I think you certainly have a point with the huge number of "generated content" sites these days, but I'm not sure how that plays out in the advantage of Microsoft. From what I've seen (and I don't by far claim to be an expert on this) those content generators (or at least the two that I've seen) run on Unix boxes, and thus probably help raise Apache's number. No real facts or numbers there, though.
How anyone can say Microsoft still has a monopoly AND claim that 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and probably 2008 was and/or will be the year of Linux on the desktop strikes me as funny.
Nothing to do with you btw, you just reminded me. Also, not saying Microsoft DOESNT have one, just making a funny! Ha, ha!
Wow, that was madly irrelevant. What your parent is trying to say is that giving 3rd party apps hookins to the OS opens the way for malware to hook into your OS. This has nothing to do with vulnerabilities because malware doesn't necessarely behave different that regular 3rd party apps.
Somehow you have the idea that as a user of your program, I am not allowed to complain about the lack of in your program, unless I'm willing to invest time in making the program better some way. Some people just want software that works, not software that doesn't work and requires investigation. Not pointing at any specific piece of software to be good or bad here, just trying to make a point.
As for being developer friendly...When I can install windows and have it come with compilers and libraries for half a dozen different programming languages, then we'll talk about "developer friendliness".
Cute. You can get (Microsoft) compilers for free if you take the time to download them. The minute Microsoft announces they might be bundling them with Windows, will be the minute YOU post a comment telling us how they abuse their monopoly to push their own development tools.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but you might want to mention this 'fix' is only needed for products that came out in the 2000 batch. So for people running XP, 2003 stuff, this is no issue at all.
$4000 is still alot for a product that hasn't reached his end of life status though...
I guess it differs from person to person, but personally, I don't mind. Database contents are easily moved to another DB if needed and translating the stored procedures is trivial. And as for the artificial restrictions, once I start needing more than 4GB of DB, I guess I'll be in a position where I'm happy to pay for it.
If it's a reason for you to use PostgreSQL, then by any means.. The more the merrier:)
I went for the $0,000 MSSQL Express license. Pretty happy about it, too. Not implying this is better or worse than PostgreSQL, just that your $xx,000 license cost might not be completely correct.
Spam is a free service which is optional. Email address owners have total control over it. Use the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.
Assuming those unsubscribe links would work (we all know they don't), would you consider this a logical way of thinking? If tomorrow some other caching company comes along and introduces another way in which website owners have 'total control', will that clear them from copyright violation? What if I want my content to be cached on proxies, but I don't like them to be accessible from a massively public accessible and searchable cache?
Personal opinion:
To be honest, I don't think Google needs to stop caching anything automatically. The ruling states copyright owners need to contact Google and Google needs to respond by taking the content offline within 24 hours. That doesn't seem completely impossible to do, and that way they can keep caching those who don't contact them.
I don't know where you come from, but where I live, the fact that any phone works on any carrier's network is a given. Not sure why they need to be open for that though.
BTW, Vista's Software Protection Platform (SPP) can put unvalidated copies of the software into a reduced-functionality mode.
What, there wasn't enough flamebait in the editorial? Needed to add something to make it, well, Slashdot-worthy?
Nothing like picking a sureshot argument that has relatively little to do with the actual article.
Yea, I'm an idiot, I don't use preview, I know. Here's the fix:
You succesfully picked on one single sentence from his post. Please do the same for lines such as:
"I wish our government would get around to making things like this illegal."
What, competing?
"Mac OS X has some very nice features to add to its BSD base which are now appearing in Windows."
Nevermind the fact that the features were announced before they had them.
"...and the obvious security holes that are just waiting to be shown as the world"
What's keeping you from telling us those 'obvious' security holes?
"Forcing users to upgrade by removing support for previous versions of windows"
I don't think there are too many vendors that support their older products for that long.
"announcing no support for DX10 on XP"
Like no new Java on older MacOSX versions? Will I get support for my 5 year old RedHat or Suse or whatever?
"Every day Microsoft comes closer and closer to its demise."
Yes, and 2007 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
".NET was made to beat Java"
So?
"Microsoft actively entices every game development company to use DirectX"
So?
"*MILLIONS* of viruses/trojans leading to serious problems."
High trees catch the wind.
"The government should simply break microsoft up and hopefully all of the developers will join the Linux dev team and other OSS projects to make the computing world what it could be instead of what it shouldn't be."
Yes and I hope they bring fucking flowers too!!!1!
I know I go overboard on some of the issues, but it is more the combination of all this in one single post that set me off.
You succesfully picked on one single sentence from his post. Please do the same for lines such as
"I wish our government would get around to making things like this illegal."
Yes. More government regulation, please.
"Mac OS X has some very nice features to add to its BSD base which are now appearing in Windows."
Nevermind the fact that the features were announced before they had them.
"...and the obvious security holes that are just waiting to be shown as the world"
What's keeping you from telling us those 'obvious' security holes?
"Forcing users to upgrade by removing support for previous versions of windows"
I don't think there are too many vendors that support their older products for that long.
"announcing no support for DX10 on XP"
Like no new Java on older MacOSX versions?
"Every day Microsoft comes closer and closer to its demise."
Yes, and 2007 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
".NET was made to beat Java"
So?
"Microsoft actively entices every game development company to use DirectX"
So?
"*MILLIONS* of viruses/trojans leading to serious problems."
High trees catch the wind.
"The government should simply break microsoft up and hopefully all of the developers will join the Linux dev team and other OSS projects to make the computing world what it could be instead of what it shouldn't be."
Yes and I hope they bring fucking flowers too!!!1!
I know I go overboard on some of the issues, but it is more the combination of all this in one single post that set me off.
The best, most stable programs developed could be accepted into Apple's Special Developer Program, which would make "official" releases.
Ahh, the good ol' Apple's SpeD Program!
I was aware of the definitions and meanings (nonetheless thanks for going through the effort, I'm sure it's useful for alot of people). The point I was trying to make is that I do not necessarely believe you can't own an "idea". Or perhaps I do, but then the definition of an "idea" is somewhat ambiguous.
I (think I) consider an idea to be something two people could come to think of independently, and therefore should not be restricted to either one of those people to use. However, other, non-physical things, such as for example a song (which is, in the end, not likely to be made by two people independently and still be the same). The image of Mickey Mouse is not likely to be something somebody else designs independently. They might design alot of other mice that look like it, but I don't think any law prohibits that.
As you see, I can't give you a cleancut border between the two kinds of "ideas" we're talking about here, but I do feel that the current definitions are to coarse to be right all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you certainly have a point with the huge number of "generated content" sites these days, but I'm not sure how that plays out in the advantage of Microsoft. From what I've seen (and I don't by far claim to be an expert on this) those content generators (or at least the two that I've seen) run on Unix boxes, and thus probably help raise Apache's number. No real facts or numbers there, though.
Which is why they're counting sites (hostnames), not servers.
How anyone can say Microsoft still has a monopoly AND claim that 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and probably 2008 was and/or will be the year of Linux on the desktop strikes me as funny.
Nothing to do with you btw, you just reminded me. Also, not saying Microsoft DOESNT have one, just making a funny! Ha, ha!
Wow, that was madly irrelevant. What your parent is trying to say is that giving 3rd party apps hookins to the OS opens the way for malware to hook into your OS. This has nothing to do with vulnerabilities because malware doesn't necessarely behave different that regular 3rd party apps.
Because they are invading our daily life in ways you don't usually link to delusional cultists. They're dangerous. They need to be stopped.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, IBM was also a heavy supporter of software patents.
Windows 2003 is not Windows 2000. IIS 6 is not IIS 5. ASP.NET is not ASP.
Microsoft server products have become pretty secure lately. Perhaps you should reconsider your statements.
That said, I'd like to see a Month Of * Bugs on all 3 products mentioned above. Would be at least somewhat interesting.
Because including it means they need to support it. Is it really that hard to get it yourself?
As for the objective truth: Rob Enderle genius: 54K hits, Rob Enderle idiot: 32K hits :P
Not that that makes him any less of an idiot...
I think you kind of proved his point ;-)
Somehow you have the idea that as a user of your program, I am not allowed to complain about the lack of in your program, unless I'm willing to invest time in making the program better some way. Some people just want software that works, not software that doesn't work and requires investigation. Not pointing at any specific piece of software to be good or bad here, just trying to make a point.
As for being developer friendly...When I can install windows and have it come with compilers and libraries for half a dozen different programming languages, then we'll talk about "developer friendliness".
Cute. You can get (Microsoft) compilers for free if you take the time to download them. The minute Microsoft announces they might be bundling them with Windows, will be the minute YOU post a comment telling us how they abuse their monopoly to push their own development tools.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but you might want to mention this 'fix' is only needed for products that came out in the 2000 batch. So for people running XP, 2003 stuff, this is no issue at all. $4000 is still alot for a product that hasn't reached his end of life status though...
I guess it differs from person to person, but personally, I don't mind. Database contents are easily moved to another DB if needed and translating the stored procedures is trivial. And as for the artificial restrictions, once I start needing more than 4GB of DB, I guess I'll be in a position where I'm happy to pay for it.
:)
If it's a reason for you to use PostgreSQL, then by any means.. The more the merrier
I went for the $0,000 MSSQL Express license. Pretty happy about it, too. Not implying this is better or worse than PostgreSQL, just that your $xx,000 license cost might not be completely correct.
I decided to go for the $0,000 MSSQL Express licence.
Being the devil's advocate:
Spam is a free service which is optional. Email address owners have total control over it. Use the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.
Assuming those unsubscribe links would work (we all know they don't), would you consider this a logical way of thinking? If tomorrow some other caching company comes along and introduces another way in which website owners have 'total control', will that clear them from copyright violation? What if I want my content to be cached on proxies, but I don't like them to be accessible from a massively public accessible and searchable cache?
Personal opinion:
To be honest, I don't think Google needs to stop caching anything automatically. The ruling states copyright owners need to contact Google and Google needs to respond by taking the content offline within 24 hours. That doesn't seem completely impossible to do, and that way they can keep caching those who don't contact them.
I don't know where you come from, but where I live, the fact that any phone works on any carrier's network is a given. Not sure why they need to be open for that though.
BTW, Vista's Software Protection Platform (SPP) can put unvalidated copies of the software into a reduced-functionality mode.
What, there wasn't enough flamebait in the editorial? Needed to add something to make it, well, Slashdot-worthy?
Nothing like picking a sureshot argument that has relatively little to do with the actual article.
Yea, I'm an idiot, I don't use preview, I know. Here's the fix:
You succesfully picked on one single sentence from his post. Please do the same for lines such as:
"I wish our government would get around to making things like this illegal."
What, competing?
"Mac OS X has some very nice features to add to its BSD base which are now appearing in Windows."
Nevermind the fact that the features were announced before they had them.
"...and the obvious security holes that are just waiting to be shown as the world"
What's keeping you from telling us those 'obvious' security holes?
"Forcing users to upgrade by removing support for previous versions of windows"
I don't think there are too many vendors that support their older products for that long.
"announcing no support for DX10 on XP"
Like no new Java on older MacOSX versions? Will I get support for my 5 year old RedHat or Suse or whatever?
"Every day Microsoft comes closer and closer to its demise."
Yes, and 2007 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
".NET was made to beat Java"
So?
"Microsoft actively entices every game development company to use DirectX"
So?
"*MILLIONS* of viruses/trojans leading to serious problems."
High trees catch the wind.
"The government should simply break microsoft up and hopefully all of the developers will join the Linux dev team and other OSS projects to make the computing world what it could be instead of what it shouldn't be."
Yes and I hope they bring fucking flowers too!!!1!
I know I go overboard on some of the issues, but it is more the combination of all this in one single post that set me off.
You succesfully picked on one single sentence from his post. Please do the same for lines such as "I wish our government would get around to making things like this illegal." Yes. More government regulation, please. "Mac OS X has some very nice features to add to its BSD base which are now appearing in Windows." Nevermind the fact that the features were announced before they had them. "...and the obvious security holes that are just waiting to be shown as the world" What's keeping you from telling us those 'obvious' security holes? "Forcing users to upgrade by removing support for previous versions of windows" I don't think there are too many vendors that support their older products for that long. "announcing no support for DX10 on XP" Like no new Java on older MacOSX versions? "Every day Microsoft comes closer and closer to its demise." Yes, and 2007 will be the year of Linux on the desktop. ".NET was made to beat Java" So? "Microsoft actively entices every game development company to use DirectX" So? "*MILLIONS* of viruses/trojans leading to serious problems." High trees catch the wind. "The government should simply break microsoft up and hopefully all of the developers will join the Linux dev team and other OSS projects to make the computing world what it could be instead of what it shouldn't be." Yes and I hope they bring fucking flowers too!!!1! I know I go overboard on some of the issues, but it is more the combination of all this in one single post that set me off.
God you're an idiot. I was going to point out the obvious errors in your post, but it seems I'd need to comment on pretty much every single sentence.
I'm suspecting about 75% of that is made up.
The best, most stable programs developed could be accepted into Apple's Special Developer Program, which would make "official" releases.
Ahh, the good ol' Apple's SpeD Program!
I was aware of the definitions and meanings (nonetheless thanks for going through the effort, I'm sure it's useful for alot of people). The point I was trying to make is that I do not necessarely believe you can't own an "idea". Or perhaps I do, but then the definition of an "idea" is somewhat ambiguous. I (think I) consider an idea to be something two people could come to think of independently, and therefore should not be restricted to either one of those people to use. However, other, non-physical things, such as for example a song (which is, in the end, not likely to be made by two people independently and still be the same). The image of Mickey Mouse is not likely to be something somebody else designs independently. They might design alot of other mice that look like it, but I don't think any law prohibits that. As you see, I can't give you a cleancut border between the two kinds of "ideas" we're talking about here, but I do feel that the current definitions are to coarse to be right all the time.
No, the ones that should hint you off that I'm not agreeing with what the letter of the law says.