Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ToySoldier who wrote (25132)	1/25/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: Paul Fiondella	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42771

Toy please reread 25102 my first post on Digital Me The value of an NDS based system is in centralizing the verification process for ecommerce billing purposes in one vault. That is the application area I am concerned with (internet commercial transactions). Control over the tree of confidential information in this vault is between the owner of the vault (Novell acting in a fiduciary capacity authorized by me and Mastercard Visa etc.) and the customer (me). No one gets this confidential information anymore as a byproduct of ecommerce. They just get paid. The virtue of this system is that you do not have to disclose your personal information anymore to partake in ecommerce, and for the vendor, you have confidence the customer is who he says he is and you get paid. =================== When you get a safety deposit box at a bank, you get a key and the bank gets a key --- and both keys are necessary to open the box. The contents of the box are the property of the customer not the bank. When I buy something I do not turn over my saftey deposit key (or for that matter my wallet) to Walmart!!! On the internet we do that every time we engage in ecommerce. If multiple vaults emerge then the security provided by this system gets ruined. That is why Novell should be knocking on Visa/Mastercard AMEX's door. Ever heard of getting there first and establishing a commercial standard.

To: ToySoldier who wrote (25132)	1/25/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: DJBEINO	Respond to of 42771

Still waiting for Windows 2000 Repeated delays are a symptom of more serious problems. Will new blood help? By Mary Jo Foley, Sm@rt Reseller Slipping beta delivery dates are a bad sign. But other evidence is mounting that Microsoft Corp. has its hands full with Windows 2000. The latest indication of trouble: The vendor is backing off on deployment requirements for companies in its Windows 2000 Rapid Deployment Program (RDP), which to date has pushed participants to use Windows 2000 in production environments prior to the operating system's general release. Now, sources say Microsoft is freeing participants from what many felt were "onerous" contract requirements. What's more, Microsoft is considering changing the name of the program, to the Joint Development Deployment Program (JDP). The move would seemingly abandon the pretense that anything about Windows 2000 is "rapid." Microsoft declined to comment on the reported changes. Windows 2000 delay The RDP changes follow Microsoft's recent decision to delay widespread testing of Windows 2000 Beta 3 until April. For those keeping score, the new beta will arrive four months after Microsoft cut Release Candidate 0 (RC0) of Beta 3 Translation: Microsoft's development team may be experiencing more problems, since a final beta release typically arrives only a few weeks after RC0. Microsoft maintains that Beta 3 is on track, and that the company is simply taking some extra time to polish the code. Nevertheless, RDP participants are concerned. "We don't expect to deploy [Windows 2000] until Q2 next year, at the earliest. I backed off because they backed off. We thought we'd get Beta 3 in Q1 of this year," says Rich Claing, a systems administrator with Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, Conn. "Instead, we've picked up NT 4.0 Service Pack 4, which has allowed us to put aside our immediate need to upgrade [to Windows 2000]." Microsoft has said Windows 2000 Professional, Server and Advanced Server are slated to ship in 1999, with the higher-end Datacenter Server following within 60 days-though the company declines to discuss specific ship dates. Microsoft originally intended to ship Windows 2000 in early 1998, but multiple factors complicated the picture. The U.S. Department of Justice antitrust trial, for one, has sapped the energy, morale and resources of executives and staff alike. Within the next few weeks, two Windows 2000 executive champions, group VP Paul Maritz and senior VP Jim Allchin, will spend extensive time testifying in Washington, D.C., rather than directing Microsoft's OS efforts. zdnet.com