What evidence do you have that this is disingenuous? Also, it's isn't "from MSNBC", it's from an editor at wsj.com. It seems quite plausible, and unless you are calling this wsj.com editor a liar, it seems like this other edition made it into print as well.
United Airlines is installing the same system from http://www.mobilstar.com in their Red Carpet Clubs and Gate areas. American Airlines already has it installed in their Admiral's Clubs.
Everyone (including Mr. Chaney) says "M$ is so stupid, you can just open it with WinZip". Have you actually tried to open it with WinZip? I just did, and I got an error that it was an invalid file. Winzip's popup says: "If this is a self-extracting file it is either not in the standard Zip file format or it is corrupt." I suspect it is not really a.ZIP. WinRAR also errors on trying to open it. So tell me how exactly you can open this file without clicking OK on the EULA?
Are you saying that providing the USGS information for free isn't a useful service for MS to be doing? Without the MS site, there would be no free information. Just because MS didn't get an unlimited license to show very expensive SPIN-2 information forever doesn't mean it's "bait and switch". I think you misunderstand the meaning of that term.
Perversion? Exactly how did Microsoft "pervert" RFC 1419? Because it's not open source? I don't remember any IETF rule that all implementations of any standard protocols have to be open source.
On the Windows side, however, there is no preferred developer enviroment.
I don't know what kind of Windows developers you are talking to, but the ones I know already have a preferred developer environment: Microsoft Visual C++. It is very easy to use and has a lot of features. It seems to me that if you are writing some tool that you are going to put in #ifdef's to support AIX's cc compiler, you should also put in #ifdev's to support Microsoft Visual C++. And that's just what many open source projects already do: unzip, sendmail, kerberos, etc.
I respectfully disagree (I know, a first for/.). I think that the vast majority of people who use Word have this experience: 1. Type "THis is a test" 2. Notice that it automatically becomes "This is a test" 3. Go, "wow, this is some damn smart software!"
Software is supposed to HELP you. vi (which is basically what you are looking for) is not friendly, or smart enough for most people. Word is.
Have you ever worked on a product that needed PACKAGING, and hundreds of thousands of CDs to be pressed? Windows 2000 code was not touched since December. The delay to launch was to have time so that the product would be in stores on launch day. If Microsoft hadn't been testing it since December, there would be NO updates now. Which is it, are they evil for not testing it, or are they evil for continuing to test it?
You can try to deride Microsoft over the temping issue, but those/. readers who actually work in the high tech industry (as opposed to the majority, who are either in high school or college) know that temping is not a problem confined to Microsoft. Survey any random Linux-centric startup in the valley, and you will find that temps get zero benefits (and certainly no pre-IPO founders shares!).
You're stupid if you think that you can depend on a single piece of hardware or software (no matter how good it is) never failing.
That is precisely the point. If you ever look at the way Sun competes against NT, they push their "one big-ass server" approach with the E10000, and says that NT/Intel has no solution in that area. Microsoft is trying to say that the many-server approach that NT backends take is more reliable than the "one big-ass server" that Sun wants to sell you.
Where did you see "Linux" on the Microsoft page? Are you so Linux-centric that you don't realize that this page is in direct answer to Sun's web propaganda "Reality Check" (http://www.sun.com/realitycheck/)?
This is hardly the first anti-Microsoft story in GCN. The one that comes to my mind is the one about how one dude decided that NT is insecure as a web server and is going back to the only secure web platform: Macintosh. (and the basis of this security is that Macintosh has zero remote administration)
I figured that since I have DSS with ZDTV, I figured I would watch it in *good* quality there. Well guess what: ZDTV (the cable/satellite station) is not carrying this. They are showing their same old boring 8 hours of "The Screen Savers" repeats. They obviously don't think too highly of Transmeta if they are only willing to host a webcast.
Ask 10 people in the Windows product group at Microsoft (not in sales) what the name of the product that they shipped on 12/15 was, and I bet at least 8 say "NT 5". Yes, they have been working on NT 5.0 for years. And, they have started work on NT 6.0. Marketing calls it whatever they want (and I agree with many of the arguments that year-based versions helps consumers a LOT), but there will always be a reasonable version number behind the scenes (and users will be able to see it if they look hard enough). It's the only way you can manage build processes.
It's clear that Jesse lives in a world of Silicon Valley startups, not the "real worlds" or either corporate computing or home computing. Microsoft is the number one player in those areas, by a long margin.
Besides the good reasons you mentioned, the other reason to keep an eye on Microsoft is their huge investments in core technologies that are going to continue to be hot throughout the next decade: $1B investment in AT&T that will result in Microsoft software in AT&T cable set top boxes, WirelessKnowledge, a joint venture with Qualcomm (yes, the one with the meteoric stock increase) that will bring email to cell phone users via Microsoft back-end servers, and the list goes on and on. These investments are one of the major reasons that analysts and fund managers love Microsoft stock: Microsoft doesn't just rely on one market, like most of the startups in Jesse's world.
Network Solutions does NOT send lots of warnings by paper and email. My domain bill was due on Oct 31 and I received exactly one piece of correspondence on this, an email on Oct. 6, before they cut me off at the same time as passport.com.
This is a point that is being left out of the coverage of this: Microsoft screwed up, possibly they didn't get the bill, possibly because they are human. (do you seriously think that the person responsible at Microsoft is going to say, "let's hold off on paying passport.com"?) But why in the earth did Network Solutions pick Dec. 23/24 as the day to cut off the DNS service of outstanding invoices for the last few months? What a poorly timed move that was. And I guarantee they did not email people with outstanding invoices beforehand, as I was one of those people. (I am admin, tech, zone, and billing contact for my domain).
My personal domain disappeared from the root nameservers yesterday as well... it looks like I really did forget to pay it! The invoice was due Oct 31, and I "thought" I had paid it but I guess not. I went into that same system and saw that the same invoice was still due. I paid it last night and I'm still not in the root servers yet (neither is passport.com).
I'm guessing that NSI ran some batch job that nuked all non-payments over a few months. The crappy part is that my address was old, so I didn't get any of the 15 "NOTICE OF FINAL DISCONNECTION" notices that they send out by snail mail. I was surprised I got exactly one thing by email: the invoice itself.
I think it is exactly that kind of non-sequitor that the original poster is referring to. I think that many people who post on slashdot simply spread the kind of anecdotal 'evidence' that the anti-FUD page is talking about, without really thinking about the argument they're trying to make. The original poster said that you need to be careful when you make statements like that. Your response was "they are well known for these other things, which are similar". Well you didn't refute his argument about XML. And, a reasoned contrarian might suggest that Netscape was the original "embrace and extend"er of HTML. And that same person might point to the IETF WEBDAV group, which I assume is what you are talking about with "hijacking" HTTP. How does the IETF let one company "hijack" a protocol? I think that the one thing that is missing from 90% of slashdot posts is reasoning. Until slashdot comments contained reasoned arguments, people will treat them for what they are currently: a joke.
I totally agree. And, if you think about it - they have no interest in patenting their current technology. That should make you realize that they are really much more advanced than this. If they are patenting this, they are releasing it to the world. You can surmise that this is already old hat to them.
You should have known you'd get flamed for it (and I suppose it's supposed to end the thread), but "Jewish" is not a "RACE". If Hitler was just worried about race, why did he care about gays (who were no doubt otherwise aryan)?
So my only question to you is: you left out South Park... that one is pretty clearly blasphemous to most major religions. (I agree: Simpsons just pokes fun... that's all it can get away with at 8 pm on Sundays) Is it OK to watch South Park, if you are a "religious" Christian?
Actually, there is a product called Unicenter TNG from CA that provides 3d visualization of servers, networks, and applications. I do not know for sure that it lets you view and kill processes, but I would imagine that it does.
The innovation here is that you can find the shotgun.
Can you imagine how long it would have taken your poor admin to figure out how to configure innd?
Re:Matt's rant on scheduling, was Re:Exchange of i
on
CNN on Sendmail for NT
·
· Score: 2
You don't seem to know what Public Folders are about. Public Folders are kind of like usenet, in that it is a distributed database of replicas. If you introduce a new message into one replica, the servers will replicate that message to other replicas. The major feature that Exchange Public Folders has over usenet and other systems is that you can create replicas based on topology and clients will automatically be directed to the replica closest to them. They don't need to know or care which server has the replica.
Oh, and Exchange integrates Public Folders with its support of NNTP, so that you can access Public Folders via NNTP as well as with an Outlook client.
unless this is happening because every moron in the world is DoS'ing it thinking they are really kewl to be "cracking" it that way.
Well DUH! Of course, that's what's happening. This is not a test of Windows 2000's security, it's a test of how well you can tweak it so that when 50,000 Microsoft haters try to bring down your machine at once (each with dual T3s from their eggable script host ISPs), your machine can stay network-accessible.
Did it occur to you that possibly, the number of people DoSing crack.linuxppc.org is much lower? I would tend to believe that the majority of people "hitting" crack.linuxppc.org are trying to actually break into it, in order to get the prize. Since there is no (stated) prize in the Windows 2000 test, what motive would someone have for actually cracking it, based on the ground rules of the test? I don't see any.
In my mind, MS really screwed up by offering the guestbook. It changes the entire dynamic from being about pure cracking to being about showboating. Specifically, now the script kiddies have two motives:
1) Put HTML tags into the guestbook so that people who go there get redirected to their site (and flood it 1000 times so that other peoples' posts scroll off). This probably has lots of 31337 haxxor value when you are 15 years old.
2) Try to make the server unavailable by SYN flooding or other DoS attacks. This makes it so that people can't get to the server, to see Joe Bob's attack 1) above.
In my opinion, MS should get rid of the guest book, just have the status page up, and GIVE AWAY the computer to whomever finds all the hidden messages. Of course, you'd accuse them of copying off of crack.linuxppc.org, but as others said, crack.linuxppc.org clearly copied the original idea of off of MS. (yes, I know that companies that design security software have done similar things for years, but when MS does something and then someone else does the same thing the next day, you have to consider it a copy).
Slashdot Mirror
What evidence do you have that this is disingenuous? Also, it's isn't "from MSNBC", it's from an editor at wsj.com. It seems quite plausible, and unless you are calling this wsj.com editor a liar, it seems like this other edition made it into print as well.
United Airlines is installing the same system from http://www.mobilstar.com in their Red Carpet Clubs and Gate areas. American Airlines already has it installed in their Admiral's Clubs.
Everyone (including Mr. Chaney) says "M$ is so stupid, you can just open it with WinZip". Have you actually tried to open it with WinZip? I just did, and I got an error that it was an invalid file. Winzip's popup says: "If this is a self-extracting file it is either not in the standard Zip file format or it is corrupt." I suspect it is not really a .ZIP. WinRAR also errors on trying to open it. So tell me how exactly you can open this file without clicking OK on the EULA?
Are you saying that providing the USGS information for free isn't a useful service for MS to be doing? Without the MS site, there would be no free information. Just because MS didn't get an unlimited license to show very expensive SPIN-2 information forever doesn't mean it's "bait and switch". I think you misunderstand the meaning of that term.
Perversion? Exactly how did Microsoft "pervert" RFC 1419? Because it's not open source? I don't remember any IETF rule that all implementations of any standard protocols have to be open source.
I don't know what kind of Windows developers you are talking to, but the ones I know already have a preferred developer environment: Microsoft Visual C++. It is very easy to use and has a lot of features. It seems to me that if you are writing some tool that you are going to put in #ifdef's to support AIX's cc compiler, you should also put in #ifdev's to support Microsoft Visual C++. And that's just what many open source projects already do: unzip, sendmail, kerberos, etc.
I respectfully disagree (I know, a first for /.). I think that the vast majority of people who use Word have this experience:
1. Type "THis is a test"
2. Notice that it automatically becomes "This is a test"
3. Go, "wow, this is some damn smart software!"
Software is supposed to HELP you. vi (which is basically what you are looking for) is not friendly, or smart enough for most people. Word is.
Have you ever worked on a product that needed PACKAGING, and hundreds of thousands of CDs to be pressed? Windows 2000 code was not touched since December. The delay to launch was to have time so that the product would be in stores on launch day.
If Microsoft hadn't been testing it since December, there would be NO updates now. Which is it, are they evil for not testing it, or are they evil for continuing to test it?
You can try to deride Microsoft over the temping issue, but those /. readers who actually work in the high tech industry (as opposed to the majority, who are either in high school or college) know that temping is not a problem confined to Microsoft. Survey any random Linux-centric startup in the valley, and you will find that temps get zero benefits (and certainly no pre-IPO founders shares!).
That is precisely the point. If you ever look at the way Sun competes against NT, they push their "one big-ass server" approach with the E10000, and says that NT/Intel has no solution in that area. Microsoft is trying to say that the many-server approach that NT backends take is more reliable than the "one big-ass server" that Sun wants to sell you.
Where did you see "Linux" on the Microsoft page? Are you so Linux-centric that you don't realize that this page is in direct answer to Sun's web propaganda "Reality Check" (http://www.sun.com/realitycheck/)?
This is hardly the first anti-Microsoft story in GCN. The one that comes to my mind is the one about how one dude decided that NT is insecure as a web server and is going back to the only secure web platform: Macintosh. (and the basis of this security is that Macintosh has zero remote administration)
I figured that since I have DSS with ZDTV, I figured I would watch it in *good* quality there. Well guess what: ZDTV (the cable/satellite station) is not carrying this. They are showing their same old boring 8 hours of "The Screen Savers" repeats. They obviously don't think too highly of Transmeta if they are only willing to host a webcast.
Ask 10 people in the Windows product group at Microsoft (not in sales) what the name of the product that they shipped on 12/15 was, and I bet at least 8 say "NT 5". Yes, they have been working on NT 5.0 for years. And, they have started work on NT 6.0. Marketing calls it whatever they want (and I agree with many of the arguments that year-based versions helps consumers a LOT), but there will always be a reasonable version number behind the scenes (and users will be able to see it if they look hard enough). It's the only way you can manage build processes.
It's clear that Jesse lives in a world of Silicon Valley startups, not the "real worlds" or either corporate computing or home computing. Microsoft is the number one player in those areas, by a long margin.
Besides the good reasons you mentioned, the other reason to keep an eye on Microsoft is their huge investments in core technologies that are going to continue to be hot throughout the next decade: $1B investment in AT&T that will result in Microsoft software in AT&T cable set top boxes, WirelessKnowledge, a joint venture with Qualcomm (yes, the one with the meteoric stock increase) that will bring email to cell phone users via Microsoft back-end servers, and the list goes on and on. These investments are one of the major reasons that analysts and fund managers love Microsoft stock: Microsoft doesn't just rely on one market, like most of the startups in Jesse's world.
Network Solutions does NOT send lots of warnings by paper and email. My domain bill was due on Oct 31 and I received exactly one piece of correspondence on this, an email on Oct. 6, before they cut me off at the same time as passport.com.
This is a point that is being left out of the coverage of this: Microsoft screwed up, possibly they didn't get the bill, possibly because they are human. (do you seriously think that the person responsible at Microsoft is going to say, "let's hold off on paying passport.com"?) But why in the earth did Network Solutions pick Dec. 23/24 as the day to cut off the DNS service of outstanding invoices for the last few months? What a poorly timed move that was. And I guarantee they did not email people with outstanding invoices beforehand, as I was one of those people. (I am admin, tech, zone, and billing contact for my domain).
My personal domain disappeared from the root nameservers yesterday as well... it looks like I really did forget to pay it! The invoice was due Oct 31, and I "thought" I had paid it but I guess not. I went into that same system and saw that the same invoice was still due. I paid it last night and I'm still not in the root servers yet (neither is passport.com).
I'm guessing that NSI ran some batch job that nuked all non-payments over a few months. The crappy part is that my address was old, so I didn't get any of the 15 "NOTICE OF FINAL DISCONNECTION" notices that they send out by snail mail. I was surprised I got exactly one thing by email: the invoice itself.
I think it is exactly that kind of non-sequitor that the original poster is referring to. I think that many people who post on slashdot simply spread the kind of anecdotal 'evidence' that the anti-FUD page is talking about, without really thinking about the argument they're trying to make.
The original poster said that you need to be careful when you make statements like that. Your response was "they are well known for these other things, which are similar". Well you didn't refute his argument about XML. And, a reasoned contrarian might suggest that Netscape was the original "embrace and extend"er of HTML. And that same person might point to the IETF WEBDAV group, which I assume is what you are talking about with "hijacking" HTTP. How does the IETF let one company "hijack" a protocol?
I think that the one thing that is missing from 90% of slashdot posts is reasoning. Until slashdot comments contained reasoned arguments, people will treat them for what they are currently: a joke.
I totally agree. And, if you think about it - they have no interest in patenting their current technology. That should make you realize that they are really much more advanced than this. If they are patenting this, they are releasing it to the world. You can surmise that this is already old hat to them.
You should have known you'd get flamed for it (and I suppose it's supposed to end the thread), but "Jewish" is not a "RACE". If Hitler was just worried about race, why did he care about gays (who were no doubt otherwise aryan)?
So my only question to you is: you left out South Park... that one is pretty clearly blasphemous to most major religions. (I agree: Simpsons just pokes fun... that's all it can get away with at 8 pm on Sundays) Is it OK to watch South Park, if you are a "religious" Christian?
Actually, there is a product called Unicenter TNG from CA that provides 3d visualization of servers, networks, and applications. I do not know for sure that it lets you view and kill processes, but I would imagine that it does.
The innovation here is that you can find the shotgun.
Can you imagine how long it would have taken your poor admin to figure out how to configure innd?
You don't seem to know what Public Folders are about. Public Folders are kind of like usenet, in that it is a distributed database of replicas. If you introduce a new message into one replica, the servers will replicate that message to other replicas. The major feature that Exchange Public Folders has over usenet and other systems is that you can create replicas based on topology and clients will automatically be directed to the replica closest to them. They don't need to know or care which server has the replica.
Oh, and Exchange integrates Public Folders with its support of NNTP, so that you can access Public Folders via NNTP as well as with an Outlook client.
Well DUH! Of course, that's what's happening. This is not a test of Windows 2000's security, it's a test of how well you can tweak it so that when 50,000 Microsoft haters try to bring down your machine at once (each with dual T3s from their eggable script host ISPs), your machine can stay network-accessible.
Did it occur to you that possibly, the number of people DoSing crack.linuxppc.org is much lower? I would tend to believe that the majority of people "hitting" crack.linuxppc.org are trying to actually break into it, in order to get the prize. Since there is no (stated) prize in the Windows 2000 test, what motive would someone have for actually cracking it, based on the ground rules of the test? I don't see any.
In my mind, MS really screwed up by offering the guestbook. It changes the entire dynamic from being about pure cracking to being about showboating. Specifically, now the script kiddies have two motives:
1) Put HTML tags into the guestbook so that people who go there get redirected to their site (and flood it 1000 times so that other peoples' posts scroll off). This probably has lots of 31337 haxxor value when you are 15 years old.
2) Try to make the server unavailable by SYN flooding or other DoS attacks. This makes it so that people can't get to the server, to see Joe Bob's attack 1) above.
In my opinion, MS should get rid of the guest book, just have the status page up, and GIVE AWAY the computer to whomever finds all the hidden messages. Of course, you'd accuse them of copying off of crack.linuxppc.org, but as others said, crack.linuxppc.org clearly copied the original idea of off of MS. (yes, I know that companies that design security software have done similar things for years, but when MS does something and then someone else does the same thing the next day, you have to consider it a copy).
Would you consider SOLARIS to be a mainstream enough UNIX? It has had telnet in the kernel for at least 5 years.