-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Microsoft's Utility Quiets a Chronic Complainer

,----[ Quote ]
| I kvetched when Windows 7 came out, and then 
| again six months later. 
`----

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2010/tc2010056_672438.htm

Windows 7 Won't Raise Your Game

,----[ Quote ]
| After installing Microsoft's latest operating 
| system, one business owner finds his staff 
| covering less ground 
| 
| [...]
| 
| Yet so much of Windows 7 resembles 
| Microsoft's operating systems of the past. 
| Some of my applications still freeze, and I 
| still reboot and start over, hoping it won't 
| happen again. Networking still takes an 
| information technology professional to set 
| up.
| 
| [...]
| 
| Running a business? Buying a new computer? 
| Don't get too excited about Windows 7. It's 
| fine, but our upgrade didn't improve our 
| game. And I'll never be able to cover as much 
| ground at shortstop as I once did.
`----

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2010/tc20100414_633573.htm

Didn't they send BusinessWeek enugh 'free' Ferrari laptops?


Recent:

The great Microsoft Windows 7 laptop giveaway!

,----[ Quote ]
| Dear Microsoft: I'm writing in regard to your recent FREE LAPTOP COMPUTER
| giveaway program for members of the industry media/analyst community. It is
| my understanding that authors and pundits who are "friends" of Microsoft -–
| i.e. those who praise Windows Vista and generally write positive stories
| about your products and strategies –- were eligible to receive their FREE
| LAPTOP COMPUTER during the super-secret, invite-only workshop that you held
| on the Sunday just prior to your Professional Developers Conference.
`----

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/11/the_great_micro.html


Microsoft bribes again?

,----[ Quote ]
| But, if as appears may be the case Microsoft is letting people have Dell XPS
| M1330 laptops with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo processors and 3GBs of RAM
| on 'indefinite loans (wink, wink) then it's a bribe in my book. What do you
| think? If you knew someone had been given a PC with a list price of $1,956
| and then wrote nice things about the operating system that came with it would
| you be inclined to think that they might be just a wee bit influenced by the
| almost two grand worth of computer?
`----

http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsoft_bribes_again


Blacklisted by Microsoft!

,----[ Quote ]
| Basically, they blacklisted me from certain super-secret (i.e.
| pre-conference, NDA, off-the books) sessions at their Professional Developer
| Conference (PDC) –- this after formally inviting me to attend those sessions
| as an "esteemed reviewer" representing InfoWorld.
|
| [...]
|
| Oct. 9, 2008 -- A short while later, I get my first hit. It seems that the
| whole mess started when the Windows Server team made the mistake of inviting
| yours truly to an event hosted by the Windows Client team. Apparently, the
| folks on the Server team were unaware of my decidedly negative views towards
| Vista, and when the Client folks found out they had invited Randall C.
| Kennedy -– a.k.a. Vista's most vocal and effective critic -– to their
| special, "for fanbois only" (nice photos, Paul) shindig, they went ballistic.
|
| First, it appears that someone high up on the Client Team (Steve?) really
| doesn't like me. I mean, really, truly loathes me. And it's not just your
| run-of-the-mill frustration with a journalist who picks on them. This thing
| is personal, and the executive in question is allowing his or her personal
| feelings to spill over into the company's handling of formal press relations
| with InfoWorld.
`----

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/10/blacklisted_by.html


Related:

PC Mag May Boycott Edelman PR

,----[ Quote ]
| Transparency is a word that's been kicked around a lot lately. But
| too much transparency is what got Edelman PR pro and blogebrity
| Steve Rubel kicked around this week, instead. An early Friday
| 13th comment about PC Magazine is fueling a potential boycott,
| as well as fulfilling what the PR world had feared about blogging.
`----

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/04/20/pc-mag-may-boycott-edelman-pr


Getting a Vaio [with Vista, from Microsoft]

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft Belgium rang me yesterday (I don?t think they realised it
| was a public holiday here!).
|
| [...]
|
| The phone call yesterday was to confirm my address - the laptop (a
| Sony Vaio - dunno which model or spec yet) is en route with Vista
| Ultimate and Office Ultimate pre-installed.
`----

http://www.tomrafteryit.net/getting-a-vaio/


Bribing Bloggers

,----[ Quote ]
| It's a bribe. Period. You say nice things about us, you get nice
| things from us. Heck, just say neutral things about us-we'll give
| you a killer new laptop and we know that you'll be inclined to say
| better things about us.
`----

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2077596,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616


Microsoft Sent A Free Laptop With Windows Vista

,----[ Quote ]
| I'm not sure how I was selected to be one of the people receiving this
| (I'm assuming there are others, but I haven't come across any yet).
| It could be that they are reaching out to bloggers who are Mac users
| (I switched to a Mac back when OS X came out) or it might just be that
| people I know who work for Microsoft or other influential bloggers
| recommended me
`----

http://laughingsquid.com/microsoft-sent-a-free-laptop-with-windows-vista/


Windows Live OneCare competition

,----[ Quote ]
| How to enter:
|
| You have from now until 25th December to post on your own blog about
| why you'd like Santa to visit you, and then tag it with "Windows Live
| OneCare Competition". Only posts appearing on this technorati page or
| that trackback to this post will be considered as entries. From
| these we'll select 5 winners at random.
`----

http://liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2006/12/20/windows-live-onecare-competition.aspx


Microsoft Traps and Hunts for Bloggers in India !!

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft has announced the "Microsoft BlogStars" contest, to Hunts
| for Developer Bloggers in India. After feeling the power and increase of
| the Bloggers community in India, Microsoft tries to trap and hunt Bloggers
| in India to buildup the blogging community, for writing blog posts
| supporting towards Microsoft Technologies.
`----

http://i5bala.blogspot.com/2006/10/microsoft-traps-and-hunts-for-bloggers.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvwirsACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7bBgCgq2nU2P/22ienEJ+hcGJfK5Dd
lHMAn0bjJvB0n9JDNVhTeqeErQ88gt2u
=w5wo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Microsoft's Utility Quiets a Chronic Complainer
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I kvetched when Windows 7 came out, and then 
> | again six months later. 
> `----

<He seems to have left this part out>

But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I 
know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient. Just 
about every business application runs on Windows, and the uniformity has 
made it cheaper and easier for tech vendors to write programs for 
companies like mine.

<end>

> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2010/tc2010056_672438.htm
> 

On May 16, 9:35=A0pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> > Microsoft's Utility Quiets a Chronic Complainer

> <He seems to have left this part out>

> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

That's not really true.  In reality most businesses owe their
profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storage
controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
services, and even many .NET services.

> Just about every business application runs on Windows, and the uniformity=
 has
> made it cheaper and easier for tech vendors to write programs for
> companies like mine.

But when it comes to writing business critical applications, most top
100 software companies and nearly all of the business oriented ones
now use Java, and use platform independent Java, or write code
designed to run on Linux, and Unix as their primary platforms, with
Windows as a development platform for prototyping, proof of concept,
and pilot projects.

Even small businesses who don't have ANYTHING but windows in their
location usually depend heavily on the Linux and UNIX servers of their
vendors and corporate customers.

And when they buy their supplies in retail stores, they probably check
out at cash registers controlled by Linux or Unix, that communicate
directly to servers running Linux or Unix.  Their credit card
purchases are validated using embedded Linux, UNIX, or UNIX API
Compatible systems that confirm the purchase by communicating with
UNIX servers.

The ignorance is that he sees the Windows logo, sees the front-end
application running on IE or a custom application running on Windows -
and assume that Windows is doing it all.

On the other hand, Linux and UNIX have been very modest about their
branding rights.  Many sights don't even mention that they are powered
by Linux, the Linux logo isn't even required to appear.  About the
only requirement is that in that obsure location where the copyrights
are listed, the only requirement for Linux is that the publisher
provide a place where the GNU portions of Linux could be downloaded.

> >http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2010/tc2010056_6724...

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On May 16, 9:35 pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>>> Microsoft's Utility Quiets a Chronic Complainer
> 
>> <He seems to have left this part out>
> 
>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.
> 
> That's not really true.  In reality most businesses owe their
> profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
> Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storage
> controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
> and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
> services, and even many .NET services.

Did you miss the words "small companies"? I have seen Linux used twice 
in corporate in any significant way. Once at a fortune top 100 company, 
an agriculture company, Linux was a total failure. The other place was a 
call center that had a lot of Linux communication stuff, but the core 
business activities were conducted on Windows servers and desktops.

> 
>> Just about every business application runs on Windows, and the uniformity has
>> made it cheaper and easier for tech vendors to write programs for
>> companies like mine.
> 
> But when it comes to writing business critical applications, most top
> 100 software companies and nearly all of the business oriented ones
> now use Java, and use platform independent Java, or write code
> designed to run on Linux, and Unix as their primary platforms, with
> Windows as a development platform for prototyping, proof of concept,
> and pilot projects.

You prove it. I see .NET being used quite a bit. What I don't see is 
Linux being used, as I have contract from the north, south, east and 
west boarder-2-boarder and cost-2-cost in the US. What I don't see is 
Linux being used in a company's core business solutions. I see a lot of 
MS solutions and 3rd party vendors developing a lot of .NET solution as 
core business solutions.

> 
> Even small businesses who don't have ANYTHING but windows in their
> location usually depend heavily on the Linux and UNIX servers of their
> vendors and corporate customers.
> 
That's not the same thing and you know. Why you brought it up is kind of 
ridiculous.

> And when they buy their supplies in retail stores, they probably check
> out at cash registers controlled by Linux or Unix, that communicate
> directly to servers running Linux or Unix.  Their credit card
> purchases are validated using embedded Linux, UNIX, or UNIX API
> Compatible systems that confirm the purchase by communicating with
> UNIX servers.
> 

This has nothing to do with anything concerning the writer's business 
using a computer.

> The ignorance is that he sees the Windows logo, sees the front-end
> application running on IE or a custom application running on Windows -
> and assume that Windows is doing it all.

It may very well be that Windows is doing it all for him. Just how do 
you know that it's not in the context of his small business?
> 
> On the other hand, Linux and UNIX have been very modest about their
> branding rights.  Many sights don't even mention that they are powered
> by Linux, the Linux logo isn't even required to appear.  About the
> only requirement is that in that obsure location where the copyrights
> are listed, the only requirement for Linux is that the publisher
> provide a place where the GNU portions of Linux could be downloaded.

I really don't care about this.

All you have done here is give me lip service, about your take on 
things, which I could care less about it.

On May 17, 12:15=A0am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On May 16, 9:35 pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> >> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
> >> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

> > That's not really true. =A0In reality most businesses owe their
> > profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
> > Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storage
> > controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
> > and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
> > services, and even many .NET services.

> Did you miss the words "small companies"? I have seen Linux used twice
> in corporate in any significant way. Once at a fortune top 100 company,
> an agriculture company, Linux was a total failure. The other place was a
> call center that had a lot of Linux communication stuff, but the core
> business activities were conducted on Windows servers and desktops.

Are you sure that they don't use Linux ANYWHERE?
They may not be using Linux on the desktop - that isn't so unusual.
On the other hand, is there a WiFi hub?  That's probably Linux.
Who is their ISP provider?
How do they connect to the Internet?
Do they have a web site?
What kind of routers does it use?
What kind of server does in use?
What about the back-end servers?

Linux and Unix are so pervasive, and so invisible, that even your
company may depend on as many as 30-40 UNIX and Linux systems for it's
very survival, and you aren't even aware of it.  You don't notice it
because the systems fail so rarely and they are designed to be
redundant.  When a Linux system DOES fail, it often makes
international headline news.  The little glitch in the market last
week was probably a glitch in one of the UNIX servers that controls
the actual trading systems.

> >> Just about every business application runs on Windows, and the uniform=
ity has
> >> made it cheaper and easier for tech vendors to write programs for
> >> companies like mine.

> > But when it comes to writing business critical applications, most top
> > 100 software companies and nearly all of the business oriented ones
> > now use Java, and use platform independent Java, or write code
> > designed to run on Linux, and Unix as their primary platforms, with
> > Windows as a development platform for prototyping, proof of concept,
> > and pilot projects.

> You prove it. I see .NET being used quite a bit. What I don't see is
> Linux being used, as I have contract from the north, south, east and
> west boarder-2-boarder and cost-2-cost in the US. What I don't see is
> Linux being used in a company's core business solutions. I see a lot of
> MS solutions and 3rd party vendors developing a lot of .NET solution as
> core business solutions.

..NET is a gateway interface used for integration to numerous back-end
systems, such as SOA.  What's BEHIND those SOA applications can be
almost anything.  And very often it's Oracle Financials, Seibel,
SalesForce, SAP, and order systems to back-end systems.  Your company
might be small, but you may have big customers or big vendors and
suppliers.  They might have a .NET interface, but it's more like a
modem to a much bigger system.

I know quite about about these B2B integration environments, since
that's what I do for a living.
And I've worked with most of those top 100 companies - and most of
their biggest customers.

And then there are government agencies.

> > Even small businesses who don't have ANYTHING but windows in their
> > location usually depend heavily on the Linux and UNIX servers of their
> > vendors and corporate customers.

> That's not the same thing and you know. Why you brought it up is kind of
> ridiculous.

Actually, it's exactly the same thing.  The claim was that

> >> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
> >> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

What made their businesses profitable and efficient is the
connectivity of their Windows systems to Linux and Windows systems.
Linux and Unix - with the help of Apache, Mosaic (AKA IE), FireFox,
and other Web, E-mail, and Internet interfaces - which are almost
invisible to Windows users - who think that it's Windows, IE, and
Outlook doing "all the work".

> > And when they buy their supplies in retail stores, they probably check
> > out at cash registers controlled by Linux or Unix, that communicate
> > directly to servers running Linux or Unix. =A0Their credit card
> > purchases are validated using embedded Linux, UNIX, or UNIX API
> > Compatible systems that confirm the purchase by communicating with
> > UNIX servers.

> This has nothing to do with anything concerning the writer's business
> using a computer.

The writer doesn't really explain what his business actually is?

Appearantly he is a free-lance writer - so he has a business with one
employee, and he sends his galleys to a publisher in Microsoft office
format - but is that the final form of publication?  OR is the content
converted to SGML, XML, or other multi-platform formats?  Is it then
converted to Postscript for typesetting machines?  And converted to
CSS/HTML for web pages?

Even his blog was published by Bloomberg - who was one of my clients.
They are heavy users of UNIX and also use some Linux.  They also store
documents in XML formats and format them in multiple output format.  I
can tell you for shore that they are not a "Windows-Only" shop.

Again, if corporations suddenly decided that Windows PCs were far to
vulnerable to hacker attacks - they could switch to Linux and the
disruption would be substantial, but nowhere near as significant as
what would happen if all those Windows users suddenly couldn't get ANY
connectivity to corporate networks because the company had decided to
block ALL Windows PCs from accessing their Linux and Unix machines.

> > The ignorance is that he sees the Windows logo, sees the front-end
> > application running on IE or a custom application running on Windows -
> > and assume that Windows is doing it all.

> It may very well be that Windows is doing it all for him. Just how do
> you know that it's not in the context of his small business?

He's deliberately ambiguous - but as I pointed out above, Bloomberg
has been one of my clients, so I know who writes at least one of his
checks.  If he told Bloomberg that they couldn't make any modification
to his Word documents - they couldn't publish his content - and he
wouldn't be getting any checks from Bloomberg.

In fact, somebody probably has to convert his word document into SGML
or XML.

> > On the other hand, Linux and UNIX have been very modest about their
> > branding rights. =A0Many sights don't even mention that they are powere=
d
> > by Linux, the Linux logo isn't even required to appear. =A0About the
> > only requirement is that in that obsure location where the copyrights
> > are listed, the only requirement for Linux is that the publisher
> > provide a place where the GNU portions of Linux could be downloaded.

> I really don't care about this.

You've made a claim - based on a claim of another author.

> >> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
> >> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

My case is that what makes businesses more profitable and efficient is
NOT Windows or Office.
Windows and Office did make a substantial difference in profitability
from 1990 to 1993, but from 1994 on - it's been the Internet, the Web,
Pop and Imap E-mail, LDAP, IPC and other IETF and UNIX/Linux
technologies - along with Java - that has made businesses more
efficient.

While Microsoft is trying to figure out ways to improve video game
performance in Vista and Windows 7, the Linux, Unix, and Java
community were trying to figure out how to improve collaboration
tools, business process management, business work-flow, customer
relationship management, and business intelligence - reducing waste
and optimizing resources, reducing travel, and globalization -
including expanding into global markets.


> All you have done here is give me lip service, about your take on
> things, which I could care less about it.

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On May 17, 12:15 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> On May 16, 9:35 pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>>>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
>>>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.
> 
>>> That's not really true.  In reality most businesses owe their
>>> profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
>>> Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storage
>>> controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
>>> and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
>>> services, and even many .NET services.
> 
>> Did you miss the words "small companies"? I have seen Linux used twice
>> in corporate in any significant way. Once at a fortune top 100 company,
>> an agriculture company, Linux was a total failure. The other place was a
>> call center that had a lot of Linux communication stuff, but the core
>> business activities were conducted on Windows servers and desktops.
> 
> Are you sure that they don't use Linux ANYWHERE?
> They may not be using Linux on the desktop - that isn't so unusual.

Look man I was at the company and you were not there. The core business 
applications were running on the Windows platform.

> On the other hand, is there a WiFi hub?  That's probably Linux.

This has something to do with billing, accounts payable/receivable, 
payroll, purchase orders etc, etc business applications?

> Who is their ISP provider?
> How do they connect to the Internet?

> Do they have a web site?

Windows

> What kind of routers does it use?
I don't know who care.

> What kind of server does in use?
Windows
> What about the back-end servers?


Windows

> Linux and Unix are so pervasive, and so invisible, that even your
> company may depend on as many as 30-40 UNIX and Linux systems for it's
> very survival, and you aren't even aware of it.  You don't notice it
> because the systems fail so rarely and they are designed to be
> redundant.  When a Linux system DOES fail, it often makes
> international headline news.  The little glitch in the market last
> week was probably a glitch in one of the UNIX servers that controls
> the actual trading systems.

Come on man O/S(s) do fail in a company and it's not on USA Today.
> 
>>>> Just about every business application runs on Windows, and the uniformity has
>>>> made it cheaper and easier for tech vendors to write programs for
>>>> companies like mine.
> 
>>> But when it comes to writing business critical applications, most top
>>> 100 software companies and nearly all of the business oriented ones
>>> now use Java, and use platform independent Java, or write code
>>> designed to run on Linux, and Unix as their primary platforms, with
>>> Windows as a development platform for prototyping, proof of concept,
>>> and pilot projects.
> 
>> You prove it. I see .NET being used quite a bit. What I don't see is
>> Linux being used, as I have contract from the north, south, east and
>> west boarder-2-boarder and cost-2-cost in the US. What I don't see is
>> Linux being used in a company's core business solutions. I see a lot of
>> MS solutions and 3rd party vendors developing a lot of .NET solution as
>> core business solutions.
> 
> .NET is a gateway interface used for integration to numerous back-end
> systems, such as SOA.  What's BEHIND those SOA applications can be
> almost anything.  And very often it's Oracle Financials, Seibel,
> SalesForce, SAP, and order systems to back-end systems. 

Those are applications that can be setting on the back-end. But then 
there are customized in-house back-end solutions that are written that 
are SOA using the .NET Windows Communication Foundation services over 
TCP/IP,  MSMSQ, Named Pipe and HTTP.

> Your company
> might be small, but you may have big customers or big vendors and
> suppliers.  They might have a .NET interface, but it's more like a
> modem to a much bigger system.
> 
And .NET is behind those solutions as well on the back-end with the 
implementation of Windows Communication Foundation, Linq service 
providers, ADO.NET Entity Framework ((ORM) for many database providers), 
Linq-2-SQL and ADO.NET using the Enterprise Library that applies to many 
database providers.

So the bottom line here is don't you think that everything is running on 
Linux and UNIX servers, because they are NOT.

> I know quite about about these B2B integration environments, since
> that's what I do for a living.

I do and have done the same thing. So what?
> And I've worked with most of those top 100 companies - and most of
> their biggest customers.

So what do you think I have been doing other than working for large 
corporations in developing and implementing major in-house business 
solutions?

> 
> And then there are government agencies.
> 
>>> Even small businesses who don't have ANYTHING but windows in their
>>> location usually depend heavily on the Linux and UNIX servers of their
>>> vendors and corporate customers.
> 
>> That's not the same thing and you know. Why you brought it up is kind of
>> ridiculous.
> 
> Actually, it's exactly the same thing.  The claim was that

No it is not.
> 
>>>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
>>>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

> 
> What made their businesses profitable and efficient is the
> connectivity of their Windows systems to Linux and Windows systems.
> Linux and Unix - with the help of Apache, Mosaic (AKA IE), FireFox,
> and other Web, E-mail, and Internet interfaces - which are almost
> invisible to Windows users - who think that it's Windows, IE, and
> Outlook doing "all the work".

You're mixing apples and oranges here. You're trying to apply what's 
happening in large corporations to a small business owner. The two ARE 
NOT THE SAME THING.

You don't know what that person is doing to run his business. You don't 
know. The point the OP is making I believe is his ability to purchase 
off the self 3rd party solutions that can be implemented within his 
small business infrastructure with relative ease using the Windows 
platform.

> 
>>> And when they buy their supplies in retail stores, they probably check
>>> out at cash registers controlled by Linux or Unix, that communicate
>>> directly to servers running Linux or Unix.  Their credit card
>>> purchases are validated using embedded Linux, UNIX, or UNIX API
>>> Compatible systems that confirm the purchase by communicating with
>>> UNIX servers.
> 
>> This has nothing to do with anything concerning the writer's business
>> using a computer.
> 
> The writer doesn't really explain what his business actually is?

Why should he have to explain his business to you or anyone else?
> 
> Appearantly he is a free-lance writer - so he has a business with one
> employee, and he sends his galleys to a publisher in Microsoft office
> format - but is that the final form of publication?  OR is the content
> converted to SGML, XML, or other multi-platform formats?  Is it then
> converted to Postscript for typesetting machines?  And converted to
> CSS/HTML for web pages?
> 

You really are amazing here and a Houdini with a crystal ball. You have 
no clue as what else this person may have going to generate business for 
himself.

> Even his blog was published by Bloomberg - who was one of my clients.
> They are heavy users of UNIX and also use some Linux.  

I don't care about his blog.

> They also store
> documents in XML formats and format them in multiple output format.  I
> can tell you for shore that they are not a "Windows-Only" shop.

But the writer's business is a Windows situation, which was the his 
point, and it has nothing to do with what you're rambling on about.
> 
> Again, if corporations suddenly decided that Windows PCs were far to
> vulnerable to hacker attacks - they could switch to Linux and the
> disruption would be substantial, but nowhere near as significant as
> what would happen if all those Windows users suddenly couldn't get ANY
> connectivity to corporate networks because the company had decided to
> block ALL Windows PCs from accessing their Linux and Unix machines.

What makes you think Linux and UNIX are setting on the back-end? Most 
corporate situations have the users locked down at the workstation 
anyway so they just can't do anything he or she wants, with them even 
being prevented from going to non approved Web sites.

So no, if network admins are doing their job, massive PC infections 
don't happen at the corporate level like you claim they do.

> 
>>> The ignorance is that he sees the Windows logo, sees the front-end
>>> application running on IE or a custom application running on Windows -
>>> and assume that Windows is doing it all.
> 
>> It may very well be that Windows is doing it all for him. Just how do
>> you know that it's not in the context of his small business?
> 
> He's deliberately ambiguous - but as I pointed out above, Bloomberg
> has been one of my clients, so I know who writes at least one of his
> checks.  If he told Bloomberg that they couldn't make any modification
> to his Word documents - they couldn't publish his content - and he
> wouldn't be getting any checks from Bloomberg.

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT HOW HE BLOGGED IT.

> 
> In fact, somebody probably has to convert his word document into SGML
> or XML.

I don't care.

> 
>>> On the other hand, Linux and UNIX have been very modest about their
>>> branding rights.  Many sights don't even mention that they are powered
>>> by Linux, the Linux logo isn't even required to appear.  About the
>>> only requirement is that in that obsure location where the copyrights
>>> are listed, the only requirement for Linux is that the publisher
>>> provide a place where the GNU portions of Linux could be downloaded.
> 
>> I really don't care about this.
> 
> You've made a claim - based on a claim of another author.

What claim did I make here? You're the one MAKING ALL THE CLAIMS.

I made a point that Schestowitz likes to sensationalize with posts that 
are mis-leading and negative in their nature, which he did here with 
only posting certain statements out of the article with his negative 
twist on things.

And then here you come with all this other 'off the wall nonsense'. You 
  assumed you knew what my point was about, but you have no clue.
> 
>>>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
>>>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.
> 
> My case is that what makes businesses more profitable and efficient is
> NOT Windows or Office.

It's just your opinion, they are a dime a dozen, and everyone has one.

> Windows and Office did make a substantial difference in profitability
> from 1990 to 1993, but from 1994 on - it's been the Internet, the Web,
> Pop and Imap E-mail, LDAP, IPC and other IETF and UNIX/Linux
> technologies - along with Java - that has made businesses more
> efficient.

I don't care about office solutions. I develop enterprise level business 
solutions, which have made business more efficient.

> 
> While Microsoft is trying to figure out ways to improve video game
> performance in Vista and Windows 7

MS has more going on with both platforms other than home user usage and 
you know it. This is just nonsense out of you.

> the Linux, Unix, and Java
> community were trying to figure out how to improve collaboration
> tools, business process management, business work-flow, customer
> relationship management, and business intelligence - reducing waste
> and optimizing resources, reducing travel, and globalization -
> including expanding into global markets.

Oh really? I see .NET is doing the same thing here. Apparently, you have 
a very limited knowledge, usage or no usage at all with .NET to even 
know what is going on with it and the strides it's making in the area of 
SOA with front-end and back-end in enterprise level infrastructures, 
both Internet and Intranet.

On May 17, 4:04=A0am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On May 17, 12:15 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> >> Rex Ballard wrote:
> >>> On May 16, 9:35 pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
> >>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> >>>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
> >>>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.

> >>> That's not really true. =A0In reality most businesses owe their
> >>> profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
> >>> Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storag=
e
> >>> controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
> >>> and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
> >>> services, and even many .NET services.

> >> Did you miss the words "small companies"?

Yes, what exactly is a "Small company" anyway?
Some self-employed free-lance blogger who works part-time and gets a
1099 check from one client every years for a few hundred dollars?

Someone in a multi-level marketing organization who gets a residual
check that doesn't quite cover his actual expenses, but ever 3 years
he under-reports his deductions so that he makes just enough to be
"profitable" so he can continue to claim losses for the next 3 years?

Or is in the software consultant who, in addition to his full-time job
in a larger corporation works for a few hours getting cash and
personal checks for helping friends at church and other community
organizations set up their Windows PCs?

Those would be some companies who would have no awareness of anything
but Windows, and might even have a web site powered by Windows, that
might only have ASP pages.

> >> I have seen Linux used twice
> >> in corporate in any significant way.

And you didn't see any UNIX?
How familiar with the entire data center were you?

> >> Once at a fortune top 100 company,
> >> an agriculture company, Linux was a total failure. The other place was=
 a
> >> call center that had a lot of Linux communication stuff, but the core
> >> business activities were conducted on Windows servers and desktops.

> > Are you sure that they don't use Linux ANYWHERE?
> > They may not be using Linux on the desktop - that isn't so unusual.

> Look man I was at the company and you were not there. The core business
> applications were running on the Windows platform.

How many other companies have you interacted with?  How many have you
integrated with?
How many have you done B2B integrations with?

> > On the other hand, is there a WiFi hub? =A0That's probably Linux.

> This has something to do with billing, accounts payable/receivable,
> payroll, purchase orders etc, etc business applications?

Oh, you mean like SAP, Seibel, Oracle Financials, JD-Edwards?  Price
Waterhouse?

Or are you talking about the Quick-Books records that get submitted to
the accounting firms that use the systems mentioned above?

> > Who is their ISP provider?
> > How do they connect to the Internet?
> > Do they have a web site?

> Windows

Your ignorance is really beginning to show.
Mind you, there is nothing wrong here, you just lack information, and
lack the willingness to get the information that doesn't match what
you have already been told.

There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling,
a world of mainframes, data centers, security infrastructure, business
to business integration, and when corporations are dealing with
millions of dollars and thousands of orders - per hour or even per
second, - they don't use Windows.  Yes, they interact with small
businesses - and they might even offer Windows interfaces - for
example web browser interfaces - but behind those nice friendly web
browsers is a very powerful set of UNIX servers and Mainframes -
usually supported by a number of Linux servers.

> > What kind of routers does it use?

> I don't know who care.

You said it was WINDOWS that made businesses more effecient - I say it
was the NETWORK - the Internet that made it more efficient.  Windows
improved efficiency from 1990 to 1993, but Linux had most of the same
features by 1994, and more.  Furthermore, by 1994, Linux already had
support for the Web, Plug-and-play, text search engines, portals,
Internet Relay Chat, and Single Sign-on.  What you call IE, IIS, and
PnP - which came out in 1995 on Windows, Lycos and MSN which came out
in 1996, and Active Directory which came out in 2001.

Linux had high speed pre-emptive fully functional multitasking with
isolation between forked processes, what you call apartment threads -
back in 1991.  Microsoft's multitasking wasn't fully functional until
2000.

Linux had a highly effective security model back in 1992, so effective
in fact, that the Clinton administration and the NSA were concerned
that terrorists, drug dealers, and pedophiles might use the triple-des
encryption, pgp encryption, and kerberos authentication to create
systems so secure that they couldn't be monitored (hence the creation
of public key infrastructures and certificate authorities).

Microsoft STILL hasn't dealt with security issues that have been
problematic since the 1980s, and still uses security models that leave
users exposed to hackers.  The "Fix" is antivirus and anti-malware
software that attempts to identify malicious software after it has
been loaded to the hard drive - as soon as possible, and then either
quarantine or remove the malicious software.  Even this is a problem
because the simplest way around this is to purchase certificates that
tell the anti-virus and anti-malware detectors that your software is
safe.  Of course, these certificates can easily be purchased with
stolen credit card numbers.

All that security vulnerability does NOT make Microsoft more secure.
Ironically, one of the best ways to make businesses more effecient -
is to protect them by surrounding them with UNIX and Linux systems
that act as firewalls and protocol gateways.  Even Microsoft uses
Linux as protocol gateways and load balancers.

These security measures also protect customers as well.  Without these
security measures, customers would be even more vulnerable to virus
attacks, identity theft, and wire fraud, than they already are.

> > What kind of server does in use?
> Windows
> > What about the back-end servers?
> Windows

Again, you are only looking as far as you want to look.
In the case of the article - the writer had a PC, where he wrote his
articles, on Microsoft word, and e-mailed them to to an editor at
bloomberg.  That editor had to then reformat that content to the
archive format used at bloomberg - SGML IIRC, which is also used by
McGRAW Hill, Gannett, and Scripps-Howard.  I'm not sure about News
Corp.  It's been used on the Linux Documentation Project since 1993,
and by IBM since the 1980s.  It was an adaptation of IBM's GML which
was contributed to the Athena project and became Standard Generalized
Markup Language (SGML) and has been widely used since then.  HTML and
XML are subsets of SGML that were created because Windows was too
brain-dead to handle full blown SGML.

> > Linux and Unix are so pervasive, and so invisible, that even your
> > company may depend on as many as 30-40 UNIX and Linux systems for it's
> > very survival, and you aren't even aware of it. =A0You don't notice it
> > because the systems fail so rarely and they are designed to be
> > redundant. =A0When a Linux system DOES fail, it often makes
> > international headline news. =A0The little glitch in the market last
> > week was probably a glitch in one of the UNIX servers that controls
> > the actual trading systems.

> Come on man O/S(s) do fail in a company and it's not on USA Today.

You're absolutely right, Windows systems fail so frequently that the
failures don't even merit a line in the status reports anymore.  It's
become more like a part of the standard "overhead" budget, which is
usually under-estimated during the planning phase, and handled as
uncompensated overtime during the mediation phase.

When a Linux systems fails, it's a bigger deal, because there are
usually more people hoping it will fail, and more than happy to make a
big deal of it when it does.  Microsoft will even for nice big ads
next to articles tales of such failures.

When a UNIX system fails, it's usually connected to something pretty
important.  There are usually back-up systems, and when both the
primary and the back-up fail, it usually has consequences that are
interesting enough to make the newspapers, and often interesting
enough to make he network TV news.  The computer glitch that causes
the stock market to plummet 700 points for 3 minutes, the computer
glitch that causes the power to go out in the northeast, or
California, or the computer glitch that caused air-traffic controllers
to stop incoming flights at an airport.  Those are usually UNIX
systems that have had their first failure in years - sometimes their
first failures in decades, and usually after a software upgrade or fix
that was not properly tested before being rushed into production.

Too many Windows managers are getting moved into the UNIX community.

Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:

> On May 17, 4:04�am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>
> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling, ...

Heh heh

-- 
FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #19
A:	To be or not to be.
Q:	What is the square root of 4b^2?

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On May 17, 4:04 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> On May 17, 12:15 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>>> On May 16, 9:35 pm, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>>>>>> But without Windows running their PCs, most of the small companies I
>>>>>> know, including my own, wouldn't be as profitable and efficient.
> 
>>>>> That's not really true.  In reality most businesses owe their
>>>>> profitability to a combination of Windows desktops and Linux/Unix
>>>>> Servers, servers used as web sites, as servers, as routers, as storage
>>>>> controllers, as e-mail routers and gateways, as SNMP and POP servers,
>>>>> and and back-end servers to numerous corporate web sites, SOA
>>>>> services, and even many .NET services.
> 
>>>> Did you miss the words "small companies"?
> 
> Yes, what exactly is a "Small company" anyway?
> Some self-employed free-lance blogger who works part-time and gets a
> 1099 check from one client every years for a few hundred dollars?

A 1099 check huh? I have gotten 1099 checks in the $1,000's and had to 
pay the taxes too. So what is your point? You have no point here. You're 
not walking in anyone's shoes. I like that crystal ball you got there, 
chief.

> 
> Someone in a multi-level marketing organization who gets a residual
> check that doesn't quite cover his actual expenses, but ever 3 years
> he under-reports his deductions so that he makes just enough to be
> "profitable" so he can continue to claim losses for the next 3 years?

Pfft, I don't care about your ramble here.
> 
> Or is in the software consultant who, in addition to his full-time job
> in a larger corporation works for a few hours getting cash and
> personal checks for helping friends at church and other community
> organizations set up their Windows PCs?

Pfft, I don't care about this.
> 
> Those would be some companies who would have no awareness of anything
> but Windows, and might even have a web site powered by Windows, that
> might only have ASP pages.

That's classic ASP and ASP.NET pages, and yes they are aware of other 
platforms. But does that mean they have to use the other platforms. They 
do and can choose not to use another platform.
> 
>>>> I have seen Linux used twice
>>>> in corporate in any significant way.
> 
> And you didn't see any UNIX?
> How familiar with the entire data center were you?

All MS shops, and I had the inside track  with the network 
administration managers, who I worked with closely.
> 
>>>> Once at a fortune top 100 company,
>>>> an agriculture company, Linux was a total failure. The other place was a
>>>> call center that had a lot of Linux communication stuff, but the core
>>>> business activities were conducted on Windows servers and desktops.
> 
>>> Are you sure that they don't use Linux ANYWHERE?
>>> They may not be using Linux on the desktop - that isn't so unusual.
> 
>> Look man I was at the company and you were not there. The core business
>> applications were running on the Windows platform.
> 
> How many other companies have you interacted with?  How many have you
> integrated with?
> How many have you done B2B integrations with?

I have been in IT since 1971, and programming since 1980. I don't even 
want to count the number of companies I have interacted with over my 
long and illustrious career.

Do you think any of this stuff you're rambling about is new? I am afraid 
I have to bust your bubble, and tell you that it's not new.
> 
>>> On the other hand, is there a WiFi hub?  That's probably Linux.
> 
>> This has something to do with billing, accounts payable/receivable,
>> payroll, purchase orders etc, etc business applications?
> 
> Oh, you mean like SAP, Seibel, Oracle Financials, JD-Edwards?  Price
> Waterhouse?
> 
3rd party solutions? You're going to sit there and tell me that 
everything is 3rd party solutions and nothing is custom and in-house 
written solutions?

> Or are you talking about the Quick-Books records that get submitted to
> the accounting firms that use the systems mentioned above?

You're talking Mickey Mouse here.
> 
>>> Who is their ISP provider?
>>> How do they connect to the Internet?
>>> Do they have a web site?
> 
>> Windows
> 
> Your ignorance is really beginning to show.

Your blindness is beginning to show. I didn't and don't see you working 
in none of the .Net shops I have worked in, with regards to client Web 
sites.

> Mind you, there is nothing wrong here, you just lack information, and
> lack the willingness to get the information that doesn't match what
> you have already been told.

It's not putting a dime in my pockets, no food on the table, and paying 
none of my bills.

So do I need to tell you that I don't care about what you're rambling about?

> 
> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling,
> a world of mainframes, data centers, security infrastructure, business
> to business integration, and when corporations are dealing with
> millions of dollars and thousands of orders - per hour or even per
> second, - they don't use Windows. 

Companies do use Windows application servers on the back-end and middle 
tiers to feed a mainframe or mainframes - no doubt. I have written such 
solutions. On that same token, they are also using Windows Web server 
farms on the front-end and back-end application servers on 
infrastructures. And Windows servers are also being used as application 
servers that are non Web related.

And if you think that is not happening, then you're kidding yourself.

> Yes, they interact with small
> businesses - and they might even offer Windows interfaces - for
> example web browser interfaces - but behind those nice friendly web
> browsers is a very powerful set of UNIX servers and Mainframes -
> usually supported by a number of Linux servers.

LOL! You don't say. Really? And on that same token, Windows servers are 
sitting there too being used.
> 
>>> What kind of routers does it use?
> 
>> I don't know who care.
> 
> You said it was WINDOWS that made businesses more effecient - I say it
> was the NETWORK - the Internet that made it more efficient.

Man please! I said nothing. YOU'RE THE ONE GOING OFF THE DEEP END ABOUT 
LINUX THIS, LINUX THAT, UNIX THIS, AND UNIX THAT!

ARE YOU JOKING HERE? ARE YOU THIS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY? YOU JUST 
START PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTH WHEN NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING 
ABOUT WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE RAMBLING ON ABOUT?

>  Windows
> improved efficiency from 1990 to 1993, but Linux had most of the same
> features by 1994, and more.  Furthermore, by 1994, Linux already had
> support for the Web, Plug-and-play, text search engines, portals,
> Internet Relay Chat, and Single Sign-on.  What you call IE, IIS, and
> PnP - which came out in 1995 on Windows, Lycos and MSN which came out
> in 1996, and Active Directory which came out in 2001.

You think this actually means something now, what happened in the past? 
If you want to give a spill about history, then take it elsewhere.
> 
> Linux had high speed pre-emptive fully functional multitasking with
> isolation between forked processes, what you call apartment threads -
> back in 1991.  Microsoft's multitasking wasn't fully functional until
> 2000.
>

So? It's better late than never to the dance, huh?

> Linux had a highly effective security model back in 1992, so effective
> in fact, that the Clinton administration and the NSA were concerned
> that terrorists, drug dealers, and pedophiles might use the triple-des
> encryption, pgp encryption, and kerberos authentication to create
> systems so secure that they couldn't be monitored (hence the creation
> of public key infrastructures and certificate authorities).
> 

Somehow this went from what a small business user was concerned about in 
an article to national security? You do need to be horse whipped about 
this departure, as you ramble on.


> Microsoft STILL hasn't dealt with security issues that have been
> problematic since the 1980s, and still uses security models that leave
> users exposed to hackers. 


MS does seem to be dealing with the situation due to the NSA's 
involvement with Vista and Windows 7 development.

> The "Fix" is antivirus and anti-malware
> software that attempts to identify malicious software after it has
> been loaded to the hard drive - as soon as possible, and then either
> quarantine or remove the malicious software.  Even this is a problem
> because the simplest way around this is to purchase certificates that
> tell the anti-virus and anti-malware detectors that your software is
> safe.  Of course, these certificates can easily be purchased with
> stolen credit card numbers.

And somehow Linux is immune to all this when it has software running 
looking for rootkits all over the place? Linux is NOT being hacked on 
the face of this Earth?

> 
> All that security vulnerability does NOT make Microsoft more secure.
> Ironically, one of the best ways to make businesses more effecient -
> is to protect them by surrounding them with UNIX and Linux systems
> that act as firewalls and protocol gateways.  Even Microsoft uses
> Linux as protocol gateways and load balancers.

Again, this is your opinion, they are a dime a dozen, and everyone has 
an opinion.
> 
> These security measures also protect customers as well.  Without these
> security measures, customers would be even more vulnerable to virus
> attacks, identity theft, and wire fraud, than they already are.

They are getting hammered just going to Linux sites, let alone MS sites.

> 
>>> What kind of server does in use?
>> Windows
>>> What about the back-end servers?
>> Windows
> 
> Again, you are only looking as far as you want to look.
> In the case of the article - the writer had a PC, where he wrote his
> articles, on Microsoft word, and e-mailed them to to an editor at
> bloomberg.  That editor had to then reformat that content to the
> archive format used at bloomberg - SGML IIRC, which is also used by
> McGRAW Hill, Gannett, and Scripps-Howard.  I'm not sure about News
> Corp.  It's been used on the Linux Documentation Project since 1993,
> and by IBM since the 1980s.  It was an adaptation of IBM's GML which
> was contributed to the Athena project and became Standard Generalized
> Markup Language (SGML) and has been widely used since then.  HTML and
> XML are subsets of SGML that were created because Windows was too
> brain-dead to handle full blown SGML.

None of this is putting one dime in my pockets. All you're doing is 
rambling, and you have gone off the deep-end.
> 
>>> Linux and Unix are so pervasive, and so invisible, that even your
>>> company may depend on as many as 30-40 UNIX and Linux systems for it's
>>> very survival, and you aren't even aware of it.  You don't notice it
>>> because the systems fail so rarely and they are designed to be
>>> redundant.  When a Linux system DOES fail, it often makes
>>> international headline news.  The little glitch in the market last
>>> week was probably a glitch in one of the UNIX servers that controls
>>> the actual trading systems.
> 
>> Come on man O/S(s) do fail in a company and it's not on USA Today.
> 
> You're absolutely right, Windows systems fail so frequently that the
> failures don't even merit a line in the status reports anymore.  It's
> become more like a part of the standard "overhead" budget, which is
> usually under-estimated during the planning phase, and handled as
> uncompensated overtime during the mediation phase.

Yeah right! You really are something to behold no doubt about it.
> 
> When a Linux systems fails, it's a bigger deal, because there are
> usually more people hoping it will fail, and more than happy to make a
> big deal of it when it does.  Microsoft will even for nice big ads
> next to articles tales of such failures.

LOL!
> 
> When a UNIX system fails, it's usually connected to something pretty
> important.  There are usually back-up systems, and when both the
> primary and the back-up fail, it usually has consequences that are
> interesting enough to make the newspapers, and often interesting
> enough to make he network TV news.  The computer glitch that causes
> the stock market to plummet 700 points for 3 minutes, the computer
> glitch that causes the power to go out in the northeast, or
> California, or the computer glitch that caused air-traffic controllers
> to stop incoming flights at an airport.  Those are usually UNIX
> systems that have had their first failure in years - sometimes their
> first failures in decades, and usually after a software upgrade or fix
> that was not properly tested before being rushed into production.

What does this have to do with anything? Why are you going off the 
deep-end here?
> 
> Too many Windows managers are getting moved into the UNIX community.
> 

And they are still using MS, just like you're using MS.

I must say that all this rambling you have done here is a classic ramble 
of someone that's not in their right mind.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> On May 17, 4:04 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling, ...
> 
> Heh heh
> 

Parkey Margarine Ahlstrom at his best, which is being someone's lapdog.

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> writes:

> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On May 17, 4:04 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling, ...
>
> Heh heh

Ye gods. Is there no limit to your self debasement? Grow a spine already
and stop sucking up.

On 2010-05-17, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> claimed:
> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On May 17, 4:04 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling, ...
>
> Heh heh

The Big Tick: Just another pesk that should be eradicated as it carries
the disease of terminal stupidity.

-- 
Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there
Aspire One, Linux Mint 8 (LXDE)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Sinister Midget III wrote:
> On 2010-05-17, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> claimed:
>> Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> On May 17, 4:04 am, The Big Ticket <B...@Ticket7.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a whole world of information technology out there youngling, ...
>> Heh heh
> 
> The Big Tick: Just another pesk that should be eradicated as it carries
> the disease of terminal stupidity.
> 

Silly Sinister Monkey III (don't know what happened to I and II) is 
swinging in the trees tossing dung as it swings, with pants on the 
ground looking like a fool with its pants on the ground.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Roy Schestowitz on Monday 17 May 2010 01:15 : \____

> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Microsoft's Utility Quiets a Chronic Complainer
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I kvetched when Windows 7 came out, and then
> | again six months later.
> `----
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2010/tc2010056_672438.htm

Here is another company which is having problems with Vista 7:

Intel hits migration delays with Windows 7

,----[ Quote ]
| Intel faces challenges in migrating from
| Windows XP to Windows 7, including
| application incompatibility and system
| readiness, the company said.
|
| Intel worked with Microsoft to develop
| Windows 7 into a stable operating system, but
| there is still a lot of heavy lifting
| involved before migrating PCs to the new OS
| inside Intel's environment, wrote Intel staff
| engineer Roy Ubry in a blog entry. Challenges
| include issues related to backward
| application compatibility, web browser
| support, 64-bit computing and privacy
| controls.
`----

http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/3213679/intel-hits-migration-delays-with-windows-7/

Intel: Just 3,000 employees run Windows 7

,----[ Quote ]
| Despite the firm's rapid turnaround of PCs and its very public
| partnership with Microsoft, Bryant said that so far it had
| shifted just 3,000 of its 80,000 plus employees onto Windows 7.
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/bryant_cebit_speech/



- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes


All programs evolve until they can send email. -- Richard Letts
Except Microsoft Exchange. -- Art
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 00:20:01 up 18 days, 14:33,  1 user,  load average: 0.76, 1.05, 1.30
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvzIWEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5tpgCglq0kq8toB59EfHRTRGqObxmt
RvkAmwbJdulZprui2AFN5co023Q9NYam
=bcrR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----