No, in other words they've got so much extra work to make sure they don't violate anti-trust they've had to go back to the drawing board 30 times to satisfy symantec, mcafee, etc.
Because hey, it's horrible that I have to buy anti-virus software, but it's even worse if MS gives me something to replace third-party for free!
That's a bit young to go, but at least he lived a full life. I wonder what the heck he died from "after a brief illness". Given it's a hospice, I can only imagine an aggressive cancer.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe you've EVER dealt with IBM support, including your rosy picture painted in your response below. IBM in general, has grown so large they don't know their head from their ass. I have SEVERAL companies who made the mistake of replacing their IT department with IGS "IBM Global Services". The customer has hardware NOT from IBM with phone-home support. It phones my company, we call the customer site, and it gets routed to IBM. IBM doesn't know where the hardware is, doesn't know who owns it, doesn't know who services it. The actual hardware replacement is done by IBM themselves, but the guy bringing the hardware doesn't know who the guy "operating" the machine is, so oftentimes they'll have catastrophic failures for no reason other than lack of co-ordination.
IBM would sell SPARC and POWER for maybe a year max, at which point SPARC would be EOL'd and EOS's as quickly as possible. Solaris would hit the junk bin nearly as quickly (they have AIX).
I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'm guessing it's NOTHING in the enterprise. I've yet to meet anyone that does business with these two directly that are remotely excited at the idea of them merging.
Right... but doing it from a DRAC/ILOM/whatever that isn't routed to the internet isn't accessible from the system itself would be a nice first step towards security...
More FUD.
The companies you mention don't have a history of using bloggers to shil. Microsoft does.
You're either full of it or another zealot lying to yourself if you don't think IBM/Redhat/Novell pays bloggers to be their shills. I find it downright humorous you'd even suggest otherwise.
Where exactly do you think the "TCO" studies proving linux is a better deal than MS comes from? Here's a hint: the companies doing the reviews aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
As for Vista, adoption rate speaks louder than words. This seems appropriate:"Everytime the topic comes up, your type gets shot down... here I thought you'd learn."
So IBM/RedHat/Novell et. all can't pay people to "shill" for them? You sir, have a truly "unique" definition of shill.
As for Microsoft giving up on Vista, I'm not entirely sure how you've come to that conclusion. Last I checked they're still actively developing and marketing it. Just because the "geek crowd" of slashdot has some very vocal bigots and trolls doesn't mean the rest of the world is dismissing vista. Everytime the topic comes up, your type gets shot down... here I thought you'd learn.
#1. You didn't RTFA, that's not what they're talking about in reference to "accelerators".
#2. Why are you scolding an application developer? The real issue is that bandwidth is being horded as if it's this rare commodity. You should be upset at the ISP with draconian bandwidth limitations, not application developers trying to bring us into the 20th (yes, last) century.
How is one release after "many years" of nothing a "regular release cycle"? Wouldn't that require, at minimum, two consecutive releases? What if the next release isn't for another 5 years? Unless you're suggesting that is in fact their "regular release" schedule.
Have you tried scaling that theory? Do you realize the type of network you need to provide this to thousands of users? Not to mention what it does to their laptop when they take it home to try to work remotely...
How can you justify your existence and expand your power if someone makes your job easier? The sheriff can't exactly ask for more money next year and more officers if he can get the job done with fewer, can he?:)
Amen to that. Firefox has CONSTANTLY been using 100% of one of the cores on my macbook pro. Finally yesterday I fired up safari 4.0 beta and loaded up all of the exact same tabs. Current cpu usage is 7.2%.
I don't know what's wrong with firefox but thats pretty sad. And yes, I have tried the "disable all plugins", uninstall/make sure all profiles are gone/reinstall. Same behavior.
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there.
Right... so your argument is that because libraries that IE uses, that the rest of the system also use, are still around, IE isn't gone?
If we apply that to the linux world I imagine there'd be an awful lot of apps that "stick around" even after being "uninstalled". Since when do dependencies an application make?
WHERE did I say I disagree with being able to uninstall IE? I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said installing firefox should not automatically disable IE. If I don't want IE, I'll uninstall or disable it myself, thank you very much. The installation of firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled. I install firefox on all of my machines; I still want and use IE on them on a regular basis. I will be outraged if the default behavior is "disable IE on installation of any other browser".
I don't need a bunch technologically retarded bureaucrats deciding my computers default behavior.
Seriously? That's absolute crap. Me installing firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled. The EU needs to get its head out of its a**. If I want IE disabled, I'll disable it.
Ohhh, so now a corporation can ignore laws in countries it sells into if they're not valid in their home country? So we should expect China to start selling their automobiles (you know, the ones that implode on impact), into Europe and throughout the rest of the world. Safety standards be damned, they're legal in China!
If you think a corporation can willfully ignore the laws of a country they're doing business in, you've got a LOT to learn about international business.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in other words they've got so much extra work to make sure they don't violate anti-trust they've had to go back to the drawing board 30 times to satisfy symantec, mcafee, etc.
Because hey, it's horrible that I have to buy anti-virus software, but it's even worse if MS gives me something to replace third-party for free!
That's a bit young to go, but at least he lived a full life. I wonder what the heck he died from "after a brief illness". Given it's a hospice, I can only imagine an aggressive cancer.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe you've EVER dealt with IBM support, including your rosy picture painted in your response below. IBM in general, has grown so large they don't know their head from their ass. I have SEVERAL companies who made the mistake of replacing their IT department with IGS "IBM Global Services". The customer has hardware NOT from IBM with phone-home support. It phones my company, we call the customer site, and it gets routed to IBM. IBM doesn't know where the hardware is, doesn't know who owns it, doesn't know who services it. The actual hardware replacement is done by IBM themselves, but the guy bringing the hardware doesn't know who the guy "operating" the machine is, so oftentimes they'll have catastrophic failures for no reason other than lack of co-ordination.
IBM would sell SPARC and POWER for maybe a year max, at which point SPARC would be EOL'd and EOS's as quickly as possible. Solaris would hit the junk bin nearly as quickly (they have AIX).
I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'm guessing it's NOTHING in the enterprise. I've yet to meet anyone that does business with these two directly that are remotely excited at the idea of them merging.
And you now fully understand the beauty of P2P.
The employee would just format the thumb drive with ntfs... try again.
Right... but doing it from a DRAC/ILOM/whatever that isn't routed to the internet isn't accessible from the system itself would be a nice first step towards security...
Why not just use google?
http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en
More FUD. The companies you mention don't have a history of using bloggers to shil. Microsoft does.
You're either full of it or another zealot lying to yourself if you don't think IBM/Redhat/Novell pays bloggers to be their shills. I find it downright humorous you'd even suggest otherwise.
Where exactly do you think the "TCO" studies proving linux is a better deal than MS comes from? Here's a hint: the companies doing the reviews aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
As for Vista, adoption rate speaks louder than words. This seems appropriate:"Everytime the topic comes up, your type gets shot down... here I thought you'd learn."
Care to cite some statistics to back up your bullshit?
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/12472
So IBM/RedHat/Novell et. all can't pay people to "shill" for them? You sir, have a truly "unique" definition of shill.
As for Microsoft giving up on Vista, I'm not entirely sure how you've come to that conclusion. Last I checked they're still actively developing and marketing it. Just because the "geek crowd" of slashdot has some very vocal bigots and trolls doesn't mean the rest of the world is dismissing vista. Everytime the topic comes up, your type gets shot down... here I thought you'd learn.
#1. You didn't RTFA, that's not what they're talking about in reference to "accelerators".
#2. Why are you scolding an application developer? The real issue is that bandwidth is being horded as if it's this rare commodity. You should be upset at the ISP with draconian bandwidth limitations, not application developers trying to bring us into the 20th (yes, last) century.
How is one release after "many years" of nothing a "regular release cycle"? Wouldn't that require, at minimum, two consecutive releases? What if the next release isn't for another 5 years? Unless you're suggesting that is in fact their "regular release" schedule.
Have you tried scaling that theory? Do you realize the type of network you need to provide this to thousands of users? Not to mention what it does to their laptop when they take it home to try to work remotely...
Ya, NO linux based company would EVER do something like that.
www.redhat.com
What's Ubuntu's LTS support? 5 years? And how long has XP been supported? Right...
How can you justify your existence and expand your power if someone makes your job easier? The sheriff can't exactly ask for more money next year and more officers if he can get the job done with fewer, can he? :)
Or the federal military (thank you Bush).
Right... except I've tested with adblock plus loaded on firefox blocking all of those flash ads, and nothing on safari.
Amen to that. Firefox has CONSTANTLY been using 100% of one of the cores on my macbook pro. Finally yesterday I fired up safari 4.0 beta and loaded up all of the exact same tabs. Current cpu usage is 7.2%.
I don't know what's wrong with firefox but thats pretty sad. And yes, I have tried the "disable all plugins", uninstall/make sure all profiles are gone/reinstall. Same behavior.
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there.
Right... so your argument is that because libraries that IE uses, that the rest of the system also use, are still around, IE isn't gone?
If we apply that to the linux world I imagine there'd be an awful lot of apps that "stick around" even after being "uninstalled". Since when do dependencies an application make?
Why would they need to? They're moving away from windows update entirely. See vista.
Server core already has no IE and works just fine.
WHERE did I say I disagree with being able to uninstall IE? I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said installing firefox should not automatically disable IE. If I don't want IE, I'll uninstall or disable it myself, thank you very much. The installation of firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled. I install firefox on all of my machines; I still want and use IE on them on a regular basis. I will be outraged if the default behavior is "disable IE on installation of any other browser".
I don't need a bunch technologically retarded bureaucrats deciding my computers default behavior.
Wrong. Server Core has no IE, and it isn't just "iexplorer.exe" that's not there.
At least be informed in your trolling.
...you don't use the browser for updates anymore. You haven't since XP.
Seriously? That's absolute crap. Me installing firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled. The EU needs to get its head out of its a**. If I want IE disabled, I'll disable it.
Ohhh, so now a corporation can ignore laws in countries it sells into if they're not valid in their home country? So we should expect China to start selling their automobiles (you know, the ones that implode on impact), into Europe and throughout the rest of the world. Safety standards be damned, they're legal in China!
If you think a corporation can willfully ignore the laws of a country they're doing business in, you've got a LOT to learn about international business.