Interoperability may not exist between certain OSS products; but, because they're Open Source, they can be made to interoperate without encumbrance - and you can be sure that this won't change.
Can the same be said for Microsoft software? Can developers 'freely' interoperate with all Microsoft software? Does Microsoft give assurance that developers can continue to freely interoperate with its products in the future?
Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application
In layman's terms, this means that Open Source encourages that evil thing called 'competition'.
Has Bill Gates ever said anything positive about Open Source Software?
IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push.
That's like saying Linux is only where it is today because of IBM. Yes, IBM has put a lot into Linux, but I don't think that IBM alone has made Linux a major player.
And what about Sun (a lover of IP like Microsoft)? Sun has its own version of Linux, and has its own OS. Sun has given to the Open Source community too.
I'm not going to answer that. I mean, come on, we all know that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind. So, I tell you what, I'm going to turn your negative into a positive, like a good salesman.
Here, for a start, I'll get you to focus on the nasty people out there that are exploiting Microsoft software - they're the bad guys, ok, not us!
Next, I'll tell you about auto-update, and that millions of people are using it. You don't have to worry because Windows updates itself. It takes away the hassle, right? And doesn't it make you 'feel' safer?
And of course, Microsoft has marketed the fact that security is its business. Even if Microsoft software isn't secure, we like to give that impression.
Q: "Nevertheless, a lot of our viewers still say to us: 'Microsoft didn't take that threat seriously enough and we are having problems.'"
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
Ok, I don't want to answer that either, as it makes us look bad - and how can I refute something that's a fact?
Instead, I'll get you to focus (yet again) on the positive fact that Microsoft makes it easy to sit back and do nothing, letting Windows auto-update itself. Remember, Microsoft software is used because it's easy to use (not because it works).
BT [British Telecom] who run the donation management system misread an access log and saw hmm thats a non standard browser not identifying it's type and it's doing strange things. Trace that IP. Arrest that hacker.
So, it's BT.
This isn't surprising. I've had run-ins with BT tech support plenty of times, and the staff can't even understand a simple SMTP transaction.
For a company that can't explain what its own SMTP server is doing, I can't say that this surprises me.
Obviously the support staff's check-lists only go so far.
You see, you're even associating the charity with Microsoft - it isn't hard to do. That's why I question Bill's actions of blatantly donating under his own name.
Also, what is wrong with feeling a compulsion to give to charity?
The fact that he's seen as generous is what bugs me.
If a man takes excessively from one man, to give to another, do you call him generous? Obviously you would if you ignored the fact that he took from the first man.
Either way, many people are impressed with him, and see him in a very positive light; it then becomes hard to see him as anything but nice.
Bill is associated with Microsoft, and if Bill is seen in a positive light, this reflects on his company. How can this fantastic man run an 'evil' company? Whether Bill considers it or not, his deed does reflect well on Microsoft, and Microsoft certainly needs a positive image.
By giving, it could either be that he's generous, or that he's doing it out of guilt. How are we to know?
I heard one person, who is neither pro or anti-Microsoft, saying "So he should!", after hearing of his donation.
If some people feel it's only fair that a man with such wealth should donate a small percentage of it, I'm sure that Bill himself feels this pressure.
He may be a nice guy; but, judging by his business actions, he's either two-faced, or ignorant of the hurt he's causing. If there's another possible conclusion, I'm open to speculation.
Apologies if I led you to believe I was against a charity raising its profile. Obviously, having publicity of the donation is great for the charity. I find nothing wrong with this.
My point is this:
Surely the charity could have benefitted without people knowing that Bill is associated with it?
In the current situation, any positive publicity for the charity is also a positive for Bill's image, and also that of Microsoft.
Microsoft needs positive press to balance the negative press it receives.
The fact is, Bill Gates is associated with Microsoft, and vice-versa. Everybody does it without thinking.
If Microsoft does something bad, Bill gets flack. If Bill does something good, Microsoft looks good.
Although the donation was from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it's still bonus points to Microsoft.
Back in 2002, Bill Gates, via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donated $100 million towards fighting AIDS in India. He did this at a time when Microsoft's conduct was being questioned in the Anti-Trust case, and at a time where he had said "India is of strategic importance".
Some said that Bill was doing it to 'persuade' India to go with Microsoft (kind of like a guilt trip), and others said that Bill is really just a nice guy. How can we tell?
I have one question for Bill:
Next time you donate large amounts of cash, would you do it anonymously? Or would there be no 'benefit' in this?
I think you'll find that Bill steals from the poor (who are not in the media spotlight) and gives to the poor (who are in the media spotlight).
I recall how Microsoft ruthlessly audited poor schools a couple of years ago, forcing them to pay out and license all of their machines - and then 'generously' donated money to schools... the ones that didn't fail the audit (of course).
the point is that the image has changed. not the company.
Exactly. And this should lead us to the following conclusion:
People who see Microsoft in a different light, without regarding the company's actions, are gullible simpletons - find out who they are and attempt to sell them worthless items for extortionate amounts! They're sure to buy!
I'm not saying Microsoft has failed, I'm saying that those who beleive this don't have a clue.
Another Ballmer-inspired change: Fostering a kinder, gentler image and greater trust among both customers and partners.
Note, Ballmer hasn't changed Microsoft to be kinder or gentler, he has just fostered an image of Microsoft being this way.
Ballmer tackled Microsoft's image problems almost from day one.
We haven't seen Microsoft change. Although the message it's getting across has changed, everything is still running as normal back at Redmond.
There have been a great deal of issues concerning frustration with security, Microsoft's licensing, and incomplete projects.
Microsoft is still attempting to rule the roost, dominate the industry, and force its own standards upon us. Microsoft has had plenty of trouble breaking into new areas, and it really needs to keep the cash flowing in. Leveraging its monopoly seems to be the only safe way to do this. This certainly doesn't relate to 'gentle'.
Whenever I send a text message, I hold the phone as far away from me as possible, turn my head away from it, and mutter "cancer, cancer, cancer... etc." until it's done.
Obviously I don't do that when I'm talking on the phone, otherwise the conversation would be pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Interoperability may not exist between certain OSS products; but, because they're Open Source, they can be made to interoperate without encumbrance - and you can be sure that this won't change.
Can the same be said for Microsoft software? Can developers 'freely' interoperate with all Microsoft software? Does Microsoft give assurance that developers can continue to freely interoperate with its products in the future?
Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application
In layman's terms, this means that Open Source encourages that evil thing called 'competition'.
Has Bill Gates ever said anything positive about Open Source Software?
I wonder why not?
Sometimes, it's fun to play the "what if" game
Sometimes it's FUD to play the "what if" game.
IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push.
That's like saying Linux is only where it is today because of IBM. Yes, IBM has put a lot into Linux, but I don't think that IBM alone has made Linux a major player.
And what about Sun (a lover of IP like Microsoft)? Sun has its own version of Linux, and has its own OS. Sun has given to the Open Source community too.
Q: "did you underestimate the value of security?"
...
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
I'm not going to answer that. I mean, come on, we all know that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind. So, I tell you what, I'm going to turn your negative into a positive, like a good salesman.
Here, for a start, I'll get you to focus on the nasty people out there that are exploiting Microsoft software - they're the bad guys, ok, not us!
Next, I'll tell you about auto-update, and that millions of people are using it. You don't have to worry because Windows updates itself. It takes away the hassle, right? And doesn't it make you 'feel' safer?
And of course, Microsoft has marketed the fact that security is its business. Even if Microsoft software isn't secure, we like to give that impression.
Q: "Nevertheless, a lot of our viewers still say to us: 'Microsoft didn't take that threat seriously enough and we are having problems.'"
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
Ok, I don't want to answer that either, as it makes us look bad - and how can I refute something that's a fact?
Instead, I'll get you to focus (yet again) on the positive fact that Microsoft makes it easy to sit back and do nothing, letting Windows auto-update itself. Remember, Microsoft software is used because it's easy to use (not because it works).
I couldn't be bothered to read any further.
So the police saw "Lynx" and busted him?
No, the article here says:
BT [British Telecom] who run the donation management system misread an access log and saw hmm thats a non standard browser not identifying it's type and it's doing strange things. Trace that IP. Arrest that hacker.
So, it's BT.
This isn't surprising. I've had run-ins with BT tech support plenty of times, and the staff can't even understand a simple SMTP transaction.
For a company that can't explain what its own SMTP server is doing, I can't say that this surprises me.
Obviously the support staff's check-lists only go so far.
I do not think it is our place to choose who is worthy enough to donate to charity
.
Neither do I, and I hope I haven't lead you to believe that I do.
I don't have a problem with Bill giving money to a worthy cause, or running his own charity.
The problem I have is that some people consider Bill and/or his company to be generous or good because of this.
If Bill really has a generous spirit, why not do it anonymously?
he could have donated the $750 million anonymously. If I was a shareholder in M$, I would want to know where that three-quarters of a billion went.
Remember, we're not talking about money taken out of Microsoft, we're talking about money from Bill's pocket - this donation is from cash returned by Microsoft to its shareholders
You see, you're even associating the charity with Microsoft - it isn't hard to do. That's why I question Bill's actions of blatantly donating under his own name.
Also, what is wrong with feeling a compulsion to give to charity?
Nothing at all.
But if you feel compelled, is it generosity?
The fact that he's seen as generous is what bugs me.
If a man takes excessively from one man, to give to another, do you call him generous? Obviously you would if you ignored the fact that he took from the first man.
Either way, many people are impressed with him, and see him in a very positive light; it then becomes hard to see him as anything but nice.
Bill is associated with Microsoft, and if Bill is seen in a positive light, this reflects on his company. How can this fantastic man run an 'evil' company? Whether Bill considers it or not, his deed does reflect well on Microsoft, and Microsoft certainly needs a positive image.
By giving, it could either be that he's generous, or that he's doing it out of guilt. How are we to know?
I heard one person, who is neither pro or anti-Microsoft, saying "So he should!", after hearing of his donation.
If some people feel it's only fair that a man with such wealth should donate a small percentage of it, I'm sure that Bill himself feels this pressure.
He may be a nice guy; but, judging by his business actions, he's either two-faced, or ignorant of the hurt he's causing. If there's another possible conclusion, I'm open to speculation.
Apologies if I led you to believe I was against a charity raising its profile. Obviously, having publicity of the donation is great for the charity. I find nothing wrong with this.
My point is this:
Surely the charity could have benefitted without people knowing that Bill is associated with it?
In the current situation, any positive publicity for the charity is also a positive for Bill's image, and also that of Microsoft.
Microsoft needs positive press to balance the negative press it receives.
Bill and Melinda could run a charity anonymously.
They didn't have to name it the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation".
Think of the publicity Bills donation raised for himself/Microsoft.
Doesn't it make you feel better for paying out high amounts for Microsoft software? Don't you feel that it's worth putting up with the hassle?
Well, if he has/does donate anonymously, that brings up the question:
Why does he donate anonymously sometimes and not others? There would have to be a reason.
The fact is, Bill Gates is associated with Microsoft, and vice-versa. Everybody does it without thinking.
If Microsoft does something bad, Bill gets flack. If Bill does something good, Microsoft looks good.
Although the donation was from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it's still bonus points to Microsoft.
Back in 2002, Bill Gates, via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donated $100 million towards fighting AIDS in India. He did this at a time when Microsoft's conduct was being questioned in the Anti-Trust case, and at a time where he had said "India is of strategic importance".
Some said that Bill was doing it to 'persuade' India to go with Microsoft (kind of like a guilt trip), and others said that Bill is really just a nice guy. How can we tell?
I have one question for Bill:
Next time you donate large amounts of cash, would you do it anonymously? Or would there be no 'benefit' in this?
I think you'll find that Bill steals from the poor (who are not in the media spotlight) and gives to the poor (who are in the media spotlight).
I recall how Microsoft ruthlessly audited poor schools a couple of years ago, forcing them to pay out and license all of their machines - and then 'generously' donated money to schools... the ones that didn't fail the audit (of course).
Ken Kutaragi puts it best when he says, "We're growing up,"
I just wish that other companies pushing proprietary formats would "grow up" too.
I'd like to find out who's buying SCO shares, I have some magic beans that I could sell them...
I wonder how it would go down if COLT had to take reasonable care to prevent its guns from being used to commit crime?
I think you'll find that it was LSD.
He's still having hallucinations, such as Windows having the best security.
: )
Oh yes, I see. Very cunning.
What a fantastic way to find the female geeks here at Slashdot.
Force them to disclose themselves by defensive comments.
Very sly.
How can anybody trust a company that desperately begs you not to use open formats?
Why doesn't Microsoft open its formats, and remove all restrictions?
Why an apple? What's wrong with a banana?
the point is that the image has changed. not the company.
Exactly. And this should lead us to the following conclusion:
People who see Microsoft in a different light, without regarding the company's actions, are gullible simpletons - find out who they are and attempt to sell them worthless items for extortionate amounts! They're sure to buy!
I'm not saying Microsoft has failed, I'm saying that those who beleive this don't have a clue.
PR certainly does seem to be everything.
Another Ballmer-inspired change: Fostering a kinder, gentler image and greater trust among both customers and partners.
Note, Ballmer hasn't changed Microsoft to be kinder or gentler, he has just fostered an image of Microsoft being this way.
Ballmer tackled Microsoft's image problems almost from day one.
We haven't seen Microsoft change. Although the message it's getting across has changed, everything is still running as normal back at Redmond.
There have been a great deal of issues concerning frustration with security, Microsoft's licensing, and incomplete projects.
Microsoft is still attempting to rule the roost, dominate the industry, and force its own standards upon us. Microsoft has had plenty of trouble breaking into new areas, and it really needs to keep the cash flowing in. Leveraging its monopoly seems to be the only safe way to do this. This certainly doesn't relate to 'gentle'.
Making money from desktop search may not be the issue.
If Microsoft was to create the only desktop search, Microsoft could leverage this to remove the need for Web-based search engines.
Microsoft wants a piece of everybody's pie. Well, the successful person's pie.
Who's to say that another Netscape-type incident couldn't occur within the search engine market?
Whenever I send a text message, I hold the phone as far away from me as possible, turn my head away from it, and mutter "cancer, cancer, cancer... etc." until it's done.
Obviously I don't do that when I'm talking on the phone, otherwise the conversation would be pointless.
Big Brother even listens to what you may say while you are on hold.
When I'm on hold, I put other people on hold. My habits related to paranoia go back a long way, freak that I am.
A few years back, every time I saw a mushroom, I'd run and jump on it. I remember playing Super Mario Brothers too much.
I can't believe that I never linked the two.
In answer to your question, I think you may find this link interesting.