Firefox's 'retreat' ensures Microsoft excels

Contractor UK ^ | Aug 22, 2005 | Contractor UK

[for-q-clinton]

Outlook is not available for UNIX desktop clients. Even Outlook Web Access isn't full featured on anything other than IE. It's embrace and extend again... the Outlook functionality can only be fully used on Windows.

That doesn't explain how EXCHANGE become so popular. OWA didn't get really good until recently, but before that EXCHANGE was already #1.

Firewalls and proxies meanwhile are standards based. If Microsoft tried to do with TCP/IP what they do with app protocols, it just wouldn't work.

Last I remember is that Email was standards based too. It looks like M$ just knew how to make it more user friendly. I remember when I was installing my first exchange server (after we tried to use EUDORA and POP3 UNIX servers)...the user base was never happier. But I guess that's evil M$ making them like their products.

[adam_az]

"Actually you're right I didn't read your thread. However, when one spouts off saying the admin mod corrected your behavior generally tells me that we have a whiner and cry-baby in the house."

GE linked back to that thread in this one, and his mischaracterization of my position was the same in this thread as it was in the thread he linked to. He was chastized for the same thing on the very thread he linked to.

...Just like he resorts to the pathetic tactic of red baiting on this thread. Calling other long time FReepers communists because they like open source software?... that's pretty sad, especially since FR runs on open source software.

[antiRepublicrat]

Is it too hard to admit that they provide good products at a good value for their user base?

Is "good" relative? Most of their products are inferior to the competition, but "good enough" for people who don't bother to do their research. Their most excellent products, such as Visio and Virtual PC, aren't their creations, just purchased in the last few years.

I do have to give them credit for some excellent games, and for making the first ergonomic mouse. I also have to give credit for the latest Visual Studio, although not very stable, it's very capable. And C# is goodness in general.

There must harbor some deep resentment for M$ in order to pull off that type of twisted logic.

Any resentment I have stems solely from having used their products since the late 80s. Microsoft has been the majority of my computer usage since then, with various forays into other worlds such as UNIX and Mac. For the most part, I feel deprived every time I come back to the Microsoft world.

[adam_az]

" Yeah, but the funny thing is you got scolded by the admin mod too. So we have the pot calling the kettle black."

I pointed that out myself. Go back and read the thread, it's linked to more than once in this thread. Then make up your own mind.

"But I'll ignore your posts from here on out (or at least try to resist the urge to respond) as I don't want to get in a heated discussion to have someone pull the "abuse" button on me."

If you don't want to be on a board where the abuse button is there for bearing false witness and name calling, then this isn't the board for you. If you can post without putting words in other peoples mouths repeatedly namecalling, then welcome aboard. Commenting without reading a thread is another longtime FR tradition, but expect to be called on it.

That said, your playing wounded act in this thread in this thread is less than a stellar performance, but doesn't rise to the level of abuse. If the worse you get is passive aggressive, I doubt anyone will complain.

The "abuse" button is to report abusive behavior.

"Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."

[for-q-clinton]

Welcome aboard? I've been here a lot longer than you and the only times I remember the abuse button getting used was to ZOT someone.

If it's so obvious that GE was doing what you're saying you can just let it stand as everyone will see what's going on. No need to tell mommy.

[adam_az]

"Welcome aboard? I've been here a lot longer than you"

You sure don't act like it.

"and the only times I remember the abuse button getting used was to ZOT someone."

For what, trolling? Repetitious namecalling and abuse? Ahhhh.

"If it's so obvious that GE was doing what you're saying you can just let it stand as everyone will see what's going on."

1) You are free to act how you want, but don't disrespect other people for having a different standard than you about something so minor.

"No need to tell mommy."

That's just plain obnoxious, not to mention grossly inverted, especially since it's you who is acting like a passive aggressive child.

[for-q-clinton]

Kind of hard to see what was said or done in that thread. 2 posts were removed. However, if your quote is all he did then shame on you for reporting it. I saw where GE said "I'm done arguing with idiots or I'll get banned" Or something to that affect.

If that's all it was (and that's the worse I could see in that one thread you posted), then get some thicker skin. I've been called all kinds of names. As long as they aren't curse words then all that happened was your feelings got hurt.

[for-q-clinton]

So by your standard I should hit the abuse button. Because you just called me a name.

You sure don't act like it.

What is that supposed to mean?

Also it's you who is acting like a passive aggressive child.

Now explain to me how that's not name calling and why using your standard one shouldn't hit the abuse button. And remember you've already been warned once by the admin mods--so you may be looking at a ban if you keep calling names.

[Bush2000]

Yet you just mentioned the "global" Linux community, not the American one.

The point was that the Chinese aren't making significant contributions to Linux -- which is what you and others have been trying to sell.

[Bush2000]

Who cares if attorneys are in there, anyway? How can an attorney know what the chicoms are looking for in MS sourcecode? How can they stop them from using it to write exploits when they return to china?

Whether or not the Chinese can see the source code in the presence of whoever says little about the security of the code. Security through obscurity doesn't work. There are plenty of ways to test the security of code without seeing the source code (fuzzing, etc). But that's kind of beside the point, anyway. What concerns me the most is handing over source code to the Chinese and letting them deploy it without paying a single cent for it. Code is machinery. It has intrinsic value. Anyone that contributes code to the Chinese (and North Koreans, as well) is helping to prop up a corrupt, totalitarian regime that would like nothing better than to crush the United States.

[Bush2000]

I was referring to UNIX, of which Linux is a variation, specifically in that it uses the very UNIX security model that Microsoft is finally emulating.

You weren't making any point. You were trying to sidetrack the conversation with a new straw man.

[Bush2000]

Somebody tell redhat (American Company) they are ripping off American commercial interest.. Tell them to pass it on to Novell.

You just don't seem to get it. You can pull out a few token American companies that are redistributing Linux (Red Hat, Linux) -- but the fact remains that Linux is being heavily used by foreigners to supplant commercial UNIX (Solaris, etc), which was pioneered in the United States and which provided American jobs, etc. Now, all of that value is being offshored. You can continue to deny it, but it's a fact.

[N3WBI3]

When American companies Like MS, IBM, Sun, Dell, BEA, and others shart shipping jobs to India, China, and the like they had to get off their high horse about how good they are for the American IT employee.. I suggest you get off of it as well.

[Bush2000]

They PIRATE Windows, too.

The Red Chinese and Korean governments don't trust commercial implementations provided by American companies, believing them to be proxies for the CIA and NSA. The only way that the ChiComs would use Windows is if they simply had no other choice. But since you're providing them a choice for free, they're more than happy to take advantage of Linux.

[Bush2000]

No matter what OS they run it on, the actual simulation software is extremely complex and not available.

The Chinese already have simulation software. Migrating it to clusters -- as Los Alamos has already done -- wouldn't be difficult. I'm sure that they could enlist a bunch of you OSS zealots. You guys could brag and joke about it on Slashdot to your buddies, about how proud you are that you prevented MS, Sun, and other American companies from providing nuke simulation software to the Chinese...

And Windows Cluster Edition is coming soon -- remember, it's okay if China has nukes as long as Bill made money off it.

I'm opposed to ALL technology transfers to China. Period.

But if they did get the software, you'd fine as long as China is running MS NukeTest instead of PHP Nuke (oh, wait, that doesn't have anything to do with nukes).

No, I wouldn't be fine with it. See above. My position is consistent. Yours isn't. You guys would love to see China running Linux everywhere, regardless of whether it's being used to track dissidents, run military simulations, and target us with nukes.

[Bush2000]

Namecalling and misrepresenting again.

No, fact. You support releasing exploit code if a vendor isn't "responsive enough". It isn't enough to point out the vulnerability. You want to give tools to script kiddies to wreak havoc.

[adam_az]

They didn't release exploit code in the other thread

They released a a POC *after* notifying MS and *after* MS denied there was an issue.

Spin it any way you want. MS was notified and did not take it seriously.

[adam_az]

I am providing them nothing, lol. Take your beef up w the Finnish embassy.

GE is on the record as being OK w BSD, are you? It was developed w taxpayer $, too.

[Bush2000]

Microsoft is number one for several reasons. Bill got lucky and had his OS used on the new IBM system.

Lucky? Talk about ridiculous statements. Gates was brilliant. He turned an investment of $50K into billions of dollars in licensing revenue.

Since IBM owned business, this is that got used by everybody. Then Microsoft made its windowing system sit on top of DOS, making an easy upgrade. Then it built another windowing system using the same APIs so it would be compatible with the previous, allowing an easy upgrade path again.

And what does this have to do with "luck"? MS was competing against IBM. As you say, IBM owned business. It wasn't luck that made Windows successful. IBM ignored DOS at its own peril, just as Lotus ignored graphical Excel, just as Novell ignored integrated file/print servers, etc... That's a helluva string of "luck".

So, take IBM's dominance and predatory business practices, throw in a few of Microsoft's own predatory practices, and you have the reason Microsoft is number one in a few areas.

You've already contradicted yourself. If IBM was predatory and controlled "business", then MS should never have been able to gain a foothold in the market. But it did, despite all that. Face it: The reason that MS succeeded is that it was smarter than its competitors. IBM, Lotus, Novell, and countless others made incredibly stupid decisions.

You also have the reason why Microsoft operating systems are far behind others in architecture and security.

First of all, it should be pointed out that truly sophisticated desktop operating systems rivaling workstations only really came into existence within the past decade. Linux came into being without any of the baggage associated with DOS or Win9x, and this baggage was a drag on MS's ability to modify its OSes. MS couldn't simply change Windows wihout incurring huge compatibility problems -- and compatibility is one of the virtues that MS offers that keeps it on top of the desktop OS market. You can deny this, if you like, but Linux simply isn't going to take away market share from Windows any time soon, based on that concept alone.

Nonetheless, like Windows Server 2003, MS has changed all of that in Vista. Obviously, security has become as big of an issue as compatibility. It is enforcing the use of LUAs (Limited User Accounts) to prevent malware from installing itself. Apps that previously required Admin access won't be able to run without a password; essentially equivalent to doing a "su name password app". As well, all of the remote services will be locked down by default and will need to be enabled individually. Server 2003 has an excellent security track record. Even you will have to admit this. Compare RHEL to W2003. Vista is being built on top of the Server 2003 codebase, which is solid code.

[adam_az]

'You guys would love to see China running Linux everywhere, regardless of whether it's being used to track dissidents, run military simulations, and target us with nukes.'

nope just want you to stop putting words in our mouths, lying about our statements, exaggerating, and trolling.