Interoperability False. Fact is you can connect to AD over standard LDAP, and can also, in fact, authenticate via Kerberos from UNIX/Linux to AD quite easily. The other fact is you're an anti-MS parrot and have no idea what you're talking about.
You're a fucking moron. Spain was in Iraq with us, dipshit. You're like Naven R. Johnson in "The Jerk".
He hates these cans! They didn't attack us for our god damned "freedom", they've clearly said why they attacked us.
Openldap/kerberos5/apache2 opens many, many more security/identity/authentication possibilities than Microsoft's active directory. Name them. Seriously. Name just a few, I'm not even going to ask for "many, many more". Just a few, a handful.
I was joking, I know you can't because you were talking out of your ass. Windows 2008+Active Directory is some hard core shit.
Money should be taxed when it goes from person to person. First, _you_ aren't taxed when you go shopping. The seller is paying a tax, and he's just making you pay for it. Money is taxed when income is realized _by a person_. A corporation isn't a person.
So in your phone shop example, you receive money so you pay taxes. When you go shopping, the store takes in money, so they pay taxes. They make you pay these taxes for them. When shop owner realizes profit, he's taxed _again_.
In a corporation, anytime money goes to an individual that money is (or should be) taxed. You want to even things out, make capital gains income taxed like ordinary income.
Nonsense. Who do you think benefits from this? You seem to have a...questionable grasp of ecomonomics. Note, for example, that the wealthy in this country pay the majority of the taxes. Now, since corporations are paying "less" and we still make more tax money than ever before, guess who's paying? Right - the people at the end of the chain. You don't seem to understand that a corporation is just a legal entity, in the end the money gets paid buy the people who profit from said entity.
If anything, it's better to tax the end-user than the corporation. Corporate money rolls over into R&D, manufacturing, capital costs, and employees. The "corporate greed" rabble rousers really don't seem to grasp that a corporation isn't a person. It can't "profit". Until the money gets into a person's hands, it shouldn't be taxed.
They're both incredibly retarded, then. Do they know they can do this thing called "donate" their money? If they want schools to get more money, they can give more money to schools. If they want the "working poor" or homeless to have help, they can create programs or donate to existing programs.
Instead, they want an inefficient middle-man to take more of their money, waste some huge percent of it, and trickle down a few dollars to people who "need" it? They are both complete and utter idiots, I don't care how rich they are.
Warren Buffet is hypocritical scum then. Isn't he the moron complaining because he didn't pay enough taxes and that his secretary paid more than he did as a percent, and wasn't he the liberal rich freak saying the rich should pay more taxes, even though they actually shoulder the main tax burden in this country?
A corporation has a financial duty to avoid paying unnecessary taxes. If you don't like the way those "fat cats" (I notice rabble rousers use that term a lot) get out of paying taxes, talk to the government and have them close the loopholes. More importantly, not that every dollar Microsoft pulls in is taxed _multiple_ times by the time it makes it into the shareholders' pockets. The fact is that it's a myth that corporations are pulling one over on the government, corporate taxes are a little silly since the money _is_ taxed before it goes into any individual's pocket.
Your argument falls apart in the pharmaceutical industry. If a company spends $3 billion dollars developing a drug and getting it through the FDA and then any old company can immediately go out and manufacture it, no company will invest that kind of money in developing a new drug.
No argument you can make will change the fact that we need some kind of patent system. That said, the one we have is horribly, horribly broken. It should be for very specific _implementations_ or _forumulations_, not "I patent this business idea" or "I patent this general idea of how to do 'something'".
Their research budget goes to their development tools. And nobody's even close to Microsoft in the domain of development tools, libraries, leadership, etc... I'm not really a fan of their OS's, though their server OS's are pretty good, but I'm hooked on their development tools like a hooker on crack - they're _very_ good.
Yeah... no. SQL Server is an exceptional DBMS, especially from a developer's perspective. Microsoft has hit a home run with.NET. Java is nice and all, but.NET is stunningly great to develop in, and SQL server ties in with developing.NET code ridiculously well. LINQ takes this to a whole new level. Also, have a read of this asshole: http://techiteasy.org/2007/06/07/sql-server-outperforms-oracle-by-a-factor-of-2/. That was 2005 (and admittedly Oracle probably has something faster now). Regardless, Oracle and 2008 are head to head.
LAMP is nothing. Go to a real company and see what they're developing enterprise apps in, it isn't some PHP unmaintainable bullshit. The simple fact is that Microsoft has a superior development environment in every way, and that's why all their other products sell so well. You guys are really dinosaurs who have this baseless arrogance and think your "old school" development methodologies are still hot shit. I promise you they're not.
They have exactly 0 chances of getting their first request. It's been tried, the courts laughed. Yeah, it really helps the consumer to remove IE from Windows. That would be just dandy. Christ. As for carrying alternative browsers, that's silly too. You're going to force a company to include another company's product in their own? Just silly. Note that OEMs can in fact add Opera's (or any other) browser they want.
They have a tiny chance of any traction on second point. Standards are really just your competitors getting together to try to screw you. Besides, IE8 looks to be largely standards compliant. Opera is wasting their time and money and they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Guh? And this relates to Windows...how, again? Are you saying MS should put other browsers on their update site? That's silly. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is. Of course users can FTP a browser, but try explaining that to Grandma.
Your sarcasm is dreary. Claiming that Joe Schmoe computer user (there are a lot more of those now than back in the early days) can use FTP, SCP, whatever crackpot scheme you have cooking is just silly.
Second, an OEM can indeed of course bundle their choice of browser with a system. Note, however, that it always includes IE as well. It would be laughably stupid to remove IE anyway since it provides something of a "standard browser" that users can always assume is available on a Windows system.
All in all your heavy handed, unsubtle and boring sarcasm raises exactly Zero real points.
That's my point. They don't enforce it in 32-bit when you load up certain DRMed media. The application does that. It can basically say "OK, is this guy running wierd drivers?" and decide what to do based on that information.
Zzzz... The signed driver requirement isn't in Vista-64 for DRM reasons. The PMP code allows the applications to basically ask "show me all unsigned drivers", so they're covered there wiht or without restricting drivers to be signed. It's there so you know exactly who released a given driver, and for reasons of quality control and certification of drivers. In case you aren't aware, most of the stability problems in recent years with Windows are due to shoddy drivers.
I genuinely don't understand your logic. Microsoft is providing choice. If Microsoft went with your theory and said "No, we won't provide you with strong DRM capabilities!" then the copyright holders would say "OK, we won't allow our media to be used on Windows PCs at all." If Microsoft allows it, you have your choice (don't buy DRM media that doesn't suit your needs) and the copyright holders can choose what level of DRM they want, if any. And Joe Consumer can play DRM'd media on his PC.
Your argument seems to be to let you do what you want with media. Fine. Take that up with the copyright holder. If their implementation of DRM doesn't fit your needs, don't buy their media. A lot of people don't care about the DRM issue and just want to pop in an HD-DVD and play it. Microsoft accomodated this by providing DRM that copyright holders felt comfortable with. If Microsoft had said no, then there'd be no (legitimate) HD-DVD on Windows.
It's all very simple, really. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy the media. The fact that the OS supports the DRM is meaningless to the issue. You seem to have two issues, and you inappropriately blame MS for both. First, you don't like copyright law. Take that up with the government. Second, you don't like how copyright holders are restricting your ability to copy their property. Take that up with the copyright holder.
So I think people here are wound up about DRM in Vista because - besides the inconvenience factor - it affects people who have nothing at all to do with copyrighted media And that's my question. How does it affect these people? Do you have any kind of quantitative evidence that it does this, or is it just that it's there and you assume for some reason it affects these people? What is the concrete, well-defined cost of this DRM that you can point out to people who don't use copyright materials?
Umm, you do know that Linus didn't invent or innovate _anything_ in Linux in terms of operating system theory, right? So you could replace "MS boys" in your diatribe with "Linux boys". Not to say Linux didn't really pan out well - it was revolutionary in its implementation. It's just nothing original in terms of OS design.
DVD's are not protected in the hardware, other than region locking. In fact you need software able to remove the CSS protection to play them, it's just that it has been so thoroughly cracked that it's more or less a moot point.
The fact is people just cry about DRM because they don't understand it. In order to play certain copyright protected materials, the copyright holders are enforcing certain restrictions. Microsoft _allowed_ those restrictions to be imposed. They don't impose any restrictions themselves. I remember that idiot from New Zealand claiimng the sky was falling, but in fact he was simply lying. I can play high def video all I want over even plain old VGA. I can't play, however, materials that the copyright holder has chosen to restrict to a digital path. Even this is mostly moot, you can easily rip HD-DVD and BluRay disks and remove copy protection and play them however you want in Vista.
I'm not sure how DRM has slowed anything down in Vista or complicated things for end users. People keep saying that but then when you ask how they just wave their hands and use some variation of the Chewbacca defense. "Wookies aren't from Endor! DRM is bad, case proved!".
You're a retard. You can license as many copies as you want (since they're free) and run them on 50 computers on your _home_ network. You just can't run one single copy on 50 machines on a home or other network. By your retard "logic" you couldn't even run it on a single home computer attached to the Internet, which is if course a network.
Nonsense. DirectX10 features are specifically for games, and you're not going to find them on OpenGL first. In fact, OpenGL is all but dead (I know, a few holdouts use it still) for gaming. Certainly it's still viable for 3D modelling work (CAD/whatever), but in terms of mainstream sub-$600 3D cards they're all geared heavily towards DirectX.
Not sure, there. My guess is they'll be competitively priced. If anything, Silverthorne will be cheaper to manufacture due to being on a smaller process, but how that reflects on street price is anybody's guess.
You're full of it. Silverthorne is due for Q1-Q2 2008, 1-2 watts, and Pentium 3 performance circa 2004 (which still puts it well ahead of what Via is doing anywhere within 10x that much wattage).
My first clue you were full of crap was this: "Silverthorne will be a 1ghz proc sucking down 20w at peak". I'm not sure if you pay attention, but Intel has Core 2 Solo chips running at 1.06/1.2Ghz that peak at 5.5 watts. Silverthorne is a 45nm chip running on a simplified core-2-esque march, and you're making this ridiculous claim that it will "suck down" 20w at peak.
Slashdot Mirror
I was joking, I know you can't because you were talking out of your ass. Windows 2008+Active Directory is some hard core shit.
So in your phone shop example, you receive money so you pay taxes. When you go shopping, the store takes in money, so they pay taxes. They make you pay these taxes for them. When shop owner realizes profit, he's taxed _again_.
In a corporation, anytime money goes to an individual that money is (or should be) taxed. You want to even things out, make capital gains income taxed like ordinary income.
If anything, it's better to tax the end-user than the corporation. Corporate money rolls over into R&D, manufacturing, capital costs, and employees. The "corporate greed" rabble rousers really don't seem to grasp that a corporation isn't a person. It can't "profit". Until the money gets into a person's hands, it shouldn't be taxed.
Instead, they want an inefficient middle-man to take more of their money, waste some huge percent of it, and trickle down a few dollars to people who "need" it? They are both complete and utter idiots, I don't care how rich they are.
Warren Buffet is hypocritical scum then. Isn't he the moron complaining because he didn't pay enough taxes and that his secretary paid more than he did as a percent, and wasn't he the liberal rich freak saying the rich should pay more taxes, even though they actually shoulder the main tax burden in this country?
A corporation has a financial duty to avoid paying unnecessary taxes. If you don't like the way those "fat cats" (I notice rabble rousers use that term a lot) get out of paying taxes, talk to the government and have them close the loopholes. More importantly, not that every dollar Microsoft pulls in is taxed _multiple_ times by the time it makes it into the shareholders' pockets. The fact is that it's a myth that corporations are pulling one over on the government, corporate taxes are a little silly since the money _is_ taxed before it goes into any individual's pocket.
No argument you can make will change the fact that we need some kind of patent system. That said, the one we have is horribly, horribly broken. It should be for very specific _implementations_ or _forumulations_, not "I patent this business idea" or "I patent this general idea of how to do 'something'".
Their research budget goes to their development tools. And nobody's even close to Microsoft in the domain of development tools, libraries, leadership, etc... I'm not really a fan of their OS's, though their server OS's are pretty good, but I'm hooked on their development tools like a hooker on crack - they're _very_ good.
LAMP is nothing. Go to a real company and see what they're developing enterprise apps in, it isn't some PHP unmaintainable bullshit. The simple fact is that Microsoft has a superior development environment in every way, and that's why all their other products sell so well. You guys are really dinosaurs who have this baseless arrogance and think your "old school" development methodologies are still hot shit. I promise you they're not.
You could fit what you know about operating systems and computers into a zero length array. Oh, wait, you probably don't get that do you?
They have a tiny chance of any traction on second point. Standards are really just your competitors getting together to try to screw you. Besides, IE8 looks to be largely standards compliant. Opera is wasting their time and money and they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Guh? And this relates to Windows...how, again? Are you saying MS should put other browsers on their update site? That's silly. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is. Of course users can FTP a browser, but try explaining that to Grandma.
Second, an OEM can indeed of course bundle their choice of browser with a system. Note, however, that it always includes IE as well. It would be laughably stupid to remove IE anyway since it provides something of a "standard browser" that users can always assume is available on a Windows system.
All in all your heavy handed, unsubtle and boring sarcasm raises exactly Zero real points.
That's my point. They don't enforce it in 32-bit when you load up certain DRMed media. The application does that. It can basically say "OK, is this guy running wierd drivers?" and decide what to do based on that information.
Zzzz... The signed driver requirement isn't in Vista-64 for DRM reasons. The PMP code allows the applications to basically ask "show me all unsigned drivers", so they're covered there wiht or without restricting drivers to be signed. It's there so you know exactly who released a given driver, and for reasons of quality control and certification of drivers. In case you aren't aware, most of the stability problems in recent years with Windows are due to shoddy drivers.
Your argument seems to be to let you do what you want with media. Fine. Take that up with the copyright holder. If their implementation of DRM doesn't fit your needs, don't buy their media. A lot of people don't care about the DRM issue and just want to pop in an HD-DVD and play it. Microsoft accomodated this by providing DRM that copyright holders felt comfortable with. If Microsoft had said no, then there'd be no (legitimate) HD-DVD on Windows.
It's all very simple, really. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy the media. The fact that the OS supports the DRM is meaningless to the issue. You seem to have two issues, and you inappropriately blame MS for both. First, you don't like copyright law. Take that up with the government. Second, you don't like how copyright holders are restricting your ability to copy their property. Take that up with the copyright holder.
Umm, you do know that Linus didn't invent or innovate _anything_ in Linux in terms of operating system theory, right? So you could replace "MS boys" in your diatribe with "Linux boys". Not to say Linux didn't really pan out well - it was revolutionary in its implementation. It's just nothing original in terms of OS design.
The fact is people just cry about DRM because they don't understand it. In order to play certain copyright protected materials, the copyright holders are enforcing certain restrictions. Microsoft _allowed_ those restrictions to be imposed. They don't impose any restrictions themselves. I remember that idiot from New Zealand claiimng the sky was falling, but in fact he was simply lying. I can play high def video all I want over even plain old VGA. I can't play, however, materials that the copyright holder has chosen to restrict to a digital path. Even this is mostly moot, you can easily rip HD-DVD and BluRay disks and remove copy protection and play them however you want in Vista.
I'm not sure how DRM has slowed anything down in Vista or complicated things for end users. People keep saying that but then when you ask how they just wave their hands and use some variation of the Chewbacca defense. "Wookies aren't from Endor! DRM is bad, case proved!".
You're a retard. You can license as many copies as you want (since they're free) and run them on 50 computers on your _home_ network. You just can't run one single copy on 50 machines on a home or other network. By your retard "logic" you couldn't even run it on a single home computer attached to the Internet, which is if course a network.
Nonsense. DirectX10 features are specifically for games, and you're not going to find them on OpenGL first. In fact, OpenGL is all but dead (I know, a few holdouts use it still) for gaming. Certainly it's still viable for 3D modelling work (CAD/whatever), but in terms of mainstream sub-$600 3D cards they're all geared heavily towards DirectX.
Not sure, there. My guess is they'll be competitively priced. If anything, Silverthorne will be cheaper to manufacture due to being on a smaller process, but how that reflects on street price is anybody's guess.
My first clue you were full of crap was this: "Silverthorne will be a 1ghz proc sucking down 20w at peak". I'm not sure if you pay attention, but Intel has Core 2 Solo chips running at 1.06/1.2Ghz that peak at 5.5 watts. Silverthorne is a 45nm chip running on a simplified core-2-esque march, and you're making this ridiculous claim that it will "suck down" 20w at peak.
Seriously, 2006 called, it wants its news back.