The concentrator also refuses to let Vista clients connect too. Not surprising really, just another app on the list of "not supported by Vista" programs.
It takes 60 days for an expired domain to re-enter the available pool. At the moment, it's in "pendingRelease" state, which means that the person that lost it has 60 days to recover it if they want it (at a cost of $300 or so) otherwise it can be registered by anyone.
How? Ubuntu is an operating system. Unless it's a very crappy one, someone could write essentially a self extractor which writes an extra line to the init file (or whatever most recent distos use) and demand the user elevate them to do it. Why, even Sun themselves used to do it back in the day (remember StarOffice installs on Red Hat? Yeah, those sucked)
e360 came away with nothing but big legal bills, Spamhaus came away with a ton of publicity and showing it was bulletproof to U.S. judgments. And let's not forget, spammers know that they can't prosecute in UK courts because UK is a "loser pays" system.
Or, they'd fix precisely zero crashes. If they wanted to fix a large percentage of windows crashes, they'd disable all drivers.
The registry isn't really a point of failure. Any corruption in it merely results in any changes to it since your last successful boot being lost (it copies a backup of it on every boot).
And if they went back to INI files, the OS would probably boot thirty times slower. Opening 142 INI files is guaranteed to be slower than one binary file.
You do get zero prompts - if the file is yours. However, if it's in the "All Users" section, it's considered not yours (it treats shared shit as being "communal") and demands authorisation from you to rename it.
However, the GGGP is talking shit about getting three prompts from UAC. You actually get one UAC prompt and one shell one (UAC demanding authorisation for modifying files which aren't yours, and a shell prompt warning you that changes will affect all users) - it's still braindead, but nowhere near as bad as his post implies (a switch to the secure desktop for a UAC prompt is damn near painful on some graphics cards).
Can't really complain about the training either. They piss and moan a lot in their training materials about how you should test as an LUA (Limited User Account) because... well, assumptions are bad mmkay?
Invalid argument. One can write an installer just as easily for Ubuntu as Windows, and it can cause just as much havoc if it demands administrative rights from the same type of user.
The issue is always the user when talking about malware, not the software design.
Trademe's response if you're outside of our ditch is roughly equated to "bugger off, we don't like you". In Aus, they limit you to hell and back as well.
Actually, it's even less effect than that. Governments tend to have Select agreements with Microsoft, which mean that they don't actually procure software. They install as many licenses as they want and at the end of the year, they're asked "oh by the way, are you using more licenses than last year?" and just get billed for the extra ones.
But because they would be remaining within the bounds of the existing contract, no procurement process is followed and certainly no tender process, thereby evading the restrictions on Microsoft participating in tenders.
In other words, the nett effect is zero, and anyone who thinks this will achieve anything is living a pipe dream.
As for the model of non-compatibility, this I can give hard evidence against. I would say that you were right on this 5 years ago but at this point definitely not. I work a lot with file protocols, so here's what I've seen. 1) MSNFS is now built into Vista. MS has been working hard to play with Sun these past few years. NFS is a protocol that Sun owns and has made public. MS plays in that space for compatibility. Also, the MS SMB team has been working with the samba group to hammer out specs that samba can use. That's for both SMB 1 and SMB 2. The other one I can think of is helping sun build.doc and.docx plugins for openoffice. They are still rough around the edges, but the initiative is there. It should also be noted that the Exchange Server protocol was released three days ago, which is one of the things most complained about by the average/. reader.
Declare the corporation of Microsoft an outlaw, confiscate all its properties and put those properties in the commons.
All Microsoft copyrights and patents are immediately nullified within the boundaries of the EU.
While this may seem a little unusual, it would be an easy solution that would allow governments and agencies dependent on MS products to go forward without hindrance (or continued payment of licensing fees). It would have no serious repercussions on businesses that install or support Microsoft products (except that with the absence of licensing overheads, their gross would suddenly jump, as would their tax liabilities). An entirely new software industry built on chunks ripped from Microsoft code would blossom overnight.
This is something to think about.
And overnight, every software company in the world would rethink whether selling in Europe is an "acceptable risk" - we'd see software being pulled from the EU market left, right, and centre.
And if that wasn't bad enough, like the AC replying here said, the other countries would just retaliate in kind. I'm sure that US corporations would love to be able to get SAP for free.
You've just proposed what might be the stupidest idea since Windows Millenium.
There's no monopoly here (though there would be if Google bought either of the two) and no court would touch a Yahoo!/Microsoft merger or purchase. There's simply no issue to speak of.
I think that the Yahoo! folks realize that Yahoo! and Microsoft don't really mix together.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is whether the executives refusing this offer is in the best interests of the owners, which is to say shareholders, of the company. If "they don't mix well together" is the excuse for refusing the offer, then the Yahoo! board has just broken the law.
Holy mother of... your card actually has your PIN on it?!? Here in NZ, backwards tech capital of the world, our cards don't even have an inkling of your PIN - they only know their number, and your PIN is encrypted (by the PIN pad) and forwarded to the terminal, then forwarded over a secure link to the bank who sends back either "Yes" or "No" (with a return code indicating the specific reason for the answer)
I disagree. The difference in curvature between Apple's logo and NYC's logo at the lower point is at least a few millimetres wider than at the central point. It's basically not the same.
And just as importantly, the Apple logo and NYC logo can not be easily confused because without the overlay, I wouldn't see the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
The concentrator also refuses to let Vista clients connect too. Not surprising really, just another app on the list of "not supported by Vista" programs.
Agreement right there. So if I don't pay him, I get ultra-fast broadband? What's the catch?!?
I have a pre-SP1 machine, and it ALSO only requires one UAC prompt. Not sure where you get the idea that SP1 fixes anything there.
I'm sure the Electronic Frontier Foundation will be intrigued by your views.
Well, when you're dealing with a $200 satellite, what would you expect? Flawless operation?
Mother of... they actually FOLLOW the HTML spec?!? (Technically, "img" is not meant to be used - you're meant to use "object" or similar)
It takes 60 days for an expired domain to re-enter the available pool. At the moment, it's in "pendingRelease" state, which means that the person that lost it has 60 days to recover it if they want it (at a cost of $300 or so) otherwise it can be registered by anyone.
What monopoly?
How? Ubuntu is an operating system. Unless it's a very crappy one, someone could write essentially a self extractor which writes an extra line to the init file (or whatever most recent distos use) and demand the user elevate them to do it. Why, even Sun themselves used to do it back in the day (remember StarOffice installs on Red Hat? Yeah, those sucked)
Or, they'd fix precisely zero crashes. If they wanted to fix a large percentage of windows crashes, they'd disable all drivers.
The registry isn't really a point of failure. Any corruption in it merely results in any changes to it since your last successful boot being lost (it copies a backup of it on every boot).
And if they went back to INI files, the OS would probably boot thirty times slower. Opening 142 INI files is guaranteed to be slower than one binary file.
Services can have a UI, but it asks the user to switch to the secure desktop (the same one UAC prompts on) to view the service's UI.
You do get zero prompts - if the file is yours. However, if it's in the "All Users" section, it's considered not yours (it treats shared shit as being "communal") and demands authorisation from you to rename it.
However, the GGGP is talking shit about getting three prompts from UAC. You actually get one UAC prompt and one shell one (UAC demanding authorisation for modifying files which aren't yours, and a shell prompt warning you that changes will affect all users) - it's still braindead, but nowhere near as bad as his post implies (a switch to the secure desktop for a UAC prompt is damn near painful on some graphics cards).
So... identical to Ubuntu's strategy then?
Can't really complain about the training either. They piss and moan a lot in their training materials about how you should test as an LUA (Limited User Account) because... well, assumptions are bad mmkay?
Invalid argument. One can write an installer just as easily for Ubuntu as Windows, and it can cause just as much havoc if it demands administrative rights from the same type of user.
The issue is always the user when talking about malware, not the software design.
Trademe's response if you're outside of our ditch is roughly equated to "bugger off, we don't like you". In Aus, they limit you to hell and back as well.
Actually, it's even less effect than that. Governments tend to have Select agreements with Microsoft, which mean that they don't actually procure software. They install as many licenses as they want and at the end of the year, they're asked "oh by the way, are you using more licenses than last year?" and just get billed for the extra ones.
But because they would be remaining within the bounds of the existing contract, no procurement process is followed and certainly no tender process, thereby evading the restrictions on Microsoft participating in tenders.
In other words, the nett effect is zero, and anyone who thinks this will achieve anything is living a pipe dream.
Declare the corporation of Microsoft an outlaw, confiscate all its properties and put those properties in the commons.
All Microsoft copyrights and patents are immediately nullified within the boundaries of the EU.
While this may seem a little unusual, it would be an easy solution that would allow governments and agencies dependent on MS products to go forward without hindrance (or continued payment of licensing fees). It would have no serious repercussions on businesses that install or support Microsoft products (except that with the absence of licensing overheads, their gross would suddenly jump, as would their tax liabilities). An entirely new software industry built on chunks ripped from Microsoft code would blossom overnight.
This is something to think about.
And overnight, every software company in the world would rethink whether selling in Europe is an "acceptable risk" - we'd see software being pulled from the EU market left, right, and centre.And if that wasn't bad enough, like the AC replying here said, the other countries would just retaliate in kind. I'm sure that US corporations would love to be able to get SAP for free.
You've just proposed what might be the stupidest idea since Windows Millenium.
There needs to be a "Score: -1 Delusional".
There's no monopoly here (though there would be if Google bought either of the two) and no court would touch a Yahoo!/Microsoft merger or purchase. There's simply no issue to speak of.
I think that the Yahoo! folks realize that Yahoo! and Microsoft don't really mix together.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is whether the executives refusing this offer is in the best interests of the owners, which is to say shareholders, of the company. If "they don't mix well together" is the excuse for refusing the offer, then the Yahoo! board has just broken the law.It's to draw attention to his signature, which is an advertisement. Stop being so surprised.
Holy mother of... your card actually has your PIN on it?!? Here in NZ, backwards tech capital of the world, our cards don't even have an inkling of your PIN - they only know their number, and your PIN is encrypted (by the PIN pad) and forwarded to the terminal, then forwarded over a secure link to the bank who sends back either "Yes" or "No" (with a return code indicating the specific reason for the answer)
I disagree. The difference in curvature between Apple's logo and NYC's logo at the lower point is at least a few millimetres wider than at the central point. It's basically not the same.
And just as importantly, the Apple logo and NYC logo can not be easily confused because without the overlay, I wouldn't see the difference.