Posted on 03/01/2005 8:20:47 PM PST by ShadowAce
Is it me, or has there been a recent wave of headlines from Redmond that add up to a Microsoft clamp-down of the sort that could easily drive people away from destkop Windows? The most recent of these, which not surprisingly has drawn a very vocal reaction from some ZDNet readers, is a news story about how the grace period that allowed Microsoft customers to disable the automatic installation of the security update-laden Windows Service Pack 2 is coming to a non-negotiable end. (So says a page on Microsoft's Web site.) Says News.com's Ina Fried in the story, "Microsoft is alerting customers that it will soon start delivering Windows XP Service Pack 2 to all customers using Automatic Update, whether they want it or not." In other words, the only way to stop SP2 from being installed is to disable Windows' Automatic Update, which in turn could disable other updates that users want or need (for example, one like this that addresses a problem with third-party security software).
Larger enterprises can also redirect Windows AU feature to their own update servers. Even so, it seems as though Microsoft is becoming less flexible about the sort of granular control that end users and businesses can have over their desktops--an approach that's philosophically antithetical to the virtues of Linux as extolled by its advocates.
Even further tightening its control, in the same week that the SP2 news surfaced, Microsoft announced that in an effort to curtail misappropriation of the certificates of authenticity that come with pre-installed versions of Windows, it would disallow Internet-based activation of Windows for people looking to re-install Windows from the original media that came with their PCs. Let's forget for a minute that the idea of activating products runs counter to everything the Linux and open source community believes. Perhaps we should be asking if this is a sign that, once again in the history of PCs, another software copy protection scheme has failed. After all, as the technology was described to me back in the days when Windows XP was coming to market, Microsoft's Product Activation for Windows (WPA, not to be confused with Wi-Fi Protected Access) contained some rocket science for fingerprinting systems in a way that prevented the use of unauthorized duplicates of Windows. Apparently, that technology isn't working out. So, to address the problem, as well as Microsoft's discovery that one of its most promising revenue growth opportunities is to crack down on piracy, the logistics of managing Windows just got even more complicated.
In response to my question to Microsoft as to whether the move could be perceived as the Redmond, WA-based company becoming more inflexible and whether that inflexibility could come back to haunt Microsoft later, Microsoft's senior license compliance manager Alex Kochis told me via e-mail:
On the security front, the week was a dismal one for the Microsoft. One of the more common themes in e-mail from ZDNet's readers is how, based on the company's track record, Microsoft is the last company they can envision as their provider of security solutions for Windows. In what may be a validation point for people who share that sentiment, Microsoft issued apologies, compensation, and new software last week after its antispyware solution (by virtue of the company's acquisition
of Giant) flagged startpagina.nl -- one of MSN's biggest competitors in the Netherlands -- as, ahem, a malicious site. According to a Startpagina exec, it took Microsoft more than a few weeks to respond to telephone and written complaints.
Then, further drawing into question whether Microsoft can reliably run a service, customers of Microsoft's Hotmail service have not only been experiencing interruptions, they've lost data (new and saved messages). This isn't the first time that's happened, either. Hotmail's track record is not only drawing into question whether Microsoft can reliably run an Internet service, but also whether its platforms can support thousands of users in a mission-critical environment. After all, if Microsoft can't make its platforms run reliably, who can?
Microsoft discussion ping.
It's late for me, so I'm going to bed. I'll check back in tomorrow and see what the discussion is like.
Late for me too. Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping.
Anybody out there running Fedora Core 3 ?
This seems like a dumb question to ask. I mean, anytime a company makes their products harder to use the competition gains ground.
"Anybody out there running Fedora Core 3 ?"
Yes!
I have Mandrake 10.1 installed at work, couldn't get it to run right on this box so I tried FC 3. BTW, I am a total linux n00b...but I'm learning. :)
I think this statement, the final one, sums it up perfectly.
Microsoft is/was a great company, they rose to prominence despite others such as Tandy and Apple having a huge head start on them in the desktop computer business. Yes IBM had a role in that, of course, but Microsoft has benefited much more from their partnership with Intel than from IBM.
They not only dominate(d) in the operating system business they dominate in the packaged application business, and the application development business, although to a lesser degree there. Practically every one of their customers is a return customer, the highest possible compliment one can make.
Are they perfect? Hell no, but no one is, and it's doubtful anyone could have handled themselves in the crosshairs any better than MS has. And they are constantly in the crosshairs, from their competitors in the cut throat IT business, to the hackers looking for the largest and most prominent target, and from foreigners who see them as the single biggest example of American business dominance.
They have a lot of attackers, including those who are outright emotionally unstable with hatred and others who seemingly have devoted their lives to the complete destruction of Microsoft, simply because they have been so successful.
Yet, they persevere, and will for the foreseeable future, simply because when their products are compared to others, they still make it the easiest to do the most with a computer. And until someone else makes it easier to do more, little is going to change. Just ranting against Microsoft obviously doesn't work, you'll have to come up with something that provides more capability with less hassle. And I see nothing else on the horizon that promises that.
It's you! We've been hearing rumours of Microsoft's imminent death for several years now. Ain't gonna happen.
Let's face it, Microsoft offers a desktop that is easy to use, third party supports MS OS's that is an industry unto itself. Apple, offers a kickass *nix desktop to run on but their hardware is too expensive. Linux; way too many variables to deal with for the "common" user these days.
Your post from this source reminded me of an article I read last night.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39187111,00.htm
KDE getting ready to go native on Windows
Ingrid Marson
ZDNet UK
February 08, 2005, 14:50 GMT
The Linux desktop environment KDE is moving a little closer to Microsoft Windows as developers ready a release of QT, the KDE graphical framework, that will run natively on the proprietary operating system.
Ralf Habacker, a KDE developer who initiated a project to port the Linux desktop to Windows, said over the weekend that a native Windows port for Qt, the KDE graphical framework, will be released under the General Public License (GPL).
"The native GPLed port of QT/Win 3.3.3 will reach production state soon," said Habacker.
He said that people who have used the native port to build releases of Linux applications have only reported "minor problems".
At present, KDE fans who want to run the desktop on Windows have to use the Unix emulator Cygwin, which reduces performance. Habacker said in a recent post on the Sourceforge forum that performance is likely to be improved by running KDE natively on Windows.
The 'KDE on Cygwin' project team believes a Windows port is important as Microsoft users can try the open source desktop without switching their operating system, according to the project Web site.
"We think that KDE is a great desktop and has the opportunity to be a big player in the 'desktop environment' area," said a posting on the project's Web site. "Windows is the OS of choice for many companies. How does this square with the promotion of KDE? The answer is simple: build something that allows KDE applications to run atop Windows. This is the goal we are aiming for with this project."
But some KDE developers disagree that the desktop should be made available on Windows, and Habacker agreed there are differing opinions over the project. "Some developers like this idea, some do not," said Habacker. "The first group sees more the practical advantages, while the latter has more political objectives."
KDE developer Aaron Seigo said in a recent blog posting that making open source applications such as KDE, Firefox and OpenOffice available on Windows, means that users are less likely to switch to Linux on the desktop.
"By porting Free Software to Windows one increases the number of valuable applications on that platform," said Seigo. "Since application availability is a key factor in operating system usage, we can do the math pretty easily: if Windows has Microsoft applications plus the stable of Free Software apps while desktop Linux/BSD/etc has only the Free Software apps, why would anyone in their right mind switch to Linux/BSD (and incur the training and data migration costs) when they already have all the software they need and want right in front of them? They have no reason to. None. Ergo, they won't."
Copyright © 2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CNET Networks, Inc. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CNET NETWORKS, Inc.
For more info on the original project:
http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/
It's only a matter of time before you will no longer buy and own an operating system.
It will be some sort of subscription service.
I have a Fedora Core 2 I ran for quite awhile, but am not running Xandros V3 which is easier to use I think that Fedora Core 2....but not sure about security with it. My understanding is that that the major difference in moving from Core 2 to Core 3 is the kind of enhanced Security.
Was going to ask for observations on what they were and if there were other differences.
Damn fine distro outside of the DVD playback support..(freepmail me if you need the sources to play DVD's on 64 bit arch)
After many attempts to load Mandrake on my PC (dual-boot, dual-drive) with Win XP I gave up in failure. I downloaded and installed red Hat. That worked except it blew Win Xp away.
I figured I'll leave the Red hat and try it for a while.
Linux is good and bad.
Loads fast and is interesting to use. One big problem, though. Just try and load any software not bundled with Linux. It'll drive you to the brink of insanity.
Red Hat for some reason, does not come with a movie viewer. Loaded Xine and it outright sucks. Freezes almost every third or fourth use and I must reboot to get out of. Okay, I'll use a different viewer ... Mplayer.
Try to load the RPM version. I am now in dependancy hell. It's missing half a dozen dependancies. Try and load them and those dependancies are missing files. Those missing files are missing dependancies and so on and so on. Ridiculous!!!! After almost an hour of trying to track down all the missing libraries I gave up trying. Life is just too short for this.
I downloaded and installed AIM and it took 4 or 5 additional libraries to track down and eventually get loaded. Never got a good video player, HTML editor or P2P (gnutella) running because of this problem.
I feel that Linux will never be a popular desktop OS until loading of software is easier. The average user will never be able to install some of these things that almost all users want.
I think I could probably get to like Linux but there is just too much work involved to get simple applications working that could be installed correctly on MS the first time you try it.
As I said earlier, the avarage PC user will just get frustrated and give it up.
I am not so sure of that statement!!!!
If you LIMIT the desktop to just Webbrowsing, Xandros and others does a pretty fine Job, Not having Windows media Player is a drawback, but there is Flash, shockwave and Realplayer....AND lots less hassle with Viruses, Trojans, spyware,....right now!
How does having KDE on Windows help?
Does it change the Security situation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.