 b_zenPremium
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO | reply to niplet
Re: Beware said by niplet:
do they have too much money? do they just charge to much?
or is it bc they are the king of the hill and everyone and their mother wants a crack at them and will do anything to take them down? which for one is why the majority virus and worms and trojan horses target MS specifically.
They do have the money, how they got there is not the point of this topic, nor was it a part of my "fear" (too big a word).
The resentment many of us have for MS, is due to their "glutton-like" business strategies and their costly and unreliable software. Microsoft is the king of the hill because most of us have grown up using their environment in schools, work or home computers. Having the ability to choose your favorite OS was not a choice we had.
Furthermore, most virus, worms, trojans are not written to take down the company, they're written to take over a system or group of systems for the cracker's specific ends.
Now like I said, it is not paranoiac to pay attention to Microsoft every moves, rumors and all, when one company can affect the daily lives (activities) of millions of users.
--
Bush&Co = BrainDead 2 *Get Smart in 2004, Vote NO to Bush&Co.* |
|
| said by b_zen:
Microsoft is the king of the hill because most of us have grown up using their environment in schools, work or home computers. Having the ability to choose your favorite OS was not a choice we had.
sounds like, "the resolution and frame rate of tv's are king of the hill because msot of us have grown up using the settings. Having the ability to choose 1600x1200 @ 120fps was not a choice we had." |
|
b_zenPremium
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO | Have you read what I was referring to? Also, english isn't my mothertongue... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| reply to b_zen
I really do not have resentment towards Microsoft.
Costly and unreliable? Costly depends on how you think about it. 80% (Not sure on the numbers) of the OSs used are Microsoft products. If it was too costly no one would buy it, they would go with the other OSs. Point being that Microsoft makes an OS that apparently is worth the money.
I did not grow up using Microsoft products in school, I grew up using Apple products in school. (How old are you?) The only people that I think grew up with PCs in the school (with Windows) are the latest generation and even still most of the schools I have seen are using Apple. People grew up using number 2 pencils for everything in school but the majority of adults do not use number 2 pencils for there work.
People still have a choice. I do use Windows on my PC but I also have a Unix PC (FreeBSD). Fact is most of my software will not run in a GUI environment on *NIX OSs. People can choose other OSs, including Apple or *NIX but they don't.
Microsoft cannot/will not solve spam, not alone. Making Windows wait wile sending is software on the PC which just means a spammer would not use a PC with that OS on it (which many do not anyway). A server side solution is where it is at with worldwide acceptance of a standard. Most mail servers are not Windows products. SPF is a good example and a good start. Bill Gates is talking out his *ss and does not have a solution to spam. The initial idea he put out is way wrong on the solution, he assumes his OS is king and the only thing people use/have to use. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to youngo
said by youngo:
sounds like, "the resolution and frame rate of tv's are king of the hill because msot of us have grown up using the settings. Having the ability to choose 1600x1200 @ 120fps was not a choice we had."
When I was working for General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas back around 1993, we used a new program called Microsoft Mail (I think that was the name). It worked fine in small companies, but not for our 25000 person company.
For over 6 months we kept getting promises that the fix was coming to let us use this powerful tool the way the spec said it could be used. One day the manager for computer support got on the phone with a manager from microsoft (after plowing through the peons) and was told that we were not getting our promised upgrade because the programmers were pulled for the kill Netscape project (a paraphrase, but close enough to what I personally heard).
Now you might ask what does that story have to do with this thread? Nothing, except to point out that Gates makes his own rules, and anyone who gets in the way will be crushed. If Bill did not have to worry about the backlash, he could crush open-source and Linux without thinking twice by his control over the majority of that type of system. Just look at the minor effort he expends overseas to keep big organizations from changing over. If he wants a true DRM system with M$ getting royalties and controlling access, then we will see it. And as another post here shows, he learned his lesson with Clinton and is buying politicians.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
|
|
| said by RayW:
said by youngo:
sounds like, "the resolution and frame rate of tv's are king of the hill because msot of us have grown up using the settings. Having the ability to choose 1600x1200 @ 120fps was not a choice we had."
When I was working for General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas back around 1993, we used a new program called Microsoft Mail (I think that was the name). It worked fine in small companies, but not for our 25000 person company.
For over 6 months we kept getting promises that the fix was coming to let us use this powerful tool the way the spec said it could be used. One day the manager for computer support got on the phone with a manager from microsoft (after plowing through the peons) and was told that we were not getting our promised upgrade because the programmers were pulled for the kill Netscape project (a paraphrase, but close enough to what I personally heard).
Must have been later than '93. For a company of 20K plus, IBM profs (sic) was still king of hill although very proprietary with Banyan mail having the ability to serve almost that many due to the advanced vines NOS and ccMail was emerging as the (client/server, Netware, on-the-cheap pc based) choice. Asking MS to forge-on to multi-server mail then was asking them to go to Mars in a week. Exchange didn't make prime time till the '95-96 time frame and we all know V.1.0 of anything "ain't there yet". The real holder of the client/server enterprise wide mail opportunity in the '93 time frame was Banyan and they failed to capitalize.
Also, I don't think MS saw the web as anything other than network CB radio back in the early '90, they missed it; remember Bill Gate's ballyhooed book where he failed to mention the internet?
They're just big and port other folks SW ideas to cheap multivendor platforms and they do it on a mass production scale; if you don't execute on a good idea they eventually roll over you. Yea capitalism! |
|
 AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| reply to keyboard5684
I think you are misunderstanding the way that penny black works, the mail won't be delivered unless the logic problem is solved. It doesn't matter what OS the sending computer is using, the logic problem will still need to be solved.
The CPU usage system was initially proposed by people outside of Microsoft. (read the penny black link in the article for details) |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | I saw a proposed implementation of this while watching the 2004 (anti-)spam conference at MIT. It doesn't seem like this is practical. Moore's law of computing power is one problem (sort of), mailing lists is another. Could you just imagine how long it would take to send out notifications of an available security patch? How many thousands or millions of recipients are there on the typical watch list like that? It would be time for the next OS release by the time the last recipient got the notice for the first update.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here |
|
AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO | The way I read the description of the system led me to believe that the end user can make a list of safe people to receive email from. The people on the safe list do not get a "here is a problem for you to solve" type response. |
|
