They didn't screw theirs up so badly. Previously applications could install with admin pivs, so app developers just automatically assumed they'd always have admin privs instead of user privs, because that was the "easy way". They didn't have to worry about what system functions/dll's/registry/directories they'd have access to. People complained, so MS enforced a security policy. The reason it "isn't bad" on other systems is because they had the security FROM THE START.
As to your "context menu and shortcuts" etc, the only way it's being added is if you said OK to the installer. That isn't MS's fault, that's the application developers fault. You're the epitome of what we're talking about. You just complained that the security asks you too many questions, but you're pissed that it's not asking you about every shortcut it installs? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Which is why one has to wonder why they used bleeding edge ext4 on Linux, and didn't use ZFS on FreeBSD. It couldn't be because they were trying to intentionally skew the numbers! And yes, ZFS is fully baked on FreeBSD.
Funny, my 10.6 install of SL on my macbook is significantly SLOWER than my win7 bootcamp partition. So I guess I disagree with you're "us mac users" having OS releases that don't slow just the same as windows systems.
That iso is for both x86 and x64. It's just labeled "x86". There is no separate "x64" ISO for anything Solaris, it's "x86" or "sparc". It will load the x64 kernel if you have an x64 capable server, or x86 if that's all you have.
Dare I say the linux crew could learn something from Sun?
First, i4i in no way "absolved" OO.o of anything. What they DID do was say they don't "believe" it infringes. That's code for "we're going milk all the money we can out of MS, then we'll figure out who else we can sue".
Second, the MS i4i suit has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Why was it even brought up? Cmon guys, enough of the MS bashing. It's to the point it has to be brought up in stories about completely different products now?
He does realize that xboxlive isn't stopping any pirating, right? In fact, it's so prevalent, there's been more than one major modder that has been arrested in the not so distant past.
Support for what? A quick search of newegg tells me I can't buy a motherboard, add-on card, or peripheral that supports USB 3.0 today. What exactly was windows 7 going to support? An unreleased chipset?
From your own article: Jeff Ravencraft of Intel said that he expects the final specification to be announced in San Jose, Calif., on November 17.
Wait, so I'm supposed to be upset that Microsoft didn't ship experimental drivers for an unratified standard in their new OS?
That issue was patched a long, long time ago. Unless your LAN is 1mbit half-duplex, there's something seriously wrong with it. The patch was rolled into SP1 to boot, so... there's really no excuse for you to not have it fixed.
Really? MS PR aside? You aren't just trolling? Being that you brought up "Sun servers", you should know that you can connect to the ILO, use it to mount an ISO, and completely wipe and re-install windows just as easily. It isn't exactly a new feature either.
Mine isn't anti-apple at all, and I call bullshit. The only way snow leopard's exchange support works is if you IT staff is willing to apply patches that are not part of windows update. They have to manually go out and search the patches out. If you don't, you get absolutely no folder support.
So, you're either lying, or your IT staff went out and specifically downloaded patches for exchange to allow it to function properly with snow leopard.
We don't have the power infrastructure to support moving that power around. You're talking about a mult-trillion dollar upgrade to our infrastructure for that to be viable. It's the exact reason that "electric cars" are currently not even a remotely realistic solution to the oil problem.
Uhh, yes. The part where I just told you we have LAN parties in my office with NO NETWORK CONNECTION. Apparently reading the entire post was entirely too much work for you.
Of course, I'm sure all the outrage across the internet is people just making stuff up. Or maybe they're all pirates! Oh wait... the pirates will still hack SCII to play without WAN access, and legit players will just not buy it. Win-win!
Reading comprehension would lead one to the conclusion he thinks SCII should be the same as "WoW". Guess what, people with dial-up don't play WoW.
"We just know from WoW that most people can connect online and play."
No, actually, most people cannot "connect online and play". That guy, and apparently you, have some pretty serious brain damage if you think that dial-up is that rare. Not to mention having LAN parties in places that flat out don't have a network connection, or at least not one accessible to all players at the party.
We often have LAN parties at my work. We're allowed in a secured meeting room that is large enough for plenty of players. Those people however are not employees, and as such are not allowed on the corporate network.
Blizzard might as well just come right out and say it "If you don't have broadband, we don't care about you.". Guess what, I have broadband and I STILL won't be buying the game for the simple fact I *HAVE* to have a WAN connection to have a LAN party. Quite frankly, I'll likely drop WCIII from the list of games we play for the simple fact that I don't want to support blizzard in any way, shape, or form after this debacle.
Zero compensation? You don't pay for a monthly cellphone bill now? You don't pay for a data package if you want to use it? Please... AT&T is making money hand over fist, and will continue to do so whether google voice is approved or not.
I think a lot of the reason they *give code back* is because we see companies hire people from a specific project and pay them to work on it. Some of the code remains private, but much of it goes back. This is for many reasons, not the least of which that they want the project to continue to thrive. If FreeBSD went away for instance... every company that uses it as a base is in some trouble. Having it in the wild gives them a whole BUNCH of free bugtesting.
The second point I would make is that I know of many companies that specifically don't release some code back because it serves as a competitive advantage (to the FreeBSD project anyways). That is the downside to such a license.
Let's say I'm a trading house. The quicker I can get transactions done, the more money I make. If I can be faster than any of my competitors, I'll make that much more money, because my profitability will attract new clients.
If I pay someone to say... modify the Linux kernel to allow my transactions to process, there's absolutely NO WAY I'm giving it to anyone. Why on earth would I *EVER* give my advantage away to competitors for free? If I've invested millions of dollars into the technology to make money, why would I give it away? Heck, if I'm running a publicly traded company, you can bet your ass I'm not going to have a job for very long with those sorts of executive decisions.
Not to mention SPARC is the cash cow for Oracle. All the Linux deployments in the world STILL do not equal the amount of money Oracle makes on their legacy SPARC licensing.
They can't control Linux, and they know that. Larry wants to own the entire stack, and he's made that very clear for a very long time. There's some choice quotes out there to support that initiative, unfortunately I appear to fail at finding them.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't screw theirs up so badly. Previously applications could install with admin pivs, so app developers just automatically assumed they'd always have admin privs instead of user privs, because that was the "easy way". They didn't have to worry about what system functions/dll's/registry/directories they'd have access to. People complained, so MS enforced a security policy. The reason it "isn't bad" on other systems is because they had the security FROM THE START.
As to your "context menu and shortcuts" etc, the only way it's being added is if you said OK to the installer. That isn't MS's fault, that's the application developers fault. You're the epitome of what we're talking about. You just complained that the security asks you too many questions, but you're pissed that it's not asking you about every shortcut it installs? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Synchronous replication is great right up until it replicates the corruption. Replication is not a replacement for backup.
Which is why one has to wonder why they used bleeding edge ext4 on Linux, and didn't use ZFS on FreeBSD. It couldn't be because they were trying to intentionally skew the numbers! And yes, ZFS is fully baked on FreeBSD.
Relatively small? I believe you're talking about cingular, which was the second largest cellular network in the US behind Verizon and still is.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/02/the-engadget-guide-to-at-t-wireless-cingular-sbc-at-t-merger/
Funny, my 10.6 install of SL on my macbook is significantly SLOWER than my win7 bootcamp partition. So I guess I disagree with you're "us mac users" having OS releases that don't slow just the same as windows systems.
That iso is for both x86 and x64. It's just labeled "x86". There is no separate "x64" ISO for anything Solaris, it's "x86" or "sparc". It will load the x64 kernel if you have an x64 capable server, or x86 if that's all you have.
Dare I say the linux crew could learn something from Sun?
First, i4i in no way "absolved" OO.o of anything. What they DID do was say they don't "believe" it infringes. That's code for "we're going milk all the money we can out of MS, then we'll figure out who else we can sue".
Second, the MS i4i suit has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Why was it even brought up? Cmon guys, enough of the MS bashing. It's to the point it has to be brought up in stories about completely different products now?
You don't get out much then.
He does realize that xboxlive isn't stopping any pirating, right? In fact, it's so prevalent, there's been more than one major modder that has been arrested in the not so distant past.
http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/08/04/1319221/California-Student-Arrested-For-Console-Hacking?from=rss
This guy should probably be a politician. Ignore the facts at all costs, even if your proof directly contradicts the point you're trying to make!
Support for what? A quick search of newegg tells me I can't buy a motherboard, add-on card, or peripheral that supports USB 3.0 today. What exactly was windows 7 going to support? An unreleased chipset?
From your own article:
Jeff Ravencraft of Intel said that he expects the final specification to be announced in San Jose, Calif., on November 17.
Wait, so I'm supposed to be upset that Microsoft didn't ship experimental drivers for an unratified standard in their new OS?
That issue was patched a long, long time ago. Unless your LAN is 1mbit half-duplex, there's something seriously wrong with it. The patch was rolled into SP1 to boot, so... there's really no excuse for you to not have it fixed.
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx
Really? MS PR aside? You aren't just trolling? Being that you brought up "Sun servers", you should know that you can connect to the ILO, use it to mount an ISO, and completely wipe and re-install windows just as easily. It isn't exactly a new feature either.
Because you can't reboot a server with an ILO?
Mine isn't anti-apple at all, and I call bullshit. The only way snow leopard's exchange support works is if you IT staff is willing to apply patches that are not part of windows update. They have to manually go out and search the patches out. If you don't, you get absolutely no folder support.
So, you're either lying, or your IT staff went out and specifically downloaded patches for exchange to allow it to function properly with snow leopard.
We don't have the power infrastructure to support moving that power around. You're talking about a mult-trillion dollar upgrade to our infrastructure for that to be viable. It's the exact reason that "electric cars" are currently not even a remotely realistic solution to the oil problem.
www.slickdeals.net
Uhh, yes. The part where I just told you we have LAN parties in my office with NO NETWORK CONNECTION. Apparently reading the entire post was entirely too much work for you.
Of course, I'm sure all the outrage across the internet is people just making stuff up. Or maybe they're all pirates! Oh wait... the pirates will still hack SCII to play without WAN access, and legit players will just not buy it. Win-win!
Reading comprehension would lead one to the conclusion he thinks SCII should be the same as "WoW". Guess what, people with dial-up don't play WoW.
"We just know from WoW that most people can connect online and play."
No, actually, most people cannot "connect online and play". That guy, and apparently you, have some pretty serious brain damage if you think that dial-up is that rare. Not to mention having LAN parties in places that flat out don't have a network connection, or at least not one accessible to all players at the party.
We often have LAN parties at my work. We're allowed in a secured meeting room that is large enough for plenty of players. Those people however are not employees, and as such are not allowed on the corporate network.
Blizzard might as well just come right out and say it "If you don't have broadband, we don't care about you.". Guess what, I have broadband and I STILL won't be buying the game for the simple fact I *HAVE* to have a WAN connection to have a LAN party. Quite frankly, I'll likely drop WCIII from the list of games we play for the simple fact that I don't want to support blizzard in any way, shape, or form after this debacle.
Zero compensation? You don't pay for a monthly cellphone bill now? You don't pay for a data package if you want to use it? Please... AT&T is making money hand over fist, and will continue to do so whether google voice is approved or not.
Two points:
I think a lot of the reason they *give code back* is because we see companies hire people from a specific project and pay them to work on it. Some of the code remains private, but much of it goes back. This is for many reasons, not the least of which that they want the project to continue to thrive. If FreeBSD went away for instance... every company that uses it as a base is in some trouble. Having it in the wild gives them a whole BUNCH of free bugtesting.
The second point I would make is that I know of many companies that specifically don't release some code back because it serves as a competitive advantage (to the FreeBSD project anyways). That is the downside to such a license.
Let's say I'm a trading house. The quicker I can get transactions done, the more money I make. If I can be faster than any of my competitors, I'll make that much more money, because my profitability will attract new clients.
If I pay someone to say... modify the Linux kernel to allow my transactions to process, there's absolutely NO WAY I'm giving it to anyone. Why on earth would I *EVER* give my advantage away to competitors for free? If I've invested millions of dollars into the technology to make money, why would I give it away? Heck, if I'm running a publicly traded company, you can bet your ass I'm not going to have a job for very long with those sorts of executive decisions.
That's the most asinine statement I've ever heard.
Our Windows licenses are cheaper than our Redhat licenses and always have been. By your definition, Redhat "has no real competition". Please.
That's A2M.
Not to mention SPARC is the cash cow for Oracle. All the Linux deployments in the world STILL do not equal the amount of money Oracle makes on their legacy SPARC licensing.
They can't control Linux, and they know that. Larry wants to own the entire stack, and he's made that very clear for a very long time. There's some choice quotes out there to support that initiative, unfortunately I appear to fail at finding them.