Attn: Yoshi

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 18

Attn: Yoshi

Author:

detikon

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Apr 17, 2002

Comments:

139

Next time actually do a little research. And if you don't know what any acronym stands for look it up rather than resorting to making something up. Ah hell, everyone would still think you're an idiot.

Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game (eWeek)

More diaries by detikon

	Trustworthy Computing !?!
	If it ain't broke...break it!
	Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry
	Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]
	[ I just can't ] stop whining
	Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?
	What is MS really saying?
	Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?

Other Stuff
------------------
Microsoft Warns of 10 IIS Flaws
Apache Avoids Most Security Woes
IIS: Stay or Switch?
Microsoft Takes Security Defense
Trusting in Microsoft Interview with Microsoft CTO Craig Mundie
IE, Apache Clash on Web Standard

Software
----------------------
Known as the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer, the tool, which can be downloaded here , runs on Windows 2000 and XP systems and uses a version of the company's HFNetChk program to look for missing patches and service packs in Windows, IIS and SQL Server. It can also identify vulnerabilities and missing hotfixes in NT 4.0, Windows 2000, XP, IIS 4.0 and 5.0, SQL Server 7.0 and 2000, Internet Explorer 5.01 and later, and Office 2000 and XP.

Web Server Surveys
---------------------------------
Netcraft
Security Space

	Hey, guess what? (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:36:27 AM PST

	No one here cares. Your trolls are inadequate, and will be ignored by the good editors, posters, and even lowly AR's of this fine site.

	I believe... (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 05:01:11 AM PST

	...that some other reader mentioned that this would likely be the best way to negate the stupidity of various diaries and stories submitted by Yoshi. Seeing as how posts made by Yoshi and osm are generally identical, it is a great way to discredit those from osm as well. I myself am looking forward to similar stories/diaries which do the same in regards to diaries/stories/posts from elenchos as well. I have to agree with detikon as well as many others. It's perfectly fine to fancy one piece of software over the other, but to resort to ridiculous claims based on general lack of knowledge is not. Example: HTML -- Yoshi >> Microsoft HyperText Movement Language Protocol Real >> Hypertext Markup Language (a documnet format not a protocol) The document format used on the World Wide Web. Web pages are built with HTML tags (codes) embedded in the text. HTML defines the page layout, fonts and graphic elements as well as the hypertext links to other documents on the Web. Each link contains the URL, or address, of a Web page residing on the same server or any server worldwide, hence "World Wide" Web. HTML 2.0 was defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) with a basic set of features, including interactive forms capability. Subsequent versions added more features such as blinking text, custom backgrounds and tables of contents. However, each new version requires agreement on the tags used, and browsers must be modified to implement those tags. HTML is not a programming language like Java or JavaScript (if this, do that), rather it could be considered a "presentation language." HTML is derived from SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language, which is widely used to publish documents. HTML is an SGML document with a fixed set of tags that, although change with each new revision, are not flexible. A subset of SGML, known as XML, allows the developer of the page to define the tags, and HTML 4.0 and XML 1.0 have been combined into a single format called "XHTML," which is expected to become the standard format for Web pages. XHTML also enables Web pages to be developed with different sets of data so that handheld devices, with limited screen sizes, can download abbreviated pages.

	Why? (none / 0) (#14)
	by elby on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:43:28 AM PST

	Why do you computer people always think the general public cares about your acronyms and pedantic corrections in mind numbing detail? We don't need a 250 word dissertation on the subject. Is it not enough that we are interested in discussing an issue? It is no wonder that geeks have so much trouble with their social lives. If a discussion for you is preaching arcane details to anyone who dare make a mistake, you will lead a lonely life. -lb

	Because. (none / 0) (#16)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:21:06 AM PST

	Why do you computer people always think the general public cares about your acronyms and pedantic corrections in mind numbing detail? We don't need a 250 word dissertation on the subject. Because they will then use it, and as they will not know the critical details they will inevitably screw up and then will cry and beg for help. Sheesh. sigh But what one can expect from the individuals that so often don't even know that devices tend to work better when switched on. Is it not enough that we are interested in discussing an issue? Then be prepared to not do it only halfway. It is no wonder that geeks have so much trouble with their social lives. If a discussion for you is preaching arcane details to anyone who dare make a mistake, you will lead a lonely life. Because the devil is in the details. Because of someone mistaking one such detail - swapping the black and the white wire[1] in the fuse box - I once almost got fried; I ended hanging for few seconds between a heater that was grounded, and a computer chassis with 240V on it. Never underestimate the details. Details kill. [1] Decades old norm (and decades old house); current colors are black or brown for live, blue for zero, and green/yellow for safety ground - don't dare to mismatch them.

	dont underestimate the details... (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 01:36:01 PM PST

	because HTML kills. That's why I use Macromedia HTML, instead. You should look into computers, they're really good at sparing people the drudgery of boring details.

	I can't comprehend it... (none / 0) (#5)
	by gzt on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 06:08:23 AM PST

	'cause it's not in point-by-point rebuttal format. Try again next week, chief.

	You are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#6)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:07:01 AM PST

	it's not in point-by-point rebuttal format Oh yeah? What, are you stupid? Didn't you see the headings in bold text? You must be a total moron. Heh. It cracks me up. Lol. Try again next week, chief. Oh, sure. Like I should give you a week. Who knows how many uninformed might come by in the meantime and be led astray by Yoshis' stupid post? This has to be nipped in the butt, and us smarter hackers are the ones to do it. Thats right. You cant silence the truth. Information wants to be free. --Ch33tah Oh and PS its Linux not Lunix, k thx bye. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	die plz thx (none / 0) (#12)
	by First Incision on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:04:21 AM PST

	_ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	BOO HOO (none / 0) (#18)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 12:15:15 PM PST

	WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	This is just LinuX propaganda!! (none / 0) (#7)
	by PotatoError on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:38:47 AM PST

	YOu stInking self styled facist communist!!! Stop pting the LinuX everywhere I see. Go back to making pipe bombs and training suicide bombers instead. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Sorry to let you in on this secret (none / 0) (#9)
	by Narcissus on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:31:42 AM PST

	but the U.S. is the one who basically financed and trained the majority of todays terrorists, or doesn't anyone remember the Cold War when noone thought these little third world countries would ever use the power we bestow on them to come back at us. And for those who don't believe me or think it just happened in Afghanistan, try Vietnam, Cuba, and Iraq. So don't blame that on the Communists. It is quite the opposite. -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower???

	Superpowers (none / 0) (#15)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:00:48 AM PST

	So don't blame that on the Communists. It is quite the opposite. The truth is, as it goes, in between. Communists were supplying money, weapons, and instructors as well. Never trust the Superpowers, being it countries or megacorporations. Too much of power in too few hands never leads to anything good. Russian politicians/generals/businessmen, or American politicians/generals/businessmen, or Chinese ones, it's all the same scum and there isn't more difference between them than between black and white side in chess.

	How about FreeBSD? (n/t) (none / 0) (#11)
	by budlite on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:51:37 AM PST

	A pipe bomb... (none / 0) (#8)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:05:20 AM PST

	...can inflict only local, small damage. Freely-available software (especially with source code) can destroy whole corporations. From one angle it can look like a form of industrial terrorism. From all the other angles, it is a freedom fight. The most attention-worthy target is Microsoft. They used the same strategy (MSIE vs Netscape, and couple more less newsworthy cases) to sink their competition. Now the card is turning and they cry bloody murder. And, frankly, I somehow don't feel any pity for them.

	I don't think so (none / 0) (#21)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 02:44:54 PM PST

	Unless you mean that if a corporation chose to base their business model on giving away software they would almost surely fail I don't think you are correct. Please provide an example of how freely available software destroyed a whole corporation, other than the innumerable examples of the type I mentioned above. I also fail to see how 'the card is turning' on Microsoft. Do you mean that they are losing market share? Is their profitibility declining? Stock price? I'm failing to see where they are losing ground to anyone, much less Open Source.

	Then you thought wrong (none / 0) (#29)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:44:37 PM PST

	also fail to see how 'the card is turning' on Microsoft. Do you mean that they are losing market share? Is their profitibility declining? Stock price? I'm failing to see where they are losing ground to anyone, much less Open Source. Yes they are. On all count. Microsoft still maintains its desktop market share. However, it's not as popular in the server rooms. This is generally where it has been on a somewhat level playing field with Unix (now include variant such as Linux and BSD). I suggest that you take a look at the latest issue of Money. On the cover is...Bill Gates. In that issue they talk about how MS is only reporting in the single digits. You can also read about the $40 billion cash horde and their refusal for whatever reason to pay dividends. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.*

	Help me here (none / 0) (#34)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:59:25 PM PST

	You state Yes they are in response to my question of where they are losing ground. Fine. You then state On all count, but then, then, you state Microsoft still maintains its desktop market share. I am confused. Also, lets not look at overall percentages of server OSs. Lets look at growth. Just because you have whacked the market up between a dozen iterations of the same operating system doesn't mean that you've gained anything. Unix is BSD is Linux. Its like Coke and New Coke, its all the same stuff and it is all of marginal quality. Facts: 1) MS's market share is static in desktops. It is growing in servers. 2) Money magazine doesn't know jack about running a billion dollar software business, or else their execs would be on their cover sitting on top of a pile of money.

	clarification (none / 0) (#36)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:13:59 PM PST

	Yes MS is losing ground in all aspects. It maintains a high market share in the desktop market. It's about 90% compared to 95-98% a year to two years ago. Facts: 1) MS's market share is static in desktops. It is growing in servers. Actually it's quite the oppposite. I suggest you do a little digging. You find fading support for various "services" with .NET and Microsoft's confusing (and costly) new license is making more of its coporate clients look at lower cost alternative (price and licensing costs). If Apple is looking better. 2) Money magazine doesn't know jack about running a billion dollar software business, or else their execs would be on their cover sitting on top of a pile of money. Funny, a lot of executives read the Wall Street Journal but you don't see pictures of them sitting on piles of money. Who's to say they not? Have you seen a picture of Money's staff? It's all about informing investors. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Please stop straying (none / 0) (#46)
	by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:35:02 AM PST

	The Wall Street Journal has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Moeny is just another of a hundred cheap investment rags and anyone who bases their financial strategy on something they read in a gloss mag deserves exactly what they get: nothing. As for their execs, I suppose that one of the few semi-respectable cheap investment rags might be the one to say that their wealth does quite approach that of Mr. Gates. I don't see any of them on the Forbes 500 list.

	dumb duh dumb dumb (none / 0) (#50)
	by detikon on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:22:27 AM PST

	anyone who bases their financial strategy on something they read in a gloss mag deserves exactly what they get: nothing. True. I would never take the advice of any publication. It's called RESEARCH. It's a nice little starting point. When I read about a company that's "going places" I research the hell out of it first. Use that tiny thing rolling around your head. Good advice for investment as well as for your next post. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	yeah but, ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:41:12 AM PST

	your RESEARCH predicts the market success of Lunix and failure of Microsoft. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded to liquidate my bus tokens and reinvest in a Lunix company that's solvent, if such thing still exists.

	Scam (none / 0) (#10)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:47:46 AM PST

	Could you please stop trying to scam the readership of Adequacy? Yoshi linked to a number of different authoritative sources in his article.You linked to EWeek. Every time. That doesn't exactly constitute a well researched, balanced report (like Yoshi's was). Next time you can save yourself a lot of time by just linking to Slashdot articles or comments. They both offer the same level of Open Source rah-rah bullshit.

	I believe you should re-read his "work" (none / 0) (#17)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 12:12:08 PM PST

	Yoshi linked to a number of different authoritative sources in his article Yoshi linked to an unrelated half-assed medical snipet for "open sores" (his parody of Open Source). What else? Microsoft Hypertext Language Protocol = HTML? Sorry but MS didn't creat HTML. HTML stands for Hypertext Markup Language. It's a presentation language not a protocol. Most of the link text Apache 2.0, points to information about IIS from Microsoft's website. It's Alan Cox not cocks. He mentions Apache 2.0's long developement. Yeah and IIS pops up every 6 months to a year? Sorry but no. Just ask any of the Lunix developers, like Alan Cocks, who have spent many years implementing rudimentary core operating system features that Windows has had for years, such as simple disk defragmenters. When you dumbasses realize that Linux is not meant to be an open source Windows. It's a UNIX-LIKE kernel/OS. Windows and Unix are not compatible. Software must be ported. As for disk defrag WHOA! Unix filesystems hardly need to be defragmented every week. Hell the concept of what a defragmenter does is way off. It organizes clusters. Unix system also don't suffer from registry bloat. System restoration is much easier. Friendly Error Pages catch up? Sorry but know. It's a simple little edit. Good luck with all the MMC bullshit in Windows. Do I really need to continue? Are you aware of a little thing called common sense? Pick up a tech dictionary. Hll get one endosed by Microsoft. Use that tiny little thing rattling around in your skull called a brain. As for linking to eWeek, I did. Why, because everything was there. I can pull up pretty much the same articles for you from The Register, OSOpinion, Newsfactor, Newsfourge, and even MSNBC. Anyone wanna take a jab at the article? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Why here? (4.00 / 1) (#19)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 01:11:49 PM PST

	I think it is a little impolite to reply to my post with a point by point rebuttal of the article, but so be it. You have obviously been eager to post that so I am happy that I was able to provide you with the opportunity. Next time you might try to be more open about your needs though. All Adequacy readers are aware that Open Source advocates have an intense desire to write point by point rebuttals, every bit as strong as their tendency toward pedophelia, so there is no need to cast a veil of secrecy over it for us. You complain about Yoshi's links to Microsoft. I cannot think of a more valid authority on the subject of computer software than the largest computer software firm on earth. He could have picked some lesser vendor, like Oracle, but then his points would not have been supported by the enormous research investment that Microsoft surely made. Also, I do not generally appreciate ad hominem attacks, although I understand that when a person has little else at their disposal they tend to creep in to the conversation. Regardless, if Linux (I'll use your preferred spelling to stave off being called something worse than 'dumbass') is not trying to position itself as an 'open source' Windows, why does it copy nearly every design feature of Windows? When a new version of Windows is released the various Lenux 'distros' immediately start working on copying every new feature. Windows implements USB, Linux does four years later. Windows gets a Start button, Linux does four years later. It is amazing that despite what you claim are the desires of the 'Open Source Community', Linux is the same thing as Windows was four years ago. If Lenux is not being positioned as a Windows competitor, why has it been designed to be virtually identical? If Windows is so terrible, why make your favorite operating system exactly like it?

	right.. (none / 0) (#22)
	by DG on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 03:46:22 PM PST

	i see you have no arguement other than to do ad hominem attacks.. you claim he attacks you then you attack him back how mature of you, ok how the hell is getting usb to work copying? prahaps the authors thought someone could use the drivers so their usb mouse would work in X? stop bitching about something like that, it's stupid. ok you want to know why people don't trust microsofts answers? becuse they are not a neutral party.. they are a company being audited! why the hell wouldn't they say anything so they look good? i'm sorry but that just eather shows you don't care about the truth or you have your head in the sand © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Duh (none / 0) (#24)
	by Yoshi on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:02:40 PM PST

	ok how the hell is getting usb to work copying? When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "copying" to you Lunix zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType, TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless, brainwashed morons. prahaps [sic] the authors thought someone could use the drivers so their usb mouse would work in X? Oh, I get it. Steal Microsoft's USB and UPnP standards to power your USB mouse on X Windows 95? Isn't that ironic. It's like Mac idiots buying their Mac because they hate Microsoft, then running out to get Office X. [I]'m sorry but that just eather [sic] shows you don't care about the truth or you have your head in the sand Yes, yes, the "truth" to you Lunix fanboys is a completely distorted illusion from what the rest of the world sees. Unfortunately, you are too blind to ever notice how wrong you really are. My condolences.

	ok.. (none / 0) (#25)
	by DG on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:30:01 PM PST

	Yoshi go read about computer history before you start spouting lies, usb was invented by intel not microsoft, aa wasn't invented by microsoft either, hell everything you listed wasn't, just becuse it's in windows doesn't mean it was invented by microsoft! get that through your thick skull, it is not copying microsoft shit, and i mean shit, becuse the two os don't work the same way, if you had any programming experince you'd know that, i doubt you do, propritary? no... ms holds nothing having to do with usb it's an open standard, by the way, if you follow your reasoning microsoft copied apple, becuse apple had the first usb. you make me sick with your faulty logic skills © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	correction (none / 0) (#31)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:22:10 PM PST

	usb was invented by intel not microsoft USB was invented by Texas Instruments with a funding partnership from Intel. aa wasn't invented by microsoft either, hell everything you listed wasn't, just becuse it's in windows doesn't mean it was invented by microsoft! Anti-Aliasing was not invented by MS. It's simply a process of "smart" blurring. Hell it's used in video games and graphics processors. Ever play an Xbox or PS2 game? Ever wonder why the edges aren't jagged? That's right AA. Cleartype, TTF...think fruit. Apple that is. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	hey now.. (none / 0) (#39)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:49:04 AM PST

	i try to look up sources, that source on wub happend to be intels site, it didn't list TI, so maybe thats a corp thing, i forgot apple invented truetype and other fonts, hmm don't like aa it slows stuff down too much consoles do it better © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	OK, I'm not against you, BUT... (none / 0) (#78)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:17:06 PM PST

	...could you please learn to use punctuation, paragraphs and capitalisation? Your posts have a tendency to be difficult to read.

	Hello in there (none / 0) (#35)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:04:39 PM PST

	Could you point out the spot where I attacked him personally? He used weak examples, and I pointed that out. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack. As for you, what does it matter why Linux stole an idea from Microsoft? They did and I don't see anything 'stupid' in pointing that out. Moron. Put a capital letter in your post one time, if you OS supports such things. Idiot. Brush your teeth too.

	uh nope (none / 0) (#38)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:26:26 PM PST

	As for you, what does it matter why Linux stole an idea from Microsoft? They did and I don't see anything 'stupid' in pointing that out. It's rather difficult to call it stealing when they're not Microsoft's in the first place. Not a single principle is specific to Microsoft operating systems. Hell even Windows raises a lot of questions. You know that MS claims to hold trademarks on a lot of generic word like Office. In fact their trademark is for Microsoft Office. Seeing as how Microsoft did not create nor does it own any specific pieces of the GUI they use the specific parts are actually fair game. In many ways they can be considered open standards. Basically same concepts different names (Start button/Taskbar = WarpCenter (OS/2)). There are many things that window managers like KDE and GNOME offer that GUIs like Luna do not. Virtual desktops for one. So if you want to claim that these ideas are "stolen" from Microsoft then please do not forget to mention who Microsoft "stole" them from first. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Umm yeah.. (none / 0) (#40)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:57:17 AM PST

	Prove to me that linux stole from ms, other wise i'd like you to shut your mouth and stop insulting people, i've never seen anything on the web, in the news papers on tv or the radio saying anyone had stole from microsoft, i find most of the time microsoft stole copied or borrowed ideas from others, i get tired of you people who claim microsoft is good when you have no proof, i try to prove what i say and history alone shows whats right © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	double standards (none / 0) (#30)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:10:32 PM PST

	When a new version of Windows is released the various Lenux 'distros' immediately start working on copying every new feature. You could say the same for Microsoft. Generally though it comes much much later. Support for long filenames could have been in Windows since 1.0 yet Gates and Company could figure it out. Been in Mac OS since day one. Windows implements USB, Linux does four years later. I would say not bad for developers working with little to no help from devices manufaturers. Amazingly enough that is changing. However, let's not forget how long PnP was available with Macs and OS/2 before it finally showed up in Windows. Windows gets a Start button, Linux does four years later. You mean kind of like how it appeared in OS/2, then popped up in Windows 95? The "start button" taskbar, and most other element of the Windows GUI are not specific to Windows nor did the make their first appearance in that OS. You'll find that most of the design elements in GUI are basically standard. They are just implemented slightly different. Also the comment "Linx does four years later" is rather silly. Linux is a kernel. Do you mean Linux based OSes? Window managers like KDE and GNOME are not specific to Linux. They can be implemented across all unices. Hell visit Shell Extension City to find out about all the replacement shells for Windows. A good one is Qube. I believe there are multiple post, diaries, and a mysterious disappearing story along the lines of MS innovations. So I'll take a page from those. Please name one innovation in Windows. Please do, so that I can tell you where it appeared first and what Microsoft copied even years after it was implemented. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	All right then (none / 0) (#37)
	by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:16:43 PM PST

	I don't see what double standards have to do with anything, not that I am admitting that any exist in this case. Lenux is on trial here, not Windows. Microsoft entered into business relationships with many of these companies you claim they 'stole' features from. They even had more than a small hand in developing OS/2, so I don't think it can be proven one way or the other whether an MS employee actually thought up the Start button or no. Hell, they own a sizeable chunk of Mac so there can't actually steal anything from them. What companies has Linux partnered with? None. This might be the reason why I find no patents owned by Linux. If you want to know how much actual innovation a company is doing it can be found quite easily by looking at the patents they hold. Microsoft has thousands, not the least of which is their innovative and unique Windows Update. As an aside: I have no idea what this shell thing is. I suspect it is related to the command line, which has been eliminated from the computers of non-geeks by Microsoft innovations in the GUI arena.

	innovative? (none / 0) (#42)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:18:05 AM PST

	you must be misstaken, windows update isn't innovative in anyway unix and linux had had that for years, infact debian is based off the idea, rpm uses it, the fact that microsoft owns stock in apple is irrelivent for when they stole from apple, it was near 20 years ago when they did, by the way yes linux has partners, like intel, dell, compaq, sun,apple, and many more. i believe windows can be on trial just as much as linux or more so, proof is well known how they ripped things from others © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I don't think I can continue (none / 0) (#47)
	by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:41:11 AM PST

	I can prove that Windows Update is innovative: The US Patent and Trade Office issued a patent to Microsoft for various parts of Windows Update. The US Patent and Trade Office is not in the habit of issuing patents to 'stolen' ideas, you should familiarize yourself with the patent application process, specifically a concept known as Prior Art. You cannot possibly expect me to continue a debate a topic in which you, a guy who probably ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, purports to know more about innovation than the US Patent and Trade Office.

	Hey you, (4.00 / 1) (#49)
	by because it isnt on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:12:54 AM PST

	The US Patent and Trade Office is not in the habit of issuing patents to 'stolen' ideas please take your libellous and scandalous comments elsewhere. The USPTO is world famous for issuing patents for anything and everything, even issuing the same patent twice to two different people, and is not going to be smeared by the likes of you. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Pantent (none / 0) (#53)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:22:45 AM PST

	Name me the Patent, then i will believe you, you provide no evadince that you are right, you still keep shouting "I'm right becuse i said I am!" as if that makes it true, show me you can patent somehing like that, otherwise go learn to debate, you seem to think debating is sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring your opponent, then insulting them © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Here you are: (none / 0) (#55)
	by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 11:21:53 AM PST

	It is probably in this list somewhere. I think it is this one but I could be wrong. I have things to do, I can't go rifling through patent databases all day. Note the conspicuous absence of any patents held by Linux. The only result returned actually belongs to a subsidiary of IBM, and not Linux. See also Open Source. Essentially, you are trying to argue that Linux is responsible for some sort of extensive innovation, and yet it has received no patents of any kind? Insane. Microsoft holds nearly 2,000, and you are claiming that they are not innovative? Even further down the spiral. Typically I have very little concern for the well being of my fellow man, but you really should get some help. Get on the state dole if you have to, but get yourself checked out. Really. No one is shouting or anything. It is all in your head.

	Linux patents? (none / 0) (#56)
	by because it isnt on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 11:38:34 AM PST

	Note the conspicuous absence of any patents held by Linux. The amount of intellectual debasement shown in your post is staggering. Next you will be telling us that your freezer is useless because it can't cook your pizza, men are crap because they can't give birth, and that NASA are a bunch of idiots for landing on the moon because it doesn't exist. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Because it is (none / 0) (#57)
	by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 12:25:07 PM PST

	I'm sorry, were you attempting to weigh in on the current debate topic? If so, let me bring you up to date: Microsoft: nearly 2,000 patents. Linux: 1 patent that is actually owned by IBM. I am waiting for someone to demonstrate how it can be that Microsoft has developed not one single innovation, yet has received so many patents, then, how Linux is the pinnacle of innovation but holds 0 patents. (Hint: You will need to disprove the innovative nature of all 2,000 patents. You can use a point by point reubttal format if you wish, I won't make fun of you)

	Maybe... (none / 0) (#58)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:38:54 PM PST

	...Linux doesn't have patents because it isn't a corporation nor an individual. It is an operating system, and pretty hopefully looking one. Can an operating system hold a patent? Another factor can be the irrelevance of the kind of operating system for the principle of a patented thing. The same thing can be implemented for Linux, for *BSD, for Slowaris or for HP-SUX, or for Windoze if you insist on exchanging stability for true colors. One more, maybe the most important, factor is that people writing Linux code aren't so anally retentive about the so-called "intellectual property" (like it is possible to "own" an idea - it's like owning a wind, or a sunset, or a mood...) and prefer giving their ideas away instead of firewalling them behind lines of lawyers. Software patents should've never been allowed; Europe had it right. There was a patent awarded recently, for swinging sideways. This says something about respectability of the patent office. Heh. On a side note, some time ago I was browsing through patent library, just for fun, and found a program I wrote without any help in a single night infringes on at least half dozen of them; I grew bored then, maybe I'd found much more. When you have patents even on such trivialities like syntax colorizing or displaying of several strings at once in a spreadsheedish array, infringement is just inevitable. What I am expected to do then? Pay and pay and pay, and still tremble with fear that I infringed?

	or maybe, just maybe ... (none / 0) (#60)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:01:55 PM PST

	Lunix doesnt have any patents because it is a pedestrian imitation of a 30 year old technology? They dont give out patents to rearguard actions, they give posthumus military medals, may UNIX rest in peace.

	30 years old technology... (none / 0) (#61)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:13:47 PM PST

	...is about as old to be finally mature and proven. You can continue kowtowing to His Billness. My bets stay on unix.

	His name is "William" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:01:55 PM PST

	Do you think Richard Stallman would appreciate being called His Dickness? Ha ha ha LOL. I slay me. You can continue kowtowing to His Billness. I might just do that when and if I begin to give a damn about UNIX versus Windows, ATT versus Walkie-Talkies, etc. As far as I am concerned, either way, we're still talking about a free country full of consumer gadgets with which I have no interest in communicating intimately.

	And...? (none / 0) (#64)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:40:56 PM PST

	Do you think Richard Stallman would appreciate being called His Dickness? Do I know? (Do I care? He's at least funny and doesn't promote incompatiBILLity.) Ha ha ha LOL. I slay me. Not here, please. Go to the bathroom. Tiles are easier to clean up. As far as I am concerned, either way, we're still talking about a free country full of consumer gadgets with which I have no interest in communicating intimately. As long as I can get a lawyer on my neck for tinkering with a consumer gadget, I dare to doubt the country is free anymore.

	I see. So you want the terrorists to win? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 04:47:22 PM PST

	As long as I can get a lawyer on my neck for tinkering with a consumer gadget, I dare to doubt the country is free anymore. I'm not sure I understand you. As far as I know, the country remains free whether you void your warranty or not. I do believe you are having an internal monologue about something unrelated to proprietary vs Free software driving commercial (as in 'never given away for free', 'intended for profit', etc) gadgets. Unlike RMS, I dont think the code running my Epson printer is anything other than capitalist infrastructure to sell more Epson printers. It wouldnt make a shred of difference to my Freedom if that software were Free instead of proprietary. Free Software = Expensive Gadgets = Capital Infrastructure = Programmer Decadence. If you dont believe me, check out the stories on the Fortress Freedom Software, Slashdot. No one but a cretinous self-absorbed geek could mistake that site for anything other than an orgy of consumer culture and pathological capitalism. So much for Freedom and The Revolution. Maybe you are confusing software with notes written on a napkin by a computer scientist at lunch?

	sir, (none / 0) (#66)
	by nathan on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:20:13 PM PST

	I abjectly implore you to get an account. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Done, I think. (none / 0) (#68)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:01:02 PM PST

	That looked a lot like the esteemed Mr. Gibbons, only in anti-consumerism drag.

	Epson and terrorists (none / 0) (#67)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:47:56 PM PST

	I'm not sure I understand you. As far as I know, the country remains free whether you void your warranty or not. DeCSSgate. First party infringed on the other's party rights to go without the first party's one-and-only-endorsed-platform. The second party enforced their rights, the first party striked with tactical ballistic lawyers. Unlike RMS, I dont think the code running my Epson printer is anything other than capitalist infrastructure to sell more Epson printers. It wouldnt make a shred of difference to my Freedom if that software were Free instead of proprietary. An example from local history. Sometimes around the Revolution, a lot of el-cheapo 9-pin dot matrix printers of one certain brand got between the people. They were without graphics mode, with support only for the characters in their ROMs. Soon, "pirate" EPROMs with requested Kamenicky language norm appeared (cheap, we bought one too). Technically, it was illegal, and required (simple) reverse engineering and editing the character map, and technically it was infringing on the manufacturer's "rights". However, I doubt the manufacturer would be interested in support for already-sold morally obsolete printers. So people became "infringers" because they had to take what they need on their own. I understand that Corporations aren't interested in supplying solutions for markets too small to be fiscally interesting. However, they then should allow the affected people to take the matter to their own hands and help themselves, instead of withholding specifications and forcing them to laborious reverse engineering and then threating them with lawyers when results appear. If there will be terrorists whose aim will be to liberate the firmwares, they will have my full support.

	Greed, I tell you. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
	by Uncanny Vortex on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:42:07 PM PST

	The reason Microsoft has those patents is greed, pure and simple. They want to keep their supposedly original ideas to themselves. The open-source community wants everything to be shared, and most of its members are not attempting to profit from their work -- so why would they request patents on it? Don't try and tell me that among those 2,000 patents, Microsoft hasn't patented some concepts which were originally developed by the open-source community (albeit never patented). Besides, software patents are crap. Most of the software-related patents which have been issued are absolutely bogus. The Patent Office doesn't have enough software expertise to know which claims are valid or even make sense. How are they supposed to police the industry in this manner? It seems that when in doubt, they just go ahead and issue the patent. This lack of technological expertise causes them to stifle industry innovation, and allows people to obtain patents for ideas which were not originally theirs. I'll bet you anything that Microsoft has patents for UI elements which should have belonged to Xerox or Apple -- and that's just one example. -- Uncanny Vortex P.S.: In my spare time tonight, I plan to go through all 2,000 patents and refute them all. I'll post that point-by-point refutation here by morning. In fact, while I'm at it, I might as well look at all the patents by other major industry players: Macromedia, Sun, Apple, Compaq, Adobe, and Symantec, just to name a few. I should have those refutations available also, by tomorrow.

	Greed is not bad (2.00 / 1) (#62)
	by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:35:28 PM PST

	Well damn Microsoft, damn them all to hell. What are those people thinking in Redmond? Putting profit ahead of....well, nothing really, except maybe a misguided sense of contributing something meaningful to society, which seems to be what motivates Open Source developers. Every day I curse Microsoft for the hundreds of thousands of jobs they have helped to create. I curse them for being successful. I curse them for protecting their investment, and thereby securing a future for not only their employees, but for their stockholders and business partners and contractors and suppliers. The gall of those people. I'm pleased with the knowledge that the Linux companies don't stoop to this level. They certainly know that there are many issues that should come before profit, procuring enough bandwidth to keep the whole staff knee deep in pirate copies of anime porn being first and foremost among those. At least until the venture capital runs out and 'restructuring' takes precedence. Are any of you people actually under the impression that businesses exist for any reason other than to make money? Has the public education system completely failed to provide you with any knowledge of economics whatsoever?

	The fact is (none / 0) (#69)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:37:15 PM PST

	a patent doesn't mean it's an innovation, i think you maybe fooling yourself, most of these look like variations on something else not an innovation, i see no new techologys or original ideas, 90% of these ideas look like they where ripped from many other companys or products, unix and so forth, patents are not a good gauge of how a company works, <G> by the way linux doesn't hold any patents becuse the idea doesn't fit in with free software or linux it's self, i figure there are a number of things they could patent judging by how anal ms does it © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	oops (none / 0) (#70)
	by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:40:29 PM PST

	pardon that <G> there it was to be a to split my ideas i didn't see it in time © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	This is silly (none / 0) (#75)
	by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:52:42 AM PST

	Pardon me if I stop paying attention to your posts. If you are going to honestly try to claim that you somehow know more about innovation than the US Patenet and Trade Office we are voyaging into previously undiscovered areas elitism, coupled with a perplexing tangle of ignorance, specious reasoning, and outright bullshit. I would like to recuse myself from further participation in this thread. No one has once answered any of my original claims against the validity of the diary's links, nor have they offered even a shred of evidence that Linux has offered any innovation of any type ever in its 30+ year history. The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy (except of course for the Open Source rah-rah sites), and the fact that your primary debate tactic is to point out what, in your skewed opinion, are Microsoft's failings should stand as evidence to any reasonable person that you are all fist clenching teenagers with no real world experience.

	Hmm (none / 0) (#76)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:58:39 AM PST

	<B>The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy </B><P>Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS.<P>Everyone refuting your claims that some sort of "innovation quotient" is based on the number of patents held by a company or pertaining to a particular piece of software is correct. Linux developers don't patent their ideas because that goes against the ideals of the open source and Linux community - shared ideas for the greater good is what goes down, not profiteering.

	Apologies for mis-formatted post (none / 0) (#77)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:00:10 AM PST

	The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS. Everyone refuting your claims that some sort of "innovation quotient" is based on the number of patents held by a company or pertaining to a particular piece of software is correct. Linux developers don't patent their ideas because that goes against the ideals of the open source and Linux community - shared ideas for the greater good is what goes down, not profiteering.

	not that old nugget again (none / 0) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:52:52 PM PST

	Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS. So what? TCP is Unix's native networking protocol so one expects a (dwindling) Unix presence on the Internet for purely inertial instead of technical reasons. Meanwhile, the overwhelming number of computers connected to the internet are NOT Lunix or another Unix OS. Furthermore, if you performed an honest accounting of traffic, you would discover that Unix is responsible for much less Internet traffic than Windows; it's the difference between visiting as many Unix-hosted sites as you can in a week and downloading 1 warez app off a p2p network. Unix is a dead end.

	Servers.. (none / 0) (#81)
	by DG on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:12:24 PM PST

	Realize we are not talking desktops, we are talking servers, and nothing beats a unix server, windows servers are too crash prone to take a beating serving thousands of people, make good intranet servers though © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	oh no not servers? (none / 0) (#84)
	by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:59:23 PM PST

	You think any of these guys know the difference between a server and a desktop? They like to go on and on about all the Windows machines out there. Sure there are more Windows machines connect "to" the internet but "connecting" the Internet. These same people love to go on about how Windows runs 90% of the worlds computers. Amazingly enough they fail to realize that dwindling 90% (formerly 95-98%) are desktops. Do you understand that now? 90% of the DESKTOP systems. In the server room companies rely on mostly Unix. Of course many people think Unix is dead because they don't know how to use it. "I don't know how to use it so it must suck." "MS doesn't hold my hand and treat me like an idiot with this OS so it sucks." "It's not made (carbon copied) by Microsoft so it sucks." The same people say the Mac is dead but dear god those iMacs sell like crazy. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.