Not only is it of financial benefit to Microsoft for spyware to be rife; but, for Microsoft to buy an anti-spyware company, isn't this making a statement that spyware is now accepted as an inevitable part of using Windows?
From the look of things, Microsoft should be able to rapidly make back the millions it spent on Trustworthy Computing.
It sounds SO good!
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The chip... runs the same software as the SPOT smart watches.
I wonder if it's going to be as popular as the SPOT smart watches?
You have to remember that extensions are not directly built into the browser, and therefore even if the browser itself is used by 90% of people, there's no reason why that same 90% of people would download and install any particular extension, let alone a proprietary one.
Nobody is likely to design a site that would only work if you have X extension installed.
I disagree, I think that we need to make Firefox 'the' standard browser. Why not make the most of this opportunity?
Make anything the one and only standard, and you're back to a monoculture, with all the potential problems that embodies.
IE as a standard is bad, it's closed, proprietary, and has helped hold back competition. With IE you have to strive to keep up with it, and make your browser decode non-standards-based Web pages (which were written for IE and it's lack of adherence to standards). In this situation, IE has always had the lead.
Rather than focusing on making Firefox the standard, the point is that Firefox is both open, and adheres to the real standards extremely well. If Firefox becomes the browser for which the vast majority code for, this means that the official standards will be supported.
Where open standards are supported by the majority, this helps prevent a monopoly situation.
Only an ignorant person would claim anything of the sort.
I guess that doesn't say much for the anti-OSS/pro-Microsoft crowd - which are the ones making those claims on behalf of the pro-OSS crowd.
By doing this, people don't marvel at the fact OSS stands up better to attacks, they presume that all security claims of OSS are myths. It just turns a positive situation into a negative one.
Funny enough, these are the same people that trust Microsoft.
Well, I guess nobody said that it had to make sense.
Besides, rejecting something that you have 'perceived' to be negative doesn't actually make it so. And in rejecting, it is more likely that you are generating negativity, purely because you are unwilling to explore a perspective other than your primary one.
It seems to me that your clouded perception of the motives in my non-negative comment have caused you to react in a negative way, and therefore cause imbalance.
I haven't said that it was 'wrong'. I haven't said that the Russians ripped off the design.
You're just hung up on the source of your own definitions, without regard to precedence, or merit.
Of course! I have stated that its appearence (to me, and more than likely a very large percentage of the human race) is as the Space Shuttle built incorrectly.
My statement is made without consideration of what the damn thing does or who built one first. I'm just saying what I think it looks like.
I suppose that this is a big 'faux pas' to space enthusiasts? If so, you could have responded to me as follows:
Yes, it does give that appearence! Ho! Ho! But, do you realize that in reality it would be more likely that the U.S. ripped off the design from the Russians? They're very clever chaps, you know?
You're too focused on who's the best, or who invented what first.
I don't care if the Space Shuttle design was completely ripped off from the Russians, I still think that the Russian's latest design looks like a Space Shuttle built incorrectly.
It's the same color, and it has similar looks, just bent in a different shape, and with bits removed.
So, admin stupidity can also be blamed on MS, it's part of the TCO studies that make the decision to buy MS
It's interesting that you mention TCO.
There are so many companies that support/administer Windows systems, and Microsoft uses this as a positive reason to use its solutions.
The trouble is, many of these companies are extremely incompetent. I know, I deal with some of them. They charge 100% more than their services are actually worth.
Isn't the liklihood that you'll place your reliance on an incompetent company higher if you use Windows?
Surely this should be taken into consideration in the TCO studies?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok.
You could've stopped all of this before the fact if you ran a modern version of Windows
Is it his fault for not paying out for OS upgrades every couple of years or so?
Or does this come down to the fact that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind, and unfortunately, users have to pay for that oversight?
It's not about controlling somebody, it's about your family's safety... and that of your bank account details, and personal information.
Not only is it of financial benefit to Microsoft for spyware to be rife; but, for Microsoft to buy an anti-spyware company, isn't this making a statement that spyware is now accepted as an inevitable part of using Windows?
From the look of things, Microsoft should be able to rapidly make back the millions it spent on Trustworthy Computing.
The chip... runs the same software as the SPOT smart watches.
I wonder if it's going to be as popular as the SPOT smart watches?
Will this move force opera to start enforcing patents to preserve it's existance?
No, but when IE gets tabbed browsing, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft patents it.
You have to remember that extensions are not directly built into the browser, and therefore even if the browser itself is used by 90% of people, there's no reason why that same 90% of people would download and install any particular extension, let alone a proprietary one.
Nobody is likely to design a site that would only work if you have X extension installed.
I disagree, I think that we need to make Firefox 'the' standard browser. Why not make the most of this opportunity?
Make anything the one and only standard, and you're back to a monoculture, with all the potential problems that embodies.
IE as a standard is bad, it's closed, proprietary, and has helped hold back competition. With IE you have to strive to keep up with it, and make your browser decode non-standards-based Web pages (which were written for IE and it's lack of adherence to standards). In this situation, IE has always had the lead.
Rather than focusing on making Firefox the standard, the point is that Firefox is both open, and adheres to the real standards extremely well. If Firefox becomes the browser for which the vast majority code for, this means that the official standards will be supported.
Where open standards are supported by the majority, this helps prevent a monopoly situation.
It's a pity that we couldn't generate power from FUD.
If we could, man, all of the worlds power problems would be resolved.
Uh, who was saying that?
Only an ignorant person would claim anything of the sort.
I guess that doesn't say much for the anti-OSS/pro-Microsoft crowd - which are the ones making those claims on behalf of the pro-OSS crowd.
By doing this, people don't marvel at the fact OSS stands up better to attacks, they presume that all security claims of OSS are myths. It just turns a positive situation into a negative one.
Funny enough, these are the same people that trust Microsoft.
Well, I guess nobody said that it had to make sense.
Nothing.
We'll bury our heads in the sand, as usual.
Here's an interesting experiment, that you can do in your own home, to create 'ball lightning':
jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/4wres/
Well, it's obviously Martians.
First they blow up your lightbulbs,
Then they attack you,
Then they catch your cold,
Then you win.
karma takes care of itself
Not on Slashdot it doesn't.
Rejecting your negative dharma is fueling my chi
There is no 'chi' on Slashdot.
Besides, rejecting something that you have 'perceived' to be negative doesn't actually make it so. And in rejecting, it is more likely that you are generating negativity, purely because you are unwilling to explore a perspective other than your primary one.
It seems to me that your clouded perception of the motives in my non-negative comment have caused you to react in a negative way, and therefore cause imbalance.
Understanding is better than tofu.
Now, now, you'll lower your karma!
I haven't said that it was 'wrong'. I haven't said that the Russians ripped off the design.
You're just hung up on the source of your own definitions, without regard to precedence, or merit.
Of course! I have stated that its appearence (to me, and more than likely a very large percentage of the human race) is as the Space Shuttle built incorrectly.
My statement is made without consideration of what the damn thing does or who built one first. I'm just saying what I think it looks like.
I suppose that this is a big 'faux pas' to space enthusiasts? If so, you could have responded to me as follows:
Yes, it does give that appearence! Ho! Ho! But, do you realize that in reality it would be more likely that the U.S. ripped off the design from the Russians? They're very clever chaps, you know?
If you'd have said that, I'd have responded:
I don't doubt it for a second.
You're too focused on who's the best, or who invented what first.
I don't care if the Space Shuttle design was completely ripped off from the Russians, I still think that the Russian's latest design looks like a Space Shuttle built incorrectly.
It's the same color, and it has similar looks, just bent in a different shape, and with bits removed.
Even if the Russians know more about space travel, and posess overall superiority in this area, does this make my description any less accurate?
It should be called "Mistake".
It looks like they got hold of a space shuttle DIY kit and put it together without following the instructions.
If a warefare satellite was hit, how do you think that everybody would react? It certainly wouldn't be a mere topic on Slashdot, that's for sure.
If I were to test some anti-satellite weapon, I'd test it on some benign or crappy satellite.
Perhaps it's a test for Anti-Satellite Warfare.
So, admin stupidity can also be blamed on MS, it's part of the TCO studies that make the decision to buy MS
It's interesting that you mention TCO.
There are so many companies that support/administer Windows systems, and Microsoft uses this as a positive reason to use its solutions.
The trouble is, many of these companies are extremely incompetent. I know, I deal with some of them. They charge 100% more than their services are actually worth.
Isn't the liklihood that you'll place your reliance on an incompetent company higher if you use Windows?
Surely this should be taken into consideration in the TCO studies?
The thing is, this sort of thing is expected and accepted by the UK public sector.
Just like the virus/security problem is expected and accepted.
Well, everybody trusts Microsoft, what with being a big company, and having all that cash behind it.
that's my tax money
Mine too.
But am I bitter?
HELL YEAH!
Tell them I hate them!
FireFox was crashing my system... no I am not going to switch to Linux for home.
Ah yes, crashing.
Good old Windows, those BSODs were like old friends.
Sometimes I chuckle about those times.