It's the same thing. Microsoft is competing with AOL/Time Warner, and their bid to grow their walled garden over the OS. It's absorb or be absorbed at this point, and who would you really rather have in control of the consumer personal computing market?
This guy is clearly trying to fight/. FUD with relevant information. For your information, Mister Smarty Pants, we're here to masturbate our egos and made "sly" comments about Microsoft without reading anything that may give us information about the topic at hand. Also, I notice you haven't replaced the "S" in Microsoft with a dollar sign. You may want to proofread your posts before you make them.
As an employee of Slashdot, owned by Microsoft "rival" company VA Linux Systems, Inc., it's Jon Katz and the whole crew's job to denounce Microsoft in every way possible.
Notice how the huge Apache vulnerability fix got posted to some backwaters slashbox with a whopping 10 comments, while every MS hole gets full coverage on the front page. Is the Apache story important to Slashdot readers? Yes! Most of them probably run Apache, and would like to have that stuff covered. So is it shuffled away into the closet because it's not important, or because it would be bad PR for something in which VA Linux Systems, Inc. has a vested financial interest?
Is a Microsoft hole important to the Slashdot community and the security of their X Servers, their Debian, RedHat, Slackware, Turbo, etc.? No, except maybe for a chuckle. But why not file it under humor? Why post it on the front page? Is it because it's important to Slashdot readers, or because it would be bad PR for a business opponent of VA Linux Systems, Inc., and therefore good for it's profits, shareholders, etc.?
One thing the company poses as a good thing is that it brings about 250 jobs with it. My guess is that they won't be hiring a lot of locals for the positions, though. They'll probably be flying in the best and brightest(who for some reason want to live in Alaska) from every other state.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's interesting to note. Those positions will probably pay pretty well, too.
You're coloring these crackers as "innocent bystanders" with your analogy.
First of all, the correct analogy starts with someone fooling you into *giving* him your stereo.
Second of all, after giving him your stereo, you find out that the person you gave your stereo to is a law enforcement official. He then looks at the serial number on said equipment and hauls you in because he discovers that *you* stole it.
Back in my day, when we wanted to demonstrate our overwhelming 1337ness and ability to use advanced utilities like "grep", we often performed an operation known as "reading" an article like this. "reading" is incidentally a by-product of processing this article for many organic life-forms.
You're confusing issues here. You might want to read the article again and note that the information was only searched once it was on US soil and only after a search warrant was obtained. In that sense it was perfectly legal. Now whether or not they had the right to bug the computer is a totally separate issue, where there might be room for discussion.
Simply put, it's a sort of side-channel attack, much like those used to compromise encryption through means other than "brute mathematical force". It's quite remarkable that the FBI actually got crackers from Russia to sit down at FBI computers and hand them the keys to the house all by themselves. It was so easy that I'd competent thief shouldn't have bungled so badly.
One would think that the method used here would be considered by the/. community to be a "hack" by merit of its elegance and wit. But I guess since it's "the man", people like you will continue to look for ways to rag on them.
Don't think IBM and Oracle wouldn't have done it in a heartbeat if they were even capable of it, though. Neither of them has been able to achieve this level of integration, no matter what they've done.
IBM can't do it, because no one in their right mind is going to buy IBM's proprietary hardware(remember the 80's?) without a few million to blow. It's incredible how fast people forget.
Oracle can't do it, because they're hoping Linux will provide them with the OS for free. Until Linux stabilizes more, they're still stuck without an OS. Again, it's incredible how fast people forget what it was like when Oracle and Sybase were the only solutions.
Integration is actually one of MSs biggest selling points. Look at it this way:
Oracle offers no "fully integrated solution", and you have to pay through the nose for it. Some would argue this is a good thing, and that's why they've got their niche pretty well cornered. Oracle's claims to reliability are at least as exaggerated as MS's and IBM's.
MS offers an integrated software solution. You get the hardware from junkyards if you want, but you've got to go MS from there on up. Compared to Oracle and IBM, this is by far the cheapest solution. It probably isn't the most reliable, but only time will tell if SQL2k breaks that mold.
IBM offers you a fully integrated solution, or at least that's the one they push hardest for. They want you to run IBM's DB with IBM's Java platform on IBM's OS on IBM's proprietary hardware, and that ain't cheap.
Marketing hype is a Bad Thing, whichever way you cut it. If any derivative of an OS invented in the 1980's is considered a "legacy OS", then I'd fully expect all current OSs to be "1960s legacy OSes" to some degree or another. How "1960s Legacy" Red Hat Linux is is left as an exercise for the reader.
I don't really see it as a real obstacle, though. Another post points out that 2.0 is backward compatible(thank goodness), so it won't be too much of a hinderance as long as MS stays on the ball about getting it out soon.
One of the other replies on this thread also makes the point that with such a pervasive OS, it's probably best to have nothing rather than a half-assed(esp. from Microsoft) implementation in wide deployment. Let's just hope the vendors play nice with their drivers, otherwise it just looks like egg on XP's face.
Look at it this way: You probably follow the "SP1 rule of thumb" with all MS products, right? I'm sure if 2.0 is going to catch on, they'll stick it in with SP1 anyway.
It's probably best to see if this whole licensing thing blows over, too. I imagine there are lots of purely fictional people who are a lot like me, the only difference being that they wouldn't want to go legit on all their software.;)
And you know if they did implement it before the stuff solidifies, there'd be frothing hordes screaming "incompatibility", and "embrace & extend" in no time.
If you've got Microsoft's track record when it comes to releasing products, you probably have to make some choices to make come release time. MS is certainly under no obligation to support USB 2.0. In fact, they're completely free not to, though stupid.
This is really quite an unnewsworthy article as far as Slashdot is concerned. Most readers don't care if Windows supports XYZ 1.7 functionality, just as long as their favorite distro of Linux does.
Oh, you can do it without "gratitude", alright. That's just the press release.
What's really happening is as follows:
[big company] releases patent
confidence in the "open source movement" increases
shares in Red Hat, VALinux, and other companies that Perens et al have NO VESTED INTEREST IN WHATSOEVER go up(which is of course, totally meaningless, since they have NO VESTED INTEREST WHATSOEVER)
Thousands of programmers around the world who actually don't have a vested interest beyond a love for programming slave away for countless nights, further expanding the influence of Perens et al.
organizations whose primary source of revenue is in the sale of non-free software lose a little more grip on the market.
Hardware vendors... say, aren't all the companies in the article hardware vendors? Anyway, they don't have to worry about software companies dictating their business anymore, so they reassume control of the market.
Wash, rinse, repeat, emphasis on rising stock prices for everyone but the software vendors.
When did we stop doing this "for the love of proramming"? Could it be when our shares of VALinux and RedHat plunged? It's open source, no fucking strings attached, and that's the way it should stay.
When are the countless developers who contribute going to profit from this, even if it comes to pass? How are the people beyond those scare few at the top of the pyramid going to get compensation out of this... or are Perens et al planning on paying their devoted followers in Bananas?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same thing. Microsoft is competing with AOL/Time Warner, and their bid to grow their walled garden over the OS. It's absorb or be absorbed at this point, and who would you really rather have in control of the consumer personal computing market?
This guy is clearly trying to fight /. FUD with relevant information. For your information, Mister Smarty Pants, we're here to masturbate our egos and made "sly" comments about Microsoft without reading anything that may give us information about the topic at hand. Also, I notice you haven't replaced the "S" in Microsoft with a dollar sign. You may want to proofread your posts before you make them.
As an employee of Slashdot, owned by Microsoft "rival" company VA Linux Systems, Inc., it's Jon Katz and the whole crew's job to denounce Microsoft in every way possible.
Notice how the huge Apache vulnerability fix got posted to some backwaters slashbox with a whopping 10 comments, while every MS hole gets full coverage on the front page. Is the Apache story important to Slashdot readers? Yes! Most of them probably run Apache, and would like to have that stuff covered. So is it shuffled away into the closet because it's not important, or because it would be bad PR for something in which VA Linux Systems, Inc. has a vested financial interest?
Is a Microsoft hole important to the Slashdot community and the security of their X Servers, their Debian, RedHat, Slackware, Turbo, etc.? No, except maybe for a chuckle. But why not file it under humor? Why post it on the front page? Is it because it's important to Slashdot readers, or because it would be bad PR for a business opponent of VA Linux Systems, Inc., and therefore good for it's profits, shareholders, etc.?
Of course Jon works for a coporation. Because some corporations aren't as successful as others, everyone's favorite propaganda machine is out in full force, as usual. It's your typical case of sour grapes.
Sieg Heil, mighty leader! We will shout for truth from all the rooftops!
One thing the company poses as a good thing is that it brings about 250 jobs with it. My guess is that they won't be hiring a lot of locals for the positions, though. They'll probably be flying in the best and brightest(who for some reason want to live in Alaska) from every other state.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's interesting to note. Those positions will probably pay pretty well, too.
You're coloring these crackers as "innocent bystanders" with your analogy.
First of all, the correct analogy starts with someone fooling you into *giving* him your stereo.
Second of all, after giving him your stereo, you find out that the person you gave your stereo to is a law enforcement official. He then looks at the serial number on said equipment and hauls you in because he discovers that *you* stole it.
Back in my day, when we wanted to demonstrate our overwhelming 1337ness and ability to use advanced utilities like "grep", we often performed an operation known as "reading" an article like this. "reading" is incidentally a by-product of processing this article for many organic life-forms.
You're confusing issues here. You might want to read the article again and note that the information was only searched once it was on US soil and only after a search warrant was obtained. In that sense it was perfectly legal. Now whether or not they had the right to bug the computer is a totally separate issue, where there might be room for discussion.
Simply put, it's a sort of side-channel attack, much like those used to compromise encryption through means other than "brute mathematical force". It's quite remarkable that the FBI actually got crackers from Russia to sit down at FBI computers and hand them the keys to the house all by themselves. It was so easy that I'd competent thief shouldn't have bungled so badly.
/. community to be a "hack" by merit of its elegance and wit. But I guess since it's "the man", people like you will continue to look for ways to rag on them.
One would think that the method used here would be considered by the
Don't think IBM and Oracle wouldn't have done it in a heartbeat if they were even capable of it, though. Neither of them has been able to achieve this level of integration, no matter what they've done.
IBM can't do it, because no one in their right mind is going to buy IBM's proprietary hardware(remember the 80's?) without a few million to blow. It's incredible how fast people forget.
Oracle can't do it, because they're hoping Linux will provide them with the OS for free. Until Linux stabilizes more, they're still stuck without an OS. Again, it's incredible how fast people forget what it was like when Oracle and Sybase were the only solutions.
Integration is actually one of MSs biggest selling points. Look at it this way:
Oracle offers no "fully integrated solution", and you have to pay through the nose for it. Some would argue this is a good thing, and that's why they've got their niche pretty well cornered. Oracle's claims to reliability are at least as exaggerated as MS's and IBM's.
MS offers an integrated software solution. You get the hardware from junkyards if you want, but you've got to go MS from there on up. Compared to Oracle and IBM, this is by far the cheapest solution. It probably isn't the most reliable, but only time will tell if SQL2k breaks that mold.
IBM offers you a fully integrated solution, or at least that's the one they push hardest for. They want you to run IBM's DB with IBM's Java platform on IBM's OS on IBM's proprietary hardware, and that ain't cheap.
Yeah, SQL Server is nowhere near as ph33rful as MySQL and PostGres. You keep telling yourself that.
The power of Open Source will prove you wrong! All your music are belong to Richard Stallman!
Marketing hype is a Bad Thing, whichever way you cut it. If any derivative of an OS invented in the 1980's is considered a "legacy OS", then I'd fully expect all current OSs to be "1960s legacy OSes" to some degree or another. How "1960s Legacy" Red Hat Linux is is left as an exercise for the reader.
how did you know?
I don't really see it as a real obstacle, though. Another post points out that 2.0 is backward compatible(thank goodness), so it won't be too much of a hinderance as long as MS stays on the ball about getting it out soon.
One of the other replies on this thread also makes the point that with such a pervasive OS, it's probably best to have nothing rather than a half-assed(esp. from Microsoft) implementation in wide deployment. Let's just hope the vendors play nice with their drivers, otherwise it just looks like egg on XP's face.
Look at it this way: You probably follow the "SP1 rule of thumb" with all MS products, right? I'm sure if 2.0 is going to catch on, they'll stick it in with SP1 anyway.
;)
It's probably best to see if this whole licensing thing blows over, too. I imagine there are lots of purely fictional people who are a lot like me, the only difference being that they wouldn't want to go legit on all their software.
And you know if they did implement it before the stuff solidifies, there'd be frothing hordes screaming "incompatibility", and "embrace & extend" in no time.
If you've got Microsoft's track record when it comes to releasing products, you probably have to make some choices to make come release time. MS is certainly under no obligation to support USB 2.0. In fact, they're completely free not to, though stupid.
This is really quite an unnewsworthy article as far as Slashdot is concerned. Most readers don't care if Windows supports XYZ 1.7 functionality, just as long as their favorite distro of Linux does.
Let's just say I don't take the tagline seriously:
Metered code execution? I think not. It really doesn't matter how good it is, there is enough free technology out there already.
What's really happening is as follows:
When did we stop doing this "for the love of proramming"? Could it be when our shares of VALinux and RedHat plunged? It's open source, no fucking strings attached, and that's the way it should stay.
When are the countless developers who contribute going to profit from this, even if it comes to pass? How are the people beyond those scare few at the top of the pyramid going to get compensation out of this... or are Perens et al planning on paying their devoted followers in Bananas?
At least it isn't "F*ck Microsoft" or "F*ck Intel". Going after a startup is a little off the beaten track, though.