Re: De Icaza's love affair with Microsoft is not new
It pretty clear you have no idea of what COM and ActiveX really are. Hint: they are not just IE plugins...
2907 posts • joined 28 Feb 2010
It pretty clear you have no idea of what COM and ActiveX really are. Hint: they are not just IE plugins...
You see the difference? A large part of what companies like Google does happens on their servers, thereby even if they use the GPL they are not forced to give anything back, because they don't distribute their code to end users, unlike Apple and Microsoft.
So Google can reap the benefit of GPL without any of its adverse implications on Google's IP, because most of Google code never leaves Google machines.
People should take some time to read and understand the licenses they talk about...
LOL! Google reaped the whole Java ecosystem to make it data slurping OS with the little investment it could. Harmony was Java. Dalvik was Java. Google used them just to attempt to avoid to license Java, while still being able to use Java tools and libraries to make Android work. Nobody says Android development is not made in Java. MS licensed Java but tried to add Windows-only extensions. Google stole the whole Java design without even getting a license, sure it would have got support by fanboys who still believe Google is not evil as much as Microsoft...
Ask yourself (and Orlowski) why the NATO cyber centre is in Tallin... Probably the donkey has a smartcard and knows how to use it, unlike the US were getting rid of magstripes looks an hard task...
That said it's ok for me to use an electronic id to access government services (Italy has something alike in its National Services Card), but I would never use it to access Gmail...
Rugby is a very British sport, to allow men hug each other without any kind of protection...
That doesn't mean you should not have a few, very few, local users with very strong passwords for emergency situations. What you should avoid is having lots of users, many of which maybe no longer active, maybe with weak passwords on each device.
Rarely a single domain fits the needs of medium and large companies. Sometimes, you'll need a forest and proper trusts to ensure authentication (and authorization) happens the correct way while trying to get more elevated privileges is not so easy from "less" trusted domain. I.e. the network gear administration domain should not accept blindly users - and even administrators - form the sales one.
Also, use delegation to make some common tasks available to other people without giving them full administrator permissions.
I was a bit surprised the article talks about TACACS+ and not RADIUS. It is true the former should be more secure than the latter, but it is also less supported. Both can be anyway integrated with AD, and perform thing like putting the user - after authentication - on the correct VLAN regardless where it connects to (wired or wireless).
Samba offers now its own implementation of AD - you can also use your combination of Kerberos and LDAP, just it will require more work to setup and maintain it.
Linux distros should agree on an AD competitor easy to setup up and use, but it looks nobody is really interested in it. Why I can't explain.
Maybe graybearded Linux admins are afraid to lose their job if Linux becomes too easy to administer in larger setups... <G>
Nowhere is said you should have a single domain managing everything.
For the perimeter stuff you could setup a dedicated domain - you still get the benefit of centralized management of accounts (instead of having them replicated on every device, probably with the same password stored locally...), while keeping the domain segregated from the internal network.
AD is built upon Kerberos and other technologies which are regarded secure.
What is your proof it isn't secure? And with what more secure technology would you replace it?
Or feel free to retract...
Do you use Google Analytics or any other service on your site? If you take advantage of Getty image storage and deliver, why shouldn't you use the widget? You can still buy the rights on an image and use it as you please...
There's still a bit different between users that sign cheques for thousands and thousands (if not millions...) of dollars/euro/<other currency> for server operating systems and those who get them for free...
Even Google may slurp less if you actually pay.
... is in the middle of a forest? (start in the middle, build roads to it, then along roads build other buildings, than new roads among buildings, and so on... until the forest is no more)
No abandoned industrial areas to reuse? They are a little more expensive to clear than a forest, aren't there? But it also mean more jobs...
300 construction workers? From where and for how long? And after?
Nadella may no longer follow a direction that would impact MS as well (being able to download any file on a user PC for "troubleshooting purposes"?? No privacy issue here, eh?), but if his attempts will work if yet to see.
The push to the cloud has nothing to do with a data-slurping OS - unless it's a move to make you believe there's no difference if your data are local or not. if trust means "equally not trusted", MS will lose from it more than Google, for historical reasons.
Nadella looks to me like a fly trying to get out a room - it has no real strategy, it just bumps here and there where it see some light, hoping to find a way...
Besides the really outdated POP3 (still useful for simple services, true), systems like X.400 which are mostly confined to specific sectors, and proprietary protocols like ActiveSync, what's available and fully interoperable over the Internet?
I don't usually use a webmail and I keep easily in sync my three devices (PC, tablet and phone), across multiple accounts (private and public ones).
IMAP is a standard protocol (there are proprietary ones also) designed to easily keep clients in sync across devices. It doesn't really matter if the device is a fat client, a phone app or a web mail. Actually, most webmail applications does connect to the mail server through IMAP.
Just, of course, the mailbox needs to be stored on a server, so each client can sync. That's why "trusting" the server becomes important. Most free mail servers allows also IMAP connections, you just need to configure your client - of course your mail are stored on their servers.
Yes, and from where it downloads them from, before storing them locally? Do you believe it captures your mails as they travel on the wire? And when you send a message, what delivers your message to the final destination? Or do you believe TB contacts directly the destination server?
Which is was I wrote between parentheses... I don't trust my ISP server either, it's just a "bulk" service offered without much care, usually.
But there are some other mail services you may trust - just may not be free.
Downvoters really need a "mail 101" course. If you use an "untrusted" mail server, even if you download your emails using POP3 and delete them from the server ASAP, still your emails goes through the external server, and unless you use full end-to-end encryption, the mail server can still access (and extract data from...) all your emails. The fact you don't keep them stored there is irrelevant. The fact that you use SSL/TLS (and not S/MIME or PGP) to read or send them is irrelevant, the server still sees mails in plain text. And even if you encrypt a message, the server still can read the headers... so it does know the subject, recipients, and other info.
Moreover, now that people access mails from more than one device, it's a bit difficult to keep them in sync without storing them on the server and accessing them with a protocol designed for easy syncing like IMAP4. You need a mail server you fully trust... if you trust Google & C. is up to you...
Maybe because you're using a platform for which Outlook is not available?
AFAIK Z-push is more a server side implementation of ActiveSync than a client one. And being ActiveSync a MS IP, the license should apply as well - it's the protocol to be patented, not the implementation.
MAPI AFAIK doesn't require a license (but of course the Exchange CALs...) but it's more difficult to use, and while with recent versions of Exchange it can also be accessed over HTTP(S), in older ones it is still a RPC based protocol, and requires a lot of plumbing to work.
While on Windows there could be some support, on other platforms that becomes more complex. Projects like OpenMAPI looks to be dragging their feet a lot.
Right. but for this you not only need your own mail client, you need your own mail server as well (or at least one that doesn't "crawls" your mails and address books). Using TB or whatever else to access your gmail (or whatever else) account doesn't help unless your mails are fully encrypted.
Unluckily using the ActiveSync protocol to sync with Exchange requires a license from Microsoft (see https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/technologylicensing.aspx), which I'm quite sure the Document Foundation will never ask because of its ideology - but I may be wrong.
Not sure if other ways to interact with Exchange still needs a license, but they are far more complex and harder to use outside a LAN, and less supported (especially if they are a reverse engineering effort).
This is the reason Mozilla became actually very, very consumer oriented. It really doesn't care about business users - but of course you don't pay for its software so you can hardly blame them.
Within Mozilla business model, it's hard to make money from a mail client - and thereby no reason to invest in its development.
LibreOffice could try to add it to its office suite in an attempt to counteract Outlook somehow in the business space - today is especially the business user needing a fat mail client - yet if enough resources are available is to be discovered...
... makes far easier to shuffle money around among Luxembourg, Ireland, and The Netherlands... of course, that offshoring issue... is not important as long as nor UK nor EU take a stance against it...
In Exchange you can allow mobile connections only from the users/devices you "trust". If you didn't set the policies you need already, it's time to do it...
Yes, just don't believe the same UI with a few tweaks can satisfy both. The OS must switch UI fully depending on what is running on. All a user needs is a consistent enough UI - not exactly the same one.
Just, actually, it also means the death of *personal* computing...
Yes, you can spot them easily. They are the ones that took more than others to start, and don't have a native UI. The Vodafone app I use is one those, but being one I use seldom, I may not care.
A web application can be great for simpler interactions you don't use often. It could be a curse for more complex interactions you need often.
The overwhelming preference for applications instead pure browser based services on phones and tablets shown people prefer ways to perform a task quickly and proficiently instead of having to mess with a Jack-of-all-trades application still rooted in a 'page' display and hyperlink metaphor and which requires to download the whole app every time you use it, with severe data cap and security implications also.
Also, people may like to synch with a remote storage, but wish to have a copy locally also. You may not want to re-download the images you're going to show, or the music you want to play, every time.
That's why Android was better received than ChromeOS,
And news like companies cutting your 'free' space or changing other conditions of your remote services won't increase trust of relying too much on anything you can't control well enough.
... crooks are sending fake speed tickets impersonating the Swiss police. The letters (they are plain mail letters, to be more effective), are sent to people living nearby the border and contains details like correct names and addresses, 'fiscal code' (a sort of ssn, it can be computed, but it requires the date and place of birth also), plate numbers, and so on.
It looks to me some database has been compromised, and given the target, my guess is it could be one of those run by Regione Lombardia IT branch, but till now, despite the warning about the fake letters, no news about a data leak has been given..
It could also some insurance company database as well, what worries me is till now nobody cared about where those data came from...
... what can go wrong?
... explains a lot about his articles.. :-)
Yes, determined exactly the same way the EU is going to demonstrate Google Android is a monopoly. Or do you mean MS was a monopoly just because it was MS? While Google is not just because it is named Google and not MS, despite acting the same way?
MS too had "demonstrable competition" back then, if you wish... just being in a "dominant position" and abusing it means you work actively in crippling any competition using your sheer size, regardless of your company name...
ZFS is not a general purpose file system. It is true to work well it needs a lot of RAM (nothing that an actual server can't deliver), but its reliability comes at a cost. Great for some use, not so great for others.
Sure, ARM, for example, is a well known US/Chinese company... Android is built on Linux kernel, and all we know Linus was a US boy...
Sure, why fragment the desktop OS market too? Everything was better when MS ruled, wasn't it?
The true issue is that Google has to ensure Android funnels user data through Google services, not through competitors one.
Using open source was a strategy to cut down development costs of the OS itself and the tooling to develop, while looking "good" the the FOSS fanboys (good PR for free) - but of course the real money doesn't come from handset sales or license fees, they come from user data and advertising. Thereby any fork that bypasses Google funnels is dangerous to the Google core business - which is not making a mobile OS.
After all, that closely reminds the MS case - MS wanted Windows anywhere because it would have sustained the sales of its other products being able to set the game rules- especially when having a full knowledge of protocols and formats denied to others (that EU ruling against it was IMHO even more important than the IE/MediaPlayer one), Google wants its Android everywhere because it does sustain all those data gathering and advertising activities it needs.
Sorry, but the very idea of FOSS - GPL especially - is not exactly to be able to fork? Google too is piggybacking on a lot of work made by others using Linux and a lot of open source code and tools. It went so far to copy Java to avoid to get any Java license... why Sun and then Oracle shouldn't recoup their investment in Java as well?
It's funny that Google supporters like to endow Google with "rights" they routinely deny others. Is Oracle evil? Sure. Google is as well.
The problem in US is that politicians are too afraid to touch the companies that feed them... since a cap to founding politicians was declared illegal, and politicians costs skyrocketed (more than one year of presidential campaign? Are you kidding? Cut it to one-two months and costs will be hugely cut as well), politicians need to find funds, and some rich companies will be happy to fund them, as long as they don't enforce any anti-trust rule (or others) on them. Sherman will be rolling in his grave...
Apple has no dominant position in the EU. Google has.
Exactly - just to get access to those APIs you need to enter a license agreement with Google because they are not part of the core and open source Android...
It looks to me that there's a new form factor for PCs - the convertible one - that needs processors less power hungry and less "hot", while still maintaining full x86 compatibility.
Moreover if more x86 CPUs find their ways in SDN hardware it should be also a boost for Intel sales, but again they may need specific developments.
Actually, if your business shrink, killing R&D is actually the wrong way to go. What could find new business opportunities if not R&D? I can understand it could impact the manufacturing lines because you have to plan for a reduced demand, sales, marketing... but R&D?
Microsoft has nothing to do with decreasing x86 sales (OSX and most Linux use them as well...) - unless you meant that what Intel needs is a new hyperbloated OS that can't run on older CPUs, more or less like Vista.
Today most PCs "overpower" their average users. Newer OSes and most applications run well on older machines too, while those obsessed by the need of having always the "latest and the greatest" are a minority of users (especially when they have to pay for it...)
Components quality is good enough to make the last several years. SSD disks have revitalized a lot of older PCs as well. People have to allocate their money on several different devices than just only one. And let's not forget in many areas of the world the economic outlook is still not good.
All together, that means that people and companies don't feel the need to replace most of their PCs before five years, or even longer.
Looking at the numbers published, the client group had more or less the same operating profit then the server and IoT group combined. IoT profits are still less than one tenth of the client unit profits.
It's clear PC sales are slowing down until they find a new equilibrium point due to the decreased need of updating them before five years, while people spend in other devices also. But that decline will halt, PCs are not going away, but maybe for the low-end users.
Meanwhile, IoT is pushed more by data slurping companies hoping to put their sensors everywhere around you than true user needs - most of the applications shown are pretty "meh". And the security implications don't help them to sell more as well.
I understand a company may want to act fast - but isn't Intel just panicking?
Deploying a capillary cabled infrastructure won't be helped by competition. Competition alone will mean you will be able to choose among ten competitors in Manhattan, and zero in other areas.
Companies will only go where they see a lot of money, and stay away from where the ROI is below their targets - especially if net neutrality neuters their ambitions to charge more for specific uses, and the only one who really see big money are the content providers (I like net neutrality, but I understand the impact it may have about investing in some areas).
If we believe the network infrastructure is of primary importance, almost a "right", then a different approach need to be followed. Look at what happened when pure competition was left to decide about the mobile phone infrastructure in the US: the result was incompatible networks using different technologies, which slowed down coverage diffusion.
AFAIK, a lot of people in the US got cabled internet through cable TV infrastructure - one that is in the hands of the TV company itself. Very different situation than that in areas where cable TV never became widespread and cabled Internet means xDSL or even fiber over a telco infrastructure, that may even be outside the hands of the telco provider, making switching provider far easier - and usually you can use your own router without being forced to pay a rent for proprietary boxes.
It's also no surprise poorer household are those that ditched the cable connection in greater number, but I guess also in some areas actually mobile connection can outperform fixed ones until many old copper cables are replaced by fiber.
You mean just like installing for free IE and Media Player in Windows?