Slashdot Log In
Gates Comdex Keynote Shows Plans, Matrix Spoof
Posted by
simoniker
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 06:01 PM
from the he-knows-kung-fu dept.
from the he-knows-kung-fu dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to Eweek, Bill Gates' keynote speech at this year's Comdex showed Microsoft's 'focus on security, spam and [the] tablet PC', including a new version of its Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server, an extension of the SmartScreen Technology for spam prevention, and the next version of the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system. But the showstopper was a filmed spoof of The Matrix (screencaps available here), with Gates and Steve Ballmer as Morpheus and Neo respectively, and including a jab at Linux."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Gates Comdex Keynote Shows Plans, Matrix Spoof
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 803 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
(http://eric.halo43.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @12:54AM)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Saturday September 20 2003, @01:55PM)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Insightful)
How about last week... One of our competitors that pride themselves on being the best in the industry with Security and using Linux Servers as their flagship of security had about 100 customer's web servers root hacked.
Linux can be secure, but it just isn't as easy as the Open Source world tries to create. The Myth becomes so predominate that people install Linux and just assume that their computers are more secure, and hence never take into account updates, patches, or basic security measures.
People here simply saying that Linux is more secure is doing a DIS-service to the Linux and Open Source movement, as customers that do make the leap feel too comfortable with the 'myth of security' and then let their system get hacked right and left and flee Open Source and Linux after being burned.
Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it. All it takes is time and a smart mind to virtually get into anything.
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://remarque.org/~doug | Last Journal: Saturday December 07 2002, @01:44PM)
There's a lot of truth to this. But it misses the point that, if you try, it's much easier to make Unix/Linux systems relatively secure, whereas it's an uphill battle with Windoze. Until recently, Microsoft gave the appearance that they didn't even care very much how secure their software was, regardless of whether the customer cared or not.
You are correct in that this is almost a side issue, given that it is not easy on any system, and most people don't try hard enough on any system.
But that doesn't mean that all systems are therefore equal.
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, particular daemons have been upgraded, but using straightforward Unix techniques there was zero interruption to service.)
During the last 400 days, there have been many times when we've had to take internal NT servers down to install service packs. Probably about six times that I recall, although I may have supressed the memory of the others... And these Windows machines are not even exposed to the internet, they're just at risk from worms and similar crap on a private network.
"Would you like to restart your computer now?"
"Why yes, of course, it's not like I was actually using the machine for anything!"
There are anecdotes in favor of either system but the simple fact is there is no security-critical Windows machine with an uptime of more than a couple of months, since service packs invariably require a reboot. I think that ought to tell us something.
And this is to say nothing of the outright bastardry of making people sign a new licence agreement to get a critical security fix.
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
(http://frymaster.ca/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:58AM)
wrong. gates is smith! did you see the market share that guy had by the end of the series?
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
I can totally see it:
Bill Gates: Im...not...so...bad...,once...you...get...to...kn
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:4, Funny)
(http://nullability.net/)
Now that's what I call a monopoly.
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
(http://xsco.net/)
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:4, Funny)
Please don't make Clippy an agent (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday June 19 2003, @11:50AM)
Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix.
Let's just pray Agent Clippy doesn't learn how to copy himself!
GMD
Re:It all makes sense now (Score:5, Funny)
Still Better (Score:5, Funny)
Streaming Video Links (Score:5, Informative)
(http://geartest.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 23 2002, @12:59AM)
Courtesy of the Rejected Post Machine
2003-11-17 08:56:08 Comdex 2003 Opens with Bill Gates Talking Security (articles,comdex) (rejected)
Bill Gates delivered a keynote speech on Sunday evening to open COMDEX [microsoft.com], as he has done for the last 20 years. Interesting parts of his security-heavy speech include Microsoft's research budget, with Gates saying that this year Microsoft 'will spend $6.8 billion in R&D, that's double what we spent five years ago;' admitting that tools which scan for stack or buffer overruns and other security problems 'are tools that we're not applying in our development process;' that security is 'certainly the largest thing that we're doing;' but waffled on security/patch management with this statement: 'Now, to really provide security, the software has to be kept up to date and the software updates have to be clearly partitioned so that things that are just optional and new features are kept separate from the hopefully increasingly rare updates that relate to security issues that have really thoroughly been checked to make sure they won't cause any regression.' Gates continued on about Trustworthy Computing, security, spam, firewalls, policy controls, XML, 'Seamless Computing' and the long-delayed Longhorn. There was also a parody of the Matrix starring Bill Gates as Morpheus and Steve Ballmer as Neo, with the Matrix represented by Linux-selling IBM consultants and the Real World as Windows-based. You can read the full text of Bill Gates' speech [microsoft.com] from COMDEX [comdex.com] (with demos from three other Microsofties) or view the entire presentation online [microsoft.com] (56kbps low [cwusa.tv] | 100 kbps med [cwusa.tv] | 300 kbps high [cwusa.tv]) for the next week. A warning though: the speech is over an hour long.
Re:Streaming Video Links (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Streaming Video Links (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Streaming Video Links (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.manu.com.au/)
You don't speak for me. I think this is great. Why? Because it means Linux has finally entered the collective consciousness.
What the fuck am I talking about? Parody only works when the audience knows exactly what you're talking about with just the subtlest hints. The spoof didn't need to spell out what Linux is. It was assumed knowledge. Microsoft assumed that the audience knew that Larry Ewing's Tux logo is the Linux mascot, that the audience knew what Linux is and what Linux does, that the audience knew that Linux is competing with Microsoft, and so on.
It is great news that Microsoft acknowledges Linux in this way. It shows that Linux has become big enough to not just attract attention from Microsoft (the Halloween documents demonstrated that) but that everybody in the computing industry is expected to know about Linux by now.
Woohoo. I still remember when this site was called Chips and Dips. I remember the cheering and stomping of feet when the first paper magazine ran an article on Linux. Now Linux inspires spoofs from one of the world's biggest software companies! This is a great day for Linux.
Re:already slashdotted... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.traicovn.com/)
How many times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.pudim.com.br/)
Re:How many times... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=
WS03 is affected, but vulnerability is mitigated by the fact that IE runs in enhanced security mode.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=
Doesn't affect WS03
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=
Doesn't affect WS03
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=
Doesn't affect Office 2003
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=
Doesn't affect Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 SP4
So as you can see, the latest versions of Windows & Office are definitely more secure
Re:Oh the Irony (Score:5, Funny)
(http://frymaster.ca/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:58AM)
thank you bill for pusing the envelope.
Re:Oh the Irony (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:43PM)
UNIX: A rough implementation [livinginternet.com] of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware.
Who's got new ideas now?
Linux, Unix, unoriginal? Mod parent down from +3! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://remarque.org/~doug | Last Journal: Saturday December 07 2002, @01:44PM)
Please mod parent back down to normal. He has a highly misleading view of history that has been modded up to +3.
Misleading item #1: "Linux is a clone of Minux, itself a clone of Unix". Completely incorrect, although seemingly-plausible to newbies due to the historical association of these things.
I evaluated Minix back when it was hot stuff, and I rejected it precisely because it was not a clone of Unix. It was a toy version of Unix. If it had been a good clone, I would have used it, no problem.
A few years later, I evaluated Linux. It was not a toy version of either Minix nor Unix, it was a true clone of Unix. So I started using it.
Now, ok, Linux was a true clone of Unix back then, this much is true (although not quite what the poster said), and hence yes, Linux back then was not a new idea.
But so what? The point is that it was a FREELY AVAILABLE, OPEN SOURCE clone of Unix -- which is exactly what millions of us were waiting for. Minix wasn't real Unix...BSD was, but wasn't freely available back then...Linux was a god send.
Misleading item #2: "UNIX: A rough implementation of Multics, written expressly so that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could port a game called Space Travel to old, cheap hardware."
No, Unix is not any kind of version of Multics, that is just plain wrong. Sure, it borrowed a few ideas; the Unix authors were involved in authoring Multics, so surely that is no surprise. But "a version of"? No. Wrong. Completely wrong.
As for "Written so that...Space Travel..." could run on some platform? Sure, that's part of the history...so what? The question is, what did they come up with as a result?
The parent post is a cynical, distorted view of history that is grinding an axe to achieve an agenda. Please mod it back down to a normal +1 opinion. It is NOT insightful nor informative.
Those who forget history... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you may not be aware of this, but at one point (20-25 years ago) Microsoft was seen as the little guy, fighting against the big, powerful, market-dominating, innovation-stifling IBM. Remind anyone of a certain penguin?
Microsoft has turned into everything they used to be against (and sometimes worse). Kinda reminds me of what happens to revolutionaries in the political world. Let's just hope Linus' ego can be kept in check
Re:Those who forget history... (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday August 29 2003, @08:41AM)
Re:Those who forget history... (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing started when Bill G got laughed out of the homebrew computer club for throwing a hissy fit over how people were copying his version of basic.
This is true (and Bill did some dumpster diving to get BASIC), but the OP also has a valid point. When I built my first PC clone, I went to a *software boutique* and tried to buy a copy of MS DOS. (Anyone else remember PC software being so trendy that you had to go to a boutique to buy it?) It wasn't for sale, and they just laughed at me. You didn't *buy* DOS, you just *got it*, nudge, wink, get it? And MicroSoft didn't seem to mind it at all. Try doing that now.
Re:If Microsoft built the matrix (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:If Microsoft built the matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If Microsoft built the matrix (Score:5, Funny)
(http://asdasd/)
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/search.pl?op=journals | Last Journal: Monday August 08 2005, @10:37AM)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have...nothhing (Score:5, Funny)