"The funny part from the Post blog entry is that Microsoft helped author the RFC for link local."
I really don't see how MS helping to author a usefull RFC is funny, or even relevant. What's funny is that someone at MS somehow thought it would be a good idea to open up a system to the entire world, since its clearly a thinking flaw as opposed to the usual QA flaw.
Speaking of thinking flaws, how about this one: If a laptop running XP has a wired and wireless connections going, XP asks the user if they want to share their connection. User clicks 'yes'. XP bridges wired and wireless for them. XP also broadcasts on both sides that it will be a gateway for other systems running XP (via netbios-over-ip, IIRC). Those systems get on board, and make that computer their default gateway.
Then the computer 'sharing' its connection, and all its 'victims' are suddenly very slow. There never seemed to be a straightforward way to prevent the other XP computers from making the dual-connected XP system their default gateway. If you manually change the default gateway on the victim systems, they just switch back to the dual-connected XP box. I don't know if XP still does this, but talk about stupid.
Seriously, who the hell thinks this kind of thing up? Do they have brain stem storming sessions or something?
Is what would happen if Michael Dell tried to run a company that had to make quality products to stay in business.
We've got dozens of dell servers (hundreds of servers total) where I work, and the dell servers have a 100% failure rate. That is, each and every dell server experienced a hardware problem that required replacing something. Although usually non-critical, no other vender even comes close. They may make passable desktops and laptops, but their servers are from hell.
"The researchers say they hope the new, green pigs will mate with ordinary female pigs to create a new generation - much greater numbers of transgenic pigs for use in research."
It would be interesting to know if the green color increases their ability to attract mates.
"architecture != software packages. And definitely != enterprise software packages."
Well, to be accurate, debian as distro supports a number of packages that dwarfs what Microsoft supports. Just look at a list. Now multiply that by the number of platforms, compared to MS's platforms, which is just one. As for 'enterprise' packages, yes many of the debian (and linux in general) packages are smaller than things like exchange or veritas, but many are also on par as well. So the statement "definitely != enterprise" while accurate, is an overgeneralization.
I think the parent's point is that given the number of packages MS supports, and the number of platforms they support, their response time could easily be much better, especially given the literal mountains of cash they have at their disposal to marshal resources to getting their act together. Strictly from a customer-is-always-right point of view, what's their excuse? Not enough testors? Not enough programmers? Not enough managers?
So, if they'll improve a computer program that spots errors in code (which I suppose will benefit all, not just OSS), will they be able to develope a computer program to fix the errors? Of does that already exist?
We'll need the puny humans for what, exactly, again? Oh, that's right, to build the hardware...
If you're going to classify someone as a 'troublemaker', and reject a submissions based on that, you really should provide a remediation process, and some kind of definition of what kinds of things get you labeled as trouble, so there's a clear picture of how to avoid landing in the don't-bother-to-contribute bin. Otherwise, the general openness of discussions on/. is taken down a step. BTW, that's not necessarily a bad thing, less openness. Its just your choice, as to whether or not to label someone trouble and reject submissions based on that, and open that can of worms. I guess its the lesser of two evils, really.
"The more people cry about their freedom of speech being infringed, the more you can believe that is not the case."
True enough. Still, when I see restricted speech labeled as a "free speech zone" by the government, I can't help but think that a little extra vigilance can't but help keep those freedoms that have been fought for and earned.
Actually, it wasen't BeanBunny that lumped the various 'Nixes and 'Nix-like OSes into one catageory - it was CERT. Also, the CERT list include all vulnerabilities for all software running on an OS, not just the os themselves. Also, its only a list - no mention of how severe a given vulnerability is.
To really get a picture of how the OSes themselves stack up in comparison to one another with respect to vulnerabilities, try Secunia. They list vulnerabilities, and how severe a vulneraiblity is, and why a given vulnerability is a problem, along with other interesting and relavent info about vulnerabilities.
No, "we'll control your country's domain name space," says we'll control your country's domain name space.
Actually, hijacking Kazakhstan's TLD without their permission and shutting down websites without any notification says, "we'll control your country's TLD". Actions really do speak louder than words.
Sleezy principal #2: "Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's DNS."
If that doesn't say 'we'll control your country's domain name space', nothing does.
That depends - are the 'wireless gizmos for scanning credit cards' encrypting the cc#'s before they transmit them? If they are, great, if not, bad.
I can think of at least one F500 retailer that has a device to scan cc#'s which doesn't encrypt them in between the scanning 'gizmo' and the server that handles the encrypted transaction. The only way for things to be reasonalby secure is if the 'gizmos' refered to in the article are using good encryption before they transmit the cc#'s to whatever is conducting the transaction.
I don't think the question "is MS a monopoly?" is as relevant as "does MS ast like a monopoly?" The first is a definitional question, the second attempts to assess what's going on.
It seems that MS still has the ability to lock out competitors, reduce or eliminate software choices, pollute meaningfull standards, and ignore users.
For example, I just got a 'something's wrong with your XP license - no upgrades for you' error when I tried to upgrade XP from windowsupdate. I was given two choices: send in the original CD with the 'holographic'/authentic license number sticker along with the original receipt, or pay $150 for some kind of 'windows genuine support program'. All I did was replace a broken hard drive and put in an updated ethernet card, along with some more memory.
If MS was not able to abuse its market position, it would offer to help for free, out of fear of losing customers to a competing OS. That's clearly not the case.
So, back to the original question, 'is ms a monopoly'? I would say that in most cases, it at least acts like one. However, I also think that their grip is starting to show signs of weakening.
Nonethless, in corporate environments, MS is all but the only choice if for no other reason than most IT staff are peppered with windows admins who turn pale at the mention of linux (or Unix), and most entrenched help desk staff would shriek at the thought of supporting desktop linux. Forget the fact that those same environments have been repeatedly overrun by windows viruses that left all the non-windows boxen untouched.
Slashdot Mirror
"The funny part from the Post blog entry is that Microsoft helped author the RFC for link local."
I really don't see how MS helping to author a usefull RFC is funny, or even relevant. What's funny is that someone at MS somehow thought it would be a good idea to open up a system to the entire world, since its clearly a thinking flaw as opposed to the usual QA flaw.
Speaking of thinking flaws, how about this one: If a laptop running XP has a wired and wireless connections going, XP asks the user if they want to share their connection. User clicks 'yes'. XP bridges wired and wireless for them. XP also broadcasts on both sides that it will be a gateway for other systems running XP (via netbios-over-ip, IIRC). Those systems get on board, and make that computer their default gateway.
Then the computer 'sharing' its connection, and all its 'victims' are suddenly very slow. There never seemed to be a straightforward way to prevent the other XP computers from making the dual-connected XP system their default gateway. If you manually change the default gateway on the victim systems, they just switch back to the dual-connected XP box. I don't know if XP still does this, but talk about stupid.
Seriously, who the hell thinks this kind of thing up? Do they have brain stem storming sessions or something?
Is what would happen if Michael Dell tried to run a company that had to make quality products to stay in business.
We've got dozens of dell servers (hundreds of servers total) where I work, and the dell servers have a 100% failure rate. That is, each and every dell server experienced a hardware problem that required replacing something. Although usually non-critical, no other vender even comes close. They may make passable desktops and laptops, but their servers are from hell.
Will it ask you if its 'okay' to hang up on a telemarketer?
"The researchers say they hope the new, green pigs will mate with ordinary female pigs to create a new generation - much greater numbers of transgenic pigs for use in research."
It would be interesting to know if the green color increases their ability to attract mates.
Oh
I thought they were only green when really angry. I don't like them then they're angry...
"architecture != software packages. And definitely != enterprise software packages."
Well, to be accurate, debian as distro supports a number of packages that dwarfs what Microsoft supports. Just look at a list. Now multiply that by the number of platforms, compared to MS's platforms, which is just one. As for 'enterprise' packages, yes many of the debian (and linux in general) packages are smaller than things like exchange or veritas, but many are also on par as well. So the statement "definitely != enterprise" while accurate, is an overgeneralization.
I think the parent's point is that given the number of packages MS supports, and the number of platforms they support, their response time could easily be much better, especially given the literal mountains of cash they have at their disposal to marshal resources to getting their act together. Strictly from a customer-is-always-right point of view, what's their excuse? Not enough testors? Not enough programmers? Not enough managers?
Sounds too much like McNugget.
So, if they'll improve a computer program that spots errors in code (which I suppose will benefit all, not just OSS), will they be able to develope a computer program to fix the errors? Of does that already exist?
We'll need the puny humans for what, exactly, again? Oh, that's right, to build the hardware...
IntelMacintosh, apparently
Maybe they should remoniker it Imac.
And the map said "We're sorry, but your IP address, 127.0.0.1, has been logged. Please remain seated."
If you're going to classify someone as a 'troublemaker', and reject a submissions based on that, you really should provide a remediation process, and some kind of definition of what kinds of things get you labeled as trouble, so there's a clear picture of how to avoid landing in the don't-bother-to-contribute bin. Otherwise, the general openness of discussions on /. is taken down a step. BTW, that's not necessarily a bad thing, less openness. Its just your choice, as to whether or not to label someone trouble and reject submissions based on that, and open that can of worms. I guess its the lesser of two evils, really.
"The more people cry about their freedom of speech being infringed, the more you can believe that is not the case."
True enough. Still, when I see restricted speech labeled as a "free speech zone" by the government, I can't help but think that a little extra vigilance can't but help keep those freedoms that have been fought for and earned.
"free speech is alive and well"
For how long?
--
The price of free speech is eternal vigilance.
Two great tastes...
Actually, it wasen't BeanBunny that lumped the various 'Nixes and 'Nix-like OSes into one catageory - it was CERT. Also, the CERT list include all vulnerabilities for all software running on an OS, not just the os themselves. Also , its only a list - no mention of how severe a given vulnerability is.
To really get a picture of how the OSes themselves stack up in comparison to one another with respect to vulnerabilities, try Secunia. They list vulnerabilities, and how severe a vulneraiblity is, and why a given vulnerability is a problem, along with other interesting and relavent info about vulnerabilities.
"Great Scott!"
No, "we'll control your country's domain name space," says we'll control your country's domain name space.
Actually, hijacking Kazakhstan's TLD without their permission and shutting down websites without any notification says, "we'll control your country's TLD". Actions really do speak louder than words.
Sleezy principal #2:
"Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's DNS."
If that doesn't say 'we'll control your country's domain name space', nothing does.
"project code named Longhorn will be marketed as Vista"
You mean the Vista "rebuilt from scratch" remarketed version of longhorn?
That depends - are the 'wireless gizmos for scanning credit cards' encrypting the cc#'s before they transmit them? If they are, great, if not, bad.
I can think of at least one F500 retailer that has a device to scan cc#'s which doesn't encrypt them in between the scanning 'gizmo' and the server that handles the encrypted transaction. The only way for things to be reasonalby secure is if the 'gizmos' refered to in the article are using good encryption before they transmit the cc#'s to whatever is conducting the transaction.
Pay no attention to that van across the street with the dish pointed at your store....
Even subatomic particles have to put up with politicians...
"Let us count the intellectually absent posts.. damn, where did I put that Long Integer?"
In your pants. That's where mine is.
I don't think the question "is MS a monopoly?" is as relevant as "does MS ast like a monopoly?" The first is a definitional question, the second attempts to assess what's going on.
It seems that MS still has the ability to lock out competitors, reduce or eliminate software choices, pollute meaningfull standards, and ignore users.
For example, I just got a 'something's wrong with your XP license - no upgrades for you' error when I tried to upgrade XP from windowsupdate. I was given two choices: send in the original CD with the 'holographic'/authentic license number sticker along with the original receipt, or pay $150 for some kind of 'windows genuine support program'. All I did was replace a broken hard drive and put in an updated ethernet card, along with some more memory.
If MS was not able to abuse its market position, it would offer to help for free, out of fear of losing customers to a competing OS. That's clearly not the case.
So, back to the original question, 'is ms a monopoly'? I would say that in most cases, it at least acts like one. However, I also think that their grip is starting to show signs of weakening.
Nonethless, in corporate environments, MS is all but the only choice if for no other reason than most IT staff are peppered with windows admins who turn pale at the mention of linux (or Unix), and most entrenched help desk staff would shriek at the thought of supporting desktop linux. Forget the fact that those same environments have been repeatedly overrun by windows viruses that left all the non-windows boxen untouched.
He would've created evolution - that way he wouldn't be responsible for all the mistakes.