Anyone every take a good long look at the price difference between ibm, oracle, and MS? MS really isn't in their price league.
"UP TO 50%". Ya, thats great, can you be a little more vague. Given that MS, Oracle, and IBM all have different prices, WHAT ONE WAS THE 50%? What conditions created that? We could include Centura SQL Base in that group and still keep the phrase up to 50%, but centura hardly breaks the 4 figure mark.
IBM and Oracle are way more expensive than SQL Server. You want to impress me, break it all down and show us REAL NUMBERS for each database software, then tell us who quoted them prices to you. Give us a little facts to back up your claims. Explain to us WHAT support costs you are factoring in, because I'm tired of seeing journalists who are damm near technologically illiterate write tech reviews.... On top of that they aren't even neutral... they are really writing op-ed pieces (like this one) and pass it off as a study.
You know, people on here bash MS & Oracle (or whatever closed source company it is) when they see a "fluff piece" about their products... I just hope they bash this fluff piece too, I won't hold my breath though.
This isn't the 80's and almost any file being saved in Archives are in formats that many programs can open. Meaning that the specifications for those formats are known... regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even word files are viewable by a number of applications, and nobody is archiving historical information with advanced macros so don't even post with that macro crap.
Also to assume that future generations won't have the sense or ability to figure out how to open files we write is silly.
Because "some" businesses (or the military like the articles suggests) find opening archived information ON THE FLY difficult doesn't mean a (more technolgically advanced) society wanting to learn their past will have the same limitations. This article is just another example of entry level "tech writers" and of how low journalistic standards are.
PS I am not a journalist... so save your grammer and spelling corrections for someone who is.
Anyone else notice Apple leaving IBM hasn't made a blip in their profits? They really haven't skipped a beat.
In fact, since Apple went to intel chips, it almost seems like IBM has been able to expand and focus on other chips projects like the gaming systems. It seems like getting rid of Apple was a pretty good thing for them.
PS go ahead I'm ready... let the Apple loving flaming begin.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with MS charging more for their product. They are not a complete monopoly seeing how Linux and OSX are both alternatives. Acer is just bitching... because they want to have higher profit margins and MS is cutting into it. Acer is also doing pretty badly and maybe this is just setting up a reason for them to say to the shareholders... "See. It's not our crappy products, its MS's fault we are losing market share'. Seriously, with all the delays and code re-writes MS certainly can claim the development costs for Vista were much higher than they were for WinXP. No judge would disagree.
It's really too bad our society is moving away from the free-enterprise capitalism market that made the US so great so quickly and moving towards a feel-good socialistic system.
"Market share can only hurt Microsoft (at this point). The reason? With such huge market share, their costs significantly increase, especially their costs of retaining such market share. That's why you see them branching in 1000 different directions with this Zune nonsense and "Windows Live" and Windows Anti-Virus (isn't Windows the virus?). "
That is one of the most foolish things I've ever read on this site. Maybe anywhere. When you graduate high school the first thing you should do is take a few business and economic classes... It will save you some pretty big embarrassment (like the above load of crap). So please teach us oh wise one, what are these costs that MS has as their market share grows? What are these huge expenses that made it a foolish mistake to grow Windows and Office to near monopolies.
The price of Server 2003 more than pays for any "support/development/marketing" costs. In fact Microsoft's huge market share with Windows and Office makes billions in profit each year. They make that money because of the huge market share. Say it with me.... "market share is not your enemy".
MS is expanding in so many areas for two main reasons. The first is stock price. MS wants their stock price to grow, and seeing how they are a near monopoly it remains pretty stagnant. The idea is to expand your business into other areas and grow the stock and business again... MAKE MORE MONEY.
The second reason is to protect their current investments. For example; Google is a threat to the MS market share and MS is going to fight them while they can... instead of a "wait and see approach" MS (like all smart businesses) is taking a proactive approach to protect their investments. Something their shareholders expect and demand. If they didn't the stock price would fall and they would loose money.
Seriously man, you should think through what you are posting before hit submit.
PS "Hopefully that fat-ass CEO of theirs realizes that and will get himself and his company on the stairmaster. Otherwise he ought to be let go. I'm sure he could find a job in a circus screaming, hopping around like a monkey, and sweating profusely."
Who are you kidding? We both know you are much fatter then Steve, and if he is a screaming monkey what does that make someone like you?
Last year Windows 2003 outpaced new sales of unix for the first time ever, while new linux market share was single digits. Windows 2003 is on pace to do it again this year too.
MS is now just starting to dabble in Linux's foothold, affordable HPC computing. Lets be honest here, the lack of MS support is what gave linux the biggest door into the server market in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that Longhorn server is going to loose MS market share? Since Windows NT 3.51 MS has consistently put out server software that was significantly superior to the previous version, and MANY people are pretty happy with 2003.
Or do any of you think they are going to start losing server share to Apple? I mean I won't even talk about how apple xserve share is hardly measureable in the server world...
All that aside, here is my real question; Why is this an acceptable post? Regardless of your side, nobody really believes the "war" is over and "linux has won". Isn't this the definition of "trolling"? Why is ok to troll when its anti-ms? Its bad enough people troll in the a thread, but to start a new thread by trolling? What the he**?
I'm not sure TOS/EULA was ever really binding. Couldn't someone just claim ignorance. "I didn't install it... It was on here when I got it." Prove that it wasn't.
I think for it to be effective it would have to prompt the user every time the application was used, and then comes the question, is it legally binding without being notarized? Without witnesses? Could someone who is illiterate not use the software because they can't read the terms? How would they know? Does the software need to read terms to the user? What if your speakers were off?
I think TOS/EULA are really just a deterrent.
Kind of like the catholic church telling people they will go to hell if they use birth control. They need more Catholics to compete with the Muslims being the largest religion on the planet, and they need you to reproduce! Doesn't Microsoft use a similar approach to get more windows users ? "apple's are evil, just ask Adam and Eve"
I'm usually on the other side defending MS, but this is clearly just a PR stunt. No company, including the slashdotter's holy Google & Apple, would pass up the chance to get at $1billion+ people. The chinese economy is just begining to ramp up, and they LOVE technology and the internet.
I suspect they are just trying to get some good press...
Google. Well actually, the truth is Google collects far more information and is much better at it.
The real difference is that MS is telling people what they are collecting and how they use it and Google doesn't. Yahoo is awfully quite on the subject too!
Look at it from MS's perspective. They have millions of poeple stealing their software. Granated, its over priced and may not be worth it... but a high price tag doesn't warrant stealing. Should a company who's software is in this great of demand really rely on society to use the "honor system"... as in, I'll pay for each additonal install... no need to track it, "i'm honest."
Then again, its just such an irritant to screw around with genuine advantage, but I'm just not sure what other realistic options they have? I do belive ANY software company has the right to protect their products from being stolen.
that MS didn't already file this patent. I bet they did, and the author of the article missed it. I'd check but I don't have time to search through the mess, the swamp of MS patents for the next 3 weeks...
They beet apple to the WiFi punch, and I'm sure they thought of this feature and just didn't have time to build the infrastructure.
I take strong offense to that comment about "how mexicans are treated back in the US". Its an entirley different situation. You started out by saying "if you have good IT skills"... well that implies a great deal. Maybe you need to ask them to give you an economics class and not just IT classes.
Amsterdam doesn't have a third world coutnry to its south with millions of poeple trying to get in to use its "free" services. Its not that the US doesn't want to help... it costs lots of money. Frankly we have serious problems of our own, like the baby boomers about to retire and the medicare costs associated with that... projected to be into the trillions!
Mexicans that follow the imigration process in the US are welcomed, just like everyone else. Becasue we are the top nation in the world, have many of the best schools, etc. lots of people around the world want to come here. Not everyone can at once.
The mexican problem the US faces is that there is to many uneducated poverty stricken people who don't speak the language are trying to come in at once. Many of the mexicans who enter the US illegally head straight for the social services and hospitals. Well guess what, someone has to pay for that. They are getting it free, while americans pick up a pretty hefty tab. Even with our tax dollars being drained to those services, hospitals around the border are going under left and right becasue of it. The US (while its a nice thought) can't afford to take care of every sick person in mexico. I iwsh we could, but we can't. Its not because we are greedy either, we give more money to poor nations in the world than anyone other country.
Even the former preseident of mexico (Vicente Fox) had trouble coming up with reasons why mexicans want to stay in mexico. He listed "tacos" as the first reason to stay in mexico durring an interview a couple of years ago. "They like tacos, they like their families, they like their community, they like Mexico. ". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108050,00.html
We simply can't afford to swallow whole an entire nation like that. If we opened up our boarders to mexico tens of millions of poverty stricken people would flood the nation and cripple our economy. Amsterdam just isn't an applicable analogy. Frankly, Amsterdam doesn't welcome poverty stricken people like you imply anyways... you are just being anti-american... a trendy position, but not really a good one.
Look, its nothing against individual mexicans. I was fortunate enought to be born here not there. luck. That doesn't change the reality of the situation though.
Linux users are hobbyists. And that is why it can't be beaten. It can't be beaten by this guy, MS, or anyone else.
Linux grew to its current level of popularity by "techies" who worked with it off hours, on the their time, and without pay. The change in license model doesn't change what it is, and it's really just a large community of techs who wanted something different. Right or wrong, it is what it is. If you were to "kill" linux, then Kinux would popup a month later. Kill that and Jinux would arrive.
It really doesn't matter the name, like it or not, it's a hobbyist OS and its pretty hard to kill someone's hobby...
It happened because even Apple needs Windows at some point to make their products.
Appearently they used an affected windows machine at some point in the IMAGE process, and the virus infected the image. Most likely the image is built/cloned using Windows, but I won't go into that since I'm already going to be flamed for speaking against apple.
The true brilliance is this article wasn't posted in the "Apple" section on slashdot.... so now we may see some intellectual and honest debate about the topic.
I would be sad that slashdot shut down, because as long as Slashdot is alive, there will always be diehard fanboys who step in line with whatever Apple and Jobs say.
"intel stinks, its slow...." "YA THEY STINK! TOO SLOW..."
"intel is awesome and faster" "YA INTEL IS GREAT! SO FAST!!!!"
Before you flame me, can't you take a joke? Come on now... I know I'm not Jobs, but thats good stuff!
Apple created BootCamp so Apple machines can run Windows, specifically MS's upcoming OS, Vista.
Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it. Everyone in the world loves the "look" of apple hardware, few people like using their OS software (less than 3%).
I know the Apple fans out there will fight me to their death, but the facts don't match up with you. Apple is slowly making the transition... Switch to intel CPUs (Windows chips), make sure windows can be dual booted on the MAC. Some resellers are already selling macs with windows pre-loaded. Soon apple will, and eventually you will have the option, OSX or Windows as the default boot.
Eventually apple will announce the costs of maintaining OSX doesn't meet the interest of the public, and they will start going to head to head with Dell selling windows desktops.
kind of a double edged sword. Its just so intellectually dishonest. Obviously they had found the hole before the release and were just waiting to try to embarrass MS.
They claim they want to see secure MS software, but work against the industry practice of making software more secure and bug proof by withholding flaws they find.
I don't completely agree. Often times clients have "design visions" that just don't meet the objectives. I think a good developer solves the problem the website needs to solve while bringing the client into the know. Teaching the client and helping them alter their vision to meet their objective.
For example, I've had a photographer once who wanted tons of high res pictures one below the other blanketing the first page of his site (like 100 of them). He thought it would be "cool".
That vision would not meet the objective the photogrpaher had of showing his work off and growing his business. It would have just irritated people and turned them off to his site.
Frankly, my company overcharges for our sites, but we can do that because the client gets the results they wanted. They are willing to pay for our insights and vision for them even though they don't always see it right away. The clients vision of the design doesn't always line up with the objective for the site.
Its your job as the expert to guide them. I don't go to the mechanic and tell him how to get to the fan belt. He is the expert and that is why I pay him, I might have ideas on how to do it, but he is the one who knows, not me.
Even apple needs windows to make their products. Appearently they are using windows machines to image their ipod OS. L O (freaking) L!!!!
"Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple. The company declined to name the maker. "
Seriosuly, what a bunch of crap they are not taking full responsibility. This is MS's fault.
""As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site. "
"think" is the important word when suggesting Google had something to do with AJAX. They have had NOTHING to do with it's creation seeing how that is up to the makers of web browsers. Microsoft really invented the functionality while most of the slashdotters were still getting wedgies in school.
The term AJAX may have been coined a couple of years ago in an article, but MS deserves the credit. Its also worth noting they were using it on microsoft.com before most of us had even heard the word google.
Lets see how many of you can swallow that and actually give them their do.
What are you talking about? Your point has nothing to do with the parent's comment (that happens to be what I was replying too). Your information adds no value other than to show you for a "fan boy" who can't stand anything being said about OSS software while not taking a shot at MS at the same time.
If you were to read what I responded too you would clearly see the parent was implying/saying that MS didn't want a secure OS.
QUOTE: "Yet in pretty much every other operating system, the solution is simply to make the darned thing secure. "
His implication is simply wrong. He forgets all operating systems have bugs and security holes. He mistakenly associates the finding of the holes directly to how many bugs are in the OS rather than how many people are interested in exploiting it. History shows us that Market Share is the real test, not the OSS community eyes. Firefox was a very public example that we are all familiar with, and that is why I used it.
I could write a program filed with a million security holes and nobody would ever know, guess why? Because me and 5 friends are the only ones who use it. Does that make it secure than MS software? Of course not. Does it mean I'm less likely to get attacked, possibly, but that really has nothing to do with the quality of development.
The parent simply made a bad point in an otherwise insightful post. You however, well, thats another stroy all together.
that just isn't true. MS patches security holes just like Apple, and the rest of them.
The difference is 1 and only 1 of the Operating Systems are used by virtually everyone on the planet... while the others struggle to get above 5%.
See, linux, osx, etc. are really that much more secure than Vista, its that not enough people use them to write viruses for.
You guys were on your high horses about Firefox being more secure than IE, but the bugs and security holes have been out pacing IE every since it broke the 5% mark.
MS isn't perfect, but there is such a thing as intellectual honesty.
"Now with Vista, MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer). "
That is very deceptive, and frankly a lie. All the anti-virus makers can use the same built in APIs for anti-virus protection. In fact they all plan on doing it without any complaints too. Symantec and MsAfee are always involved in the development of those API's with MS.
What is in question is the security center. MS designed a tool that ALL developers can use to interact with the user and let them know what's going on. Symantec and McAfee just don't want to use the MS security center, they want one that has their logo all over it.
So you are really way off here. I'm hoping you just don't know what's going on and not purposely spreading FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone every take a good long look at the price difference between ibm, oracle, and MS? MS really isn't in their price league.
"UP TO 50%". Ya, thats great, can you be a little more vague. Given that MS, Oracle, and IBM all have different prices, WHAT ONE WAS THE 50%? What conditions created that? We could include Centura SQL Base in that group and still keep the phrase up to 50%, but centura hardly breaks the 4 figure mark.
IBM and Oracle are way more expensive than SQL Server. You want to impress me, break it all down and show us REAL NUMBERS for each database software, then tell us who quoted them prices to you. Give us a little facts to back up your claims. Explain to us WHAT support costs you are factoring in, because I'm tired of seeing journalists who are damm near technologically illiterate write tech reviews.... On top of that they aren't even neutral... they are really writing op-ed pieces (like this one) and pass it off as a study.
You know, people on here bash MS & Oracle (or whatever closed source company it is) when they see a "fluff piece" about their products... I just hope they bash this fluff piece too, I won't hold my breath though.
This isn't the 80's and almost any file being saved in Archives are in formats that many programs can open. Meaning that the specifications for those formats are known... regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even word files are viewable by a number of applications, and nobody is archiving historical information with advanced macros so don't even post with that macro crap.
Also to assume that future generations won't have the sense or ability to figure out how to open files we write is silly.
Because "some" businesses (or the military like the articles suggests) find opening archived information ON THE FLY difficult doesn't mean a (more technolgically advanced) society wanting to learn their past will have the same limitations. This article is just another example of entry level "tech writers" and of how low journalistic standards are.
PS
I am not a journalist... so save your grammer and spelling corrections for someone who is.
Anyone else notice Apple leaving IBM hasn't made a blip in their profits? They really haven't skipped a beat.
In fact, since Apple went to intel chips, it almost seems like IBM has been able to expand and focus on other chips projects like the gaming systems. It seems like getting rid of Apple was a pretty good thing for them.
PS
go ahead I'm ready... let the Apple loving flaming begin.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with MS charging more for their product. They are not a complete monopoly seeing how Linux and OSX are both alternatives. Acer is just bitching... because they want to have higher profit margins and MS is cutting into it. Acer is also doing pretty badly and maybe this is just setting up a reason for them to say to the shareholders ... "See. It's not our crappy products, its MS's fault we are losing market share'. Seriously, with all the delays and code re-writes MS certainly can claim the development costs for Vista were much higher than they were for WinXP. No judge would disagree.
It's really too bad our society is moving away from the free-enterprise capitalism market that made the US so great so quickly and moving towards a feel-good socialistic system.
"Market share can only hurt Microsoft (at this point). The reason? With such huge market share, their costs significantly increase, especially their costs of retaining such market share. That's why you see them branching in 1000 different directions with this Zune nonsense and "Windows Live" and Windows Anti-Virus (isn't Windows the virus?). "
That is one of the most foolish things I've ever read on this site. Maybe anywhere. When you graduate high school the first thing you should do is take a few business and economic classes... It will save you some pretty big embarrassment (like the above load of crap). So please teach us oh wise one, what are these costs that MS has as their market share grows? What are these huge expenses that made it a foolish mistake to grow Windows and Office to near monopolies.
The price of Server 2003 more than pays for any "support/development/marketing" costs. In fact Microsoft's huge market share with Windows and Office makes billions in profit each year. They make that money because of the huge market share. Say it with me.... "market share is not your enemy".
MS is expanding in so many areas for two main reasons. The first is stock price. MS wants their stock price to grow, and seeing how they are a near monopoly it remains pretty stagnant. The idea is to expand your business into other areas and grow the stock and business again... MAKE MORE MONEY.
The second reason is to protect their current investments. For example; Google is a threat to the MS market share and MS is going to fight them while they can... instead of a "wait and see approach" MS (like all smart businesses) is taking a proactive approach to protect their investments. Something their shareholders expect and demand. If they didn't the stock price would fall and they would loose money.
Seriously man, you should think through what you are posting before hit submit.
PS
"Hopefully that fat-ass CEO of theirs realizes that and will get himself and his company on the stairmaster. Otherwise he ought to be let go. I'm sure he could find a job in a circus screaming, hopping around like a monkey, and sweating profusely."
Who are you kidding? We both know you are much fatter then Steve, and if he is a screaming monkey what does that make someone like you?
Last year Windows 2003 outpaced new sales of unix for the first time ever, while new linux market share was single digits. Windows 2003 is on pace to do it again this year too.
MS is now just starting to dabble in Linux's foothold, affordable HPC computing. Lets be honest here, the lack of MS support is what gave linux the biggest door into the server market in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that Longhorn server is going to loose MS market share? Since Windows NT 3.51 MS has consistently put out server software that was significantly superior to the previous version, and MANY people are pretty happy with 2003.
Or do any of you think they are going to start losing server share to Apple? I mean I won't even talk about how apple xserve share is hardly measureable in the server world...
All that aside, here is my real question; Why is this an acceptable post? Regardless of your side, nobody really believes the "war" is over and "linux has won". Isn't this the definition of "trolling"? Why is ok to troll when its anti-ms? Its bad enough people troll in the a thread, but to start a new thread by trolling? What the he**?
I'm not sure TOS/EULA was ever really binding. Couldn't someone just claim ignorance. "I didn't install it... It was on here when I got it." Prove that it wasn't.
I think for it to be effective it would have to prompt the user every time the application was used, and then comes the question, is it legally binding without being notarized? Without witnesses? Could someone who is illiterate not use the software because they can't read the terms? How would they know? Does the software need to read terms to the user? What if your speakers were off?
I think TOS/EULA are really just a deterrent.
Kind of like the catholic church telling people they will go to hell if they use birth control. They need more Catholics to compete with the Muslims being the largest religion on the planet, and they need you to reproduce! Doesn't Microsoft use a similar approach to get more windows users ? "apple's are evil, just ask Adam and Eve"
I'm usually on the other side defending MS, but this is clearly just a PR stunt. No company, including the slashdotter's holy Google & Apple, would pass up the chance to get at $1billion+ people. The chinese economy is just begining to ramp up, and they LOVE technology and the internet.
I suspect they are just trying to get some good press...
Google. Well actually, the truth is Google collects far more information and is much better at it.
The real difference is that MS is telling people what they are collecting and how they use it and Google doesn't. Yahoo is awfully quite on the subject too!
Look at it from MS's perspective. They have millions of poeple stealing their software. Granated, its over priced and may not be worth it... but a high price tag doesn't warrant stealing. Should a company who's software is in this great of demand really rely on society to use the "honor system"... as in, I'll pay for each additonal install... no need to track it, "i'm honest."
Then again, its just such an irritant to screw around with genuine advantage, but I'm just not sure what other realistic options they have? I do belive ANY software company has the right to protect their products from being stolen.
that MS didn't already file this patent. I bet they did, and the author of the article missed it. I'd check but I don't have time to search through the mess, the swamp of MS patents for the next 3 weeks...
They beet apple to the WiFi punch, and I'm sure they thought of this feature and just didn't have time to build the infrastructure.
I take strong offense to that comment about "how mexicans are treated back in the US". Its an entirley different situation. You started out by saying "if you have good IT skills"... well that implies a great deal. Maybe you need to ask them to give you an economics class and not just IT classes.
l
Amsterdam doesn't have a third world coutnry to its south with millions of poeple trying to get in to use its "free" services. Its not that the US doesn't want to help... it costs lots of money. Frankly we have serious problems of our own, like the baby boomers about to retire and the medicare costs associated with that... projected to be into the trillions!
Mexicans that follow the imigration process in the US are welcomed, just like everyone else. Becasue we are the top nation in the world, have many of the best schools, etc. lots of people around the world want to come here. Not everyone can at once.
The mexican problem the US faces is that there is to many uneducated poverty stricken people who don't speak the language are trying to come in at once. Many of the mexicans who enter the US illegally head straight for the social services and hospitals. Well guess what, someone has to pay for that. They are getting it free, while americans pick up a pretty hefty tab. Even with our tax dollars being drained to those services, hospitals around the border are going under left and right becasue of it. The US (while its a nice thought) can't afford to take care of every sick person in mexico. I iwsh we could, but we can't. Its not because we are greedy either, we give more money to poor nations in the world than anyone other country.
Even the former preseident of mexico (Vicente Fox) had trouble coming up with reasons why mexicans want to stay in mexico. He listed "tacos" as the first reason to stay in mexico durring an interview a couple of years ago. "They like tacos, they like their families, they like their community, they like Mexico. ".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108050,00.htm
We simply can't afford to swallow whole an entire nation like that. If we opened up our boarders to mexico tens of millions of poverty stricken people would flood the nation and cripple our economy. Amsterdam just isn't an applicable analogy. Frankly, Amsterdam doesn't welcome poverty stricken people like you imply anyways... you are just being anti-american... a trendy position, but not really a good one.
Look, its nothing against individual mexicans. I was fortunate enought to be born here not there. luck. That doesn't change the reality of the situation though.
Linux users are hobbyists. And that is why it can't be beaten. It can't be beaten by this guy, MS, or anyone else.
Linux grew to its current level of popularity by "techies" who worked with it off hours, on the their time, and without pay. The change in license model doesn't change what it is, and it's really just a large community of techs who wanted something different. Right or wrong, it is what it is. If you were to "kill" linux, then Kinux would popup a month later. Kill that and Jinux would arrive.
It really doesn't matter the name, like it or not, it's a hobbyist OS and its pretty hard to kill someone's hobby...
It happened because even Apple needs Windows at some point to make their products.
Appearently they used an affected windows machine at some point in the IMAGE process, and the virus infected the image. Most likely the image is built/cloned using Windows, but I won't go into that since I'm already going to be flamed for speaking against apple.
The true brilliance is this article wasn't posted in the "Apple" section on slashdot.... so now we may see some intellectual and honest debate about the topic.
I would be sad that slashdot shut down, because as long as Slashdot is alive, there will always be diehard fanboys who step in line with whatever Apple and Jobs say.
"intel stinks, its slow...." "YA THEY STINK! TOO SLOW..."
"intel is awesome and faster" "YA INTEL IS GREAT! SO FAST!!!!"
Before you flame me, can't you take a joke? Come on now... I know I'm not Jobs, but thats good stuff!
Apple created BootCamp so Apple machines can run Windows, specifically MS's upcoming OS, Vista.
Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it. Everyone in the world loves the "look" of apple hardware, few people like using their OS software (less than 3%).
I know the Apple fans out there will fight me to their death, but the facts don't match up with you. Apple is slowly making the transition... Switch to intel CPUs (Windows chips), make sure windows can be dual booted on the MAC. Some resellers are already selling macs with windows pre-loaded. Soon apple will, and eventually you will have the option, OSX or Windows as the default boot.
Eventually apple will announce the costs of maintaining OSX doesn't meet the interest of the public, and they will start going to head to head with Dell selling windows desktops.
kind of a double edged sword. Its just so intellectually dishonest. Obviously they had found the hole before the release and were just waiting to try to embarrass MS.
They claim they want to see secure MS software, but work against the industry practice of making software more secure and bug proof by withholding flaws they find.
the answer is simple: Its not what you know its who you know.
I don't completely agree. Often times clients have "design visions" that just don't meet the objectives. I think a good developer solves the problem the website needs to solve while bringing the client into the know. Teaching the client and helping them alter their vision to meet their objective.
For example, I've had a photographer once who wanted tons of high res pictures one below the other blanketing the first page of his site (like 100 of them). He thought it would be "cool".
That vision would not meet the objective the photogrpaher had of showing his work off and growing his business. It would have just irritated people and turned them off to his site.
Frankly, my company overcharges for our sites, but we can do that because the client gets the results they wanted. They are willing to pay for our insights and vision for them even though they don't always see it right away. The clients vision of the design doesn't always line up with the objective for the site.
Its your job as the expert to guide them. I don't go to the mechanic and tell him how to get to the fan belt. He is the expert and that is why I pay him, I might have ideas on how to do it, but he is the one who knows, not me.
Even apple needs windows to make their products. Appearently they are using windows machines to image their ipod OS. L O (freaking) L!!!!
"Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple. The company declined to name the maker. "
Seriosuly, what a bunch of crap they are not taking full responsibility. This is MS's fault.
""As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site. "
"think" is the important word when suggesting Google had something to do with AJAX. They have had NOTHING to do with it's creation seeing how that is up to the makers of web browsers. Microsoft really invented the functionality while most of the slashdotters were still getting wedgies in school.
The term AJAX may have been coined a couple of years ago in an article, but MS deserves the credit. Its also worth noting they were using it on microsoft.com before most of us had even heard the word google.
Lets see how many of you can swallow that and actually give them their do.
What are you talking about? Your point has nothing to do with the parent's comment (that happens to be what I was replying too). Your information adds no value other than to show you for a "fan boy" who can't stand anything being said about OSS software while not taking a shot at MS at the same time.
If you were to read what I responded too you would clearly see the parent was implying/saying that MS didn't want a secure OS.
QUOTE: "Yet in pretty much every other operating system, the solution is simply to make the darned thing secure. "
His implication is simply wrong. He forgets all operating systems have bugs and security holes. He mistakenly associates the finding of the holes directly to how many bugs are in the OS rather than how many people are interested in exploiting it. History shows us that Market Share is the real test, not the OSS community eyes. Firefox was a very public example that we are all familiar with, and that is why I used it.
I could write a program filed with a million security holes and nobody would ever know, guess why? Because me and 5 friends are the only ones who use it. Does that make it secure than MS software? Of course not. Does it mean I'm less likely to get attacked, possibly, but that really has nothing to do with the quality of development.
The parent simply made a bad point in an otherwise insightful post. You however, well, thats another stroy all together.
that just isn't true. MS patches security holes just like Apple, and the rest of them.
The difference is 1 and only 1 of the Operating Systems are used by virtually everyone on the planet... while the others struggle to get above 5%.
See, linux, osx, etc. are really that much more secure than Vista, its that not enough people use them to write viruses for.
You guys were on your high horses about Firefox being more secure than IE, but the bugs and security holes have been out pacing IE every since it broke the 5% mark.
MS isn't perfect, but there is such a thing as intellectual honesty.
"Now with Vista, MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer). "
That is very deceptive, and frankly a lie. All the anti-virus makers can use the same built in APIs for anti-virus protection. In fact they all plan on doing it without any complaints too. Symantec and MsAfee are always involved in the development of those API's with MS.
What is in question is the security center. MS designed a tool that ALL developers can use to interact with the user and let them know what's going on. Symantec and McAfee just don't want to use the MS security center, they want one that has their logo all over it.
So you are really way off here. I'm hoping you just don't know what's going on and not purposely spreading FUD.