I highly doubt MS would supply upgrades for XP and 2003 out of the "goodness of their hearts." Surely they'll charge the user for the upgrade "service" because software is very "expensive" to produce, let alone "patch" -- for more info refer to the latest Windows XP Pro and Office 2003 pricing for more proof.
I for one would be shocked if MS didn't have to have a SR/SP 1 for this patch within 3 months of release!!! Perhaps it might break more machines than SP1 for Windows XP....but hey, how would we know unless we test it ourselves?!
I find this unbelievable that Microsoft (MS) would even ALLOW mention of a Linux-based laptop let alone allow comments as if it was something 'positive'. Since MSNBC is a joint effort between MS and NBC we can probably conclude that NBC won this one ^_^.
I don't have much faith in the monopoly that is Microsoft "turning over a new leaf" -- stay tuned some backlash....or a missing article (just like when MS had leaked a method would allow Windows XP Home users to have IIS run on their machines which was soon removed). No, don't worry, if the page returns a 404 File Not Found error we all know it's not cause of massive hits to the page itself... or is it? ^_^
It's good to see the Linux community uniting like this toward a common goal that solely commercial vendors (aka Microsoft) have been unable to do successfully - be secure and efficient and lean (The LSB test software is about 80,000 lines of code across 2000 files on the first layer. The second layer, which is the meat of the actual tests, is about 100 files and 15,000 lines of code) without the annoyance feature bloat simply because "you need it" or "because we want you to need it".
Let's just hope that the changes planned for LSB come out as intended. If this follows the traditional pattern of Linux this will be definite. ^^
This is just another "this will help for now, please wait for the real fix" incident from Microsoft.
I think I lost count at about 1000 when it comes to these "this will help for now..." When it comes to IE most fixes end up as patches that can actually break more than they fix. I think the Dept. of Homeland's Security recommendation of not using IE speaks loud and clear to this.
Microsoft could start but not allowing web sites to automatically run malicious code, just as Outlook has the same tendency with emails (which incidently, most email viruses spread rapidly with).
...[radar system that] uses ultra-wideband technology to produce three-dimensional pictures of the space behind a wall from a distance of up to 20 meters.
Things I learned from this:
Forget about trying to use boss-mode Messenger Plus! at work at all!
No need to use a proxy server at work because your boss can use the information in the pictures taken of you playing games instead -- with blocked access you really don't know if the person is attempting the games just for kicks or because that's honestly what they want to do at work (in which case they wouldn't be as productive anyways).
This would help out with the Olympics and races since pictures can be taken around the corner.
The pictures, which reportedly resemble those produced by ultrasound, are relatively high-resolution and are produced in real time.
At least if a picture can be taken of it you know you will be able to see occurs in it for sure. The technology would be very self-defeating if they weren't clear and sharp. What good are pictures that can't be verified? They would be very similar to invisible ink on paper.
Wow, it sounds like the potential benefits of this device are huge...the potential for privacy invasion, however, is similarly large.
Yeah, but that pretty much goes without saying within technology. Most things in technology are double-edged swords (look at gov't reading your personal emails) -- while this technology can make improvements for all but it can also be readily abused when in the wrong hands (unless properly managed).
In conclusion the only thing that is needed for this excellent technology is enforcable (without bias) measures that protect the rights of everyone fairly -- a comfortable medium that wouldn't be easy to obtain but would help out immensely to prevent lawsuits, etc (saves from possible damages) but still achieve the original goals (i.e. save lives).
Microsoft's lack of care in terms of security in Internet Explorer (in the future this may be stated about more than just MS' IE product) is finally backfiring and it is about time actually.
This translates to a set of instructions for making changes in I.E. settings since the default settings are not terribly good for security. THe MS spokesperson said that a "comprehensive" security pack for I.E. will be out later this summer. You gotta love this. You just cannot make stuff up like this!
If Microsoft really wanted to have a decent browser they should do a DELTREE and then begin again from scratch. Tons of security packs, etc. is just layering software bugs on top of software bugs. At least now I can say the US Gov't is against IE too(!) and resume my Mozilla web browser knowing that I'm only missing out on the IE software flaws.
Do you want to watch us shoot ourselves in the foot again today? - Microsoft
After you stop using our [Internet] Explorer don't get any idea to stop using our Windows - Microsoft
I wonder exactly when we all we know what the price tag will be for all this exploration...At least now they won't have to worry about me trying to do it -- it's expensive to explore something like this if your not the first person to do it! Mind you, if they have enough quality pictures why would we ever need to explore these planets again!
Free as in you buy our X number of dollars OS and you get all these tools free (or at least, you can download and install them freely). Additionally, these tools are only meant for Windows -- kind of like Canadian Tire money is only for Canadian Tire)
As far as I'm concerned, you don't get something free unless that something is worth less than the amount you paid for the original. For example, if the Windows version was considered worth $150 bucks, and the "free" dev tools were considered to actually worth $100 I would not get the dev tools free if I spent $150. I would have to spend
If you really think about it, it makes perfect sense. Otherwise it's like you paid the $100 for the OS and the other $50 for the "free dev tools". You have to hand it to those marketing people, they are good at fooling people into thinking the tools are free when it's really already included in the commercial system's price -- your just not told it's in there but it is.
Hmmm...I wonder how much I paid for the Calculator application in my $300 copy of Windows...
Apple continues to surprise me with their interest in designing software that is compatible for the Windows platform in addition to their own (and in this case, also Unix and GNU/Linux). While from Microsoft, they have typically steered to their flagship products and rarely ported them (with the exception of Office and IE) to other OSes.
Even as a frequent Windows user I have great respect for Apple and find their software for Windows actually crashes less then Microsoft made software(!). In addition, they are rarely so deeply entrenched in the OS that if you wanted ot change extension preferences it doesn't fuss as much.
I'd be interested in trying out this new technology and I'm sure it will make it big hit on all network sizes. Good thing for Apple that they released the specs before MS could claim any competing service! Let's all give some positive input to see this software hit new limits!
Pricewatch lists vendors selling this monitor starting at a bit more than $6,000 -- video card is extra.
Sounds kinda like those advertisements for the latest kids toy...batteries not included. Mind you, for most kids toys the batteries are too much more of an expense, especially compared this this monitor. The idea that they would sell the monitor for 6K and no video card is insane IMHO. Like most tech things, I think I'll wait several months before even considering to buy it.
Interesting thing about new products such as this is the price is so high not that the product is worth that money, but because someone ACTUALLY wants to pay that money for it so they could say they bought it at such great expense. "I got the first of [insert device name here] and I paid X dollars for it!" aka "Look at my check book and my willingness to pay for something at any cost even if it's not worth the price tag".
Anyone think it's anything else then a mentality? I am very strong about this because it seems like a Blinding Flash of the Obvious (BFO) that you'd actually have to look away from not to notice.
Remember that Slashdot article about how Linux was the most-breached OS on the net? I sure do. A Slashdot editor even modified the headline so it said "Linux Most Attacked OS On Net" instead of "Most Breached" so it didn't look as bad.
Good luck bringing IIS into the argument against Apache. 63%+ of market share and it still kicks IIS hard. Claim the bundled IIS with the Windows OS all you want but you still pay for it (it's just hidden cost, commercial vendors can do that sort of thing, live with it).
For the less security patches/bugs and it sees radically more use. IIS wouldn't look so bad if Apache was commercial but since it's open source IIS is in a very sad state of comparison (i.e. none due to it's serious commercial backing by one of the largest software companies ever!). Next thing you'll say is that Apache somehow copied IIS without the flaws, since you appear to be a Microsoft sider.
Seriously, why do Yahoo!, MSN, AIM, etc. even attempt to waste their time on this?! When you look at similar attempts to "lock" users into accessing services their way they are always cracked -- it takes time, but it never fails.
For example, CD copy-protection doesn't prevent people from making executables that allow users to override the settings on the CD or main executable (such as no-cd cracks) and/or to "fool" the CD into thinking it's read by the program it was meant to be run with not the very real CD burning software.
If it can be read or accessed in at least one way -- it can be hacked and tricked. The only way to prevent this is making a CD that is completely useless...but what's the point in that? I for one am thankful that isn't possible it gives competition in the software side of things and prevents us from being ad'ed to death when all we want to do is chat with friends and family.
The more I think about this, it's very self-defeating. A 3-D game isn't 3-D without 3-D sound capability. I can't see any way you'd get that into a cellphone unless on you had add-on speakers for it which, in essence, would lessen the actual portability of the device (i.e. it wouldn't be a cellphone anymore...).
If I want 3-D gaming I'd rather stick to a computer with the sound quality to match! Quality thought on this device isn't as close as it may appear [to be] (like in rear-view mirror notices).
You need this kind of quality to accurately measure the warfare that your Firewall is waging against anything evil on the cyber-waves. That latest Windows virus? Nope got smacked down by your firewall and you heard it about a minute ago.
Forget games(!?), just listen to your firewall wage glorious battle for the freedom and security of your PC and/or home network(!) in the comfort of your own home! All it would need then is a quality commentary...
"Firewall detected malicious port scan and DOS (Denial of Service) attacks aimed towards IP 19.5.4.10 on port 70. Access denied, commence lockdown and vapourize all opposition!" Forget those war movies folks, you can experience it for yourself now!
Or how about "Reinforcements (firewall updates) have just arrived deploying them as according to operating procedures".
Man, that would be the life, at least now spending hours on your own PC won't be dull again! Only thing left would be to be figure out a way to salute to your firewall and give it medals of honour...Hmmmm, this will take some time to figure out, but at least we got this far ^_^
'SCO's continuing Unix intellectual property lawsuits against IBM, Novell and others is apparently putting customers off.' I wonder how that could have happened?"
This almost makes me think that SCO is in with companies that are opponents of UNIX. I mean it's a perfect situation for them. They would get money from the anti-UNIX group(s) for holding their stance and from people who prefer to stick with SCO UNIX. I bet they enjoy their spot on the fence with profits coming from both sides.
At least SCO now claims to have their own products then just making claims that others have "stolen their code". It would even seem that SCO knows few believe their claims so now they have to justify it by claiming to have their own products.
I'd be interested in seeing the "response" to these products as well as the "copyright notices" on them. Perhaps they'll be so vague that anyone who thinks they can add to the SCO code will have to pay just like they are getting UNIX-friendly companies to give them a slice. Who knows, SCO might be able to keep making these claims to keep the company afloat!
He describes that if automated installation of patches were widely deployed then the benefits to discovery would increase
Although I agree with your points regarding the discovery of exploits and deployment of patches, I believe an issue is still left out. Patches may fix old vulnerabilities but who's to say they can't open up new ones?!? In fact, patches can even break things that used to work correctly!! A patch will never lead to perfect software because exploits are at the heart and essence of the original design.
Unless software is properly designed from the starting moment and implemented with great care in terms of security we still don't have much of a chance when it comes to patches. Sure they'll fix problems for a while, they may even buy us more time, but we can never expect the extra-ordinary from a patch -- by it's very definition ("A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases." from Dictionary.com).
Just like in clothing, if a patch doesn't work we can lose more than we were bargaining for -- if the patch on clothing gets ripped off some of the clothing it that connected together will go with it.
Nah, don't run to the hills. Just get a new hard drive for every session that you use your computer. Sure it's a pain to reinstall your operating system a zillion times, but soon you'll do the install in your sleep. When your done using your computer smash the hard drive (so no one can get a hold of your information) that's real "security". Who would have thought it would be so simple. Your wallet might not thank you but at least you'll have "peace of mind" knowing that your data is secure [even from yourself]!
Besides there are snakes in them hills and I'd actually like to live another day to do a reinstall and another "secure" computing session ^_^
If the software still has tech support and there is no real application or needs specific reason to upgrade. Why upgrade?! So you can say I have 2004 version instead of simply the 2000 version? That is very rare, support typically drives clients to upgrade not simple some "new features" because they can also introduce "new bugs".
For example, at my college they had to upgrade our Novell server because Novell stopped supporting their version. They honestly felt they had most of the bugs out of the system and only upgraded because of the support loss. This could save some companies some serious cash -- another good reason to stay on with your previous version. Besides, a newer version will come out within a couple years, maybe our needs will have changed by then and we were best to wait and have saved 3 to 4 figures;].
I suppose the competition is rising for MS because they seemed to like having short support time for theit software. Maybe they are happy with that 24 billion income per year that they can afford to let licenses go longer now to keep the income growing for the sake of keeping clients. This is a very good thing for Windows platforms.
they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player
That and a few other monopoly-related restrictions that Microsoft has implemented
As far as I can tell the whole appeal process is Microsoft's way of defending their Palladium (aka "secure computing") system from "competitors". If they are forced to support software that doesn't run as Microsoft bids then they can deny it from installing. Sure the technology will take several years before it actually comes out, but MS would prefer to have complete control over Windows.
If you are forced to use Windows Media player you are forced to play by their rules. If you can use another media player on your computer than it would depend if that vendor used the same code protection as MS -- which they know no sane vendor who isn't MS-friendly would support. They could use this to sell you all kinds of access just because they would control the media player market.
I can tell you one thing, if I was a monopoly and I had control over a platform this big, I'd be tempted to contain it the same way that Microsoft is trying to. I'm really hoping that the EC wins because Microsoft needs some real legal competition to keep their monopoly in line.
...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive.
I agree totally. Having an army of PHD's doesn't guarantee anything unless they enjoy what they are doing and able to use all their skills effectively. It also helps if they able to branch off into things that they enjoy as hobbies for a time as well.
The more flexibility an employee has in doing their job (within reason) the more successful they will be in completing the job. Just watch all the other companies following Google after this becomes a big success.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt MS would supply upgrades for XP and 2003 out of the "goodness of their hearts." Surely they'll charge the user for the upgrade "service" because software is very "expensive" to produce, let alone "patch" -- for more info refer to the latest Windows XP Pro and Office 2003 pricing for more proof.
I for one would be shocked if MS didn't have to have a SR/SP 1 for this patch within 3 months of release!!! Perhaps it might break more machines than SP1 for Windows XP....but hey, how would we know unless we test it ourselves?!
I find this unbelievable that Microsoft (MS) would even ALLOW mention of a Linux-based laptop let alone allow comments as if it was something 'positive'. Since MSNBC is a joint effort between MS and NBC we can probably conclude that NBC won this one ^_^.
I don't have much faith in the monopoly that is Microsoft "turning over a new leaf" -- stay tuned some backlash....or a missing article (just like when MS had leaked a method would allow Windows XP Home users to have IIS run on their machines which was soon removed). No, don't worry, if the page returns a 404 File Not Found error we all know it's not cause of massive hits to the page itself... or is it? ^_^
It's good to see the Linux community uniting like this toward a common goal that solely commercial vendors (aka Microsoft) have been unable to do successfully - be secure and efficient and lean (The LSB test software is about 80,000 lines of code across 2000 files on the first layer. The second layer, which is the meat of the actual tests, is about 100 files and 15,000 lines of code) without the annoyance feature bloat simply because "you need it" or "because we want you to need it".
Let's just hope that the changes planned for LSB come out as intended. If this follows the traditional pattern of Linux this will be definite. ^^
I think I lost count at about 1000 when it comes to these "this will help for now..." When it comes to IE most fixes end up as patches that can actually break more than they fix. I think the Dept. of Homeland's Security recommendation of not using IE speaks loud and clear to this.
Microsoft could start but not allowing web sites to automatically run malicious code, just as Outlook has the same tendency with emails (which incidently, most email viruses spread rapidly with).Things I learned from this:
The pictures, which reportedly resemble those produced by ultrasound, are relatively high-resolution and are produced in real time.
At least if a picture can be taken of it you know you will be able to see occurs in it for sure. The technology would be very self-defeating if they weren't clear and sharp. What good are pictures that can't be verified? They would be very similar to invisible ink on paper.Wow, it sounds like the potential benefits of this device are huge...the potential for privacy invasion, however, is similarly large.
Yeah, but that pretty much goes without saying within technology. Most things in technology are double-edged swords (look at gov't reading your personal emails) -- while this technology can make improvements for all but it can also be readily abused when in the wrong hands (unless properly managed).
In conclusion the only thing that is needed for this excellent technology is enforcable (without bias) measures that protect the rights of everyone fairly -- a comfortable medium that wouldn't be easy to obtain but would help out immensely to prevent lawsuits, etc (saves from possible damages) but still achieve the original goals (i.e. save lives).This translates to a set of instructions for making changes in I.E. settings since the default settings are not terribly good for security. THe MS spokesperson said that a "comprehensive" security pack for I.E. will be out later this summer. You gotta love this. You just cannot make stuff up like this!
If Microsoft really wanted to have a decent browser they should do a DELTREE and then begin again from scratch. Tons of security packs, etc. is just layering software bugs on top of software bugs. At least now I can say the US Gov't is against IE too(!) and resume my Mozilla web browser knowing that I'm only missing out on the IE software flaws.
Do you want to watch us shoot ourselves in the foot again today? - MicrosoftAfter you stop using our [Internet] Explorer don't get any idea to stop using our Windows - Microsoft
I wonder exactly when we all we know what the price tag will be for all this exploration...At least now they won't have to worry about me trying to do it -- it's expensive to explore something like this if your not the first person to do it! Mind you, if they have enough quality pictures why would we ever need to explore these planets again!
Free as in you buy our X number of dollars OS and you get all these tools free (or at least, you can download and install them freely). Additionally, these tools are only meant for Windows -- kind of like Canadian Tire money is only for Canadian Tire)
As far as I'm concerned, you don't get something free unless that something is worth less than the amount you paid for the original. For example, if the Windows version was considered worth $150 bucks, and the "free" dev tools were considered to actually worth $100 I would not get the dev tools free if I spent $150. I would have to spend
If you really think about it, it makes perfect sense. Otherwise it's like you paid the $100 for the OS and the other $50 for the "free dev tools". You have to hand it to those marketing people, they are good at fooling people into thinking the tools are free when it's really already included in the commercial system's price -- your just not told it's in there but it is.
Hmmm...I wonder how much I paid for the Calculator application in my $300 copy of Windows...
Apple continues to surprise me with their interest in designing software that is compatible for the Windows platform in addition to their own (and in this case, also Unix and GNU/Linux). While from Microsoft, they have typically steered to their flagship products and rarely ported them (with the exception of Office and IE) to other OSes.
Even as a frequent Windows user I have great respect for Apple and find their software for Windows actually crashes less then Microsoft made software(!). In addition, they are rarely so deeply entrenched in the OS that if you wanted ot change extension preferences it doesn't fuss as much.
I'd be interested in trying out this new technology and I'm sure it will make it big hit on all network sizes. Good thing for Apple that they released the specs before MS could claim any competing service! Let's all give some positive input to see this software hit new limits!Sounds kinda like those advertisements for the latest kids toy...batteries not included. Mind you, for most kids toys the batteries are too much more of an expense, especially compared this this monitor. The idea that they would sell the monitor for 6K and no video card is insane IMHO. Like most tech things, I think I'll wait several months before even considering to buy it.
Interesting thing about new products such as this is the price is so high not that the product is worth that money, but because someone ACTUALLY wants to pay that money for it so they could say they bought it at such great expense. "I got the first of [insert device name here] and I paid X dollars for it!" aka "Look at my check book and my willingness to pay for something at any cost even if it's not worth the price tag".
Anyone think it's anything else then a mentality? I am very strong about this because it seems like a Blinding Flash of the Obvious (BFO) that you'd actually have to look away from not to notice.
Good luck bringing IIS into the argument against Apache. 63%+ of market share and it still kicks IIS hard. Claim the bundled IIS with the Windows OS all you want but you still pay for it (it's just hidden cost, commercial vendors can do that sort of thing, live with it).
For the less security patches/bugs and it sees radically more use. IIS wouldn't look so bad if Apache was commercial but since it's open source IIS is in a very sad state of comparison (i.e. none due to it's serious commercial backing by one of the largest software companies ever!). Next thing you'll say is that Apache somehow copied IIS without the flaws, since you appear to be a Microsoft sider.
Seriously, why do Yahoo!, MSN, AIM, etc. even attempt to waste their time on this?! When you look at similar attempts to "lock" users into accessing services their way they are always cracked -- it takes time, but it never fails.
For example, CD copy-protection doesn't prevent people from making executables that allow users to override the settings on the CD or main executable (such as no-cd cracks) and/or to "fool" the CD into thinking it's read by the program it was meant to be run with not the very real CD burning software.
If it can be read or accessed in at least one way -- it can be hacked and tricked. The only way to prevent this is making a CD that is completely useless...but what's the point in that? I for one am thankful that isn't possible it gives competition in the software side of things and prevents us from being ad'ed to death when all we want to do is chat with friends and family.
The more I think about this, it's very self-defeating. A 3-D game isn't 3-D without 3-D sound capability. I can't see any way you'd get that into a cellphone unless on you had add-on speakers for it which, in essence, would lessen the actual portability of the device (i.e. it wouldn't be a cellphone anymore...).
If I want 3-D gaming I'd rather stick to a computer with the sound quality to match! Quality thought on this device isn't as close as it may appear [to be] (like in rear-view mirror notices).You need this kind of quality to accurately measure the warfare that your Firewall is waging against anything evil on the cyber-waves. That latest Windows virus? Nope got smacked down by your firewall and you heard it about a minute ago.
Forget games(!?), just listen to your firewall wage glorious battle for the freedom and security of your PC and/or home network(!) in the comfort of your own home! All it would need then is a quality commentary...
"Firewall detected malicious port scan and DOS (Denial of Service) attacks aimed towards IP 19.5.4.10 on port 70. Access denied, commence lockdown and vapourize all opposition!" Forget those war movies folks, you can experience it for yourself now!
Or how about "Reinforcements (firewall updates) have just arrived deploying them as according to operating procedures".
Man, that would be the life, at least now spending hours on your own PC won't be dull again! Only thing left would be to be figure out a way to salute to your firewall and give it medals of honour...Hmmmm, this will take some time to figure out, but at least we got this far ^_^
This almost makes me think that SCO is in with companies that are opponents of UNIX. I mean it's a perfect situation for them. They would get money from the anti-UNIX group(s) for holding their stance and from people who prefer to stick with SCO UNIX. I bet they enjoy their spot on the fence with profits coming from both sides.
At least SCO now claims to have their own products then just making claims that others have "stolen their code". It would even seem that SCO knows few believe their claims so now they have to justify it by claiming to have their own products.
I'd be interested in seeing the "response" to these products as well as the "copyright notices" on them. Perhaps they'll be so vague that anyone who thinks they can add to the SCO code will have to pay just like they are getting UNIX-friendly companies to give them a slice. Who knows, SCO might be able to keep making these claims to keep the company afloat!
Although I agree with your points regarding the discovery of exploits and deployment of patches, I believe an issue is still left out. Patches may fix old vulnerabilities but who's to say they can't open up new ones?!? In fact, patches can even break things that used to work correctly!! A patch will never lead to perfect software because exploits are at the heart and essence of the original design.
Unless software is properly designed from the starting moment and implemented with great care in terms of security we still don't have much of a chance when it comes to patches. Sure they'll fix problems for a while, they may even buy us more time, but we can never expect the extra-ordinary from a patch -- by it's very definition ("A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases." from Dictionary.com). Just like in clothing, if a patch doesn't work we can lose more than we were bargaining for -- if the patch on clothing gets ripped off some of the clothing it that connected together will go with it.
Nah, don't run to the hills. Just get a new hard drive for every session that you use your computer. Sure it's a pain to reinstall your operating system a zillion times, but soon you'll do the install in your sleep. When your done using your computer smash the hard drive (so no one can get a hold of your information) that's real "security". Who would have thought it would be so simple. Your wallet might not thank you but at least you'll have "peace of mind" knowing that your data is secure [even from yourself]!
Besides there are snakes in them hills and I'd actually like to live another day to do a reinstall and another "secure" computing session ^_^
If the software still has tech support and there is no real application or needs specific reason to upgrade. Why upgrade?! So you can say I have 2004 version instead of simply the 2000 version? That is very rare, support typically drives clients to upgrade not simple some "new features" because they can also introduce "new bugs".
For example, at my college they had to upgrade our Novell server because Novell stopped supporting their version. They honestly felt they had most of the bugs out of the system and only upgraded because of the support loss. This could save some companies some serious cash -- another good reason to stay on with your previous version. Besides, a newer version will come out within a couple years, maybe our needs will have changed by then and we were best to wait and have saved 3 to 4 figures ;].
I suppose the competition is rising for MS because they seemed to like having short support time for theit software. Maybe they are happy with that 24 billion income per year that they can afford to let licenses go longer now to keep the income growing for the sake of keeping clients. This is a very good thing for Windows platforms.
they were required to make a "new" version of Windows without the media player
That and a few other monopoly-related restrictions that Microsoft has implemented
As far as I can tell the whole appeal process is Microsoft's way of defending their Palladium (aka "secure computing") system from "competitors". If they are forced to support software that doesn't run as Microsoft bids then they can deny it from installing. Sure the technology will take several years before it actually comes out, but MS would prefer to have complete control over Windows.
If you are forced to use Windows Media player you are forced to play by their rules. If you can use another media player on your computer than it would depend if that vendor used the same code protection as MS -- which they know no sane vendor who isn't MS-friendly would support. They could use this to sell you all kinds of access just because they would control the media player market.
I can tell you one thing, if I was a monopoly and I had control over a platform this big, I'd be tempted to contain it the same way that Microsoft is trying to. I'm really hoping that the EC wins because Microsoft needs some real legal competition to keep their monopoly in line.
...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive. I agree totally. Having an army of PHD's doesn't guarantee anything unless they enjoy what they are doing and able to use all their skills effectively. It also helps if they able to branch off into things that they enjoy as hobbies for a time as well. The more flexibility an employee has in doing their job (within reason) the more successful they will be in completing the job. Just watch all the other companies following Google after this becomes a big success.