There's too much competition. I live in a small, rural town of 28,000 souls, and we have 12 (count them!) facilities-based ISPs and more non-facilities-based ones. ISPs know that if they do anything that riles customers, those customers are history.

On the other hand, every government that's gotten control of the Internet in its country has censored it. Without exception.

...for the nearly $1 million that Google gave to the Obama campaign and the similar amount that it gave to the Obama transition team. Not to mention the more than $100K it gave for the inauguration. The so-called "network neutrality" rules proposed by the FCC aren't the slightest bit neutral; they'd tie ISPs' hands while giving control of the Net's future to Google and preventing newcomers from arising to challenge Google's monopolies. And no wonder: they were written by Google lobbyists whom Obama -- breaking his pledge not to hire lobbyists -- hired into the administration. What's more, at least one of the FCC Commissioners -- Michael Copps, the most senior and the one who was Interim Chairman -- has already stated that he wants to use these new regulatory powers to censor the Net. (He's the one who went ballistic over the exposure of Janet Jackson's pastie at the Super Bowl many years ago.) ISPs won't censor the Net; in fact, they have NEVER censored legal content. But the FCC, given the power, will follow in the footsteps of the Australian government and will try to do so.

SHIFT+F10 will give you access to a command prompt during setup, which you can then use to vew status messages and parameters and stuff...

But surely a 3MB patch is still less than the entire browser download - so therefore less bandwidth?

So the original poster is correct - they didn't do their analysis properly. If they'd planned properly they would have figured out that they could get maximum benefit by doing the migration properly. Of course, if they'd done their analysis they would have realised that their problems weren't to do with windows, rather to do with how their infrastructure was operated and managed.

The way they do filtering with NuFW is interesting - it can authorize outgoing connections based on the _application_ that is trying to create the connection, by calling back to a PAM module on the client machine. And there are rulesets depending on the logged in user group. Beats forcing everyone to use proxies.

Microsoft's ISA/TMG/Proxy has been able to do this since version 1...

rd is wet and icy oops aaaaaaaaagh

You are confusing designed by default with default behaviour. They are two different things. Default behaviour in the Win2k/XP timeframe was poor - Vista & Win7 change this.

I also suggest that you read the Windows 7 logo program requirements: http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9668061. One of the guidelines is around proper behaviour with UAC, and another is around programs putting data in the right place.

Unfortunately, Atom-based Netbooks have a 100% failure rate with the latest updates to "Snow Leopard." :-S

Gee, I guess that they're going to have to go after the publisher of PackRat (AKA Tornado Notes), because it did the same thing way back in 1985, on MS-DOS, with no GUI. Oh, waitaminnit.... That pre-dates the patent by nearly a decade.

You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").

Only a short comment - calling iTunes "great desktop software" might be considered delusional in some places :). iTunes is fairly average at best, it's media management is pretty poor, and it's library functionality is pretty bad. MediaMonkey is a far far better piece of software for managing your media.

Interesting.
a) it is an open standard
b) there can be no conforming implementation because the standard has not been finalised. You can bitch about this once the standard has been released, but until then there is no way to conform
c) by the same token we should also reject ODF, since the specification is both vague and incomplete (formulas anyone?)

Yep, if an operation takes out the system then the mirrored system will also die. They are in total lockstep so there is no protection of the application. It does give you near instant protection should the hardware or the hypervisor fails, but not if your app or OS should fail.