Posted on 11/30/2002 8:22:03 AM PST by Eala
An anonymous reader writes
"Everything I have read concering MS's future plans: Palladium, Client/Server tie in, Office 11 breaking backward compatability, 3 year licensing plans, product activation - all leave me with a foreboding sense of the potential synergy for furthering Microsoft's goals of complete domination. Now this article tells about Longhorn's new filesystem being based on the the future Yukon server. And surprise it will only work with new hardware, which they want to be Palladium enabled. And all pitched to you under the rubric of Security & Efficency. For years MS has been accused of only wanting people to run MS Software. Now according to the article, 'Microsoft doesn't think computer users should have to use one program to read and write a word-processing file, another to use a spreadsheet, and a third to correspond via e-mail. Rather, the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.' One program to rule them all, one program to bind them, indeed."
I finally figured out Win 3.1 Beta.
(Gulping scotch.)
The thing is, our school district chooses NOT to upgrade to OSX because, in order to use previously purchase software that runs on OS9.x, you have to have BOTH OSX and OS9.x on the computer. Therefore, you sometimes have 2 operating systems running. (Yes, Apple is just a smaller monopoly than MS.)
Clara Lou, I am on through my main home Linux machine ("vanilla" CD installation, i.e. untweaked, the kind most any non-technical person would do). On this machine I do all my browsing and e-mail.
I have also installed OpenOffice, though I haven't used it much. I'm told the current version is pretty compatible with MS Word, though possibly not with extremely complex documents. That could be a caveat, though I don't know the state of Wine et al these days (to allow you to run native MS Office).
Given your self-described usage pattern, I'm not sure why "software-limited" might be an issue. I've not found it software-limited -- but then, I wasn't really interested in playing my "Braveheart" game on it. *\:-)
OTOH, there was a CAD package I've been using (on Win98), and recently I downloaded the latest version. On Windows it froze -- repeatedly. So I downloaded the Linux version and used that instead. (Interestingly, the package was written for Linux and then ported to Windows -- so much for "software-limited.")
Oh. Linux has spoiled me in another way. I am so used to having 4 desktops (the default) to spread my applications around on, I get really annoyed when I get stuck on a Win machine with its limited desktop.
Oh, I beg to differ...
of course, security is a problem because of...
Microsoft itself!
so M$ is using a problem which THEY CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE as an excuse to completely close off the PC and insure themselves of MONOPOLY and CONTROL, the ideal strived for by every tyrant.
I am optimistic that it won't work: remember when IBM came out with a model of the PC to "supercede" their first model (after other companies like COMPAQ started to copy it). It (the PS2 i believehad a special proprietary bus which was impossible to copy, hence insured IBM could make a killing on hardware cards.
well, nobody bought it!
HOWEVER there is extreme danger in all of this if corrupt politicians get into the act. there will be HUGE sums of money floating around trying to get crooked pols to mandate this sort of system. remember the clipper chip, fritz hollings and the RIAA... if hilliary becomes president, watch out. also watch out that 9/11 and "security" consciousness doesn't fall into this trap... ANY government becomes corrupt if it has too much power.
if Intel pursues this design too far, it will be commiting economic suicide and the leadership in the chip business will pass over to VIA or AMD if these companies are smart enough to offer an alternative...
i would actually bet on someone like VIA since the AMD just wants to be another Intel.
the problem is that VIA is in ...Taiwan!
I keep wondering when (or if) MS is going to go too far and open the door for a competitor to grab the whole desktop market.
I mean, hey.. if you put people in the position of having to buy all new stuff anyway it looks like there would be some risk there. Even to a giant like MS.
I am posting using Mozilla under Red Hat 8.0 on a Dell XPS D300 purchased in February 1998. ( PII 300 ) For most straight surfing I use Opera.
They are terrified that XML will "let the cat out of the bag" so their Word monopoly and (.doc file) monopoly will make them irrelevant.
XML would make it really easy to pass documents around as well between browser, email, word processor, and spreadsheet, so M$ raison d'etre disappears!
Micro$oft recently stiff armed SUN when the later asked them to get together w/ others to hash out some standards...
Oh, but they'll try awful hard. This article is already seeding the clouds.
Enderle said the new file system will also function efficiently with hard drives holding at least one terabyte of data.... Such drives are expected to hit the market by 2004.
Can't EXT2 handle large partitions like this? The folks building SAN boxes have figured it out. But the question of how to back-up a disk that big is left as an exercise for the consumer?
Present a single, unified way of interacting with programs. Microsoft doesn't think computer users should have to use one program to read and write a word-processing file, another to use a spreadsheet, and a third to correspond via e-mail. Rather, the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.
Isn't this kinda what people use Windows Explorer for? Double-click a file and the proper program comes up to handle it based on its extension. Can MS convince computer users that they need a half-gig of memory to load this huge do-it-all program (assuming it's re-entrant) to handle all of their file needs simultaneously? You bet. Shiny stuff and flash attracts fish to hooks every day of the year.
But now for the Coup de Grace:
"This could bring a higher level of security than anything we've ever seen. It will almost completely prevent the platform from being compromised."
"Security". This'll get their attention. But note the word "almost".... it provides a convenient "out" for when the inevitable happens. At that point, the consumers will begin to realize that their security was not a design consideration; just the security of the copyrighted works and intellectual property they're leasing their limited rights to use... the way the owners want it to be used.
Game over. You lose.
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.