The strange functioning of a typical liberal brain.

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I gave up on slashfot because the crowd there seem like mindless sheep. ESR is god, Bill Gates is satan. Everyone knows everything and can't take any form of correction. They love Linux so much, any fault pointed out is like a death sentence. I do still check it from time to time, because there are a few good science articles.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Ameesh

don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I gave up on slashfot because the crowd there seem like mindless sheep. ESR is god, Bill Gates is satan. Everyone knows everything and can't take any form of correction. They love Linux so much, any fault pointed out is like a death sentence. I do still check it from time to time, because there are a few good science articles.

i think arstechnica is a better choice if your interested in the science articles. or you can just read scientific american and discover, both of which are excellent magazines.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
Marty have you read the RFC? kerb's only job is authentication nothing more.


The media is ridicuolouly biased in their news reporting almost every article is negative but a majority of the time they twist the facts to make a better headline.


don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I didn't get that off slashdot.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Ameesh

don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I gave up on slashfot because the crowd there seem like mindless sheep. ESR is god, Bill Gates is satan. Everyone knows everything and can't take any form of correction. They love Linux so much, any fault pointed out is like a death sentence. I do still check it from time to time, because there are a few good science articles.

i think arstechnica is a better choice if your interested in the science articles. or you can just read scientific american and discover, both of which are excellent magazines.

i'm a fan of WIRED and Technology Review

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Ameesh
Marty have you read the RFC? kerb's only job is authentication nothing more.


The media is ridicuolouly biased in their news reporting almost every article is negative but a majority of the time they twist the facts to make a better headline.


don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I didn't get that off slashdot.

did you read the rfc? its 1510 and even if you didnt get it off slashdot it doesnt change the fact that your source is giving a terribly slanted review/commentary.

 

[Ameesh]

gopunk im sad, wired is for wannabe's there is hardly anyy substance to anything they print its like the cosmo of the technology world.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
gopunk im sad, wired is for wannabe's there is hardly anyy substance to anything they print its like the cosmo of the technology world.

wannabe's of what? i dunno, i find it an entertaining read... two articles i particularly liked were the interview with wolfram and one about approtec. it exposes me to happenings that i would otherwise not know about. what articles did you feel don't have substance?

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Ameesh
gopunk im sad, wired is for wannabe's there is hardly anyy substance to anything they print its like the cosmo of the technology world.

wannabe's of what? i dunno, i find it an entertaining read... two articles i particularly liked were the interview with wolfram and one about approtec. it exposes me to happenings that i would otherwise not know about. what articles did you feel don't have substance?

i had a subscription a couple of years ago, i was very dissapointed at the time, either spoke very genreally or they were vauge about what they were talking about which made it seem like they dont know what they are talking about.

maybe its gotten better recently.

 

[Ameesh]

oh i forgot about all the bloddy ads! it was like 20 pages of articles and 200 pages of ads.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Ameesh
gopunk im sad, wired is for wannabe's there is hardly anyy substance to anything they print its like the cosmo of the technology world.

wannabe's of what? i dunno, i find it an entertaining read... two articles i particularly liked were the interview with wolfram and one about approtec. it exposes me to happenings that i would otherwise not know about. what articles did you feel don't have substance?

i had a subscription a couple of years ago, i was very dissapointed at the time, either spoke very genreally or they were vauge about what they were talking about which made it seem like they dont know what they are talking about.

maybe its gotten better recently.

or it could just be that you expect more from it. i don't really expect to learn anything more than a rudimentary understanding of how some new technology works. you can't really expect too much from magazines that have mass appeal... take technology review for example. the june issue has a blurb that talks about anti-piracy actions being taken by record companies. apparently they hire other companies to search file sharing networks for their songs. big fricking deal, but TR makes it out to be some kind of fascinating new technology that could put an end to piracy. i quote "still feeling secure about downloading that latest single?" it's clear to me they don't have any clue what they're talking about. and this is a magazine published by MIT luckily, i'm ignorant about other stuff to a point where most of the magazine is interesting

 

[glenn1]

The strange functioning of a typical liberal brain.

Him: "I hate microsoft and their greedy ways."

Me: "Why?"

Him: "Because they make everything proprietary."

Me: "Really? Give me an example."

Him: "My DSL connection won't work with Linux because I have an Intel 2100 modem."

That wasn't a liberal. A conversation with a liberal would have gone like this...

Him: "I hate microsoft and their greedy ways."

Me: "Why?"

Him: "Because they make everything proprietary."

Me: "Really? Give me an example."

Him: "I can't play Neverwinter Nights OR Morrowind on my blueberry iMac!"

 

[Cougar]

Originally posted by: nd

i'll quote Russ:

"Really, Give me an example."

SMB (can't remember the new name they're giving it) -- proprietary, and deliberately changed to make reverse engineering difficult for Samba (this has happened multiple times and is well-documented)
Proprietary file formats in office software
Proprietary extensions to standards (Kerberos, web page rendering)
Proprietary file systems (NTFS)

I could go on and on. Maybe this isn't what you were getting at.. you weren't really denying that Microsoft isn't exactly a big supporter of open standards are you? Recent embracement of XML/Soap etc. does not make up for anything or prove their allegiance to open standards, either.

nd ol' buddy ol' pal! how's the MS Word resume going?

*runs and hides*

 

[Perknose]

i had a subscription a couple of years ago, i was very dissapointed at the time, either spoke very genreally or they were vauge about what they were talking about which made it seem like they dont know what they are talking about.

maybe its gotten better recently.

That's been both my experience and my hope for Wired. I tried a subscription twice! Couldn't stand the asshat graphics, either -- the Pontiac Aztec of magazine graphics. <B>

</B>

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: SammySon

How is that MS's fault?

By creating a standard that is so large, you must abide by it, or you fail. Or you get forced out of business.

M$ did not 'create' any standards.
I do, however, have a problem with how they came to be as influential as they are today.

(No, I won't cite individual references.
I concur with the DOJ findings.)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: SammySon

How is that MS's fault?

By creating a standard that is so large, you must abide by it, or you fail. Or you get forced out of business.

M$ did not 'create' any standards.
I do, however, have a problem with how they came to be as influential as they are today.

(No, I won't cite individual references.
I concur with the DOJ findings.)

I wont deny ms got on top with some shady business deals, but by in large they produced a product that was "good enough" for the general population.

I am sure most people here will agree that win3x was crap. Win3x only competition at the time was OS/2 and OS/2 was far superior. However OS/2 had much high ram requirements since it was a modern multitasking/multithreading OS. OS/2 was taken out of the market by ram prices and IBM bungled marketing.

When win9x(less smelly crap) came out, it was good enough to compete with OS/2 and ram prices had fallen much. The day win95 came out, OS/2 died because it could not run the new win32 apps. OS/2 became completely irrelevent when NT 4.0 came out.


IN short MS has played the game and won.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Ameesh
Marty have you read the RFC? kerb's only job is authentication nothing more.


The media is ridicuolouly biased in their news reporting almost every article is negative but a majority of the time they twist the facts to make a better headline.


don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I didn't get that off slashdot.

did you read the rfc? its 1510 and even if you didnt get it off slashdot it doesnt change the fact that your source is giving a terribly slanted review/commentary.

Ah, so the news source is slanted, but the posts of an MS employee are not? yeah.


In any case, you are just as the article mentioned. By microsoft's defition, it is fully compliant, but in reality its not. Kerberos is not only used for authentication, and MS left out the authorization on purpose.


So until MS stops adding proprietary extensions and starts using only open standards, my statement "Microsoft isn't exactly known for its love of open standards" still stands.

Now let me just say that I don't ever expect them ever do that, but please stop pretending that MS is perfect and never does anything wrong.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Ameesh
Marty have you read the RFC? kerb's only job is authentication nothing more.


The media is ridicuolouly biased in their news reporting almost every article is negative but a majority of the time they twist the facts to make a better headline.


don't believe everything you read on slashdot.

I didn't get that off slashdot.

did you read the rfc? its 1510 and even if you didnt get it off slashdot it doesnt change the fact that your source is giving a terribly slanted review/commentary.

Ah, so the news source is slanted, but the posts of an MS employee are not? yeah.


In any case, you are just as the article mentioned. By microsoft's defition, it is fully compliant, but in reality its not. Kerberos is not only used for authentication, and MS left out the authorization on purpose.


So until MS stops adding proprietary extensions and starts using only open standards, my statement "Microsoft isn't exactly known for its love of open standards" still stands.

Now let me just say that I don't ever expect them ever do that, but please stop pretending that MS is perfect and never does anything wrong.

READ THE RFC IF YOU WONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT and try to keep in mind what the word may and optional mean.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: nd

i'll quote Russ:

"Really, Give me an example."

SMB (can't remember the new name they're giving it) -- proprietary, and deliberately changed to make reverse engineering difficult for Samba (this has happened multiple times and is well-documented)
Proprietary file formats in office software
Proprietary extensions to standards (Kerberos, web page rendering)
Proprietary file systems (NTFS)

I could go on and on. Maybe this isn't what you were getting at.. you weren't really denying that Microsoft isn't exactly a big supporter of open standards are you? Recent embracement of XML/Soap etc. does not make up for anything or prove their allegiance to open standards, either.

MS helped create SMB when they outgrew the protocol they dumped it. If SAMBA tried to hack MS's protocol and they couldnt do it tooo bad, its just like trillian trying to hack into AOL's AIM Servers
OFFICE uses, rtf, and csv files as well which can be used anywhere
we talked about kerb and IEs rendering is way better then any other product out there.
MFS,HFS,LFS,XFS,FAT16,FAT32 just werent cutting it any more, ntfs solved the problem of security, encryption, and compression where no similar solution exsisted before.

please go on.

 

[nd]

MS helped create SMB when they outgrew the protocol they dumped it. If SAMBA tried to hack MS's protocol and they couldnt do it tooo bad, its just like trillian trying to hack into AOL's AIM Servers

Look at what you just said. You're trying to say that Microsoft is a big fan of open standards, and here you clearly admit this is not the case. What, exactly, are you trying to argue?

OFFICE uses, rtf, and csv files as well which can be used anywhere
we talked about kerb and IEs rendering is way better then any other product out there.

Those formats are supported so they have lowest-common-denominator compatibility with other existing standards, but the formats they primarily use (.XLS, .DOC) are still proprietary and are most prevalent. You did not see Microsoft try to adopt an open standard for these, and you certainly don't see them publishing documents of their formats. Now, that's their own business if they don't want to do that, and I'm not whining -- but it DOES mean they're not true supporters of open standards.

MFS,HFS,LFS,XFS,FAT16,FAT32 just werent cutting it any more, ntfs solved the problem of security, encryption, and compression where no similar solution exsisted before.

please go on.

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

This is what you said:

Well, Microsoft isn't exactly known for its love of open standards, but what does that have to with the Intel modem?

i'll quote Russ:

"Really, Give me an example."

I gave you several examples demonstrating Microsoft's lack of love for open standards -- which you could not refute. Once again, I ask, what exactly are you arguing?

 

[gopunk]

maybe we should all just compromise and go with "microsoft loves open standards, except when they impede innovation"

 

[charrison]

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

 

[busmaster11]

Russ...

If I didn't respect your intelligent judgement around here, (or at least your knowledge of things) I would flame you for your subject line, which is a BIG stretch.

I'm politically liberal, but yet I dispise Reno and the DOJ's involvement in this matter. Most of what Microsoft is accused of is perfectly fine with me, except for perhaps playing favorites with some oems and bullying others that don't kiss their arse.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question of whether the Intel 2100 works with Linux really belongs over in Hardware, but as part time liberal, I'm just curious, Does it or doesn't it?

 

[nd]

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

Did you even read my post? I don't think you did. Look at what I said:

You did not see Microsoft try to adopt an open standard for these, and you certainly don't see them publishing documents of their formats. Now, that's their own business if they don't want to do that, and I'm not whining -- but it DOES mean they're not true supporters of open standards.

Note how I'm not criticizing them for being closed source at all. Why can't you guys keep your arguments straight? It's not that difficult.

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

Open API does not an open filesystem make. I don't know what you mean by reading/writing with "standard compilers". Do you know what you're talking about? Sorry to be rude, but you're really not making sense.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

Ah, the only clear way to follow up a misguided post -- make assumptions about my reasoning, convinced that I only have ulterior motives and couldn't possibly have a point. FWIW, Microsoft can keep their code. They're the ones that are anti-GPL yet pro-BSD-style open-source-license because they can't steal GPL'd code.

But let's not stray from the original discussion too much. I am not talking about whether it's Good or Evil to utilize/support/publish open standards, I am saying that Microsoft does not love them. None of you MS apologists have been able to refute this yet, despite claims that they are.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?