You are correct in your definition of monopoly, however MS has been convicted of illegal monopolistic practices many times over, not only in the U.S. but Europe and Asia as well.

Google has not, to my knowledge, ever abused their market share in a monopolistic manner. I was asking for corrections on this point.

Also, Google is arguably *not* a monopoly. There has been competition in the search market since Google's inception and Google has not dominated the search market in the same manner as MS has with operating systems, AT&T has with phone service or many other historically significant monopolies have with their respective markets.

And Google was convicted of this exactly when? I am sure that you must have some credible sources for such a statement made with such conviction.

So... where did MS get the money to pay off News Corp...? XBOX? Live.com? Oh... wait....

Aaaahhh, of course! I just knew I was missing something! :D

I agree completely and I wonder why this is not considered an antitrust issue. I thought this behavior is basically the definition of antitrust; Using your monopoly in one market to force out competition in another market. Between paying off Murdoch *and* setting Bing as the default search engine in MS products, is this not illegal monopoly behavior?

I believe most of the time, historically, when this occured it was because the site based what was served up on the user agent accessing the site. Thus, content providers could allow Googlebot to completely index the site so that it showed up in Google's search results, however when an actual user showed up at the site they would receive a "Subscribe Now" type of page.

I remember that used to be the case with experts-exchange.com; if you set your browser agent to Googlebot you could see the search results, otherwise you ended up with a "Subscribe Now" page. They have since changed that so that even Google's cached page is a Subscribe page. Whoever does SEO for that site sure knows his tricks.

I agree completely with your assessment that "those sites piss me off" and regardless of how good a service they might provide I refuse to use them on principal.

That is exactly my setup :)

I have, on my far left, a Mac Mini (old-school PPC running OSX) on a 22" Optiquest widescreen. In the center I have 2 more Optiquest 22" widescreens that are attached to my main machine running Gentoo. On the far right, I have Windows XP with yet another 22" Optiquest monitor.

The best part is that I use a single mouse/keyboard via Synergy across all OS's/monitors :D

Both of your links are reprints of the first linked article in the summary.... Neither better nor worse as they are the same....

I just set up a Brother HL-2170W yesterday and it did use DHCP by default. Once you figure out the IP address you can go to the web interface from any machine on the network and set a static address very easily.

What are the things that can make an OS kernel bloat up to 11 millions lines?

Mostly drivers. Which are kind of irrelevant with regard to bloat because if you so desire, you can build a kernel that only contains drivers that you need. I realize that no distro can realistically do this with their pre-compiled kernels however, no one is going to compile support for everything that the Linux kernel is capable of supporting in a single kernel either.

I still think it is funny that Linux is considered "bloatware" when Windows will still use several times the same resources as Linux. For instance, take any desktop distro (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc...) and a complete installation including multiple desktop environments, browsers, office suites, etc... still takes up less disk space, memory and CPU than does a bare installation of Windows Vista/7.

Seems to me that "bloat" is completely relative and arbitrary.

One of them is that the customer has a claim against the dealer he got the software from. Not against Microsoft directly.

This may actually work out better if there are large corporate customers that deal directly with MS rather than through a reseller.

In the article he does mention that this solution is not for everyone and that failover and other features are outside the scope of the article. However, for his particular usage this is a nice solution.

My question is, where does one acquire the case he uses? My company currently stores a lot of video and the 10TB 4U machines I have been building are quickly running out of space. This would be an ideal solution for my needs.

This is very similar to the situation I am in. I currently head IT for a dot-com. Our plan is to replace desktop machines with Linux or OSX depending on job function (writers/sales get Linux, graphics guys get Macs). We have absolutely no intention of "upgrading" _anything_ to Vista/7.

From the article:

"...the server will open the connection and wait for the complete header to be received. However, the client (the DoS tool) will not send it and will instead keep sending bogus header lines which will keep the connection allocated."

In other words.. the connection is not allowed to "timeout" as there is (bogus) traffic on the connection.