The fact that Microsoft has been reduced to making these sorts of outrageously false claims validates the reliability and dependability of Open Source.
Microsoft wouldn't be doing this if Open Source were not a big problem for them.
Seriously... about how many people out there actually need to know NTP to this degree?
A small percentage of computers need to be controlled to the accuracy of NTP's capability, and to the level of knowledge represented in this august book.
For the rest of us there's OpenNTP which is a much simplified and more secure version of NTP. If you're happy with a clock that is accurate to two- or three-hundred milliseocnds, check it out.
"little" is such a nebulous term. Some might say it is a lot harder to load Linux on to a PC, compared to turning on a PC that has Windows preloaded.
how is that going to help to resolve the problem?
The answer to your question depends upon what problem you are talking about.
How much money has Microsoft spent on MSN so far? How successful has MSN been? How much less successful would MSN be if it weren't leveraged on the Windows desktop monopoly by being the default home page on a new Windows IE installation?
It's really sad to see a formerly great company reduced to threatening to spend money as a competitive weapon. What ever happened to Microsoft's self-declared innovation superiority?
McAfee has over-sensationalized the virus threat ever since there were viruses. Before there were viruses, McAfee was suspected of introducing their own.
With regard to computer viruses, McAfee has a substantial and growing credibility deficit.
The Bluesecurity concept is one approach, but I was thinking that going after companies like Bank of America, SBC Communications and Sprint who actually sponsor the sending of spam may be more productive.
It hasn't been started yet. There have been no large-scale operations to find those companies/entities who pay the spammers money to send spam. I saw one investigative report in a MSM newspaper that actually tracked some of the spam money. The companies who were purchasing the services of the spammers were not companies you might think would do it. However, beyond that one article, I've never seen anything that goes after those who pay the spammers for their services.
You want to get rid of spam? Go after those who give the spammers money.
The run up to year 2000 illustrates that the investors once had high hopes for the future of Microsoft (and Microsft rewarded those early investors greatly). The subsequent fall, and stagnation after 2000 shows that investors are now skeptical of Microsoft's future prospects (i.e., they agree with Dvorak).
While your chart of Microsoft's price history since 1986 or so is indeed very impressive, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe if you want to start a/. thread on Once great tech growth companies that have fizzled out, then your chart might be more appropriate.
Dead in the water does not mean that Microsoft is dying. Dead in the water means that Microsoft is stagnant.
For better or worse, Microsoft will be around for a long, long time. Look how long Western Union lasted after the telephone replaced the telegraph. However, what Dvorak may be saying is that the days of Microsoft being a driving, innovative, vibrant force in the computer industry have long since passed. Microsoft's stock price illustratesthis nicely.
If you read the entire article (specifically the last paragraph), you will see that Dvorak agrees that Microsoft is not dead, nor does he expect them to die.
All of the millions of AOL users visit websites via a couple of hundred cache servers. You won't see a lot of different IP addresses for the AOL visitors to your site.
It's when Microsoft makes it impossible to use anything _BUT_ their own products that there's serious problems.
What Microsoft is doing is called illegal tying of products. Microsoft does not have to prevent the use of competing products, just favor their own.
If Microsoft were truly concerned about satisfying the preferences of their customers, why does Microsoft default to using a search engine that the Internet public has relegated to a distant third? Wouldn't it be a better example of trying to satisfy their customers if Microsoft had put the search engine into IE7 that was by far the most widely used search engine? Why is Microsoft forcing its customers to reconfigure the browser in order to select something that the overwhelming majority have already chosen?
Microsoft continues the illegal leveraging of their Windows desktop monopoly in the marketplace. What a surprise.
No matter how much Microsoft's PR drones say that Microsoft is going to behave better in the marketplace, a true and sustainable change in Microsoft's behavior will come about only when Gates and Ballmer leave the company.
Just like Microsoft, Firefox developers have gotten stuck on the feature-creep treadmill. Instead of fixing incessant crashes and debilitating memory leaks, they add more whiz-bang features to compete with the "enemy". Instead of adding features to make their browser more robust and responsive, they add more crap to make it bigger, slower, and buggier.
Opera's stuck on that same treadmill. The recent beta of Opera 9 is pretty bad. Lots of new features, but fundamental things just don't work right.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft wouldn't be doing this if Open Source were not a big problem for them.
A small percentage of computers need to be controlled to the accuracy of NTP's capability, and to the level of knowledge represented in this august book.
For the rest of us there's OpenNTP which is a much simplified and more secure version of NTP. If you're happy with a clock that is accurate to two- or three-hundred milliseocnds, check it out.
"little" is such a nebulous term. Some might say it is a lot harder to load Linux on to a PC, compared to turning on a PC that has Windows preloaded. how is that going to help to resolve the problem?
The answer to your question depends upon what problem you are talking about.
Any install of an OS is more difficult than using a preload. The sooner that is realized, the sooner the root problem here will be resolved.
Looking at this another way, could an "ordinary PC user" install Windows on a PC, having never used Windows before?
I'm interested in seeing if the CPU whine and red-hot temps of the MacBookPro have been carried over to the consumer line.
OK, I was being kind. It's Friday, and I dislike kicking people when they are down.
It's really sad to see a formerly great company reduced to threatening to spend money as a competitive weapon. What ever happened to Microsoft's self-declared innovation superiority?
With regard to computer viruses, McAfee has a substantial and growing credibility deficit.
The Bluesecurity concept is one approach, but I was thinking that going after companies like Bank of America, SBC Communications and Sprint who actually sponsor the sending of spam may be more productive.
I bet he'd have a different opinion on thing sif he were with Mac magazine.
It hasn't been started yet. There have been no large-scale operations to find those companies/entities who pay the spammers money to send spam. I saw one investigative report in a MSM newspaper that actually tracked some of the spam money. The companies who were purchasing the services of the spammers were not companies you might think would do it. However, beyond that one article, I've never seen anything that goes after those who pay the spammers for their services.
You want to get rid of spam? Go after those who give the spammers money.
2+2=5
The answer is not wrong, I just exaggerated.
The MPAA has been wrong nearly continually on the topic of piracy. I merely highlighted one of the bigger errors they've made.
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
that said VCRs would kill the movie industry.
The run up to year 2000 illustrates that the investors once had high hopes for the future of Microsoft (and Microsft rewarded those early investors greatly). The subsequent fall, and stagnation after 2000 shows that investors are now skeptical of Microsoft's future prospects (i.e., they agree with Dvorak).
While your chart of Microsoft's price history since 1986 or so is indeed very impressive, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe if you want to start a /. thread on Once great tech growth companies that have fizzled out, then your chart might be more appropriate.
For better or worse, Microsoft will be around for a long, long time. Look how long Western Union lasted after the telephone replaced the telegraph. However, what Dvorak may be saying is that the days of Microsoft being a driving, innovative, vibrant force in the computer industry have long since passed. Microsoft's stock price illustrates this nicely.
If you read the entire article (specifically the last paragraph), you will see that Dvorak agrees that Microsoft is not dead, nor does he expect them to die.
The answer appears to be yes.
I wonder if the other major ISPs do the same.
The first time the browser is used, ask the person what search engine he/she would like to use as the default. This isn't rocket science......
What Microsoft is doing is called illegal tying of products. Microsoft does not have to prevent the use of competing products, just favor their own.
If Microsoft were truly concerned about satisfying the preferences of their customers, why does Microsoft default to using a search engine that the Internet public has relegated to a distant third? Wouldn't it be a better example of trying to satisfy their customers if Microsoft had put the search engine into IE7 that was by far the most widely used search engine? Why is Microsoft forcing its customers to reconfigure the browser in order to select something that the overwhelming majority have already chosen?
No matter how much Microsoft's PR drones say that Microsoft is going to behave better in the marketplace, a true and sustainable change in Microsoft's behavior will come about only when Gates and Ballmer leave the company.
Opera's stuck on that same treadmill. The recent beta of Opera 9 is pretty bad. Lots of new features, but fundamental things just don't work right.