Microsoft's biggest enemy, at the moment is its self.
It goes beyond the fact that Microsoft has lost its ability to innovate, though that is a significant portion.
Microsoft still has the zero sum mindset, i.e., either it wins it all, or it walks away. Microsoft will do whatever needs to be done in order to preserve what it has, including watching the market move past them. Microsoft will always be the dominant player on the desktop, Microsoft's monopoly will assure that. However, what Microsoft's monoploy cannot prevent is another entity making the desktop significantly less important. Once the desktop loses its importance, Microsoft's very foundation is weakened.
Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.
The computing paradigm shifted away from IBM's mainframes in the early 90s. Will the paradigm shift away from Microsoft's desktops?
With the exception of capacity, the solid state disk drives appear to beat spinning disk in every category,
Why is the ultimate number of writes never taken into account in these comparison reviews? Why are solid state drives tested so that their weaknesses are not probed?
The simple thing that's wrong with that tactic is that instead of having to provide security for one OS, they now have to provide security for both.
And your point is? That extra security costs money?
When protecting data, think "serial" and not "parallel". You won't get extra security by diversifying your OSs because hackers don't need to hack ALL of them, but just ONE of them, to compromise data.
In one instance you may be correct, but in other instances, you are not. Whether or not data are compromised depends upon how that data are partitioned and where the data reside.
You do get extra security by diversification, because you have the ability to continue to function while one OS's computers are struggling with a malware attack.
Note that the article is not saying that diversification of OS will make an installation 100% secure, just that it will improve the likelihood of continued operation albeit at reduced levels.
But waving around an OS like it was some magic bullet that's going to somehow fix your security problems is, well, insanity.
If you read the article instead of the headline, you'll see that the Army is making the attack target more diversified, so that a single attack will not bring down all computers. What's wrong with that tactic?
Looks like they are finally getting their javascript act together. After being a sore point for so many years, a working javascript in Opera will be welcome.
The Netscape point shows a great knowledge of computer history.
Yes, and that was the basis of my original comment (that was mod'ed as a troll...). Once the desktop OS as an application platform is made moot by Google's online apps (and other Web-based applications), Microsoft's foundation crumbles. Microsoft will fight by any means possible to prevent that from happening. It will be a fight for life as Microsoft sees it, because Microsoft is unable to compete without leveraging its desktop monopoly.
At some point in the future, all many will need is a device that runs a web browser, and not the overly complicated and bloated mess we know as Windows. To be sure, there will be some who want to continue to run a full-blown desktop OS, but they will be in the minority.
Microsoft faces a business quandary as it tries to link the Web to its existing desktop business
So long as Microsoft is unable to move past the desktop monopoly, Microsoft will fail. Every attempt of Microsoft to find a new and profitable business has relied upon leveraging Microsoft's desktop monopoly. Unfortunately for Microsoft, competitors like Google are making the desktop moot, thereby crumbling Microsoft's very foundation.
Microsoft is already watching what you do with Windows Vista. All this means is that you will get a free copy of Vista if you explicitly acknowledge that Microsoft collects your usage patterns to sell to advertisers.
This will probably be the way the Windows franchise is run in the future: no charge for the OS, but Microsoft will sell your usage info to the pop-up ad crowd.
Yes it is quite feasible. So there will be errors for the short term. Then the errors will be fixed by sites that care. Sites that don't care will wither and die off. That is the good result of error checking --- errors tend to be fixed.
Does anyone really still believe that WikiPedia is a valid source of information from accountable sources?
In addition to accountability, WikiPedia also lacks a historical perspective on the items it tries to document. Anything occurring in the recent past is always given far more "column inches" than more significant things that happen in the past. Even worse, things experienced by the writer of the WikiPedia article are given much, much more precedence than those things not experienced by the writer. That is what happens when you have amateur writers and editors: pop culture and pop knowledge win, historical perspective loses.
While I agree with you (mostly) that ham shouldn't just be about the Morse code, Morse has a huge advantage in reception -- a weak signal may be useless for voice, but tones can still be recognized.
There are always going to be a subset of ham operators who will learn morse code, regardless of whether it is needed to get the license.
But let's not lose track of one of the significant benefits of the ham operators, and that is that they build and maintain a web of communications that often does not rely upon the regular communications infrastructure. As such, the ham operators' communications network runs when the regular communications infrastructure is down.
The dedication of the ham operators is legendary. They will get the message through.
Read the "news" article. Does it sound like news or breathless self-promotional gushing by Microsoft employees? Why are most of the quotes in the article positive opinions and comments from Microsoft employees? Where is the balance of opinion? Why does a senior Microsoft manager feel it is important to state that patches should not break customers' software?
If it walks like a shill, writes like a shill, chances are it is a shill.
From TFA, "The war room is just one of a number of changes Microsoft has made over the years, usually the result of a lesson learned the hard way through some work or other outbreak. In part one of a three-part series starting Monday, I take a look back at those painful lessons and how they have shaped Microsoft's current practices. On Tuesday, I'll look at the role of the human element in trying to keep software secure. And on Wednesday, I'll look at some of the people Microsoft counts on to keep its products safe. Each day there will be a blog too, going into more depth on one issue raised by that day's story."
Looks like Microsoft has a new shill at news.com, with Microsoft setting the agenda for the week of articles. Find a reporter, give him/her special access so long as everything written is in a positive tone about Microsoft, and the Microsoft script is followed. Gushing is encouraged.
Either the supply is low, or the demand is high. I would say that the supply of the 80GB Zunes has been limited so that the "news" articles can hype "it's sold out".
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/main/5414105.html
... they do a better job than what they did with WikiPedia.
It goes beyond the fact that Microsoft has lost its ability to innovate, though that is a significant portion.
Microsoft still has the zero sum mindset, i.e., either it wins it all, or it walks away. Microsoft will do whatever needs to be done in order to preserve what it has, including watching the market move past them. Microsoft will always be the dominant player on the desktop, Microsoft's monopoly will assure that. However, what Microsoft's monoploy cannot prevent is another entity making the desktop significantly less important. Once the desktop loses its importance, Microsoft's very foundation is weakened.
Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.
The computing paradigm shifted away from IBM's mainframes in the early 90s. Will the paradigm shift away from Microsoft's desktops?
It is the software that you have to live with, and Leopard is hands-down better than Vista could ever hope to be.
That is what Microsoft really fears: Micrsoft cannot leverage its desktop OS monopoly to beat Google.
Why is the ultimate number of writes never taken into account in these comparison reviews? Why are solid state drives tested so that their weaknesses are not probed?
There are dimmable CF bulbs available.
And your point is? That extra security costs money?
When protecting data, think "serial" and not "parallel". You won't get extra security by diversifying your OSs because hackers don't need to hack ALL of them, but just ONE of them, to compromise data.
In one instance you may be correct, but in other instances, you are not. Whether or not data are compromised depends upon how that data are partitioned and where the data reside.
You do get extra security by diversification, because you have the ability to continue to function while one OS's computers are struggling with a malware attack.
Note that the article is not saying that diversification of OS will make an installation 100% secure, just that it will improve the likelihood of continued operation albeit at reduced levels.
If you read the article instead of the headline, you'll see that the Army is making the attack target more diversified, so that a single attack will not bring down all computers. What's wrong with that tactic?
Monopoly maintenance.
Looks like they are finally getting their javascript act together. After being a sore point for so many years, a working javascript in Opera will be welcome.
Yes, and that was the basis of my original comment (that was mod'ed as a troll...). Once the desktop OS as an application platform is made moot by Google's online apps (and other Web-based applications), Microsoft's foundation crumbles. Microsoft will fight by any means possible to prevent that from happening. It will be a fight for life as Microsoft sees it, because Microsoft is unable to compete without leveraging its desktop monopoly.
At some point in the future, all many will need is a device that runs a web browser, and not the overly complicated and bloated mess we know as Windows. To be sure, there will be some who want to continue to run a full-blown desktop OS, but they will be in the minority.
So long as Microsoft is unable to move past the desktop monopoly, Microsoft will fail. Every attempt of Microsoft to find a new and profitable business has relied upon leveraging Microsoft's desktop monopoly. Unfortunately for Microsoft, competitors like Google are making the desktop moot, thereby crumbling Microsoft's very foundation.
Now there's a best practice that other corporations should follow - the use of test software in a production environment.
This will probably be the way the Windows franchise is run in the future: no charge for the OS, but Microsoft will sell your usage info to the pop-up ad crowd.
Yes it is quite feasible. So there will be errors for the short term. Then the errors will be fixed by sites that care. Sites that don't care will wither and die off. That is the good result of error checking --- errors tend to be fixed.
In addition to accountability, WikiPedia also lacks a historical perspective on the items it tries to document. Anything occurring in the recent past is always given far more "column inches" than more significant things that happen in the past. Even worse, things experienced by the writer of the WikiPedia article are given much, much more precedence than those things not experienced by the writer. That is what happens when you have amateur writers and editors: pop culture and pop knowledge win, historical perspective loses.
There are always going to be a subset of ham operators who will learn morse code, regardless of whether it is needed to get the license.
But let's not lose track of one of the significant benefits of the ham operators, and that is that they build and maintain a web of communications that often does not rely upon the regular communications infrastructure. As such, the ham operators' communications network runs when the regular communications infrastructure is down.
The dedication of the ham operators is legendary. They will get the message through.
You conveniently forget that Sony was a co-developer and strong backer of the CD format.
If it walks like a shill, writes like a shill, chances are it is a shill.
Not worth it at all.
Looks like Microsoft has a new shill at news.com, with Microsoft setting the agenda for the week of articles. Find a reporter, give him/her special access so long as everything written is in a positive tone about Microsoft, and the Microsoft script is followed. Gushing is encouraged.
:)
Yikes, I posted the comment on the wrong thread. this is sooooo embarrassing....
Either the supply is low, or the demand is high. I would say that the supply of the 80GB Zunes has been limited so that the "news" articles can hype "it's sold out".