Now, is Microsoft aiming to produce readers or authoring for more than a fraction of those systems? I doubt it.
You are, of course, ignoring the bit about an open, royalty free licenced XML format? If it pans out, anyone can write a reader/writer for any of the OS's you mention.
It's worth noting that each scenario consists of only desktop applications, and it'd still be interesting to see some common server benchmarks, such as a database or web server.
Except that this is a desktop processor, that won't be shipping in server systems. So in actual fact it's worth noting that the entire point is that each scenario consists of only desktop applications.
And of course , MS is late to the game on this issue. There are already a several boot to Windows Terminal server options out there already. Available in floppy , cd , or network boot form. There are a few Linux Live cds that have Remote Desktop Client included.
Totally agreed. I am a Windows admin and architect and I see no value in using a microsoft solution if all you need is to boot into a TS session. With thin clients, use a linux-based image, updatable over the network. With old PCs use a bootable linux CD that takes you straight into your session.
RTFA. What they are saying is that they will support use of the beta software in a production environment. That's a whole world away from the situation you describe.
Oh, for god's sake, read the damn link. I know it's at microsoft.com, but it won't kill you. It really annoys me when people quote that list of "applications that are broken by xp SP2". These are the categories:
Multiplayer games and instant message programs that are used over the Internet.
Windows XP SP2-based client programs that receive data from a server.
Windows XP SP2-based server programs that respond to client requests.
Anyone see a connection? Yeeees, they're all apps that connect outside the machine. Hang on - xp sp2 has a firewall! And it's turned on by default!
So maybe, just maybe, these apps aren't broken by sp2, but you have to set the firewall up to let them communicate? (Note, this isn't a maybe, it's a fact)
Have you ever seen a firewall that doesn't block propriatry inbound/outbound comms by default?
Caveat: Some on that list are apps that will bluescreen. The majority are not. It is the majority to which I refer above.
Why is this informative? The above poster entirely misses the point of anti-spyware tools. They are designed to flag as a possible threat anything that could be malicious. There are known spyware agents that utilise TightVNC, RealVNC, and WinPCap, so the software is performing exactly as designed.
And if you are one of the many IE users that takes their computer out of the box, runs xp, has automatic updates enabled etc, and actually doesn't have any problems with their computer?
Sure, IE has it's problems, but I get pretty sick of the attitude that double-clicking on iexplore.exe has the same overall effect as juggling with C4.
Most people don't need to upgrade because guess what? IE lets them do what they want and doesn't cause them problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The article states that they have no idea - they have asked Microsoft, and have had no response.
/. story, which talks of "the scoop" and says the website "thinks it has the answer"?
How does that add up to the
That amused me:
"Anakin - you've lost! I have the high ground!"
I was expecting:
"What are you - a 14th century archer?"
I would be very surprised if they didn't. You may have meant:
"Will Microsoft allow an open-source Linux project to use the format if the project insists on using the GPL?"
Which is an entirely different question.
You are, of course, ignoring the bit about an open, royalty free licenced XML format? If it pans out, anyone can write a reader/writer for any of the OS's you mention.
Except that this is a desktop processor, that won't be shipping in server systems. So in actual fact it's worth noting that the entire point is that each scenario consists of only desktop applications.
Totally agreed. I am a Windows admin and architect and I see no value in using a microsoft solution if all you need is to boot into a TS session. With thin clients, use a linux-based image, updatable over the network. With old PCs use a bootable linux CD that takes you straight into your session.
It's light, and it's clean.
RTFA. What they are saying is that they will support use of the beta software in a production environment. That's a whole world away from the situation you describe.
This is only true if it's only your data that you care about.
A compromised system with a user running as root? Simplicity itself to set an SMTP daemon running and happily accepting and relaying mail.
Welcome to the world of the Linspire open relay network.
The parent is not insightful, it is horrifying.
To say that there is no security problem because it's "not as bad as windows" is the worst attitude to security you can possibly have.
That was most likely XP SP2, if you're running XP and don't already have it.
Oh, for god's sake, read the damn link. I know it's at microsoft.com, but it won't kill you. It really annoys me when people quote that list of "applications that are broken by xp SP2". These are the categories:
Multiplayer games and instant message programs that are used over the Internet.
Windows XP SP2-based client programs that receive data from a server.
Windows XP SP2-based server programs that respond to client requests.
Anyone see a connection? Yeeees, they're all apps that connect outside the machine. Hang on - xp sp2 has a firewall! And it's turned on by default! So maybe, just maybe, these apps aren't broken by sp2, but you have to set the firewall up to let them communicate? (Note, this isn't a maybe, it's a fact) Have you ever seen a firewall that doesn't block propriatry inbound/outbound comms by default?
Caveat: Some on that list are apps that will bluescreen. The majority are not. It is the majority to which I refer above.
Why is this informative? The above poster entirely misses the point of anti-spyware tools.
They are designed to flag as a possible threat anything that could be malicious. There are known spyware agents that utilise TightVNC, RealVNC, and WinPCap, so the software is performing exactly as designed.
How is this insightful?
It would only be the razors and razorblades model if they were selling the updates. Any indication they are doing this? No
And selling you a flat tyre, then selling you a puncture repair kit? Does this article state anywhere that Microsoft intend charging for this product?
And if you are one of the many IE users that takes their computer out of the box, runs xp, has automatic updates enabled etc, and actually doesn't have any problems with their computer?
Sure, IE has it's problems, but I get pretty sick of the attitude that double-clicking on iexplore.exe has the same overall effect as juggling with C4.
Most people don't need to upgrade because guess what? IE lets them do what they want and doesn't cause them problems.
--
Craster
Amusing in a horrifying way, those attacked also included a registered paedeotrician. When typos go wrong.
--
Craster
This is especially true given that their current advertising campaign is all about benefits for all their subscribers, not just new customers.
--
Craster