What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity.
That's true, but it's a very pro-Microsoft type of thinking.
Refferring to the "Microsoft" of something would surely be more readily described as...
Something performing the following actions:
* Forcing people to do what it wants them to do (i.e. the threatening of OEMs). * Locking people into using its solutions (i.e. proprietary file formats, APIs, protocols). * Attempting to kill off competition by bundling. * Basing a company on what you have bought/copied from other sources (i.e. DOS, most -- if not all -- of Microsoft's current schemes). * Embracing, extending, extinguishing. * Robbing from Peter to give to Paul (i.e. forced upgrades, audits, etc., and then giving free software to third world countries).
Something posessing the following attributes:
* Having a large sum of money. * Proclaiming that it wants to give most of its money away, yet does not want to aid Open Source, or Open Source Microsoft solutions. * Being perceived as the best in its field. * Able to convince people to trust it -- even though it is continually proven untrustworthy.
in my experience I've only ever got screwed by a patch from Microsoft once.
I've never been screwed by any Microsoft patches on my Windows network either. I guess we should be thankful.
Linux however - I've had patches break applications all the time - especially binary only programs.
All the time?
Any particular apps? Was anything important broken? When did these problems occur? This sounds terrible!
I've heard from people in charge of Windows networks who have told me that a patch from Microsoft caused problems. No, I couldn't tell you what happened, as I don't remember -- it didn't happen to me. Besides, I know for a fact that many people have problems with patches from Microsoft; you can read about it quite frequently in the news.
do you really think microsoft tests every possible patch configuration?
No.
You're taking a risk running a "non standard" environment too.
I am?
Besides, you should always patch a few systems that seem common to your environment before rolling out patches in a large corporate environment anyway.
Indeed. You should test the patches first; however, if there is a vulnerability that you really must patch, and it's going to knock out something you're dependent on, either way you lose.
Anyone remember the (deeply flawed) Cert statistics where Microsoft had 812 vulnerabilities compared to Unix + Linux's 2328?
Indeed.
What makes it worse is that Microsoft knows full well that this data is false, and still uses this in its FUD attacks against Linux/Open Source.
Even if Microsoft persuades people that it has a good reason for not disclosing vulnerabilities, Microsoft has no good reason to use false statistics, created by its hiding of information, in order to help persuade people that its software is more secure.
If I were a system administrator, I'd be applying every patch they handed me, on the off chance it's patching an obscure vulnerability I'd never catch in a million years.
If you apply a Microsoft patch for something that is never likely to affect you, you're taking a bigger risk by applying the patch!
Most people here should be aware that applying a Microsoft patch is likely to screw something up -- something Microsoft has become renowned for.
The company I work for sells networking software. To prevent piracy of our software, I'm thinking of contacting Microsoft and telling them to add a copy of it to their Windows Server operating systems.
This way, Microsoft can buy the software from us, charge slightly more for a copy of Windows to compensate, and it should prevent piracy - not to mention make my company plenty of money!
Wasn't Microsoft claiming that it would protect all users of its software from intellectual property threats? Wasn't Microsoft suggesting that Linux/Open Source software was unable to provide indemnification in this way, and using this in its fight to bring down Linux/Open Soruce?
So why isn't Microsoft offering the same protection for Xbox users? Is it because it doesn't have enough power behind it to fight back against these issues in the console market?
It's like back in 2002, where Steve Ballmer 'Wept for Windows' during the Anti-Trust season. Microsoft released a video of it in both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer format, obviously wanting everybody to be able to see the pain Ballmer was going through, trying to get some sympathy votes.
It's the same now: if you want to make sure that everybody can view your data, Microsoft formats alone are not the way to go.
That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt.
No, it wouldn't.
Microsoft has an operating system monopoly, and therefore most people use its operating system.
If most people use its operating system, they're also likely to use any bundled services that come with it (as they're free), rather than paying extra to use similar services elsewhere.
Microsoft is 'leveraging its monopoly'. That's what it always does.
For example: If Microsoft wanted the proprietary WMP file format to become a major standard used by most audio/video distributors, it could bundle its media player with Windows. WMP is then made available to most people (as most people have Windows), and Microsoft's file format immediately becomes the biggest audio/video format - and Microsoft doesn't have to compete at all, just bundle a product. Leverage.
Too true. Game is certainly not just associated with activities for children. You could add football and baseball to the list - which are both a hit with kids and adults.
I think it's the image of bleary-eyed youths, sitting locked into a video game, feeding agression, spending hours playing continuously, wasting their lives, that puts people off - rather than the fact that it's a game.
If you call it something like 'Interactive Media Entertainment', at least for a short time people should feel better about themselves if they 'persue' (which could be used instead of 'play') this 'activity'.
We could go even further: instead of people 'speeding' in their cars, we could call it 'Journey Minimizing', and then people wouldn't feel so bad about that either.
Instead of going to the bathroom, we could 'Lower our weight'.
The thing is, these buzz-words, or new names, are soon going to generate the same image in our minds as the old words; changing them is pointless. The only way to change the image generated when mentioning 'Video Game' is to change the way that people play these games, so that a more pleasant and acceptable image is implanted in our brains.
Your post shows to me that your critical reading skills are defficient.
Because...
you think it means that IE7 is this woeful security flaw.
Your comprehension of my post seems to be at fault, as I have made no such claim or representation.
The issue I am bringing up is that Microsoft is supposed to have spent millions on securing its development process. If this is the case, Microsoft now seems to have provided evidence that its supposedly secure development process isn't as fantastically secure as claimed. Whether it's beta or not, the secure development process should have picked it up.
That was my point.
I was questioning the validity of Microsoft's claims of secure coding, not the fact that IE is a 'woeful security flaw'.
I was about to post something about bugs being natrual in almost all beta software, then I read the article...
An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system
So, this is actually a relevant article, despite its initial appearance.
We've got some new additions and enhancements to IE, and here we have a flaw that can give an attacker complete control over the user's computer!
I guess this is a taste of things to come in Vista? Evidence that Microsoft's secure code development practices are mostly just verbal pacification?
No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it.
But most of the time nobody can use any alternatives because Microsoft uses proprietary file formats, protocols and APIS. Microsoft locks people into Windows via these proprietary methods, the competition cannot freely integrate with many Microsoft solutions.
That's why the E.U. wants Microsoft to provide data on its protocols: so that other companies can get their products to work with Microsoft's.
The question is, why wouldn't Microsoft use open protocols in the first place?
HTTP, POP3, SMTP and FTP are all non-proprietary protocols that Microsoft uses, and that other companies also use. The only reason Microsoft has its own closed protocols is to get them used by the majority of computer users, via its monopoly, thereby unnecessarily locking out or making life extremely difficult for the competition (e.g. Samba).
Freedom also means that you don't have to make your software "open source" or "Free" if you don't want to.
Freedom also means that you can 'make love'.;)
I wouldn't recommend that you make love on a table at MacDonalds though. Yes, we have freedom to make love, that doesn't mean that limitations to that freedom are bad.
If somebody says, "Hey, you can use my code and make money from it - but you have to make the source available!" That means that you have the freedom to use the code, but it still has limitations - and those limitations are not bad. By not bad, for example, consider that Microsoft could easily wait until a popular Open Source app hits the big time, copy the code, get it to use proprietary file formats, APIs and/or protocols, then bundle it with windows. How fair is that? If you'd written the Open Source app yourself, how would you feel if Microsoft did that to you?
If you can be bothered to develop your own code, and you have the ability to, you can write your own proprietary application! Hurrah!
If you can't be bothered to develop your own code, or if you don't have the ability to, you can use somebody elses Open Source code. If you don't want to keep the code open, or any you write on top of it, just forget about developing your app. Well, you're no worse off, are you? You couldn't do anything in the first place; how can you complain? Is it really that unjust to not be allowed to copy somebody's work?
Why is it that Microsoft just seems to be copying or buying other companies, then giving its products really terrible names?
I can picture it now:
Ballmer: Hey Bill, I've heard that Google is going to start producing food products.
Gates: Why didn't we think of that? What better way to publicize Microsoft!? We'll make some kind of food product; we could call it 'Bolus', that's a great name!
Ballmer: I've also heard that the CEO of Google is getting a raise of $50,000...
It is amazing to me that SCO can continue this long without totally running out of lawyer money.
It's amazing that SCO would even consider throwing away money on such a lost cause in the first place.
How are they making a profit today?
I'm sure everybody knows that they're not making a profit; their goal is to own Linux and Unix, take over the world, and make mountains of cash. Of course, it seems that they're the only ones who believe that this is likely... oh, and Rob Enderle.
If Internet Explorer was locked-out, or it was made extremely difficult to operate with Apache, there would be an outcry.
If Apache was closed-source and used a proprietary protocol, Firefox was closed-source, and Apache and Firefox were developed by the same company - providing seamless integration between the two - and if Microsoft was given no help to allow its browser to operate with Apache, I'm sure that Bill Gates wouldn't just sit down and say "Ah well, fair's fair."
Microsoft has had plenty of time to address similar issues that it has brought about, and the company knew of the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity.
That's true, but it's a very pro-Microsoft type of thinking.
Refferring to the "Microsoft" of something would surely be more readily described as...
Something performing the following actions:
* Forcing people to do what it wants them to do (i.e. the threatening of OEMs).
* Locking people into using its solutions (i.e. proprietary file formats, APIs, protocols).
* Attempting to kill off competition by bundling.
* Basing a company on what you have bought/copied from other sources (i.e. DOS, most -- if not all -- of Microsoft's current schemes).
* Embracing, extending, extinguishing.
* Robbing from Peter to give to Paul (i.e. forced upgrades, audits, etc., and then giving free software to third world countries).
Something posessing the following attributes:
* Having a large sum of money.
* Proclaiming that it wants to give most of its money away, yet does not want to aid Open Source, or Open Source Microsoft solutions.
* Being perceived as the best in its field.
* Able to convince people to trust it -- even though it is continually proven untrustworthy.
And other things of that nature...
Microsoft seems to spend most of its time buying other companies these days. Is this classified as R&D?
in my experience I've only ever got screwed by a patch from Microsoft once.
I've never been screwed by any Microsoft patches on my Windows network either. I guess we should be thankful.
Linux however - I've had patches break applications all the time - especially binary only programs.
All the time?
Any particular apps? Was anything important broken? When did these problems occur? This sounds terrible!
I've heard from people in charge of Windows networks who have told me that a patch from Microsoft caused problems. No, I couldn't tell you what happened, as I don't remember -- it didn't happen to me. Besides, I know for a fact that many people have problems with patches from Microsoft; you can read about it quite frequently in the news.
do you really think microsoft tests every possible patch configuration?
No.
You're taking a risk running a "non standard" environment too.
I am?
Besides, you should always patch a few systems that seem common to your environment before rolling out patches in a large corporate environment anyway.
Indeed. You should test the patches first; however, if there is a vulnerability that you really must patch, and it's going to knock out something you're dependent on, either way you lose.
Anyone remember the (deeply flawed) Cert statistics where Microsoft had 812 vulnerabilities compared to Unix + Linux's 2328?
Indeed.
What makes it worse is that Microsoft knows full well that this data is false, and still uses this in its FUD attacks against Linux/Open Source.
Even if Microsoft persuades people that it has a good reason for not disclosing vulnerabilities, Microsoft has no good reason to use false statistics, created by its hiding of information, in order to help persuade people that its software is more secure.
If I were a system administrator, I'd be applying every patch they handed me, on the off chance it's patching an obscure vulnerability I'd never catch in a million years.
If you apply a Microsoft patch for something that is never likely to affect you, you're taking a bigger risk by applying the patch!
Most people here should be aware that applying a Microsoft patch is likely to screw something up -- something Microsoft has become renowned for.
The company I work for sells networking software. To prevent piracy of our software, I'm thinking of contacting Microsoft and telling them to add a copy of it to their Windows Server operating systems.
This way, Microsoft can buy the software from us, charge slightly more for a copy of Windows to compensate, and it should prevent piracy - not to mention make my company plenty of money!
Well, if Microsoft can do it, why can't I?
Wasn't Microsoft claiming that it would protect all users of its software from intellectual property threats? Wasn't Microsoft suggesting that Linux/Open Source software was unable to provide indemnification in this way, and using this in its fight to bring down Linux/Open Soruce?
s /topics/policy.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/fact
So why isn't Microsoft offering the same protection for Xbox users? Is it because it doesn't have enough power behind it to fight back against these issues in the console market?
It's like back in 2002, where Steve Ballmer 'Wept for Windows' during the Anti-Trust season. Microsoft released a video of it in both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer format, obviously wanting everybody to be able to see the pain Ballmer was going through, trying to get some sympathy votes.
It's the same now: if you want to make sure that everybody can view your data, Microsoft formats alone are not the way to go.
I don't know.
I really just couldn't be bothered today.
That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt.
No, it wouldn't.
Microsoft has an operating system monopoly, and therefore most people use its operating system.
If most people use its operating system, they're also likely to use any bundled services that come with it (as they're free), rather than paying extra to use similar services elsewhere.
Microsoft is 'leveraging its monopoly'. That's what it always does.
For example: If Microsoft wanted the proprietary WMP file format to become a major standard used by most audio/video distributors, it could bundle its media player with Windows. WMP is then made available to most people (as most people have Windows), and Microsoft's file format immediately becomes the biggest audio/video format - and Microsoft doesn't have to compete at all, just bundle a product. Leverage.
Too true. Game is certainly not just associated with activities for children. You could add football and baseball to the list - which are both a hit with kids and adults.
I think it's the image of bleary-eyed youths, sitting locked into a video game, feeding agression, spending hours playing continuously, wasting their lives, that puts people off - rather than the fact that it's a game.
If you call it something like 'Interactive Media Entertainment', at least for a short time people should feel better about themselves if they 'persue' (which could be used instead of 'play') this 'activity'.
We could go even further: instead of people 'speeding' in their cars, we could call it 'Journey Minimizing', and then people wouldn't feel so bad about that either.
Instead of going to the bathroom, we could 'Lower our weight'.
The thing is, these buzz-words, or new names, are soon going to generate the same image in our minds as the old words; changing them is pointless. The only way to change the image generated when mentioning 'Video Game' is to change the way that people play these games, so that a more pleasant and acceptable image is implanted in our brains.
Your post shows to me that your critical reading skills are defficient.
Because...
you think it means that IE7 is this woeful security flaw.
Your comprehension of my post seems to be at fault, as I have made no such claim or representation.
The issue I am bringing up is that Microsoft is supposed to have spent millions on securing its development process. If this is the case, Microsoft now seems to have provided evidence that its supposedly secure development process isn't as fantastically secure as claimed. Whether it's beta or not, the secure development process should have picked it up.
That was my point.
I was questioning the validity of Microsoft's claims of secure coding, not the fact that IE is a 'woeful security flaw'.
I was about to post something about bugs being natrual in almost all beta software, then I read the article...
An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system
So, this is actually a relevant article, despite its initial appearance.
We've got some new additions and enhancements to IE, and here we have a flaw that can give an attacker complete control over the user's computer!
I guess this is a taste of things to come in Vista? Evidence that Microsoft's secure code development practices are mostly just verbal pacification?
No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it.
But most of the time nobody can use any alternatives because Microsoft uses proprietary file formats, protocols and APIS. Microsoft locks people into Windows via these proprietary methods, the competition cannot freely integrate with many Microsoft solutions.
That's why the E.U. wants Microsoft to provide data on its protocols: so that other companies can get their products to work with Microsoft's.
The question is, why wouldn't Microsoft use open protocols in the first place?
HTTP, POP3, SMTP and FTP are all non-proprietary protocols that Microsoft uses, and that other companies also use. The only reason Microsoft has its own closed protocols is to get them used by the majority of computer users, via its monopoly, thereby unnecessarily locking out or making life extremely difficult for the competition (e.g. Samba).
does this mean that Disney's movies will improve, or that Pixar's will become worse?
Probably the latter.
I would guess that Microsoft will make a deal and persuade Disney to use Windows for Pixar movies rather than Linux.
After 50 milliseconds looking at the page, I made a nearly instantaneous judgement to leave the site.
the resolution may not be binding because it runs against fair trade regulations in Taiwan
They should change it to 'reduce purchases of software that uses proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols - to prevent lock-in.'
There's nothing wrong with that, and it would achieve the same result.
Freedom also means that you don't have to make your software "open source" or "Free" if you don't want to.
;)
Freedom also means that you can 'make love'.
I wouldn't recommend that you make love on a table at MacDonalds though. Yes, we have freedom to make love, that doesn't mean that limitations to that freedom are bad.
If somebody says, "Hey, you can use my code and make money from it - but you have to make the source available!" That means that you have the freedom to use the code, but it still has limitations - and those limitations are not bad. By not bad, for example, consider that Microsoft could easily wait until a popular Open Source app hits the big time, copy the code, get it to use proprietary file formats, APIs and/or protocols, then bundle it with windows. How fair is that? If you'd written the Open Source app yourself, how would you feel if Microsoft did that to you?
If you can be bothered to develop your own code, and you have the ability to, you can write your own proprietary application! Hurrah!
If you can't be bothered to develop your own code, or if you don't have the ability to, you can use somebody elses Open Source code. If you don't want to keep the code open, or any you write on top of it, just forget about developing your app. Well, you're no worse off, are you? You couldn't do anything in the first place; how can you complain? Is it really that unjust to not be allowed to copy somebody's work?
Rather than call it E-Bolus, I would expect they'd call it 'Esophagus'.
Why is it that Microsoft just seems to be copying or buying other companies, then giving its products really terrible names?
I can picture it now:
Ballmer: Hey Bill, I've heard that Google is going to start producing food products.
Gates: Why didn't we think of that? What better way to publicize Microsoft!? We'll make some kind of food product; we could call it 'Bolus', that's a great name!
Ballmer: I've also heard that the CEO of Google is getting a raise of $50,000...
It is amazing to me that SCO can continue this long without totally running out of lawyer money.
It's amazing that SCO would even consider throwing away money on such a lost cause in the first place.
How are they making a profit today?
I'm sure everybody knows that they're not making a profit; their goal is to own Linux and Unix, take over the world, and make mountains of cash. Of course, it seems that they're the only ones who believe that this is likely... oh, and Rob Enderle.
IF they were made by the same company, as you propose, nothing would be wrong
Two different companies teaming up and not allowing a third vendor in is wrong
So, basically, you're pointing out a flaw in the legal system.
Look at the following situations:
1) Different companies work together and lock everybody else out: illegal
2) One company has different products working together and locks everybody else out: legal
What's the best thing to do if you're faced with situation #1?
Answer: Both companies join together and everything is OK; the competition is screwed, and another monopoly rules the roost.
Europe is much more heavily dependent on windows than the US
Many people are heavily dependent on Windows.
It's not because Windows is so superior, it's due to the lock-in situation proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs have brought about.
That's why the EU wants to put a stop to it.
If Internet Explorer was locked-out, or it was made extremely difficult to operate with Apache, there would be an outcry.
If Apache was closed-source and used a proprietary protocol, Firefox was closed-source, and Apache and Firefox were developed by the same company - providing seamless integration between the two - and if Microsoft was given no help to allow its browser to operate with Apache, I'm sure that Bill Gates wouldn't just sit down and say "Ah well, fair's fair."
Microsoft has had plenty of time to address similar issues that it has brought about, and the company knew of the consequences.
What's to complain about?
What other option does the EU have?