I'm having a really hard time seeing how any of the reasons you cite are evidence of being "evil" (an extreme categorisation that is bandied about far too much these days):
1. Oracle hasn't really truly found a way to live with Open Source yet and their core database business is under threat by Open Source solutions.
So because Oracle doesn't use your preferred software ideology, they are inherently evil? By this same logic, every company and individual that doesn't release their software under an open-source license is also evil. Stallman might agree with you, I doubt many others will.
2. Oracle still makes their money on software. Making money by selling people extremely expensive software licenses only really works if you can get various kinds of locks and holds on them, if you can control their behavior. You can sell them consulting, support and hardware all day without needing any kind of lock, but not software.
How exactly is making money on software evil? Good software takes a lot of time and effort to create, and if the developer wishes to make people pay for it, I can't fathom how that's even remotely evil. Nasty DRM solutions that treat customers as criminals definitely could fall into the evil category, but you don't provide any evidence that Oracle does this, just a vague assertion that they must because their software is expensive. Even if they do use such DRM, I'm not sure that warrants qualifying an entire company and all who work for it as evil, I bet many of the programmers who work there (and other employees) have exactly the same qualms.
3. Oracle has very little real in-house innovation to speak of. The most innovative things I know of happening at Oracle is btrfs, and that's only really happening at Oracle because the main people who work on it are there.
This may well be true, although I'm not really interested in databases, so I'm not really in a position to comment on any innovations Oracle may or may not have made with their DBMS, as I wouldn't likely be aware of them. But a lack of imagination is evil? Presumably, the bulk of humanity is pure evil for not being blessed with a powerful creative imagination.
4. Oracle thinks it can kill an Open Source competitor by buying it or the technologies it relies on.
This is one explanation for Oracle's buy-up of Sun, but one I don't subscribe to. One, because you'd have to have especially stupid management/executives to believe this is plausible (even by management standards), as the licensing of said open-source technologies is going to go a long way to preclude this possibility. More likely, Sun's assets would go a long way to improving Oracle's competitiveness with IBM; in particular, their hardware and Solaris (Oracle has always integrated well and had great support for the OS). This puts Oracle in a similar position to IBM in that it can now provide the complete system of hardware+OS+database (as IBM does now) instead of just the database and relying on other companies to provide the rest (Oracle Linux not withstanding). I think the notion that Oracle bought Sun to kill MySQL is somewhat wishful thinking, as really, I don't think MySQL is a major competitor to Oracle. Oracle is "big-boys" database technology (which can also be read as "fat and bloated"); primary competitors would include IBM DB2 and MS SQL, primarily in the corporate and government sphere (web companies tend to be more forward thinking and more willing to embrace open-source technology).
Finally, I think you have some fairly naive views on just how friendly IBM is to open-source, in a similar way that many do of Google. IBM is pro-OSS when it is convenient to do so (that is, will likely boost their profits). Their hardware is not open-source (no surprise, no-one makes their hardware open-source except a few niche vendors), but neither is AIX, DB2, or any number of other expensive software technologies they market. The
So, to conclude and better explain things: the PS3 avoided commercial drivechips by having good drive security (something sorely lacking on other consoles), and avoided noncommercial software piracy by removing the incentive for homebrewers to hack the system (which will inevitably happen otherwise, as has been proven time and time again).
This conclusion surprises me a little, as my understanding was that while the OtherOS feature would permit alternative operating systems to install and run (primarily Linux), aspects of the hardware would be restricted, most notably, the RSX, which I'm told is essentially the PS3 GPU. This would seem to me to be a fairly significant handicap? Even if not a major handicap, most hackers I know (and the hacker mentality itself) would find the notion of having a piece of hardware which you can only partially utilise completely offensive, due to "x" entity trying to keep you in a virtual "walled garden" so that the full potential of the device remains locked.
I guess I'm just surprised that even the fact that they allow you to install an alternative OS would placate hackers and the homebrew scene (and of course, the overlap). Because really, while it's a nice gesture, and definitely a major positive versus the competition (until now), it's still limited in that the rules of the game on its usage and capabilities are dictated by Sony, as they're now demonstrating by taking the capability away, and this just wouldn't be good enough for most.
My impression has always been that the lack of any major hacks of the PS3 hardware has been a combination of good security (the firmware doesn't seem to have any obvious exploits and especially the BD-ROM drive security, as you discussed above), and also, just general disinterest. The latter might be a combination of expensive hardware, but also the architecture of the system itself is quite unique and not necessarily accessible to others. The Xbox was something of a homebrew dream due to both how easy it was to hack through a modchip and how easy it was to code for, in that the architecture was so familiar, just an x86 box in a console case. I'm just not entirely convinced that the OtherOS is the primary reason for the PS3's lack of hacks, but rather, security a notch above the competition and lack of interest.
Please, correct me if I'm completely wrong, as I am interested in how the PS3 fits in with the other consoles from a security/homebrew perspective.
Yes, the SVG support in the Platform Preview is definitely a work in progress; it really should be viewed as an early alpha in overall completeness and quality. However, MS has apparently committed to a full and proper SVG implementation in IE9. Some links worth checking out:
Games primarily depend on the DirectX API, less so the specific version of Windows (provided it supports the required DirectX API level, as does your hardware). DirectX 11 is the latest, and was officially backported to Vista as a free update. Typically, Microsoft has always backported newer DirectX versions to older versions of Windows for as long as they are supported and it is technically feasible. DirectX 10 wasn't backported to XP, but there are legitimate reasons for this, the graphics stack underwent a huge overhaul in Vista, whereas it only had incremental improvements in 7. Regardless, if gaming is your primary concern, you should be well and truly safe with Vista or 7 for the future; my experience with gaming is that you'll end up spending far more on graphics hardware upgrades than software upgrades in order to support the newest games and DirectX/OpenGL features (assuming you care for new games).
Your biannual tax "catch phrase" is misleading, simply because tax implies a regular fee you are required to pay. You aren't required to upgrade to newer Windows versions, and thus, aren't required to pay any fee. If you wish to do so, go for it, but if you don't, your existing version will be supported for usually around a decade from release. By your logic, everytime the manufacturer of my car releases a new model, I have to buy it, purely because it is newer, irrespective of the fact my existing model works fine. There is nothing in your case that requires upgrading short of a seemingly obsessive need to run the latest (which, by the way, I can relate to, but it's my choice). You will eventually have to upgrade, but that's the nature of the rapid progress of the IT industry, not any malicious intent to wean money from you by regular unnecessary upgrades. If you can't deal with the fact that 10 years is a long time by industry standards, you are in the wrong industry.
Completely, utterly and totally agree. The near-requirement for a TPM chip (without one, only USB key authentication is supported) is just silly, and while I have no problems whatsoever with supporting TPM features, requiring them to enable most functionality is unnecessary. From what I've seen, TPM chips still aren't widespread, and adoption rates are slow; every other major encryption system out there can work fine without one, so why mandate the presence of one for BitLocker? Use it if it exists, otherwise, no problem.
I also discovered that as a result of this, BitLocker is completely useless inside an ESX(i) VM (and possibly other "enterprise" virtualisation systems?). I'm not aware of any VM that can emulate TPM hardware, and for good reason, it would defeat the point of a TPM in the first place. TPM's are a hardware solution to the inherent issues of a purely software approach to encryption, implementing virtualised TPM hardware in software would be nonsensical. Further, ESX(i) has no support for USB devices inside VMs. So, using BitLocker is effectively impossible. Fortunately, TrueCrypt serves as an excellent replacement, but it would be nice to be able to just use BitLocker for its other benefits (it integrates into group policy and active directory if need be) and standardise across one enryption product, instead of having to use multiple due to seemingly artificial limitations in the built-in utilities.
Yes, a bit like how when Windows 7 was released, MS dropped support for Windows Vista, or how when 2008 R2 was released, they dropped support for 2008? Seriously, do you anti-MS zealots even bother to consider if the statements you make have any basis in reality? MS is only now even beginning to retire Windows 2000 support, XP is still supported for years to come, and Vista is currently placed as supported until 2017 and Server 2008 a little longer. If Windows 7 doesn't get at least two Service Packs in the decade or so of support it will get, I'll erase my system and install Gentoo.
The notion that you are somehow forced to upgrade because Microsoft continually releases new Windows versions is absurd to the extreme. You are forced to upgrade if you want to remain on the bleeding edge, and you are eventually forced to upgrade if you don't want to be obsolete. The same is true of all software as well as hardware. I've yet to find a Linux distribution that supports all releases for eternity; perhaps you are aware of one? Typically, MS supports their software for some of the longest timeframes of any IT company, which is part of the reason for their success. Red Hat also have excellent support lifecycles, as does Sun for Solaris, but they all do eventually end, and support lifecycles that exceed a decade are generally considered generous.
I don't buy into the notion that Slashdot is infested with full-time trolls, who intentionally spread FUD for kicks, or that they are paid to do so. Rather, I think people are just stupid, and posts like this just boggle my mind.
I doubt it. Que the MS apologists who will claim this is finally it. They should be ready, they said it often enough before.
Please accept my sincere apologies, but I have to prioritise, and a brief statistical analysis suggests converting the pope to atheism is a likely more rewarding pursuit than engaging in intellectual debate with you over Microsoft. Cheers!
An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.
I understand, but my point is would FOSS have stopped the actions of the school? The answer to me seems to be no, there's nothing in Linux or any other mainstream operating system that would inherently block such software from running that has the capability of intrusive monitoring of a user. So the argument that Linux and/or free software would in some way have stopped the event from occuring is nonsensical. The licensing of an operating system is irrelevant in so far as any OS in the hands of an abusive administrator can be programmed to do unethical things.
The ACLU and EFF have spoken out on the schools conduct from the perspective of a ethics and privacy violation, the FSF is speaking out from a "let's use this issue to advance our agenda of promoting a certain type of software and associated licensing." There may well be privacy gains from adoption of free software (among other benefits), but this particular scenario isn't one of them, it's all irrelevant. This is straight out abuse of those with power over the systems; irrespective of what those systems ran, they still would have had the required authority to make this happen.
Is it just me, or does this just reek of opportunism? What the school in question did was appalling, but it has nothing to do with the open-source vs. closed-source debate, or the proprietary vs. open debate, it's just raw and basic ethics. This is about people's basic right to privacy, as well as the ethical conduct of system administrators. Windows doesn't stop you installing open-source software, and Linux doesn't stop you installing proprietary software. Neither operating system will stop a system administrator from installing nasty software.
Presumably the FSF would feel a lot better about this if the students were being spied on from laptops running Linux with open-source spying software? We could mask the presence with an open-source rootkit, and upload the data to a FreeBSD server running Apache and a MySQL database. Then this would be just fine. Groups that hijack legitimate issues in order to advance their own agenda are sickening. Jack Thompson likes to do this to advocate video game restrictions, pro & anti gun control groups do this whenever the latest gun violence story hits the news, and now the FSF joins in. I knew they'd been progressively losing sanity over the years, but I thought even this was beneath them.
Depends what you mean by "vetted"; the NSA created SELinux, so nothing really compares to that, but they've regularly put out security guides in conjunction with Microsoft for every major Windows release (as well as for other operating systems). They're always comprehensive and a very solid resource on hardening Windows systems to varying extents, not to mention good learning material. Just don't get too overboard, a lot of the suggestions take security to extremes, to the extent that you'll definitely break a large number of programs by removing permissions and modifying defaults that they'd never expect to encounter (I say this from experience). They definitely don't get the attention they deserve:
You missed something else we still have. The separation of the administrative/legislative and the judicial arms of government.
The judicial arm is effectively separate, but the separation of the executive (administrative) and legislative arms of government isn't necessarily a good idea; look to America for some solid examples why. Which isn't to say it doesn't have its benefits, but I don't think they outweigh the cons. In particular, I don't think it in anyway increases government accountability, but it certainly does decrease government effectiveness, and an ineffective government is bad no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, as it impedes a government mandated by the people to implement policy from being able to do so.
They are aiming for both backwards compatibility and security, but above all, they are aiming to put out a fix that isn't broke. I'm honestly not trying to be the Microsoft apologist here, but the complexity of putting out a patch for IE is a lot more complex than you might first think, even compared to other browsers. Here's why:
Using Firefox as an example, when Mozilla finds a security flaw in Firefox, they simply release a new point release of all supported versions of Firefox (currently 3.0 and 3.5) that contains the fix, as well as all previous fixes, and usually several other security/stability fixes bundled into that particular point release. So, this means a release across two product versions, which can be expanded to releasing on the architectures supported for those particular versions as well as supported platforms. The source code change probably isn't architecture or platform specific (wrong?) so can thus be inserted into the correct maintenance trees in the source repository and the binaries/sources made available.
Using Microsoft as an example, when Microsoft finds a security flaw in Internet Explorer, they need to patch every supported version of IE on every supported version of Windows down to specific IE patch level possibly also impacted by Windows patch level. For a security flaw like this that affects IE6 through IE8, that means patches for every version of Windows from 2000 to 7, for every architecture (x86, x86_64, ia64), for numerous patch levels. For example, in many versions of Windows two separate patch levels of IE might be simultaneously supported (e.g. IE6 SP1 on Windows 2000 and IE6 SP2(SP3?) on XP). Keep in mind that the binaries for the same exact patch level of IE on two different versions of Windows on the same architecture are highly unlikely to be the same (e.g. IE7 on XP will not be the same as IE7 on Vista, nor will the patch binaries be the same, and OS SP level may also make a difference). Versions of Internet Explorer on Windows CE/Mobile might also be impacted resulting in further patch complexity. Oh, and x64 versions of Windows (and ia64?) have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions installed side-by-side, due to issues with plug-in compatibility (you can't load 32-bit code into a 64-bit application). So, you'll need to patch both versions on 64-bit platforms, and once again, the 32-bit binaries for 64-bit systems are unlikely to be identical to the 32-bit binaries for 32-bit systems. In summary, we are talking a huge number of binary patches that all need to be thoroughly tested, passed through regression suites, and so forth, because if even one of these patches breaks something, odds are, you'll have a lot of pissed off users.
That being said, this is largely Microsoft's fault. By integrating the browser so closely to the OS, they've managed to create this complexity. A clean(er) separation of web browser from OS internals would, while not making things simple, would surely reduce the current clusterfuck. Doing so would bring you much closer to the model that most (every?) other web browser uses, and should drastically reduce the amount of testing that would need to be done. For now, this isn't the case, and the present reality is that patching every version of IE since 2001 is a very messy business.
Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
The Windows driver model is different from Linux in that it is generally up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers, as opposed to Linux, where if it is supported the relevant driver is probably included with the kernel. The drivers included with Windows are the result of MS liaising with the relevant companies and negotiating to include certain drivers of theirs in the base Windows installation. I didn't think this was uncommon knowledge? I checked the HP Windows 7 Compatibility List and your printer does appear to be supported under Windows 7. Your scanner doesn't presently in that Canon doesn't have a Windows 7 OS category for drivers yet, but that may change, and I'd suggest trying the Vista drivers in the interim.
NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).
It's probably doing you a favour considering how rubbish WEP encryption is;)
All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.
I'm not sure this is a fair criticism as the Home editions of Windows have never been able to join a domain officially; by definition, they are targeted at home users, where a domain is unlikely to be in use. This was only ever possible by using various hacks and modifications to the OS. The fact that it's no longer possible at all (if this is the case, I haven't read about it) is hardly a reasonable criticism, as MS never said Home editions could join domains nor were they ever intended to do so.
Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
Why not? Why do you require domain join capability to connect to a NAS server? Surely there are other means you can use to make the connection? If not, well, the above still applies, you shouldn't be using a Home edition if you require domain functionality.
The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
NTFS has traditionally been forward-compatible with new versions of Windows, but not necessarily backwards-compatible. Similar to Linux, if an older revision of a file system is mounted on a system running a newer revision, the file system structure may be updated or modified to bring it up to date with the current version, in the process, making it incompatible with the older version. Mounting read-only is an obvious way to work around this. That being said, it should be backwards compatible with Vista? XP is more unlikely.
Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds
Fair enough.
Service Packs traditionally fix bugs in the operating system and add features or improve existing ones, but none of the grievances you list are either of these, with the possible exception of boot time which has in the past been improved in SPs.
Conspicuously absent from the article is John Carmack's more recent praise of DirectX, instead opting for far older quotes from him that reference versions of DirectX that are now either obsolete or at the very least superceded; in particular:
In January 2007, John Carmack said that "DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step—they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility—and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
I don't know if it is the best graphics API mind you, but few would dispute Carmack's graphics programming credentials, and the above quote paints a somewhat different picture of his (modern) views on the API than the linked article.
I essentially agree with the article's contention but would expand on it with particular emphasis on the "War Games" genre; especially FPSs. Not only do they need more realistic violence, but also, more realistic plot lines. I'm tired of war games that are generally free of moral ambiguity with clear sides of good vs. evil. They completely fail to accurately depict the subject matter, namely the horrid realities of war, not to mention they tend to be boring.
War is by its very nature a horrible thing, and while one side might be preferable to the other, the harsh reality is both sides almost always commit atrocities, do things that are wrong or downright evil, and certainly the men on the ground do as well even if contrary to orders. That's not necessarily a "direct" criticism of those men, but merely the reality that war has a habit of bringing out the worst in people, that no other situation would. I'd love to see a war game that not only has more realistic violence, but has a correspondingly realistic plot line. I rarely see civilians in my war games, I rarely get orders that are perhaps less than moral, I rarely see my fellow soldiers do things that are less than reasonable. Yes, I'm asking for the opportunity to play a war FPS that lets me kill or even massacre civillians, that brutally depicts the horrific violence and injuries. I'm not asking this because I'd really enjoy it, but because much of what we have now is really just war reduced to an arcade shooter, and I find it somewhat distasteful, as it is in some respects demeaning to the target it is simulating.
I think it would be fascinating for example, to have a WWII FPS where YOU get to play a Nazi. Think about that for a minute. Not all Nazi's were evil, many were just loyal soldiers of Germany doing what they thought was right, even if right is the result of brainwashing and propaganda from the German war machine. You'd be killing Allied soldiers; that might make you uncomfortable. But the fact that you can kill thousands of Nazi's who had families of their own and may not individually have been bad people in every war game up till now says something as well. Hell, you could have the protagonist find out about what was going on Holocaust-wise and defect. At least we'd have a somewhat original and more interesting plot line. What about the Dresden bombings? Why haven't I seen those?
Please don't misconstrue my thoughts as me just wanting the opportunity to commit virtual atrocities from my armchair. I'm just tired of these simplistic, boring, and unrealistic depictions of war in video games, that strip from them much of what defines war in the minds of veterans and through them the public. For the record, Soldier of Fortune probably has the most realistic violence in a war game I've seen, and I (of course) heard about the Modern Warfare 2 terrorist scene, but I have trouble taking the latter seriously in a game with regenerating health and usually fairly cookie-cutter plot lines. Really, it sounded like more of an attention grab than as part of any sincere effort to depict the realities of war in a video game.
It's entirely relevant, Arthur Grumbine pointed out you can remove bloat from Windows with tools such as nLite, and you replied by pointing out that it doesn't remove bloat from the kernel. The implication being that the NT kernel is bloated. You may be right, but you haven't presented any evidence, and I'd be interested in hearing it.
The LOLLinux poster was sarcastically pointing out that the Linux kernel itself has been claimed to be bloated, presumably referencing Linus Torvalds. It's not really relevant to the discussion, but I'd wager he's misinterpreting what Linus Torvalds meant. I'm not sure Linus meant the kernel is bloated in the binary/memory footprint sense, but more that the source code has grown very large, probably from a proliferation of drivers (and architecture support?) that is perhaps somewhat redundant and could be better streamlined, perhaps by giving the codebase a bit of a clean-up? Yes, his comment could be interpreted as a troll, but he does have some sort of evidence on his side, even if I think he's taking it out of context. So, where's yours?
What evidence do you have of the NT kernel being bloated? The NT kernel itself is very modular as it has to be. I'd argue the vast majority of bloat in Windows is strictly userland.
Being a closed-source kernel they can't compile everything it needs to support in statically as it would be giant and impractical. Making it highly modular is essentially a pre-requisite considering their engineering requirements. Check Windows\System32\drivers to see all the kernel modules on your system. Most are probably 3rd-party, if most systems I've seen are anything to go by. The actual kernel itself is a combination of ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll in System32, and consists purely of the base NT system services (commonly known as the Executive).
Swing is definitely a step in the right direction, and I've used it (in a basic capacity) in a few programs, but I gather it took a while to mature? I'm told by more experienced Java programmers that it took a while to really evolve into a toolkit that could be used extensively as a viable (at least partial replacement) for the AWT. They may be wrong, I don't know.
I'm of the opinion that part of the reason for Java's slower than many anticipated adoption is just how badly it integrated into the native GUI environment of the host. For a very long time, and still persisting into the present, Java apps often looked downright awful on many systems. You can frequently tell something's a Java app purely by how ugly and out of place it looks compared to the native apps. Sun has made progress in addressing this, but it may be too little too late. I think the language as a whole is pretty good, and somewhat unfairly maligned, but the importance of the apps looking at least reasonable seems to have been underrated by the Java developers.
On the other hand,.NET is pretty much guaranteed to look at least reasonable on Windows. Of course, the fact it was targeted at Windows clearly goes a long way to simplifying this. I doubt Microsoft was thinking "We need to design this so it looks great and integrates on Windows, Linux, OS X, and everything else". But, that being said, for many developers it looking good on Windows is all that matters, in that it may be the only platform they're intending to develop for or support, so why go to all the extra effort in Java to make it look presentable when.NET makes it so much easier? There's of course many other pros/cons to each language, but I doubt the proliferation of ugly-as-sin Java apps is particularly good for its image, even if it is a very facile way of judging a language.
Don't underestimate the importance of presentation!
Yes, I agree. I personally think that PowerShell is a superior shell to bash/csh/etc..., but it still has a way to go before it gets enough tools to really compete with the incredible power of the CLI on Unix platforms. This isn't really surprising, in that in many respects Windows and Unix lands are focused in opposite directions. Whereas Windows has traditionally been very GUI-centric, with CLI support an afterthought, the reverse could be said of Unix platforms where the CLI reigns supreme and the GUI was an afterthought. Obviously, each paradigm has its strengths, but I think both platforms are perhaps guilty of neglecting one in favour of the other.
In that respect, while much of Unix development (particularly Linux, and yes, technically it isn't Unix, but I'm not putting a "-like" suffix on everything) seems to be focused on improved GUI tools for management of the system so you don't need to dive into the CLI to perform various tasks (see: Fedora/Ubuntu/SuSE), Windows is trying to improve CLI support by finally replacing the archaic cmd shell with PowerShell and rapidly improving it to become a modern and viable CLI for Windows systems.
One thing I do find interesting about how MS is approaching this issue is that they are building the GUI management tools of many of their new server products (see: Exchange/SQL Server/Windows Server) on top of PowerShell itself. This is excellent, as it means that while you have your pretty GUI for those who wish to use it, underneath, it's really just using PowerShell scripts to get the job done. The direct result of this is everything that you can do in the GUI you can do in the CLI, and, I assume it reduces engineering costs as the GUI is naturally built on top of the CLI system, rather than being two separate entities with separate engineering.
Well, not bash, but they do ship their high-end editions of Vista/7 and most (all?) Server 2008/R2 editions with csh and ksh as part of Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, an optional component. And, there's always Cygwin. But really, PowerShell is better than all of the above. Yes, I know I just pissed off a stack of people devoted to the inherent and forever eternal supremacy of the Unix command-line paradigm, and while I would have agreed with you until the advent of PoSH, I can't anymore. Those who have to administer Windows machines would be richly rewarded by learning it. Yes, I know the parent was comment in jest:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm having a really hard time seeing how any of the reasons you cite are evidence of being "evil" (an extreme categorisation that is bandied about far too much these days):
1. Oracle hasn't really truly found a way to live with Open Source yet and their core database business is under threat by Open Source solutions.
So because Oracle doesn't use your preferred software ideology, they are inherently evil? By this same logic, every company and individual that doesn't release their software under an open-source license is also evil. Stallman might agree with you, I doubt many others will.
2. Oracle still makes their money on software. Making money by selling people extremely expensive software licenses only really works if you can get various kinds of locks and holds on them, if you can control their behavior. You can sell them consulting, support and hardware all day without needing any kind of lock, but not software.
How exactly is making money on software evil? Good software takes a lot of time and effort to create, and if the developer wishes to make people pay for it, I can't fathom how that's even remotely evil. Nasty DRM solutions that treat customers as criminals definitely could fall into the evil category, but you don't provide any evidence that Oracle does this, just a vague assertion that they must because their software is expensive. Even if they do use such DRM, I'm not sure that warrants qualifying an entire company and all who work for it as evil, I bet many of the programmers who work there (and other employees) have exactly the same qualms.
3. Oracle has very little real in-house innovation to speak of. The most innovative things I know of happening at Oracle is btrfs, and that's only really happening at Oracle because the main people who work on it are there.
This may well be true, although I'm not really interested in databases, so I'm not really in a position to comment on any innovations Oracle may or may not have made with their DBMS, as I wouldn't likely be aware of them. But a lack of imagination is evil? Presumably, the bulk of humanity is pure evil for not being blessed with a powerful creative imagination.
4. Oracle thinks it can kill an Open Source competitor by buying it or the technologies it relies on.
This is one explanation for Oracle's buy-up of Sun, but one I don't subscribe to. One, because you'd have to have especially stupid management/executives to believe this is plausible (even by management standards), as the licensing of said open-source technologies is going to go a long way to preclude this possibility. More likely, Sun's assets would go a long way to improving Oracle's competitiveness with IBM; in particular, their hardware and Solaris (Oracle has always integrated well and had great support for the OS). This puts Oracle in a similar position to IBM in that it can now provide the complete system of hardware+OS+database (as IBM does now) instead of just the database and relying on other companies to provide the rest (Oracle Linux not withstanding). I think the notion that Oracle bought Sun to kill MySQL is somewhat wishful thinking, as really, I don't think MySQL is a major competitor to Oracle. Oracle is "big-boys" database technology (which can also be read as "fat and bloated"); primary competitors would include IBM DB2 and MS SQL, primarily in the corporate and government sphere (web companies tend to be more forward thinking and more willing to embrace open-source technology).
Finally, I think you have some fairly naive views on just how friendly IBM is to open-source, in a similar way that many do of Google. IBM is pro-OSS when it is convenient to do so (that is, will likely boost their profits). Their hardware is not open-source (no surprise, no-one makes their hardware open-source except a few niche vendors), but neither is AIX, DB2, or any number of other expensive software technologies they market. The
So, to conclude and better explain things: the PS3 avoided commercial drivechips by having good drive security (something sorely lacking on other consoles), and avoided noncommercial software piracy by removing the incentive for homebrewers to hack the system (which will inevitably happen otherwise, as has been proven time and time again).
This conclusion surprises me a little, as my understanding was that while the OtherOS feature would permit alternative operating systems to install and run (primarily Linux), aspects of the hardware would be restricted, most notably, the RSX, which I'm told is essentially the PS3 GPU. This would seem to me to be a fairly significant handicap? Even if not a major handicap, most hackers I know (and the hacker mentality itself) would find the notion of having a piece of hardware which you can only partially utilise completely offensive, due to "x" entity trying to keep you in a virtual "walled garden" so that the full potential of the device remains locked.
I guess I'm just surprised that even the fact that they allow you to install an alternative OS would placate hackers and the homebrew scene (and of course, the overlap). Because really, while it's a nice gesture, and definitely a major positive versus the competition (until now), it's still limited in that the rules of the game on its usage and capabilities are dictated by Sony, as they're now demonstrating by taking the capability away, and this just wouldn't be good enough for most.
My impression has always been that the lack of any major hacks of the PS3 hardware has been a combination of good security (the firmware doesn't seem to have any obvious exploits and especially the BD-ROM drive security, as you discussed above), and also, just general disinterest. The latter might be a combination of expensive hardware, but also the architecture of the system itself is quite unique and not necessarily accessible to others. The Xbox was something of a homebrew dream due to both how easy it was to hack through a modchip and how easy it was to code for, in that the architecture was so familiar, just an x86 box in a console case. I'm just not entirely convinced that the OtherOS is the primary reason for the PS3's lack of hacks, but rather, security a notch above the competition and lack of interest.
Please, correct me if I'm completely wrong, as I am interested in how the PS3 fits in with the other consoles from a security/homebrew perspective.
Yes, the SVG support in the Platform Preview is definitely a work in progress; it really should be viewed as an early alpha in overall completeness and quality. However, MS has apparently committed to a full and proper SVG implementation in IE9. Some links worth checking out:
Platform Preview gives Web developers first taste of IE9 - Scroll down to SVG heading for a nice summary
SVG in IE9 Roadmap - Official IE blog post on SVG
Any other Australians here disturbed by how similar that was to our Prime Minister's vernacular?
Games primarily depend on the DirectX API, less so the specific version of Windows (provided it supports the required DirectX API level, as does your hardware). DirectX 11 is the latest, and was officially backported to Vista as a free update. Typically, Microsoft has always backported newer DirectX versions to older versions of Windows for as long as they are supported and it is technically feasible. DirectX 10 wasn't backported to XP, but there are legitimate reasons for this, the graphics stack underwent a huge overhaul in Vista, whereas it only had incremental improvements in 7. Regardless, if gaming is your primary concern, you should be well and truly safe with Vista or 7 for the future; my experience with gaming is that you'll end up spending far more on graphics hardware upgrades than software upgrades in order to support the newest games and DirectX/OpenGL features (assuming you care for new games).
Your biannual tax "catch phrase" is misleading, simply because tax implies a regular fee you are required to pay. You aren't required to upgrade to newer Windows versions, and thus, aren't required to pay any fee. If you wish to do so, go for it, but if you don't, your existing version will be supported for usually around a decade from release. By your logic, everytime the manufacturer of my car releases a new model, I have to buy it, purely because it is newer, irrespective of the fact my existing model works fine. There is nothing in your case that requires upgrading short of a seemingly obsessive need to run the latest (which, by the way, I can relate to, but it's my choice). You will eventually have to upgrade, but that's the nature of the rapid progress of the IT industry, not any malicious intent to wean money from you by regular unnecessary upgrades. If you can't deal with the fact that 10 years is a long time by industry standards, you are in the wrong industry.
Completely, utterly and totally agree. The near-requirement for a TPM chip (without one, only USB key authentication is supported) is just silly, and while I have no problems whatsoever with supporting TPM features, requiring them to enable most functionality is unnecessary. From what I've seen, TPM chips still aren't widespread, and adoption rates are slow; every other major encryption system out there can work fine without one, so why mandate the presence of one for BitLocker? Use it if it exists, otherwise, no problem.
I also discovered that as a result of this, BitLocker is completely useless inside an ESX(i) VM (and possibly other "enterprise" virtualisation systems?). I'm not aware of any VM that can emulate TPM hardware, and for good reason, it would defeat the point of a TPM in the first place. TPM's are a hardware solution to the inherent issues of a purely software approach to encryption, implementing virtualised TPM hardware in software would be nonsensical. Further, ESX(i) has no support for USB devices inside VMs. So, using BitLocker is effectively impossible. Fortunately, TrueCrypt serves as an excellent replacement, but it would be nice to be able to just use BitLocker for its other benefits (it integrates into group policy and active directory if need be) and standardise across one enryption product, instead of having to use multiple due to seemingly artificial limitations in the built-in utilities.
Yes, a bit like how when Windows 7 was released, MS dropped support for Windows Vista, or how when 2008 R2 was released, they dropped support for 2008? Seriously, do you anti-MS zealots even bother to consider if the statements you make have any basis in reality? MS is only now even beginning to retire Windows 2000 support, XP is still supported for years to come, and Vista is currently placed as supported until 2017 and Server 2008 a little longer. If Windows 7 doesn't get at least two Service Packs in the decade or so of support it will get, I'll erase my system and install Gentoo.
The notion that you are somehow forced to upgrade because Microsoft continually releases new Windows versions is absurd to the extreme. You are forced to upgrade if you want to remain on the bleeding edge, and you are eventually forced to upgrade if you don't want to be obsolete. The same is true of all software as well as hardware. I've yet to find a Linux distribution that supports all releases for eternity; perhaps you are aware of one? Typically, MS supports their software for some of the longest timeframes of any IT company, which is part of the reason for their success. Red Hat also have excellent support lifecycles, as does Sun for Solaris, but they all do eventually end, and support lifecycles that exceed a decade are generally considered generous.
I don't buy into the notion that Slashdot is infested with full-time trolls, who intentionally spread FUD for kicks, or that they are paid to do so. Rather, I think people are just stupid, and posts like this just boggle my mind.
I doubt it. Que the MS apologists who will claim this is finally it. They should be ready, they said it often enough before.
Please accept my sincere apologies, but I have to prioritise, and a brief statistical analysis suggests converting the pope to atheism is a likely more rewarding pursuit than engaging in intellectual debate with you over Microsoft. Cheers!
An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.
I understand, but my point is would FOSS have stopped the actions of the school? The answer to me seems to be no, there's nothing in Linux or any other mainstream operating system that would inherently block such software from running that has the capability of intrusive monitoring of a user. So the argument that Linux and/or free software would in some way have stopped the event from occuring is nonsensical. The licensing of an operating system is irrelevant in so far as any OS in the hands of an abusive administrator can be programmed to do unethical things.
The ACLU and EFF have spoken out on the schools conduct from the perspective of a ethics and privacy violation, the FSF is speaking out from a "let's use this issue to advance our agenda of promoting a certain type of software and associated licensing." There may well be privacy gains from adoption of free software (among other benefits), but this particular scenario isn't one of them, it's all irrelevant. This is straight out abuse of those with power over the systems; irrespective of what those systems ran, they still would have had the required authority to make this happen.
Is it just me, or does this just reek of opportunism? What the school in question did was appalling, but it has nothing to do with the open-source vs. closed-source debate, or the proprietary vs. open debate, it's just raw and basic ethics. This is about people's basic right to privacy, as well as the ethical conduct of system administrators. Windows doesn't stop you installing open-source software, and Linux doesn't stop you installing proprietary software. Neither operating system will stop a system administrator from installing nasty software.
Presumably the FSF would feel a lot better about this if the students were being spied on from laptops running Linux with open-source spying software? We could mask the presence with an open-source rootkit, and upload the data to a FreeBSD server running Apache and a MySQL database. Then this would be just fine. Groups that hijack legitimate issues in order to advance their own agenda are sickening. Jack Thompson likes to do this to advocate video game restrictions, pro & anti gun control groups do this whenever the latest gun violence story hits the news, and now the FSF joins in. I knew they'd been progressively losing sanity over the years, but I thought even this was beneath them.
Depends what you mean by "vetted"; the NSA created SELinux, so nothing really compares to that, but they've regularly put out security guides in conjunction with Microsoft for every major Windows release (as well as for other operating systems). They're always comprehensive and a very solid resource on hardening Windows systems to varying extents, not to mention good learning material. Just don't get too overboard, a lot of the suggestions take security to extremes, to the extent that you'll definitely break a large number of programs by removing permissions and modifying defaults that they'd never expect to encounter (I say this from experience). They definitely don't get the attention they deserve:
Windows 7 Security Compliance Management Toolkit
Next time you might consider doing some backwards compatibility testing with popular rootkits, yes? Just a free tip Microsoft!
Not even close: The 25-Year-Old BSD Bug.
You missed something else we still have. The separation of the administrative/legislative and the judicial arms of government.
The judicial arm is effectively separate, but the separation of the executive (administrative) and legislative arms of government isn't necessarily a good idea; look to America for some solid examples why. Which isn't to say it doesn't have its benefits, but I don't think they outweigh the cons. In particular, I don't think it in anyway increases government accountability, but it certainly does decrease government effectiveness, and an ineffective government is bad no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, as it impedes a government mandated by the people to implement policy from being able to do so.
They are aiming for both backwards compatibility and security, but above all, they are aiming to put out a fix that isn't broke. I'm honestly not trying to be the Microsoft apologist here, but the complexity of putting out a patch for IE is a lot more complex than you might first think, even compared to other browsers. Here's why:
Using Firefox as an example, when Mozilla finds a security flaw in Firefox, they simply release a new point release of all supported versions of Firefox (currently 3.0 and 3.5) that contains the fix, as well as all previous fixes, and usually several other security/stability fixes bundled into that particular point release. So, this means a release across two product versions, which can be expanded to releasing on the architectures supported for those particular versions as well as supported platforms. The source code change probably isn't architecture or platform specific (wrong?) so can thus be inserted into the correct maintenance trees in the source repository and the binaries/sources made available.
Using Microsoft as an example, when Microsoft finds a security flaw in Internet Explorer, they need to patch every supported version of IE on every supported version of Windows down to specific IE patch level possibly also impacted by Windows patch level. For a security flaw like this that affects IE6 through IE8, that means patches for every version of Windows from 2000 to 7, for every architecture (x86, x86_64, ia64), for numerous patch levels. For example, in many versions of Windows two separate patch levels of IE might be simultaneously supported (e.g. IE6 SP1 on Windows 2000 and IE6 SP2(SP3?) on XP). Keep in mind that the binaries for the same exact patch level of IE on two different versions of Windows on the same architecture are highly unlikely to be the same (e.g. IE7 on XP will not be the same as IE7 on Vista, nor will the patch binaries be the same, and OS SP level may also make a difference). Versions of Internet Explorer on Windows CE/Mobile might also be impacted resulting in further patch complexity. Oh, and x64 versions of Windows (and ia64?) have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions installed side-by-side, due to issues with plug-in compatibility (you can't load 32-bit code into a 64-bit application). So, you'll need to patch both versions on 64-bit platforms, and once again, the 32-bit binaries for 64-bit systems are unlikely to be identical to the 32-bit binaries for 32-bit systems. In summary, we are talking a huge number of binary patches that all need to be thoroughly tested, passed through regression suites, and so forth, because if even one of these patches breaks something, odds are, you'll have a lot of pissed off users.
That being said, this is largely Microsoft's fault. By integrating the browser so closely to the OS, they've managed to create this complexity. A clean(er) separation of web browser from OS internals would, while not making things simple, would surely reduce the current clusterfuck. Doing so would bring you much closer to the model that most (every?) other web browser uses, and should drastically reduce the amount of testing that would need to be done. For now, this isn't the case, and the present reality is that patching every version of IE since 2001 is a very messy business.
Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
The Windows driver model is different from Linux in that it is generally up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers, as opposed to Linux, where if it is supported the relevant driver is probably included with the kernel. The drivers included with Windows are the result of MS liaising with the relevant companies and negotiating to include certain drivers of theirs in the base Windows installation. I didn't think this was uncommon knowledge? I checked the HP Windows 7 Compatibility List and your printer does appear to be supported under Windows 7. Your scanner doesn't presently in that Canon doesn't have a Windows 7 OS category for drivers yet, but that may change, and I'd suggest trying the Vista drivers in the interim.
NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).
It's probably doing you a favour considering how rubbish WEP encryption is ;)
All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this. Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.
I'm not sure this is a fair criticism as the Home editions of Windows have never been able to join a domain officially; by definition, they are targeted at home users, where a domain is unlikely to be in use. This was only ever possible by using various hacks and modifications to the OS. The fact that it's no longer possible at all (if this is the case, I haven't read about it) is hardly a reasonable criticism, as MS never said Home editions could join domains nor were they ever intended to do so.
Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
Why not? Why do you require domain join capability to connect to a NAS server? Surely there are other means you can use to make the connection? If not, well, the above still applies, you shouldn't be using a Home edition if you require domain functionality.
The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
NTFS has traditionally been forward-compatible with new versions of Windows, but not necessarily backwards-compatible. Similar to Linux, if an older revision of a file system is mounted on a system running a newer revision, the file system structure may be updated or modified to bring it up to date with the current version, in the process, making it incompatible with the older version. Mounting read-only is an obvious way to work around this. That being said, it should be backwards compatible with Vista? XP is more unlikely.
Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds
Fair enough.
Service Packs traditionally fix bugs in the operating system and add features or improve existing ones, but none of the grievances you list are either of these, with the possible exception of boot time which has in the past been improved in SPs.
Conspicuously absent from the article is John Carmack's more recent praise of DirectX, instead opting for far older quotes from him that reference versions of DirectX that are now either obsolete or at the very least superceded; in particular:
In January 2007, John Carmack said that "DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step—they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility—and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
I don't know if it is the best graphics API mind you, but few would dispute Carmack's graphics programming credentials, and the above quote paints a somewhat different picture of his (modern) views on the API than the linked article.
Source: Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D
I essentially agree with the article's contention but would expand on it with particular emphasis on the "War Games" genre; especially FPSs. Not only do they need more realistic violence, but also, more realistic plot lines. I'm tired of war games that are generally free of moral ambiguity with clear sides of good vs. evil. They completely fail to accurately depict the subject matter, namely the horrid realities of war, not to mention they tend to be boring.
War is by its very nature a horrible thing, and while one side might be preferable to the other, the harsh reality is both sides almost always commit atrocities, do things that are wrong or downright evil, and certainly the men on the ground do as well even if contrary to orders. That's not necessarily a "direct" criticism of those men, but merely the reality that war has a habit of bringing out the worst in people, that no other situation would. I'd love to see a war game that not only has more realistic violence, but has a correspondingly realistic plot line. I rarely see civilians in my war games, I rarely get orders that are perhaps less than moral, I rarely see my fellow soldiers do things that are less than reasonable. Yes, I'm asking for the opportunity to play a war FPS that lets me kill or even massacre civillians, that brutally depicts the horrific violence and injuries. I'm not asking this because I'd really enjoy it, but because much of what we have now is really just war reduced to an arcade shooter, and I find it somewhat distasteful, as it is in some respects demeaning to the target it is simulating.
I think it would be fascinating for example, to have a WWII FPS where YOU get to play a Nazi. Think about that for a minute. Not all Nazi's were evil, many were just loyal soldiers of Germany doing what they thought was right, even if right is the result of brainwashing and propaganda from the German war machine. You'd be killing Allied soldiers; that might make you uncomfortable. But the fact that you can kill thousands of Nazi's who had families of their own and may not individually have been bad people in every war game up till now says something as well. Hell, you could have the protagonist find out about what was going on Holocaust-wise and defect. At least we'd have a somewhat original and more interesting plot line. What about the Dresden bombings? Why haven't I seen those?
Please don't misconstrue my thoughts as me just wanting the opportunity to commit virtual atrocities from my armchair. I'm just tired of these simplistic, boring, and unrealistic depictions of war in video games, that strip from them much of what defines war in the minds of veterans and through them the public. For the record, Soldier of Fortune probably has the most realistic violence in a war game I've seen, and I (of course) heard about the Modern Warfare 2 terrorist scene, but I have trouble taking the latter seriously in a game with regenerating health and usually fairly cookie-cutter plot lines. Really, it sounded like more of an attention grab than as part of any sincere effort to depict the realities of war in a video game.
It's entirely relevant, Arthur Grumbine pointed out you can remove bloat from Windows with tools such as nLite, and you replied by pointing out that it doesn't remove bloat from the kernel. The implication being that the NT kernel is bloated. You may be right, but you haven't presented any evidence, and I'd be interested in hearing it.
The LOLLinux poster was sarcastically pointing out that the Linux kernel itself has been claimed to be bloated, presumably referencing Linus Torvalds. It's not really relevant to the discussion, but I'd wager he's misinterpreting what Linus Torvalds meant. I'm not sure Linus meant the kernel is bloated in the binary/memory footprint sense, but more that the source code has grown very large, probably from a proliferation of drivers (and architecture support?) that is perhaps somewhat redundant and could be better streamlined, perhaps by giving the codebase a bit of a clean-up? Yes, his comment could be interpreted as a troll, but he does have some sort of evidence on his side, even if I think he's taking it out of context. So, where's yours?
What evidence do you have of the NT kernel being bloated? The NT kernel itself is very modular as it has to be. I'd argue the vast majority of bloat in Windows is strictly userland.
Being a closed-source kernel they can't compile everything it needs to support in statically as it would be giant and impractical. Making it highly modular is essentially a pre-requisite considering their engineering requirements. Check Windows\System32\drivers to see all the kernel modules on your system. Most are probably 3rd-party, if most systems I've seen are anything to go by. The actual kernel itself is a combination of ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll in System32, and consists purely of the base NT system services (commonly known as the Executive).
Swing is definitely a step in the right direction, and I've used it (in a basic capacity) in a few programs, but I gather it took a while to mature? I'm told by more experienced Java programmers that it took a while to really evolve into a toolkit that could be used extensively as a viable (at least partial replacement) for the AWT. They may be wrong, I don't know.
I'm of the opinion that part of the reason for Java's slower than many anticipated adoption is just how badly it integrated into the native GUI environment of the host. For a very long time, and still persisting into the present, Java apps often looked downright awful on many systems. You can frequently tell something's a Java app purely by how ugly and out of place it looks compared to the native apps. Sun has made progress in addressing this, but it may be too little too late. I think the language as a whole is pretty good, and somewhat unfairly maligned, but the importance of the apps looking at least reasonable seems to have been underrated by the Java developers.
On the other hand, .NET is pretty much guaranteed to look at least reasonable on Windows. Of course, the fact it was targeted at Windows clearly goes a long way to simplifying this. I doubt Microsoft was thinking "We need to design this so it looks great and integrates on Windows, Linux, OS X, and everything else". But, that being said, for many developers it looking good on Windows is all that matters, in that it may be the only platform they're intending to develop for or support, so why go to all the extra effort in Java to make it look presentable when .NET makes it so much easier? There's of course many other pros/cons to each language, but I doubt the proliferation of ugly-as-sin Java apps is particularly good for its image, even if it is a very facile way of judging a language.
Don't underestimate the importance of presentation!
Yes, I agree. I personally think that PowerShell is a superior shell to bash/csh/etc..., but it still has a way to go before it gets enough tools to really compete with the incredible power of the CLI on Unix platforms. This isn't really surprising, in that in many respects Windows and Unix lands are focused in opposite directions. Whereas Windows has traditionally been very GUI-centric, with CLI support an afterthought, the reverse could be said of Unix platforms where the CLI reigns supreme and the GUI was an afterthought. Obviously, each paradigm has its strengths, but I think both platforms are perhaps guilty of neglecting one in favour of the other.
In that respect, while much of Unix development (particularly Linux, and yes, technically it isn't Unix, but I'm not putting a "-like" suffix on everything) seems to be focused on improved GUI tools for management of the system so you don't need to dive into the CLI to perform various tasks (see: Fedora/Ubuntu/SuSE), Windows is trying to improve CLI support by finally replacing the archaic cmd shell with PowerShell and rapidly improving it to become a modern and viable CLI for Windows systems.
One thing I do find interesting about how MS is approaching this issue is that they are building the GUI management tools of many of their new server products (see: Exchange/SQL Server/Windows Server) on top of PowerShell itself. This is excellent, as it means that while you have your pretty GUI for those who wish to use it, underneath, it's really just using PowerShell scripts to get the job done. The direct result of this is everything that you can do in the GUI you can do in the CLI, and, I assume it reduces engineering costs as the GUI is naturally built on top of the CLI system, rather than being two separate entities with separate engineering.
Well, not bash, but they do ship their high-end editions of Vista/7 and most (all?) Server 2008/R2 editions with csh and ksh as part of Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, an optional component. And, there's always Cygwin. But really, PowerShell is better than all of the above. Yes, I know I just pissed off a stack of people devoted to the inherent and forever eternal supremacy of the Unix command-line paradigm, and while I would have agreed with you until the advent of PoSH, I can't anymore. Those who have to administer Windows machines would be richly rewarded by learning it. Yes, I know the parent was comment in jest :)