Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - KeePass Password Safe Classic Edition

   0.99c (May 14, 2005)

   I recommend KeePass to all... easy to use and to understand, all the features I need including the password generator. I really like the convenience of the high-quality, secure password generator.

2. Comment - EU Threatens Microsoft with Daily Fines

   0.99c (Dec 25, 2005 - 3:07 AM)

   Well done, fewt. You have very succinctly stated the core issue:
   
   "They are telling them to open the source to specific network components so competetors can write code to interoperate."
   
   Competitors would only need MS source for the Network Layer so that they can then demand further source code to move up the integrally linked OSI (Open Source Interoperability) network layers to the Application Layer -- which MS APIs already accomplish for them. They are given that ability by the APIs without need for the source. The obvious purpose then is to dismantle Windows. Allow me to elaborate:
   
   Layer 7: Application Layer (e.g. HTTP, FTP, etc.)
   Layer 6: Presentation Layer (aka Syntax Layer)
   Layer 5: Session Layer
   Layer 4: Transport Layer
   Layer 3: Network Layer
   Layer 2: Data Link Layer
   Layer 1: Physical Layer
   
   The goal is to gradually chip away at Microsoft IP rights by demanding successively more source to move up the OSI on a redundant parallel path to the APIs so that in the end Windows source would be completely open and Microsoft would no longer have a unique marketable product.
   
   Other MS products? The non-networking aspects of Windows? All are just as easy to attack once the case is manufactured for "Disclose your Source Code." As an example: With HTTP being just one of the protocals on the Application Layer, you would later "Of Course" need the source for Internet Explorer; just as you will have 'needed' it for Windows. Since Office supports FTP (as well as a host of other Application Layer protocals such as POP3, HTTP, SMTP and so on) it will be a natural progression to demand the source for Office as well.
   
   And so Windows Search falls as well as the Help and Support center and installation and virus detection and update abilities. And finally Windows Explorer. The sky's the limit.
   
   I cannot support such a seige.
   
   Imagine the Linux-like near anarchy of the phrase "Flavors of Windows." In that scenario, you create what you hate: a monopoly. How? OSX would then become the only commercially viable and accepted OS that is not fragmented by the uncertainty, rivalries and other difficulties of "flavors". Competition will have been eliminated for the Apple OS, another fine OS that will have been artificially set up for attack as well.
   
   Naturally, Apple source code would then come under attack.

3. Comment - The Truth About Windows Genuine Advantage

   0.99c (May 14, 2005 - 11:00 PM)

   I don't have a problem with MS wanting to protect their intellectual property rights. It ~is~ a right, you know.
   
   It's a wonder that ppl will bash MS for legitimately wanting to safeguard the fruits of their labor and knowing full well that those same bashers would jealously protect their own property from theft.
   
   Some will say that MS goes overboard in safeguarding their property. Face it, piracy and the users of pirated products goes on all around every one of us. Is it self-serving for MS to say so? Maybe. But I suspect anyone would do the same thing if it were your own valuable commercial product that someone was re-packaging for their own profit.
   
   It's robbery if it happens to you, so what is it if it happens to MS? My own understanding of the article is that MS concedes that a lot of end-users are using counterfeit copies of it's OS. Is MS generally filing lawsuits against end-users? No. Might they at some point? Maybe, but you definitely would [without delay] if it were your commercial product being ripped off. Are they going after the counterfeiters? Absolutely!
   
   MS concedes that piracy won't end and that they have no illusions to the contrary. Why would they allow security updates to go out to even pirated product? Security of even the pirated product is valuable to everyone, not the least of which MS who are contributors (whether anyone likes it or not) to the tech industry as a whole. Whether you like MS or not: "The enemy (virus creators) of my enemy (MS) is my friend."
   
   Frankly, I do like MS products. (I know: SUCH heresy!) I also like the open source community, linux, apple and a lot of other contributors to tech. They all have a very important seat at the table and contribute to different ~and~ like categories. Both competitively and in partnership.
   
   We all like "free", there's no doubt. Is it a crime against humanity to make whatever living you can (rich OR meager) out of your efforts? MS has a LOT of free stuff that you can get even without WGA if you'll just go get it.
   
   Possibly a larger number of items than the items they charge for. Or possibly more accurately, a LOT of bonus content, material, programs and etc for those who purchase their products. I like that. Other software companies probably only wish they could be as generous with their customers. (Oops! There I've gone and invited curses for using the "G" word :)
   
   You might be surprised after reading the above that I am against any KGB-like, police-state 'turning-in-your-neighbor' tactics in enforcing copy-rights or intellectual property rights. I'm okay with MS legitimizing end-user's pirated product in return for informing on the seller of the pirated product. But I think that's about as far as MS should go in those regards (and I hope if MS is reading this that they agree.)
   
   I'm a tech and I go out of my way to make sure that the products I pass on with the systems I sell are legitimate. However, I see other OEMs and builders who aren't as contientious. I don't think they are being malicious, for the most part. But here is where much of the problem of counterfeiting lies. The carelessness of system builders and OEMs, and I'll admit that sometimes it's greed, is the fertile market for counterfeiters.
   
   If I believed that the WGA was a method of 'stealing' my information or that MS routinely gathers the 'marketing information' of it's customers for general dissemination I would be a pre-dominately linux user. I'm not blind... I've always carefully watched for spam and other indications that any merchant that I do biz with might have created. I'm from 'back-in-the-day' when we had MS-DOS and PC-DOS (is anyone still out there who knows the difference? It wasn't really that long ago) and I rarely have a problem with most merchants. I admit you do have to do your homework, but it's worth it.
   
   Personally, I give MS 5-stars out of 5 in the privacy category (if not quite that in others. BTW, it's been since Win95 and only a couple times in 98 that I've personally had a BSOD or had to reinstall... I didn't even have a problem with XP SP2. No offense, but it's really a matter of how you take care of your system isn't it? Kudos to 'eunichman'.)
   
   Sorry, I couldn't resist. Back to the subject... someone said that MS "b****'s and moan's". I KNOW you would if it were Your livelihood that was at stake. Maybe it ~doesn't~ amount to billions or maybe it does; either way if it were happening to you in the same measure you'd be bankrupt for the next 100 lives (if there were such a thing; but that's a different topic ;)
   
   That's where I stand... I guess I've sat mute reading such c**p over the years that I finally had to jump in and give my half-cent.