There is no right to do anything with anyone else's property or for them to provide a service they don't want to.
Hmmm, on the surface your comment sounds reasonable and very patriotic. Underneath though, most everything seen as having some kind of national interest is, one way or another, eventually usurped by the gov't. The recent 911 service for VOIP providers requirement is one example of how they start. Regulation is their controlling mechanism.
On the other hand, an openly competitive market generally won't see companies trying to reduce services or increase fees You are assuming the market you are describing is competitive. Many are not. Most mature markets are an oligopoly. This kind of "perfect" market thinking is politically expedient. Practically, it only builds greater wealth for the priveledged few at the expense of many by maintaining an illusion of "infinite opportunity."
-- competition is what gives consumers what they want at the price they're willing to pay. No. A business finds a price at which there are willing buyers. Competition has nothing to do with it and is avoided at all costs. This kind of political rhetoric is very patriotic, but hijacks basic economic principals to serve some political need.
The little ISPs will gain enough business to give them a nice profit. No. They typically will not. Either they will be regulated into oblivion or be sequestered into tiny non-threatening businesses. Again, this kind of political rhetoric sounds really good and is supposed to be what America is all about, but it is not reflected in reality. Please get involved in local politics and you will see that your ideals come nowhere near the reality.
Sadly, I really don't think DRM will bother the unwashed masses. Why?
-Most people have been trained to buy their information. Along the way free information is derided as just that, "free" and all it suggests. -It will "just work." -If the quality is good enough, they'll gladly lose what freedom is left in exchange for a prettier picture. Most have gladly done that already with iTunes. So the audio battle is over and DRM has won. Your video is next. -Even when someone breaks it, it just won't put a big dent in the corporation's bottom line. -The Entertainment corps get to drag the poor guy through court as an "example to all." Thereby reinforcing the mindset that information should be owned, lock, stock and barrel.
While I understand that DRM and OSS are idealogically polar opposites, there should be an OSS DRM. Then there would at least be some transparency. Not to mention a generally better system.
Having personally gotten a crypto product approved for export, this fellow is right on.
What's interesting to me is this is most likely a "business decision" more than anything else. A Suit at Symantec put a stop to this potentially evil tool for no other reason than it's too small potatoes for them to deal with the risk of it being used by bad non-Americans versus the sales numbers.
What this also suggest is there's a bit of a figurative "circling of the wagons" at Symantec. It suggests very hard times coming to Symantec.
1. Every box that can get on the Internet is uniquely identifiable and preferably associated with a person. See the story from about a week ago regarding anonymity and the Internet. Anonymity is a bad thing and the strong preference by everyone with any influence in Washington is to see it go away. Check out the whole trusted computing platform/DRM/etc.
2. FCC will regulate the Internet because it's replacing the things they regulate now. Agencies rarely (if ever) die. The acronym might change, but that's about it.
3. The FCC's reach is limited to the U.S. but Echelon/something like it gives the Gov't what they want from other countries anyway. So, even though the FCC won't ever directly control the Internet, they have the most important parts.
4. My guess is that if a country got the crazy idea that anonymous communication or not sharing their eavesdropping was a good thing, I think there would be indirect consequences in the form of economic benefits evaporating.
In summary, FCC/US Gov't. regulates the Internet. The message to other countries: Cooperate or else.
Sadly, this idea in conjunction with another story posted a couple of days ago about how anonymity on the Internet is viewed as a bad thing go together.
The cable companies got it right. They have a box in your home with big-time controls and identification features. It's critical they know who you are to make paying for content easy. They've made that model work and work extremely well. How many/.ers have cable? Somewhere along the way, they figure out how to "prefer" their packets over others.
No one with any power to substantially influence government values your anonymity. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in America, we tend to abhor a kind of neutral freedom where all participants have similar access. It smells too much like "Socialism" which we've been trained to believe fails.
The people that value a free internet will be sequestered to their own little freedom-loving ghetto while the rest pay. (and pay and pay some more) It was fun while it lasted. In the future, I'll be one of those in the freedom-loving ghetto.
I checked on this a few months ago and found that SELinux may be patented by the company that appeared to write it for the NSA, the secure computing corporation.(SCC)
Patents owned by the SCC include:
5,867,647 System and method for securing compiled program code 5,822,435 Trusted path subsystem for workstations 5,796,836 Scalable key agile cryptography 5,596,718 Secure computer network using trusted path subsystem which encrypts/decrypts and communicates with user through local workstation user I/O devices without utilizing workstation processor 5,502,766 Data enclave and trusted path system 5,499,297 System and method for trusted path communications 5,276,735 Data enclave and trusted path system 5,272,754 Secure computer interface 6,772,332 System and method for providing secure internetwork services via an assured pipeline 6,658,571 Security framework for dynamically wrapping software applications executing in a computing system 6,640,307 System and method for controlling access to documents stored on an internal network 6,453,419 System and method for implementing a security policy 6,357,010 System and method for controlling access to documents stored on an internal network 6,332,195 Secure server utilizing separate protocol stacks 6,321,336 System and method for redirecting network traffic to provide secure communication 6,301,658 Method and system for authenticating digital certificates issued by an authentication hierarchy 6,219,707 System and method for achieving network separation 6,209,101 Adaptive security system having a hierarchy of security servers 6,182,226 System and method for controlling interactions between networks 6,144,934 Binary filter using pattern recognition 6,072,942 System and method of electronic mail filtering using interconnected nodes 6,003,084 Secure network proxy for connecting entities 5,983,350 Secure firewall supporting different levels of authentication based on address or encryption status 5,968,133 Enhanced security network time synchronization device and method 5,950,195 Generalized security policy management system and method 5,918,018 System and method for achieving network separation 5,915,087 Transparent security proxy for unreliable message exchange protocols 5,913,024 Secure server utilizing separate protocol stacks
My attempts at getting some kind of feedback from the SCC were in vain because no one called me back.
Does Redhat license this? Will the patent trolls come after me if I attempt to use it in a commercial OSS way?
I think you are missing some important data. A Broker business has a client that connects to the market (server) software. There are companies that write this kind of software. I don't think there are many, but they are out there. http://www.tradearca.com/default.asp is one.
In this case it is most definitely a hole of some kind in the market software because it didn't check the transaction against what was available in the market.
Maybe you fix one or two weaknesses, but there's so many others in windows it amounts to broken anyway. All this security blathering by MS is part of their "security" media message. What happens when Longwait gets here? More of the same.
Code signing has it's own troubles, the biggest of which is the PHB or consumer that doesn't know or care.
Who's the signer and how much will they charge? Annually? You squelch innovation as the entry barrier into the desktop just got raised. Not to mention if you make something the signer doesn't want to endorse.
"they borrow shares of the stock from their broker, sell those shares at the current market price and then hope to make a profit by replacing the borrowed shares with shares they'll buy on the market after the price of the stock has dropped" (CNN)
This I believe is a futures market which is different than the buying and selling of available shares on a daily basis. What this trader did was put in an order to trade more shares than available and the system executed the trade.
The software has the balance of shares available at any given moment, but somehow this trade did not pass through that check. That's pretty bad news considering this is one of the big financial markets.
I have to tell you from personal experience how that miserable software gets written.
Most of the time they have a modular code base that allows them to connect new devices. They intentionally never touch the UI because there's no motivation to do so anywhere in the average big digital imaging company. On the other end of the spectrum, OS providers have been pushing as much of the UI through their desktop in some way shape or form as they can.
When a new device is in development they are "thrown over a wall" and given to another group to connect it to the UI. Some brands contract out the software all-together because they focus on building the hardware only.
HP's is in an especially bad way because they buy their scanners/cameras from OEM's and every year it's a new purchase cycle.
This goes back to an old Marketing method that says the marketer basically finds and persuades people who are a powerful influence on many others. Celebrities and whatever gadget they may carry is a perfect example.
This practice has basically moved online. Since the publication needs to attract eyeballs, its published as the most double-extra powerful tool ever in the history of the world.
I just want to get on the list for all that free stuff.
Note that while I'm not a professional photographer, I work with high-end digital and scanned images as a commercial retoucher and formerly as art director for a fashion magazine... A pro photographer is paid for his "eye"/ability to capture an image that is so desirable, someone wants to pay for it.
so I understand the needs of a professional digital photographer. I spent some time working at an OEM, so I got a little tiny window into their workflow. Much of the value of an Aperature is in importing and managing on a large scale for review and basic selection.
Maybe the better article choice would have been to collect feedback from pros instead of assuming he "knows" all about it?
This particular story addresses a big weakness below "IBM level" PR. The writer doesn't have a Kmail/sylpheed/whatever PR rep to call. That might have balanced the story.
Right now, there aren't too many Linux companies that can afford to pay the big-bucks PR people to run their side of the story for a single application, much less a whole distro.
I think that actually stands to benefit Linux in many ways by driving the feature set forward instead of focusing on spinning features and competitors.
Time to fire and rehire your desktop support staff I'd think you would lose one or two "mental giants", but that's it. Both are better off for parting ways.
Retraining Costs More than a few DE emulate Redmond's desktop, so I don't see where the issue is here. ALL the new apps? You mean the email clients with pretty buttons laid out in a predictable way and reasonably suggestive icons? Most OSS apps follow Redmond's products pretty closely. I don't see how this is an issue at all except when politics/microsofties shuts the whole thing down.
does Linux provide a real business value -I can run a domain for less up-front dollars, and far less baby-sitting. (saves time and money) -I can run desktops without antivirus/spyware/firewall software annual subscriptions. (saves money) -I can use the hardware I've got for longer. (saves money) -I can manage client pc's far more easily. (saves time and money) -I can better manage my IT budget. (Microsoft BSA shakedown anyone?) -Less license compliance management (imagine what a CF a BSA visit would be)
The most important difference is an MS product tend to work in one or two configurations. Trying to make them do anything else is just asking for trouble. In Linux/BSD applications can be combined to fix my problems far better than comparable MS products.
I don't think you can make an effective case to begin the switch-over of 40,000 desktops to linux Yes you most certainly can. Like ALL projects at that scale, it happens in long well-planned phases. At that scale, MS may make the executives an offer they can't refuse, but end-users don't really care.
I've switched clueless users over before and they don't know it's not windows and they don't care. "Just let me get my work done." Which they can and do with greater efficiency on many different fronts.
Some facts are wrong with the way adverts/coupons/circulars are placed.
The way that works is a big media company pays to have the their book of coupons inserted into many regional papers.
They sell pages in that book to corporations who can afford to pay. This works for the corporations many ways.
1. 1 buy covers many markets 2. This buy is probably cheaper than them trying to get a single insert in many papers. 3. It's easier to do than setting up buys at many papers.
A corporation-newspaper business model pretty much doesn't serve companies that can afford to pay for national media.
IE 5.something (which I don't "use") and Avast Antivirus on Win2K gives me: -Launches javascript dialog box and I hit Okay. -"memory cannot be read" error and closes the browser window. -No calculator
Avast antivirus appears to do something because the tray icon spins, but might/might not prevent it. It's unclear.
There appears to be proprietary licensed sub-components.
It seems like they are making the documentation for the top layer of their document format available, but you will probably need a license from Microsoft to create the.MSxml document package and/or interact with the version of Office this is supposed to ship with.
Another MS Shill post. Carefully crafted spin but utterly baseless hype. Let's review!
I have seen first-hand that corporations are willing to pay for what works for them... This is a lead-in kind of comment that suggests the parent is advocating choice. This is supposed to disarm the OSS zealot. The mention of security and stability are especially corporatespeak-ish.
But getting giant corporations to switch could be a logistical nightmare.. This comment plants the seed to fear change and allow a corporation to control the software used to generate wealth. Nightmare indeed! I could tell you about Active Directory nightmares that really happened.
Sure, if a company is really serious about cutting costs and open-minded enough to explore open source Notice, there's no mention of adopting? It's okay to examine, don't adopt.
Change doesn't happen easily and the cost to change (in terms of human capital hours) may exceed the cost incurred by just buying software/OS that can be updated on an enterprise level with relative ease The statement is nonsensical buzzworded fear and uncertainty. "updated on an enterprise level" Hmm. apt-get update, apt-get upgrade. Or maybe Yast's software updater thingy in Suse, or....
I call shill on the whole post. The entire post is good spin that disguises the corporatespeak.
Here's the highlights.
Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people If they weren't a monopoly, more people would be employed, not at microsoft though.
Stunted competition? Yes, as in a grossly inefficient market. Again, if they did not control the market for some computer products, there would be more wealth and potentially more competition.
My security company offers corporations the ability to be virus and spam free for less than $250 per user per year. In 2 years, I've paid for a mac mini and I've got greater peace of mind for choosing a mini. Let's not discuss windows security.
My users (nearly 90% in our last questionnaire) love the Word interface and look-and-feel. Because they don't want to learn another.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no right to do anything with anyone else's property or for them to provide a service they don't want to.
Hmmm, on the surface your comment sounds reasonable and very patriotic. Underneath though, most everything seen as having some kind of national interest is, one way or another, eventually usurped by the gov't. The recent 911 service for VOIP providers requirement is one example of how they start. Regulation is their controlling mechanism.
On the other hand, an openly competitive market generally won't see companies trying to reduce services or increase fees
You are assuming the market you are describing is competitive. Many are not. Most mature markets are an oligopoly. This kind of "perfect" market thinking is politically expedient. Practically, it only builds greater wealth for the priveledged few at the expense of many by maintaining an illusion of "infinite opportunity."
-- competition is what gives consumers what they want at the price they're willing to pay.
No. A business finds a price at which there are willing buyers. Competition has nothing to do with it and is avoided at all costs. This kind of political rhetoric is very patriotic, but hijacks basic economic principals to serve some political need.
The little ISPs will gain enough business to give them a nice profit.
No. They typically will not. Either they will be regulated into oblivion or be sequestered into tiny non-threatening businesses. Again, this kind of political rhetoric sounds really good and is supposed to be what America is all about, but it is not reflected in reality. Please get involved in local politics and you will see that your ideals come nowhere near the reality.
Sadly, I really don't think DRM will bother the unwashed masses. Why?
-Most people have been trained to buy their information. Along the way free information is derided as just that, "free" and all it suggests.
-It will "just work."
-If the quality is good enough, they'll gladly lose what freedom is left in exchange for a prettier picture. Most have gladly done that already with iTunes. So the audio battle is over and DRM has won. Your video is next.
-Even when someone breaks it, it just won't put a big dent in the corporation's bottom line.
-The Entertainment corps get to drag the poor guy through court as an "example to all." Thereby reinforcing the mindset that information should be owned, lock, stock and barrel.
While I understand that DRM and OSS are idealogically polar opposites, there should be an OSS DRM. Then there would at least be some transparency. Not to mention a generally better system.
-Is it installed like the rest of their nagware? (e.g. buried in the menus)
-Is it the default browser?
-Will it remain the default browser?
-Is there an icon on the desktop? (still will probably not switch the trained to click the "e" people.)
In one way it's very good news.
I don't think it changes much though once IE7 is available. The IE7 hype for a feature set that Mozilla browsers already have will be deafening.
It's only a matter of time before Apple finishes an office suite. They've got some parts now.
Either that or they use Wine to do the job and laugh at MS all the way to the bank.
OpenOffice anyone? Anyone?
Mod parent up.
Having personally gotten a crypto product approved for export, this fellow is right on.
What's interesting to me is this is most likely a "business decision" more than anything else. A Suit at Symantec put a stop to this potentially evil tool for no other reason than it's too small potatoes for them to deal with the risk of it being used by bad non-Americans versus the sales numbers.
What this also suggest is there's a bit of a figurative "circling of the wagons" at Symantec. It suggests very hard times coming to Symantec.
In America, the Americans spy on you!
C'mon people, all kinds of communications are moving onto the Internet. We all know that.
The agency is called the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission. Seems like they are the likely regulators.
They certainly aren't going to downsize the FCC because telephones and over-the-air broadcasting are moving to privatized channels.
I'm very disappointed that this comes as a surprise to anyone.
In America, the spys spy on you!
1. Every box that can get on the Internet is uniquely identifiable and preferably associated with a person. See the story from about a week ago regarding anonymity and the Internet. Anonymity is a bad thing and the strong preference by everyone with any influence in Washington is to see it go away. Check out the whole trusted computing platform/DRM/etc.
2. FCC will regulate the Internet because it's replacing the things they regulate now. Agencies rarely (if ever) die. The acronym might change, but that's about it.
3. The FCC's reach is limited to the U.S. but Echelon/something like it gives the Gov't what they want from other countries anyway. So, even though the FCC won't ever directly control the Internet, they have the most important parts.
4. My guess is that if a country got the crazy idea that anonymous communication or not sharing their eavesdropping was a good thing, I think there would be indirect consequences in the form of economic benefits evaporating.
In summary, FCC/US Gov't. regulates the Internet. The message to other countries: Cooperate or else.
Sadly, this idea in conjunction with another story posted a couple of days ago about how anonymity on the Internet is viewed as a bad thing go together.
/.ers have cable? Somewhere along the way, they figure out how to "prefer" their packets over others.
The cable companies got it right. They have a box in your home with big-time controls and identification features. It's critical they know who you are to make paying for content easy. They've made that model work and work extremely well. How many
No one with any power to substantially influence government values your anonymity. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in America, we tend to abhor a kind of neutral freedom where all participants have similar access. It smells too much like "Socialism" which we've been trained to believe fails.
The people that value a free internet will be sequestered to their own little freedom-loving ghetto while the rest pay. (and pay and pay some more) It was fun while it lasted. In the future, I'll be one of those in the freedom-loving ghetto.
I checked on this a few months ago and found that SELinux may be patented by the company that appeared to write it for the NSA, the secure computing corporation.(SCC)
Patents owned by the SCC include:
5,867,647 System and method for securing compiled program code
5,822,435 Trusted path subsystem for workstations
5,796,836 Scalable key agile cryptography
5,596,718 Secure computer network using trusted path subsystem which encrypts/decrypts and communicates with user through local workstation user I/O devices without utilizing workstation processor
5,502,766 Data enclave and trusted path system
5,499,297 System and method for trusted path communications
5,276,735 Data enclave and trusted path system
5,272,754 Secure computer interface
6,772,332 System and method for providing secure internetwork services via an assured pipeline
6,658,571 Security framework for dynamically wrapping software applications executing in a computing system
6,640,307 System and method for controlling access to documents stored on an internal network
6,453,419 System and method for implementing a security policy
6,357,010 System and method for controlling access to documents stored on an internal network
6,332,195 Secure server utilizing separate protocol stacks
6,321,336 System and method for redirecting network traffic to provide secure communication
6,301,658 Method and system for authenticating digital certificates issued by an authentication hierarchy
6,219,707 System and method for achieving network separation
6,209,101 Adaptive security system having a hierarchy of security servers
6,182,226 System and method for controlling interactions between networks
6,144,934 Binary filter using pattern recognition
6,072,942 System and method of electronic mail filtering using interconnected nodes
6,003,084 Secure network proxy for connecting entities
5,983,350 Secure firewall supporting different levels of authentication based on address or encryption status
5,968,133 Enhanced security network time synchronization device and method
5,950,195 Generalized security policy management system and method
5,918,018 System and method for achieving network separation
5,915,087 Transparent security proxy for unreliable message exchange protocols
5,913,024 Secure server utilizing separate protocol stacks
My attempts at getting some kind of feedback from the SCC were in vain because no one called me back.
Does Redhat license this? Will the patent trolls come after me if I attempt to use it in a commercial OSS way?
Any insight would be great.
I think you are missing some important data. A Broker business has a client that connects to the market (server) software. There are companies that write this kind of software. I don't think there are many, but they are out there. http://www.tradearca.com/default.asp is one.
In this case it is most definitely a hole of some kind in the market software because it didn't check the transaction against what was available in the market.
Hmmm,
Maybe you fix one or two weaknesses, but there's so many others in windows it amounts to broken anyway. All this security blathering by MS is part of their "security" media message. What happens when Longwait gets here? More of the same.
Code signing has it's own troubles, the biggest of which is the PHB or consumer that doesn't know or care.
Who's the signer and how much will they charge? Annually? You squelch innovation as the entry barrier into the desktop just got raised. Not to mention if you make something the signer doesn't want to endorse.
Here's a pretty good definition of short
"they borrow shares of the stock from their broker, sell those shares at the current market price and then hope to make a profit by replacing the borrowed shares with shares they'll buy on the market after the price of the stock has dropped" (CNN)
This I believe is a futures market which is different than the buying and selling of available shares on a daily basis. What this trader did was put in an order to trade more shares than available and the system executed the trade.
The software has the balance of shares available at any given moment, but somehow this trade did not pass through that check. That's pretty bad news considering this is one of the big financial markets.
FTFA "The sell order, which was more than the available shares, somehow went through the TSE system.
That to me is much more disturbing.
I just wonder who's going to get the blame, IT or the software vendor?
I have to tell you from personal experience how that miserable software gets written.
Most of the time they have a modular code base that allows them to connect new devices. They intentionally never touch the UI because there's no motivation to do so anywhere in the average big digital imaging company. On the other end of the spectrum, OS providers have been pushing as much of the UI through their desktop in some way shape or form as they can.
When a new device is in development they are "thrown over a wall" and given to another group to connect it to the UI. Some brands contract out the software all-together because they focus on building the hardware only.
HP's is in an especially bad way because they buy their scanners/cameras from OEM's and every year it's a new purchase cycle.
This goes back to an old Marketing method that says the marketer basically finds and persuades people who are a powerful influence on many others. Celebrities and whatever gadget they may carry is a perfect example.
This practice has basically moved online. Since the publication needs to attract eyeballs, its published as the most double-extra powerful tool ever in the history of the world.
I just want to get on the list for all that free stuff.
No!
A million times no!
This premise is flawed. RIAA members want more than whatever they get out of 0.99 per track for as many tracks as possible.
Stories like this attempt to justify their position.
Just Say No!
Note that while I'm not a professional photographer, I work with high-end digital and scanned images as a commercial retoucher and formerly as art director for a fashion magazine...
A pro photographer is paid for his "eye"/ability to capture an image that is so desirable, someone wants to pay for it.
so I understand the needs of a professional digital photographer.
I spent some time working at an OEM, so I got a little tiny window into their workflow. Much of the value of an Aperature is in importing and managing on a large scale for review and basic selection.
Maybe the better article choice would have been to collect feedback from pros instead of assuming he "knows" all about it?
I loose my mind every time I hear about another LongWait feature.
Then I losen up a little and get back to work.
Seriously, where's the innovation in "no reboots?"
So LongWait is fixing all of their current product problems? That means I *gotta* upgrade!
Something tells me they're going to do it right *this* time. I mean they can't overpromise *again* can they? No way!
This particular story addresses a big weakness below "IBM level" PR. The writer doesn't have a Kmail/sylpheed/whatever PR rep to call. That might have balanced the story.
Right now, there aren't too many Linux companies that can afford to pay the big-bucks PR people to run their side of the story for a single application, much less a whole distro.
I think that actually stands to benefit Linux in many ways by driving the feature set forward instead of focusing on spinning features and competitors.
Time to fire and rehire your desktop support staff
I'd think you would lose one or two "mental giants", but that's it. Both are better off for parting ways.
Retraining Costs
More than a few DE emulate Redmond's desktop, so I don't see where the issue is here. ALL the new apps? You mean the email clients with pretty buttons laid out in a predictable way and reasonably suggestive icons? Most OSS apps follow Redmond's products pretty closely. I don't see how this is an issue at all except when politics/microsofties shuts the whole thing down.
does Linux provide a real business value
-I can run a domain for less up-front dollars, and far less baby-sitting. (saves time and money)
-I can run desktops without antivirus/spyware/firewall software annual subscriptions. (saves money)
-I can use the hardware I've got for longer. (saves money)
-I can manage client pc's far more easily. (saves time and money)
-I can better manage my IT budget. (Microsoft BSA shakedown anyone?)
-Less license compliance management (imagine what a CF a BSA visit would be)
The most important difference is an MS product tend to work in one or two configurations. Trying to make them do anything else is just asking for trouble. In Linux/BSD applications can be combined to fix my problems far better than comparable MS products.
I don't think you can make an effective case to begin the switch-over of 40,000 desktops to linux
Yes you most certainly can. Like ALL projects at that scale, it happens in long well-planned phases. At that scale, MS may make the executives an offer they can't refuse, but end-users don't really care.
I've switched clueless users over before and they don't know it's not windows and they don't care. "Just let me get my work done." Which they can and do with greater efficiency on many different fronts.
Some facts are wrong with the way adverts/coupons/circulars are placed.
The way that works is a big media company pays to have the their book of coupons inserted into many regional papers.
They sell pages in that book to corporations who can afford to pay. This works for the corporations many ways.
1. 1 buy covers many markets
2. This buy is probably cheaper than them trying to get a single insert in many papers.
3. It's easier to do than setting up buys at many papers.
A corporation-newspaper business model pretty much doesn't serve companies that can afford to pay for national media.
IE 5.something (which I don't "use") and Avast Antivirus on Win2K gives me:
-Launches javascript dialog box and I hit Okay.
-"memory cannot be read" error and closes the browser window.
-No calculator
Avast antivirus appears to do something because the tray icon spins, but might/might not prevent it. It's unclear.
There appears to be proprietary licensed sub-components.
.MSxml document package and/or interact with the version of Office this is supposed to ship with.
1 44611543 It's the same link another post provided, but go to the very bottom and get the big surprise.
It seems like they are making the documentation for the top layer of their document format available, but you will probably need a license from Microsoft to create the
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125
So, they can plausibly say, "Here's a document format for anyone to read/write." But it's not available to all and proprietary in many ways.
Very confusing, I doubt a PHB will care once they get the deal they want from Microsoft.
Another MS Shill post. Carefully crafted spin but utterly baseless hype. Let's review!
....
I have seen first-hand that corporations are willing to pay for what works for them...
This is a lead-in kind of comment that suggests the parent is advocating choice. This is supposed to disarm the OSS zealot. The mention of security and stability are especially corporatespeak-ish.
But getting giant corporations to switch could be a logistical nightmare..
This comment plants the seed to fear change and allow a corporation to control the software used to generate wealth. Nightmare indeed! I could tell you about Active Directory nightmares that really happened.
Sure, if a company is really serious about cutting costs and open-minded enough to explore open source
Notice, there's no mention of adopting? It's okay to examine, don't adopt.
Change doesn't happen easily and the cost to change (in terms of human capital hours) may exceed the cost incurred by just buying software/OS that can be updated on an enterprise level with relative ease
The statement is nonsensical buzzworded fear and uncertainty. "updated on an enterprise level" Hmm. apt-get update, apt-get upgrade. Or maybe Yast's software updater thingy in Suse, or
I call shill on the whole post. The entire post is good spin that disguises the corporatespeak.
Here's the highlights.
Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people
If they weren't a monopoly, more people would be employed, not at microsoft though.
Stunted competition?
Yes, as in a grossly inefficient market. Again, if they did not control the market for some computer products, there would be more wealth and potentially more competition.
My security company offers corporations the ability to be virus and spam free for less than $250 per user per year.
In 2 years, I've paid for a mac mini and I've got greater peace of mind for choosing a mini. Let's not discuss windows security.
My users (nearly 90% in our last questionnaire) love the Word interface and look-and-feel.
Because they don't want to learn another.