Seems the author misses the very obvious point that many of the weaknesses in Windows are there for user-friendliness. Making it easier for users to open attachments & see HTML mail is practically a requirement for the great mass of users. Yes, they're clueless, and yes, it would be nice if they could get over their fear of slightly more complex interfaces. But it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, if Linux _in its current form_ was as common as Windows, it would be be much more secure. But we might as well wish for green eggs & ham... Linux in its current form will never be as popular precisely BECAUSE of those same limitations. It's practically a tautology that any popular operating system, in order to become popular, must make compromises that make worms inevitable.
Microsoft has commissioned many "independent" studies in which NT wins handily, and people very rightly don't consider those to be truly impartial. Why the difference here?
Well, if there were some legal way to come by a copy of the software to be tested without buying a license, that might be the case. But when you buy software, you agree to a contract (laid out in the EULA) stating that there are some things you can & can't do with it.
It's like buying a car - Ford wouldn't be too happy if you bought a Taurus, took it apart, and published some of its proprietary specs. Same with software - as long as they make sure that both sides agree to the terms of use, those terms of use can include all the silence clauses they like.
The remedy is going to have an astoundingly large affect on the software industry, and by extension on the nation as a whole. A beneficial effect? Probably, but there are many, many wrinkles to consider. If these aren't to be examined and ironed out during the sentencing phase, then when? Is the Government's plan to be accepted and implemented as is, without any input from the rest of the industry?
Speculative or not, extensive discussion should be mandatory for actions this large, with ramifications this extensive. Jackson's "the Government won, so they don't have to take MS's thoughts into account" position isn't as valid when the case at hand goes beyond simple justice against wrongdoing.
Also, while anti-trust law does allow for the fast-track proceeding, the current Supreme Court still has the right of refusal, and they haven't shown themselves to be very amenable to direct appeals recently. I can't recall any such appeal going to them in the past term, even for equally groundshaking cases like U.S. vs. Morrison (the Virginia rape case).
I've read quite a few reporter's accounts of the trial from day one. It seemed to me that Judge Jackson was biased fairly quickly into the affair, largely due to MS's ineptitude from the very start.
While Jackson's Findings of Fact were of themselves impressive, they arose from a court proceeding that had a number of holes in it. The most glaring incident, to me, was when Jackson publicly considered a split into *three* companies, even though not even the DOJ was interested in asking for that. He also hurried the remedy phase through unreasonably fast, not giving either side enough time to marshall arguments and talk over the issue.
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult. But Jackson's anti-MS actions may well have been enough to push an Appeals court to overturn the decision on the grounds that the case was mishandled.
This topic has 802 comments. That's the most I can recall seeing - even the Microsoft topics rarely reach numbers like that. And it's only half a day old.
Shouldn't anime at least deserve its own sidebar icon? I nominate Akari Kanzaki's head, though you could always go with Kaneda on his bike (from Akira).
Yes, but let's say that Linux became a mainstream alternative, commonly found on home desktop boxes and used in businesses. How fast would updates get propagated then?
Most of the people running & using Linux now have some interest in the technology, and stay on top of things. Most competent & aware NT admins keep their servers safe & patched as well. MS's insecurity is largely the result of widespread distribution, and of being the OS of choice with people who just want something that works most of the time and doesn't require lots of diddling. Making Linux a mainstream option would require lots of changes to how it operates, and that would open up major security holes.
I'm just wondering... was anyone else stupid enough to actually read all 10 vols? I started them when I was young and stupid, and my completionist instincts led me to read them all.
I can't say for sure whether or not all of the books were written by him, or by shadowy Church members, or by a couple of monkeys sharing a broken typewriter. It's just hard to gauge a level of quality that low. However, the series does take an extremely bizarre shift around vol. 8 or so, suddenly switching to another narrator. That could be the sign of a new writer, or it could be another one of the strange jokes that Elron liked to play (Scientology being another example).
God, what I wouldn't give to have those hours back....
Re:Everybody take a breather
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 3
While it's not good for any company to have so much power that it's very survival is essential, the question is *who* should be remedying this situation?
As many have pointed out, Slashdot's posters are vehemently against almost any form of government intrusion - and for good reason. The government remains many steps behind the fast-moving industry, and is never in tune with the real world. But now they slam Microsoft, and all of a sudden the judicial system knows what's best?
So something should be done. Is it likely that the government's actions will help very much, if at all? By the time the remedies take effect, will the browser market (the heart of the whole case) look even remotely the same?
No, we shouldn't look the other way, but any sudden disruption to Microsoft is going to cause major, major collateral damage. A gradual erosion, courtesy of net appliances, the free software movement, or anything else, was the best hope for change.
Slashdot Mirror
And now we're right back to getting information by reading entrails. Guess I better work on my shamanism degree.
Seems the author misses the very obvious point that many of the weaknesses in Windows are there for user-friendliness. Making it easier for users to open attachments & see HTML mail is practically a requirement for the great mass of users. Yes, they're clueless, and yes, it would be nice if they could get over their fear of slightly more complex interfaces. But it ain't gonna happen.
... Linux in its current form will never be as popular precisely BECAUSE of those same limitations. It's practically a tautology that any popular operating system, in order to become popular, must make compromises that make worms inevitable.
Yes, if Linux _in its current form_ was as common as Windows, it would be be much more secure. But we might as well wish for green eggs & ham
Microsoft has commissioned many "independent" studies in which NT wins handily, and people very rightly don't consider those to be truly impartial. Why the difference here?
Well, if there were some legal way to come by a copy of the software to be tested without buying a license, that might be the case. But when you buy software, you agree to a contract (laid out in the EULA) stating that there are some things you can & can't do with it.
It's like buying a car - Ford wouldn't be too happy if you bought a Taurus, took it apart, and published some of its proprietary specs. Same with software - as long as they make sure that both sides agree to the terms of use, those terms of use can include all the silence clauses they like.
The remedy is going to have an astoundingly large affect on the software industry, and by extension on the nation as a whole. A beneficial effect? Probably, but there are many, many wrinkles to consider. If these aren't to be examined and ironed out during the sentencing phase, then when? Is the Government's plan to be accepted and implemented as is, without any input from the rest of the industry?
Speculative or not, extensive discussion should be mandatory for actions this large, with ramifications this extensive. Jackson's "the Government won, so they don't have to take MS's thoughts into account" position isn't as valid when the case at hand goes beyond simple justice against wrongdoing.
Also, while anti-trust law does allow for the fast-track proceeding, the current Supreme Court still has the right of refusal, and they haven't shown themselves to be very amenable to direct appeals recently. I can't recall any such appeal going to them in the past term, even for equally groundshaking cases like U.S. vs. Morrison (the Virginia rape case).
I've read quite a few reporter's accounts of the trial from day one. It seemed to me that Judge Jackson was biased fairly quickly into the affair, largely due to MS's ineptitude from the very start.
While Jackson's Findings of Fact were of themselves impressive, they arose from a court proceeding that had a number of holes in it. The most glaring incident, to me, was when Jackson publicly considered a split into *three* companies, even though not even the DOJ was interested in asking for that. He also hurried the remedy phase through unreasonably fast, not giving either side enough time to marshall arguments and talk over the issue.
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult. But Jackson's anti-MS actions may well have been enough to push an Appeals court to overturn the decision on the grounds that the case was mishandled.
This topic has 802 comments. That's the most I can recall seeing - even the Microsoft topics rarely reach numbers like that. And it's only half a day old.
Shouldn't anime at least deserve its own sidebar icon? I nominate Akari Kanzaki's head, though you could always go with Kaneda on his bike (from Akira).
Yes, but let's say that Linux became a mainstream alternative, commonly found on home desktop boxes and used in businesses. How fast would updates get propagated then?
Most of the people running & using Linux now have some interest in the technology, and stay on top of things. Most competent & aware NT admins keep their servers safe & patched as well. MS's insecurity is largely the result of widespread distribution, and of being the OS of choice with people who just want something that works most of the time and doesn't require lots of diddling. Making Linux a mainstream option would require lots of changes to how it operates, and that would open up major security holes.
I'm just wondering
I can't say for sure whether or not all of the books were written by him, or by shadowy Church members, or by a couple of monkeys sharing a broken typewriter. It's just hard to gauge a level of quality that low. However, the series does take an extremely bizarre shift around vol. 8 or so, suddenly switching to another narrator. That could be the sign of a new writer, or it could be another one of the strange jokes that Elron liked to play (Scientology being another example).
God, what I wouldn't give to have those hours back
While it's not good for any company to have so much power that it's very survival is essential, the question is *who* should be remedying this situation?
As many have pointed out, Slashdot's posters are vehemently against almost any form of government intrusion - and for good reason. The government remains many steps behind the fast-moving industry, and is never in tune with the real world. But now they slam Microsoft, and all of a sudden the judicial system knows what's best?
So something should be done. Is it likely that the government's actions will help very much, if at all? By the time the remedies take effect, will the browser market (the heart of the whole case) look even remotely the same?
No, we shouldn't look the other way, but any sudden disruption to Microsoft is going to cause major, major collateral damage. A gradual erosion, courtesy of net appliances, the free software movement, or anything else, was the best hope for change.
Ok, so should I be using something other than IE5? Every time I click the link I get the "download" box, and the resultant file contains:
/www/home/recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl
CGIwrap Error: Script is not executable. Issue chmod 755
Am I doing something wrong?