the world think that what is "not obvious" for the patent office is instead quite "obvious" to them.
The same apply to novel. Is a direct solution to a problem a novelty ? Eg:
The problem is: Give user graphic feedback on background tasks.
Solution: Something that grows over time and is visually representable. Can be anything, from a growing baloon to a growing bar. Is any of the peculiar implementation a "novelty" ?
If you do not get the point, maybe you have to step out of your current mindset and try to be a normal technical person that is not corporation employed.
Try to immagine you are a freelance "solution provider" and at some point some corporation knock at your door saying that you violated some obscure patent that you never knew existed and you also have "discovered" (you simply solved a problem that the customer asked you)
Why should you stop providing your "own" solution ? You didn't COPY it ! You didnt even know it existed !
Re:I prefer the physical metaphor folders provide
on
The Death of Folders?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree, continuing on your example, why not having all your documents in a pile, all mixed together ? some will say, that with computer you can search, but how do you search if you do not know what is there ? Example:
My aunt sent me a letter but I cannot remembar her name, how do I find her letter ? If I had letters classified into some form (eg: relatives, friends, work) then It would be possible..
How do I "expire" documents ? or are we never going to delete things ? (At some point somebody will just dump the whole lot even if in it there is an antigravity machine)...
I see the solution being "metadata", but then, basically you have many tree depending on what metadata you use to "classify" your documents, so the old "tree" is not dead:-)
I am wondering if this "new and inprouved" is just trowing away good practices we should have and leave us with a mess.
It is a world of instant gratification a user wants to:
- Use immediatly the new computer/server, do not want to download/install extra stuff (amazingly they however install lots of spyware)
- Have the same user interface. If they are used to Windows file manager they wants the same look. (But some of them are happy to try the new bells from Microsoft and some others are still using windows 3.11)
Maybe the trick is to market the thing as "you have to do only ONE thing", so, in this case, it would be "You have to install only one program" and the program is the same on both client and servers and is installed in all machines ?
I wonder if there is a way to have people to think about "consequences" for their choices instead of just looking at instant gratification.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they are not selling a "security" subscription to do it
What is wrong is that they are getting even more money to "secure" windows, basically to fix problems that they have created
While doing this they stop other companies for providing the same service (securing windows)
So, if they make Vista secure in itself without patch tuesday, antivirus update, firewall update (all of this for money) then it is fine. If they do not do it and suck money, then they should let other companyes make money too
Gosh, I wonder how long it will take for joe user to relize that he/she has been screwed and ripped...
AJAX works only in well defined circumstances.
Countless website wants IE to work, or the latest Firefox, nothing else will work.
This is not user experience, this is user pain, and the saddest thing is that often javascript mess is used do do menu navigation (jumping to other webpages) things that can be done and have the same visual result as stndard HTML
The other sad thing is that Flash is reinventing Java (without the security model) and AJAX is reinventing Java (without the reliability). I don't know why, but it seems a worldwide sport to bash java and praise anything else that does just bits of what java does. I wonder why...
Some time ago (something like a year) I did buy three copies of Sygate Personal Firewall, I did install just two at the time since I didn't have the third computer
A few days ago (we are on sept 2006 now) I did try to install the third copy and I discovered that Symantec bought Sygate and they "merged" Sygate firewall somewhere in their bloatware.
The end result is that I cannot manage to "activate" my copy of the program and Email to Sygate have no effect
So, I paid good money and I have a non working program ?
The whole "activation" process is a screw for the customer, it works now (maybe) but in a whim you have lost your property !
Let's say you have to reinstall a machine, let's say that ome component does not activate, what happens of all the software you have BOUGHT ?
Substitute cars with documents and "robotic parking lot" with DRM and you have the same result.
Do we really want to be held up for ransom by some company that has locked our data into their container ?
See also this article where vital information is held up if you do not pay... the point is that it is my data, not somebody else data !!!! as if since I put some money in the bank then the bank can refuse to give my money back or to stop moving to another bank. (I hope I am not giving new ideas to banks here...)
The article on locking medical data is here
I did a search on ICAN for .xxx and what I found seems different that what the crowd says (that evil forces are trying to have xxx approuved or actually the opposite :-)
The proposal for .xxx is here apparently it is quite old since we are talking of 1994
Then there is a descritpion of the registry that should actually handling it, something called ICM
Apparently there is a further stage of the "test", you can find the announcement here it is June 05
And finally one of the many comments, of various type, basically it seems to me that there is not a clear cut idea if this is good or bad...
What I cannot find is a reference to what the article under scrutiny says, maybe it is just rumors ?
Since you mention J2EE and by consequence Java, I suggest you have a look at this comparison chart
You draw your conclusions
I am a OpenOffice/StarOffice user, they are fine for me and the saved money are "invested" in something else I like.
But, you may absolutely "need" the extra features, just do your research and check if the features you want are not available elsewhere.
Unless, of course, one of your requirements is that it must be a product from Microsoft...
On a side note, I am wondering if you are a Microsoft evangelist :-)
If you have your own set of DNS and eventually your own set of IP it is like being inside a company, you have much better control of the "gates" to the outside.
How you use that control it is then a matter of policy, party policy.
Given the track record of China I believe more the above reason than the fact that US ICANN is evil...
I agree with you, if I can add an analogy to better explain the issue.
To me static checking (that is consistency checks that are done at compile time) are like an Engineer designing a plane, he does it with tools that declare the wings and the parts of the plane sound, even before the tests that have to be done to confirm the project.
We must also remembar that some stuff is not testable (big bridges, buildings) you HAVE to design it properly using tools that make it good from the design, before you deploy it !
I am really against the "quick changes" or overriding default behaviour, it is fine for tiny projects, it is a recipy for disaster on someting that is a few pages long.
There is a space for Ruby, togeter with perl, php, pyton, 'c', c++, smalltalk, cobol, basic, fortran, c#, etc. Somebody said that it is best to let big player to develop something and see how it goes.
Myself, I would not make a book writer, that makes a few hyped statemets, rich by buying his book, better to spend the money on something better :-)
I had an Email from them saying that they are making one gateway for linux too. But of course it will be limited to one call, closed source, and with the level of support Skype is providing.
Personally I am switching to normal SIP phones/services.
If you are not bothered by having an italian operator you could use www.skypho.net (no, I am not from skypho, I am just a user)
Given the number of posts in java.net and slashdot on how Ruby is the greatest thing of all (and no mention at all of any negative side) I start wondering why is Ruby desperate to move Java programmers from Java to Ruby
Personally I do not trust a language that has no negatives sides (or at least the Ruby people seems to think so), until it becomes clear what is the other side of Ruby I am not going to use it.
(Yes, I have visited the Ruby website)
It used to be if "you can't win, join them" it seems that Microsoft has redefined it :-)
Gosh, they may even patent it as a business practice !!
I wanted to moderate interesting but I am not sure of what you actually mean. What I understood is:
IBM loves Java and it is committed to it.
But IBM wants to open Java and make it incompatible, creating another free standard.
So, who is going to be happy with this ?
Java developers that have another standard to support (beside SWT)
IBM, after they hurt Sun attempt to have a standard platform ?
Will the free community be happy after every one can create their own language ? (They can already do that, just do not call it Java)
I am completly for a "free" JVM that is compatible the standard Java, I am against another ripoff of Java not from Microsoft this time but from IBM.
To be able to do "persistent client state" you need to be able to identify a well defined client while the browser is active, to do this you use cookies that are in memory, they do not need to be saved on the computer.
If you also want to save other information about your user, then just log them in in the server so it is clear that they are accessing something that is storing their information.
So, if it is important to store information then you can do it even without persistent cookies, if it is not important then stop profiling me.
On a side note, I am a bit annoyed that slashdot keeps all my posts associated with me forever, there should be a time limit over which all posts become really anonymous. The message should be valued for the message in itself not because somebody said it.
I have a firewall (it is a bit complicated, there is a machine that does NAT and then there is my machine) that blocks everything that goes OUT of my machine beside selected applications. I also user Opera with disabled ActiveX (no flash then) and I have "Clear chookies on exit enabled".
Only when I go to cnn.com there is a popup from the firewall telling me that some of core windows component wants to talk to DNS, I wonder what they are doing, why just CNN and not all the other web sites, there must be something oing on but windows does not tell me what is happening.
Really, if someone wants "persistence" then have them login and store all useful information on the server, cookies should be deleted every time the browser is closed and NO profile of user should be done in any way.
I am in the UK do not call list. It did made a difference but some of the telemarketers try to sneak out of it by saying that it is a "survey".
How can they immagine that one that is in a "do not call list" is willing to ansnwer some personal questions for a "survey" ?
Yes, I know that it is a telemarketer in disguise, but it is surely one with little brain.
Simple, encryption is not allowed and if you use it you get fined.
You think cybercafe ?, still encryption is not allowed anyway.
You think stenograpgy, possible, but for very short messages, sending lots of pictures back and forth will look suspicious.... and you will be flagged immediately.
Immagine, you go to a cybercafe to "talk", you start talking and the "system" flags you as possible "suspect", this is sent to the secretary that then takes a picture of you.
Now you are on file, and you are being watched....
It can be done, unfortunately.
Yes, if your competitor uses a monopoly position to crush you.
Is it the case with you ?
I would not say that this is an "open" format.
You have to agree on a licence, do I have to agree on a licence to talk English ?
You have to agree that there are "patents" involved. Does it make sense to have "patents" on a communication standard ?
Microsoft is trying to keep the dog (the users) to the chain, it is just making the chain longer so the dog (the users) think that they can be free and go to a cheaper solution if they want.
It is a pity that not too many see the chain for what it is, I am wondering why.
If, as you say, you are in favour of open format, then I fail to understand how your "question" is pursuing your goal.
Open formats are just "open", meaning that anyone can use them withouth giving any right away or having to sign anything.
Document and communication formats are just standards, they should not be patentable or secret or declared sole property of a corporation. It would be like saying that "English" as a communication standard is of property of "UK/US" and they have the "right" to licence its use. Of course if you do not licence "English" then you cannot talk with the rest of the world...
The above seems to me a good similarity to advocate for "open" communication standards.
The similarity is wrong. They are not building on your lot, they are not taking anything away from you in any common sense, since if they really took it away then you will be without it.
Having said that it is also true that if you have spent some time and effort to "discover" something you should be able to recover the costs and make a profit out of it.
The problem with patents in IT is that patents holders quite often do not seek to make money out of it by making products, they just sit idling waiting for someone to develop a product and then ask money from them and this is against the spirit of the patent system.
Possibly, the way out would be to give the patent to public domain if the patent holder does not "produce" something out of it in a one year time.
I know I am resonding to a possibly trolling article, but I try to be rational.
Yes, the original article is a bit blunt, but we should ask, is this bad ? It seems to me that he pointed out why the Microsof work is "useless" and therefore the point should stand, even if not "politely" put.
Responding to the post, my opinion is that big corporations do not have a monoply on intelligence and therefore it is possible that something of "not high quality" is produced. Would it be strange if it happened in this particular case ?
On the inadequacies of Bit Torrent, why is Microsoft keen to find inadequacies in other people products ? My idea is that this is a way to prepare for future Microsoft products that are "better" since they do not have those issues. (They will have many others "problems", but that is another story, not to be told)
It is a matter of agreeing on the meaning of words. Something that is "simple" is both "obvious" and not "novel".
Of course you may disagree, but then the issue is what "is" an "obvious" invention ? At the moment professionals around the world think that what is "not obvious" for the patent office is instead quite "obvious" to them.
The same apply to novel. Is a direct solution to a problem a novelty ? Eg:
The problem is: Give user graphic feedback on background tasks.
Solution: Something that grows over time and is visually representable. Can be anything, from a growing baloon to a growing bar. Is any of the peculiar implementation a "novelty" ?
If you do not get the point, maybe you have to step out of your current mindset and try to be a normal technical person that is not corporation employed.
Try to immagine you are a freelance "solution provider" and at some point some corporation knock at your door saying that you violated some obscure patent that you never knew existed and you also have "discovered" (you simply solved a problem that the customer asked you)
Why should you stop providing your "own" solution ? You didn't COPY it ! You didnt even know it existed !
Yes, I agree, continuing on your example, why not having all your documents in a pile, all mixed together ? some will say, that with computer you can search, but how do you search if you do not know what is there ? Example:
My aunt sent me a letter but I cannot remembar her name, how do I find her letter ? If I had letters classified into some form (eg: relatives, friends, work) then It would be possible..
How do I "expire" documents ? or are we never going to delete things ? (At some point somebody will just dump the whole lot even if in it there is an antigravity machine)...
I see the solution being "metadata", but then, basically you have many tree depending on what metadata you use to "classify" your documents, so the old "tree" is not dead :-)
I am wondering if this "new and inprouved" is just trowing away good practices we should have and leave us with a mess.
It is a world of instant gratification a user wants to:
- Use immediatly the new computer/server, do not want to download/install extra stuff (amazingly they however install lots of spyware)
- Have the same user interface. If they are used to Windows file manager they wants the same look. (But some of them are happy to try the new bells from Microsoft and some others are still using windows 3.11)
Maybe the trick is to market the thing as "you have to do only ONE thing", so, in this case, it would be "You have to install only one program" and the program is the same on both client and servers and is installed in all machines ?
I wonder if there is a way to have people to think about "consequences" for their choices instead of just looking at instant gratification.