hmmm, I don't recall any of the GNU/Linux update systems blasting a "Sign this new license or you can't install these security patches" kinda stop sign during an update. And they explicitly say what files are due for updating.
If Microsoft was really so angelic in it's business practices, why are they in court so much and why didn't they explicitly specify which OS subsystems or even directories the collected data was going to be coming from? And why aren't the affiliates listed. Surely a website could be used to publish these kind of SPECIFIC things since they relate to changes that'll occur to your system. But that would mean there was specific intended uses for such "features" and not the underhanded kinds of things we come to expect from Microsoft.
Wow, and I thought Microsoft was a felon because they were found guilty of antitrust laws as stated by the Sherman Antitrust Act.... Hey, they are:
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/st at utes/sherman.html
Here's the customers desires and needs being met by Microsoft: I've already heard of someone who un-installed MS Outlook Express but after installing SP2, Microsoft decided it should be on the computer.
IMO, everything that company does is for profit and nothing more. They are not trying to listen to customers needs. They are not looking to make customers more efficient and profitable. They want the customers money and that is all. And their profits are derived from its monopoly hold on the PC OS and what people have on their desktops. With ambiguous wording in the forced changes in the EULA, why should ANYBODY think they were somehow going to follow the kinder and gentler interpretation?
But hey, as I stated, it's just my opinion. So, if you want the real facts, Microsoft will surely make some up for you. BTW, if Microsoft really wanted to make money and help customers they could by doing what's called competing. But then again, they think they are, only they spell competition( and customer ) like this: BLUDGEON.:/
to quote: The text of the Microsoft EULA from Windows XP Service Pack 1 and 2000 Service Pack 3 reveals the offending material:
By using these features, you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for updating purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.
In short, this agreement gives Microsoft permission to scan your hard drive for information, "fix" security holes or other bugs via updates to your system, and while the company is there, it would effectively have access to other data on the system, which is where the conflict comes in. Better yet, the company can even let "designated agents" do this, an even more nebulous term that leaves Windows users with even less control over who is accessing their system, and what they might do when there. All of this occurs without the user's permission.
Remember, these are the same people who faked a presentation in front of a Federal Justice and told him over and over it was fact....
IMHO, the EULA parts that I've seen are so vague Microsoft could collect anything they want without worrying about legal action against them. After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
Thanks for the link but wow. So, when Microsoft was collecting data from users MS Word documents( over the internet, behind the users back, and databasing it ) they were doing so without provisions and protections in their OS EULA? And they got away with just being able to say they won't do it again and that they've deleted the database....
One thing of interest in that article is how the Microsoft exec specifically states the EULA of the SP and not the original EULA. This would be fine as long as the SP EULA states that it replaces completely the original EULA the user has been operating under and I don't know that it doesn't.
I do know of quite a few people who refuse to upgrade to WinXP because of the EULA and the fact that Microsoft can legally update anything on the OS without the user/admin/etc knowing should be cause to exclude them from any financial, healthcare, public service,etc business. After all, they are already a convicted felon. Hearing Bill Gates or Steve Balmer/etc saying 'trust me, we won't do xxxxxx' is meaning less. IMHO.
Sure seems like all of these businesses would be on the high road to replace MS Windows ASAP with something they can have more control over...
But how can a hospital even use MS Windows? IIRC, the EULA says that Microsoft can access the system and it's data and that is against the public privacy prection laws.
IMO, they could only be allowed to run W2k( pre SP2 ) and anything BEFORE that. Surely not MS Windows XP.
'Because everyone else is using MS Windows' is the standard answer. Along with 'Nobody ever got fired for chosing Microsoft' as the 2nd most common response to your question.
Now if they only asked, 'how many of those using MS Windows did so because it's the best tool for the job?' or 'How many lives were lost for chosing Microsoft?'...
There was a CSX Railways signalling system that wend offline for hours when the system was infected by a virus...No lives lost that time. Then again, would the public ever hear the truth? The 2003 blackout is still suspect in my book. They didn't explain why those system queues were backing up and causing the server process to fail. Could it have been the network was flooded with messages from all the Windows boxes infected with that Microsoft virus( was it Sasser???? ).
that comment about compatibility in the lead-in kinda surprised me. After all, didn't they purchase VirtualPC because server consolidation was hurting Windows Server sales? They made tons of money when people realized they needed a seperate BOX for each server process run on Windows( they sold more OS licenses ) but now the cats out of the bag and TCO cost are killing them.
So, why would Microsoft care about anything but how this works on Windows and targetted apps? They don't. IMHO.
I don't believe "everyone" would be "up in arms", though quite a few. But big deal, those would only be the naive, the newbies, or the lemmings who feel Microsoft is greatest thing since the bread slicer. The fact is, Microsoft knew from day one that it was not going to actually play the game( license ) Sun had in mind. Sun should have known this too and said the heck with Microsoft and embarked on a mission to pre-install Java on as many shipping PC's as possible.
Sure, Netscape would still have been targetted, so would Coopers&Peters, DimensionX, etc. But, Java on the desktop would be far more of a reality than it is today. IMHO.
Any deal, license, or business plan with Microsoft which does not include the product/service owners walking away with cash in hand and Microsoft with the goods, is a bad deal for said product/service owners. The Coopers&Peters and DimensionX deals were great for the company owners and investors because Microsoft purchased the company and trashed product. But, the owners/investors walked away filty rich. That right there shows that Microsoft is NOT out to HELP THE CUSTOMERS and make money doing it. They sell the perception of customer support and customer awareness. Nothing more. IMHO.
Anyway, the only way Sun or any business can or should deal with Microsoft is with regard to the complete sale and purchase of product or service. Otherwise, Microsoft is going to do everything possible to disembowel said company when they decide they want that market or feel it could threaten the MS Windows/Office monopoly. IMHO.
Are these guys as stupid or what. Didn't the MSFT/Sun Micro "agreement for Java give them a recent and visible indiactor or how much Microsoft can be trusted?
If there is any way Microsoft can control such a system, it is just plain stupid to continue. That is , if the other vendors( Yahoo and AOL ) want to have anything to do with IM in the future.
BTW, this is exactly how I felt when I learned Sun licensed JAVA to Microsoft.... These MBA's are just plain idiots IMHO.
I think you have it right. They think the only way Microsoft can play in the *nix market is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish it like they'd done in the past. Hehe, they're still thinking like their old ad, "Where do you want to go TODAY?", but we are already into TOMORROW and moving on.
They already have a way to run many *nix apps on Windows but as the article says, they are working on ways to enable those apps to also tie into the Windows APIs. The Embrace and Extend parts are already being worked on. The PR people will have to now get PHB's think that Microsoft has a better *nix than the real *nix vendors first. They need a good number if *nix apps running on Windows before they'll show how the *nix apps can be modified to call Microsoft owned/protected API's. Heck, Microsoft might even do the work. They'll have to keep it GPL'ed but the apps will now be tied to Windows.
IMHO, Microsoft needed to come out with MS-Linux, and it's Win32 API's, by now in order to stop the move to GNU/Linux and OSS. Coming out with SFU in 2, or more, years is not going to be soon enough. BTW, did that article say Longhorn in 2008???
My guess is that they'll spend about $30 billion on this before they figure out it isn't working as well as expected( but the press will say that all expectations are being exceeded.. ). Heck, they've spent about $20 billion on Windows CE and it's still losing $$$. Then, Momma Cass starts singing and the Maestro says, "Mr Gates, will you please take a seat in the back of the theater." Or something like that.
this would only work if they then ripped out everything else in Windows and just shipped Longhorn with SFU, the GNU tools/utils/apps, and a bunch of the OSS software like Apache, etc.
In other words, Microsofts current problem is with it's OS and applications and they way they charge for these. Adding the ability to run *nix applications won't change that.
One thing it will change though is when the Dept of Home Land Security, EU, or others recommend NOT usings a Microsoft application for security reasons, people could more easily bring in a *nix application without having to bring in a *nix box to run it.
IMHO, MSFT is providing a migration path off of Windows as more and more people find *nix and OSS protect their data better, keep their maintenance costs down, and are quicker and cheaper to deploy.
Ah, but they DO CARE. It's all about selling another version. One better than the last. After all, isn't THAT their one consistant pitch, "It's better or more secure, or more feature rich, or more X than the previous version"?
They design their OS so well, they can't( won't really ) add USB support to it. Thinking Windows 95 and Windows NT here.
If you remember ANYTHING about Microsoft, remember that they are a marketing company first. The black magic they deliver is secondary and only important to the fact that it solves SOME of the customers needs. Now this isn't a bad thing if your only interest is $$$$. But, if you are a company or person attempting to use Microsoft products to solve a problem or simplify your live, it won't. It'll just change your current problem domain for the time being and you'll be back with bills in hand to get out of another mess they led you into( or you followed them into..;-)
Microsofts security game is just that, their game and only yours when you follow them. I really think that's why GNU/Linux is really picking up steam now. Companies are starting to figure out that they have no control on the Microsoft threadmill. GNU/Linux gives them some control back. But, with some different issues though still without the lack of control Microsoft solutions/problems bring with it. IMHO.
Terminal Services requires no special hardware. Install, click "next" a few times, and you can have unlimited people using the same PC at the same time.
Yes, and you also have an unlimited number of computers +1( the server ) to deal with and pay for. The setup we are talking about in this thread is NOTHING like the Citrix/Microsoft Terminal Server.
We've been doing it at my business for years, in fact.
Good for you, but it has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Ask your IT guys what the difference is between your companies setup and what's being discussed here. And one thing they should tell you is that you are paying a heck of a lot more for both hardware and software to do it. Besides the obvious differences mentioned manytimes in these threads.
You need to think about this a bit more. This solution uses STANDARD computer peripherals( monitor, keyboard, mouse and display card ). Nothing special and new parts are cheap. An X-Terminal is still considered s specialty device and infact, has it's own video card, built into the display and has it's own CPU to drive the card and interpret the X protocols for such. See, specialty stuff. Citrix/Terminal Server require the same kind of "head" system for each node. Again, specialty type devices when compared to the components used in this 4-head solution.
There are advantages to the X-Terminal and terminal server solutions though. Those solutions allow for remote use while the 4-head GNU/Linux solution can only work within the immediate proximity of the GNU/Linux computing chasis.
So there is merit here for such configurations as school labs, meeting rooms, libraries, small offices, etc. There really are alot of places this solution would save $$.
Not to mention and X-Terminal is not the same as a Standard/Off-The-Shelf PC CRT. It's a special device with it's own video card and enough processing to drive the video card.
This solution uses standard computer peripherals for the "heads"( I/O ) and a standard video card to drive the display. The single GNU/LinuxPC is used to drive/power the 4 "heads" computing resources.
The difference here is also that fact that the "heads" must be local to the computing chasis. With X-Terminals, the "heads" can be anywhere on the network. So for close quarters computing, like a lab, this solution is a money saver. For remote computing, X-Terminals or Terminal Serving( LTSP or WinTerms ) are the preferred solution.
I think you are right in that IBM was the one which handed the monopoly to Microsoft. But, it was Bill and Steve who decided to use anti-competitive practices as the basis for doing business instead of competing by producing better products. MBA's love those guys but techies, mostly dispise them. Gershner once said that Microsoft was a great marketing company and a poor technology company and that REALLY REALLY pissed Bill Gates off. Because he THINKS he's a good geek. And he pays the people around him to make sure he keeps thinking that way.:/
Anyway, so once the monopoly was established, Microsoft started pounding on anybody who didn't play THIER game and they did this with the OEMs and ISVs. Like the thread parent said, Microsoft want after the suppliers of the product and took the choice from the consumers since they held a bigger hammer over the heads of the suppliers.
You were both right, just off on the time of the events.
BTW, Bill Gates' paranoia has made him VERY wealthy, but only because he was handed the monopoly power by IBM( as you stated ). This does not make him a visionary or a genius in my book. Far smarter people built far better and useful tools then has ever come from Microsoft. But they were destroyed by Bill and Steves fear of being shown up. Gawd, just look at their "Facts" tour to see what bull they excrete and look at the state of Microsofts 3 year old Secure Computing Initiative. But that just IMHO.
I would think that the Chinese would make sure the RED guns always worked. With Microsofts "help", the Red Screen of Death will be invented.;-)
I hope these guys are just going to take more of Microsofts money and walk away like they usually do. We really need to see more deals like the one AT&T got when MS was buying Windows CE into the market. In that deal, Microsoft paid AT&T $5 billion to use WinCE on a few million settop boxes. Which I don't think ever shipped. All the Chinese need to do is pull "The Penguin" out of their pocket and collect some cash from MS. IMO.
Users accept daily AV updates, so daily OS updates are probably next and this is how MSFT will get people used to it.
There are many Windows users out there who don't patch Windows monthly as is requried. But, a bunch of those probably have AV software which they have, and accept, doing daily updates.
I'll bet it won't be long before MS AV not only does daily AV updates but it also tucks in some OS updates too.
Either way, time for another Windows software sector to say good bye because Microsoft wants the market to keep it's profits up. IMHO.
But if that porch is full of your friends and they pay no attention to the "enemy" then there's no harm and the "enemy" pays for the beer. Now if all your neighbors hung out on your porch and would listen to what the "enemy" says, THAT would be another story.
But it is true that as more and more newbies use GNU/Linux, then sites like LinuxToday will NOT want to be putting Microsofts anti-Linux ads on the sites and shouldn't. If Microsoft wants to sell MS Word for Linux then that is another story too. But unlikely.
I will usually click back and forth a couple of times between the ad/Microsoft-site and the original homepage just to send Microsofts money to our favorite GNU/Linux site.
Screw the boycott, take Microsofts money and keep putting out great Pro GNU/Linux sites. But they should NEVER EVER let Microsoft become more than 15%-20% of your advertising income. IMHO.
Good one and for once, Wilcox seems like he's not a PR flunky for Microsoft.
In short, what Wilcox said is that Microsoft said they were releasing a music service and that there would be many hardware vendors supporting it and those products would be little $50 models all the way up to iPod look-alikes.
IMO, Microsoft is again going for the low end of the market by making sure it's service supports cheap models along with expensive ones. Apple, pretty much only has high-end models. Also, Microsoft understands that Apple needs iPod sales to keep that division running since it makes $$ on the hardware.
Is this really the first time a music player ships with an online service for loading music? I just figured Apple did a good job with the hardware and so the market/customers came. I have a feeling that the low-end market will end up killing the products in the high-end before it gets a chance to grow "down" the chain.
1) Those HUGE profit margins Microsoft makes are because it has a monopoly AND those inflated prices are coming from it's customers profits. Ie, customers are paying and paying big. Very few in the press seem to equate Microsoft profits with it's customers losses. You know, the other side fo the coin.
2) That monopoly, they seem to forget that recently a federal court found Microsoft guilty of illegally protecting it's operating system business in the 1990's. Geesh, isn't that when IBM was trying to get OS/2 on the market???? But somehow they still won fair and square. hmmmm, Microsoft is a convicted felon. I wonder how many municipal governments prevent business relationships with convicted felons?????
And one more thing, in 1994 HP got a call from Bill Gates and was told to pull it's OS/2 based PC's off the COMDEX floor. They got man handled a bit by Microsoft but can put that behind them. IBM was the one getting bitch slapped over and over. OS/2 was IBM's and what happened to HP with OS/2 was what went on all over the industry. No wonder IBM wants to rip out the heart of Microsoft. IMO.
"Kill Bill 3" Coming to a computer near you. It's already on computers far from you.;-)
The only thing interesting here is that even when Novell kicked out Norda, he was willing to work with them in going after Microsoft. And even that's not too interesting considering Norda, at the time he was CEO of Novell, was pointing the gun at Microsoft with a Novell based Linux desktop project.
So, is this really THAT interesting and new? Not if you've been in/around the industry for about 10 years. IMO.
it's about transucent windows which change translucency based on the window contents age/status. Not just translucent windows.
People need to learn to read patent applications for their UNIQUE( or perceived unique ) features. After all, this is why the patent is typically being filed.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm, I don't recall any of the GNU/Linux update systems blasting a "Sign this new license or you can't install these security patches" kinda stop sign during an update. And they explicitly say what files are due for updating.
t at utes/sherman.html
:/
If Microsoft was really so angelic in it's business practices, why are they in court so much and why didn't they explicitly specify which OS subsystems or even directories the collected data was going to be coming from? And why aren't the affiliates listed. Surely a website could be used to publish these kind of SPECIFIC things since they relate to changes that'll occur to your system. But that would mean there was specific intended uses for such "features" and not the underhanded kinds of things we come to expect from Microsoft.
Wow, and I thought Microsoft was a felon because they were found guilty of antitrust laws as stated by the Sherman Antitrust Act.... Hey, they are:
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/s
Here's the customers desires and needs being met by Microsoft: I've already heard of someone who un-installed MS Outlook Express but after installing SP2, Microsoft decided it should be on the computer.
IMO, everything that company does is for profit and nothing more. They are not trying to listen to customers needs. They are not looking to make customers more efficient and profitable. They want the customers money and that is all. And their profits are derived from its monopoly hold on the PC OS and what people have on their desktops. With ambiguous wording in the forced changes in the EULA, why should ANYBODY think they were somehow going to follow the kinder and gentler interpretation?
But hey, as I stated, it's just my opinion. So, if you want the real facts, Microsoft will surely make some up for you. BTW, if Microsoft really wanted to make money and help customers they could by doing what's called competing. But then again, they think they are, only they spell competition( and customer ) like this: BLUDGEON.
LoB
to quote:
The text of the Microsoft EULA from Windows XP Service Pack 1 and 2000 Service Pack 3 reveals the offending material:
By using these features, you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for updating purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.
In short, this agreement gives Microsoft permission to scan your hard drive for information, "fix" security holes or other bugs via updates to your system, and while the company is there, it would effectively have access to other data on the system, which is where the conflict comes in. Better yet, the company can even let "designated agents" do this, an even more nebulous term that leaves Windows users with even less control over who is accessing their system, and what they might do when there. All of this occurs without the user's permission.
Remember, these are the same people who faked a presentation in front of a Federal Justice and told him over and over it was fact....
IMHO, the EULA parts that I've seen are so vague Microsoft could collect anything they want without worrying about legal action against them. After all, they are masters of vague verbiage in license agreements, are they not?
LoB
Thanks for the link but wow. So, when Microsoft was collecting data from users MS Word documents( over the internet, behind the users back, and databasing it ) they were doing so without provisions and protections in their OS EULA? And they got away with just being able to say they won't do it again and that they've deleted the database....
,etc business. After all, they are already a convicted felon. Hearing Bill Gates or Steve Balmer/etc saying 'trust me, we won't do xxxxxx' is meaning less. IMHO.
One thing of interest in that article is how the Microsoft exec specifically states the EULA of the SP and not the original EULA. This would be fine as long as the SP EULA states that it replaces completely the original EULA the user has been operating under and I don't know that it doesn't.
I do know of quite a few people who refuse to upgrade to WinXP because of the EULA and the fact that Microsoft can legally update anything on the OS without the user/admin/etc knowing should be cause to exclude them from any financial, healthcare, public service
Sure seems like all of these businesses would be on the high road to replace MS Windows ASAP with something they can have more control over...
LoB
But how can a hospital even use MS Windows? IIRC, the EULA says that Microsoft can access the system and it's data and that is against the public privacy prection laws.
IMO, they could only be allowed to run W2k( pre SP2 ) and anything BEFORE that. Surely not MS Windows XP.
Maybe it's time for a class action. IMHO.
LoB
'Because everyone else is using MS Windows' is the standard answer. Along with 'Nobody ever got fired for chosing Microsoft' as the 2nd most common response to your question.
Now if they only asked, 'how many of those using MS Windows did so because it's the best tool for the job?' or 'How many lives were lost for chosing Microsoft?'...
There was a CSX Railways signalling system that wend offline for hours when the system was infected by a virus...No lives lost that time. Then again, would the public ever hear the truth? The 2003 blackout is still suspect in my book. They didn't explain why those system queues were backing up and causing the server process to fail. Could it have been the network was flooded with messages from all the Windows boxes infected with that Microsoft virus( was it Sasser???? ).
IMHO
LoB
that comment about compatibility in the lead-in kinda surprised me. After all, didn't they purchase VirtualPC because server consolidation was hurting Windows Server sales? They made tons of money when people realized they needed a seperate BOX for each server process run on Windows( they sold more OS licenses ) but now the cats out of the bag and TCO cost are killing them.
So, why would Microsoft care about anything but how this works on Windows and targetted apps? They don't. IMHO.
LoB
I don't believe "everyone" would be "up in arms", though quite a few. But big deal, those would only be the naive, the newbies, or the lemmings who feel Microsoft is greatest thing since the bread slicer. The fact is, Microsoft knew from day one that it was not going to actually play the game( license ) Sun had in mind. Sun should have known this too and said the heck with Microsoft and embarked on a mission to pre-install Java on as many shipping PC's as possible.
Sure, Netscape would still have been targetted, so would Coopers&Peters, DimensionX, etc. But, Java on the desktop would be far more of a reality than it is today. IMHO.
Any deal, license, or business plan with Microsoft which does not include the product/service owners walking away with cash in hand and Microsoft with the goods, is a bad deal for said product/service owners. The Coopers&Peters and DimensionX deals were great for the company owners and investors because Microsoft purchased the company and trashed product. But, the owners/investors walked away filty rich. That right there shows that Microsoft is NOT out to HELP THE CUSTOMERS and make money doing it. They sell the perception of customer support and customer awareness. Nothing more. IMHO.
Anyway, the only way Sun or any business can or should deal with Microsoft is with regard to the complete sale and purchase of product or service. Otherwise, Microsoft is going to do everything possible to disembowel said company when they decide they want that market or feel it could threaten the MS Windows/Office monopoly. IMHO.
LoB
Are these guys as stupid or what. Didn't the MSFT/Sun Micro "agreement for Java give them a recent and visible indiactor or how much Microsoft can be trusted?
If there is any way Microsoft can control such a system, it is just plain stupid to continue. That is , if the other vendors( Yahoo and AOL ) want to have anything to do with IM in the future.
BTW, this is exactly how I felt when I learned Sun licensed JAVA to Microsoft.... These MBA's are just plain idiots IMHO.
LoB
I think you have it right. They think the only way Microsoft can play in the *nix market is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish it like they'd done in the past. Hehe, they're still thinking like their old ad, "Where do you want to go TODAY?", but we are already into TOMORROW and moving on.
They already have a way to run many *nix apps on Windows but as the article says, they are working on ways to enable those apps to also tie into the Windows APIs. The Embrace and Extend parts are already being worked on. The PR people will have to now get PHB's think that Microsoft has a better *nix than the real *nix vendors first. They need a good number if *nix apps running on Windows before they'll show how the *nix apps can be modified to call Microsoft owned/protected API's. Heck, Microsoft might even do the work. They'll have to keep it GPL'ed but the apps will now be tied to Windows.
IMHO, Microsoft needed to come out with MS-Linux, and it's Win32 API's, by now in order to stop the move to GNU/Linux and OSS. Coming out with SFU in 2, or more, years is not going to be soon enough. BTW, did that article say Longhorn in 2008???
My guess is that they'll spend about $30 billion on this before they figure out it isn't working as well as expected( but the press will say that all expectations are being exceeded.. ). Heck, they've spent about $20 billion on Windows CE and it's still losing $$$. Then, Momma Cass starts singing and the Maestro says, "Mr Gates, will you please take a seat in the back of the theater."
Or something like that.
LoB
this would only work if they then ripped out everything else in Windows and just shipped Longhorn with SFU, the GNU tools/utils/apps, and a bunch of the OSS software like Apache, etc.
In other words, Microsofts current problem is with it's OS and applications and they way they charge for these. Adding the ability to run *nix applications won't change that.
One thing it will change though is when the Dept of Home Land Security, EU, or others recommend NOT usings a Microsoft application for security reasons, people could more easily bring in a *nix application without having to bring in a *nix box to run it.
IMHO, MSFT is providing a migration path off of Windows as more and more people find *nix and OSS protect their data better, keep their maintenance costs down, and are quicker and cheaper to deploy.
LoB
Ah, but they DO CARE. It's all about selling another version. One better than the last. After all, isn't THAT their one consistant pitch, "It's better or more secure, or more feature rich, or more X than the previous version"?
;-)
They design their OS so well, they can't( won't really ) add USB support to it. Thinking Windows 95 and Windows NT here.
If you remember ANYTHING about Microsoft, remember that they are a marketing company first. The black magic they deliver is secondary and only important to the fact that it solves SOME of the customers needs. Now this isn't a bad thing if your only interest is $$$$. But, if you are a company or person attempting to use Microsoft products to solve a problem or simplify your live, it won't. It'll just change your current problem domain for the time being and you'll be back with bills in hand to get out of another mess they led you into( or you followed them into..
Microsofts security game is just that, their game and only yours when you follow them. I really think that's why GNU/Linux is really picking up steam now. Companies are starting to figure out that they have no control on the Microsoft threadmill. GNU/Linux gives them some control back. But, with some different issues though still without the lack of control Microsoft solutions/problems bring with it. IMHO.
LoB
Yes, and you also have an unlimited number of computers +1( the server ) to deal with and pay for. The setup we are talking about in this thread is NOTHING like the Citrix/Microsoft Terminal Server.
We've been doing it at my business for years, in fact.
Good for you, but it has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Ask your IT guys what the difference is between your companies setup and what's being discussed here. And one thing they should tell you is that you are paying a heck of a lot more for both hardware and software to do it. Besides the obvious differences mentioned manytimes in these threads.
LoB
You need to think about this a bit more. This solution uses STANDARD computer peripherals( monitor, keyboard, mouse and display card ). Nothing special and new parts are cheap. An X-Terminal is still considered s specialty device and infact, has it's own video card, built into the display and has it's own CPU to drive the card and interpret the X protocols for such. See, specialty stuff. Citrix/Terminal Server require the same kind of "head" system for each node. Again, specialty type devices when compared to the components used in this 4-head solution.
There are advantages to the X-Terminal and terminal server solutions though. Those solutions allow for remote use while the 4-head GNU/Linux solution can only work within the immediate proximity of the GNU/Linux computing chasis.
So there is merit here for such configurations as school labs, meeting rooms, libraries, small offices, etc. There really are alot of places this solution would save $$.
LoB
Not to mention and X-Terminal is not the same as a Standard/Off-The-Shelf PC CRT. It's a special device with it's own video card and enough processing to drive the video card.
This solution uses standard computer peripherals for the "heads"( I/O ) and a standard video card to drive the display. The single GNU/LinuxPC is used to drive/power the 4 "heads" computing resources.
The difference here is also that fact that the "heads" must be local to the computing chasis. With X-Terminals, the "heads" can be anywhere on the network. So for close quarters computing, like a lab, this solution is a money saver. For remote computing, X-Terminals or Terminal Serving( LTSP or WinTerms ) are the preferred solution.
IMHO.
LoB
I think you are right in that IBM was the one which handed the monopoly to Microsoft. But, it was Bill and Steve who decided to use anti-competitive practices as the basis for doing business instead of competing by producing better products. MBA's love those guys but techies, mostly dispise them. Gershner once said that Microsoft was a great marketing company and a poor technology company and that REALLY REALLY pissed Bill Gates off. Because he THINKS he's a good geek. And he pays the people around him to make sure he keeps thinking that way. :/
Anyway, so once the monopoly was established, Microsoft started pounding on anybody who didn't play THIER game and they did this with the OEMs and ISVs. Like the thread parent said, Microsoft want after the suppliers of the product and took the choice from the consumers since they held a bigger hammer over the heads of the suppliers.
You were both right, just off on the time of the events.
BTW, Bill Gates' paranoia has made him VERY wealthy, but only because he was handed the monopoly power by IBM( as you stated ). This does not make him a visionary or a genius in my book. Far smarter people built far better and useful tools then has ever come from Microsoft. But they were destroyed by Bill and Steves fear of being shown up. Gawd, just look at their "Facts" tour to see what bull they excrete and look at the state of Microsofts 3 year old Secure Computing Initiative. But that just IMHO.
LoB
I would think that the Chinese would make sure the RED guns always worked. With Microsofts "help", the Red Screen of Death will be invented. ;-)
I hope these guys are just going to take more of Microsofts money and walk away like they usually do. We really need to see more deals like the one AT&T got when MS was buying Windows CE into the market. In that deal, Microsoft paid AT&T $5 billion to use WinCE on a few million settop boxes. Which I don't think ever shipped. All the Chinese need to do is pull "The Penguin" out of their pocket and collect some cash from MS. IMO.
LoB
that's what you'll get from a combined MS and Chinese product. But isn't that obvious by now. ;-)
LoB
Users accept daily AV updates, so daily OS updates are probably next and this is how MSFT will get people used to it.
There are many Windows users out there who don't patch Windows monthly as is requried. But, a bunch of those probably have AV software which they have, and accept, doing daily updates.
I'll bet it won't be long before MS AV not only does daily AV updates but it also tucks in some OS updates too.
Either way, time for another Windows software sector to say good bye because Microsoft wants the market to keep it's profits up. IMHO.
LoB
But if that porch is full of your friends and they pay no attention to the "enemy" then there's no harm and the "enemy" pays for the beer. Now if all your neighbors hung out on your porch and would listen to what the "enemy" says, THAT would be another story.
But it is true that as more and more newbies use GNU/Linux, then sites like LinuxToday will NOT want to be putting Microsofts anti-Linux ads on the sites and shouldn't. If Microsoft wants to sell MS Word for Linux then that is another story too. But unlikely.
LoB
I will usually click back and forth a couple of times between the ad/Microsoft-site and the original homepage just to send Microsofts money to our favorite GNU/Linux site.
Screw the boycott, take Microsofts money and keep putting out great Pro GNU/Linux sites. But they should NEVER EVER let Microsoft become more than 15%-20% of your advertising income. IMHO.
LoB
Good one and for once, Wilcox seems like he's not a PR flunky for Microsoft.
In short, what Wilcox said is that Microsoft said they were releasing a music service and that there would be many hardware vendors supporting it and those products would be little $50 models all the way up to iPod look-alikes.
IMO, Microsoft is again going for the low end of the market by making sure it's service supports cheap models along with expensive ones. Apple, pretty much only has high-end models. Also, Microsoft understands that Apple needs iPod sales to keep that division running since it makes $$ on the hardware.
Is this really the first time a music player ships with an online service for loading music? I just figured Apple did a good job with the hardware and so the market/customers came. I have a feeling that the low-end market will end up killing the products in the high-end before it gets a chance to grow "down" the chain.
LoB
A couple of things that the press keeps missing:
;-)
1) Those HUGE profit margins Microsoft makes are because it has a monopoly AND those inflated prices are coming from it's customers profits. Ie, customers are paying and paying big. Very few in the press seem to equate Microsoft profits with it's customers losses. You know, the other side fo the coin.
2) That monopoly, they seem to forget that recently a federal court found Microsoft guilty of illegally protecting it's operating system business in the 1990's. Geesh, isn't that when IBM was trying to get OS/2 on the market???? But somehow they still won fair and square. hmmmm, Microsoft is a convicted felon. I wonder how many municipal governments prevent business relationships with convicted felons?????
And one more thing, in 1994 HP got a call from Bill Gates and was told to pull it's OS/2 based PC's off the COMDEX floor. They got man handled a bit by Microsoft but can put that behind them. IBM was the one getting bitch slapped over and over. OS/2 was IBM's and what happened to HP with OS/2 was what went on all over the industry. No wonder IBM wants to rip out the heart of Microsoft. IMO.
"Kill Bill 3" Coming to a computer near you. It's already on computers far from you.
LoB
While those were mostly technologies they copied, I do remember a few names from the days when OS/2 was selling a million copies a month(~1994/1995):
OS/2 Web Explorer -> Microsoft Internet Explorer
OS/2 SOM(System Object Model) -> Microsoft COM
OS/2 DSOM(Distriuted SOM) -> Microsoft DCOM
I'm sure there are tons more, after all, Microsoft is a marketing company first and foremost. IMHO.
LoB
The only thing interesting here is that even when Novell kicked out Norda, he was willing to work with them in going after Microsoft. And even that's not too interesting considering Norda, at the time he was CEO of Novell, was pointing the gun at Microsoft with a Novell based Linux desktop project.
So, is this really THAT interesting and new? Not if you've been in/around the industry for about 10 years. IMO.
There's nothing here. Move along, move along.
LoB
it's about transucent windows which change translucency based on the window contents age/status. Not just translucent windows.
People need to learn to read patent applications for their UNIQUE( or perceived unique ) features. After all, this is why the patent is typically being filed.
LoB