I think Zend (developers of the CORE OF PHP, you know?) might be a better source than that random site. And they say that on Win32 platforms IIS7 with FastCGI is the recommended operating environment.
The only thing I'm interested in knowing at this point is how your original post can get modded up of all things, when all it contains is venom. *sigh* You MUST be new here.
Why the fuck is this modded insightful you idiots?
Twitter, get a real fucking source, not your bloody journal. Especially your journal with a page of comments telling you why it's all complete bullshit.
Since when has the devkit been a fucking standard (as you put it).
The devkit is reference code. Your argument is complete bullshit.
That's akin to saying that Samba is GPL because it's reference code is GPL. This is not the case, because (using your own argument against you) "it's a fucking standard, not a library or piece of code"
The only reference I have is the web servers I dealt with which were running it. It doesn't surprise me that Google shows no reference though, as Google is not the definitive core of the internet and doesn't know everything.
Then you're an idiot. This overturn is necessary - as the judge said, you cannot start suing end users of a technology if they believed they were licensing from the proper authority. You should go after the one that claimed they were authorised to act as licensor. In this case, Fraunhofer Institute (I know, I know, I spelt it wrong).
You're in the wrong place to be talking about how you bought stock in a company based on it's desire to litigate over software patents (a touchy subject as it is) they have no right to litigate over, by the way.
Hell, if I had mod points you'd be -1 flamebait already.
What you have to understand is that M$ itself is a patent troll. Almost all of their software has come from predatory acquisitions but the market has dried up because people are no longer willing to risk their money in the business where M$ can crush them. You must have noticed that all of the innovative companies, Google, Wikipedia, Facebook and others are all using gnu/linux and avoiding the desktop in order to make money. M$ has built themselves a patent warchest to assail those businesses, and has been instrumental in setting up business method and other stupid patents. Others have taken advantage of the situation, but that does not make M$ any less culpable. The rest of your post is mostly just noise (some truth, some not, but hard to tell the difference) but this is just incorrect.
For a start, Microsoft has only ever used patents as a threat. Never have they actually sued anyone over one. That said, the OIN does the same thing - it's called Sabre-rattling. It frightens other companies (whether it's an ethically sound practice or not is entirely your perception. To me, it's not).
It should be noted that Google itself is doing very similar things. It definitely is not shying from the desktop like you claim, and is actively attacking Microsoft directly. In fact, one could say that Google is doing the very thing that Microsoft has done - leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in loosely related markets. Case in point, them asking to be added to the list of plaintiffs in the original anti-trust case because they want to ensure that they can force Microsoft to shred their operating system to allow Google to inject it's "search toolbar" into the deepest depths of the OS (when really, the only thing that's actually necessary is to get Microsoft to de-couple the search box on the start menu because everything else is easily replaceable simply via the provided APIs). So don't try holding them up as an example of such a nice, innovative company (especially since Google doesn't actually make anything any more, they just buy ACTUAL innovative companies)
So who is OIN truely targetting Simple.. To strike after companies that are still are based on just selling software and have the most to loose in the transition to software services... M$ comes to mind..:-) No Twitter, it doesn't ( oh wait, you're not Twitter? You sure as hell sound like him, and that's not a compliment) . The OIN is not about striking ANYONE. It is a defensive organisation, not an offensive one. The OIN is a pool of companies who hold patents to offer to other members provided they adhere to the values of the pool.
To some extent, it's all about Mutually Assured Destruction. They hold so many patents in their pool that should any company sue one of their members, they could almost assuredly locate a patent they hold that the other company is infringing. Therefore, they can ensure that if they're going down, by dammit their enemy is going down too. In this way, most companies would be reluctant to challenge one of the members of the group for fear of repercussion from one of the other members.
You need to realise that not everyone wants to "get M$". They want to ensure that MS cannot harm them, but they don't feel the same vitriol that you do.
By the way... a large component of Microsoft's revenue stream comes from their services and consultancy fields. They also use services as a method of increasing their income, just like IBM and so on.
And you also need to realise that "the future of software is to sell the services that follow the software" is an overly broad assumption, that is not necessarily always correct.
5.0 (which shipped initially with 2000) couldn't, but 5.1 (a later upgrade) could. IIS6 is the first one where it was in there from the start and worked easily.
No. Troll is the most appropriate moderation for almost all Twitter posts. The only time he stops mosting anti-"M$" bullshit is when he loses the +1 karma bonus modifier due to too many downmods. He hates that, because then his foaming-at-the-mouth rabid FUD is less visible.
More likely is that they're added at need, and they haven't seen any viruses in the wild that spread via MSN and use.asp files. Expect to see some if suddenly there's a virus that spreads by sending "Hey check out www.badwebsite.com/goto.asp?urlname=forums for free hardcore".
I ran into this problem a few months pack, trying to paste the url http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/ to a friend of mine. Absolutely refused to send unless I put a space in there somewhere. Nope.
(Slashdot, if I see that fucking "It's been 1 minute since you last posted a comment" again...)
You know, Google does the same thing with their search engine. If you appear to be using it an inordinately large amount, their search engine will blacklist your IP and throw 403 forbidden every search you send. There are also several search terms they block as well (such as "Powered by IP.Board 2.0.0" and "phpBB2 x.x.x") which cause a 403 when searched for (and no results, and a message telling you that your search term was blocked because it looked like a virus)
In properly configured corporate environments, the users don't have the required permissions for spyware and most viruses to work either. The vast majority of viruses and spyware rely on moronic users running as an administrator.
If you are a individual or an institution based in US, and willing to do a public good, please do seriously consider to sue Apple and explain in the court the public harm caused by above patents and ask the court to advice the US Patent Office to cancel or revoke those patents. (This author reside outside of US) My understanding is all I have here, but that's NOT grounds for a lawsuit and any such attempt would fail. Terribly. And likely cost YOU (the plaintiff) thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees (presuming they can protract court cases with annoying gnats as well as IBM can).
You can already get the M$ core fonts from M$ themselves by following crossover office instructions. M$ has the fonts in a series of files on some hideous and obfuscated support website Or right here on the Sourceforge network in source RPM form, but don't let that stop your bitching.
They're under a "distribute all you want however you want as much as you want to whoever you want, but don't change the fonts and claim they're the same or charge for them" license. Hardly as evil as you claim.
I bet you'd be saying exactly the opposite if Google did this. It pisses me off how everyone applies double standards to the Big Three (Apple. Google. Microsoft).
Actually, no. Copyright when it was created was meant to provide an incentive to, you know, create stuff by ensuring the author a minimum monopoly on distribution terms during which they would be able to profit from it's creation. It is A SIDE EFFECT that it provides a minimum period in which the author holds a monopoly on charging for it. Copyright applies to all distribution (whether you like it or not). Just be thankful that the US does not allow Perpetual Copyright (though it must enforce it if a Berne Convention signatory extends one to a work - case in point the Peter Pan novel, which holds an actual statute all to itself!)
Slashdot Mirror
Good for you. I don't care what you think.
I think Zend (developers of the CORE OF PHP, you know?) might be a better source than that random site. And they say that on Win32 platforms IIS7 with FastCGI is the recommended operating environment.
Why the fuck is this modded insightful you idiots?
Twitter, get a real fucking source, not your bloody journal. Especially your journal with a page of comments telling you why it's all complete bullshit.
Ironic that you predicted that.
Where did you learn Telepathy? I failed it at my school, they weren't so good at teaching it.
Since when has the devkit been a fucking standard (as you put it).
The devkit is reference code. Your argument is complete bullshit.
That's akin to saying that Samba is GPL because it's reference code is GPL. This is not the case, because (using your own argument against you) "it's a fucking standard, not a library or piece of code"
The only reference I have is the web servers I dealt with which were running it. It doesn't surprise me that Google shows no reference though, as Google is not the definitive core of the internet and doesn't know everything.
That's (surprisingly) not true. I have worked with Win2000 servers with IIS 5.1 installed.
Yes, it confused me at the time too.
Then you're an idiot. This overturn is necessary - as the judge said, you cannot start suing end users of a technology if they believed they were licensing from the proper authority. You should go after the one that claimed they were authorised to act as licensor. In this case, Fraunhofer Institute (I know, I know, I spelt it wrong).
You're in the wrong place to be talking about how you bought stock in a company based on it's desire to litigate over software patents (a touchy subject as it is) they have no right to litigate over, by the way.
Hell, if I had mod points you'd be -1 flamebait already.
For a start, Microsoft has only ever used patents as a threat. Never have they actually sued anyone over one. That said, the OIN does the same thing - it's called Sabre-rattling. It frightens other companies (whether it's an ethically sound practice or not is entirely your perception. To me, it's not).
It should be noted that Google itself is doing very similar things. It definitely is not shying from the desktop like you claim, and is actively attacking Microsoft directly. In fact, one could say that Google is doing the very thing that Microsoft has done - leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in loosely related markets. Case in point, them asking to be added to the list of plaintiffs in the original anti-trust case because they want to ensure that they can force Microsoft to shred their operating system to allow Google to inject it's "search toolbar" into the deepest depths of the OS (when really, the only thing that's actually necessary is to get Microsoft to de-couple the search box on the start menu because everything else is easily replaceable simply via the provided APIs). So don't try holding them up as an example of such a nice, innovative company (especially since Google doesn't actually make anything any more, they just buy ACTUAL innovative companies)
To some extent, it's all about Mutually Assured Destruction. They hold so many patents in their pool that should any company sue one of their members, they could almost assuredly locate a patent they hold that the other company is infringing. Therefore, they can ensure that if they're going down, by dammit their enemy is going down too. In this way, most companies would be reluctant to challenge one of the members of the group for fear of repercussion from one of the other members.
You need to realise that not everyone wants to "get M$". They want to ensure that MS cannot harm them, but they don't feel the same vitriol that you do.
By the way... a large component of Microsoft's revenue stream comes from their services and consultancy fields. They also use services as a method of increasing their income, just like IBM and so on.
And you also need to realise that "the future of software is to sell the services that follow the software" is an overly broad assumption, that is not necessarily always correct.
Whatever. Nice FUD.
They've had 15 years or something like that to get you into "Enterprise Licensing" like Oracle. It hasn't even been rumoured to happen.
5.0 (which shipped initially with 2000) couldn't, but 5.1 (a later upgrade) could. IIS6 is the first one where it was in there from the start and worked easily.
No. Troll is the most appropriate moderation for almost all Twitter posts. The only time he stops mosting anti-"M$" bullshit is when he loses the +1 karma bonus modifier due to too many downmods. He hates that, because then his foaming-at-the-mouth rabid FUD is less visible.
Reference something other than your Journal, then we'll talk.
[citation needed]
Considering people complain that Windows isn't Linux compatible, why exactly does the sword not cut the other way?
Both Linux and Windows should be interoperable. Period.
More likely is that they're added at need, and they haven't seen any viruses in the wild that spread via MSN and use .asp files. Expect to see some if suddenly there's a virus that spreads by sending "Hey check out www.badwebsite.com/goto.asp?urlname=forums for free hardcore".
(Slashdot, if I see that fucking "It's been 1 minute since you last posted a comment" again...)
You know, Google does the same thing with their search engine. If you appear to be using it an inordinately large amount, their search engine will blacklist your IP and throw 403 forbidden every search you send. There are also several search terms they block as well (such as "Powered by IP.Board 2.0.0" and "phpBB2 x.x.x") which cause a 403 when searched for (and no results, and a message telling you that your search term was blocked because it looked like a virus)
In properly configured corporate environments, the users don't have the required permissions for spyware and most viruses to work either. The vast majority of viruses and spyware rely on moronic users running as an administrator.
He mentioned wanting to fiddle with IIS7. IIS7 is only available on Vista and Longhorn.
They're under a "distribute all you want however you want as much as you want to whoever you want, but don't change the fonts and claim they're the same or charge for them" license. Hardly as evil as you claim.
I bet you'd be saying exactly the opposite if Google did this. It pisses me off how everyone applies double standards to the Big Three (Apple. Google. Microsoft).
Actually, no. Copyright when it was created was meant to provide an incentive to, you know, create stuff by ensuring the author a minimum monopoly on distribution terms during which they would be able to profit from it's creation. It is A SIDE EFFECT that it provides a minimum period in which the author holds a monopoly on charging for it. Copyright applies to all distribution (whether you like it or not). Just be thankful that the US does not allow Perpetual Copyright (though it must enforce it if a Berne Convention signatory extends one to a work - case in point the Peter Pan novel, which holds an actual statute all to itself!)