Novell has apologized to developers of the IE7 team, since apparently their popular anti-virus software detected so many security holes in the work-in-progress that it tried to uninstall it.
"We're sorry for the inconvience", one Novell spokesperson was quoted as saying, "but I don't get why they're so suprised. I mean, the same thing happened when the last version of IE came out."
Microsoft developers are heard to be working on a patch that renders the holes invisible to antivirus software, rather than patching the holes themselves. "I mean, how are we supposed to get into your computer otherwise?", an inside source was quoted as saying. "Er, to fix things. Of course. What else would we do with glaring backdoors? I mean, wait. What backdoors? They're 'features'. Yeah, 'features'. Move along, nothing to see here."
Just a side note, I'd debate on the "Windows has the easiest-to-use installation wizard" bit. My input being that Red Hat probably does (9 in particular, but I assume Fedora has the same ease). It does, for the most part, set everything up for you; including partitions. And in a very nice GUI, too.
Even Microsoft's Excel can benefit, he said, noting that some businesses have worksheets that can take hours to calculate. Today, such work requires third-party add-ons such as software from Platform Computing. However, Theimer said that Microsoft may be interested in offering that capability itself.
So it'll be twice the cost and half as effecient, and you'll still have to call Microsoft to activate it. Sounds great.
Not to mention it gives lawmakers another opportunity to attach rider bills and whatnot. In fact, this is a particularly good one to have a rider on. A lawmaker voting against an anti-phishing bill is going to be branded as pro-fraud for the rest of his rather truncated career, I'd imagine...and his opponents would have no problem killing him with it.
Does this mean we're going to have 6 other people showing up and claiming parentage too? And if someone sold MS-DOS when it wasn't theirs, how much do you think the original owner's going to get? I mean, if it was the jumping-off point of Windows, that could be a hefty lawsuit...
Speaking of which, why did it take so long to come out? Was the original programmer hiding under a rock for the past decade and a half?
I note that a lot of people arguing Microsoft's case are neglecting a minor point.
It seems that people are asserting Wine = Pirate. But this isn't the case. In fact, I'd like to make the assertation that people running Wine are probably less likely to be pirates.
Consider this: People who're using Microsoft Office in Linux are usually running it because they need some bit of functionality that OpenOffice doesn't have. These people would, I think, be found more in a business setting, where you have people who (gasp) have the liscense to the product.
Meanwhile, people in a non-business setting who run Linux are, like it or not, more likely to be geeks; and as such, will probably use OpenOffice over MSO on Wine, for reasons ranging from "I like it more" to "It's already there" to "M$O suXXorz, LOL".
On the flip side, guess which people probably run pirated versions of MSO...? Right in one, boys and girls; the people who're running Windows. Percentage-wise, I'd say that the ratio of people running pirated versions of MSO with WINE, compared to the number of people running pirated versions of MSO with Windows, is probably something on the order of 1:200. Conservatively.
Not, of course, that running pirated versions on any operating system is good (), but would it not be a better use of Microsoft's resources to work on a better way of keeping pirates in general away from their software, rather than try to mildly irritate an entire subset of their Office users?
Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Office for WINDOWS. You didn't buy MS Office for SOMETHING LIKE WINDOWS. You don't expect MS Office for Mac to run on Windows, why would you expect MS Office for Windows to run on something else? You've been lucky so far, but now your luck has run out.
Here's the thing: We do expect it to. This isn't asking them to go out of their way to support something on another operating system. This is asking them to NOT go out of their way to PREVENT something from being run on another operating system.
There's a difference between MS accidently breaking compatibility......Like they've done with so many other third-party applications every time they update Windows XP...
Step 1: Remove CD from case. Step 2: Install Windows XP. Step 3: Shuffle things on your desk while waiting for XP to install. Step 4: Just put the CD on top of your case after the install because you're too lazy to go digging for the case. Step 5: Wait a month. Step 6: Have to reinstall Windows XP, but you've lost the case. Oops.
at the same time the martian bacteria would not "know" how to do anything with our biological systems and probably would not find our bodies to be a suitable environment.
I'd think we'd be just fine, as far as suitibility goes. A Martian bacteria would have to be able to live through some very harsh environments. Even some pretty ugly parts of the human body (like, say, my large intestine) would be paradise compared to a planet with temperatures going from several hundred degrees above to several hundred below freezing every day.
Do you really, honestly think that Linux is ready for aunt tillie?
Aunt Tillie types up email to her sister in Arizona, looks up recipies for double-chocolate chip cookies, and plays solitaire.
There's really no difference between doing that on a Linux box and on a Windows box. In fact, it's easier; you don't have to worry running antivirus programs on a Linux box.
Consider: My siblings, ages 14 and under, use Red Hat 9. For everything. There's no "super-specialized" programs that they need to run in Windows; even my brother's Freddi Fish games run just fine in Wine. If an 8-year-old can run Linux, what's the problem? Not everything needs to be run from a terminal.
I know what you mean. When I first got my hands on a copy of Fedora Core 1, I just popped it in and upgraded, expecting it to work.
2 hours later, after a full install...
Oh, wow, look at that. I've rebooted and at least a dozen services failed on startup, claiming bad file names, etc. Oops. Well, I guess I'll have to back up my stuff to my Windows partition and reinstall...oh, wait, look at that: FC1 doesn't support vfat mounting! Oh, there goes that plan. Well, I guess I can FTP to my laptop and try and back things up that way...Oh, look at that! The installation screwed up my network configuration, I guess I won't be doing that....
Needless to say, that was my first and last run-in with FC1...
mp3 support...easy? Ha!
I have FC3 and RH9. Guess which one I use more? And right now, I'm in the process of getting Gentoo to overwrite the FC3 installation. But I digress.
Mp3 support, for me, has gotten to be so irritating as to be obscene.
1.) I install FC3, don't have mp3 support, look around for a RPM package to get support.
2.) Find RPM package, try to install, get 3 error messages about dependencies for the RPM installation to occur.
3.) Go back online, find the three packages I need to install.
4.) Install two of the RPM packages with no problem.
5.) Try to install the 3rd package, get another error message about 3 more dependencies...you get where this is headed, right?
6.) Etc., ad nauseum.
And, even better, I find the one required file I need, put it in correct directory...and RPM is still telling me that it can't find the required file. It only works if I can find the RPM to install. BS. Give me Gentoo any day.
No, and he doesn't want to. That's the point. It's not something we had to do with RH9 and below because we GOT the finished product. Now, apparently, we're volunteer (read: unpaid, uncompensated, and unappreciated) beta-testers for the enterprise version of Red Hat that most of us will never use anyways.
"But you don't get paid for beta-testing other versions of Linux, either!" True, but we also get the finished product. Think of it like this: You can download a free version of a very buggy operating system. You send in fixes, the company says thanks, and then puts them into an OS you have to buy. Talk about thankless.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like an adventure in bookmarkletting...
...that Cygwin's got a replacement? One that's an actual distribution of Linux?
Novell has apologized to developers of the IE7 team, since apparently their popular anti-virus software detected so many security holes in the work-in-progress that it tried to uninstall it.
"We're sorry for the inconvience", one Novell spokesperson was quoted as saying, "but I don't get why they're so suprised. I mean, the same thing happened when the last version of IE came out."
Microsoft developers are heard to be working on a patch that renders the holes invisible to antivirus software, rather than patching the holes themselves. "I mean, how are we supposed to get into your computer otherwise?", an inside source was quoted as saying. "Er, to fix things. Of course. What else would we do with glaring backdoors? I mean, wait. What backdoors? They're 'features'. Yeah, 'features'. Move along, nothing to see here."
...Burn it's files onto a DVD! Admittedly, that probably wouldn't work if you have a lot of MP3s in your home directory, but, whatever.
It's an interesting idea, but I'll stick with my hard drive for now, I think.
Just a side note, I'd debate on the "Windows has the easiest-to-use installation wizard" bit. My input being that Red Hat probably does (9 in particular, but I assume Fedora has the same ease). It does, for the most part, set everything up for you; including partitions. And in a very nice GUI, too.
Even Microsoft's Excel can benefit, he said, noting that some businesses have worksheets that can take hours to calculate. Today, such work requires third-party add-ons such as software from Platform Computing. However, Theimer said that Microsoft may be interested in offering that capability itself.
So it'll be twice the cost and half as effecient, and you'll still have to call Microsoft to activate it. Sounds great.
Not to mention it gives lawmakers another opportunity to attach rider bills and whatnot. In fact, this is a particularly good one to have a rider on. A lawmaker voting against an anti-phishing bill is going to be branded as pro-fraud for the rest of his rather truncated career, I'd imagine...and his opponents would have no problem killing him with it.
Does this mean we're going to have 6 other people showing up and claiming parentage too? And if someone sold MS-DOS when it wasn't theirs, how much do you think the original owner's going to get? I mean, if it was the jumping-off point of Windows, that could be a hefty lawsuit...
Speaking of which, why did it take so long to come out? Was the original programmer hiding under a rock for the past decade and a half?
...
Wow. What operating system have you been hiding under?
...So how long before we start seeing those Brainboxes from 3001?
I note that a lot of people arguing Microsoft's case are neglecting a minor point.
It seems that people are asserting Wine = Pirate. But this isn't the case. In fact, I'd like to make the assertation that people running Wine are probably less likely to be pirates.
Consider this: People who're using Microsoft Office in Linux are usually running it because they need some bit of functionality that OpenOffice doesn't have. These people would, I think, be found more in a business setting, where you have people who (gasp) have the liscense to the product.
Meanwhile, people in a non-business setting who run Linux are, like it or not, more likely to be geeks; and as such, will probably use OpenOffice over MSO on Wine, for reasons ranging from "I like it more" to "It's already there" to "M$O suXXorz, LOL".
On the flip side, guess which people probably run pirated versions of MSO...? Right in one, boys and girls; the people who're running Windows. Percentage-wise, I'd say that the ratio of people running pirated versions of MSO with WINE, compared to the number of people running pirated versions of MSO with Windows, is probably something on the order of 1:200. Conservatively.
Not, of course, that running pirated versions on any operating system is good (), but would it not be a better use of Microsoft's resources to work on a better way of keeping pirates in general away from their software, rather than try to mildly irritate an entire subset of their Office users?
Of course, this is just my opinion. Flame away.
Let's be clear about something: You bought MS Office for WINDOWS. You didn't buy MS Office for SOMETHING LIKE WINDOWS. You don't expect MS Office for Mac to run on Windows, why would you expect MS Office for Windows to run on something else? You've been lucky so far, but now your luck has run out. Here's the thing: We do expect it to. This isn't asking them to go out of their way to support something on another operating system. This is asking them to NOT go out of their way to PREVENT something from being run on another operating system.
Heh.
...Like they've done with so many other third-party applications every time they update Windows XP...
There's a difference between MS accidently breaking compatibility...
Hm. Let me think about this for a second.
Step 1: Remove CD from case.
Step 2: Install Windows XP.
Step 3: Shuffle things on your desk while waiting for XP to install.
Step 4: Just put the CD on top of your case after the install because you're too lazy to go digging for the case.
Step 5: Wait a month.
Step 6: Have to reinstall Windows XP, but you've lost the case. Oops.
It's great Mozilla has finally gotten some audience, but it's still no where near as successful as (say) Netscape 4.5.
In other news, Firefox hit 25,000,000 downloads after being up for 100 days.
I think that people really are tiring of Internet Explorer. Just my $0.02.
at the same time the martian bacteria would not "know" how to do anything with our biological systems and probably would not find our bodies to be a suitable environment.
I'd think we'd be just fine, as far as suitibility goes. A Martian bacteria would have to be able to live through some very harsh environments. Even some pretty ugly parts of the human body (like, say, my large intestine) would be paradise compared to a planet with temperatures going from several hundred degrees above to several hundred below freezing every day.
FC1 -> RH10, FC2 -> RH11, FC3 -> RH12
.0 after each release number. We all know what that means...
Note the implied
Do you really, honestly think that Linux is ready for aunt tillie?
Aunt Tillie types up email to her sister in Arizona, looks up recipies for double-chocolate chip cookies, and plays solitaire.
There's really no difference between doing that on a Linux box and on a Windows box. In fact, it's easier; you don't have to worry running antivirus programs on a Linux box.
Consider: My siblings, ages 14 and under, use Red Hat 9. For everything. There's no "super-specialized" programs that they need to run in Windows; even my brother's Freddi Fish games run just fine in Wine. If an 8-year-old can run Linux, what's the problem? Not everything needs to be run from a terminal.
I know what you mean. When I first got my hands on a copy of Fedora Core 1, I just popped it in and upgraded, expecting it to work.
2 hours later, after a full install...
Oh, wow, look at that. I've rebooted and at least a dozen services failed on startup, claiming bad file names, etc. Oops. Well, I guess I'll have to back up my stuff to my Windows partition and reinstall...oh, wait, look at that: FC1 doesn't support vfat mounting! Oh, there goes that plan. Well, I guess I can FTP to my laptop and try and back things up that way...Oh, look at that! The installation screwed up my network configuration, I guess I won't be doing that....
Needless to say, that was my first and last run-in with FC1...
mp3 support...easy? Ha! I have FC3 and RH9. Guess which one I use more? And right now, I'm in the process of getting Gentoo to overwrite the FC3 installation. But I digress. Mp3 support, for me, has gotten to be so irritating as to be obscene. 1.) I install FC3, don't have mp3 support, look around for a RPM package to get support. 2.) Find RPM package, try to install, get 3 error messages about dependencies for the RPM installation to occur. 3.) Go back online, find the three packages I need to install. 4.) Install two of the RPM packages with no problem. 5.) Try to install the 3rd package, get another error message about 3 more dependencies...you get where this is headed, right? 6.) Etc., ad nauseum. And, even better, I find the one required file I need, put it in correct directory...and RPM is still telling me that it can't find the required file. It only works if I can find the RPM to install. BS. Give me Gentoo any day.
No, and he doesn't want to. That's the point. It's not something we had to do with RH9 and below because we GOT the finished product. Now, apparently, we're volunteer (read: unpaid, uncompensated, and unappreciated) beta-testers for the enterprise version of Red Hat that most of us will never use anyways.
"But you don't get paid for beta-testing other versions of Linux, either!" True, but we also get the finished product. Think of it like this: You can download a free version of a very buggy operating system. You send in fixes, the company says thanks, and then puts them into an OS you have to buy. Talk about thankless.
If your intentions are so noble, why didn't you talk to the MAME *before* filing your claim?