According to the stories, Frontpage 2000 on Windows 2000 isn't affected.
As The Register puts it, per the link above:
The problem isn't there in Win2k servers with FrontPage 2000 extensions, so an upgrade might be a good idea. But not necessarily to Win2k.
Hrm.
Ok, Windows 2000 isn't jumping off the shelves. Problems are grounding it. So... maybe its time to "leak" a old backdoor, so that people would upgrade to 2000 ASAP?
Granted, those who thought would be saying "What problems will we have there" - but by and large - the people who think aren't running NT (especially for webserving).
(Not an NT bash, BTW. I'm talking about the vast majority of tossed-up NT servers who fill needs, and then massive effort is spent _fixing_ problems, performance, etc, rather than sitting down, building a good solution, and doing it right. (Personal opinion, NT shouldn't be there, but in those cases, some valid cases can be made for NT).
I just... Surely not. Surely this is just a coincidence. But... I've *got* to wonder..
I'm glad to hear that Microsoft has finally realized that their certification is a joke and has achieved the rating of "worthless" amongst seasoned IT professionals.
What's changed?
Are the Windows 2000 tests substantially harder, or are they just being forced to take more tests, not that much harder, and pushed to use Windows 2000?
My guess is this: Microsoft is hurting for money. (oh, stop laughing! I'm serious!)
That's worth a guess, but with >$20B in the bank.. I don't think that's the issue. Hell, they can buy and sell just about any 2 3rd world nations at this point.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume they can go blithely on for another year without _seriously_ big profit centers from something major and current- and if they are trying to make this profit center out of MCSEs, they are fscking desperate! I say this is blood in the water, and it's not all MCSE blood.
Here's where you're right - for the wrong reason.
NT 5 (AKA Windows 2000) is going to be a dog out the door. Actually, just like 95 and 98 and NT were. But the benefits of going to 2000 - what are they?
With 95, for instance, it was obvious. 32 bit, multitasking (yes, I know, but it kinda did), memory management. So people did upgrade - albeit much more slowly than Microsoft would have you believe.
And now that NT is so endemic in computer rooms, (NT, its not just a adventure, its a job) - and its worse than rabbits - it takes 2 rabbits to multiply, but only 1 NT box to mulitply).... That's where Microsoft wants to be. They'll get the desktops, with preloads, and time. They know that. When 98 and NT 4 aren't preload options, Windows 2000 will take over.
But the servers... How to get them upgraded? Hell, they just got decently stable, (as much as NT is) recently.. And stuff works, and the staff knows how to deal with the NT 4 issues.
How to force an upgrade *there*?
Simple, make everybody HAVE to go see JUST how wonderful and gee whiz golly and magical the new OS is!
FORCE them to get educated, and then say "why do we have to do it THIS dumb way when its so much easier with 2000?" (And hope not too many are UNIX, OS/2 or Novell admins who say "its still THAT freaking hard, and you STILL can't do this easily?).
That's the blood in the water. If they can't force you to upgrade - they've got problems. Microsoft don't like supporting old stuff. They don't LIKE it. Newest! Greatest! Now! That's Microsoft.
I used to point out that IBM had a "Stable" OS/2 sales item. When Warp 4 came out, I don't think Warp 3 had passed the tests to become that, and it was still OS/2 2.11 for several more months. That's the difference in mentality here. Novell sold off NW 3.x - but to a group that has a vested interest in keeping it fixed - and so they still sell it - and generate bug fixes. What, almost 10 years later?
Microsoft is scared of having to try and maintain the sloppy code that is NT - for years and years. That's the blood in the water - the attempt to get everyone to upgrade to 2000...
Surely someone as smart as you must be aware that by obtaining an MSCE your average salary will increase by an average of $X. And for a mere $Y dollars, it certainly seems like a good deal to me!
My salary would be unchanged. So I would be wasting it. In fact, my salary is signifigantly higher than the "average" MCSE.
I happen to know a few MCSEs myself, and they're definately no slouches.
I know quite a few. Some are not. Those who aren't are always MCSE's after experience that isn't inclusive to NT.
Well, did she get certified in TCP/IP? Maybe you're not aware that to be MSCE you only need to pass the 4 core exams and 2 electives. TCP/IP is not a core exam.
You're splitting hairs, and incorrectly. The point is that she was an MCSE. She made decisions on an ISP level. Hint: "I" in ISP and TCP/IP stands for the same thing. You're selling IP services, and unaware of how IP works? That is indicative of something. Why *wouldn't* she have gotten the IP certification - further, why isn't it required?
Companies are paying $X more for MSCE certified people
Some companies. Some automatically junk MCSE resumes. Many are, its true. But those jobs are also among the most routine and repetitive jobs.
Sir, the number of people who are certified has absolutely zero bearing on how comprehensive a test is. If this was the case, your IQ would be directly proportional to how many neighbors your had.
The two have nothing to do with each other. You're correct - the number doesn't tell you how comphrensive it is, by itself. There is contextual information missing. How many failed? Further, how many (to another standard) passed the MCSE but fail another standard?
ere again you're taking two unrelated facts and trying to arrive at a conclusion.
No, the poster is relating experience. Which I corroborate. UNIX admins - even the "green" ones are far more well-rounded than green NT admins.
Largely, this is because UNIX and NT are very similar in difficulty. UNIX has a steep learning curve at the initiation - but almost everything builds on everything else, and as you learn, you begin to get better on almost an exponential level. Further, the fact that building helps you remember related issues/helps/tricks/tips.
NT, on the other hand, has masses of unrelated, uncoordinated trivia. What button do you click here, what Registry setting is configured wrong by default? Almost impossible to remember without promting/notes. And certainly not self-prompting.
By your own admission, you state that the tests could be of comparable difficulty yet the people who are certified may or may not have the same level of competence when they are finished!
Yes.
After all how do you compare what someone certified on Solaris knows versus somebody certified in NT?
Watch what they do, how well they do it, and the length of time it takes to complete roughly similar tasks.
Which in my experience is greatly in favor of the UNIX greenhorns, who can troubleshoot better, and think through how things are supposed to work.
Addison
That might be a mis-statement.
on
Database Nation
·
· Score: 2
The _technology_ might be secure (for some period of time until Moore's law overcomes the security).. But the databases themselves will most certainly not be.
Not without reason - and currently there's not a reason.
The people maintaining/with access to these databases are paid minimum/barely above minimum wage... Turnover is rampant. The question isn't is the *database* secure, but who's "allowed" access to it.
The 2 biggest problems are going to be the a result of the institutional stupidity of big Corps, first, the utter reliance on "the system" - without the checks/balances and authority to fix problems, and the the enforced ignorance of their low level workers.
This is well illustrated with the error quoted with the error in credit rating - and then the continual re-error as databases were synced up.
And the utter disdain of anyone for any responsiblity in these matters is what makes them so bad - not that they happen - but that the corps just don't care to build the system right, and with the ability to fix these problems.
That you were in fact, trying to lynch him in the court of public opinion.
What "tactic" do you mean, posting the very suggestive comments (and then saying (aka hiding behind semantics) "But we didn't SAY he was doing those horrible things")?
I find it hard to believe that dismay had any part of this, given the story that has emerged.
The OpenSSH/OpenBSD crowd is getting more and more egg on _their_ face, with these attempts to utilize "the slashdot effect" against those who they are displeased with.
If there's more to this story - I, for one, would love to hear it - but I think that the rebuttal by Mr. de Joote sounds very reasonable.
Even more so given this.
Well, now I think you've _really_ gone and done it - you've proven that _you_ are the ones who can't _really_ be trusted.
I think there _should_ have been _much more_ "dismay" before this "tactic" was decided upon.
You're both right and wrong -- Yes, Microsoft won by winning at the corporate level. However, they did that by getting the best applications written to Windows.
Leaving aside some other points - that still means the "user" didn't decide - corporate IT did.
And "best" I disagree with.
I think the issue was "cheap". OS/2 wasn't. Applications for OS/2 weren't. For a while, OS/2 required more hardware than Windows. Besides, Windows was _included_ with all these PCs.. why toss that and buy OS/2, then buy more expensive apps? Look, we can get a deal, and MS Office included for (sometimes free) almost free! At a certain point, it becomes a chicken and egg issue.
As for OS/2, that proves my point. IBM used to sell PCs preloaded with both OS/2 and Win 3.1 (that's 3.1, mind you). It booted up to OS/2. The user had to actively click on an icon to remove OS/2, and switch to Win 3.1. Guess what they did?
No, it doesn't prove your point, because you've forgotten a very important contextual issue - the Timing of that. They didn't do that until (I forget exactly) but it was at LEAST late '94 - (I think early '95) the IBM 330's (486 DX2-66's, PCI/ISA bus) were the first to do that.
At that point, it was OS/2, and "not OS/2". Wasn't a compatibility issue - (I tearfully wiped out many an OS/2 config on the 330's (quite snappy, too)) - it was that "Windows" had been decided for our "Standard".
Again, corporate IT - not the "user". User's didn't reconfigure them. Some people who bought home machines did - (and myopically, the install program didn't make it easy to keep a dual-boot, it was pick one, NOW, delete the other) - but that was because "Windows was the standard"
Which leads me back to the issue - its not even the application - its what corporate IT sticks on the desk that becomes important.
People use applications, not operating systems.
And both are currently mostly decided by IT departments.
. 99% of users don't care about the operating system. The only thing that matters is the applications.
I disagree. They don't care - about *anything* (to do with their computer) (some debate on how much they care about anything else). They want to get paid, and do the least work needed for that.
And applications/OS aren't really an issue - but stability is - when it crashes, they can't do their job/get paid, and have to do more work.
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue. [Proof: If it was, the Mac would be dead, and Windows never would have dominated.
True - but the "average user" didn't make the choice of Windows.
As has been quite well documented, Microsoft's dominiation was with preloads. Businesses bought PCs, they came with Windows, chicken comes out of egg, etc.
Windows retail sales aren't all that spectacular. I think it was only relatively recently that they surpassed OS/2 sales.
(And the OS/2 machines had paid for Windows).
Users had very little say in this, overall. The trick was winning corporate IT divisions to Windows from OS/2 or DOS. Users had some say, and Microsoft did press that hard, and the big upsurge in Windows _was_ _partially_ due to home computers (preloaded with Windows) being sold.
But overall - it was corporate IT that stuck a computer with Windows and Office (for a long time, quite often preloaded, or preloaded for very low cost) in front of users.
Users we put new Windows machines in front of hated them. Same users now can't imagine doing something else. They're used to it, now, they'll have to learn something new.
People are notoriously shortsighted in the American (especially) culture (and some others).
The fact that a short learning curve now prevents a longer, slower, more painful one is overlooked by easily 70-90% of the "average users" out there.
Biggest problem I always identified: training. Not that we didn't have it - we couldn't get anybody to come. "I'm too busy". The class took a day. Meanwhile, in a normal month, the would lose more than 8 hours productivity waiting on the help desk to call them back to tell them how to mail merge, or come clear a printer queue...
Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop until it gets some decent applications that are at least comparably to Windows. Right now they are way, way behind.
They're just slightly behind, and I think most of that is due to the X interface.
WordPerfect on Linux I find to be very fast and good. Xess as a spreadsheet is far better (IMO) than Excel.
What it will require - is a PC plunked down in front of them, with some training classes (mostly ignored) tossed in, by corporate IT. Then Linux will start to pick up steam.
And I think its there, now. Just don't have the IT departments YET doing it.
Correction: He DOES get it. The points about project management are entirely valid. esr and his premise, that the bazzar produces better product than the cathedral falls down when you approach very large scale projects, and mission-critical applications.
That's not what he said. He said: You have been allowed to develop the system at your own pace, put in the features you want, and release it when it is ready. The reason for this is that, until recently, Linux has not been mission-critical to many important organizations. But that is changing. As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list."
This is different (at least I read it far differently) than what you're talking about.
As a matter of fact, what looks like will happen - there will be *many* places putting "out" Linux - some will have pressure. Some will have promises. Some might fall under those sorts of pressures.
Does that mean that "Linux" will? No. That means that "SuperReliableNoDowntime Linux" will.
A _more_ likely possibility will be that the proliferation of distributions - and various good/bad points may cause issues with choosing and/or recriminations with choices.
Should I install RedHat? Or Mandrake? Or Corel?
No, I tend to think he doesn't "get it". Problem is, he's in the majority, most people don't "get it". They don't count the years they've spent "learning" the Windows interface, the Office interface, they overlook that when you show them something new, and say "its too hard, I want my old stuff back, its _easier!_".
Never mind whether it _is_ easier, or it _is_ better. People resist change. Microsoft counts upon this. Why do you think they essentially gave away Office until they had 80% of the market? Why do you think they let Kinko's sell Office 97 for $5? Because it got everyone onto Office 97.
Are they doing that with Office 2000? Why not? Because you're hooked, they know it. They don't need to entice you anymore.
Some of us look beyond what we're used to. Some of us think we do, and say we do, and don't.:)
Some look for what works, and insist on using that.
Does Linux need work? Surely. Do these hotheads need to calm down? Certainly.
But honestly - someone expressing what he just did in print - would have had his boss have a visit from Microsoft, most likely. And were he in the press - there would CERTAINLY have been pressure exerted. The fact that someone in a nice expensive suit would have done it notwithstanding, its a very similar viewpoint.
He's got some slight points - but he doesn't get it.
You make it sound like the student utilizations of the network is a bad thing.
No, I said it wasn't negligible - which seems to be the opinion expressed by many, and that the university has no right to restrict the students bandwidth.
Its not a bad thing, its not a good thing. Its a thing, and has to be measured versus other metrics.
But who is paying for it? Do college administrators honestly expect students to just pay tuition and fees and not use any school resources?
I don't know what they expect - but they have to balance demands across all the resources. And tey have to take into account such contracts and restrictions.
Given the attitude of the administration at Clemson and other schools, this out of this world attitude is the norm for all institutions of higher learning.
First, as I pointed out (and you didn't refute, or address), this may be a contractual issue, as well. So it may well also be a forced issue - not one of merely what students are using resources. Secondly, if its the norm for all of them, then its hardly out of the world, is it?:)
ObjDisclaimer: Alumnus of Clemson, and DCIT was boneheads back then, even worse. Secondly - they're not all idiots, they've got some really good systems and ideas.
Clemson (and likely every other Univ, and State and Local governments) has an exclusive contract for long-distance. Since dialpad.com and others essentially allow you to connect LD, there could be an issue that its a violation of the exclusive contract.
(side note - Back when I was at Clemson, 89-93, AT&T actually disabled their calling cards from the carrier that had the entire State's contract (including Universities) from time to time - apparently just to cause problems.)
I don't see the real problem here - bandwidth consumed by students is not negligible. I worked for the Univ of South Carolina's CSD, and student bandwith forced one upgrade while I was there.
But I'd be surprised if you don't start seeing more of these blockages, based on prior exclusive contracts - and more strongly worded contracts from now on, for the next few years, while voice/data begin to re-merge.
The problem *isn't* in "cold fusion". There's a *lot* of work going on there. Some of it quite interesting, I understand.
The *problem* is Pons and Fleischmann had that huge announcement, and were debunked (proper scientific theory, a success). However - now people scoff at the idea of "cold fusion". (A misnomer)
But there's a lot of reseach in the same fields going on. Its not bogus, and they're not trying to save the world and make a huge announcement.
You're letting the 1 big event color your perception of the the entire field - which isn't correct. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and a lot of people trying to discover that.
"Cold fusion" is a real but still incompletely explained energy-producing phenomenon, that occurs when ordinary hydrogen and the special ofrm of hydrogen called deuterium are brought together with metals, such as palladium, titanium, and nickel. Usually, some triggering mechanism, such as electricity or acoustic energy, is required to provoke the "cold fusion" effects. Both ordinary hydrogen and deuterim are abundant in ordinary water --- whether fresh water, ocean water, ice, or snow --- so the process will likely end many of the world's energy concerns, if it can be developed commerically. Now, this seems all but certain. (the deuterium form of hydrogen is present naturally as one out of every 7,000 hydrogen atoms and is easy to separate.)
Cold fusion releases enormous quantities of energy in the form of heat, not radiation, as in hot fusion. This heat energy is hundreds to thousands of times what ordinary chemical reactions could possibly yield. If "cold fusion" is a hertofore unknown form of benign nuclear reaction --- as most researchers in the field believe --- there is more potential cold fusion energy in a cubic mile of sea water than in all of the oil reserves on earth
Here's one netizen who doesn't believe that Microsoft is "predatory, ruthless, monopolistic, and greedy."
Well, that's certainly your choice. However, the trial, and the Findings of Fact would greatly damage that opinion of most people who hadn't made up their mind.
Its very obvious that Microsoft has been EXACTLY predatory (and by definition has a monopoly), and greedy. They doubled the price of Windows 98 - because they could. And even most Microsoft _defenders_ admit that they're "ruthless" and say that its the American way...
So the best you can really argue is predatory. Again, read the memoes from Microsoft. Welding on Internet Explorer (IE is a trademark not owned by Microsoft, and they promised not to use it) _because_ even when it was included and free - people weren't using it.
They are in essence being punished for their success
They've not been "Punished" at _all_.
This was the findings of fact. Any punishment will be a seperate phase - or in another trial, such as Caldera. And their success is not at issue - their illegal use of a monopoly is.
And they may be punished for that - they did break the law.
I think that consumers have benefited a great deal from Microsoft's products,
As is your right - and further, not even the point at hand. They may have. They've also been damaged by the lack of competition.
and it sickens me that the government would bring them down to please the whiny mediocrities at Netscape and Sun.
The "government brought them down" because they broke the law. And violated a court order.
And Sun's court case is in civil - not antitrust.
Would you like to explain why they shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law?
Many criminals are successful - do we only prosecute the unsuccessful ones?
Read the FoF. Much of Microsoft's recent "success" was in violation of the law.
Aren't Linux and the other open OS's rising on their own merits?
Partially, and partially _because_ of MS's bloat and attempt to monopolize everything.
But the preloads of Linux, the media attention? Wouldn't have happened without the DoJ trial.
Notice that the Dell and Compaq preloads happened under a week after testimony what happened if OEM's preloaded other than Windows?
I suspect that regardless of Microsoft's practices a year from now just about anywhere you go when you buy a computer you will be asked what OS('s) would you like with it.
Why? How? That wasn't about to change. Why would someone support a 2-5% OS, and incur 100% increase in their 95% OS?
Yes, we needed this ruling. Other companies did. Microsoft did. They've been believing their own PR - and now perhaps they'll start actually TRYING to make better products.
Internet Explorer 5 is one of the few products that has advantages (still arguable) over the competition. Has file/print sharing been improved? Not really. What about stablity? Not really. Clustering? Nope.
In fact, a lot of things about Windows have gotten far far worse.
And as of 2 weeks ago -OEM's were not allowed to give you Windows, period. Only in a format that would ONLY install on your system.
Many many better products have hit the road and been run over by the OEM preloads and secret contracts. Now - these are in the open, we've got a federal judge's ruling, and things (may) change.
Perhaps Linux (or something else) would have supplanted Windows - that's unknown. But in the desktop arena, it wasn't making that progress (yet).
And as things stand, if everyone who buys a machine next year from an OEM installs another OS - Windows records 50% of the sold/installed OSes.
Lets not forget OS/2 has stomped Windows into the ground in terms of *sales* (not preloads). I imagine Linux is passing OS/2, or has. Certainly in terms of installs, (not preloads, or re-installs of preloads).
Yes, we needed this. Despite the strength's of any of the competition.
MS does not have and never had a monopoly on operating systems. The very idea of such a monopoly is ridiculous.
Do you know what a _monopoly_ is? Yes, Microsoft has one. The FoF proves this in a legal sense.
The fact that there are ALTERNATIVES does not mean that a monopoly doesn't exist.
You could have walked, rather than use Standard Oil. Used HAM radio, rather than AT&T. There are *always* alternatives - the aspect of a monopoly is that they prevent those alternatives from becoming dominant enough to threaten their profits.
The FoF concretes this - how MS in many cases did things *merely* to damage Netscape, Java, Mac.
That they would not have done (sensibly) if they didn't have a monopoly.
What they have is just a very popular OS. . ..has risen to popularity at least in part due to aggressive bundling strategies, but still merely very successfully sold.
Check out what a monopoly entails. "Bundling?" No. OEMs who didn't sell Windows wouldn't sell machines. (Prior to 1995, they HAD to pay Microsoft for EVERY MACHINE sold (hense the original "consent decree"). That's not a bundling deal - its a monopoly.
Look at the server market for one where there isn't a monopoly. Notice the VAST differences between the "bundling deals" available. Notice you can get more than one OS. In fact, a LOT of different ones. Windows NT. Novell. SCO. Solaris. To name a few.
Have you read the FoF? Jackson got the whole point of OS/2 down. That as long as MS had the monopoly, OS/2 could never compete.
You have to ask yourself, do you really want a justice system that is willing to ignore the truth to get the results it wants?
Actually, I'd prefer that people know what a monopoly is before they blather about how Microsoft doesn't have one.
Yes, I can. If I don't NEED HTML support, why would I want it?
And KDE's not forced on people. OEM's aren't being charged an arm and a leg to ONLY install KDE, and not to install GNOME.
You can easily run a Window Manager that doesn't know a thing about HTML. And if you're in a low-memory situation, you just might want to.
The issue isn't that they included HTML support, or a web browser. The FoF is quite clear that MS did this *to damage Netscape*. Not out of innovation, or regards for the customer/consumer.
They said that, but its quite obvious that they were making excuses because they were scared what HTML and Java represent.
Notice we're not HAVING to use Windows to read and post here?
There's (not much) that Microsoft can do to then change API's or yank the carpet out - as they did in Windows 2, 3, 95, 98....
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm.
According to the stories, Frontpage 2000 on Windows 2000 isn't affected.
As The Register puts it, per the link above:
The problem isn't there in Win2k servers with FrontPage 2000 extensions, so an upgrade might be a good idea. But not necessarily to Win2k.
Hrm.
Ok, Windows 2000 isn't jumping off the shelves. Problems are grounding it. So... maybe its time to "leak" a old backdoor, so that people would upgrade to 2000 ASAP?
Granted, those who thought would be saying "What problems will we have there" - but by and large - the people who think aren't running NT (especially for webserving).
(Not an NT bash, BTW. I'm talking about the vast majority of tossed-up NT servers who fill needs, and then massive effort is spent _fixing_ problems, performance, etc, rather than sitting down, building a good solution, and doing it right. (Personal opinion, NT shouldn't be there, but in those cases, some valid cases can be made for NT).
I just... Surely not. Surely this is just a coincidence. But... I've *got* to wonder..
Addison
What's changed?
Are the Windows 2000 tests substantially harder, or are they just being forced to take more tests, not that much harder, and pushed to use Windows 2000?
Addison
That's worth a guess, but with >$20B in the bank.. I don't think that's the issue. Hell, they can buy and sell just about any 2 3rd world nations at this point.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume they can go blithely on for another year without _seriously_ big profit centers from something major and current- and if they are trying to make this profit center out of MCSEs, they are fscking desperate! I say this is blood in the water, and it's not all MCSE blood.
Here's where you're right - for the wrong reason.
NT 5 (AKA Windows 2000) is going to be a dog out the door. Actually, just like 95 and 98 and NT were. But the benefits of going to 2000 - what are they?
With 95, for instance, it was obvious. 32 bit, multitasking (yes, I know, but it kinda did), memory management. So people did upgrade - albeit much more slowly than Microsoft would have you believe.
And now that NT is so endemic in computer rooms, (NT, its not just a adventure, its a job) - and its worse than rabbits - it takes 2 rabbits to multiply, but only 1 NT box to mulitply).... That's where Microsoft wants to be. They'll get the desktops, with preloads, and time. They know that. When 98 and NT 4 aren't preload options, Windows 2000 will take over.
But the servers... How to get them upgraded? Hell, they just got decently stable, (as much as NT is) recently.. And stuff works, and the staff knows how to deal with the NT 4 issues.
How to force an upgrade *there*?
Simple, make everybody HAVE to go see JUST how wonderful and gee whiz golly and magical the new OS is!
FORCE them to get educated, and then say "why do we have to do it THIS dumb way when its so much easier with 2000?" (And hope not too many are UNIX, OS/2 or Novell admins who say "its still THAT freaking hard, and you STILL can't do this easily?).
That's the blood in the water. If they can't force you to upgrade - they've got problems. Microsoft don't like supporting old stuff. They don't LIKE it. Newest! Greatest! Now! That's Microsoft.
I used to point out that IBM had a "Stable" OS/2 sales item. When Warp 4 came out, I don't think Warp 3 had passed the tests to become that, and it was still OS/2 2.11 for several more months. That's the difference in mentality here. Novell sold off NW 3.x - but to a group that has a vested interest in keeping it fixed - and so they still sell it - and generate bug fixes. What, almost 10 years later?
Microsoft is scared of having to try and maintain the sloppy code that is NT - for years and years. That's the blood in the water - the attempt to get everyone to upgrade to 2000...
Addison
My salary would be unchanged. So I would be wasting it. In fact, my salary is signifigantly higher than the "average" MCSE.
I happen to know a few MCSEs myself, and they're definately no slouches.
I know quite a few. Some are not. Those who aren't are always MCSE's after experience that isn't inclusive to NT.
Well, did she get certified in TCP/IP? Maybe you're not aware that to be MSCE you only need to pass the 4 core exams and 2 electives. TCP/IP is not a core exam.
You're splitting hairs, and incorrectly. The point is that she was an MCSE. She made decisions on an ISP level. Hint: "I" in ISP and TCP/IP stands for the same thing. You're selling IP services, and unaware of how IP works? That is indicative of something. Why *wouldn't* she have gotten the IP certification - further, why isn't it required?
Companies are paying $X more for MSCE certified people
Some companies. Some automatically junk MCSE resumes. Many are, its true. But those jobs are also among the most routine and repetitive jobs.
Sir, the number of people who are certified has absolutely zero bearing on how comprehensive a test is. If this was the case, your IQ would be directly proportional to how many neighbors your had.
The two have nothing to do with each other. You're correct - the number doesn't tell you how comphrensive it is, by itself. There is contextual information missing. How many failed? Further, how many (to another standard) passed the MCSE but fail another standard?
ere again you're taking two unrelated facts and trying to arrive at a conclusion.
No, the poster is relating experience. Which I corroborate. UNIX admins - even the "green" ones are far more well-rounded than green NT admins.
Largely, this is because UNIX and NT are very similar in difficulty. UNIX has a steep learning curve at the initiation - but almost everything builds on everything else, and as you learn, you begin to get better on almost an exponential level. Further, the fact that building helps you remember related issues/helps/tricks/tips.
NT, on the other hand, has masses of unrelated, uncoordinated trivia. What button do you click here, what Registry setting is configured wrong by default? Almost impossible to remember without promting/notes. And certainly not self-prompting.
By your own admission, you state that the tests could be of comparable difficulty yet the people who are certified may or may not have the same level of competence when they are finished!
Yes.
After all how do you compare what someone certified on Solaris knows versus somebody certified in NT?
Watch what they do, how well they do it, and the length of time it takes to complete roughly similar tasks.
Which in my experience is greatly in favor of the UNIX greenhorns, who can troubleshoot better, and think through how things are supposed to work.
Addison
The _technology_ might be secure (for some period of time until Moore's law overcomes the security).. But the databases themselves will most certainly not be.
Not without reason - and currently there's not a reason.
The people maintaining/with access to these databases are paid minimum/barely above minimum wage... Turnover is rampant. The question isn't is the *database* secure, but who's "allowed" access to it.
The 2 biggest problems are going to be the a result of the institutional stupidity of big Corps, first, the utter reliance on "the system" - without the checks/balances and authority to fix problems, and the the enforced ignorance of their low level workers.
This is well illustrated with the error quoted with the error in credit rating - and then the continual re-error as databases were synced up.
And the utter disdain of anyone for any responsiblity in these matters is what makes them so bad - not that they happen - but that the corps just don't care to build the system right, and with the ability to fix these problems.
Addison
That you were in fact, trying to lynch him in the court of public opinion.
What "tactic" do you mean, posting the very suggestive comments (and then saying (aka hiding behind semantics) "But we didn't SAY he was doing those horrible things")?
I find it hard to believe that dismay had any part of this, given the story that has emerged.
The OpenSSH/OpenBSD crowd is getting more and more egg on _their_ face, with these attempts to utilize "the slashdot effect" against those who they are displeased with.
If there's more to this story - I, for one, would love to hear it - but I think that the rebuttal by Mr. de Joote sounds very reasonable.
Even more so given this.
Well, now I think you've _really_ gone and done it - you've proven that _you_ are the ones who can't _really_ be trusted.
I think there _should_ have been _much more_ "dismay" before this "tactic" was decided upon.
Addison
(Surely/Shirley you Jest).
"Blame Canada" was a joke about exactly that.
Sarcasm detector registered 0 reading your post.
Addison
Leaving aside some other points - that still means the "user" didn't decide - corporate IT did.
And "best" I disagree with.
I think the issue was "cheap". OS/2 wasn't. Applications for OS/2 weren't. For a while, OS/2 required more hardware than Windows. Besides, Windows was _included_ with all these PCs.. why toss that and buy OS/2, then buy more expensive apps? Look, we can get a deal, and MS Office included for (sometimes free) almost free! At a certain point, it becomes a chicken and egg issue.
As for OS/2, that proves my point. IBM used to sell PCs preloaded with both OS/2 and Win 3.1 (that's 3.1, mind you). It booted up to OS/2. The user had to actively click on an icon to remove OS/2, and switch to Win 3.1. Guess what they did?
No, it doesn't prove your point, because you've forgotten a very important contextual issue - the Timing of that. They didn't do that until (I forget exactly) but it was at LEAST late '94 - (I think early '95) the IBM 330's (486 DX2-66's, PCI/ISA bus) were the first to do that.
At that point, it was OS/2, and "not OS/2". Wasn't a compatibility issue - (I tearfully wiped out many an OS/2 config on the 330's (quite snappy, too)) - it was that "Windows" had been decided for our "Standard".
Again, corporate IT - not the "user". User's didn't reconfigure them. Some people who bought home machines did - (and myopically, the install program didn't make it easy to keep a dual-boot, it was pick one, NOW, delete the other) - but that was because "Windows was the standard"
Which leads me back to the issue - its not even the application - its what corporate IT sticks on the desk that becomes important.
People use applications, not operating systems.
And both are currently mostly decided by IT departments.
The users have precious little say into that.
Addison
I disagree. They don't care - about *anything* (to do with their computer) (some debate on how much they care about anything else). They want to get paid, and do the least work needed for that.
And applications/OS aren't really an issue - but stability is - when it crashes, they can't do their job/get paid, and have to do more work.
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue. [Proof: If it was, the Mac would be dead, and Windows never would have dominated.
True - but the "average user" didn't make the choice of Windows.
As has been quite well documented, Microsoft's dominiation was with preloads. Businesses bought PCs, they came with Windows, chicken comes out of egg, etc.
Windows retail sales aren't all that spectacular. I think it was only relatively recently that they surpassed OS/2 sales.
(And the OS/2 machines had paid for Windows).
Users had very little say in this, overall. The trick was winning corporate IT divisions to Windows from OS/2 or DOS. Users had some say, and Microsoft did press that hard, and the big upsurge in Windows _was_ _partially_ due to home computers (preloaded with Windows) being sold.
But overall - it was corporate IT that stuck a computer with Windows and Office (for a long time, quite often preloaded, or preloaded for very low cost) in front of users.
Users we put new Windows machines in front of hated them. Same users now can't imagine doing something else. They're used to it, now, they'll have to learn something new.
People are notoriously shortsighted in the American (especially) culture (and some others).
The fact that a short learning curve now prevents a longer, slower, more painful one is overlooked by easily 70-90% of the "average users" out there.
Biggest problem I always identified: training. Not that we didn't have it - we couldn't get anybody to come. "I'm too busy". The class took a day. Meanwhile, in a normal month, the would lose more than 8 hours productivity waiting on the help desk to call them back to tell them how to mail merge, or come clear a printer queue...
Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop until it gets some decent applications that are at least comparably to Windows. Right now they are way, way behind.
They're just slightly behind, and I think most of that is due to the X interface.
WordPerfect on Linux I find to be very fast and good. Xess as a spreadsheet is far better (IMO) than Excel.
What it will require - is a PC plunked down in front of them, with some training classes (mostly ignored) tossed in, by corporate IT. Then Linux will start to pick up steam.
And I think its there, now. Just don't have the IT departments YET doing it.
Addison
That's not what he said. He said:
You have been allowed to develop the system at your own pace, put in the features you want, and release it when it is ready. The reason for this is that, until recently, Linux has not been mission-critical to many important organizations. But that is changing. As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list."
This is different (at least I read it far differently) than what you're talking about.
As a matter of fact, what looks like will happen - there will be *many* places putting "out" Linux - some will have pressure. Some will have promises. Some might fall under those sorts of pressures.
Does that mean that "Linux" will? No. That means that "SuperReliableNoDowntime Linux" will.
A _more_ likely possibility will be that the proliferation of distributions - and various good/bad points may cause issues with choosing and/or recriminations with choices.
Should I install RedHat? Or Mandrake? Or Corel?
No, I tend to think he doesn't "get it". Problem is, he's in the majority, most people don't "get it". They don't count the years they've spent "learning" the Windows interface, the Office interface, they overlook that when you show them something new, and say "its too hard, I want my old stuff back, its _easier!_".
Never mind whether it _is_ easier, or it _is_ better. People resist change. Microsoft counts upon this. Why do you think they essentially gave away Office until they had 80% of the market? Why do you think they let Kinko's sell Office 97 for $5? Because it got everyone onto Office 97.
Are they doing that with Office 2000? Why not? Because you're hooked, they know it. They don't need to entice you anymore.
Some of us look beyond what we're used to. Some of us think we do, and say we do, and don't. :)
Some look for what works, and insist on using that.
Does Linux need work? Surely. Do these hotheads need to calm down? Certainly.
But honestly - someone expressing what he just did in print - would have had his boss have a visit from Microsoft, most likely. And were he in the press - there would CERTAINLY have been pressure exerted. The fact that someone in a nice expensive suit would have done it notwithstanding, its a very similar viewpoint.
He's got some slight points - but he doesn't get it.
Addison
Remember, one of the major "selling points" of SP3 (aside from the fact that it replaced *shudder* SP2) was that it rebooted "50% faster". :)
:)
As per Ballmer, IIRC..
Addison
No, I said it wasn't negligible - which seems to be the opinion expressed by many, and that the university has no right to restrict the students bandwidth.
Its not a bad thing, its not a good thing. Its a thing, and has to be measured versus other metrics.
But who is paying for it? Do college administrators honestly expect students to just pay tuition and fees and not use any school resources?
I don't know what they expect - but they have to balance demands across all the resources. And tey have to take into account such contracts and restrictions.
Given the attitude of the administration at Clemson and other schools, this out of this world attitude is the norm for all institutions of higher learning.
First, as I pointed out (and you didn't refute, or address), this may be a contractual issue, as well. So it may well also be a forced issue - not one of merely what students are using resources. Secondly, if its the norm for all of them, then its hardly out of the world, is it? :)
Addison
ObjDisclaimer: Alumnus of Clemson, and DCIT was boneheads back then, even worse. Secondly - they're not all idiots, they've got some really good systems and ideas.
Clemson (and likely every other Univ, and State and Local governments) has an exclusive contract for long-distance. Since dialpad.com and others essentially allow you to connect LD, there could be an issue that its a violation of the exclusive contract.
(side note - Back when I was at Clemson, 89-93, AT&T actually disabled their calling cards from the carrier that had the entire State's contract (including Universities) from time to time - apparently just to cause problems.)
I don't see the real problem here - bandwidth consumed by students is not negligible. I worked for the Univ of South Carolina's CSD, and student bandwith forced one upgrade while I was there.
But I'd be surprised if you don't start seeing more of these blockages, based on prior exclusive contracts - and more strongly worded contracts from now on, for the next few years, while voice/data begin to re-merge.
Addison
The *problem* is Pons and Fleischmann had that huge announcement, and were debunked (proper scientific theory, a success). However - now people scoff at the idea of "cold fusion". (A misnomer)
But there's a lot of reseach in the same fields going on. Its not bogus, and they're not trying to save the world and make a huge announcement.
You're letting the 1 big event color your perception of the the entire field - which isn't correct. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and a lot of people trying to discover that.
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruc
(Google is your friend!)
Addison
Well, that's certainly your choice. However, the trial, and the Findings of Fact would greatly damage that opinion of most people who hadn't made up their mind.
Its very obvious that Microsoft has been EXACTLY predatory (and by definition has a monopoly), and greedy. They doubled the price of Windows 98 - because they could. And even most Microsoft _defenders_ admit that they're "ruthless" and say that its the American way...
So the best you can really argue is predatory. Again, read the memoes from Microsoft. Welding on Internet Explorer (IE is a trademark not owned by Microsoft, and they promised not to use it) _because_ even when it was included and free - people weren't using it.
They are in essence being punished for their success
They've not been "Punished" at _all_.
This was the findings of fact. Any punishment will be a seperate phase - or in another trial, such as Caldera. And their success is not at issue - their illegal use of a monopoly is.
And they may be punished for that - they did break the law.
I think that consumers have benefited a great deal from Microsoft's products,
As is your right - and further, not even the point at hand. They may have. They've also been damaged by the lack of competition.
and it sickens me that the government would bring them down to please the whiny mediocrities at Netscape and Sun.
The "government brought them down" because they broke the law. And violated a court order.
And Sun's court case is in civil - not antitrust.
Would you like to explain why they shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law?
Many criminals are successful - do we only prosecute the unsuccessful ones?
Read the FoF. Much of Microsoft's recent "success" was in violation of the law.
Addison
Partially, and partially _because_ of MS's bloat and attempt to monopolize everything.
But the preloads of Linux, the media attention? Wouldn't have happened without the DoJ trial.
Notice that the Dell and Compaq preloads happened under a week after testimony what happened if OEM's preloaded other than Windows?
I suspect that regardless of Microsoft's practices a year from now just about anywhere you go when you buy a computer you will be asked what OS('s) would you like with it.
Why? How? That wasn't about to change. Why would someone support a 2-5% OS, and incur 100% increase in their 95% OS?
Yes, we needed this ruling. Other companies did. Microsoft did. They've been believing their own PR - and now perhaps they'll start actually TRYING to make better products.
Internet Explorer 5 is one of the few products that has advantages (still arguable) over the competition. Has file/print sharing been improved? Not really. What about stablity? Not really. Clustering? Nope.
In fact, a lot of things about Windows have gotten far far worse.
And as of 2 weeks ago -OEM's were not allowed to give you Windows, period. Only in a format that would ONLY install on your system.
Many many better products have hit the road and been run over by the OEM preloads and secret contracts. Now - these are in the open, we've got a federal judge's ruling, and things (may) change.
Perhaps Linux (or something else) would have supplanted Windows - that's unknown. But in the desktop arena, it wasn't making that progress (yet).
And as things stand, if everyone who buys a machine next year from an OEM installs another OS - Windows records 50% of the sold/installed OSes.
Lets not forget OS/2 has stomped Windows into the ground in terms of *sales* (not preloads). I imagine Linux is passing OS/2, or has. Certainly in terms of installs, (not preloads, or re-installs of preloads).
Yes, we needed this. Despite the strength's of any of the competition.
Addison
Do you know what a _monopoly_ is? Yes, Microsoft has one. The FoF proves this in a legal sense.
The fact that there are ALTERNATIVES does not mean that a monopoly doesn't exist.
You could have walked, rather than use Standard Oil. Used HAM radio, rather than AT&T. There are *always* alternatives - the aspect of a monopoly is that they prevent those alternatives from becoming dominant enough to threaten their profits.
The FoF concretes this - how MS in many cases did things *merely* to damage Netscape, Java, Mac.
That they would not have done (sensibly) if they didn't have a monopoly.
What they have is just a very popular OS. . .
aggressive bundling strategies, but still merely very successfully sold.
Check out what a monopoly entails. "Bundling?" No. OEMs who didn't sell Windows wouldn't sell machines. (Prior to 1995, they HAD to pay Microsoft for EVERY MACHINE sold (hense the original "consent decree"). That's not a bundling deal - its a monopoly.
Look at the server market for one where there isn't a monopoly. Notice the VAST differences between the "bundling deals" available. Notice you can get more than one OS. In fact, a LOT of different ones. Windows NT. Novell. SCO. Solaris. To name a few.
Have you read the FoF? Jackson got the whole point of OS/2 down. That as long as MS had the monopoly, OS/2 could never compete.
You have to ask yourself, do you really want a justice system that is willing to ignore the truth to get the results it wants?
Actually, I'd prefer that people know what a monopoly is before they blather about how Microsoft doesn't have one.
Addison
Which is the first problem with your statement.
Yes, I can. If I don't NEED HTML support, why would I want it?
And KDE's not forced on people. OEM's aren't being charged an arm and a leg to ONLY install KDE, and not to install GNOME.
You can easily run a Window Manager that doesn't know a thing about HTML. And if you're in a low-memory situation, you just might want to.
The issue isn't that they included HTML support, or a web browser. The FoF is quite clear that MS did this *to damage Netscape*. Not out of innovation, or regards for the customer/consumer.
They said that, but its quite obvious that they were making excuses because they were scared what HTML and Java represent.
Notice we're not HAVING to use Windows to read and post here?
There's (not much) that Microsoft can do to then change API's or yank the carpet out - as they did in Windows 2, 3, 95, 98....