Requirements on the box are different than requiremens as set forth in the EULA.
I've read the Office 2000 EULA, and in no section does it state that Windows must be used in order to run Office, or that for support and upgrades that it is required to run Windows to gain support.
I happened to be on dslreports and one of the project leaders for this beta mentioned this in the discussion. I thought this would enlighten the/. crowd using this tool:
From Blocker3
The BETA Version is free for the testing. After the 90 Day Trial, Microsoft will Charge a $99.00 Licensing fee, per year.
Updates will be available for a subscription fee of $45.00 per year, and will include any new variants of spyware.
This will only work on legitimate versions of the "Licensed" OS Software.
Later in the discussion Blocker3 mentions this as a result of someone else mentioning contrary information concerning it's status:
I am Team Leader for the Microsoft software development team on this project.
Does this work with a laptop configuration?
I was a beta tester for Xandros when they first started doing Domain Authentication and one of the big complaints I had was that I had 2 profiles to have to manage (1 logged into AD, 1 when not logged in) and it's a real pain. Does this setup work with "cached credentials so that I can log into my profile, even if it doesn't authenticate to my AD server?
I find it funny how your generalizations of security policy seems to entail everyone, but doesn't seem to fit for anyone.
I work as the IT Manager/Systems Admin for a company of 100 users or so (fair amount).
I am it. No other staff, just me.
Based on your information, I should lock down systems so tightly that users have to get me to come down to their workstations to login users so they can install drives, printers and software.
I don't have the time to do that. If I had a staff of 3 to 5, then yes, I would lock down systems a bit more, but unfortunately, it's just me doing this, and management agrees that my time is better spent researching new ways to keep us current for IT than running to 50-60 workstations giving temporary access to users to install printers.
Someone mentioned this earlier, but there are pieces of software (mostly engineering programs; we're a manufacturing/engineering company) that won't run without admin access.
The software just won't run. Their job is to use the software; my job is to make sure it runs correctly and securely.
I don't think you've spent enough time looking at your answer from our perspective; your answer indicates you haven't taken a lot of time to think about and respond to this problem with reasonable information.
If I could place Linux on every desktop, I would. It's not feasible and reasonable at this time.
Also, management is convinced right now that IE works just fine for them, and won't make the switch to Firefox, even though they've read the CERT warnings and every piece of documentation I've thrown their way.
Samsung Contact is the name of the new product.
They started out selling small licenses, but now their focusing on selling to larger enterprise customers. Interface is Outlook, and has the same tree that Exchange server uses.
The biggest feature my users complain to me about the product is the grouping feature isn't available. Also, it doesn't run yet on Outlook 2003. But I don't use that so it's not a big deal.
This is what normally gets me steamed...
The problem is that IE is "physically tied" to Windows. You can't uninstall it. Up until the anti-trust trial, IE was a permanent resident on Windows (hell, you couldn't even get rid of the IE icon in some cases).
Microsoft put in a default switch now based on that case that allows via registry to redirect default calls to a web browser to your browser choice no (Set Program Access and Defaults) but doesn't remove the browser.
Microsoft says they can't remove it. If they do, the whole infrastructure of Windows will topple.
So a third party like Mozilla or Netscape have a disadvantage in that IE can't be removed, it still is required for Windows Updates, and will still load faster because it's a native part of the OS.
It's a cornered market.
Microsoft didn't put code that prevents other browsers from operating. Microsoft put code in that ensures that for default tasks, IE will handle them. Microsoft also doesn't provide the code so that 3rd parties can't integrate their browsers the same way Microsoft did.
So they can't compete the same way.
They own the OS. They integrate a browser into the OS. They don't provide the code for others to integrate. They threaten PC manufacturers that if they change or use a 3rd party browser, they can't use Windows...smells like a collusion to me...
I found it to be pretty fast, but it took up way too much system resources for me. Too many things running in the background, especially SpamAssassin....it was bogging the rest of my system down. I took it out, and no more slowdowns.
Things I'd do to revitalize Star Trek
on
Should Star Trek Die?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) Fire Rick Berman and Brannon Braga...I'm sorry guys, but your time to try and make this work has passed. Not only that, but you keep missing the main point of creating Star Trek stories. It's not just about what sells or what doesn't sell, it's about the story and how it relates to the joe watching the story. Also, and this is a big one too for long-time fans, it's about the timeline or the mythology you create.
This story, like many long standing Sci-Fi shows, (Star Wars, Farscape, Stargate, X-Files, B5, etc...) create a mythology with it's story telling. Berman and Braga have consistently compromised that mythology for the sake of ratings. "It's our idea of it, so we'll make changes any time we want." Sci-Fi viewers are technical people; they like things that make sense to them. Screw up timelines and mythology with your "reinvention" and those fans go away.
2.) Let Manny Coto take a stab at Enterprise. He seems to get the idea that mythology and timelines are important. Let Coto deal with the rest of the run of Enterprise.
3) Wait 3 years before putting out a feature film and a new series. 3 years should be enough time to get fans interested in something new.
4) Hire Nicholas Meyer to direct and write the next Star Trek feature. His movies, not only being the most successful, but his stories seemed to capture exactly what Roddenberry wanted to expose the world to; human stories wrapped up in the distant future dealing with simple subjects, twisted with complex situations.
5) Release the Movie 3 weeks before the release of the TV show, and bill them both together with trailers in movie theaters.
6) Find a good cross-section of existing and new sci-fi writers, and give them a shot at creating character stories for the new series, like JMS or Nick Sagan, or Joss Whedon, or even Shatner (not a half-bad writer with his Tek-War series).
7) Build an audience with another strong Sci-Fi influenced show. Nobody seems to be doing the "blocks" of TV shows anymore together. Buffy and Angel on the same night was a guarantee for Sci-Fi fans to be tuning in.
8) Most important of all...Pay attention to the fans. Sift through some of the conjecture, and find some common opinions from fans that will guide how you build both a movie and a new series. Berman and Braga have visibly shown that fans should have no bearing on their attempt at storytelling. This is the reason that Trek has gotten where it is.
This code refers to the intentional break-in of computers utilized by the United States Government.
Public libraries are entities of the munincipality or state in which they reside. This law does not apply to those facilities.
Furthermore, this law is concepted on the idea that it's a break-in if security has been established, and the person(s) have broken into said network. There was no security. This was public Wi-Fi access given out by the public library to it's patrons.
Oh, and one last thing...The officer in question is responsible for enforcing state law. Federal offenses are handled by DHS, or the FBI. He had no jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute.
IANAL, but a BS in CS (Criminal Justice)
For all the comments back and forth about Miguel, I think it's cool that in a discussion about an article written about him, he shows up on/. and responds to questions and criticisms about Mono.
Would Bill Gates ever respond to a discussion on Microsoft products by users? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
Requirements on the box are different than requiremens as set forth in the EULA. I've read the Office 2000 EULA, and in no section does it state that Windows must be used in order to run Office, or that for support and upgrades that it is required to run Windows to gain support.
From Blocker3
The BETA Version is free for the testing. After the 90 Day Trial, Microsoft will Charge a $99.00 Licensing fee, per year. Updates will be available for a subscription fee of $45.00 per year, and will include any new variants of spyware. This will only work on legitimate versions of the "Licensed" OS Software.Later in the discussion Blocker3 mentions this as a result of someone else mentioning contrary information concerning it's status:
I am Team Leader for the Microsoft software development team on this project.
Thought you all want to know.
Does this work with a laptop configuration? I was a beta tester for Xandros when they first started doing Domain Authentication and one of the big complaints I had was that I had 2 profiles to have to manage (1 logged into AD, 1 when not logged in) and it's a real pain. Does this setup work with "cached credentials so that I can log into my profile, even if it doesn't authenticate to my AD server?
I find it funny how your generalizations of security policy seems to entail everyone, but doesn't seem to fit for anyone.
I work as the IT Manager/Systems Admin for a company of 100 users or so (fair amount).
I am it. No other staff, just me.
Based on your information, I should lock down systems so tightly that users have to get me to come down to their workstations to login users so they can install drives, printers and software.
I don't have the time to do that. If I had a staff of 3 to 5, then yes, I would lock down systems a bit more, but unfortunately, it's just me doing this, and management agrees that my time is better spent researching new ways to keep us current for IT than running to 50-60 workstations giving temporary access to users to install printers.
Someone mentioned this earlier, but there are pieces of software (mostly engineering programs; we're a manufacturing/engineering company) that won't run without admin access.
The software just won't run. Their job is to use the software; my job is to make sure it runs correctly and securely.
I don't think you've spent enough time looking at your answer from our perspective; your answer indicates you haven't taken a lot of time to think about and respond to this problem with reasonable information.
If I could place Linux on every desktop, I would. It's not feasible and reasonable at this time.
Also, management is convinced right now that IE works just fine for them, and won't make the switch to Firefox, even though they've read the CERT warnings and every piece of documentation I've thrown their way.
Samsung Contact is the name of the new product. They started out selling small licenses, but now their focusing on selling to larger enterprise customers. Interface is Outlook, and has the same tree that Exchange server uses. The biggest feature my users complain to me about the product is the grouping feature isn't available. Also, it doesn't run yet on Outlook 2003. But I don't use that so it's not a big deal.
This is what normally gets me steamed... The problem is that IE is "physically tied" to Windows. You can't uninstall it. Up until the anti-trust trial, IE was a permanent resident on Windows (hell, you couldn't even get rid of the IE icon in some cases). Microsoft put in a default switch now based on that case that allows via registry to redirect default calls to a web browser to your browser choice no (Set Program Access and Defaults) but doesn't remove the browser. Microsoft says they can't remove it. If they do, the whole infrastructure of Windows will topple. So a third party like Mozilla or Netscape have a disadvantage in that IE can't be removed, it still is required for Windows Updates, and will still load faster because it's a native part of the OS. It's a cornered market. Microsoft didn't put code that prevents other browsers from operating. Microsoft put code in that ensures that for default tasks, IE will handle them. Microsoft also doesn't provide the code so that 3rd parties can't integrate their browsers the same way Microsoft did. So they can't compete the same way. They own the OS. They integrate a browser into the OS. They don't provide the code for others to integrate. They threaten PC manufacturers that if they change or use a 3rd party browser, they can't use Windows...smells like a collusion to me...
I found it to be pretty fast, but it took up way too much system resources for me. Too many things running in the background, especially SpamAssassin....it was bogging the rest of my system down. I took it out, and no more slowdowns.
1) Fire Rick Berman and Brannon Braga...I'm sorry guys, but your time to try and make this work has passed. Not only that, but you keep missing the main point of creating Star Trek stories. It's not just about what sells or what doesn't sell, it's about the story and how it relates to the joe watching the story. Also, and this is a big one too for long-time fans, it's about the timeline or the mythology you create.
This story, like many long standing Sci-Fi shows, (Star Wars, Farscape, Stargate, X-Files, B5, etc...) create a mythology with it's story telling. Berman and Braga have consistently compromised that mythology for the sake of ratings. "It's our idea of it, so we'll make changes any time we want." Sci-Fi viewers are technical people; they like things that make sense to them. Screw up timelines and mythology with your "reinvention" and those fans go away.
2.) Let Manny Coto take a stab at Enterprise. He seems to get the idea that mythology and timelines are important. Let Coto deal with the rest of the run of Enterprise.
3) Wait 3 years before putting out a feature film and a new series. 3 years should be enough time to get fans interested in something new.
4) Hire Nicholas Meyer to direct and write the next Star Trek feature. His movies, not only being the most successful, but his stories seemed to capture exactly what Roddenberry wanted to expose the world to; human stories wrapped up in the distant future dealing with simple subjects, twisted with complex situations.
5) Release the Movie 3 weeks before the release of the TV show, and bill them both together with trailers in movie theaters.
6) Find a good cross-section of existing and new sci-fi writers, and give them a shot at creating character stories for the new series, like JMS or Nick Sagan, or Joss Whedon, or even Shatner (not a half-bad writer with his Tek-War series).
7) Build an audience with another strong Sci-Fi influenced show. Nobody seems to be doing the "blocks" of TV shows anymore together.
Buffy and Angel on the same night was a guarantee for Sci-Fi fans to be tuning in.
8) Most important of all...Pay attention to the fans. Sift through some of the conjecture, and find some common opinions from fans that will guide how you build both a movie and a new series.
Berman and Braga have visibly shown that fans should have no bearing on their attempt at storytelling. This is the reason that Trek has gotten where it is.
"It's better to burn out than fade away"
From which movie and which song?
Brainee28
This code refers to the intentional break-in of computers utilized by the United States Government. Public libraries are entities of the munincipality or state in which they reside. This law does not apply to those facilities. Furthermore, this law is concepted on the idea that it's a break-in if security has been established, and the person(s) have broken into said network. There was no security. This was public Wi-Fi access given out by the public library to it's patrons. Oh, and one last thing...The officer in question is responsible for enforcing state law. Federal offenses are handled by DHS, or the FBI. He had no jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute. IANAL, but a BS in CS (Criminal Justice)
For all the comments back and forth about Miguel, I think it's cool that in a discussion about an article written about him, he shows up on /. and responds to questions and criticisms about Mono.
Would Bill Gates ever respond to a discussion on Microsoft products by users? I think not.