If Microsoft played fair, and opened up its file formats and protocols, things would be much different.
It goes to show that where you have a monopoly that has users locked in, you have to remain locked in unless everybody else decides to switch at the same time.
Well, Microsoft can use this as an example of a switch from Linux to Windows, but Microsoft should be ashamed that its 'win' is based on anti-competitive actions.
or are Microsoft's buzzwords getting way too 'weird'?
Obviously Microsoft copied the idea from the aptly named Honeypot.
Honeypot makes sense.
Why ever would anybody in their right mind come up with something as lame as 'Honeymonkey'?
Is it because Microsoft is 'getting old'? It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat", and the teenager laughs, and comments that it doesn't sound half as good as 'cool'.
A: YES! YES DAMMIT! We want to kill off Linux like we killed off Netscape! We don't want competition. We want to be the best, and if we can't then we'll use unfair practices to hold back the competition. If Linux wants to come play with Microsoft, IT HAS TO PAY! You want to read our file formats little penguin? SHOW US THE GREENBACKS!
As if anybody from Microsoft would admit to such things. A question of this nature is pointless!
I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!
It's funny to think that somebody would willingly make themselves look like a doofus.
Is it wrong to love Microsoft? Do some research, like the rest of us.
This guy sounds as if he has Stockholm Syndrome, where he has become sympathetic to his captor.
Microsoft getting old and slow?
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft doesn't seem to play catch-up too well anymore.
Virtual Earth is nowhere near Google's offering, and IE7 really is just an attempt to prevent defections.
It seems that Microsoft is trying to not look so bad, by offering something at least 'near' to what the competitors are offering.
Also, if Microsoft finds an IT company that's doing very well for itself in a lucrative market, that's Microsoft's next venture. All of the good ideas don't come from Redmond.
So, Microsoft is working hard on ensuring that Linux/Open Source software operates well with Microsoft software?
"I will take [attendees] through what we use in our lab--what operating systems, what servers, how we virtualize them, how we make them all work together, how we use Microsoft management products to make it all work together."
Ah. You have to buy Microsoft management products to make it all work together.
I guess that there is going to be some product from Microsoft that allows Linux to integrate smoothly with Windows network shares? I wonder how much that's likely to cost?
he mentioned that he was far from the only one nightly sneaking into US Gov computer networks, saying that he saw many others from all over the world doing exactly the same as him.
It could be that the UFO data is all false.
Perhaps the Government wants people to get in and discover these things. Maybe there's something far more sinister behind this, and the idea of UFOs is to actually pacify people.
I can see Bill now, sitting at his computer and googling for the latest news. Seeing the headline "Firefox 1.1 Scrapped", he jumps up and shrieks with Joy, "Steve! Steve! They've given up! Hoo-hoo!"
There are so many opionions out there, that it's hard to tell what the truth is.
I think that Linux still offers slightly more security.
Microsoft's patches are better...
I think.
It sounds to me like somebody just expressing an opinion that they have. This really isn't news at all, and doesn't even offer any insightful information.
I can't ever remember anybody saying that "only Microsoft had security flaws". If you were under this impression, this is more likely to be down to a misunderstanding, or some angry pro-Microsoft type trying to give Linux users a bad name.
The point is that Microsoft has vulnerabilities which are usually exploited swiftly. They're usually quite nasty. They're usually in the most popular (bloated) Microsoft software packages. Finally, there's a good chance that patches could cause just as much damage as an exploit. This is what makes people shake their heads about Microsoft security.
Added to this, Microsoft has been working extremely hard - or so we're led to believe, even to the detriment of it's beloved Longhorn - and has spent millions on security. Maybe there have been improvements, but it's still coming out with plenty of nasties after years of this.
And after saying that Windows has better security than Linux, Microsoft is now copying Unix/Linux administration rights. This seems to suggest that Microsoft doesn't see an end to the plague, and that perhaps Linux holds an upper hand in security after all. Not only that, but this is going to make it easier for people to switch to a Linux desktop, after getting used to having to log in as root on Windows for particular reasons.
The question is: What does this do to prevent Microsoft committing other anti-competitive crimes?
The answer: Nothing.
Microsoft can afford a few hundred million in order to benefit from anti-competitive actions; by the time the courts catch up with Microsoft the benefits must be immense.
I'm sure Microsoft is happy that the pros outweigh the cons. The company has continued anti-competitive practices even though it has previously been fined for similar crimes, and it always comes up smelling of roses.
These capabilities will put the product squarely in the market currently dominated by software maker Adobe Systems with its pixel-focused Photoshop and vector-driven Illustrator products.
This is all Microsoft seems to be doing lately.
Microsoft muscles into google's successful market.
Microsoft has a go at anti-virus/spyware tools, muscling into another successful market.
There's the upcoming accounting software, more muscling into a successful market. Microsoft also wanted to bundle this one with MS Office.
And now Microsoft is copying Photoshop.
Then there's Monad, Longhorn gets a new CLI, even though Microsoft originally seemed to want to put an end to the command line in Windows. That reminds me of Bill Gates saying the Internet wasn't worth bothering with. Just as he changed his mind about the Internet, now Windows is getting a copy of bash (but even better)!
Microsoft is now making IIS modular, copying Apache (and of course, it's going to be better).
IE has tabs.
The leader is following.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with competing in different markets, but something must be wrong with Microsoft's innovation if it's entering into existing successful markets. It's taking what the competition has, and building on top of it, building on the innovation of others.
There's always one worry, and that's whether Microsoft is going to play fair in these markets, or whether it could use its monopoly postiion to an unfair advantage. Does Microsoft plan on using proprietary file formats, protocols or APIs to lock out the competition? Could Microsoft bundle its offerings?
We all know that Microsoft doesn't enter into a market that it can't see itself being a leader.
A few years back people would have been shocked to think that Microsoft could enter the cell phone, VOIP or games console markets. I guess that if you're in a successful market, whatever it is, don't be surprised if Microsoft muscles in on it and drains your cash flow.
The only harm this could do to Microsoft is to weaken the power of its illegal monopoly. Of course, this was supposedly already weakened by the outcome of the anti-trust case a few years back, although they're now aware that the sentance was ineffective.
Moving on...
The HTML file format is open, along with plenty of others. The FTP protocol is open, along with plenty of others. Microsoft uses these without any harm to its business.
Microsoft's closing of its file formats and protocols only serves to lock others out. This is made worse due to its monopoly position.
Concerning your suggestion that big business should be protected from Open Source: you're saying that you'd sacrifice the freedom of many so that a single company can make loads of money?
I'll tell you something, small to medium sized businesses should be protected from Microsoft, because it muscles into successful markets via its monopoly, and wipes out their profits for its own commercial gain.
When Microsoft can no longer make money from its saturated markets, it muscles into other markets, killing off or hurting other businesses.
Do you think that Microsoft should have this power, or that we should have fair competition?
Do you want to aid a single company, or aid millions of cash-strapped companies who would benefit from Open Source software?
OSX is proprietary. Linux is open. Therefore Unix wins and Windows loses, we could very well see Apple turn into another 'beast' like Microsoft, not wanting to play fair, and Linux could also end up losing.
In the end, it's being open that matters, not Windows or Unix.
Rob Enderle predicted that SCO would be triumphant, who's going to take him seriously when he's proved wrong?
I can see why Enderle would write an article blaming 'Mob' practices from Linux and its followers for SCO's poor results. That way it doesn't look so bad when his predictions are proved wrong.
The campaigns against Linux seem to treat it as if it's something that used to be widely used but is now dwindling. We all know that this isn't true.
Linux has really jumped up out of nowhere, and is now being considered by quite a large percentage of businesses.
The 'facts' seem to show that Linux is growing in popularity at a phenomenal rate, and is battling extremely well against Microsoft's considering the lock-in/lock-out situation.
The world complained about stability, and Microsoft made Windows more stable.
The world complained about security, and Microsoft... well, it seems to be having a good try.
Now, the world is complaining about lock-in, and Microsoft... oh dear. Is Microsoft going to open its protocols, APIs and file formats? I think not.
This guy at work noticed I was using firefox (he's an IE user), and said, slyly, "You know, there's a couple of really bad security holes."
That's like somebody seeing you kissing and saying "You can get diseases from that", yet they themselves are in a sexual relationship with somebody who is highly promiscuous with junkies.
Microsoft only seems to show signs of 'real' progress when it has competition, or if it feels current projects no longer generate a sustainable cash flow.
If we all stuck with Microsoft products and the competition moped off with its tail between its legs, I highly doubt that Microsoft would continue to update its software so feverishly - being aware of Microsoft's past activity (or inactivity).
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft played fair, and opened up its file formats and protocols, things would be much different.
It goes to show that where you have a monopoly that has users locked in, you have to remain locked in unless everybody else decides to switch at the same time.
Well, Microsoft can use this as an example of a switch from Linux to Windows, but Microsoft should be ashamed that its 'win' is based on anti-competitive actions.
or are Microsoft's buzzwords getting way too 'weird'?
Obviously Microsoft copied the idea from the aptly named Honeypot.
Honeypot makes sense.
Why ever would anybody in their right mind come up with something as lame as 'Honeymonkey'?
Is it because Microsoft is 'getting old'? It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat", and the teenager laughs, and comments that it doesn't sound half as good as 'cool'.
Just picture it:
Q: So, is Microsoft out to kill Linux?
A: YES! YES DAMMIT! We want to kill off Linux like we killed off Netscape! We don't want competition. We want to be the best, and if we can't then we'll use unfair practices to hold back the competition. If Linux wants to come play with Microsoft, IT HAS TO PAY! You want to read our file formats little penguin? SHOW US THE GREENBACKS!
As if anybody from Microsoft would admit to such things. A question of this nature is pointless!
This isn't about loving Windows, it's about Microsoft.
. html
Why would anybody love such a two-faced company?
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS
I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!
It's funny to think that somebody would willingly make themselves look like a doofus.
Is it wrong to love Microsoft? Do some research, like the rest of us.
This guy sounds as if he has Stockholm Syndrome, where he has become sympathetic to his captor.
Microsoft doesn't seem to play catch-up too well anymore.
Virtual Earth is nowhere near Google's offering, and IE7 really is just an attempt to prevent defections.
It seems that Microsoft is trying to not look so bad, by offering something at least 'near' to what the competitors are offering.
Also, if Microsoft finds an IT company that's doing very well for itself in a lucrative market, that's Microsoft's next venture. All of the good ideas don't come from Redmond.
So, Microsoft is working hard on ensuring that Linux/Open Source software operates well with Microsoft software?
"I will take [attendees] through what we use in our lab--what operating systems, what servers, how we virtualize them, how we make them all work together, how we use Microsoft management products to make it all work together."
Ah. You have to buy Microsoft management products to make it all work together.
I guess that there is going to be some product from Microsoft that allows Linux to integrate smoothly with Windows network shares? I wonder how much that's likely to cost?
he mentioned that he was far from the only one nightly sneaking into US Gov computer networks, saying that he saw many others from all over the world doing exactly the same as him.
It could be that the UFO data is all false.
Perhaps the Government wants people to get in and discover these things. Maybe there's something far more sinister behind this, and the idea of UFOs is to actually pacify people.
Well I doubt he'd use the MSN search, it's not very good is it?
Of course, he'd never admit to it.
They're just trying to get Mr. Gates excited.
I can see Bill now, sitting at his computer and googling for the latest news. Seeing the headline "Firefox 1.1 Scrapped", he jumps up and shrieks with Joy, "Steve! Steve! They've given up! Hoo-hoo!"
And then they all go out for a beer.
The article reads like this:
Well, I think that Windows security has improved.
There are so many opionions out there, that it's hard to tell what the truth is.
I think that Linux still offers slightly more security.
Microsoft's patches are better...
I think.
It sounds to me like somebody just expressing an opinion that they have. This really isn't news at all, and doesn't even offer any insightful information.
Oh dear, did somebody use their old archived pages in a successful case against them?
I think that people such as this should not be allowed to have Websites if they don't want their pages accessed.
I can't ever remember anybody saying that "only Microsoft had security flaws". If you were under this impression, this is more likely to be down to a misunderstanding, or some angry pro-Microsoft type trying to give Linux users a bad name.
The point is that Microsoft has vulnerabilities which are usually exploited swiftly. They're usually quite nasty. They're usually in the most popular (bloated) Microsoft software packages. Finally, there's a good chance that patches could cause just as much damage as an exploit. This is what makes people shake their heads about Microsoft security.
Added to this, Microsoft has been working extremely hard - or so we're led to believe, even to the detriment of it's beloved Longhorn - and has spent millions on security. Maybe there have been improvements, but it's still coming out with plenty of nasties after years of this.
And after saying that Windows has better security than Linux, Microsoft is now copying Unix/Linux administration rights. This seems to suggest that Microsoft doesn't see an end to the plague, and that perhaps Linux holds an upper hand in security after all. Not only that, but this is going to make it easier for people to switch to a Linux desktop, after getting used to having to log in as root on Windows for particular reasons.
Ah, but you do wear clogs... don't you?
I only drank a small amount, but it made me sick, and I got a tan.
The question is: What does this do to prevent Microsoft committing other anti-competitive crimes?
The answer: Nothing.
Microsoft can afford a few hundred million in order to benefit from anti-competitive actions; by the time the courts catch up with Microsoft the benefits must be immense.
I'm sure Microsoft is happy that the pros outweigh the cons. The company has continued anti-competitive practices even though it has previously been fined for similar crimes, and it always comes up smelling of roses.
How many people have been into a music store, bought a CD, and had somebody say, "Oh, you'd like [enter band here]? You should really check them out."
The person has associated the music you're buying with something else of the same taste.
If this can't be patented in real life, why should it be patented in software?
These capabilities will put the product squarely in the market currently dominated by software maker Adobe Systems with its pixel-focused Photoshop and vector-driven Illustrator products.
This is all Microsoft seems to be doing lately.
Microsoft muscles into google's successful market.
Microsoft has a go at anti-virus/spyware tools, muscling into another successful market.
There's the upcoming accounting software, more muscling into a successful market. Microsoft also wanted to bundle this one with MS Office.
And now Microsoft is copying Photoshop.
Then there's Monad, Longhorn gets a new CLI, even though Microsoft originally seemed to want to put an end to the command line in Windows. That reminds me of Bill Gates saying the Internet wasn't worth bothering with. Just as he changed his mind about the Internet, now Windows is getting a copy of bash (but even better)!
Microsoft is now making IIS modular, copying Apache (and of course, it's going to be better).
IE has tabs.
The leader is following.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with competing in different markets, but something must be wrong with Microsoft's innovation if it's entering into existing successful markets. It's taking what the competition has, and building on top of it, building on the innovation of others.
There's always one worry, and that's whether Microsoft is going to play fair in these markets, or whether it could use its monopoly postiion to an unfair advantage. Does Microsoft plan on using proprietary file formats, protocols or APIs to lock out the competition? Could Microsoft bundle its offerings?
We all know that Microsoft doesn't enter into a market that it can't see itself being a leader.
A few years back people would have been shocked to think that Microsoft could enter the cell phone, VOIP or games console markets. I guess that if you're in a successful market, whatever it is, don't be surprised if Microsoft muscles in on it and drains your cash flow.
The only harm this could do to Microsoft is to weaken the power of its illegal monopoly. Of course, this was supposedly already weakened by the outcome of the anti-trust case a few years back, although they're now aware that the sentance was ineffective.
Moving on...
The HTML file format is open, along with plenty of others. The FTP protocol is open, along with plenty of others. Microsoft uses these without any harm to its business.
Microsoft's closing of its file formats and protocols only serves to lock others out. This is made worse due to its monopoly position.
Concerning your suggestion that big business should be protected from Open Source: you're saying that you'd sacrifice the freedom of many so that a single company can make loads of money?
I'll tell you something, small to medium sized businesses should be protected from Microsoft, because it muscles into successful markets via its monopoly, and wipes out their profits for its own commercial gain.
When Microsoft can no longer make money from its saturated markets, it muscles into other markets, killing off or hurting other businesses.
Do you think that Microsoft should have this power, or that we should have fair competition?
Do you want to aid a single company, or aid millions of cash-strapped companies who would benefit from Open Source software?
OSX is proprietary. Linux is open. Therefore Unix wins and Windows loses, we could very well see Apple turn into another 'beast' like Microsoft, not wanting to play fair, and Linux could also end up losing.
In the end, it's being open that matters, not Windows or Unix.
I'm sure their habit of suing their own customers has greatly helped their position in the market as well.
And don't forget the evil Linux Mob !
Rob Enderle predicted that SCO would be triumphant, who's going to take him seriously when he's proved wrong?
I can see why Enderle would write an article blaming 'Mob' practices from Linux and its followers for SCO's poor results. That way it doesn't look so bad when his predictions are proved wrong.
The campaigns against Linux seem to treat it as if it's something that used to be widely used but is now dwindling. We all know that this isn't true.
Linux has really jumped up out of nowhere, and is now being considered by quite a large percentage of businesses.
The 'facts' seem to show that Linux is growing in popularity at a phenomenal rate, and is battling extremely well against Microsoft's considering the lock-in/lock-out situation.
The world complained about stability, and Microsoft made Windows more stable.
The world complained about security, and Microsoft... well, it seems to be having a good try.
Now, the world is complaining about lock-in, and Microsoft... oh dear. Is Microsoft going to open its protocols, APIs and file formats? I think not.
This is even richer than when the MS Front Page license including a clause forbidding the use of Front Page to make web pages critical of Microsoft.
Ah!
So that's why all the anti-Microsoft sites seem to display correctly in Firefox.
This guy at work noticed I was using firefox (he's an IE user), and said, slyly, "You know, there's a couple of really bad security holes."
That's like somebody seeing you kissing and saying "You can get diseases from that", yet they themselves are in a sexual relationship with somebody who is highly promiscuous with junkies.
Microsoft only seems to show signs of 'real' progress when it has competition, or if it feels current projects no longer generate a sustainable cash flow.
If we all stuck with Microsoft products and the competition moped off with its tail between its legs, I highly doubt that Microsoft would continue to update its software so feverishly - being aware of Microsoft's past activity (or inactivity).