ZenJabba1 - Slashdot User

Submission + - CNet promotes major open source alternative apps (cnet.co.uk)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2007 @05:34AM

An anonymous reader writes: CNet is running a massive article promoting open source applications as alternatives to major commercial products, in an aim to educate the average Joe on the advantages of open source. While uber-l337 open source aficionados will already using many of these, it's an admirable pitch to put the word out that open source is ready for mainstream adoption.

Submission + - Vista SP1 a Performance Dud (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

Craig Barth

on Monday November 19, 2007 @04:04AM

Craig Barth writes: "With the initial performance characteristics of Windows Vista leaving much to be desired (see our previous post on the subject), many IT organizations have put off deploying the new OS until the first service pack (SP1) is released by Microsoft early next year. The thinking goes that SP1 will address all of these early performance issues and somehow bring Windows Vista on par with — or at least closer to — Windows XP in terms of runtime performance. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Extensive testing by the exo.performance.network (www.xpnet.com) research staff shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."

Submission + - Australian Forum Lawsuit result (whirlpool.net.au)

Submitted by Pugzly on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @06:00PM

Pugzly writes: As a follow up to the previously reported lawsuit of Whirlpool (popular Australian forum) founder Simon Wright by Accouting Software company 2clix. It appears that Whirlpool received a response from 2Clix solicitors Turnbull & Co, stating that it has received instructions to discontinue the case and that it will "attend to preparation of the Notice of Discontinuance".
In an article published in The Age, 2clix reportedly sent Whirlpool a letter stating (amongst other things) "Our intent was neither to damage Whirlpool or its freedom of speech, only to help our genuine clients and stop our competitors making untrue accusations,".

NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament 282

Posted by kdawson on Sunday July 29, 2007 @04:45AM from the head-and-shoulders-only dept.

mernil writes "New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament, attracting a storm of media and academic criticism. The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.' The new rules are actually more liberal than the previous ones, but the threat of felony contempt is new."

Submission + - Our ATM is broken, so you go to jail? (myway.com)

Submitted by Actually, I do RTFA on Sunday July 29, 2007 @03:39AM

Actually, I do RTFA writes: A short while ago, slashdot featured an article about possible criminal prosecution for people who took advantage of faulty slot machine software. At the time, many people drew an analogy to an ATM that dispensed too much money. Well, apparently, that too may result in criminal charges. Interestingly, although they suspect that someone may have tampered with the ATM, they are considering charging anyone who withdrew money from the ATM.

This also provides an interesting rejoinder to 'if they can build a secure ATM, why cannot Diebold build a secure electronic voting machine.'

Submission + - Court: Web contracts can't be changed w/o notice (computerworld.com)

Submitted by RZG on Saturday July 28, 2007 @11:49PM

RZG writes: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 18th that contracts posted online cannot be updated without notifying users. "Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side", the court wrote. This ruling has consequences for many online businesses, who took for granted their right to do this. (See for example item 19 in Google's Terms of Service)

Submission + - Dell blocks installation of standard components 1

Submitted by

Loh Phat

on Friday July 27, 2007 @04:15AM

Loh Phat writes: "Hardware vendors voiding warranties or not providing support is a standard caveat across the industry, but yesterday Dell showed that withholding a $5 part is more important that future sales or bad press.

Our company purchased a Dell PowerEdge 3250 (Dual CPU Itanium) less than two years ago (still under warranty BTW) for cross platform development (yes, our customers demand support for that platform). So we purchased a unit with a single drive in a two drive system.

Its spec sheet specifies U320 SCSI drive support — a standard. See for yourself http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pedg e/en/3250_specs.pdf

So when we wanted to add storage we purchased a standard U320 compatible drive and went to install it, however when we pulled the hot-swap drive sled out we noticed that it lacked mounting facilities for the drive; it curiously didn't match the existing sled in the occupied bay. They are 99% identical except for the lack of facility to actually attach a drive.

During a call to Dell "support" it seems that a year ago (a year after we bought the server and before the warranty expires) they stopped selling the drive sled capable of mounting a drive as a separate component — you can only get them, wait for it, attached to a Dell SCSI drive.

So it seems that it's OK to advertise the compatibility with industry-standard components, you just can't use them. With no pre-sales caveat that you will not be allowed to install anything standard unless it comes from Dell. Funny, the drive sled has its own part number H7206 but Dell *refused* to sell it to me.

The term "bait-and-switch" comes to mind. I'm all for caveat emptor, but a full declaration of terms is not unreasonable.

I don't mind having the freedom to be denied service or support of using non-vendor supplied parts (well, I do actually but I least know that before I buy) but in this case I'm physically prevented from doing so after the purchase.

So the question remains: are there grounds to file an anti-trust or some other complaint with the State regarding this deceptive business practice?

Regardless, they're now off the vendor list (actually I inherited the server as I would have selected another vendor in the first place). Good forward thinking there guys."

Cisco to Kill Linksys Brand Name 262

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thursday July 26, 2007 @10:02PM from the alas-we-hardly-knew-ye dept.

Mav sent in this article that opens, "In a roundtable with the European press, John Chambers confirmed the "end of life" of the Linksys name, being replaced by the new and redesigned Cisco branding." He explains, "It will all come over time into a Cisco brand. The reason we kept Linksys' brand because it was better known in the US than even Cisco was for the consumer. As you go globally there's very little advantage in that."

Slashdot Top Deals