Maybe they should stick with what they have? The current results actually look great... just as good as google's first search page.
On a secondary note, does anyone find it funny that google returns 1e9 results? It's pretty stupid, since it's impossible to go past 1000... why not just say there are 600 billion, since you can never get there:)
Does anyone even read the snippet?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I know no one on/. reads the article, but what about the snippet at the top. You don't actually exchange cash at all, it's all about provably dedicating computer time. Money is NOT exchanged. This also would not affect DLs and other wide lists, because it would be the initial mail that would be computed, rather than all the redirected ones. As far as mailing to lots of people, that is a concern, but how many lists out there are >10000 in size? What this really limits is people who want to send to 1M people, and, yes, you're screwed there.
Unfortunately, you can't tell your locksmith on the internet without telling everyone. I don't mean to presume that i'm the only one who has access to the bug, but if I don't know about it because it's not publically available, there is a better chance (but not zero chance) that the black hat doesn't know about it.
The problem is that, in publishing the flaw, the number of people who now have understanding on how to write an exploit against it are much higher. Maybe if you published something about a flaw in a given service and just told everyone to shut down that service due to the flaw until the fix was out. But that seems unlikely.
It's not the emporer wears no clothes, it's more like a: you don't even KNOW the emporer has no clothes and b: waiting to say the emporer has no clothes until you have a jacket for him to wear.
The particular problem here is that there are no services specifically that you can shut down... it affects everything that accesses CRYPT32.dll
So this is very interesting, in that it's the first time that a critical flaw has taken six months to fix that the alert about the fix ALSO was delayed for six months. Yet in that time, we have not seen any significant uptick in these types of exploits, and there do not appear to be any worms like this in the wild.
Does this verify MS's supposition that delayed publication = less exploits?
IBM routinely gets more patents every year than any other company. Please consider for a minute that IBM knows how to take care of itself in the patent arena and if they felt like there was prior art, they'd know who to call at the USPTO.
Are you aware that two of those links (the macopinion and the amazon one) don't have anything to do with MS? And almost none of the links have anything to do with Open Source? What was your point?
This is incorrect. More recent licenses (such as the one on SP4) supercede previous agreements. This section from the EULA clearly identifies this:
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) and the CAL or TS CAL (if applicable) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA.
Look, i realize this may be completely off topic, but can I just say that there were a bunch of announcements yesterday around Win2k3, some of which are very interesting even to a Linux only crowd. The new TPC benchmarks, Ballmer saying that Windows is more innovative than Linux, the worldwide roll out and advertising campaign and so on. Yet nothing on slashdot was covered. TODAY they have a note about a personal cash management product release that very few people have ever even heard of! The tag line doesn't say Linux stuff that matters, it says stuff that matters and what MS does with W2k3 matters whether or not you actually run it.
The problem is that they don't really have a choice. If they don't defend the trademark everywhere they see it, they can be shown to giving up the right to the trademark. The legal system doesn't allow them to let it slide just because it's a comic strip.
Given that the researchers work for other companies it may be "Ford researchers find that Chevy's will kill your dog and run off with your girl." This stuff is so vague right now, it's hard to see anyone doing anything but fighting for the sound bite.
I don't mean to be naive, but everyone seems to be focusing on the minority of devs who moved from Windows. I agree that percentage wise, it's interesting that a lot of devs who now focus on Linux used to focus on Windows. But the majority used to focus on Unix! Let's use some examples:
1995: 100 of devs in the world 5 Unix 5 Other 90 Windows
2002: 110 devs in the world 2 Unix 5 Linux 3 Other 100 Windows
If 2 of the devs who used to focus on Windows moved to Linux, and 3 of the devs who used to focus on Unix moved to Linux, this would give you the numbers you see there.
But still the Windows dev market grew AND this was a very small amount! Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I actually have a bit of a problem with the survey. From where did they recruity the sources? To quote from the article:
Representative Samples When conducting demand side primary research it becomes important to recruit the participants (or samples) from sources that are as unbiased as possible. During the five years that EDC has been recruiting developers to participate in surveys this ideal has continuously been foremost in our efforts. Consequently, though we have used over 100 different individual sources for recruiting, the following principles have always been and will always be applied:
No vendor lists have ever been used in EDC subscription surveys and none have ever been added to the panel No platform specific lists have ever been used in any EDC general subscription surveys and none have ever been added to the general panel* No language specific lists have ever been used in any EDC subscriptions surveys and none have ever been added to the panel In this way we provide the most eclectic and unbiased sample available anywhere. With thousands of developers chosen in a deliberately unbiased way from a wide variety of neutral lists, our data truly provides in-depth looks at representative samples of the developer population.
*Note: our Linux Development survey does use lists targeted for the Linux platform, however all developers recruited for that survey are kept in a separate database and are not used in any surveys other than Linux specific ones.
Clearly, it says that they use Linux specific developer lists, which indicates that this is not the broader community at all, but a very specific set of Linux developers (of the size and scope of which we have no idea). My question is this: Given how much the/. community pokes holes in studies like this when they come out of Windows, shouldn't the/. community hold data to higher standards, even if it does support their cause?
of course not... but your entire point is that the maintenance fee for running a server is the same as the maintenance fee for you running 100 servers at rackspace. XBL DOES take care of lots of the networking, matching, etc software and they pay the development "cost" for that. That's huge savings for your 200 person start-up rolling out a game.
Contrary to the average gamers belief, neither bandwidth nor running a server is not expensive. For example at serverbeach they sell 100$/month packages with 400GB bandwidth and hardware included. Now that will probably not be enough to handle an entire continent, but the upkeep costs are maybe a few thousand $/month - neglegtible compared to development, marketing and packaging/sales costs.
This is demonstrably false. Frequently these costs are the #1 non-payroll costs.
Microsoft is asking the game developers to do more work and don't let them control it.
This is also demonstrably false. MS takes care of a TON of the work! How is that more?
Perhaps you should do some research into the costs of running a business.
Apparently you've never run a set of major servers before. You don't simply set your code and forget it. There are updates to code that you roll out monthly (and daily if necessary).... things ALWAYS need updating. XBL does not just cover update costs. Every new app (read game) that gets rolled out presents a whole new set of challenges. The number one facilities cost of any commercial company is... wait for it... bandwidth charges. Really. It's not cheap.
Look, i'm sorry but you have no idea what it takes to run a data center and all the server apps involved in making Xbox Live work. I suppose I could just go down to rackspace and pick up 50 servers to run as the backbone without custom coding, voice streaming etc. You are being a bit shortsighted I'm afraid.
Tyrant or warlord? Your premise is that things are invented in a vacuum or only one person invents something at a given time. In the vast majority of cases this is not the case. There are laws against stealing, that's not what is going on here. It's taking a technology which may be an open standard or a particular public implementation and being able to do it the best and distribute it the widest. Amazon.com wasn't the first internet bookseller, but they were the best. And how about GNU/Linux? Show me something in the free software world that hasn't been done someplace else and i'll fall off my chair.
Uh, i'm going to have to disagree with that. Glaring errors:
1) 2.8 GHz on every desktop? Ack. Cut that down to 1 Ghz and now you're talking. 1/2 the cost of a smart display.
2) Why is there a 36 month HW refresh for the Windows side and not the Unix side? 1.4 Ghz on the desktop seems like it would last a long time.
3) Why are there TWO refreshes for software in 4 years and zero for Unix? (Even solaris needs updating) Plus, i'm running just fine on W2k and it's 3 years old. I probably won't upgrade until the version after win 2003.
4) Why is staffing so much more? That seems just absurd. You could buy a management tool like SMS or Tivoli and manage every desktop remotely. Both numbers and cost of skill. And despite what the author says, maintaining 500 smart displays connecting to a server takes man power.
5) 4 dual proc machines doing what for 500 people? You can do plenty with half as many machines.
Why would anyone say these are hard to argue with? Oh wait, it's michael...
Slashdot Mirror
Again, i'm going to have to point to their regular search page... do you think they've actually moved it over already?
Xfree86 at MSN.search: here
Looks pretty accurate to me
I have to say, I know what they said the correct page is, but check this out:
:)
MSN Search (regular - 18,445,615 results): Here
MSN Search (beta - no printed totals, but lots of linux sites... however no kernel.org, no redhat.com, no suse, etc): Here
Google Search (104,000,000 results): here
Maybe they should stick with what they have? The current results actually look great... just as good as google's first search page.
On a secondary note, does anyone find it funny that google returns 1e9 results? It's pretty stupid, since it's impossible to go past 1000... why not just say there are 600 billion, since you can never get there
I know no one on /. reads the article, but what about the snippet at the top. You don't actually exchange cash at all, it's all about provably dedicating computer time. Money is NOT exchanged. This also would not affect DLs and other wide lists, because it would be the initial mail that would be computed, rather than all the redirected ones. As far as mailing to lots of people, that is a concern, but how many lists out there are >10000 in size? What this really limits is people who want to send to 1M people, and, yes, you're screwed there.
nicely summed up :)
Unfortunately, you can't tell your locksmith on the internet without telling everyone. I don't mean to presume that i'm the only one who has access to the bug, but if I don't know about it because it's not publically available, there is a better chance (but not zero chance) that the black hat doesn't know about it.
The problem is that, in publishing the flaw, the number of people who now have understanding on how to write an exploit against it are much higher. Maybe if you published something about a flaw in a given service and just told everyone to shut down that service due to the flaw until the fix was out. But that seems unlikely.
It's not the emporer wears no clothes, it's more like a: you don't even KNOW the emporer has no clothes and b: waiting to say the emporer has no clothes until you have a jacket for him to wear.
The particular problem here is that there are no services specifically that you can shut down... it affects everything that accesses CRYPT32.dll
So this is very interesting, in that it's the first time that a critical flaw has taken six months to fix that the alert about the fix ALSO was delayed for six months. Yet in that time, we have not seen any significant uptick in these types of exploits, and there do not appear to be any worms like this in the wild.
Does this verify MS's supposition that delayed publication = less exploits?
IBM routinely gets more patents every year than any other company. Please consider for a minute that IBM knows how to take care of itself in the patent arena and if they felt like there was prior art, they'd know who to call at the USPTO.
Microsoft has released two corporate Windows Update Servers; one for small businesses and one for large businesses:
e /sus/default.asp
Software Update Services:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/windowsupdat
System Management Server
http://www.microsoft.com/smserver/default.asp
Um, Microsoft has 60%+ of the server market. I would call that appreciable.
Are you aware that two of those links (the macopinion and the amazon one) don't have anything to do with MS? And almost none of the links have anything to do with Open Source? What was your point?
This is really interesting... in the print version, they start the article with the correct "I" rather than "N".
This is incorrect. More recent licenses (such as the one on SP4) supercede previous agreements. This section from the EULA clearly identifies this:
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) and the CAL or TS CAL (if applicable) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA.
Look, i realize this may be completely off topic, but can I just say that there were a bunch of announcements yesterday around Win2k3, some of which are very interesting even to a Linux only crowd. The new TPC benchmarks, Ballmer saying that Windows is more innovative than Linux, the worldwide roll out and advertising campaign and so on. Yet nothing on slashdot was covered. TODAY they have a note about a personal cash management product release that very few people have ever even heard of! The tag line doesn't say Linux stuff that matters, it says stuff that matters and what MS does with W2k3 matters whether or not you actually run it.
The problem is that they don't really have a choice. If they don't defend the trademark everywhere they see it, they can be shown to giving up the right to the trademark. The legal system doesn't allow them to let it slide just because it's a comic strip.
Given that the researchers work for other companies it may be "Ford researchers find that Chevy's will kill your dog and run off with your girl." This stuff is so vague right now, it's hard to see anyone doing anything but fighting for the sound bite.
I give it my highest rating: Two stars.
I don't mean to be naive, but everyone seems to be focusing on the minority of devs who moved from Windows. I agree that percentage wise, it's interesting that a lot of devs who now focus on Linux used to focus on Windows. But the majority used to focus on Unix! Let's use some examples:
1995: 100 of devs in the world
5 Unix
5 Other
90 Windows
2002: 110 devs in the world
2 Unix
5 Linux
3 Other
100 Windows
If 2 of the devs who used to focus on Windows moved to Linux, and 3 of the devs who used to focus on Unix moved to Linux, this would give you the numbers you see there.
But still the Windows dev market grew AND this was a very small amount! Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I'd love to find this out as well!
Hi--
/. community pokes holes in studies like this when they come out of Windows, shouldn't the /. community hold data to higher standards, even if it does support their cause?
I actually have a bit of a problem with the survey. From where did they recruity the sources? To quote from the article:
Representative Samples
When conducting demand side primary research it becomes important to recruit the participants (or samples) from sources that are as unbiased as possible. During the five years that EDC has been recruiting developers to participate in surveys this ideal has continuously been foremost in our efforts. Consequently, though we have used over 100 different individual sources for recruiting, the following principles have always been and will always be applied:
No vendor lists have ever been used in EDC subscription surveys and none have ever been added to the panel
No platform specific lists have ever been used in any EDC general subscription surveys and none have ever been added to the general panel*
No language specific lists have ever been used in any EDC subscriptions surveys and none have ever been added to the panel
In this way we provide the most eclectic and unbiased sample available anywhere. With thousands of developers chosen in a deliberately unbiased way from a wide variety of neutral lists, our data truly provides in-depth looks at representative samples of the developer population.
*Note: our Linux Development survey does use lists targeted for the Linux platform, however all developers recruited for that survey are kept in a separate database and are not used in any surveys other than Linux specific ones.
Clearly, it says that they use Linux specific developer lists, which indicates that this is not the broader community at all, but a very specific set of Linux developers (of the size and scope of which we have no idea). My question is this: Given how much the
No.
According to the patch notification (here), it affects only IIS 5.0, and XP runs IIS 5.1
of course not... but your entire point is that the maintenance fee for running a server is the same as the maintenance fee for you running 100 servers at rackspace. XBL DOES take care of lots of the networking, matching, etc software and they pay the development "cost" for that. That's huge savings for your 200 person start-up rolling out a game.
Contrary to the average gamers belief, neither bandwidth nor running a server is not expensive. For example at serverbeach they sell 100$/month packages with 400GB bandwidth and hardware included. Now that will probably not be enough to handle an entire continent, but the upkeep costs are maybe a few thousand $/month - neglegtible compared to development, marketing and packaging/sales costs.
This is demonstrably false. Frequently these costs are the #1 non-payroll costs.
Microsoft is asking the game developers to do more work and don't let them control it.
This is also demonstrably false. MS takes care of a TON of the work! How is that more?
Perhaps you should do some research into the costs of running a business.
Apparently you've never run a set of major servers before. You don't simply set your code and forget it. There are updates to code that you roll out monthly (and daily if necessary).... things ALWAYS need updating. XBL does not just cover update costs. Every new app (read game) that gets rolled out presents a whole new set of challenges. The number one facilities cost of any commercial company is ... wait for it ... bandwidth charges. Really. It's not cheap.
Look, i'm sorry but you have no idea what it takes to run a data center and all the server apps involved in making Xbox Live work. I suppose I could just go down to rackspace and pick up 50 servers to run as the backbone without custom coding, voice streaming etc. You are being a bit shortsighted I'm afraid.
Tyrant or warlord? Your premise is that things are invented in a vacuum or only one person invents something at a given time. In the vast majority of cases this is not the case. There are laws against stealing, that's not what is going on here. It's taking a technology which may be an open standard or a particular public implementation and being able to do it the best and distribute it the widest. Amazon.com wasn't the first internet bookseller, but they were the best. And how about GNU/Linux? Show me something in the free software world that hasn't been done someplace else and i'll fall off my chair.
Uh, i'm going to have to disagree with that. Glaring errors:
1) 2.8 GHz on every desktop? Ack. Cut that down to 1 Ghz and now you're talking. 1/2 the cost of a smart display.
2) Why is there a 36 month HW refresh for the Windows side and not the Unix side? 1.4 Ghz on the desktop seems like it would last a long time.
3) Why are there TWO refreshes for software in 4 years and zero for Unix? (Even solaris needs updating) Plus, i'm running just fine on W2k and it's 3 years old. I probably won't upgrade until the version after win 2003.
4) Why is staffing so much more? That seems just absurd. You could buy a management tool like SMS or Tivoli and manage every desktop remotely. Both numbers and cost of skill. And despite what the author says, maintaining 500 smart displays connecting to a server takes man power.
5) 4 dual proc machines doing what for 500 people? You can do plenty with half as many machines.
Why would anyone say these are hard to argue with? Oh wait, it's michael...