What they're trying to leverage their desktop monopoly into. The windows monopoly does not give them any advantage in VOIP. Also, there is zero tolerance for failed dail tone. Absolute zero - not something MS is used to dealing with at all.
Further, if they try to bash heads with cisco (I have yet to see a cisco router just crash in over 13 years of working with them), who dominates networking perhaps as well as MS dominates the desktop, they will have to actually compete. This would be a battle, should they decide to take it, that they would actually have to fight for real - not buy, negociate, or spin they're way out of.
Sadly, it may not matter when he made the statement, or what his original intention was. All they have to do is go after him; even if they lose, they win. That the mere stigma of accusation itself is damaging may motivate them to go after him to establish to others that even if they can't win in a lawsuit, the MPAA can hurt anyone thinking of building decentralize file distribution systems to discourage future such efforts. I hope I'm wrong.
"the appeals court likened WhenU's ads to retail stores that place generic competitors next to brand-name products."
More like putting generic competitors in front of brand name products preventing you from reaching the product you want until you move the competing product aside.
Really, if come company really wants to get me to dislike them and not buy their product, just put annoying pop-ups on my screen in front of what I was looking at. Pissing me off really makes me want to buy something
"Its obvious OSS can't just make better software to compete with commercial firms, or at least they don't believe they can. So, they lobby to make any sucessful company look evil in some way, or make that companies practices illegal somehow."
Are there OSS special interest groups lobbying congress? A reference would be interesting.
Its obvious MS can't just make better software to compete with OSS, or at least they don't believe they can. So, they lobby to make any serious competition look evil in some way, or make that competition illegal somehow. Either that, or they just fear what they don't understand. Remember, most OSS is produced without traditional management - its a different way of seeing things with respect to making software. That's why OSS often 'just works'.
I installed linux on a laptop, and the ethernet interface 'just worked'along with everything else with no additional intervention. With Win2k and WinXP, I had to hunt down the drivers, although that wasen't very hard. On another PC, reinstalling WinXP and applying SP2 redered the box unbootable from WinXP. It boots knoppix just fine, and I can browse the web, read my company email, including opening MS office attachments.
However, corrupting goverment officials - that's not news, that's shooting fish in a barrel. Not even a good spectator sport.
"Microsoft's vision for search would eventually make such data discoverable, without using the [actual] application."
Want to wipe out the competition? Integrate it into the OS! It worked on Netscape, and look at what an innovative and secure thing explorer turned out to be! In fact, that made the whole OS faster and more secure...
As I have seen it, if you have windows system admin skills, about half the time you end up a defacto overglorified help desk operator. I just saw a big rollout of windows latops, and the windows admins ended up swamped with the problems. The unix admins didn't take much of a hit at all, and just kept working on thir stuff, staying on target. The network admins just kept setting/maintaining up LAN/WAN links, routers, and switches.
Pick your battles. If you really dig fixing windows, and answering the 'I spilled coffee on my keyboard' calls, become an NT admin. And, yes, you'll get work everywhere.
Ranum: "Sometimes, patience is a terrific strategy. Wait and see what happens to the early adopters. If they're all getting hacked to pieces or spending tons of money on patches and upgrades and fixes to the stuff they bought - then it's not ready, yet."
Yeah, he thinks the hackers are all to blame, but loves the fact they expose real problems.
So, what was his point about hackers, again? Everyone should share the blame, but its still all the hackers fault? Isn't there a drug that fixes the inability to express coherent ideas?
Instead of searching cargo containers for WMDs, checking borders for enemy penetrations, patrolling border waters for terrorists smugglers, guarding sensitive domestic infrastructures like the power grid for sabotage, law enforcement will instead be on the lookout for contraband BF-ignoring electronics and software.
While LE is busy doing that, anti-US terrorists will have more choices and opportunities, thanks to the diversion of resources in an attempt to enforce the broadcast flag. Unless, of course, you really believe that nobody will ever circumvent the BS BF.
"Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn." Why?
I can't wait for your reply...
I would suggest this:
It is like the difference between someone who experiences classical literature only through movies, and someone else who reads the actual novels.
The latter forms understanding free from the interpretation of directors, actors, and editors. The former is definitely missing something in perhaps that they are one step away from the original work and substance. It has, I think, something to do with the mental process of abstractly understanding any given thing, be it an expression or a process physical or logical.
Its as though the act of methodically reading and thinking as opposed to seeing a picture changes how one processes things. Its true that a picture is worth a thousand word, but the question then arises, which thousand words?
The desktop metaphor may work well for a filesystem, but does it work equally well for all things computer related? Does it help one basically grasp the notion of a network? Threading? Memory management? It seems to me not.
At one point, researcher Matt Conover was talking about a fairly obscure type of problem called a "heap overflow." When he asked the crowd, made up mostly of vice presidents, whether they knew about this type of issue, 18 of 20 hands went up.
It would have been interesting to have had those 18 write a brief explanation on what a heap overflow was.
Maybe the perception of the MS monolopy was seen as a barrier to entry was holding them back. Why buy OSX for a pc when you can get all your favorite apps (games) for windows?
"They don't make their own processors, graphics cards, memory, hard drives, fans, cords, peripherals, etc."
They DO make and sell their own computers. Anyone know what percentage of their profit comes from sales of Apple-branded hardware?
It seems more like Apple is a turn-key provider. You buy a box from Apple, make movies, store and view pictures, load your iPod with tunes, etc. That being said, they've always restricted what runs their OS, presumably to limit crashes due to borderline hardware.
I could see them opening up the OS to run on third-party hardware, but being very picky about what that third-party hardware is. I doubt it, though. Seems like a formula for a garden choked with the endless vines of help-desk support and the inevitable cloud of negative end-user experiences.
I think its about the open learning atmosphere, as much as classes and tests. People who have at least gone to some college have more than a transcript.
I don't know if I'd want a computer that worked like a cell phone.
As for how easy computers are to use, I put my roommate, just an average consumer-grade computer user, down in front of my thinkpad running Debian (testing), and she was browsing the web, reading email, and doing research without a lick of help from me. Her response to "its running linux" was "what's that?"
Easy to use, and no virus/trojan/worm/zombie/whatever-the-latest-windo ws-exploit-catagory-is-today worries at all. I don't think browsing the web, reading email, and opening various documents is harder on windows, nor is fixing windows any easier than linux - in fact it may very well be easier to fix windows (that's nother discussion), but the shear frequency of the need to fix windows itself seems to represent one of the factors in determining people's perception of how easy it is to use. You can't talk to somebody about computers for five minutes without the topic of viruses comming up. Most 'hard-core' windows users/advocates seem to see viruses, worms and the like as an unavoidable part of computing. Maybe if MS would clean up its act, computers would be as easy to use as cell phones.
Its hard to believe anything MS says about how thorough its security efforts are, given their 20-year ongoing failiure. It really looks as though the continuing security stumbling is an outgrowth of the convenience-over-security+appearances-over-quality philosophy that steers their product development efforts. This seems to be a corporate culture phenomenon, and probably won't ever change, no matter how often they claim it has or will. Kind like an alcoholic, claiming to be on the wagon while still hanging out with drinking buddies.
Just look at patch tuesday. Rather than release a patch when its ready, they wait so it will be easier for customers. Nice and predictable, in a world where security problems are anything but. It has nothing to do with waiting to test thoroughly, it has everything to do with appearances. They won't really improve their continuing security debacle until their OS monopoly is effectively broken, and they have to actually put up or shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
What they're trying to leverage their desktop monopoly into. The windows monopoly does not give them any advantage in VOIP. Also, there is zero tolerance for failed dail tone. Absolute zero - not something MS is used to dealing with at all.
Further, if they try to bash heads with cisco (I have yet to see a cisco router just crash in over 13 years of working with them), who dominates networking perhaps as well as MS dominates the desktop, they will have to actually compete. This would be a battle, should they decide to take it, that they would actually have to fight for real - not buy, negociate, or spin they're way out of.
Sadly, it may not matter when he made the statement, or what his original intention was. All they have to do is go after him; even if they lose, they win. That the mere stigma of accusation itself is damaging may motivate them to go after him to establish to others that even if they can't win in a lawsuit, the MPAA can hurt anyone thinking of building decentralize file distribution systems to discourage future such efforts. I hope I'm wrong.
"IBM is pleased that we have amicably resolved these longstanding issues,"
Money is oh so amicable.
"the appeals court likened WhenU's ads to retail stores that place generic competitors next to brand-name products."
More like putting generic competitors in front of brand name products preventing you from reaching the product you want until you move the competing product aside.
Really, if come company really wants to get me to dislike them and not buy their product, just put annoying pop-ups on my screen in front of what I was looking at. Pissing me off really makes me want to buy something
"Its obvious OSS can't just make better software to compete with commercial firms, or at least they don't believe they can. So, they lobby to make any sucessful company look evil in some way, or make that companies practices illegal somehow."
Are there OSS special interest groups lobbying congress? A reference would be interesting.
Its obvious MS can't just make better software to compete with OSS, or at least they don't believe they can. So, they lobby to make any serious competition look evil in some way, or make that competition illegal somehow. Either that, or they just fear what they don't understand. Remember, most OSS is produced without traditional management - its a different way of seeing things with respect to making software. That's why OSS often 'just works'.
I installed linux on a laptop, and the ethernet interface 'just worked'along with everything else with no additional intervention. With Win2k and WinXP, I had to hunt down the drivers, although that wasen't very hard. On another PC, reinstalling WinXP and applying SP2 redered the box unbootable from WinXP. It boots knoppix just fine, and I can browse the web, read my company email, including opening MS office attachments.
However, corrupting goverment officials - that's not news, that's shooting fish in a barrel. Not even a good spectator sport.
Already
"How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"
They get Jedi, we get Sith...
"Microsoft's vision for search would eventually make such data discoverable, without using the [actual] application."
Want to wipe out the competition? Integrate it into the OS! It worked on Netscape, and look at what an innovative and secure thing explorer turned out to be! In fact, that made the whole OS faster and more secure...
As I have seen it, if you have windows system admin skills, about half the time you end up a defacto overglorified help desk operator. I just saw a big rollout of windows latops, and the windows admins ended up swamped with the problems. The unix admins didn't take much of a hit at all, and just kept working on thir stuff, staying on target. The network admins just kept setting/maintaining up LAN/WAN links, routers, and switches.
Pick your battles. If you really dig fixing windows, and answering the 'I spilled coffee on my keyboard' calls, become an NT admin. And, yes, you'll get work everywhere.
Ranum: "Sometimes, patience is a terrific strategy. Wait and see what happens to the early adopters. If they're all getting hacked to pieces or spending tons of money on patches and upgrades and fixes to the stuff they bought - then it's not ready, yet."
Yeah, he thinks the hackers are all to blame, but loves the fact they expose real problems.
So, what was his point about hackers, again? Everyone should share the blame, but its still all the hackers fault?
Isn't there a drug that fixes the inability to express coherent ideas?
Instead of searching cargo containers for WMDs, checking borders for enemy penetrations, patrolling border waters for terrorists smugglers, guarding sensitive domestic infrastructures like the power grid for sabotage, law enforcement will instead be on the lookout for contraband BF-ignoring electronics and software.
While LE is busy doing that, anti-US terrorists will have more choices and opportunities, thanks to the diversion of resources in an attempt to enforce the broadcast flag. Unless, of course, you really believe that nobody will ever circumvent the BS BF.
"Learn to do things without pretty GUIs. That's the best way to learn."
Why?
I can't wait for your reply...
I would suggest this:
It is like the difference between someone who experiences classical literature only through movies, and someone else who reads the actual novels.
The latter forms understanding free from the interpretation of directors, actors, and editors. The former is definitely missing something in perhaps that they are one step away from the original work and substance. It has, I think, something to do with the mental process of abstractly understanding any given thing, be it an expression or a process physical or logical.
Its as though the act of methodically reading and thinking as opposed to seeing a picture changes how one processes things. Its true that a picture is worth a thousand word, but the question then arises, which thousand words?
The desktop metaphor may work well for a filesystem, but does it work equally well for all things computer related? Does it help one basically grasp the notion of a network? Threading? Memory management? It seems to me not.
Sour grapes? Maybe.
No..!
At one point, researcher Matt Conover was talking about a fairly obscure type of problem called a "heap overflow." When he asked the crowd, made up mostly of vice presidents, whether they knew about this type of issue, 18 of 20 hands went up.
It would have been interesting to have had those 18 write a brief explanation on what a heap overflow was.
Would it kill MS to release patches when the vulnerability is fixed, rather than waiting for some magic 'patch release day'?
Maybe the perception of the MS monolopy was seen as a barrier to entry was holding them back. Why buy OSX for a pc when you can get all your favorite apps (games) for windows?
"They don't make their own processors, graphics cards, memory, hard drives, fans, cords, peripherals, etc."
They DO make and sell their own computers. Anyone know what percentage of their profit comes from sales of Apple-branded hardware?
It seems more like Apple is a turn-key provider. You buy a box from Apple, make movies, store and view pictures, load your iPod with tunes, etc. That being said, they've always restricted what runs their OS, presumably to limit crashes due to borderline hardware.
I could see them opening up the OS to run on third-party hardware, but being very picky about what that third-party hardware is. I doubt it, though. Seems like a formula for a garden choked with the endless vines of help-desk support and the inevitable cloud of negative end-user experiences.
"I am an ordinary netizen suffering from repeated overdoses of junk blogs."
Then stop reading them.
I think its about the open learning atmosphere, as much as classes and tests. People who have at least gone to some college have more than a transcript.
I don't know if I'd want a computer that worked like a cell phone.
o ws-exploit-catagory-is-today worries at all. I don't think browsing the web, reading email, and opening various documents is harder on windows, nor is fixing windows any easier than linux - in fact it may very well be easier to fix windows (that's nother discussion), but the shear frequency of the need to fix windows itself seems to represent one of the factors in determining people's perception of how easy it is to use. You can't talk to somebody about computers for five minutes without the topic of viruses comming up. Most 'hard-core' windows users/advocates seem to see viruses, worms and the like as an unavoidable part of computing. Maybe if MS would clean up its act, computers would be as easy to use as cell phones.
As for how easy computers are to use, I put my roommate, just an average consumer-grade computer user, down in front of my thinkpad running Debian (testing), and she was browsing the web, reading email, and doing research without a lick of help from me. Her response to "its running linux" was "what's that?"
Easy to use, and no virus/trojan/worm/zombie/whatever-the-latest-wind
Its all fun and games, until nanotech technologies like claytronics are used to make a shape-shifting cyborg, and someone gets an eye poked out.
This is, after all, Debian
A "Warhol Worm" is a worm that infects all
vulnerable machines on the Internet within 15 minutes.
Warhol must be a new spelling for Windows...
Its hard to believe anything MS says about how thorough its security efforts are, given their 20-year ongoing failiure. It really looks as though the continuing security stumbling is an outgrowth of the convenience-over-security+appearances-over-qualit
Just look at patch tuesday. Rather than release a patch when its ready, they wait so it will be easier for customers. Nice and predictable, in a world where security problems are anything but. It has nothing to do with waiting to test thoroughly, it has everything to do with appearances. They won't really improve their continuing security debacle until their OS monopoly is effectively broken, and they have to actually put up or shut up.