Well - on a practical level, for the typical user, I cannot disagree with you. An outbound firewall would be a useless hindrance on my mother's computer as well.
Technology, especially computer technology, has evolved to the point where it is beyond the understanding and control of most people. Most of my own life I have had dominion over the technology that surrounds me in this modern world. I have a solid foundation in electronics and went on from there to become a programmer. For me, not to have this understanding would be like being deaf and blind. In this light, you could understand my first post. I am sure there are many who feel as I do. On the other side there must be many millions of others that are not at all uncomfortable trusting in the technology that is given them.
I am afraid TCPView could never substitute for an outbound firewall. When software wants to call out, it makes a connect only at the moment it gets the urge. What are the odds you will be looking with TCPView at that moment?
In regards to paranoia, I just found a screen shot I had made of an application doing some strange communication and I will share with you the details. Turns out it was an incoming connection that my firewall caught, however, blowing away one of my reasons to have an outbound wall. Anyway, here are the details...
I have a screen shot here of an alert from my firewall that I will transcribe to text:
ESET Smart Security
Inbound Traffic
A remote computer is attempting to communicate with an application running on this computer. Do you wish to allow this communication?
Application: LSA Shell (Export version)
Publisher: Microsoft Windows Component Publisher
Remote computer: adsl-57.85.info.com.ph (202.57.85.90)
Local port: 500 (isakmp)
Now, I blocked that communication permanently, and no software broke on my computer. So what in the heck was it?
I went to query the APNIC Whois database, and it turns out that URL traces to a range of urls owned by the "Department of Environment - Natural resources" in Manila. Check it out yourself. WTF??? Can anybody explain this? I have the screen shots if you are interested - drop me a line.
There really isn't any reason at all to use a third party software firewall on Windows (post XP SP2)
I completely disagree. Once you install an 'outbound' firewall, you would be amazed to discover the number of apps that "want to call home" for no good reason whatsoever. Things like you printer, software bundled with your digital camera, it goes on and on. More than a few times I have seen software attempting to make strange outbound calls for no discernible reason. Of course, the most important reason we want an outbound firewall is to prevent worms, once they get on the machine, from calling in for their payload, and to generally prevent viruses from spreading. If everybody had an outbound firewall and knew what it was for and how to use it, most viruses would be stopped dead in their tracks - unable to spread. Of course there are a few that know how to get around a firewall.
One more things - Microsoft doesn't give you an outbound firewall because they don't want you to know what their software is doing on your computer - who it is calling and when. I caught some very strange communication going on one time that I can't figure out. Whatever it was, it was nothing necessary for the software to function.
I would never run without a good firewall. I used to use Zone Alarm but now I use the one that comes with ESET.
It is a matter of who is in control of my machine? Who is in the driver's seat? If you don't know what processes are running on your platform, and who they are talking to and why, you are not in control of your machine. For me, that is a scary thought.
Under Windows, only pointers are 64-bits under the P64 model The integer types don't change, and long and int are still 32 bits
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "long and int are 32 bits in a 64 bit field"? Isn't that the way it works - all data and instruction stores and fetches to and from the CPU are 64 bits? Likewise with the hard drive. I believe then if we saw a program and its data memory mapped, it would look like Swiss cheese - full of holes where many 64 bit fields are only being used by 32 bit data. The granularity has changed. It is true that there are trade-offs when we increase the field size. On the one hand we get the valuable 64 bit pointers, and the efficiency of 64 bit fetches and stores, and on the other we get all this wasted space in ram and on the hard drive. The trade off we made when went went from 16 bit OSes to 32 bits was very well worth it, though there would have been some doubts at the beginning. Stepping up to 64 bit OSes may not pay off much immediately, but a few years down the road when everybody has it and all software is developed to take advantage of it, I think nobody will want to go back.
They invented the Thesaurus so we could avoid situations like this.
Main Entry: complete
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: carry out action
Synonyms: accomplish, achieve, actualize, cap, close, conclude, consummate, crown, determine, develop, discharge, do, effect, elaborate, end, equip, execute, fill, finalize, finish, fulfill, furnish, halt, make up, perfect, perform, realize, refine, round off, settle, supplement, terminate, ultimate, wind up*, wrap up*, bring to fruition, bring to maturity, call it a day, carry off, do thoroughly, effectuate, get through, go the limit, go through with, go whole hog, make good, put to bed, round out, sew up
Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility?
I really hope you are joking! If they wait for Microsoft to implement HTML 5 first we may be waiting a long time. Microsoft may not see that as to their advantage, since they would likely prefer that HTML 5 type features be handled via their SilverBlight. Let them go right on ahead and do that if they wish. I don't think that will get them anywhere these days.
BTW: Does anybody know if or how Mozilla responded to that stealth modification Microsoft made to Firefox to run their.net crap? I hope there was something done in the latest version to prevent that from happening again. Microsoft should simply offer a plug in for those who want one rather than step all over 3rd party software like they did.
China has announced they are delaying their Internet filter. "Critics are likely to see the announcement, giving no fresh date for a launch, as a way for the government to escape quickly from the domestic and international controversy..."
Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing...
Perhaps you are an advocate for Microsoft's new offering? What you just said is a meme they are disparatly attempting to establish in the social conciousness via shilling. My experience with Google is quite the contrary to yours. I don't remember a single occasion where I have seen an ad posing as information. Of course ads must be there I suppose, but I think I must tune them out so automatically that I never even notice. However, for them to be so invisible to me must mean that they are unobtrusive to begin with. I would go on to add that in my opinion Google just keeps on getting better and better. Sometimes in the past I have thought the third or fourth item down in the search results appeared, at least superficially, to be more relevant to my search. However, on each occasion, when I went back unsatisfied and clicked on the first item presented, I discovered that it was indeed the answer to my question. I now make it a habit to give the first item presented more weight.
Speaking of Microsoft's new offering - bling or whatever it is called (I am not going to help establish brand recognition for this product), I have serious reservations about it. Last week I was looking for information on the term "Microsoft shill", and input that into bling. The results that came up demonstrated that Microsoft disengeniously confused it with "shell" and skill". In fact, the first item presented in response to such a search is "Microsoft Education Competencies". How ironic! I had to click though 4 pages of results before I got a meaningful result. I posted about this at the time, and now I see they provide "disambiguation" (as if there was something ambiguous in the first place about such a well known expression.) What I want to point out is this: If Microsoft's search initiative succeeds in a big way, (and some of that success would be attributable to their current campaign to vilify Google), then we will see a controversial company who already has a monopoly the desktop being in a position to control information about themselves. We could easily imagine that when we search for terms in the future describing some shady Microsoft marketing practise the answers provided by them will be sanitized. I think these things I have mentioned are far more worisome than anything one might say about Google. It appears that Microsoft has launched a campaign to counteract complaints about its behaviour by paying for edits on Wikipedia, shilling on forums and in comments to articles and blogs everywhere, and now this bling thing, rather than change its behaviour.
How do you know they're "shills" and not actual human beings with their own opinions?
I don't - at least in any particular instance - usually - and that's why this phenomenon is so insidious and such a threat to free speech....because you never know, and rarely can point the finger at an individual. Like you for example - I cannot point my finger at you. You may be a shill, or you may be somebody interested in the search for truth, and I cannot tell the difference. However, perhaps with time you will reveal your true nature, or perhaps already have if I was sufficiently motivated to look up all your comments - which I am not. I think there is a strong consensus that shills operate in droves with their sock puppets here, and I am confident in what I say.
I had parts of this in a comment in the previous discussion, but because of a glaring typo and that fact that it was inadverdently marked as flame bait, I have recopied it here. Please forgive me. I believe this is the real story - the attack on free speech by a corporate entity. Somebody commented yesterday that I sounded ridiculous. I suppose he would find Abraham Lincoln ridiculous too (not that I am in the same league as that illustrious person - not even close - just one small voice drowning in a sea of shills). It is time to take back our discussions, without being drowned out by the shills. Who stands with me?
There is this most amazing shill swarm going on all over the web because of this issue. On comments to the New York Times article, even on Microsoft's own web site where they calmly state that out of respect to the EU ruling they would desist from bundling IE in Europe, the comment section is filled from comments from their own sock puppets. It is time somebody spoke out about this. This is no less than the "Death of Web 2" and free speech. Just watch how fast this gets modded to oblivion, for example, in spite of the fact that Slashdot has long been known as a place where the voice of the people can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out by the mighty roar of the powerful.The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
Rule number one for keeping a tyrant in power is to
control information. If you control information, you
control the truth. By artificially keeping Slashdot
skewed in their favour, Microsoft is trying to hide
the truth from the public. Their strategy is
failing, and what we see right now is their usual
gut reaction: try to throw more people and more money
at the problem. However, the harder they try, the more
light will shine on their shady methods and expose
them.
In spite of the valued contribution of your well reasoned post, I predict that the Microsoft shills will just go on posting their memes all the way through this discussion as if your post never existed.
I am really curious as to why some Slasdot participants feel Microsoft needs their support. It is a huge, powerful corporation hardly in need of this constant defence by a cabal of Slashdotters. Why is it so important to them?
There is a long and noble tradition in journalism of giving more coverage to the underdog - for example - on political issues, where candidates running against a long time incumbent may get more exposure. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out the mighty roar of the powerful.
Slashdot has long been known as a place where such voices can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
They very well could assume that people will want what they are used to and ship IE anyway, and in all honesty that is probably a safe bet.
If they assume such a thing, then they are not in touch with their market. Firefox users in Europe are in the majority now, and IE only has a minority of less than 36% market share.
The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine.
I certainly hope so - they would likely be apps that a person who prefers an alternative browser wouldn't want to run, anyhow. Furthermore, if it turns out there is no rendering engine (which I doubt), that confirms the wisdom of the EU's vigilance. Whole new markets suddenly open up! Think about it - it would mean lock-in is finally broken! Who would not delight and rejoice in such an outcome?
...how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.
This year the BSA reported that Canada declined from 33 to 32 percent. Michael Murphy, chair of the BSA Canada Committee claimed that "despite the slight decline, Canada's software piracy rate is nowhere near where it should be compared to other advanced economy countries. We stand a better chance of reducing it significantly with stronger copyright legislation that strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of consumers and copyright holders."
Yet what the BSA did not disclose is that the 2009 report on Canada were guesses since Canadian firms and users were not surveyed. While the study makes seemingly authoritative claims about the state of Canadian piracy, the reality is that IDC, which conducts the study for BSA, did not bother to survey in Canada.
...it would be worth reminding U.S. officials that Canada is compliant with its international copyright obligations. In recent years, it responded to U.S. pressure by becoming one of the few countries to enact anti-camcording legislation. The RCMP has prioritized intellectual property cases and the law contains tough statutory damages provisions that are regularly used by rights holders to obtain significant judgments. In fact, some of Canada's copyright rules are more restrictive than those found south of the border.
Moreover, grouping Canada together with high-piracy nations does not stand up to even mild scrutiny. The Business Software Alliance's 2008 statistics show that among the eleven other countries on this year's Priority Watch List for which data is available, the lowest rate of software piracy is 66 percent. By comparison, Canada stands at 32 percent, not remotely close to any other country on the list. In fact, Canada's software piracy rate is lower than all 46 countries named in the Special 301 report.
Similarly, 2008 data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency on intellectual property seizures reports that Taiwan and South Korea rank fourth and fifth as sources of seized goods (China is number one), yet both were dropped this year from the Watch List. By comparison, Canada does not even appear in the rankings.
[Canadian] Officials should not sit idly by as the U.S. unfairly tarnishes Canada's reputation.
This has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Michael Geist a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.
Having two good standards for office documents would be okay.
Oh oh - more fuzzy thinking there. My research informed me that having two good standards for office documents would definitely not be be okay!
Check this out "The Piemen of Erie" by Rob Weir. In this article he dramatically demonstrates just how harmful it can be to have two standards.
Raven - turns out that everything you say in this comment to which I am responding is so slanted towards condoning Microsoft's boorish behaviour in respect to their bullying through their OOXML that it really makes me wonder how an intelligent man like you could be so badly informed on the issues. I an just curious - were you away in some far away jungle or off on another planet when this whole MSOOXML affair came down? How could you get it all so wrong? When we look into what you have said it certainly appears like you have an agenda, and that agenda does not involve the search for truth. It is as if you just rephrased something you read on an official Microsoft FUD guide. Anybody can see from your record here on Slashdot that you regularly contribute thoughtfully on a broad range of subjects. Nobody could accuse you from that record of being a paid MS shill, but your words come out like one all the same. This is deeply puzzling to me.
Raven - while I was at it, I would like to bring something else to your attention, as I fear that your sources of information may not be the best. You say...
"The [ODF] standard at this version was a little over 700 pages, meaning that the reviewers working every day would have had to review around 4 pages per day; more if they didn't work weekends. This is far from enough time to be able to do a detailed review."
Now in light of my response and the other submitter's observation debunking any lack of attention to detail of the ODF standard, I found the following description of OOXML in the blog "How many defects remain in OOXML?" with an extract pasted below. Turns out it was 10 times the size of the ODF specification - wow! You may find this helpful to clarify your misunderstanding on the situation...
How many defects remain in OOXML?
DIS 29500, Office Open XML, was submitted for Fast Track review by Ecma as 6,045 page specification. (After the BRM, it is now longer, maybe 7,500 pages or so. We don't know for sure, since the post-BRM text is not yet available for inspection.) Based on the original 6,045 page length, a 5-month review by JTC1 NB's lead to 48 defect reports by NB's, reporting a total of 3,522 defects. Ecma responded to these defect reports with 1,027 proposals, which the recent BRM, mainly through the actions of one big overnight ballot, approved.
So what was the initial quality of OOXML, coming into JTC1? One measure is the defect density, which we can say is at least one defect for every 6045/1027 = 5.8 pages. I say "at least" because this is the lower bounds. If we believed that the 5-month review represented a complete review of the text of DIS 29500, by those with relevant subject matter expertise, then we would have some confidence that all, or at least most, defects were detected, reported and repaired. But I don't know anyone who really thinks the 5-month review was sufficient for a technical review of 6,045 pages. Further, we know that Microsoft worked actively to suppress the reporting of defects by NB's. So the actual defect density is potentially quite a bit higher than the reported defect density.
Raven - I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me on the subject. I found your information interesting enough to stimulate me to do a little research of my own. I thought you may be interested to learn that your assumption that there was some kind of equality or similarity in the way that the ODF and OOXML standards were vetted and approved is mistaken. It turns out that there was a vast difference between the two different track taken through the standards approval process for ODF and OOXML. Turns out that ODF passed through a rigorous process called PAS, while it was OOXML that took the easy Fast Track route. This is explained in great detail
here - Scroll down to "Fast Track versus PAS".
Permit me to quote from an authority on the subject, Rob Wier...
"In any case, that is why I roll my eyes when people lump PAS and Fast Track together, and say that they are essentially the same process. They clearly aren't. PAS Submitters like OASIS are given intense scrutiny, and are required to document in great detail how their organization and their proposals meet JTC1 criteria. The scrutiny never ends, as a new Explanatory Report is required for every submission, and their status as Recognized PAS Submitter only lasts for a few years before requiring re-approval."
"Fast Track submitters, as Class A Liaisons, on the other hand, are the monarchs of JTC1. They serve for life and are answerable to no one. They can submit a Fast Track on any subject they want, at any time. So a standards consortium like Ecma, with primary expertise in optical disk standards, but never having produced an XML standard before, can rubber stamp the world's largest XML standard and submit it for Fast Track processing to JTC1. And no one can do a thing about it."
Slashdot Mirror
Well - on a practical level, for the typical user, I cannot disagree with you. An outbound firewall would be a useless hindrance on my mother's computer as well.
Technology, especially computer technology, has evolved to the point where it is beyond the understanding and control of most people. Most of my own life I have had dominion over the technology that surrounds me in this modern world. I have a solid foundation in electronics and went on from there to become a programmer. For me, not to have this understanding would be like being deaf and blind. In this light, you could understand my first post. I am sure there are many who feel as I do. On the other side there must be many millions of others that are not at all uncomfortable trusting in the technology that is given them.
I am afraid TCPView could never substitute for an outbound firewall. When software wants to call out, it makes a connect only at the moment it gets the urge. What are the odds you will be looking with TCPView at that moment?
In regards to paranoia, I just found a screen shot I had made of an application doing some strange communication and I will share with you the details. Turns out it was an incoming connection that my firewall caught, however, blowing away one of my reasons to have an outbound wall. Anyway, here are the details...
I have a screen shot here of an alert from my firewall that I will transcribe to text:
ESET Smart Security
Inbound Traffic
A remote computer is attempting to communicate with an application running on this computer. Do you wish to allow this communication?
Application: LSA Shell (Export version)
Publisher: Microsoft Windows Component Publisher
Remote computer: adsl-57.85.info.com.ph (202.57.85.90)
Local port: 500 (isakmp)
Now, I blocked that communication permanently, and no software broke on my computer. So what in the heck was it?
I went to query the APNIC Whois database, and it turns out that URL traces to a range of urls owned by the "Department of Environment - Natural resources" in Manila. Check it out yourself. WTF??? Can anybody explain this? I have the screen shots if you are interested - drop me a line.
I completely disagree. Once you install an 'outbound' firewall, you would be amazed to discover the number of apps that "want to call home" for no good reason whatsoever. Things like you printer, software bundled with your digital camera, it goes on and on. More than a few times I have seen software attempting to make strange outbound calls for no discernible reason. Of course, the most important reason we want an outbound firewall is to prevent worms, once they get on the machine, from calling in for their payload, and to generally prevent viruses from spreading. If everybody had an outbound firewall and knew what it was for and how to use it, most viruses would be stopped dead in their tracks - unable to spread. Of course there are a few that know how to get around a firewall.
One more things - Microsoft doesn't give you an outbound firewall because they don't want you to know what their software is doing on your computer - who it is calling and when. I caught some very strange communication going on one time that I can't figure out. Whatever it was, it was nothing necessary for the software to function.
I would never run without a good firewall. I used to use Zone Alarm but now I use the one that comes with ESET.
It is a matter of who is in control of my machine? Who is in the driver's seat? If you don't know what processes are running on your platform, and who they are talking to and why, you are not in control of your machine. For me, that is a scary thought.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "long and int are 32 bits in a 64 bit field"? Isn't that the way it works - all data and instruction stores and fetches to and from the CPU are 64 bits? Likewise with the hard drive. I believe then if we saw a program and its data memory mapped, it would look like Swiss cheese - full of holes where many 64 bit fields are only being used by 32 bit data. The granularity has changed. It is true that there are trade-offs when we increase the field size. On the one hand we get the valuable 64 bit pointers, and the efficiency of 64 bit fetches and stores, and on the other we get all this wasted space in ram and on the hard drive. The trade off we made when went went from 16 bit OSes to 32 bits was very well worth it, though there would have been some doubts at the beginning. Stepping up to 64 bit OSes may not pay off much immediately, but a few years down the road when everybody has it and all software is developed to take advantage of it, I think nobody will want to go back.
Most Complete Topographical Map of Earth Complete
They invented the Thesaurus so we could avoid situations like this.
Main Entry: complete
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: carry out action
Synonyms: accomplish, achieve, actualize, cap, close, conclude, consummate, crown, determine, develop, discharge, do, effect, elaborate, end, equip, execute, fill, finalize, finish, fulfill, furnish, halt, make up, perfect, perform, realize, refine, round off, settle, supplement, terminate, ultimate, wind up*, wrap up*, bring to fruition, bring to maturity, call it a day, carry off, do thoroughly, effectuate, get through, go the limit, go through with, go whole hog, make good, put to bed, round out, sew up
I really hope you are joking! If they wait for Microsoft to implement HTML 5 first we may be waiting a long time. Microsoft may not see that as to their advantage, since they would likely prefer that HTML 5 type features be handled via their SilverBlight. Let them go right on ahead and do that if they wish. I don't think that will get them anywhere these days.
BTW: Does anybody know if or how Mozilla responded to that stealth modification Microsoft made to Firefox to run their .net crap? I hope there was something done in the latest version to prevent that from happening again. Microsoft should simply offer a plug in for those who want one rather than step all over 3rd party software like they did.
Why is Sony in such a hurry?
China has announced they are delaying their Internet filter. "Critics are likely to see the announcement, giving no fresh date for a launch, as a way for the government to escape quickly from the domestic and international controversy..."
Perhaps you are an advocate for Microsoft's new offering? What you just said is a meme they are disparatly attempting to establish in the social conciousness via shilling. My experience with Google is quite the contrary to yours. I don't remember a single occasion where I have seen an ad posing as information. Of course ads must be there I suppose, but I think I must tune them out so automatically that I never even notice. However, for them to be so invisible to me must mean that they are unobtrusive to begin with. I would go on to add that in my opinion Google just keeps on getting better and better. Sometimes in the past I have thought the third or fourth item down in the search results appeared, at least superficially, to be more relevant to my search. However, on each occasion, when I went back unsatisfied and clicked on the first item presented, I discovered that it was indeed the answer to my question. I now make it a habit to give the first item presented more weight.
Speaking of Microsoft's new offering - bling or whatever it is called (I am not going to help establish brand recognition for this product), I have serious reservations about it. Last week I was looking for information on the term "Microsoft shill", and input that into bling. The results that came up demonstrated that Microsoft disengeniously confused it with "shell" and skill". In fact, the first item presented in response to such a search is "Microsoft Education Competencies". How ironic! I had to click though 4 pages of results before I got a meaningful result. I posted about this at the time, and now I see they provide "disambiguation" (as if there was something ambiguous in the first place about such a well known expression.) What I want to point out is this: If Microsoft's search initiative succeeds in a big way, (and some of that success would be attributable to their current campaign to vilify Google), then we will see a controversial company who already has a monopoly the desktop being in a position to control information about themselves. We could easily imagine that when we search for terms in the future describing some shady Microsoft marketing practise the answers provided by them will be sanitized. I think these things I have mentioned are far more worisome than anything one might say about Google. It appears that Microsoft has launched a campaign to counteract complaints about its behaviour by paying for edits on Wikipedia, shilling on forums and in comments to articles and blogs everywhere, and now this bling thing, rather than change its behaviour.
Oh oh - you've outed me!
I don't - at least in any particular instance - usually - and that's why this phenomenon is so insidious and such a threat to free speech. ...because you never know, and rarely can point the finger at an individual. Like you for example - I cannot point my finger at you. You may be a shill, or you may be somebody interested in the search for truth, and I cannot tell the difference. However, perhaps with time you will reveal your true nature, or perhaps already have if I was sufficiently motivated to look up all your comments - which I am not. I think there is a strong consensus that shills operate in droves with their sock puppets here, and I am confident in what I say.
I had parts of this in a comment in the previous discussion, but because of a glaring typo and that fact that it was inadverdently marked as flame bait, I have recopied it here. Please forgive me. I believe this is the real story - the attack on free speech by a corporate entity. Somebody commented yesterday that I sounded ridiculous. I suppose he would find Abraham Lincoln ridiculous too (not that I am in the same league as that illustrious person - not even close - just one small voice drowning in a sea of shills). It is time to take back our discussions, without being drowned out by the shills. Who stands with me?
There is this most amazing shill swarm going on all over the web because of this issue. On comments to the New York Times article, even on Microsoft's own web site where they calmly state that out of respect to the EU ruling they would desist from bundling IE in Europe, the comment section is filled from comments from their own sock puppets. It is time somebody spoke out about this. This is no less than the "Death of Web 2" and free speech. Just watch how fast this gets modded to oblivion, for example, in spite of the fact that Slashdot has long been known as a place where the voice of the people can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out by the mighty roar of the powerful.The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
Rule number one for keeping a tyrant in power is to control information. If you control information, you control the truth. By artificially keeping Slashdot skewed in their favour, Microsoft is trying to hide the truth from the public. Their strategy is failing, and what we see right now is their usual gut reaction: try to throw more people and more money at the problem. However, the harder they try, the more light will shine on their shady methods and expose them.
What's the first hit you get on Bing for "Microsoft shill"?
This is no troll or flame. As of 10:00 am EST, Friday, June 12 2009 it is...
Now watch how fast they change it - I took a snapshot of it for anyone who wants it.
In spite of the valued contribution of your well reasoned post, I predict that the Microsoft shills will just go on posting their memes all the way through this discussion as if your post never existed.
I am really curious as to why some Slasdot participants feel Microsoft needs their support. It is a huge, powerful corporation hardly in need of this constant defence by a cabal of Slashdotters. Why is it so important to them?
There is a long and noble tradition in journalism of giving more coverage to the underdog - for example - on political issues, where candidates running against a long time incumbent may get more exposure. This is something good for society - that the voice of individuals should get heard and not drowned out the mighty roar of the powerful.
Slashdot has long been known as a place where such voices can be heard speaking out against perceived injustices perpetrated by the powerful. The defence of Microsoft by some Slashdotters goes directly against the grain here. What bothers me most about these comments by Microsoft's supporters on Slashdot is there subtle nature - not just healthy debate, but rather, as if there was some orchestrated campaign employing techniques such as "Saturate, diffuse, confuse".
Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.
If they assume such a thing, then they are not in touch with their market. Firefox users in Europe are in the majority now, and IE only has a minority of less than 36% market share.
As the AC above me said - those people would simply install IE
I certainly hope so - they would likely be apps that a person who prefers an alternative browser wouldn't want to run, anyhow. Furthermore, if it turns out there is no rendering engine (which I doubt), that confirms the wisdom of the EU's vigilance. Whole new markets suddenly open up! Think about it - it would mean lock-in is finally broken! Who would not delight and rejoice in such an outcome?
duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.
I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America
um - hate to tell you this, but I think you need a new keyboard. It appears that your shift key is not working...
From Prof. Michael Geist's blog BSA Admits Canadian Software Piracy Rates Estimated; Canada Viewed as Low Piracy Country, the following shows that these statistics are just made up...
Just a snippet from the blog cited above...
This has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Michael Geist a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.
Oh oh - more fuzzy thinking there. My research informed me that having two good standards for office documents would definitely not be be okay!
Check this out "The Piemen of Erie" by Rob Weir. In this article he dramatically demonstrates just how harmful it can be to have two standards.
Raven - turns out that everything you say in this comment to which I am responding is so slanted towards condoning Microsoft's boorish behaviour in respect to their bullying through their OOXML that it really makes me wonder how an intelligent man like you could be so badly informed on the issues. I an just curious - were you away in some far away jungle or off on another planet when this whole MSOOXML affair came down? How could you get it all so wrong? When we look into what you have said it certainly appears like you have an agenda, and that agenda does not involve the search for truth. It is as if you just rephrased something you read on an official Microsoft FUD guide. Anybody can see from your record here on Slashdot that you regularly contribute thoughtfully on a broad range of subjects. Nobody could accuse you from that record of being a paid MS shill, but your words come out like one all the same. This is deeply puzzling to me.
Raven - while I was at it, I would like to bring something else to your attention, as I fear that your sources of information may not be the best. You say...
Now in light of my response and the other submitter's observation debunking any lack of attention to detail of the ODF standard, I found the following description of OOXML in the blog "How many defects remain in OOXML?" with an extract pasted below. Turns out it was 10 times the size of the ODF specification - wow! You may find this helpful to clarify your misunderstanding on the situation...
Raven - I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me on the subject. I found your information interesting enough to stimulate me to do a little research of my own. I thought you may be interested to learn that your assumption that there was some kind of equality or similarity in the way that the ODF and OOXML standards were vetted and approved is mistaken. It turns out that there was a vast difference between the two different track taken through the standards approval process for ODF and OOXML. Turns out that ODF passed through a rigorous process called PAS, while it was OOXML that took the easy Fast Track route. This is explained in great detail here - Scroll down to "Fast Track versus PAS".
Permit me to quote from an authority on the subject, Rob Wier...
"In any case, that is why I roll my eyes when people lump PAS and Fast Track together, and say that they are essentially the same process. They clearly aren't. PAS Submitters like OASIS are given intense scrutiny, and are required to document in great detail how their organization and their proposals meet JTC1 criteria. The scrutiny never ends, as a new Explanatory Report is required for every submission, and their status as Recognized PAS Submitter only lasts for a few years before requiring re-approval."
"Fast Track submitters, as Class A Liaisons, on the other hand, are the monarchs of JTC1. They serve for life and are answerable to no one. They can submit a Fast Track on any subject they want, at any time. So a standards consortium like Ecma, with primary expertise in optical disk standards, but never having produced an XML standard before, can rubber stamp the world's largest XML standard and submit it for Fast Track processing to JTC1. And no one can do a thing about it."