Microsoft is so committed to the cloud that it's throwing everything at rivals like Google to crack open the door on sales and gain momentum online. Chief operating officer Kevin Turner painted a rosy future for Microsoft in the cloud for Wall Street this week, but at the same time, Microsoft has been getting dirty. The Reg has …
Actually, it is a spiritual certainty holding things up .... whilst Man plays the Primitive Savage
.... rather than Primordial Sage.
"Apparently, it's a spiritual uncertainty over computing paradigms holding things up."
Ah yes, Gavin, a debilitating syndrome requiring XSS Code XXXX injections for willing generations of post modern enigmatic suspension of disbelief and viable constructive future imagination and novel information with advanced intelligence.
However/Nevertheless ..... for Some, who might be just a Precious Few, or even Many More than is Popularly Imagined, ...... for who knows, as Clouds are a Most Recent Post Modern Field of Command and Control and Offer Cyber Security Keys which unlock Any Earthly Treasure Store and thus are they and its IT Protocols bound to be, for reasons which provide both exceptional and unrivalled political and business advantage, Sublimely Secretive and one of those Known Unknowns that Only Need to Knows Know is a Known Unknown to a Precious Few ..... and in Cyber Domains with their Live Operational Virtual Environments, one can fully expect its IT and Cryptic Communications Developments to be Stealthily Cloaked so that even a Target of Interest which is Penetrated and Seeded for Effortless Remote Harvesting of Subsequent Issue and Future MetaDataBase, is Protected from knowing of its Own Foreign and Alien Viral Infection and Remote Viewing and Hosting Facilities and Capabilities.
For Some, who have long ago jumped over the petty hurdles of disbelief, is such an Endearing Innocent Ignorance, and AI Heavenly Bliss.
Surely you cannot reasonably expect, even in your wildest of dreams, that things remain the same as they are, or have been, whenever so much which is New and Real and Vital is Actually just Intellectual Property and Virtual with no Physical Manifestation to Prove an Existence.
Networks InterNetworking Clouds and World Wide Webs and Global Information Grids are all real enough, but also Untouchables and Intangible, and with Cyber Security Keys to unlock Divisive Operating Systems' with Linked and Linking Windows and Doors, can one Wander at Leisure with Insatiable Pleasure through Earthly Perfumed Gardens of Manic Delights.
A constantly exciting journey and Magical Mystery Turing Trip well enough known by the both the Licentious and Sophisticated Parisienne Madame ....... and Lauded and Revered for its Boundless Success with Excesses.
This guy wastes time
Check his posts, they make absolutely no sense.
If you can't ban him please add an ignore function if it's not much work on your web application.
be careful what you reveal
". . . they make absolutely no sense."
To you maybe. :) The rest of us are not having so much trouble.
Since when is banning and ignoring things we don't understand a Good Idea(tm)? A man from mars's comments are often very insightful (though cryptic). This particular comment being a good case in point.
Give the Martian an even shake. I'll take him over the average trolls, "wits", internet tough guys, and fan boys any day.
Microsoft gets d1rty wiFF gMail CLoDU vCASH fiGHT
> To you maybe. :) The rest of us are not having so much trouble, Ole Juul
Have you been groking the same magic mushrooms as amanfromMars
"micorsoft iz sO committed tA da cloud d4t it"sthorwin geverythimng at rvals liek google ta craX0r 0pen d4 sdo on salez na' gain m0menrtum onjline. LOLOLOLOOLLOL.. e"
He's probably some professional astroturfer paid to piss all over any forum critical of MICROS~1
Note: on MS cloud, MS owns your data
Same is true for Google, so who you gonna' trust?
Bottom line, CIOs - any data you host on "the cloud" is owned by the cloud.
Think about that.
Fourth Amendment does not apply. No-one needs "probable cause" to subpoena YOUR data. Your data is "owned" by the cloud company. Really. Talk to your lawyer if you you're uncertain. If he/she says "you're OK" then find a better lawyer. You're not "OK".
And after you talk to your lawyer, please PLEASE talk to your Congresscritter to get this fixed. It seriously needs fixing
Fourth amendment? Congresscritter?
What-a you talk-a boot-a, willis-a?
Data be evil, or the BSOData. Choices, choices.
surprised MS isn't hammering on this
I think that a lot of people are paranoid about sharing data with google whose billions are based on the premise that any information they can get their claws into is a potential source of revenue. Then, google launched Buzz as an opt-out service for all its users and further demonstrated that they don't particularly care about the security of their user's private data.
By contrast, Microsoft, while they have had security holes in their products, the source has always been technical, rather than intentional, and they do take security very seriously. Microsoft has a lot of credit as a company that caters to enterprises and understands their needs, and they don't have nearly the financial incentive to "process" their client's information. While Gmail is a pretty darn swell product, and google documents are nice, if I were making a corporate purchasing decision for web-based e-mail and document storage, I think the question of trust would be a very compelling argument for MS.
If the cloud provider company holding your data is based in the USA, then the Patriot Act (and probberly others) requires that the cloud provider handeth over the data. So, all your base are belong to Uncle Sam.
Good times, good times.
35 years of selling Windows?
I don't recall PCs in 1975 ...
At most 25, but realistically more like 18 years. The first independent version of Microsoft Windows, version 1.0, released on 20 November 1985. However, Windows 3.1, was the first viable version that prompted people to move from pure DOS and it was first sold during March 1992.
To the tune of a nice pyramid scheme
Every time you might be fooled into thinking they're up to something new, they're not. This is their old bullying tactics all over again. You know, the very thing that makes them so widely hated in the first place. Only now they've shrunk in the face of bigger, different gorillas. They're no longer hot or universally feared.
Anyway, I'm just really glad I'm not in a big enterprise. Notes and exchange both aren't very good email serving applications at all. I'm told they're fine "collaboration suites" and that works as long as you limit yourself to looking inside your own company. As soon as you have contact with the outside it becomes obvious your email systems are pretty poor. There's a strong correlation with the content of the emails before mangling also being pretty poor. Curious, that. I really don't want to know what the daily struggle at the big corp is like. One'd almost believe the el reg take on the carly merger just has to be true.
No such thing as "unlimited money" (or a free lunch)
Microsoft does have lots of cash, but one of the provisos for staying in business is to bring in more money than you dump into "incentives" like this.
They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot lately with their "also-ran" strategy (if you can call it a strategy) of coming out with competing products to other companies successful innovations at enormous cost, then using their piles of marketing cash to force it down consumer's throats (again, at enormous cost). Google just comes up with useful products and gives them away (in return for advertising exposure, or just to be nice as in their VP8 video codec). Their products sell themselves on their own merits; they do not have to bribe people to use them (as does Microsoft -- who always attach many strings to their "free lunch" giveaways).
To Microsoft, money makes the world go round. To them, there is nothing wrong with people being paid for holding "Windows 7" parties, or being paid for using their search engine, or partners being paid to eliminate a competitor via targeted anticompetitive business practices (another lawsuit brewing as we speak?). Microsoft seems to view all people and politicians as "prostitutes" who can be bought for the right price. But when dealing with people, whom do you trust more, those earning a "commission" for selling only one company's product, or someone who has the customer's best interest at heart? I think that Microsoft's manipulative business practices are self-defeating in the long run, placing other companies (like Google) who seem to respect and value their customers (and treat them as people, and not just as wallets or chumps that can be bought) at a competitive advantage.
If MS wants to get ahead in my book....
... it doesn't need to get dirty ... it needs to get clean.
I want search results based on site reputation; longetivity, hits, etc. Google went and ruined that when it started selling key words and allowed people to pay to get their rankings higher.
When Google started spoon feeding me doctored results, that is when I stopped using them.
Give me honesty, and I'll give you my searches. Try spoon feeding me an advertisers agenda and I'll go elsewhere.
Google spoon feeding doctored results
Like where .. dude ?
One could, of course, compete by offering a better product at lower cost - but that just doesn't seem to be Microsoft's preferred modus operandi....