I don't actually think this has been talked about much so please allow me to bring this up. What is behind the .NET framework? Is Microsoft trying to change the way we use the internet?

I watch Microsoft very closely and in all the time I’ve been reading about them and watching them they have always had a plan, a target, a goal.

My latest "stab in the dark" about Microsoft as I like to call it is are they planning on controlling the internet with passports. The secret "One Name One Password". Have you ever been to passport.com? Microsoft keeps passport.com on a very low profile, while in the background its collecting millions and millions peoples of account data. I see this gradually getting integrated into windows XP, just look as msn messenger. Have you ever tried to uninstall that?

The next version of Windows will more than likely be integrated with passport.com. When you logon to your actual system it will log into passport.com to confirm your cd-key along with username and password.

Anyway I’m off my point...

I truly think that one name one password would be a great thing, in a way... Just think of all those signup forms you wouldn’t have to fill out! But just think when Microsoft has that power.

UNIX based systems could be quiet easily be phased out.

MScrap will get my Linux when they pry my dead cold fingers from the keyboard.

I can't wait for Lindows to come out stable. Personally I think that Bill Gates is a new Hitler and his company is worse then the Stasi and Gestapo together.

Just another pathetic attempt to "rule the world"

MS is trying, but I personally believe they will shoot themselves in the foot. Linux is getting more and more userfriendly every day. And all bets are off if Apple grows a brain and OSX gets ported to PC.

BSD kernel + pretty Mac GUI = trouble for MS

Originally posted by vSector
...Is Microsoft trying to change the way we use the internet?....

Yup. Microsoft is trying position itself as the transport of Internet media content. They want to charge transaction fees everytime you use the Media Player to play a video or listen to a song. They want to control your PC so that they can turn off your access to things that you should not be seeing or playing.

While Microsoft was not able (so far) to hijack the standards of the Internet, they are now taking an alternate approach. They now want to lock down your computer to prevent you from doing what you want with it.

Further reading...

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25940.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4293

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25435.html

Although Im using Window on my PC now, I hope that something takes over microsoft. They grew out of hand, trying to control this and that. It is getting irritating.

All it takes is :
- Super Stable Kernel,
- pretty and userfriendly interface,
- Windows compatibility ( means softwares made for windows can still be run on it WITHOUT a problem)
-Low price

The last one is optional. The first and second I believe is no poblem. The third is a headache.
What dya think?

Everyone who moans about microsoft charging a fee .. and linux being free ... have you ever thought about if microsoft give its software away ... who would pay for the people who make the softwares wages ??

Also ... why don't all the web hosts free give there hosting for free ???

Is it because

1. The have wages to pay
2. Bills to pay
3. Profit to make

The only difference with microsoft is they have made ALOT of money ... however ... have you also thought that .. even though they have made alot of money ... they also need to make profit to keep reserves for no so good times :confused:

lol
i uninstalled that msn messenger garbage
a long time ago :)

MSN Messenger is easy to install .. its in Control Panel > Add/remove

This will never happen because not only is MS inferior but Linux is actually rising in popularity as it becomes more stable, secure and user friendly. Screw the MS product. Its built by a company terrible for security and doesnt care about the 10000000000 billions of people using the system with security holes. I hate MS!

There working on fixing the holes..

and linux has just as many .. its just hackers like to tell you about all the microsoft onces .. because there jealous of the money .. and annoyed by the fact they DIDNT do much about security ..

this is changing however due to the linux threat

Gotta disagee with you there utadmin. Microsoft knows about security holes for months and does nothing about it until they are ready which is rediculous.

Sure the open source community does have holes too but they are fixed immediatly if not before the exploit is released but its up to admins to actually update the box. I think MS is terribly known for security issues. I mean scan a NT or Win2k server for holes and you find 100's... scan a linux box and you will find maybe one issue. Good stuff. Later.

umm windows has less than 60 .. i believe red hat has the same

Max OS is suppost to be the best

i can't remember the url i saw this .. but i'm sure red hat had more the 2000 :eek:

Consider this... there are over 80,000 viruses for MS, 80 or so known for linux and about 8 known for Macs.

Yeh .. but the reason there are so many for MS is cos so many ppl use it .. makes sence really :rolleyes:

Originally posted by utadmin
umm windows has less than 60 .. i believe red hat has the same

Max OS is suppost to be the best

i can't remember the url i saw this .. but i'm sure red hat had more the 2000 :eek:


An interesting article: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,3763,00.asp

Originally posted by utadmin
...The only difference with microsoft is they have made ALOT of money ... however ... have you also thought that .. even though they have made alot of money ... they also need to make profit to keep reserves for no so good times :confused:


My concern is how Microsoft has made all that money. Have they used a desktop OS monopoly to keep their software prices artificially high and stifle competition? Take a look at the Findings of Fact (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm) for the recent anti-trust case. Note that the full Appeals Court upheld each and every one of these findings. The Appeals Court also upheld Microsoft's conviction of violating the anti-trust act (a felony here in the U.S. - how many of you would like to do business with a convicted felon?)

So what is Microsoft doing with all of this illegally gotten money? Well, for starters, they are losing $200 on each and every X=Box they sell. In other words, they are losing $200 per X-Box in an attempt to put Sony's PlayStation out of business. They are leveraging their desktop OS monopoly to gain marketshare and eliminate competition in the gaming business.

They tried, but Xbox is getting buried by Sony. It was a huge mistake for MS to even try getting involved in that market.

Bah! I liked MS a whole lot more when they made Flight Simulator for my Commodore 64.

whoa..they are losing $200/box??

is there somewhere I can read more about this ?...

It's been that way from the beginning. The idea is to sell the hardware at a loss and make up for it by selling software for the machine. Unfortunately it hasn't really been working for them very well.

haha..i heard that somewhere they have already started pirating the cds too...

I agree with the majority of you...

They produce good products.
Yes, they overcharge.
Yes, they do squash competition.
Yes, they do have more money than God (If you disagree w/ it. Take that comment as bad humor. Don't go offtopic )...

But, what gives YOU the right to say they're wrong. What if 'they' say that YOU are wrong.

If you worked your whole life to build a company would you want the government to say, nah, thats not yours anymore, lets split it up. I think not. What yours is yours, whats mine is mine. I have given you no power to take it from me

In my own personal opinion Linux offers a better product for server enviroments. It has much, much work to do to get to the level acceptable to the consumer.

Almost all of us are extremely technically fluent. We know what to do when we see C:\(blinking cursor) or root$.... The average consumer never wants to see either....

Lindows is a possible killer app for Linux but, I wouldn't bet on it. If I were in charge of the program development for it I would hold it back even further and quadruple-check everything. Get every type of chipset, mobo, video, and soundcard they can find before they goto the market w/ it. Most importantly they need to get alot of beta level feedback from DUMB USERS. Every developer in the program should force their parents to use it for 3 months and take EVERY complaint to heart. The consumer in general is very against drastic change. They need a great launch and probably corporate funding(Think Sun, Oracle. The enemy of my enemy is my ally) to really be a Windows Killer.

As towards the .NET argument.

For a security engineering design stand point it makes my head spin in circles.... Why would anyone want to contribute their personal information (Name, SSN (not yet but, soon), Birthday, CC Info, Addy, etc) to be stored on one giant server in the sky. If .NET ever takes off their servers are going to be the largest target for crackers in the world (if they aren't already).

The difference b/twn MS as a target now and in the .NET future:
- Currently if some misguided individual or group crackers breaks into any MS owned servers it's usually for pretty stupid purposes.

- In a .NET world their Passport servers would be a gold mine of information. The uses are endless. Mass credit-card fraud, mass identity theft, possibilities are endless...

Yeah, yeah. Sounds a little pyscho apocalyptical. Yeah probably. I really am not a fan of centralized data storage for personalized information from a security standpoint. It seems obvious from the outside but, heck if I had the oportunity that MS has to do this? I would have the same goal, different path. The possibility for profit in that sector is absoletly limitless. (Man.. maybe I should start coding for .ORG :D)

I have thousands thousands of more comments about pro/con MS, MS vs DOJ, MS vs OpenSource, Windows vs Linux, and whatever other permutations you can think of. I should write a book.

But, I agree w/ lightnin in the sense the MS will shoot themeselves in the foot eventually but, for different reasons.

As an double major in MIS/Economics I know the clunkyness and administrative problems (especially in IT Security) of large organizations, this is why smaller firms usually prevail in the long run (think MS took over the computer industry from un-touchable corporate giants).

Unfortuantely consumers won't see this. As with FAA rules, I believe this market will only change b/c of blood (in the figurative sense). After .NET is deployed and people begin to use it (If MS can get their PR back on the good side) and it will be compromised and there will be a signifigant loss to consumers finiancally.

This will change the market in favor of other products. The people (the ones scared of the C:\) have to really lose trust in MS first.

The Studio64 has spoken. These are simply opinions, take them how you will. I'm willing to discuss anything in here at length w/anyone either in the thread or in PM.

Originally posted by Studio64
Yes, they do squash competition.

That alone nullifies any good that they do.

Originally posted by Studio64
But, what gives YOU the right to say they're wrong. What if 'they' say that YOU are wrong.

In my case, it's my right as an American to voice my opinion that MS is wrong. And see the first quote as the reason.

"MS only fixes the security holes when it wants to"

... Hmm, a company prioritising is a bad thing?

"Take a look at these links"

... One was to the Enquirer...

"MS is losing 200$/xbox"

All the consoles lose money on the hardware, it has ALWAYS been this way. It is nothing to do with anti-competitiveness, it is a long-term strategy. In fact, it's the reason DreamCast went bust, they didn't sell enough games per console.

Personally I think xNix fanatics are absolute idiots, on offence intended. The whole "open source is better, we love open source, if only the corporations realised how much better it was we'd all be better off" thing gets really tiring.

I'd challenge anyone in this room to outfit my corporation with xNix products which would save us money now and in the future. No, really, I'll even send you 100$ if you can do it, that's how confident I am.

Maybe it will shut some of these idiotic comments up. MS wanting to charge for WMP usage? You do realise that a "normal" install of real server costs 50,000$ and Windows Media server is free, don't you?

.NET is not about killing xNix, it has nothing to do with that. It is the next step in evolutionary development. Java does a very similar thing except that it isn't as easy to use as VS.NET and isn't cross-language like .NET is. .NET is a good thing, and teh only reason the xNix community is afraid is either because they don't understand it, or they think PHP is still better.

First of all let me say that I have been a windows programmer for about 12 years and a Unix (Dif. flavors) for about 6 years.

I am administrator of a datacenter with just multiprocessore windows machines.

From my experience on both windows and Unix (including unix) I don't think microsoft can do much in server market.

They have proved that their OS is not stable enough for critical purposes on the internet (security reasons mostly). On an isolated datacenter like ours (I am in central site of a bank) it can work but performance of servers are at least 50-80% lower than their Linux counterparts.

For example we have tested both MSSQL on windows and Oracle and MySQl (Though MySQL is not suitable for our purpose) and it seems to me that MSSQL dies under very low loads but linux works without problem.

Mac

.NET is not about killing xNix, it has nothing to do with that. It is the next step in evolutionary development.


I believe .NET is about internet control and monopoly. Microsoft sees that if they control access then they control the content. .NET has been soly built with the idea about intergreating the internet with every internet capapable application.

I see some goods but some bads. and this is only an opinion :-)

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
Maybe it will shut some of these idiotic comments up. MS wanting to charge for WMP usage? You do realise that a "normal" install of real server costs 50,000$ and Windows Media server is free, don't you?


So Microsoft using their monopoly position to give away Windows Media for free and crush Real is good? After which they set whatever price they like? It's good for Microsoft, at least.

Kevin

I wish you hadn't chosen Real as an example...I can't stand their wormware products personally. If MS wants to crush them, I say bring it on. :)

Originally posted by wmac
it seems to me that MSSQL dies under very low loads but linux works without problem.

Very low loads? SQL Server has run fine for us under million query/hour operations for us, something MySQL can't really attest to.

"I believe .NET is about internet control and monopoly. Microsoft sees that if they control access then they control the content."

.NET has nothing to do with access or content. Once again, MS is NOT a monopoly. .NET is simply this: VB6 sucked, they needed a new product. What did they do? Give developers what they wanted. A fast, stable, mult-langauge team environment which saves us (literally) a thousand dollars a day.

"So Microsoft using their monopoly position to give away Windows Media for free and crush Real is good?"

Once again, MS is not a monopoly.

Personally, anyone crushing Real is good.

Originally posted by Jeremy W.

Once again, MS is not a monopoly anymore than you're a pedophile.


Does anyone know how to unsubscribe from a thread? I'm sorry I posted in the first place. The discussion is pointless.

Everyone who uses and loves Microsoft software is welcome to them. I don't care for their business practices, or most of their Internet-related software, so I don't use them for business, to the extent possible.

I would never call a Microsoft fan a pedophile, though. Jeez.

Kevin

Truly sorry I offended, I probably chose the wrong term. My point was that though some of MS's practices may or may not be questionnable, they are not a monopoly by any definition of monopoly.

I'll go back and edit my post :)

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
Truly sorry I offended, I probably chose the wrong term. My point was that though some of MS's practices may or may not be questionnable, they are not a monopoly by any definition of monopoly.


Thank you.

Nonetheless, you may have forgotten the following, or you may choose to disbelieve, or you may simply disagree, that's fine. But from a legal standpoint, Microsoft was ruled a monopoly, or words to that effect. No, it hasn't hurt them yet, and we won't get into that discussion.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdojii991105.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-238758.html
http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/microsoft_finding/

Kevin

The ruling was not that MS is a monopoly, but that it exerted monopolistic power. There is a very distinct difference.

Besides, as was said in another thread, judges don't define anything. They are often wrong (in fact, 30% of all controversial rulings are overturned becuase of wrong judges) and use "ill" terminology and base decisions upon facts of the times.

This is why the legal system is about more than a single person. There are multiple checks and balances to ensure that not only is justice served, but it is served to the highest extent it is possible, so that truth can be found.

Originally posted by hostpath.com



Originally posted by Studio64
Yes, they do squash competition.


That alone nullifies any good that they do.



:eek::eek::eek:

So wait... So if your company (when it launches) revolutionizes the hosting world and squashes the competition setting a new standard for web hosts?..

Thats bad?? :eek:

To answer, no. The second half is bad, but it doesn't nullify your entire existence.

its good for you... :)

bad for them :(